The Bus

http://kotaku.com/5369850/where-are-...next-gen-games



Where are all the "Next Gen" games?

The calendar says "2009". The Xbox 360 launched in 2005. That means we're four years into the "next generation" of video gaming. If so, then where the hell are our "next generation" games?

It's something that's been gnawing at me for a while now, but as we approach Christmas 2009 – the fifth holiday season for the Xbox 360, and fourth for the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii – that gnawing has turned into some serious, unchecked mastication.

After all, a new hardware generation is meant to usher in a new generation of games to go with it. And not just games that look prettier, or sound better; titles that give you something entirely new in terms of game design and mechanics, something that could only be done by taking advantage of the latest in console hardware.

Yet I think only a handful of games this console generation have done so. Which ones? Oh, I'm glad you asked. Games like:

Dead Rising – There has never been a game like Dead Rising. It's open-world in appearance, but the entire game is built around the concept of navigating an endless sea of zombies in numbers previous consoles simply couldn't get on-screen at once.

Oblivion/Fallout 3 – Two games, I know, but they do the same thing, so they go in the same listing. Nobody ever forgets that first time you leave the Imperial sewers/Vault 101 and take in the world around you, realising that Bethesda haven't crafted a level, they've built a seamless, living world well beyond the scale of previous titles like Morrowind.

Yes, they also appear on PC, but remember, these games were also built from the ground up with consoles in mind, rather than being crude ports.

Wii Sports/Wii Sports Resort – To this day, the only games that have truly delivered on the promise of the Wii Remote, integrating it so naturally within the gameplay experience that you can't imagine playing the games without it.

So as good as Modern Warfare is, as good as Mario Galaxy is, I don't call them truly "next gen" games. Why? Because they fail my "next gen" test, that's why.

Here's the test: If a game can be ported to a console in a previous generation and keep its core gameplay and overall design in place, it's not what I'm calling for the purposes of this piece a "next gen" game. Mario Galaxy was great, but really, it's a GameCube title with some star-shaking stuff thrown in. Modern Warfare? Amazing, but as the upcoming Wii port attests, it used the 360 and PS3 primarily for better graphics and sound. LittleBigPlanet? Another great game, but the PSP version shows the core experience could have been done on a PS2.

Other games I think fail this test are Halo 3, BioShock, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4…OK, pretty much everything. You get the idea. Sure, they're nice and shiny, and have lovely pre-rendered cutscenes, and there are advanced uses of physics and AI under the hood, and most important of all, advanced online connectivity, but all of those are just tweaks, improvements, icing on the cake, candy for the eyes. None of them fundamentally change the way you approach a game, or a genre.

Not like Mario Kart and F-Zero did with Parallax scrolling. Or Mario 64 with its use of 3D. Or Grand Theft Auto III with its living, breathing city. Those games re-wrote the book. You just couldn't do GTAIII on the PlayStation. Or Mario 64 on the SNES. They were true "next gen" games.

Now, I'm not saying all games NEED to be 100% innovative. That's an impossible requirement. Ridiculous, even. Not every single game idea is going to bust outside the box. I like my latest version of FIFA or Call of Duty as much as the next man, and the world will spin just fine with the majority of games simply plodding along, doing what the last one did, only slightly better. Still, a man can want, can't he?

So why do we have so few this time around? What's the problem? There's refinement under the hood. There's games that some, and especially the developers, may disagree with me on (GTAIV, for example, or Halo 3 and its extensive multiplayer modes). And there are some who could argue, with a fair point, that the same problem plagued the previous generation.

Certainly the cost of development can't help. Worlds are built with engines, and engines are built on rules. If you wanted to come up with something entirely new, you'd have to do it yourself, which for many developers and publishers in this current economic climate just isn't feasible.

It can also be argued that a single jump in the mid-90's – from the 16-bit era to the N64 and PS1 – will long be the most significant in gaming, taking us as it did from 2D to 3D, and that subsequent generations can't be relied upon to deliver the same level of innovation. Fair, to a point, but then there are still plenty of games like GTAIII that were able to innovate well past the 32-bit era.

One final possibility, however, is that there is innovation going on in today's games beyond the superficial. It's just, we can't see it. Chatting with Bethesda's Todd Howard on the subject, he put this idea forward:

"I think the visual component of it is the one that everyone notices first, and it's also the prime part that benefits from what the new hardware gives you" he says. "So it's just harder to see the innovations beyond that, but they're there. I'd guess there's just as much pure 'design innovation' with this generation as there has been in the last few."

"Look at the basis now for how games handle physics, difficulty, controls, save games, or simple load screens. I know it sounds silly, but I get excited by innovations in loading screens, because they're the worst part of a game. I'm interested in how games simply start."

Promising, yeah, but does that really hold water when compared to more fundamental changes? Not really. "There's been innovations in AI, but it certainly hasn't kept pace with the graphic fidelity, which yields this overall feeling of it going backwards" Howard adds. "The environments are so complex now in games, that building good AI just to manoeuvre them takes serious time. But that's not an innovation, that's simply the AI doing what it could do before in a game.

"My hope is, as we developers turn the corner on how to make the games simply 'work,' that we can innovate more on how the games respond to the player, whether that is the AI, or socially, or something else."

Maybe that explains it, and in 30 years, we'll look back on the current generation as one where developers were finding their feet, laying the groundwork for sprawling, innovating and revolutionary titles of the future.

<hr>

I think the article makes some good points. What truly "next gen" games do you think are missing in this list?

maxfisher

Left 4 Dead & Portal both spring to mind. I don't see either of those working on last gen consoles. I don't think it's fair to immediately discount the importance of graphics either. Could you downgrade Bioshock and get it to run on a Gamecube, Xbox or PS2? Probably. Would it be even close to the same experience without the incredible polish that made it feel like such a truly real place? Not a chance.

RichC2

Gears passes for me simply because of the well integrated online options (joining/leaving co-op which for whatever reason didn't seem to exist last gen.)

parrotheads4

I suck at Halo because I strugle to get the crosshair lined up with the enemy. I am awesme at Metroid because I point the controller in the same way I'd point a gun.

The online play universe (XBox Live) is next-gen.

I never found many games to like on the Wii. I'm hoping the Poo will have better graphics and sound.

pinata242

By this argument, is there anything new or innovative that the "next gen" consoles allow that the previous gen didn't? It's essentially more horsepower and all the ground has been broken. It's just going to be "bigger" and "prettier" from now on. Software is restricted by hardware just as much as imagination.

The Wii had the only chance to really innovate this gen and they're simply not delivering. Maybe Natal will bring something new. Maybe Wii's successor.

This is sort of a stop-gap gen.

RichC2

By the same standard, very little has been "next gen" since the PSX/N64/Saturn.

We still play FPS games, we still play online (Saturn), we still play 3d platformers (n64) and we still play fighters (PSX). Living, breathing worlds are new but the game remains the same.

dx23

I agree with him in terms of the Wii not delivering games that could be considered true next gen. At the same time, both the X-Box 360 and the PS3 are just upgrades in terms of hardware and software from the previous consoles, but the gaming concept, including the controls are pretty much the same as the X-Box and PS2.

mhg83

I would think wii fit is something that could not be possible last gen. And a lot of stuff on Xbox live arcade, psn and wii ware could not be done last gen due to lack of a large hard drive and no way to possibly market some of the games as physical media in stores.

slop101

True, but that first batch of 3D games have aged horribly and are all but unplayable now, whereas the later 16-bit games have aged wonderfully, and are every bit as playable now as they were then. But I guess you gotta start somewhere.

orangecrush

Off the top of my head for Wii games:

Godfather
Madworld
Proevolution Soccer
TigerWoods w/ motion plus
New Play control Pikmin
Wii Fit/EA Active
Metroid Prime 3
Harry Potter (If we forget that the wand movements weren't exactly percise)
Madden 10

You could also argue that downloadable games like Pixel Junk et al could not have been done last gen. Personally, I think the guy is full of crap.

maxfisher

Another thing, online play may have been around for a while, but did any system have the capability to do online co-op before this gen? I get bored pretty quickly with online deathmatch/capture the flag/etc., but I absolutely love playing through a campaign with one or more friends online. Gears, Crackdown, Halo 3, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil 5, Marvel Ultimate Alliance and so on and so forth all benefitted immensely from the ability to jump on and play with some of my friends that I wouldn't normally be able to game with.

Tracer Bullet

Processing power is at the point where graphics don't matter anymore. It's all diminishing returns at this point.

I do agree that there hasn't been all that much innovation in terms of game mechanics.

JasonF

I think we're seeing a lot of advances that aren't so obvious if you don't know what to look for. For example, I remember when Force Unleashed was coming out, they made a big deal about the fact that it incorporated three or four different engines -- a ragdoll engine for the people, another engine to account for object destructibility, an AI engine, and I think another that I'm forgetting. I don't think you could do that on a PS2 or an XBox, and the Wii port had to cut a lot of corners to get to something akin to the 360/PS3 version.

boredsilly

I don't see how you could call Oblivion/Fallout next gen, but not Call of Duty 4 and the like, considering Oblivion and Fallout are just the prettier, faster, bigger versions of Morrowind. That's a big part of next gen, the extra horsepower, and discounting that seems a little bonk to me. It's like saying Shaq wouldn't have been as good a basketball player if he wasn't so giant. Well yeah, but he is, so include that.

The Bus

I think the question is more, if you try to port this game to an Xbox or a PS2, do you lose more than just the graphics, textures, etc.? You try to port Dead Rising and you end up with less enemies, which is a big factor in the game. At the same time I disagree with the articles point on Little Big Planet: I don't think you could have the combination of online level downloads, level editing, number of textures/items on a PS2. Maybe on an Xbox. You'd still have a game, but it wouldn't be the same.

mhg83

I think X-men Legends 1 or 2 had four player online co-op on ps2/xbox

XavierMike

I agree with Little Big Planet. I don't think it would have been possible to create that kind of a sandbox atmosphere on the previous gen.

I think we are seeing advancements in story telling and immersion as well. GTAIV, Batman: AA, (upcoming) Heavy Rain all give us realized worlds that taking processing power that was not available last gen.

Drexl

Saying that graphics in a game don't matter is like saying that in a film, the cinematography, lighting, art direction, special effects, etc. are meaningless if you have a good script. Yes, the script may be the most important thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors that can make the movie better. I think they really mean that graphics aren't the most important thing, and that's true, but don't go to the other extreme and say they don't matter at all.

Anyway, this guy reminds me of the naysayers of Blu-ray, who think the new format isn't innovative enough over DVD. To them, it doesn't matter that a new format offers superior picture and sound, but that it doesn't have enough new toys to play with or added convenience.

Gamers are clamoring for more sequels all the time. Innovation in gaming is nice, but I don't think most of them really want constant innovation anyway. They like to come back to the familiar, as long as it's different enough that it's not exactly the same. It's just like how guys who want more comic book movies want essentially the same formula of good triumphing over evil, or how many women want yet another story of two people who hate each other and then fall in love.

BTW, a pet peeve of mine is how a current gaming generation keeps getting referred to as "next gen." No, next gen is the generation after this. Maybe for 6 months after launch, you can call a console next gen, but after that it's current gen as far as I'm concerned.

Groucho

I don't think the previous gen's had the CPU to handle Left 4 Dead's AI Director.

fumanstan

It doesn't help that online coop is something PC's have been doing well for over a decade.

I'm not really sure if there's anything else i'd really look for in games other then continued refinement of existing features that are out there. The Wii introduced a new way to play, but 95% of the time it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay for me.

Save Ferris

I think the next milestone is a workable virtual reality interface of some kind. It will be incremental enhancements in what we have now until then.

The Bus

And with Natal et al (see what I did there?) just starting to scratch the surface, I think we're at least a decade away before this becomes something beyond a gimmick. Hell, motion control is still a gimmick in 95% of games.

pinata242

I think motion control is limited (again, hardware) by the controllers. There's only a few applications where it feels natural. With the Wii it's the games that put you in the game. Wii Sports is obvious because the Wiimote replicates your ball, club, or racquet. Even FPS pointing games work because you're sort of immersed, with the exception of your thumb acting as your feet.

Natal is a step to capture your body and bring that into the game world, but it's still missing the kinetic response your body will need to immerse completely. It'll be gimmicky in its own right.

We're getting there, though.

fujishig

I don't see how you can say Dead Rising is "next gen" because the sheer number of enemies is integral to the game, but then downplay the effect of improved graphics as "next gen," especially when the improved graphics are integral to the game. And it seems like we're discounting a lot of the AI that goes into the games that could never have been done last gen. You couldn't keep the "core gameplay and overall design" for games like Gears or Modern Warfare or Bioshock on the last gen. Otherwise you could argue they could have made (a very bad) dead rising with the dynasty warriors engine.

As far as controlling the games... besides the Wii, the consoles pretty much have the exact same controller as last gen.

Groucho

Do people really want full body immersion in their games? Isn't it supposed to be a leisure activity?