02-06-2013, 01:52 PM
Here are the facts: graphical enhancement has reached a saturation point where it's no longer economically viable nor is it needed. Graphics nowadays look decent and somewhat realistic. Getting more fidelity out of our games will be immensely costly which would, obviously, reflect on each retail game's price. Where do consoles go from here, you ask?
I feel Nintendo had the right idea. I mean, their new console has just barely reached more graphical capabilities than the previous generation's consoles, namely Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. That's all the Wii needed to stay a strong competitor in the current and, I presume, future video market. That's because it does not rely heavily on visual capabilities. Some games do have nice aesthetics, and with this new toy to play with, the Wii U, game artists have even more power to work with than the other consoles that are out right now. And it will stay at this point. Like I said, graphic fidelity is too expensive to expand on.
What I predict is more heavy investment on gimmicks and motion-based controls. In other words, more emphasis on immersion of the player. The FPS-laden industry is over because what appealed most in common first-person shooters were the realistic looks and visuals. That is long past right now. They will still be a thing, though, but not the main arm that will push famous brands into mass recognition and fame, like they are today. Or at least, like they were in the last couple years.
Sony and Microsoft caught wind of this a bit later than Nintendo, as we can see from the recent development and marketing of the Playstation Move and Kinect, respectively. Expect the industry to further develop and perfect these tools. Now, this can either be good or bad news.
Nintendo seems to be the only one capable of pulling off these motion-controls. The main reason Nintendo really hasn't been an overly influential force to be reckoned by its competitors was its niche market and graphical inferiority. And don't try to argue with me on this. I am not saying Wii games look ugly. Graphics capability and aesthetics are two different things and the Wii (and the other consoles, in that matter) sports some visually appealing games (off the top of my head, Muramasa: The Demon Blade and Okami are simply gorgeous).
What does this mean? It means companies will move all the money directed to graphical improvement and instead invest on either other hardware capabilities (like motion-controls) or more artists that are eager to craft a world of their own where they no longer have any restraints.
I feel Nintendo had the right idea. I mean, their new console has just barely reached more graphical capabilities than the previous generation's consoles, namely Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. That's all the Wii needed to stay a strong competitor in the current and, I presume, future video market. That's because it does not rely heavily on visual capabilities. Some games do have nice aesthetics, and with this new toy to play with, the Wii U, game artists have even more power to work with than the other consoles that are out right now. And it will stay at this point. Like I said, graphic fidelity is too expensive to expand on.
What I predict is more heavy investment on gimmicks and motion-based controls. In other words, more emphasis on immersion of the player. The FPS-laden industry is over because what appealed most in common first-person shooters were the realistic looks and visuals. That is long past right now. They will still be a thing, though, but not the main arm that will push famous brands into mass recognition and fame, like they are today. Or at least, like they were in the last couple years.
Sony and Microsoft caught wind of this a bit later than Nintendo, as we can see from the recent development and marketing of the Playstation Move and Kinect, respectively. Expect the industry to further develop and perfect these tools. Now, this can either be good or bad news.
Nintendo seems to be the only one capable of pulling off these motion-controls. The main reason Nintendo really hasn't been an overly influential force to be reckoned by its competitors was its niche market and graphical inferiority. And don't try to argue with me on this. I am not saying Wii games look ugly. Graphics capability and aesthetics are two different things and the Wii (and the other consoles, in that matter) sports some visually appealing games (off the top of my head, Muramasa: The Demon Blade and Okami are simply gorgeous).
What does this mean? It means companies will move all the money directed to graphical improvement and instead invest on either other hardware capabilities (like motion-controls) or more artists that are eager to craft a world of their own where they no longer have any restraints.
![[Image: lL1hdIw.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/lL1hdIw.jpg)