When was the last time Nintendo pushed the industry forward?

  • 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for rzxv04
#51 Posted by rzxv04 (284 posts) -

I haven't seen them ever focus on it so it's probably a non issue.

There's a thread about this before and no one contests that Sony studios have more impact in pushing 3D envelope with "better graphics".

http://hiddenfallsgolfclub.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/poll-who-has-the-current-best-set-of-technical-dev-33386550/

You will see this in developer notes and commentaries I think one was called sigraph and some other events.

Xbox isn't even in the same calibre. I assume MS have among the best tier though just not their first party Xbox devs.

I believe Ubisoft is a good match with Sony's. ID seems pretty good too. Didn't Sony get ideas from the groundbreaking motion matching of a ubisoft dev for animation?

I also think there are so many unsung heroes because some haven't had good implementation yet but their program/algorythm seem sound.

Avatar image for Jag85
#52 Edited by Jag85 (12408 posts) -
@XVision84 said:
@Jag85 said:
@XVision84 said:

DISCLAIMER: This is not a Nintendo hate thread. They make excellent games, it's just an observation I thought worth discussing.

Think of the latest strides in the industry.

Red dead 2 has pushed the bar in terms of how reactive or lively open world games can be.

The witcher 3 raised the bar in terms of writing/story/quest quality despite the massive world.

Fortnite/Overwatch/PUBG introduced big changes in the online multiplayer landscape.

Uncharted 1/2 set the bar for cinematic action adventure experiences.

Batman arkham paved the way for future superhero games.

League/Dota helped make esports mainstream and brought back MOBAs.

The last time was in 2017, when Breath of the World revolutionised open-world design:

In 2017, the open-world design of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has been described by critics as being revolutionary, and by developers as a paradigm shift for open-world design. In contrast to the more structured approach of most open-world games, Breath of the Wild features a large and fully interactive world that is generally unstructured and rewards the exploration and manipulation of its world. Inspired by the original 1986 Legend of Zelda, the open world of Breath of the Wild integrates multiplicative gameplay, where "objects react to the player's actions and the objects themselves also influence each other." Along with a physics engine, the game's open world also integrates a chemistry engine, "which governs the physical properties of certain objects and how they relate to each other," rewarding experimentation. Nintendo has described the game's approach to open-world design as "open air".

In comparison, RDR2 took a step backwards, recycling the same old open-world template that Rockstar has been using for over a decade, with linear mission designs and generally limited world interactivity compared to BOTW. As for TW3, its open-world was well-designed, but it was fundamentally still the same core open-world design as previous open-world games, whereas BOTW's open-world design is a paradigm shift. TW3 was an evolution of the standard open-world template, whereas BOTW is a revolution setting a new open-world template.

In addition:

  • Splatoon was doing the wacky over-the-top online shooter thing years before the likes of Overwatch or Fortnite came along.
  • Resident Evil 4, originally a Nintendo exclusive, set the template for the Uncharted series, as acknowledged by Naughty Dog themselves.
  • It was Spider-Man 2 that paved the way for future superhero games. And Arkham's combat system was largely based on Prince of Persia. Both SM2 and POP were released for the GameCube.
  • Pikmin was a MOBA-like game before DOTA came along.

Those are some good points. I do agree that Red Dead and The Witcher stick with linear level design for the most part, but they're also very complex stories. I will admit BOTW had a lot of things going for it and is the best example I can think of to answer my original question. In my opinion they still don't compare to the advances made on all the other fronts by other platforms/console creators. The multiplicative gameplay is something that stuck out far more in Red Dead Redemption 2 than BOTW from what I've played of them so far.

Splatoon was wacky and over the top, but can we really say it's game changing? Fortnite and Overwatch had a huge social rallying behind them. They also inspired a lot of similar games afterwards (although both of course took inspiration from games prior).

While Resident Evil 4 did, it isn't a Nintendo property. It was originally a Nintendo exclusive, but it's not from Nintendo themselves. It's also not a recent example. I don't doubt that current developments aren't influenced by previous ones.

Spider-Man 2 was indeed a very good game in terms of its mechanics and one of the first notable superhero games. It didn't really launch the superhero genre in the way Arkham did though. There was a long drought of quality superhero games after Spider-Man 2. Arkham took inspiration from it, but epitomized batman so well, and it's helped inspire a big push for more superhero games that are now on the way.

Again, I'm not talking about what was first to the party. I'm talking about what had the biggest impact in terms of the rest of the industry. Look at every MOBA today and I guarantee you that they reference Dota 1 a hell of a lot more than they'd reference Pikmin.

  1. RDR2 doesn't have the "multiplicative gameplay" that BOTW is referring to, which is a reference to how its open-world gameplay is impacted by its physics and chemistry engines, which are the most advanced ever seen in open-world gaming. In comparison, RDR2 doesn't really have a chemistry engine, and its physics engine is not as advanced as BOTW. Compared to the big leap forward that BOTW took, RDR2 is a step backwards in terms of open-world design.
  2. Splatoon 1 & 2 have sold over 12 million to date. Which wouldn't be possible unless they had a large social rallying behind them. And yes, Splatoon was a game-changer for online shooters. The genre was previously dominated by realistic shooters like COD and Battlefield, before Splatoon came along with its cartoony visuals and over-the-top gameplay, and became a major success, paving the way for similarly over-the-top cartoony online shooters like Overwatch and Fortnite.
  3. Fair enough about RE4.
  4. There was a long draft after Arkham as well. Between the Arkham series and PS4 Spider-Man, what other notable quality AAA superhero games were there? All that comes to mind are fighting games (e.g. Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Injustice, Dragon Ball FighterZ).
  5. While Pikmin was not particularly influential, it was forward-thinking for its time, since this was years before DOTA. As for DOTA itself, its origins go back to the Sega Mega Drive game Herzog Zwei, which is pretty much the grandaddy of MOBA. Although it was DOTA which popularized MOBA.

Also, on the hardware front:

  • The touch-screen gaming of the Nintendo DS paved the way for smartphone gaming.
  • The Wii's motion controls paved the way for modern VR gaming, where motion controls are part of the VR experience.
  • The DS and Wii established the modern casual gaming market.

In these regards, Nintendo's impact on the game industry has been immense over the last decade or so.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#53 Posted by xantufrog (10097 posts) -

@XVision84: I agree. CPU improvements seem to be key to more reliable framerates this gen.

Avatar image for dzimm
#54 Posted by dzimm (5074 posts) -

Nintendo is constantly pushing the industry forward. It's why you always see Sony and Microsoft crib their best ideas.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#55 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

N64, analog stick and rumble,

Wii, motion controls.

Wii U, second screen.

Switch, portable/home console combined.

Are you high? They're the only ones pushing the industry forward.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#56 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9715 posts) -

@hrt_rulz01 said:
@PurpleMan5000 said:

Breath of the Wild showed how open world games should be made. That was in 2017, so fairly recent.

Not sure about that... highly debatable.

I don't think it's that debatable. I'd currently be enjoying RDR2 more if it wasn't worse than BotW in a lot of ways.

Avatar image for shellcase86
#57 Posted by shellcase86 (4115 posts) -

Nintendo pushes in less obvious ways. Their emphasis on quality gameplay continues to drive excellence in gaming. Their ability to do more with less also pushes the concept of how we game.

Avatar image for SecretPolice
#58 Posted by SecretPolice (34166 posts) -

NES with Duck Hunt and Rob the Robot. It's been all downhill ever since. lol :P

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#59 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kenshiro3948 said:

Hard to push boundaries with the dated old hardware they keep using. I miss when Nintendo consoles were actually powerful for their time.

And here come the graphic whores. Graphics haven't pushed any boundaries since the 360 gen. Having more detailed horse genitals doesn't make games anymore fun to play.

Hell realistic environments only make it harder to tell what you can interact with and what you can't.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#60 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@shellcase86 said:

Nintendo pushes in less obvious ways. Their emphasis on quality gameplay continues to drive excellence in gaming. Their ability to do more with less also pushes the concept of how we game.

These graphic whores only count pixels. Meanwhile RDR2 looks amazing and plays like crap.

The future of gaming ya'll.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#61 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (9715 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

@KBFloYd: @PurpleMan5000: Metascores just show that the game is high quality, they don't show that the game has changed something.

I don't doubt that Breath of the Wild was excellent, but what did it do that raised the bar?

Red Dead Redemption 2 has dynamic NPC interaction to a degree never seen before in a game of it's size. Arthur interacts with almost every single item dynamically and with no loading screens. Blood, scratches, dirt, tiredness, it all accumulates and is noticed by everybody and can be dealt with realistically. The detail is insane. Let's also not forget that it's graphically beautiful while being in the biggest world Rockstar has created.

Breath of the Wild gives you one objective near the start of the game and lets you decide how you want to achieve it while throwing you into an open world that is bigger than Skyrim. Everything you do in the game gets you closer to your one overarching goal, either by getting you more rupees for gear, more health, more stamina, or more carrying capacity. Everything about it is very video-gamey, like when you hunt an animal, it turns into steaks when it dies, but the game still has pretty solid hunting mechanics. It gives you all of the fun stuff, like stalking an animal and lining up a head shot, while skipping stuff like having to pick up the carcass, load it up on your horse, and haul it back to camp. Also, the horses in the game act like actual horses when you are riding them. They don't handle like an automobile that crashes into other horses, trees, etc. if you aren't paying close attention.

This is in stark contrast to every other open world game that I've played. All of the other games are very focused on a narrative that unfolds as you play. There is nothing wrong with telling a story, but it just works a lot better in a linear, well-scripted campaign than it does in an open world. I have no idea what the overall objective of RDR2 is, so I basically just wander around doing things. It's fun so far, but I really wish I had some sort of goal other than crafting upgrades for camp.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#62 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2411 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

@XVision84: I agree. CPU improvements seem to be key to more reliable framerates this gen.

I don't agree and feel like this a false narrative that needs to go away. While a better CPU in the Xbox One's and PS4's would be beneficial, the GPU's are still the 60fps bottleneck. For example, a GTX 1060 can't run Forza Horizon 4 at 4K/60. (neither can a 1070) And that's with a 5GHz 8700K. CPU's gain their benefit at 1080p and 120fps+. The second the resolution goes up to 1440p, the GPU becomes the bottleneck in every benchmark.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#63 Edited by xantufrog (10097 posts) -
@goldenelementxl said:
@xantufrog said:

@XVision84: I agree. CPU improvements seem to be key to more reliable framerates this gen.

I don't agree and feel like this a false narrative that needs to go away. While a better CPU in the Xbox One's and PS4's would be beneficial, the GPU's are still the 60fps bottleneck. For example, a GTX 1060 can't run Forza Horizon 4 at 4K/60. (neither can a 1070) And that's with a 5GHz 8700K. CPU's gain their benefit at 1080p and 120fps+. The second the resolution goes up to 1440p, the GPU becomes the bottleneck in every benchmark.

I don't agree. You can't use Forza 4 as the benchmark (no pun intended) for this generation, and definitely not to speak for all (or even most) games.

Firstly, most games this generation are not 4K - of course when you push the resolution higher, games are more likely to become GPU-bound.

All you need to do is look at games like TW3 on X1X. The system cannot do 1080p 60. That's pathetic. And that's solely due to the CPU - I'm sure we both agree its GPU is more than capable of 1080p 60 (my GTX970 is). Unambiguous.

You also need to look at the vast majority of AAA games that now run at dynamic resolutions - they almost never deliver 1080p 60. They almost never deliver 60fps at all. And this can be squarely pegged on the CPU. Why? Because dropping the resolution (taking load off the GPU) cannot remedy the situation and preserve 60fps. Indeed, since most games are 30fps, the resolution drops are technically the effort of the code to preserve even THIRTY FPS.

The real problem is that these systems are not balanced. Even the base models were designed to run higher resolutions at lower framerates. Again, this is exemplified with the X1X, which shows a suprising penchant for 4K gaming... at low framerates. It cannot provide HD gaming at high framerates as reliably. That screams CPU bottleneck at HD resolutions. You keep pointing at high resolutions and talking about a GPU bottleneck, and you're right - but that's a synthetic scenario created by pushing the GPU demands BEYOND the CPU demands. These circuits do not operate in isolation. All a bottleneck is is one part of the system being pushed more beyond its means than another is.

If you own a PC, you know this intimately, because you can push the knobs around and see it in action. For example, I can easily run Forza Horizon 4 at 4K 30FPS on my i5 with a measly GTX970. But at that resolution, the bottleneck is the GPU and its RAM. By contrast, at 1080p I can easily run it at 1080p60, but the simulated GPU framerates exceed those of the CPU - indicating clearly that the i5 is now the limiting factor.

Avatar image for kenshiro3948
#64 Edited by kenshiro3948 (390 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

Hard to push boundaries with the dated old hardware they keep using. I miss when Nintendo consoles were actually powerful for their time.

And here come the graphic whores. Graphics haven't pushed any boundaries since the 360 gen. Having more detailed horse genitals doesn't make games anymore fun to play.

Hell realistic environments only make it harder to tell what you can interact with and what you can't.

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bit games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#65 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2411 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

All you need to do is look at games like TW3 on X1X. The system cannot do 1080p 60. That's pathetic. And that's solely due to the CPU - I'm sure we both agree its GPU is more than capable of 1080p 60 (my GTX970 is). Unambiguous.

You also need to look at the vast majority of AAA games that now run at dynamic resolutions - they almost never deliver 1080p 60. They almost never deliver 60fps at all. And this can be squarely pegged on the CPU. Why? Because dropping the resolution (taking load off the GPU) cannot remedy the situation and preserve 60fps. Indeed, since most games are 30fps, the resolution drops are technically the effort of the code to preserve even THIRTY FPS.

The real problem is that these systems are not balanced. Even the base models were designed to run higher resolutions at lower framerates. Again, this is exemplified with the X1X, which shows a suprising penchant for 4K gaming... at low framerates. It cannot provide HD gaming at high framerates as reliably. That screams CPU bottleneck at HD resolutions. You keep pointing at high resolutions and talking about a GPU bottleneck, and you're right - but that's a synthetic scenario created by pushing the GPU demands BEYOND the CPU demands. These circuits do not operate in isolation. All a bottleneck is is one part of the system being pushed more beyond its means than another is.

If you own a PC, you know this intimately, because you can push the knobs around and see it in action. For example, I can easily run Forza Horizon 4 at 4K 30FPS on my i5 with a measly GTX970. But at that resolution, the bottleneck is the GPU and its RAM. By contrast, at 1080p I can easily run it at 1080p60, but the simulated GPU framerates exceed those of the CPU - indicating clearly that the i5 is now the limiting factor.

And I would counter to say TW3 shouldn't be used as a benchmark. There is something else going on there.

The above benchmark takes the load off of the GPU's by using medium graphics presets so we can see the CPU and its impact on performance. As you can see, even the shit CPU's are well over 60.
I also disagree with your dynamic resolution example as well. The resolution scales based on GPU load. If the GPU could handle it, it would stay at the highest resolution. The CPU is almost not a factor at all there. I do think you're onto something with you consoles are unbalanced stance. There I would question the RAM pools and the consoles ability to allocate what is needed where. Dedicated RAM and VRAM would be more ideal imo. And actually... A quicker CPU would greatly impact performance.

Ok, you're right

Avatar image for jdc6305
#66 Posted by jdc6305 (4971 posts) -

Nintendo can't compete with traditional consoles like the PS4 and Xbox. They go the cheap route when it comes to hardware like cpu's and gpu's. They rely on trying to do something different then Sony and Microsoft. Personally I liked Nintendo more when they made traditional consoles without gimmicks. The Wii was just an overclocked Gamecube. Nintendo say's they aren't competing with Sony and Microsoft. They are they just won't admit it. I didn't like the Wiimote and I don't like handhelds. I bought a switch and only turned it on once. It's sitting here collecting dust. I have no use for playing video games when I leave my house. I'd like to turn it on sometime but my PS4 gets all of my attention. I'm holding out to see what happens with Metroid Prime 4 and Bayonetta 3. The long droughts just kill any interest I have in the Switch. I played Zelda on my WiiU. I was sadly disappointed. A Zelda with no dungeons and 8 different enemy types in the game. I hate lazy game design when they reuse assets like enemies and just make them different colors. I picked up Skyrim after Zelda and found it to be 1000% better. Skyrim is what 7 years older? I've been a Nintendo fan since 1987 but I've grown tired of their bullshit ways.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#67 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

Hard to push boundaries with the dated old hardware they keep using. I miss when Nintendo consoles were actually powerful for their time.

And here come the graphic whores. Graphics haven't pushed any boundaries since the 360 gen. Having more detailed horse genitals doesn't make games anymore fun to play.

Hell realistic environments only make it harder to tell what you can interact with and what you can't.

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bot games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#68 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (17950 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000: I think Witcher 3 is better than both of them... But that's just my opinion. All have their pros and cons.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#69 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (24549 posts) -
@enzyme36 said:

Breath of the Wild changed open world gaming... in game mountain climbing and mobility has been changed forever

He He. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing can do that too. ;)

Avatar image for kenshiro3948
#70 Posted by kenshiro3948 (390 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

Hard to push boundaries with the dated old hardware they keep using. I miss when Nintendo consoles were actually powerful for their time.

And here come the graphic whores. Graphics haven't pushed any boundaries since the 360 gen. Having more detailed horse genitals doesn't make games anymore fun to play.

Hell realistic environments only make it harder to tell what you can interact with and what you can't.

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bot games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#71 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

Hard to push boundaries with the dated old hardware they keep using. I miss when Nintendo consoles were actually powerful for their time.

And here come the graphic whores. Graphics haven't pushed any boundaries since the 360 gen. Having more detailed horse genitals doesn't make games anymore fun to play.

Hell realistic environments only make it harder to tell what you can interact with and what you can't.

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bot games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Excuses. You said power improves AI.

AI is as dumb as ever.

And BOTW has some of the best in game physics. It's practically a physics playground, if you can dream it, the game can probably do it.

All without the precious power people seem to tout so much.

No they wouldn't be better. Nintendo innovates where it counts, game design and gameplay.

Graphics only rarely move forward enough to allow great leaps in game design, that happens maybe once every four console cycles.

Avatar image for osan0
#72 Posted by osan0 (15219 posts) -

@xantufrog: @goldenelementxl: i dont agree with either of you. The most effective way to get 60FPS across the board is for MS, sony and nintendo to insist on it: i.e. 60FPS locked or the game doesnt release on the console.

every single last device currently on the market is capable of delivering 1080P and 60FPS (ok except maybe the vita and 3DS due to res output limits). they just cant do it when developers throw the kitchen sink at them.

if manufacturers put a better CPU and/or GPU in their console what the developer going to do? throw more sinks at them...then find some ovens to throw at them too.

policy, not hardware, is how the framerate problem is solved. MS, sony and nintendo have to insist on it even if it means ubisofts, EAs and R*s latest AAA blockbuster gets delayed (though if it's clear from day 1 that 60FPS is a must, not a nice to have then it shouldnt be an issue).

should they push for that? that's another discussion. pushing for it would come with its own price.

as for the topic: BOTW is the more recent example. xenoblade chronicles on the wii also gave the JRPG a big kick up the backside (Square have admitted that it made them go back and have a look at what they were doing).

the DS was the catalyst for touch screen gaming (you could play games on touch screens on other devices like palm assistants but it was an afterthought). hell you could argue that the genesis for the modern approach of touch UI design started on the DS (a lot more interactive and such like. a lot of swiping and drawing).

the switch has really delivered on sonys vision of handheld gaming...oddly enough. sony always wanted to bring the console experience to handhelds. the PSP and vita were very impressive bits of kit but they never quite delivered on what sony wanted (on the vita front i would argue that that was more due to sonys lack of support than a hardware problem). the switch has pulled it off. visually it cant compete with an xbox1 or PS4 but in terms of the types of games they can play the switch can play the same types of games. they didnt make doom a 2D side scroller. they didnt make skyrim a top down rpg. it's the full fat console experience in your hand. zelda BOTW is a massive game and it looks and runs better than the wiiu version. xenoblade 2 is the same with hours of music and loads of voice acting too. on a device you can hold in your hands. thats what sony wanted to do. thats what nintendo have delivered. handhelds pushed forwards.

finally this is more an area of holding the line than pushing forward: keeping as true as possible to the core console experience. i put my cart in, i press on the games icon and im playing the game. no 50GB patches. no lengthy installs. no BS basically. i put the media in and it works. Loading is also quick. it's not always the case on switch in fairness (doom and LA noire do have large downloads to play as i understand it) but nintendo seem to be the last bastion of keeping the nonsense to a minimum. the UI is sleek and fast. games load quickly. any patches are generally small. they just keep the number of barriers between you and the game to a minimum.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#73 Edited by KungfuKitten (25971 posts) -

@mojito1988 said:

Easy. Breath of the Wild and the Switch itself.

I agree with that. If there is a lack of Nintendo pushing the industry forward I would sooner attribute that to other publishers being unwilling/unable to learn or listen.

Maybe that's a trend. I don't know. Has the adaptability of publishers gone down because the expenses and desire for profit have gone up?

Avatar image for kenshiro3948
#74 Edited by kenshiro3948 (390 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bot games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Excuses. You said power improves AI.

AI is as dumb as ever.

And BOTW has some of the best in game physics. It's practically a physics playground, if you can dream it, the game can probably do it.

All without the precious power people seem to tout so much.

No they wouldn't be better. Nintendo innovates where it counts, game design and gameplay.

Graphics only rarely move forward enough to allow great leaps in game design, that happens maybe once every four console cycles.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you or are you literally this dumb?

Do you not know what is responsible for AI? It's the CPU. We haven't made any improvements in CPUs this gen that's why AI is dumb. MS and Sony decided to use weak Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 that are even weaker than the CELL processor from last gen. Since all games are made with PS4 and XB1 in mind we have been held back back the limitations of their weak CPUs this gen and haven't been able to move forward. There is no way to argue that better CPUs wouldn't improve AI and physics, you have to be in complete denial or just plain stupid to argue otherwise. You're a hardcore Nintendo zealot, I get that but stop making stupid arguments to defend them, it's not working and you're only embarrassing yourself. Nintendo's great games would be even better if they had better hardware, there's no arguing around this.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#75 Posted by cainetao11 (35697 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

@cainetao11: I don't take advice from comedians :P. It matters very much that everybody followed, that's what a fad is. All the kids "followed" the fidget spinner fad. Don't see it nowadays. Same with motion controls. Sony barely bothers with it in their E3 conferences anymore, just like Microsoft isn't bothering with Kinect moving forward.

None of this negates what happened. Nintendo pushed it forward with motion controls. Now they are with a hybrid console. Don't like? I don't care.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#76 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

GTFO, I'm not a graphics whore, I still play 8 bot games to this day. There are other things better hardware gets you other than graphics. Things like better AI, physics, sound, and storage space for game data are all benefits of better hardware. Stop being a hardcore Nintendo fanboy and maybe you'll use your brain for once.

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Excuses. You said power improves AI.

AI is as dumb as ever.

And BOTW has some of the best in game physics. It's practically a physics playground, if you can dream it, the game can probably do it.

All without the precious power people seem to tout so much.

No they wouldn't be better. Nintendo innovates where it counts, game design and gameplay.

Graphics only rarely move forward enough to allow great leaps in game design, that happens maybe once every four console cycles.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you or are you literally this dumb?

Do you not know what is responsible for AI? It's the CPU. We haven't made any improvements in CPUs this gen that's why AI is dumb. MS and Sony decided to use weak Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 that are even weaker than the CELL processor from last gen. Since all games are made with PS4 and XB1 in mind we have been held back back the limitations of their weak CPUs this gen and haven't been able to move forward. There is no way to argue that better CPUs wouldn't improve AI and physics, you have to be in complete denial or just plain stupid to argue otherwise. You're a hardcore Nintendo zealot, I get that but stop making stupid arguments to defend them, it's not working and you're only embarrassing yourself. Nintendo's great games would be even better if they had better hardware, there's no arguing around this.

And not a single game has smart AI. For all the graphics power they tout.

AI is even dumb on PC.

So really, you may live in the future where AI is finally smart but in 2018 it's as dumb as it ever was and ever has been.

Avatar image for enzyme36
#77 Posted by enzyme36 (3821 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@enzyme36 said:

Breath of the Wild changed open world gaming... in game mountain climbing and mobility has been changed forever

He He. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing can do that too. ;)

Ahhh the legend is finally bested.... a true Zelda killer is born!!

Avatar image for XVision84
#78 Posted by XVision84 (14469 posts) -
@cainetao11 said:
@XVision84 said:

@cainetao11: I don't take advice from comedians :P. It matters very much that everybody followed, that's what a fad is. All the kids "followed" the fidget spinner fad. Don't see it nowadays. Same with motion controls. Sony barely bothers with it in their E3 conferences anymore, just like Microsoft isn't bothering with Kinect moving forward.

None of this negates what happened. Nintendo pushed it forward with motion controls. Now they are with a hybrid console. Don't like? I don't care.

WOAH there caine, don't go sassy teenager on me. I don't think I can handle all that angst x_x

Seeing as you just repeated your point and didn't address anything I said in any productive way whatsoever, I'm going to assume you aren't able/willing to :P

Avatar image for XVision84
#79 Posted by XVision84 (14469 posts) -
@PurpleMan5000 said:
@XVision84 said:

@KBFloYd: @PurpleMan5000: Metascores just show that the game is high quality, they don't show that the game has changed something.

I don't doubt that Breath of the Wild was excellent, but what did it do that raised the bar?

Red Dead Redemption 2 has dynamic NPC interaction to a degree never seen before in a game of it's size. Arthur interacts with almost every single item dynamically and with no loading screens. Blood, scratches, dirt, tiredness, it all accumulates and is noticed by everybody and can be dealt with realistically. The detail is insane. Let's also not forget that it's graphically beautiful while being in the biggest world Rockstar has created.

Breath of the Wild gives you one objective near the start of the game and lets you decide how you want to achieve it while throwing you into an open world that is bigger than Skyrim. Everything you do in the game gets you closer to your one overarching goal, either by getting you more rupees for gear, more health, more stamina, or more carrying capacity. Everything about it is very video-gamey, like when you hunt an animal, it turns into steaks when it dies, but the game still has pretty solid hunting mechanics. It gives you all of the fun stuff, like stalking an animal and lining up a head shot, while skipping stuff like having to pick up the carcass, load it up on your horse, and haul it back to camp. Also, the horses in the game act like actual horses when you are riding them. They don't handle like an automobile that crashes into other horses, trees, etc. if you aren't paying close attention.

This is in stark contrast to every other open world game that I've played. All of the other games are very focused on a narrative that unfolds as you play. There is nothing wrong with telling a story, but it just works a lot better in a linear, well-scripted campaign than it does in an open world. I have no idea what the overall objective of RDR2 is, so I basically just wander around doing things. It's fun so far, but I really wish I had some sort of goal other than crafting upgrades for camp.

I personally don't see anything in that first paragraph as pushing something forward. It's just a design decision by the developers. I agree that it can be more fun for some people, but I personally prefer RDR2 where they animate everything (which is the much more difficult option to develop). The objective of Red Dead Redemption 2 (I assume you're in the early game) is to survive and lay low until you can head back to Blackwater. All of the story missions either introduce a mechanic, develop a member of the gang, or allow the gang to further develop/survive.

Avatar image for kenshiro3948
#80 Posted by kenshiro3948 (390 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:

because game AI is so good now lol.....not.

Physics? Botw.

Sound? Um okay....

Storage? That's uhhh....umm memory card dude.

All realistic graphics have done is make gameplay more confusing or streamlined since its hard to tell what you have to do without a huge map telling you where to go.

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Excuses. You said power improves AI.

AI is as dumb as ever.

And BOTW has some of the best in game physics. It's practically a physics playground, if you can dream it, the game can probably do it.

All without the precious power people seem to tout so much.

No they wouldn't be better. Nintendo innovates where it counts, game design and gameplay.

Graphics only rarely move forward enough to allow great leaps in game design, that happens maybe once every four console cycles.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you or are you literally this dumb?

Do you not know what is responsible for AI? It's the CPU. We haven't made any improvements in CPUs this gen that's why AI is dumb. MS and Sony decided to use weak Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 that are even weaker than the CELL processor from last gen. Since all games are made with PS4 and XB1 in mind we have been held back back the limitations of their weak CPUs this gen and haven't been able to move forward. There is no way to argue that better CPUs wouldn't improve AI and physics, you have to be in complete denial or just plain stupid to argue otherwise. You're a hardcore Nintendo zealot, I get that but stop making stupid arguments to defend them, it's not working and you're only embarrassing yourself. Nintendo's great games would be even better if they had better hardware, there's no arguing around this.

And not a single game has smart AI. For all the graphics power they tout.

AI is even dumb on PC.

So really, you may live in the future where AI is finally smart but in 2018 it's as dumb as it ever was and ever has been.

I like how you omitted physics too in your little rant. Are you going to keep pretending that I didn't mention only AI but physics as well or are you scared I'll destroy you with physics examples? You're not going anywhere with your argument, you're only proving my argument and digging yourself deeper. AI was making steady improvements every gen until this gen and it's due to shitty CPUs right now. I have no doubt that next gen will see a strong boost in AI. We're already seeing devs like Cloud Imperium trying to push the limits of AI in their tech demos for Star Citizen since they aren't limited by console development. Once consoles catch up next gen, AI will improve greatly across the board and you'll be left looking dumb trying to defend poor hardware. I like good gameplay above everything else but it's stupid to argue that a game can't be improved by making it for better hardware, your damage control for Nintendo's poor hardware is weak at best and foolish at its worst.

Avatar image for XVision84
#81 Posted by XVision84 (14469 posts) -

@Jag85: The multiplicative gameplay may be a term I am confusing, but your original statement "objects react to the player's actions and the objects themselves also influence each other" is something I saw plenty of in RDR2. If it also involves physics/chemistry then I see your point. That would be quite influential from BotW and hopefully we will see more of that in the next gen. I still cannot see RDR2 as a step backward in open world design, simply due to how real its world feels and how it does away with a lot of typical open world mechanics.

Splatoon sales were certainly great, but I wouldn't call that a large scale social backing. What I mean by that is it reaches out to the most casual of gamers. Almost every person I have ever spoken to knows about/has played fortnite or overwatch. This reflects in their sales numbers too (overwatch is at 40 million accounts and fortnite 100 million+). The same cannot be said for Splatoon, heck even dedicated gamers I know of don't know what Splatoon is. I understand that the small sample isn't indicative of the overall population, but I stand by my statement that I strongly doubt Splatoon has had the influential cultural impact across generations that overwatch/fortnite did. Furthermore, I would also argue Team Fortress was the big "cartoony/over the top" shooter rather than Splatoon. Overwatch took direct inspiration from Team Fortress 2, some heroes are almost a straight up copy of TF2 characters.

I agree the vast majority were fighting games, but there is going to be much more in the future (as Marvel has confirmed). Marvel's decision to do this was of course influenced by the monumental success of every Arkham game. Also don't forget the inFAMOUS series too.

I also agree Pikmin was forward thinking and that DOTA wasn't the first, but my principal concern is impact/popularization. Dota is the primary source of inspiration for the MOBAs that came thereafter.

Nintendo DS definitely made a huge impact in terms of touch controls, so I agree on that end. I still don't think the Wii's motion controls will matter in the long run. Yes it caused a temporary shift in the landscape, but motion controls have so many limitations. They're used in VR to help immersion, but you just can't use them for such a big chunk of gaming. It's clunky with FPS, can't use it for complicated RTS, absolutely won't work with MOBAs, etc.

I also didn't consider the fact that Wii helped establish the modern casual market. That's a good point. I don't think it did much to remove the stigma that games are for children, but it did help introduce gaming experiences to a very wide audience.

Avatar image for XVision84
#82 Posted by XVision84 (14469 posts) -
@osan0 said:

@xantufrog: @goldenelementxl: i dont agree with either of you. The most effective way to get 60FPS across the board is for MS, sony and nintendo to insist on it: i.e. 60FPS locked or the game doesnt release on the console.

every single last device currently on the market is capable of delivering 1080P and 60FPS (ok except maybe the vita and 3DS due to res output limits). they just cant do it when developers throw the kitchen sink at them.

if manufacturers put a better CPU and/or GPU in their console what the developer going to do? throw more sinks at them...then find some ovens to throw at them too.

policy, not hardware, is how the framerate problem is solved. MS, sony and nintendo have to insist on it even if it means ubisofts, EAs and R*s latest AAA blockbuster gets delayed (though if it's clear from day 1 that 60FPS is a must, not a nice to have then it shouldnt be an issue).

should they push for that? that's another discussion. pushing for it would come with its own price.

as for the topic: BOTW is the more recent example. xenoblade chronicles on the wii also gave the JRPG a big kick up the backside (Square have admitted that it made them go back and have a look at what they were doing).

the DS was the catalyst for touch screen gaming (you could play games on touch screens on other devices like palm assistants but it was an afterthought). hell you could argue that the genesis for the modern approach of touch UI design started on the DS (a lot more interactive and such like. a lot of swiping and drawing).

the switch has really delivered on sonys vision of handheld gaming...oddly enough. sony always wanted to bring the console experience to handhelds. the PSP and vita were very impressive bits of kit but they never quite delivered on what sony wanted (on the vita front i would argue that that was more due to sonys lack of support than a hardware problem). the switch has pulled it off. visually it cant compete with an xbox1 or PS4 but in terms of the types of games they can play the switch can play the same types of games. they didnt make doom a 2D side scroller. they didnt make skyrim a top down rpg. it's the full fat console experience in your hand. zelda BOTW is a massive game and it looks and runs better than the wiiu version. xenoblade 2 is the same with hours of music and loads of voice acting too. on a device you can hold in your hands. thats what sony wanted to do. thats what nintendo have delivered. handhelds pushed forwards.

finally this is more an area of holding the line than pushing forward: keeping as true as possible to the core console experience. i put my cart in, i press on the games icon and im playing the game. no 50GB patches. no lengthy installs. no BS basically. i put the media in and it works. Loading is also quick. it's not always the case on switch in fairness (doom and LA noire do have large downloads to play as i understand it) but nintendo seem to be the last bastion of keeping the nonsense to a minimum. the UI is sleek and fast. games load quickly. any patches are generally small. they just keep the number of barriers between you and the game to a minimum.

Policy is the only way we will get consistent 60fps on consoles for sure. I think that @xantufrog was referring to the CPU being a bigger limiting factor at lower resolutions. I've found the same with my PC and I've heard the same regarding current gen consoles. This is why, at lower resolutions, benchmarks for RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti and GTX 1080 Ti are quite similar (if CPU isn't a bottleneck). Their differences don't significantly show until you reach 1440p-4k resolutions.

I don't think there should be policy at all. Keep it the developers decision. I'm perfectly happy with devs have the extra power to push great experiences in 30fps.

I think the 50GB patches/lengthy installs are inevitable unless we get into cloud gaming or get SSD's in consoles.

Avatar image for Phazevariance
#83 Edited by Phazevariance (12326 posts) -

If next generation, the PS5 and Xbox 2 were both capable of more power than the current gen AND being portable, that would be a major sell for me.

BoTW pushed not only open world design, and control, but physics also. The physics engine in that game is truly inspiring, and giving you the core tools to run about and interact with it was pretty brilliant. How awesome is it to collect arrows that missed their targets after a battle, or enemy arrows that missed you?

Hot and cold temperatures that you can get around with tricks like being able to stay warm just by equipping a fire based weapon, or being able to cook your food by dropping it on the ground on death mountain, and letting the heat from the mountain cook the food.

Weapons, items, everything feels grounded in the game, in that you can smash an enemy and have him stumble and drop his weapon or shield, then pick it up before they do so you have an advantage in the fight. You can shoot apples out of trees, and the arrows remain in the fruit which can be collected once you pickup the fruit.

Need some fire? Just drop flint and a bundle of wood on the ground and strike the flint with a metal weapon igniting the wood. Boom, fire. Pull out regular arrows, and touch the fire with them, now you have a fire arrow. Everything in the world seems to interact in ways you pretty much expect them to, sometimes even surprising you that it works the way you hoped it would.

These physics need to be in every game from now on, because they add largely to the realism and gameplay.

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
#84 Posted by Kali-B1rd (1518 posts) -
@PurpleMan5000 said:

Breath of the Wild showed how open world games should be made. That was in 2017, so fairly recent.

Showed who exactly?

Because I found it bland and empty.... I don't think it was enough of a jump to make it "the best way to make open world" ... I'd happily stick with the Elder Scrolls or Kingdom Come method... far more freedom and flexibility..... just more interesting in general.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#85 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

AI is bad because we are being held by the shitty CPUs in consoles this gen. You've proven my point.

Good hardware is a benefit to games, I don't understand how anyone but a crazed zealot can argue otherwise. My point stands and you haven't shown why having weak hardware is okay. Nintendo games are great but they'd be even better if they had better hardware supporting them.

Excuses. You said power improves AI.

AI is as dumb as ever.

And BOTW has some of the best in game physics. It's practically a physics playground, if you can dream it, the game can probably do it.

All without the precious power people seem to tout so much.

No they wouldn't be better. Nintendo innovates where it counts, game design and gameplay.

Graphics only rarely move forward enough to allow great leaps in game design, that happens maybe once every four console cycles.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you or are you literally this dumb?

Do you not know what is responsible for AI? It's the CPU. We haven't made any improvements in CPUs this gen that's why AI is dumb. MS and Sony decided to use weak Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 that are even weaker than the CELL processor from last gen. Since all games are made with PS4 and XB1 in mind we have been held back back the limitations of their weak CPUs this gen and haven't been able to move forward. There is no way to argue that better CPUs wouldn't improve AI and physics, you have to be in complete denial or just plain stupid to argue otherwise. You're a hardcore Nintendo zealot, I get that but stop making stupid arguments to defend them, it's not working and you're only embarrassing yourself. Nintendo's great games would be even better if they had better hardware, there's no arguing around this.

And not a single game has smart AI. For all the graphics power they tout.

AI is even dumb on PC.

So really, you may live in the future where AI is finally smart but in 2018 it's as dumb as it ever was and ever has been.

I like how you omitted physics too in your little rant. Are you going to keep pretending that I didn't mention only AI but physics as well or are you scared I'll destroy you with physics examples? You're not going anywhere with your argument, you're only proving my argument and digging yourself deeper. AI was making steady improvements every gen until this gen and it's due to shitty CPUs right now. I have no doubt that next gen will see a strong boost in AI. We're already seeing devs like Cloud Imperium trying to push the limits of AI in their tech demos for Star Citizen since they aren't limited by console development. Once consoles catch up next gen, AI will improve greatly across the board and you'll be left looking dumb trying to defend poor hardware. I like good gameplay above everything else but it's stupid to argue that a game can't be improved by making it for better hardware, your damage control for Nintendo's poor hardware is weak at best and foolish at its worst.

BOTW has better physics then most games.

But keep ignoring that while you're jerking off to your graphic cards.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#86 Posted by xantufrog (10097 posts) -

@XVision84: exactly, I wasn't making too complicated a point. And I agree, I think how the resources in these is used should be up to the developers.

Avatar image for Jag85
#87 Edited by Jag85 (12408 posts) -
@XVision84 said:

@Jag85: The multiplicative gameplay may be a term I am confusing, but your original statement "objects react to the player's actions and the objects themselves also influence each other" is something I saw plenty of in RDR2. If it also involves physics/chemistry then I see your point. That would be quite influential from BotW and hopefully we will see more of that in the next gen. I still cannot see RDR2 as a step backward in open world design, simply due to how real its world feels and how it does away with a lot of typical open world mechanics.

Splatoon sales were certainly great, but I wouldn't call that a large scale social backing. What I mean by that is it reaches out to the most casual of gamers. Almost every person I have ever spoken to knows about/has played fortnite or overwatch. This reflects in their sales numbers too (overwatch is at 40 million accounts and fortnite 100 million+). The same cannot be said for Splatoon, heck even dedicated gamers I know of don't know what Splatoon is. I understand that the small sample isn't indicative of the overall population, but I stand by my statement that I strongly doubt Splatoon has had the influential cultural impact across generations that overwatch/fortnite did. Furthermore, I would also argue Team Fortress was the big "cartoony/over the top" shooter rather than Splatoon. Overwatch took direct inspiration from Team Fortress 2, some heroes are almost a straight up copy of TF2 characters.

I agree the vast majority were fighting games, but there is going to be much more in the future (as Marvel has confirmed). Marvel's decision to do this was of course influenced by the monumental success of every Arkham game. Also don't forget the inFAMOUS series too.

I also agree Pikmin was forward thinking and that DOTA wasn't the first, but my principal concern is impact/popularization. Dota is the primary source of inspiration for the MOBAs that came thereafter.

Nintendo DS definitely made a huge impact in terms of touch controls, so I agree on that end. I still don't think the Wii's motion controls will matter in the long run. Yes it caused a temporary shift in the landscape, but motion controls have so many limitations. They're used in VR to help immersion, but you just can't use them for such a big chunk of gaming. It's clunky with FPS, can't use it for complicated RTS, absolutely won't work with MOBAs, etc.

I also didn't consider the fact that Wii helped establish the modern casual market. That's a good point. I don't think it did much to remove the stigma that games are for children, but it did help introduce gaming experiences to a very wide audience.

If RDR2 came in the pre-BOTW era of open-world design, then it would not be a step backwards. But now in the post-BOTW era of open-world design, it is a step backwards compared to what BOTW has achieved. It will also be interesting to see how future games implement chemistry engines, something that BOTW pioneered.

Those Overwatch and Fortnite numbers are not sales, but player numbers. Overwatch's numbers include free trial accounts, while Fortnite is entirely F2P, whereas Splatoon's numbers are entirely sales. But the point is about impact, not sales. After TF2, there was a long hiatus after it, with hardly any other popular cartoony shooters until Splatoon. It was only after Splatoon that we started seeing a flood of popular cartoony online shooters follow in its wake, including the likes of Overwatch and Fortnite. But if we go back to the origins, then it was actually Sega AM2 that created the hero-shooter genre, with an Arcade & Dreamcast shooter called Outtrigger (much like how the Sega Mega Drive game Herzog Zwei was the grandaddy of MOBA).

Upcoming superhero games owe more to the success of Spider-Man PS4 than they do to Arkham. The success of Arkham didn't lead to any such growth in single-player superhero games for a long time, up until the success of Spider-Man PS4, which is now inspiring Marvel to invest in more superhero games. Whether it's movies or games, DC hasn't had much impact on the superhero genre for the last decade (with DC's "dark & edgy" style largely unpopular with superhero fans nowadays). Also, not sure if we could consider Infamous to be a superhero game, or else we might have to start calling the likes of Bayonetta and Devil May Cry superhero games as well (although I did include DBFZ as a superhero game, but only because Goku is widely considered the anime Superman).

For VR gaming to take off, motion controls are a necessity, since non-motion controls would be immersion-breaking. RTS and MOBA wouldn't work well with VR, but FPS could evolve with VR and motion controls, but it's just a matter of developers implementing it well enough.

Speaking of VR, another big point I forgot to mention earlier: Pokemon Go popularized augmented reality (AR). Before Pokemon Go came along, most of the mainstream public didn't have a clue what AR was. But after Pokemon Go, AR suddenly become mainstream. While Sony has been struggling to push VR, Nintendo has been far more successful in pushing AR.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#88 Posted by cainetao11 (35697 posts) -

@XVision84 said:
@cainetao11 said:
@XVision84 said:

@cainetao11: I don't take advice from comedians :P. It matters very much that everybody followed, that's what a fad is. All the kids "followed" the fidget spinner fad. Don't see it nowadays. Same with motion controls. Sony barely bothers with it in their E3 conferences anymore, just like Microsoft isn't bothering with Kinect moving forward.

None of this negates what happened. Nintendo pushed it forward with motion controls. Now they are with a hybrid console. Don't like? I don't care.

WOAH there caine, don't go sassy teenager on me. I don't think I can handle all that angst x_x

Seeing as you just repeated your point and didn't address anything I said in any productive way whatsoever, I'm going to assume you aren't able/willing to :P

LMAO run with it pal

Avatar image for 93BlackHawk93
#89 Edited by 93BlackHawk93 (8570 posts) -

BotW pushed the open world format forward in terms of gameplay and mechanics.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#90 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (27401 posts) -

@kali-b1rd: I love skyrim but climbing a mountain will always be better than walking around it and skyrim has so many damn mountains. Good grief.

Avatar image for dreman999
#91 Edited by dreman999 (11256 posts) -

The switch

/end thread

Avatar image for kenshiro3948
#92 Edited by kenshiro3948 (390 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@kenshiro3948 said:

Is reading comprehension a problem for you or are you literally this dumb?

Do you not know what is responsible for AI? It's the CPU. We haven't made any improvements in CPUs this gen that's why AI is dumb. MS and Sony decided to use weak Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 that are even weaker than the CELL processor from last gen. Since all games are made with PS4 and XB1 in mind we have been held back back the limitations of their weak CPUs this gen and haven't been able to move forward. There is no way to argue that better CPUs wouldn't improve AI and physics, you have to be in complete denial or just plain stupid to argue otherwise. You're a hardcore Nintendo zealot, I get that but stop making stupid arguments to defend them, it's not working and you're only embarrassing yourself. Nintendo's great games would be even better if they had better hardware, there's no arguing around this.

And not a single game has smart AI. For all the graphics power they tout.

AI is even dumb on PC.

So really, you may live in the future where AI is finally smart but in 2018 it's as dumb as it ever was and ever has been.

I like how you omitted physics too in your little rant. Are you going to keep pretending that I didn't mention only AI but physics as well or are you scared I'll destroy you with physics examples? You're not going anywhere with your argument, you're only proving my argument and digging yourself deeper. AI was making steady improvements every gen until this gen and it's due to shitty CPUs right now. I have no doubt that next gen will see a strong boost in AI. We're already seeing devs like Cloud Imperium trying to push the limits of AI in their tech demos for Star Citizen since they aren't limited by console development. Once consoles catch up next gen, AI will improve greatly across the board and you'll be left looking dumb trying to defend poor hardware. I like good gameplay above everything else but it's stupid to argue that a game can't be improved by making it for better hardware, your damage control for Nintendo's poor hardware is weak at best and foolish at its worst.

BOTW has better physics then most games.

But keep ignoring that while you're jerking off to your graphic cards.

lol, keep believing whatever helps you sleep at night.

Spoken like a consolite pleb.

Avatar image for XVision84
#93 Posted by XVision84 (14469 posts) -

@Jag85: You can very well be right about Splatoon, but I still have my doubts because TF2/Overwatch/Fortnite have recently made such big waves in the industry (TF2 not so recent but its reign in PC gaming was quite long lasting). I cannot deny your points because they do stand as possibilities (and I don't have the facts to show otherwise), but I do doubt Splatoon was so influential. Not once in the past 15 years that I've been gaming did I see any substantial news surrounding Splatoon (and I follow gaming news regularly). Fortnite, on the other hand, is absolutely everywhere. Overwatch had its moment of popularity too (still popular but not so much coverage anymore). Also, to your player count point, those numbers are so ridiculously high that even if you shave them in half (assuming half the people were from trial, which is still way more than I would believe) they still dwarf Splatoon's numbers. Whether devs took inspiration from Splatoon is hard to say but definitely something I can see as possible.

I agree that Spiderman PS4 is a bigger pushing force forward because it's Marvels first huge success in gaming. However, they did take clear inspirations from Arkham in gameplay, and I strongly doubt that Marvel didn't look upon Arkham when they were considering their push to gaming. Perhaps Marvel didn't want to let DC take over the gaming market first? That's just speculation of course. Either way, DC is getting clobbered on all fronts by Marvel. I'd certainly consider Infamous a superhero game. It's open world and is all about superpowers/heroes. DmC and Bayonetta are more like fantasy action adventure, their themes don't rely heavily on the "superhero" nature (aka personal life vs hero, origin story, what to do with power, etc.). DBFZ doesn't have that either. You can associate them with superheroes in some ways, but their identity does not hinge on it, whereas inFAMOUS was wholly made as a superhero game. Its entire identity is that. Injustice is a fighting game first and foremost that uses superheroes/their backstories as its characters, so even that I'd be willing to accept isn't mainly a superhero game.

I do not see how motion controls can possibly accommodate all genres regardless of implementation. I've played FPS games with PSVR before and they do "work" but nowhere near the degree of KB/M. It's less smooth/stable than console controllers too. It's certainly do-able for the fun value, but can you really incorporate complex gameplay mechanics with such a system? If they manage to secure a way of having motion controls with more inputs and precision, then I'll admit I was wrong. For now, I hold my doubts. I'd wager that the immersion of VR has way more to do with the 3D effect/full vision view than the method of control.

Is AR really all that popular? Pokemon Go was huge for sure, but I don't see it bleeding into other areas. Honestly the only popular AR example I know is Pokemon Go (I could just be out of the loop here). Whereas with VR, I've seen it being incorporated in movie experiences, scientific research, gaming (not just Sony but PC too), etc.

Avatar image for vaidream45
#94 Posted by Vaidream45 (1443 posts) -

The Wii one is obvious but they honestly just did it last year by creating the first hybrid console. Say what you want about Nintendo but the Switch is a friggin genius design and execution.

Avatar image for PSP107
#95 Posted by PSP107 (17284 posts) -

@KBFloYd: "hardwarewise they created the first ever hybrid console."

But SNES was their last great console.

Avatar image for Jag85
#96 Posted by Jag85 (12408 posts) -
@XVision84 said:

@Jag85: You can very well be right about Splatoon, but I still have my doubts because TF2/Overwatch/Fortnite have recently made such big waves in the industry (TF2 not so recent but its reign in PC gaming was quite long lasting). I cannot deny your points because they do stand as possibilities (and I don't have the facts to show otherwise), but I do doubt Splatoon was so influential. Not once in the past 15 years that I've been gaming did I see any substantial news surrounding Splatoon (and I follow gaming news regularly). Fortnite, on the other hand, is absolutely everywhere. Overwatch had its moment of popularity too (still popular but not so much coverage anymore). Also, to your player count point, those numbers are so ridiculously high that even if you shave them in half (assuming half the people were from trial, which is still way more than I would believe) they still dwarf Splatoon's numbers. Whether devs took inspiration from Splatoon is hard to say but definitely something I can see as possible.

I agree that Spiderman PS4 is a bigger pushing force forward because it's Marvels first huge success in gaming. However, they did take clear inspirations from Arkham in gameplay, and I strongly doubt that Marvel didn't look upon Arkham when they were considering their push to gaming. Perhaps Marvel didn't want to let DC take over the gaming market first? That's just speculation of course. Either way, DC is getting clobbered on all fronts by Marvel. I'd certainly consider Infamous a superhero game. It's open world and is all about superpowers/heroes. DmC and Bayonetta are more like fantasy action adventure, their themes don't rely heavily on the "superhero" nature (aka personal life vs hero, origin story, what to do with power, etc.). DBFZ doesn't have that either. You can associate them with superheroes in some ways, but their identity does not hinge on it, whereas inFAMOUS was wholly made as a superhero game. Its entire identity is that. Injustice is a fighting game first and foremost that uses superheroes/their backstories as its characters, so even that I'd be willing to accept isn't mainly a superhero game.

I do not see how motion controls can possibly accommodate all genres regardless of implementation. I've played FPS games with PSVR before and they do "work" but nowhere near the degree of KB/M. It's less smooth/stable than console controllers too. It's certainly do-able for the fun value, but can you really incorporate complex gameplay mechanics with such a system? If they manage to secure a way of having motion controls with more inputs and precision, then I'll admit I was wrong. For now, I hold my doubts. I'd wager that the immersion of VR has way more to do with the 3D effect/full vision view than the method of control.

Is AR really all that popular? Pokemon Go was huge for sure, but I don't see it bleeding into other areas. Honestly the only popular AR example I know is Pokemon Go (I could just be out of the loop here). Whereas with VR, I've seen it being incorporated in movie experiences, scientific research, gaming (not just Sony but PC too), etc.

Of course Fortnite is getting the most coverage now since it's the newest kid on the block. Last year it was PUBG, the year before that Overwatch, and the year before that Splatoon. And each newer kid that came on the block was bigger than the last (Overwatch bigger than Splatoon, then PUBG even bigger, and now Fortnite). But it's Splatoon that started the chain. Splatoon was the first major online shooter primarily targeted towards a "kiddie" audience (in typical Nintendo fashion). That's something we see today in Fortnite, which is also primarily targeted towards a "kiddie" audience, and not something we saw from online shooters before Splatoon. It was only after Splatoon that we started seeing online shooters targeted towards "kiddie" audiences, with bright colourful cartoony visuals, over-the-top physics, and non-macho leading characters.

I'm pretty sure Spider-Man PS4 may have taken cues from Arkham. But Arkham also took cues from Spider-Man 2 before it (and Prince of Persia's combat). But much like how Spider-Man 2 stood in isolation for years, so did Arkham for many years. It's only with the success of Spider-Man PS4 now that we may finally see more AAA superhero games. Whether it's for superhero movies or superhero games, it's Marvel (and Sony) that's the driving force, not DC. As for Infamous, I haven't really played it, so didn't know it was a superhero game. As for DBZ, Goku has been regarded as the Japanese Superman for a long time now (hence the endless Goku vs. Superman debates).

VR with KB/M is immersion-breaking. The only way you can get real VR immersion is with motion controls. When Oculus kickstarted the VR revival, it was created with motion controls in mind. That's the way VR is meant to be played. But sure, we haven't yet seen great examples of it at present, but that comes down to developers making effective use of the technology. VR with motion controls could potentially be the future of FPS, but only if developers of the future actually put the effort into it. But VR is unlikely to be the future of strategy games, which will always work better on a monitor with KB/M.

As for AR, that's still a young technology, unlike VR which was around for decades (in gaming, since Sega VR back in the early '90s). It's too soon to say what AR could hold for the future. There's recently been a Harry Potter AR game, and there's news of Disney making a Star Wars AR game, and there's several other AR game projects in the works. There has also been plenty of scientific research on AR. And there's also Google Glass, which if successful could open the door for more AR gaming experiences, and potentially revolutionize aspects of daily life (like what's shown in the Accel World anime show, and to an extent the Sword Art Online movie).

Avatar image for Litchie
#97 Posted by Litchie (22659 posts) -

Definitely BotW. That's how you do open world right. Other devs really should take note or we'll be playing Ubisoft's checklist games for all eternity.

Avatar image for wiiboxstation
#98 Edited by Wiiboxstation (1364 posts) -

Joy Cons

Switch Hybrid Console

Breath of the Wild game

Mario Odyssey greatness

Avatar image for dr_vancouver
#99 Posted by Dr_Vancouver (1002 posts) -

Switch launch, same day as BotW launch. Boom, industry changed.

Avatar image for pelvist
#100 Edited by pelvist (7198 posts) -
@jcrame10 said:
@XVision84 said:

@KBFloYd: @PurpleMan5000: Metascores just show that the game is high quality, they don't show that the game has changed something.

I don't doubt that Breath of the Wild was excellent, but what did it do that raised the bar?

Red Dead Redemption 2 has dynamic NPC interaction to a degree never seen before in a game of it's size. Arthur interacts with almost every single item dynamically and with no loading screens. Blood, scratches, dirt, tiredness, it all accumulates and is noticed by everybody and can be dealt with realistically. The detail is insane. Let's also not forget that it's graphically beautiful while being in the biggest world Rockstar has created.

Breath of the Wild showed a game with a big boring overworld full of nothing can still sell millions of copies because Nintendo and because Zelda.

seriously, the game has like 6 dungeons or something in it total. that's it. i never finished it or picked it up again after a month.

BOTW has ~124 unique dungeons, not including the master sword trials.