Indigo_Dingo:

eatenbyagrue:
Whoever makes it, leave EA out of it. They'll sell us the console with everything, then charge us $1.00 a month to use the controllers, another $5.00 to play on an HDTV and so on.

Isn't that what Microsoft are doing?

So Microsoft and EA are in cahoots with each other? I smell CONSPIRACY!

fletch_talon:

As for a new console, Nintendo, because its the only company I've seen actually experiment with the whole concept of gaming.

Because they brought out a motion sensor controller? Or is it because they whip out the ol' Mario and Zelda releases whenever it's time for another paycheck?

I don't know. I don't see Nintendo as a main leader in innovation for video games. I see them as rather gimmicky.

Indigo_Dingo:
And finally, we come to this.

What, does the Shuffle dial a random number every time you want to make a phone call?

runtheplacered:

fletch_talon:

As for a new console, Nintendo, because its the only company I've seen actually experiment with the whole concept of gaming.

Because they brought out a motion sensor controller? Or is it because they whip out the ol' Mario and Zelda releases whenever it's time for another paycheck?

I don't know. I don't see Nintendo as a main leader in innovation for video games. I see them as rather gimmicky.

First and foremost, we're discussing consoles not games, but to indulge you yes each new zelda and mario game is much the same as the last, thats because they're a series, series' titles tend to have a lot in common with each other, because it ties them together. I would imagine similar things could be said about MGS, Halo, GTA, in fact a large number of popular series, there are some changes to story and gameplay, but for the most part, the game stays the same.

So yes, I am talking about the motion controls, it was a jump from what we're used to, you call it a gimmick, care to explain the difference? The only reason its a gimmick is because as I have said, developers are afraid to put the controls to good use, and rightly so I suppose, many attempts have failed miserably, and those that succeeded have mostly been games that I would certainly call gimmicky.
I personally would like to see another zelda for Wii, to best my knowledge, twilight princess was originally for the gamecube but was then ported to Wii, so it wouldn't have been made with motion control in mind (at least not to the level which they could do with a Wii exclusive).

Another example of ingenuity is the DS, the touchscreen I wont deny, is not a huge innovation, in many ways, its a computer mouse for a handheld, but the system as a whole has seen what I consider some awesome ideas which simply need tobe expanded on.

Phantom Hourglass has to be my favourite game on the DS so far, the ability to write notes on your map and plot courses was a great idea that needs to be in more games. It also featured small one off situations where you would use the other features of the DS, calling out to someone in a locked room using the mic, blowing out flames, there was even a mark on a map which you had to transfer to your own copy of the same map (by pressing the 2 screens together). These features were minimal and thus I was slightly disappointed, but the fact that they were there shows promise, and promotes hope of games becoming more interactive in time.

So in the end I guess it really doesn't matter who makes the console, because those who makethe console aren't going to single handedly fill its library of games, we need game developers to be original and willing to take risks, I just feel that a console that shows such behaviour is going to help encourage games that do so too.

fletch_talon:

runtheplacered:

fletch_talon:

As for a new console, Nintendo, because its the only company I've seen actually experiment with the whole concept of gaming.

Because they brought out a motion sensor controller? Or is it because they whip out the ol' Mario and Zelda releases whenever it's time for another paycheck?

I don't know. I don't see Nintendo as a main leader in innovation for video games. I see them as rather gimmicky.

First and foremost, we're discussing consoles not games, but to indulge you yes each new zelda and mario game is much the same as the last, thats because they're a series, series' titles tend to have a lot in common with each other, because it ties them together. I would imagine similar things could be said about MGS, Halo, GTA, in fact a large number of popular series, there are some changes to story and gameplay, but for the most part, the game stays the same.

So yes, I am talking about the motion controls, it was a jump from what we're used to, you call it a gimmick, care to explain the difference? The only reason its a gimmick is because as I have said, developers are afraid to put the controls to good use, and rightly so I suppose, many attempts have failed miserably, and those that succeeded have mostly been games that I would certainly call gimmicky.
I personally would like to see another zelda for Wii, to best my knowledge, twilight princess was originally for the gamecube but was then ported to Wii, so it wouldn't have been made with motion control in mind (at least not to the level which they could do with a Wii exclusive).

Another example of ingenuity is the DS, the touchscreen I wont deny, is not a huge innovation, in many ways, its a computer mouse for a handheld, but the system as a whole has seen what I consider some awesome ideas which simply need tobe expanded on.

Phantom Hourglass has to be my favourite game on the DS so far, the ability to write notes on your map and plot courses was a great idea that needs to be in more games. It also featured small one off situations where you would use the other features of the DS, calling out to someone in a locked room using the mic, blowing out flames, there was even a mark on a map which you had to transfer to your own copy of the same map (by pressing the 2 screens together). These features were minimal and thus I was slightly disappointed, but the fact that they were there shows promise, and promotes hope of games becoming more interactive in time.

So in the end I guess it really doesn't matter who makes the console, because those who makethe console aren't going to single handedly fill its library of games, we need game developers to be original and willing to take risks, I just feel that a console that shows such behaviour is going to help encourage games that do so too.

I will give it to you that the DS is a fantastic little machine. Although I wasn't too thrilled with Phantom Hourglass, I did drudge through it enough to complete it, which is more then I can say for a lot of games in my library. But there have been some genuinely great games for the DS.

I suppose I was forgetting the DS when speaking of Nintendo earlier and was focusing on the Wii, for whatever reason. But I don't really see either console marketing itself as an innovative tool, like the PS3 and 360 try to market themselves as. Whether those two are innovative at all or not in reality, is highly debatable. However, the Wii seems to want to be the family, fun-for-all casual gaming system that any old Joe can walk up and play with. Which is fine and dandy, and from a sales point of view that's great business. But, from a dedicated long-time gamers perspective, it's not really breaking the new ground that I'd like to have broken.

So, I would argue that Nintendo is innovating the way our culture views video games and their entertainment value. But, as far as bringing out the best in what gaming has to offer and take it to a "new level" (excuse the expression), I just don't see Nintendo in that light.

EDIT: Because I made a silly typo.

I spose I can see what you're getting at, the Wii certainly seems to be heading towards "games for everyone", more so than revolutionising gaming itself. Its just the way I see it the motion controllers could be something revolutionary, as I said, I would love a new zelda for Wii, because I still harbour hope for the sword swinging action I assumed I would be getting the first time. Surely you know what I mean, hack, slash, cut, parry, thrust, all with your own movements rather than the pressing of buttons. I dream of that kind of game play becoming reality, because one aspect of games is immersion, and I can't imagine anything short of VR being as immersive as actually seeing every (well, most...) movement you make represented on screen.
I just think Nintendo made a step in the right direction with the Wii, even if it wasn't intentional.

I got an idea to save Ford: consoles.

harhol:
Hideo Kojima should have his own console.

the controler would have 400 buttons, 15 of which do the same action but only say it slighty different.

At the end of MGS 5 (and a half) the console will unpack to reviel a lazer eyed metal gear that has been spying on your gaming habits inorder to shoot missles at russia and control a secret facility where they bio engineer Kojima's jesus juice.

Finnally it would camo itself to look like a box... because it is just that, a cardboard box

Ha ha. Hopefully one of those 400 buttons will repeat the previous sentence in Snake's voice with a question mark at the end.

Player: "I think I'll put the kettle on"
Snake: "The kettle on?"

Player: "It's about time I collected the mail"
Snake: "The mail?"

buggy65:
but you see the point of having different companies with different products is to prevent a monopoly:
Having competetors force the industries to try and push for better quality products.
This competition is what keeps your games progressing and gives you choice

The only competition we need is between game developers, tbh. Sure, it's great and all that consoles are improving technologically, but all those damn 'exclusives' and time wasted on multiple platform releases only hurts us, the consumer. I'd go with the universal console idea, where you could install any game and the system would be able to run it. Kind of like a PC, only without being able to do any of the other things a PC can do. Huh. Fuck it, just get a damn game pad and upgrade your pc. sorted!

As a side note, since consoles are basically just little pcs, why the hell can't a pc emulate the software needed to run console games? There's no magic in those boxes - the disk drives, hard drives, cpus and all the other hardware are all standard components, inferior to the junk in my tower. So why can't I pop in halo 3? IT MAKES NO SENSE!

fletch_talon:

So yes, I am talking about the motion controls, it was a jump from what we're used to, you call it a gimmick, care to explain the difference? The only reason its a gimmick is because as I have said, developers are afraid to put the controls to good use, and rightly so I suppose, many attempts have failed miserably, and those that succeeded have mostly been games that I would certainly call gimmicky.

A jump? I would call it a step back because that's what it is. We already had a console with a motion sensitive controller almost 20 years ago. The NES's Power Glove. Sure it didn't work too good but that's not the point.

On topic: Nintendo + Sony = No. We already had that and it didn't work.