I wrote this piece a while back for a video gaming site and I figured you all might get something out of it. ----- Before you read this please believe me when I say that I am first and foremost, a gamer. I own each of the three current-generation consoles (PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube) and I will most definitely own each of next-generation consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii). A good game is a good game, period. This is true regardless of which system you may believe is superior or which system you believe, as a whole, has higher quality games. Please take this into consideration as I offer my opinions of current trends. ----- At E3 2005 easily one of the biggest controversies was the debate over whether or not the PS3 Killzone trailer was in fact real-time. Over the course of the following year it became relatively obvious that it wasn't, though that question was never answered to my satisfaction. Sony claimed from the beginning that it was real-time and never recanted. Whereas, the European CG effects group who claimed to have done the project said that is was not real-time but was to the specifications given to them by Sony who said would be able to run in real-time. But let us assume, for the moment, that the footage was not run in real-time nor could the PS3 run it in real-time. But ask yourself this question: How far away are we from being able to run that level of real-time graphics? 5 years? 10 years? At least by the standard that we can conceivably judge with our own two eyes. I think most would agree that that kind of graphical performance is coming, and relatively soon. The important question at that point is what happens next? Seriously, what then? The possibilities for full photo-realistic graphical performance of these machines are finite no matter which way you choose to look it. Sooner or later everything will have the quality of photo-realism. Consider what will happen at that point. Photo-realism will then become the standard for all gaming. Suddenly the gamer's way by which he/she judges games will shift, and naturally so. Our focus with begin to concentrate more on the game's design rather than how pretty it will look. Of course we'll have different graphical characteristics and different games will create different environments. But from that point innovation is the real key. Blurring the genres and coming up with new ideas of what a video game is will be the key to success in the video game world. We'll come back to that point. Of course this already occurs. Of course we don't judge a game simply on looks alone. But the current emphasis on it is extremely heavy, and probably the biggest standard by which we judge. Enter the Big Three (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo). It is extraordinarily clear to most what Sony and Microsoft are focused on for their next generation of consoles, raw power. They fought the same fight six years ago with the current generation. Each system constantly trying to 1up (no pun intended) each other for which game system looks better. Some would say Sony's PS2 and others would say Microsoft's Xbox. In the end, at least my opinion, the difference between the two is minuscule at best. Nintendo didn't enter the fray much; they just tried to develop innovative quality titles, and some good-looking ones at that. And after the dust settled, by Nintendo's own admission, the Gamecube failed as a console. (By the way, they didn't actually lose money on that hardware. Nor have they ever lost money on any new system they have developed. They just didn't sell as many units as the other two.) Now here we are again, hearing the same song and dance from both Microsoft and Sony. The epic battle continues over which system can run more polygons in real-time. And in my opinion the same thing will happen once more. Both companies will develop some quality titles that both look amazing, but there will be no clear graphical winner. But this time... Could it be that Nintendo is choosing not to fight? Could it be that the winning move is not to play? The graphical power of the Wii is about on par with the current generation, no distinguishable graphical change. They aren't even touching what graphical power of the Wii could be. The emphasis is clearly on a new way to play video games. It is a new platform where developers can come up with an entirely new framework for their games. Now back to the earlier point. I believe that this move is much more than trying to reach a broader audience, though they are definitely trying to do that. It is also because they believe that innovative ideas are the keys to success in the gaming world. Quite honestly though, Nintendo may be buried under the flag of innovation. The risk with such a philosophy is huge. Nintendo may have just eliminated most of their core gamers only to go with the standard controllers on other systems. Maybe people do not want to spend two hours or more moving around their living room? And if Nintendo does not reach some baseline level of quality graphics then they may just be edged out of the console hardware business and then have to go directly to software, not unlike Sega. Not like they couldn't be perfectly happy there. The intellectual property they have for games easily wins over the other two systems (Yes, even more than Halo and GTA and Fable). Not to mention Nintendo’s portable successes. BUT, if Nintendo's timing is just right then we may have a new market leader in video game world. They will be light-years ahead of the competition when Sony and Microsoft realize that they can no longer improve on how detailed a character's face is while being shot or they can't make the jungle any more animated. Thank you for reading for reading. | 
