Nintendo and the demi-generation

[Jamba]

I have often thought how at the beginning of a gaming generation, a lot of devs get over swayed by the power of the new systems. They make "better" games by using cheap tricks like adding more characters per screen or increasing the pop-up distance. It is usually a very bad time for design.

 

Towards the end of a gen devs know the systems and the power has become standard. Designing better is the only way to out do the competition. Devs are constricted but it forces them to make some awesome work.

 

Nintendo like this, because they like ideas, concepts and design. This can lead to a game having good visuals even if it has bad graphics. You get me?

 

Nintendo taking it's new approach does several things:

1. It makes developing cheap and therefore will attract small dev teams, the ones commonly known to be harbouring great ideas. This could lead to fantastic 3rd party support.

2. It forces the devs to think about game content, rather than getting distracted by new technology.

3. It says NO to the progression into the new generation.

 

Demi generation Nintendo in is.

 

Better to be bought exclusively by a small crowd or to be bought by almost everyone as a second console, or by those non-gamers that look at it and go "Less than £100? I'll give it a whirl..."?

[Kav]

...3. It says NO to the progression into the new generation...

 

This quote is completely wrong! If anything the Revolution is more "next-gen" than the PS3 or Xbox360.

 

Demi-generation? kind of a half step into next-gen?...

 

To me a brand new control system and ideas seems NEXT-gen and same games with only better graphics only seems the half step!

[thomaschung]

i agree with the last post. it's not codenamed revolution for nothing u know.

[Jamba]

I'll clarify that.

 

To me generations have been defined by technological upgrades. What I'm trying to say is that Nintendo seems to be trying to dispense with that system.

 

I'd prefer it if people described generations "post- (insert game concept)". For instance, 3D gaming post LoZ:OOT. The Z-targetting completely changed everything...

[Nevahom]

I understand what you're saying. The quality of games seems to be affected with the advent new technology, devs treat it more like a race and sometimes forget that point of the game is to grab your attention, play with your imagination and make you want to play it for 12 hours at a time, not just look good or have some interesting new quirks or technology. Gameplay is more important than people seem to give it credit for.

[quich_delvyn]

game qualtily should go up with the revolution

[DCK]

Actually generation-wise is defined by technology. If they'd release the Rev controller for the Cube like they seemed to originally plan it wouldn't suddenly go up one generation, would it? If the specs stay like this, I think the Revolution would be considered 4th generation rather than 5th. I still need to see the games though.

[Innovance]

Actually generation-wise is defined by technology. If they'd release the Rev controller for the Cube like they seemed to originally plan it wouldn't suddenly go up one generation, would it? If the specs stay like this, I think the Revolution would be considered 4th generation rather than 5th. I still need to see the games though.

 

so which generation was dreamcast?

[Noku]

The only thing that defines a "generation" of consoles, is the market: when it is saturated, the companies must find new ways to earn new money. The result? Next-gen.

[DCK]

so which generation was dreamcast?

I think that it can be considered the very bottom of the 4th generation. Whether the Rev will be top 4th gen or bottom 5th gen remains to be seen.

[Charlie]

so which generation was dreamcast?

 

The Dreamcast is current generation (GC/PS2/Xbox) I think.