Recently I saw a commercial for Brutal Legend that ended with the words "Available on all Next-Gen systems". Besides the obvious, it being 3 years into the generation, I was annoyed by this phrase because of what it meant for our definition of "next-gen".
Obviously it meant that the game wasn't available for Wii, but in the 1 or 2 seconds they saved by saying it that way instead of "Available on the PS3 and Xbox 360", they set the gaming community back by miles.
The only differences that could possibly cause the Wii to not count as "next-gen" are motion control, and graphics. Are these things that we want to define the entirety of a generation? If the console attempts to jump graphics forward from the last generation, then that counts as next-gen? And if it features a new way to play our games, then it doesn't?
I don't think that motion control is the future of gaming, but the distinction that the Wii isn't part of this generation didn't sit well with me. So I decided to see what other gamers felt about this, and I turned to Bitmob to find out.
For the most part, everyone agreed that the Wii should be counted as a part of this generation, but there was one comment from Andrew J. Hiscock that completely changed the way I was thinking about this issue.
The Wii is a no-gen.
Video games will now enter a world trailblazed by Apple (at least in modern
times in terms of consumer electronics). Everything is going to be iterative
from now on. We've seen it with the Wii (fully backwards compatible), the DSi
(ditto), and the PSP Go (same). Instead of a full on transition, you'll see new
technology embracing the old... Maybe the Game Boy to Game Boy Color is good
example as well...?
All of a sudden, everything was clear to me. We've heard talk about this sort of thing for awhile now. The rumors swirl that the next Xbox won't be a brand new system, but instead an iteration of the 360 with Project Natal integrated within it. So why are we still clinging to our traditional ideas of the console generations?
If the Xbox rumor proves true, and Nintendo releases a Wii HD instead of an entirely new system, but Sony still comes out with the PS4, will that be the only next-gen system on the market? Of course not. We need to just abandon the word generation when referring to our video games.
Since the Atari 2600, every new gaming generation has made leaps and bounds in the graphics department. Those days are over. We are perilously close to the top of the uncanny valley. When we make it out, there will be no where else to go in the way of graphics. Our systems will be incremental changes, with new features and controller technology instead of visual splendor.
The whole issue strikes me as immature and stubborn. By clinging onto the term next-gen this far into the generation simply to separate the Wii from the more powerful systems, we are showing our refusal to change our way of thinking. We need to either adjust what we think of as a generation of gaming, or do away with the term altogether. If we don't, we'll be left behind by the new next-gen.
Posts
2 comments:
Honestly I think the gamecube was not fully explored. Reminds me of the Big Bacon Classic from Wendy's Hold the pickles that not many people know about, but might be forgetable after eaten.
The reason that gamers traditionally don't refer to Wii as "next-gen" is simply because of the association of increase in horsepower with the turn of a generation. If there really is a new definition of "generations," gamer reaction will change accordingly.
I do agree with you that we're headed to a new kinds of generations that will be measured by functionality and not by horsepower upgrades. However, I don't think the line of "generations" should blur out completely, because we still need firm definitions of successor (as opposed to expansion of existing hardware, like with Natal and Sony's pseudo pickle-shaped PlayStation Eye wand for PS3).
Post a Comment