Where's the game where we're a castaway on a deserted island and the object of the game is to find food and clean water and build a shelter, a game where we can play for one month or six months, because whether or not we get rescued is randomized? Where every time we restart we get a different island with different wildlife and vegetation and water sources?

Where's the game where we're a castaway on a deserted island and the object of the game is to find food and clean water and build a shelter, a game where we can play for one month or six months, because whether or not we get rescued is randomized? Where every time we restart we get a different island with different wildlife and vegetation and water sources?

Rushed Evolution
Teksuo
Okay. We all new it was coming: When we would we lose interest in our current consoles and look to what the future would have to offer us. Thing is...has that time actually come yet? The next gen consoles are gonna hit within 6 months to a year from now. But, I don't think now is the time to start doling out the new advancements.

First of all, most of us are still quiet happy with our consoles (with the exception of traveling folk, who hate to lug around their heavy ass X-Box), and are still blown away when a good killer app comes along. Sure, there's room for improvement, but that's what hard work is for.

The next wave of consoles will present us with better graphics, stronger AI, more enemies on screen, more connectivity, and if you hook up to a special attachement, it'll even do your laundry.

But, there is still so much room to go with our current gen consoles, that I just don't think there's a need to move on now. When Resident Evil 4 was first announced for the PS2, being a gamecube owner with few exclusives to call my own, I was pissed. But then I thought "well, it's coming out at the end of the year, and the PS2 version is probably gonna look a hell of a lot worse." Now after seeing the E3 footage, I can't tell the difference except for the added cut-scenes.

Which proves my point. With a little hard work and careful programming, a game that shouldn't look nearly as good as it does on the PS2 like RE4 *can* be pulled off smoothly. Which makes me wonder why the rush to go the next cycle? Instead of dumping money into rushing out the new stuff, wait a while. Let us get sick of what we have before we move on.

When I look at the PS3 videos, I see stuff that I will admit, probably can't be pulled off with the current technology. But when I look at XBox 360, I don't see much that couldn't be pulled off with some well placed optical trickery.

I also think the whole concept of a 5 year cycle is a bit short. I think it should be a 7 to 8 year cycle. With the technology we have today, we can go so much further. X-Box has barely scratched the surface of what it can do, PS2 is just now really starting to push it's limits, and Gamecube is just full of latent possibilities.

But, then again, people always want the (to paraphrase Daft Punk) "Newer, Better, Faster, Stronger" deal, and I don't think they stop to consider everything. By swiching to this next gen hardware; developement costs are going to raise, because everybody wants to try an push a system to it limits. This means game costs are going to rise for you and me; Gamer Joe and Fragger Jane (Or Velocity Girl as MS wants to call her.)

Games cost what? $39 to $49 bucks per game now? this means we'll be going to the $49 to $69 price range. And that's just for the games. How much is the hardware itself gonna cost? PS3 could easily reach $400-500 bucks. X-Box360? Dunno. Revolution? It'll probably be cheap by comparison. (Just look at the thing! It *looks* like a DVD player.) I doubt Nintendo will want the cost to go above $199 ($250 max) as their philosophy has always been affordable and simple.

Now that's not to sound like a Nintendo fanboy; lower price point could in turn mean weaker, less powerful standards, in terms of what PS3 and XBox 360 owns will be getting. Nintendo will be miss out on even more by third party multi-platform games, because chances are their system will not be able to keep up with the competition, until near the end of the life cycle. Otherwise, it'll mean that the companies will need to skimp on features in order to compensate for the lack of power.

Again, I think they should take a step back, and say "Wait a minute...let's just take a couple more years on the current hardware before we go forward, at least until we can bring out costs down." The average gamer doesn't have cash to blow on all 3 consoles, and every title that comes out. 60 bucks is a lot to blow on a single game, that you might or might now like if you just rush out and buy it without renting, which is what many gamers still do.