Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

David Jaffe - In Ten Years Just One Game Console 154

Posted by Zonk from the games-are-really-expensive-to-make dept.
The folks at 'The 1up Show' had the chance to interview David Jaffe, the well-known designer behind God of War. They discuss his upcoming project for the PS3, Calling All Cars, the future of the God of War series, as well as the ever-increasing price of making games. From the article: "A lot of games recently it's cell phone, PC, DS, PSP, if you look at EA they blanket it -- it's everywhere. As a gamer, I kind of miss the 'you can only get it on this system.' There's kind of an excitement that was about that back up until recently. With this new hardware, though, that idea is seems to be going away. Is it really all going to come down to first party now? Or it ultimately going to come to one system? 'Cause 10 years from now there's going to be one system because there's so much more third party software than first party software from any hardware manufacturer. It may not be feasible to make it the war of the first party or the war of the exclusives." The entire interview is viewable online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

David Jaffe - In Ten Years Just One Game Console More

David Jaffe - In Ten Years Just One Game Console

Comments Filter:
  • ...wasn't he an illustrator for MAD Magazine?

  • One Console = PC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yeggman ( 599487 )
    As PCs get cheaper I think they will take market share from the consoles, until the PC becomes the de facto single console. I think there are already more PC game titles than console titles, and the penetration of PC's is higher than that of game consoles.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bohnanza ( 523456 )
      As PCs get cheaper I think they will take market share from the consoles, until the PC becomes the de facto single console. I think there are already more PC game titles than console titles, and the penetration of PC's is higher than that of game consoles.

      This is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what really seems to be happening. Have you been to an EBgames or Gamestop store recently? They pretty much ONLY stock console games, with one small rack of PC games at most.

      • They pretty much ONLY stock console games, with one small rack of PC games at most.

        I would reason this is because they:

        1. Make money off selling consoles and games (they don't sell PC's)
        2. Don't have to deal much with tech support issues (even just the calls, themselves) with consoles

        The support end goes up when you're dealing with customers who have PC's. Console games *should* either work or not since they're made specifically for a particular unmodified console. That way the guys in the store can focu

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 7Prime ( 871679 )
          ,p>Actually, #1 is pretty much a non issue. Game retailers make almost nothing on consoles, as companies advertise prices so heavilly, retailers are practically forced to sell them at break-even prices, and then make money on games (sort of like the hardware manufacturers themselves, sans Nintendo).

          As for Tech Support? That would fall to the game manufacturer, not the retailer, so this isn't the issue either.

          No, the reason is that the PC game is dwindling right now. I'd like to think that this comes

          • No, the reason is that the PC game is dwindling right now. I'd like to think that this comes from a general disgust of the industry that came out of the late 90s, which is when I ditched. Too many requirements, having to own just the right versions of software and hardware, or things wouldn't work. It became a full-time job just to do the research on what hardware and software you needed. Also, people enjoy being able to lounge back in their recliner or sofa and play games, and use an input device designed

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
            The biggest source of profit for Gamestop is used games and they don't sell used PC games. That's probably the biggest reason they allocate so much space to the consoles (and most of it to used games with a few token new ones).

          • Also, people enjoy being able to lounge back in their recliner or sofa and play games, and use an input device designed with gaming in mind.

            Then why don't more companies develop games for home theater PCs?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by 7Prime ( 871679 )

              Heheh...

              Because game companies would rather have an audience to be able to get money from. I don't know where you live, but I live on planet Earth, where less than 5% of the population (in developed countries) has anything resembling a home theatre, and only about 10% of them have them connected to PCs. And still, that doesn't solve the input device problem, where most PC games are still written for a device that wasn't designed with games in mind.

              Hell, I'm a geek, but I'm not THAT much of a geek!

          • Game retailers make almost nothing on consoles, as companies advertise prices so heavilly, retailers are practically forced to sell them at break-even prices, and then make money on games (sort of like the hardware manufacturers themselves, sans Nintendo).

            Actually, game stores make very little on new games as well. The real profit-maker for dedicated gamestores is used games. They give out about $20 for recent/popular games traded in, and then sell them for $45. That's more 50% profit, which is kinda ha

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 )
        What Gamestop/EBgame stores are you shopping at? Mine may have walls of Console games, but they are quite spread out, setup to display the games and advertise there presences I suppose, but PC? Two or three shelves stacked face to face, end to end, so dense they could easily fill entire walls. PCs just don't seem to get the same level of attention it seems, but in terms of quality I've always found myself back between the PC shelves.

        But I'm also think PCs have the chance to become as close to a de facto co
        • PC games could wipe the floor with consoles if a few chinks in their armor were sorted out. First off the communication between hardware/software needs to be made as transparent as possible to alleviate the whole "We have so many different types of hardware to support." problem. It's moving in this direction, but unfortunately it is DX10 and MS saying "You have to meet these requirements on your hardware to be compliant." OSS can't seem to pull itself together here. Second, there needs to be a framework f

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by ravyne ( 858869 )
            Microsoft is actually doing all these things and a little more to boot.

            As a game developer, DX10 really is moving in the right direction.

            In D3D10 for instance, much work has gone into solving the "small batch" problem - a condition caused by the fact that state-changes (binding different textures, shaders, etc) are so expensive on today's 3D accelerators that processing many small batches can severly impact performace. Developers end up jumping through a lot of hoops in an attempt to optimally batch their t

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ElleyKitten ( 715519 )
          I won't specify, but consider that the smart PC gamer recognizes that it doesn't take a $1000 or often even a $500 upgrade to play the latest games, unless your really behind in the hardware or wish to play the latest games at the greatest settings.
          Or, you could spend half that and get a Wii. Or, you could spend $100 and get a PS2 and access to hundreds of games never released for the PC. Consoles are really the more frugal choice over PC gaming.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by RESPAWN ( 153636 )
            Not to mention, consoles are the simpler/easier choice. It's rare that I can buy a new PC game, and not have to make some tweaks/install new drivers/perform a rain dance to get it to run right the very first time. At the very least, I usually end up adjusting the graphics options to find that perfect balance between playability and eye candy.

            With a console, with the exception of a very few, rare occasions I have never had to do anything more than put in a disc and hit Power/Reset. No troubleshooting. No

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by maglor_83 ( 856254 )

              It's rare that I can buy a new PC game, and not have to make some tweaks/install new drivers/perform a rain dance to get it to run right the very first time.
              Am I the only person on slashdot who hasn't had to jump through hurdles to get games running? Back in the days of DOS, sure, but these days just pop in the disc, click install, and run.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by RESPAWN ( 153636 )
                I said it's rare, but it's not impossible. Galactic Civ worked the first time out of the box... but there were already patches out by the time I bought it, so of course I had to download and install the patches before I started to play. Flight Simulator X worked the first time as well. But, I still had to tweak the graphics to find that happy medium. Out of the box, the game had the visual settings cranked way down and... well, it looked like crap. Yeah, it's not that huge a deal to have to tweak the v
          • Granted, I'll give you the Wii as It seems a bit of an oddball in its good value, but my point is that even that stuff released on the PS2 could run on a PC, hell I'm sure I could even find an emulator around here somewhere that would do it, but games you'll find on the xbox 360 and PS3 would even be playable with a cheap-o upgrade, were they built for PC. My favorite example thus far has to be the upcoming Crysis (if only in theory.) Everyone is excited about Crysis' fancy Directx 10 abilities, even though
          • Consoles are really the more frugal choice over PC gaming.

            It all depends on what you're looking for. The original Half-Life, released in 1998 with modest system requirements, had legs that carried it to the present day with its modability. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are great RTS that are still worth playing. The hallmark space sim, Freespace 2 from 1999, is essentially a free download, and it has recently been endowed with a fan-created graphics overhaul. The original Neverwinter Nights has a lot of great
            • I was talking more about the systems rather than the games, but you're right, the PC does have a wealth of free games to play, and a good MMO will satisfy your gaming needs for much cheaper than buying a new game every month, if you're into that sort of thing (though there are MMOs on consoles, too). But upgrading your PC constantly for the newest games is a hassle that I don't like, which is why I dropped PC gaming. My husband bought a PC about two years ago (granted, it was bottom of the barrel), and we
      • It seems to come around in cycles - big console launches (PC goes quiet except for it's core game types - strategy, puzzle, online). Then new PC graphics cards come out that **** over the current generation of consoles (Store shelves begin to fill with PC games again). Repeat.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ElleyKitten ( 715519 )

      As PCs get cheaper I think they will take market share from the consoles, until the PC becomes the de facto single console. I think there are already more PC game titles than console titles, and the penetration of PC's is higher than that of game consoles.

      PCs are the home of MMOs and simple puzzle games, but everything else is on console. The console market is booming because they are simplier, you don't have to run anti-virus on your PS3 and setting up 4 people in the living room to play games is a lot m

      • What the hell are you smoking? PCs are the "home" of MMO, FPS, RTS, Puzzle and -real- adventure games, and probably several genres I'm forgetting. Consoles don't come close for any of said genres, and where they make an attempt, they are second-rate(eg. Halo. Yes, compared to its PC counterparts, Halo sucks. Yes, I had an Xbox. Yes, I had Halo.).

        I don't see consoles usurping PC gaming's top genres anytime soon.

        • What the hell are you smoking? PCs are the "home" of MMO, FPS, RTS, Puzzle and -real- adventure games, and probably several genres I'm forgetting. Consoles don't come close for any of said genres, and where they make an attempt, they are second-rate(eg. Halo. Yes, compared to its PC counterparts, Halo sucks. Yes, I had an Xbox. Yes, I had Halo.).

          I didn't count FPSs as PC games because they're just as popular on console. No, I don't know why, I don't play FPSs, but acording to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the best selling P

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flewp ( 458359 )
          PCs are also the home of sims, be it flying or racing/driving. I'm a big fan of the Gran Turismo series (for playing against friends), and it simply doesn't come close to being a sim. I've also never seen a flying game on a console that comes anywhere near close to what is available for PCs.

        • What the hell are you smoking? PCs are the "home" of MMO, FPS, RTS, Puzzle and -real- adventure games, and probably several genres I'm forgetting.

          Not so sure about that. A mouse+kb is great for RTS and FPS, I'll give you that. The MMOs we've seen so far require a lot of horsepower so naturally they land on the PC right now, but there's no reason you can't do one for a console (and has been - FF XI).P. But every other genre I can think of, a console controller is way better. Racing, fighting, flying, yes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thraxen ( 455388 )
      Not going to happen. In fact, it's going the opposite direction. Unless people start putting their PCs in their entertainment centers, this will never happen. Not everyone has elaborate dual screen gaming rigs like many users here have. The vast majority of people still place their PCs in home offices, bedrooms, and/or on tiny corner desks in their homes... and use PCs with integrated graphics and audio.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        Unless people start putting their PCs in their entertainment centers

        What will entice people to run TV out of their Lenovo-compatible PCs? More gamepad-friendly PC games published by indie developers?

        Not everyone has elaborate dual screen gaming rigs like many users here have.

        You mean like this dual-screen gaming rig [ytmnd.com]?

  • Capitalism disagrees (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, companies will just GIVE UP trying to make money!

    I mean, seriously, the only company making a console now that even was in the game business ten years ago was Nintendo. How many different companies have put out a console since then? There's no way that companies will cease trying to make money on console hardware in the games market.

    If he is correct, it will most likely simply be because of computer/console convergence. The only real reason you have a console now is because it interfaces with your TV e
    • Where do they make their money, just out of curiosity? It can't be the console right? Each one is sold at a loss. Do they really get enough in licensing fees for game development to be *highly* profitable. Because you don't have to be losing money to call it quits -- you can just decide it's not profitable enough. It's happened to many consoles in the past.

  • Exclusive Titles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maddskillz ( 207500 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:38AM (#17711536)
    As a gamer, I kind of miss the 'you can only get it on this system.'

    As a gamer, I find this kind of statement asinine. I really only have the budget for one console, so I am forced to miss out on some games. I love the Gran Turismo series, but am not going to buy a PS3 just to play that when I have a perfectly good xbox 360. So I miss out on that game. To me, the console is a platform; I am not choosing an allegiance to one side or the other.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      I find it amazingly stupid as well. He actually gets hyped about a game because it's only on 1 system? WTF? In my list of 'cool features' for the game I'll never actually make but will perpetually plan, that is NOT in my list.

      As a gamer, every time I hear 'exclusive' I cringe. I have way too many consoles on my rack at home as it is. At this point, it looks like if PS3 has any exclusives, I'm either going to find a sucker to borrow a PS3 from for a week, or just do without. Do without is much more lik

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        In my list of 'cool features' for the game I'll never actually make but will perpetually plan, that is NOT in my list.

        Unless Microsoft tosses a wad of cash your way, right? Or unless you can't get your title approved on the other consoles due to being a small company, right?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          "Or unless you can't get your title approved on the other consoles due to being a small company, right?"

          How would this make it a 'cool feature?' Even MS throwing a wad of cash my way doesn't make it a cool feature, it merely makes me more wealthy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            How would [getting approved on only one console] make it a 'cool feature?'

            It's better than getting approved on 0 consoles, thus not having access to monitors larger than 24 inches except on the (uncommon) home theater PC, thus having to increase the system requirements for four simultaneous play to four computers.

            Even MS throwing a wad of cash my way doesn't make it a cool feature, it merely makes me more wealthy.

            Microsoft investing cash in your game gives your company the budget to expand support for Xbox Live and for the Xbox 360 graphics architecture. PS3 doesn't have a clear online strategy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )
        You call your friends "suckers"? Yikes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jim Hall ( 2985 )

      For me, it's not about "choosing an allegiance to one side", but it's about quality games. I hate it when I play a game that's been written to the lowest common denominator across all the available platforms (sometimes also including the PC.) Every platform has its strengths and weaknesses - and they rarely overlap. So you find that level maps have been broken down into smaller chunks that are easier for one system to cope with, but that means interrupting play with a "loading" screen. Or graphics are d

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )
        A well-done game that happens to be exclusive to one system is okay for me.

        Even better would be well-done ports to the other systems.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by adam31 ( 817930 )
      "Cross Platform" in many cases just means "Lowest Common Denominator" in terms of technology. If I own Console A, I don't want the game to be on Console B because it means that the developer wasted some of their talent on building the B version, and possibly cut features on A they couldn't do on B.

      Plus, from a developer perspective there is really no joy in doing ports, neither games nor engines. As a developer you want to target your hardware as specifically as possible and never look back.

      What is e

    • The worst part is when they port from console to PC and yet they keep the horrid clickfest of an interface instead of letting you use some of the 104 keys on your keyboard. I just got around to starting to play Oblivion and you can tell those guys designed for consoles and not PCs(they just coded a few keys as analogs for the 8 or so on a console gamepad). And Final Fantasy XI online, which held my attention for nearly a whole month was even more horrid in that regard. I can't believe the mindless repeti

      • The worst part is when they port from console to PC and yet they keep the horrid clickfest of an interface instead of letting you use some of the 104 keys on your keyboard.

        Say I have a PC connected to a TV. Will Windows allow a game to make meaningful use of four keyboards and four mice plugged into USB hubs?

  • Having 1 console doesn't help anyone at all, except the game developers looking to make a buck. Not only that it impedes competition, which has been the breeding grounds for some of the best franchises and games ever made, but it allows the market to be flooded with crap games and hardware. Who would you go with other than someon else? The genesis/snes battle spat out some of the best games and franchises.

    THere's more 3rd party games, but there's still plenty of first party games that rope peopel in to a

    • Re:Worst thing that could possibly happen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trdrstv ( 986999 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:53AM (#17711776)
      Having 1 console doesn't help anyone at all, except the game developers looking to make a buck.

      Um... It hurts them too. Remember when Nintendo had 90% share with the NES? The put 3rd party developers over the barrel. Because they could. Sony was no different, and I can't imagine MS being more 'benevolent'. Having solid competition between 2 or 3 providers is healthier for developers.

      Exclusives are important as they drive sales of any console. Most people only buy 1, and they buy the console for the games, not the other way around.

  • Wii anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@gmail. c o m> on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:40AM (#17711558) Journal
    I suppose he means the PS3 and the 360 for which there will be Halo and Final Fantasy as the exclusives. Nintendo doesn't really seem to have a problem with exclusive games (Mario Kart/Party/64/etc, Metroid, Zelda, Smash Bros) and I'd argue the biggest reason behind Nintendo's success is because of their first party games, especially since other than Capcom (Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe), I can't think of any other company that even did GC exclusives (granted, these games were later ported to PS2). With the Wii, it's even more different. The vast majority of Wii games are ONLY on the Wii console. Ubisoft and other publishers are doing Wii-only games with no chance of a port.

    So I don't know what this guy is talking about with lack of 1st party support or exclusives, unless he means Sony and MS.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GeckoX ( 259575 )
      Because he's talking about the entire market.

      He's not talking about the Wii specifically. And not being a Wii developer, from his perspective, it has very little impact on what he's saying in that interview.

      But you already knew that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by trdrstv ( 986999 )
      Ubisoft and other publishers are doing Wii-only games with no chance of a port.

      Though that is a logical assumption, there are many multi-platform Wii titles already, including Rayman Raving Rabbits. Despite the game being clearly built around the Wii-mote, they ported it to the PS2. Unline Viewtiful Joe, I can't imagine Rayman RR being nearly as fun on the PS2...

      • Am I the only one that thinks that any Wii game that can be ported successfully from the Wii to one of the other consoles probably is either going to be a crappy Wii game or so horribly bad and unplayable on the other consoles they shouldn't have bothered? If they really take advantage of the Wii control scheme (as they should, since thats virtually all it has going for it) then that game it going to require a major reworking on the other consoles.

        If there's any threat to the wii not doing well, its develop

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by trdrstv ( 986999 )
          I know there already are plenty, but are any of them really all that good? (This is an honest question, I don't have a wii)

          Call of Duty is a fine FPS on the Wii, and I can't possibly imagine playing Rayman Raving Rabits on anything other than Wii. It was built completely around the Wiimote, ratcheting it down to work on a standard controler... I'm amazed it was ever considered, let alone done.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:34PM (#17712416)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • He is making a big assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbreckman ( 917963 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:40AM (#17711568)

    He is assuming that all the consoles will be essentially the same, just by different brands.

    Which, essentially, is true. Up until now at least. The Wii and the DS both have completely different input methods, which makes entire genres of games available which weren't available for other systems.

    As long as new systems are not just "the same but FASTER", this prediction won't come true.

    • You have a good point. The only real innovations in consoles since the NES have been pretty minor. Controllers got more complicated, gained extra buttons, and analog sticks. Consoles got either hard drives or larger flash drives. Graphics/sound/processing got better and faster. All of these things happened for every manufacturer at about the same time. There has been no reason to single out a platform for your game if you have the resources to port it to the others, unless one of the console manufactu
    • There is no reason you couldn't make a WiiMote and sensor bar for a XBOX360 (or playstation for that reason). Then you'd have the best of both worlds - all available input methods, and 1080p.

    • You don't think Microsoft and Sony don't both have projects right now to create a Wii-like controller?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Duds ( 100634 ) *
      And if that happens then the console will need to cost near double the current launch prices on launch because people won't take losses on consoles if they don't control the games.

  • Bread on his table (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@gmail. c o m> on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:42AM (#17711596) Journal
    In case no one can read between the lines, he's saying that platform exclusivity is a very good thing that needs to be saved. ...He's also an exclusive title developer for Sony.

    No self-interest here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GeckoX ( 259575 )
      What, is being a game developer supposed to be an altruistic endeavor now?

      Self interest isn't necessarily a bad thing.

      Counter his statements, not his completely reasonable (for his position) pov.
      • He's entitled to speak as a biased party, I was merely letting everyone know his inherent bias and possible political motivations to say what he said.

        It's like having Green Mountain energy talk about renewable fuel sources or Chevron talk about the clean burning gasoline. It's the difference between an advertisement and a documentary.

  • Never happen... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mondoz ( 672060 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:44AM (#17711630)
    The Fanbois will never let this 'only one console' thing happen. They'd launch some kind of jihad against the surviving consoles the likes of which the world has never seen. The aftermath would leave the world a scorched earth, barren, desolate place. No life would remain, only the scarred, smoking rubble of a once proud gaming civilization. Perhaps the consoles themselves would rise up and enslave the populace, using the humans as living pawns in their own games. Interestingly, these scenarios are only marginally worse than the existing console related threads which appear routinely on /.

    This sounds very much like: "In the future, all restaurants are Taco Bell."

  • Not a chance, but this may be more likely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the computer guy nex ( 916959 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:47AM (#17711690)
    Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc.

    Each console would then have its own flavor around it. Microsoft could continue the Xbox LIVE service for game delivery, purchasing/renting movies and music, home theater integration, peer to peer communication, PVR capability, etc. The next gen of consoles will be much broader than just games.

    Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility. More time is spent making the game better rather than making it work on different pieces of hardware. Development costs would plummet.

    Console developers could then focus on making the best hardware that meets a standard and gives the customer more functionality. Game developers could focus on the game itself, rather than morphing the game to fit different hardware. Customers can buy 1 disc and play it in a PC, Mac, xbox, playstation, nintendo, etc.

    Will it happen? Most likely not, but probably a better chance than companies simply leaving the console market. Games make too much money.

    • Welcome to 1993... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Intellectual Elitist ( 706889 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:15PM (#17712116)
      > Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc. [...] Each console would then have its own flavor around it. [...] Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility.

      Welcome to 1993 -- it's the 3DO [wikipedia.org] all over again.

  • As a gamer, I kind of miss the 'you can only get it on this system.'

    Well, that makes one of us. As a gamer who doesn't have an unlimited budget to throw at acquiring every platform in existence, I absolutely hate exclusives.

    The one exception to that would be games that take advantage of a feature that's only available on one system, such as the DS touchscreen/stylus or the Wiimote. I'd much rather have good games that are well designed to take advantage of a system's features than lots of titles du

    • The one exception to that would be games that take advantage of a feature that's only available on one system, such as the DS touchscreen/stylus or the Wiimote.

      I see your point broadly, but a touch screen is by no means exclusive to the Nintendo DS platform. PDAs that run Windows Mobile OS have it. Lenovo-compatible tablet PCs have it. Even non-tablet PCs have the similar "mouse" controller. So why aren't more third-party DS games published simultaneously on Windows and Windows Mobile platforms?

  • Iconic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MeanderingMind ( 884641 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @11:56AM (#17711832) Homepage Journal
    There are exclusives for all the systems, but they aren't iconic in the ways they used to be.

    15 years ago the average gamer age was much younger than it is now. Gamers were kids, and kids identified with icons. Whether it was TMNT or ghostbusters on the television, Nerf or Super Soakers in the back yard, or Mario and Nintendo we were young and brand loyal.

    In short, things felt a lot more black and white then. There were a lot of excellent and appealing iconic games. Sonic was arguably at the best he ever would be. In fact, many people feel the same way about Mario, Link, Samus and more. Something was lost between the SNES/Genesis days and the polygonal era that followed.

    To some extent, it was the exclusive games. In those days most games of note were on one system or another, with key differences notable between the ports when they weren't. The difference between the systems was much more palpable.

    Beyond that, it was quite simply easier to play. That's not to say it was easier to win, I'd be shot by many gamers if I claimed the old games were easy. What I'm suggesting is that it was much easier for anyone to simply pick up a game, a controller, and have fun.

    This is something that up until recently the market had forgotten. Regardless of whether I like playing games for 15 minutes or 15 hours (ah, college) it's nice to have fun the moment I start playing. The longer it takes to get the ball of fun rolling, the less likely I am to maintain interest.

    In conclusion, games should live by the Othello motto. "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master". Complicated and confusing controls/gameplay do not a deep game make anymore than confusing and disjointed plot/dialogue makes a good movie.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jerf ( 17166 )

      Something was lost between the SNES/Genesis days and the polygonal era that followed.

      Personally, I think it's because the control schemes available for 3D games have enforced the same basic mediocrity of control onto all 3D games. We didn't notice because we didn't have anything better to compare with. As a result, there's a certain sameness.

      Despite what you may think, this post isn't about a Wii, which I've only spent about 5 minutes with (on Excite Truck, no less) anyhow. It's about the difference between

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JoshJ ( 1009085 )
        Except in Mario and a lot of other games, where up does nothing and you have to press A to jump.
  • Unless the company that makes the "one system" executes flawlessly then there will be someone waiting to eat their lunch. Note how Sony dominated the last generation yet appears at this point to have misfired this time around.
  • 'Cause 10 years from now there's going to be one system because there's so much more third party software than first party software from any hardware manufacturer.


    Of course. It already happened on desktops, and they've been around for twenty-five years. In fact, I'm reading this on my Winux OS PCac right now.
  • Jaffe and Trip Hawkins should go and develop the next generation 3DO platform. After all, why make games for proprietary consoles when you can license a common design to whoever wants to make consoles based on it? And if they make it in bright colors, I bet even Nintendo will follow right along too? Right?

    Right?

  • lol (Score:2)

    by JoshJ ( 1009085 )
    "One console in 10 years"? I remember back in 1993 or so everyone was arguing "there will only be Nintendo in 10 years, Sega will be dead." and "Sega will crush Nintendo, in 10 years Sega will be the only one." Then Sony came along and both groups looked foolish.
  • ... what say you that all but one console shall fall? !!tihslluB -GiH

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close