Revolutionary gaming? What is that?

[Razer]

Nintendo recently announced their next sustem, which is currently codenamed Revolution, will totally revolutionize gaming.
Me says "Pshaw"

What in gaming is functionally revolutionary?
Home gaming (PC or console) lives and dies in it's infancy stage with graphics. You see tech demos galore when any new system is announced but those features never actualize themselves. Remember Nin's (and Sony's on a quieter level) claim that the separate memory cards would enable you to take your save to a friend's house and compete with your own custom team/car/character? Name me ten games that did that. Five? Two? I thought so. Yes, you could take your save around with you but when could you ever play a game that would allow, and limit, you to use ONLY YOUR save info and do the same for your opponent. I cannot think of one game within the entire PS/PS2 and N64/GC library. If I play a game for four weeks why should my friend have access to all the stuff that I have unlocked. Why should he be able to see/use my custom plays? Why must you lie like this so blatantly?
In their defense they didn't actually lie, I guess. The line is "You'll be able to...", that puts it all in the hands of developers...lazy, unskilled developers.

Gaming AI, now that's the revolution that has never come about. While we have gone from Ascii graphics to textured, anti-aliased, chopped and pureed polygons we still haven't found a game enemy that acts and reacts logically. Case in point: The Transformers for PS2. I was shocked at how good this game was and how the enemies reacted when I first played it. They would trudge along in packs and if I sniped one, they would stop, look around, and then run for cover if they couldn't find me. BRILLIANT!!! Only problem was that if they don't see me for like 10 secs then they regroup and begin trudging along again as if nothing happened. Why not just have ONE OR TWO go back out and try to draw fire while the others watched for signs? How hard could it be?
The best AI I've seen thus far has been in ESPN NFL 2K4. The computer may do some stupid things (like diving from too far away) but how many of us haven't done that also? THAT'S real AI. When the computer does things that a real human would do, whether successful or not, then you have it right. One of my tests for buying any sports game (and why I gave up on Madden) is to rent and watch 3-4 games played thru cpu vs cpu. If I get realistic results and stats then it's a keeper (ESPN). If I get cheezed stuff like Shaq scoring 60 every game or Faulk breaking 13 tackles every play (Madden) then I know it's crap. I know Vick is The Isht but to average 80 yards rushing a game over 5 test games? That's 1000 yds a season! Give me a break!

Now we see the hardware revolution with Nintendo producing a portable with a touch screen. Is this not THEE stupidest idea ever? I mean before you go "wow, this is great" try this test. Pick up your GBA SP, or PDA, or paperback book, or whatever is simlar in size, shape, & weight. Hold it in your left hand and get a pencil in your right. Now focus on the top half while trying to draw on the bottom half. Now WHILE DOING THAT, manipulate the DPad with your left thumb. Now in reality, how great of an idea is this? I'm sure the people testing this at E3 had the unit firmly secured to a table or something but if it's going to be secured then when does it become portable? If portable simply means "you can carry it around" then so is my 27 inch TV. I've never considered that portable.

Nintendo Revolution will be just another gaming system, which does not make it bad. It simply makes it another gaming system. Nintendo DS is bad.

[Gryph]

It's called putting it in your lap.

You need to remember that Nintendo is the master of design. When people first saw the Gamecube controllers they thought they'd be impossible to use, but in reality they're insanely easy. Never go by just looks when it comes to Nintendo. Gotta remember these guys really do know what they're doing.

[Therin]

So true. On the other hand, a touch-screen does seem pretty iffy...I mean, wouldn't that be kind of awkward?

On a side note, I fell hopelessly in love with the GC controllers the first time I picked one up :p

[Razer]

I got no problem with the GC controller but tell me who ever liked the N64 controller aka The Batwing?

Why we need new controllers for every system is beyond me anyway, for me it's all about the games. If Nin launches with a Pokemon MMRPG (even if it's only linkable) but plays like Animal Crossing offline then I'm there (tho we know they'll aunch with a mario game...sigh). I have very little interest in their 1st party software otherwise. Give me a good PSO3, GOOD Yugioh card game, or Mappy 2005 (YES!) and I'm there. Maybe even Smash Bros or Mario Party Revolution. I have no use for Nintendo otherwise, sad to say.

[Dubcee]

claim that the separate memory cards would enable you to take your save to a friend's house and compete with your own custom team/car/character? Name me ten games that did that. Five?

Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 and 2
Beach Spikers Virtua Beach Volleyball
I do believe Custom Robo had this feature


Now moving away from Nin and Sony:
Tokyo Xtreme Racer
Sega GT

Moving away from memory cards and on to other games:
Shining Soul
Shining Soul 2
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow/Crystal/Gold/Silver/Whatever
Pokemon Colleseum series

Just a few examples.


Wham bam shazam thank you ma'am. Now, you complain about not being able to cut off player 2. Why should player 1, with say, a dodge viper, be allowed to cream player 2, with oh I don't know, a honda civic? Is that really a fair race? It's not competition if the playing ground is not level. I think the developers did a good job. At least the other players now have a decent chance since both users have access to the same goods.


On the topic of AI, note that all computer reactions come from an action of the user. Now also note that these actions must be converted from a standard human thought process to code a computer must understand. This is a VERY difficult process. While programmers can think of so many scenarios, sometimes it is easy for things to be accidently left out. How many times have you had an idea when it was too late to implement it? Answered a question wrong on a test and then remembered how shortly after handing it in?

For a computer AI to act human, it would have to have the same capabilities as a human brain. Now, since not even scientists know how this works, how can the computer programmer be expected to know? Especially when often enough these reactions have to be converted into mathematical calculations and equations for the computer to base its data on, it IS NOT an easy job, especially when a human brain can have an infinite amount of responses. You can't program infinity to a game, there has to be a limit or else it will NEVER be released. Before you call game developers lazy and untalented, I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO BETTER. AI is not an easy thing.

Now now, before we go bashing a system we've never physically come in contact with before, let's try giving the benefit of the doubt shall we? How many developers do you seriously think will pull something stupid such as forcing you to give undivided attention to both screens? Data from one, from tech demos I have seen, have been just things to quickly glance at while playing on the other. Some games so far have focused entirely on one screen (mostly the touch) with the other one solely for display. Besides, holding a system in one hand and a stylus in the other IS NOT hard and DOES NOT take talent. PDA users have been doing it for ages.

Before bashing the DS's portability, please feel free to equally bash the PSP as well, which is basically a skinny game gear which will probably not fit in your average pocket.

As for the Revolution, how do you know it won't change things? What if it actually does introduce a new aspect or new way to play games? While chances may be against it, it would be foolish to instantly toss the possibility aside as hogwash. Try not to bash things before trying them, you end up as credible as the kiddies at EB's web site already giving ratings for Halo 2.

[Gryph]

Dubcee, you forgot the wrestling games. Every wrestling game with a create a wrestler mode has let you take em to other people's houses to pit them against your friends. That's at least 10 different games there.

[Azurel]

-bitch slapped-

Since we're ranting, let me add that the only reason your sports games have more advanced AI than any other game is because they have nothing better to do with the programming. Sure, the other games could implement the same AI skill into their games, but you also have to work with time constraints coupled with the rest of the game. Take this for example: Sports games load a single stadium/field for each "level" that you go through. This is MUCH smaller and MUCH simpler to code than the level designs of anything bigger than a few yards (like say the levels in Transformers). Also, sports game coding is based on a set of base code and mods. For instance, you have a general x amount of players for each team, a base AI for each one, and the ambiance of the stadium. What happens every time you make a change in the game affects very little of the base code. You choose a team, the skins change, not much more than a mod for your character in say unreal tournament. You change the plays that your team will make, this affects maybe half to 3/4 of their base AI coding. Change the stadium, another skin/sound mod. Now, these are all generalizations, but they still hold true.

For other games, you have to go into detail with the maps--putting secrets, paths, hiding spots, determining how everything in the game will move in accordance to your character, etc. And that's just one map. And these are large maps usually, a lot of image trees go into effect here. I'd go into more, but it's 3 a.m. and I'm getting a wee bit tired. My point here is that they have a lot of maps, stuff, and gameplay that have to go into development before AI comes into play. Additionally, they have to get the game out before the next engine comes out and the game becomes obsolete before it's even out.

...sports games suck. -runs to bed-

[Joetaku]

Razer of all people should also know that good ol' Tecmo had a few games where you could compete with your save data.

Every Monster Rancher game had this. Even for the GBA.

Also Agetech's series masterpiece Armored Core.

[Razer]

Hold on, I'm not sying you couldn't take your own data around and use it. That's obviously stuck within the card. what I'm saying is that you can plug YOUR card into YOUR port/controller and only YOU can use that data. I never played a split screen PSO so I don't know if they used that feature but wrestling games most asuredly do not use that. Once you load in the caharcter file anyone playing can use it. Same for racers, same for shooters. No Gameboy game is applicable since you're simply linking your entire system. You never compete on the same system at all hence the opponent couldn't have access to your save data in the first place.

I've played Custom Robo and I don't think it has this feature either. They left out so mush that could have pushed this game into the stratosphere that it's sad.

Now as for the DS (and I am not bashing the PSP solely because I don't take it seriously as a new console. It IS a Game Gear or a portable PSOne in all effects) it is maniacal to assume that you will be sitting your system in one hand not manipulating the buttons (like you do a PDA) while playing the majority of the games. No one in the world holds a PDA by the side or bottom while using a stylus AND pressing the bottons like you would an action game. It's a stupid feature, period. Maybe it is "new and revolutionary" for a console but that makes it no smarter.

"How many developers do you seriously think will pull something stupid such as forcing you to give undivided attention to both screens?"

You attack me for speculating and then you speculate. If you saw or read the many Hands On reports with Metroid you had to steer/aim on the touch screen while actually moving on the top screen, if I recall correctly. Hence focusing on both screens simultaneously to some extent. Is it intuitive or ergonomical? No. This is simply using technology for the sake of using it, not because it is neccesary. Also, I questioned the physicality of it more than the application. Before you respond, do as I asked. HOLD a GBA SP and try to move around on the D-Pad while holding the system with your left hand and at the same time tap and move a pencil around the lower half. Remember the system STILL has buttons, it's not just two screens. Also, you actually had to tap FASTER and harder to shoot at E3. Now try that during a heated game of Halo.

I step down for Tecmo, the Monster Rancher series is possibly the only creative programming example in the known world today. Why other companies never did this (use disc data for cars/tracks/fighters/etc) is simply a case of "It's too hard, I'll make better graphics instead". And as for the "difficulty" in programming human-like AI...I did that back in 8th grade. It is not hard to simulate human responses. It is impossible to try to forsee every possible action but you ned only one thing to replicate human action...controlled random factor. It's too long to go into here but trust me, I have done it and I never went to any programming course at all. If my non-professional hacking skills could do it then any commercial programmer worth his paycheck should be able to. It's a question of dedication and effort.
I'll give a short example:
A sports game simply has less variable to work with so the AI may "seem" smarter. If I ask you a question that has one correct answer ("how many fingers am I holding up?") and I give you three choices, you're bound to hit the right answer more often MATHEMATICALLY than if I gave you ten choices. Anything mathematic is handled 97billion and three times more easily by a computer. True, it does have to be coded to allow the computer to decipher and act on it but that's where the lazy programming comes in which is my point. It is NOT hard. It is time consuming. It is tedious. It is highly repetitive. But it is not hard. In it's simplest state it is a (massive) collection of "If...Then" statements if anyone remembers Basic.

As for portability, the Virtual Boy was touted as portable. How could you play and walk at the same time with that? If you have to sit with the thing in your lap then it's not a portable system.


-bitch slapping has been negated and rebuked-

[Cobalt Katze]

Honestly, sometimes things don't have to be the most humanly accurate to be a very good game. Are you applying this to every game? Or to the games that try to be human replicas? Not all games are supposed to be so realistic you can believe you're fighting real people. In fact, I usually never enjoy the uber-realistic games. There has to be some ammount of fantasy in the game or else it seems somewhat less creative in my mind.

I've seen some amazing games out there that people have debunked for the stupidest reasons. The game developers that work on the quality games know their shit. The developers that make bad games aren't as experienced but regardless a lot of a time and effort goes into making a game these days, even the bad ones. Want to see games take over 10 years to make? Then we'll maybehave humanly accurate AI, since apperantly it's possible but takes time. But if we do have humanly accurate AI, then it's possible to create living thinking robots. Is this possible yet? There's still things we do as humans that no one knows why exactly we do it, can we program that too?

As for Nintendo's recent ideas:

innovation n. The act of introducing something new.

This doesn't necissarily mean they're making something you like, or someone else will like. By innovating it just means they're doing something never done before, and if it works, great. As for a gaming revolution? I'm not sure about that. Honestly I'm fine with just playing with my PS2 controller. So far the DS demos just have "gimmick" written all over them. Maybe we'll see actual games, but I'm honestly not sure anyone besides Nintendo will be willing to stretch themselves so far as to make a game that realistically puts 2 screens and stylus control to logical use without some sort of gimmick involved.

Oh, and with Metroid, the way it worked was this: Everything was on the bottom screen. You tapped where you were shooting and dragged to move the camera around I think. So it controlled reletively similar to a PC FPS, except with a stylus on a screen as opposed to a mouse. Sounds familiar to me. The top screen was just used for the map.

Anyways, my two cents.