I'm seriously getting sick of this next gen BS. I don't care about how much faster the processor or GPU is compared to the other guys. I want solid games that are fun and that 10 years from now I will find myself playing, not a bunch of hit and miss crap. Smaller dev companies make some killer games compared to alot of the mainstream crap that gets spewed from EA, Activision, MS Studios and the other giants. I'm tired of the repeat games that hold no substance like the last 3 Zelda games, Halo2, Megaman X5678, and all those other crap franchises.
Give me a game that has the substance of Quake 2, Half-Life, Halo, A Link to the Past, GTA, FFVII, MGS and Doom. If some one could mash all the good qualities of those games together I'm sure no small developer, or big one would have any problem making a hit game*unique*. Balance is a good game not just good graphics , sound, or f-ing gameplay it's all of those things blended like a beautiful video game margarita that says "Drink me b*tch!"

I find it interesting that the "critical" genres are sports, first-person shooters, and racing. Maybe it's time to put out some ANALysts.

Then again, I also find it interesting that Revolution is expected in the spring, while PS3 is expected in the fall.. certainly good news for Nintendo if true, and bad for Microsoft and Sony.

Perhaps what the little guys could do is just simply quit worring. Yeah, the next gen. consoles are here, but who on Earth has over $750 for an XBOX 360? If I were them, it would make a few more games for the past consoles and build up some revenue. So what if they don't get started now. I getting sick and tired of powerful, super HD graphics and sound. I'd rather play games that have good stories over that. That's why I'm buying a Nintendo Revolution since Nintendo doesn't put graphics first. I just think everyone in the gamming industry keeps getting dumber and dumber.

no doubt about it , the game market, its going to have to evolve too, no just the games (graphics), having a higher cost of production, means that you as a game manufacturer have to put a lot of time and effort in a game , to make it a decent game , no more **** games (trucker games anyone???) , yeah its a risk for small companies but from here on they better deliver, I'am Tired of those games with a 45-50 price tag , that sucked, how would you think that make feel, if a game cost 60-65 bucks better be a good game, or its going to sit on store shelves

It certainly will be tough for the smaller development teams to get out there and come out with something original. I'm even more worried now that I've seen the Psychonauts, A Time Schaefer game, get so much commerical hate.

Great news for nintendo then

There's the 360 arcade...

Here's my take - just an opinion!

a) Console developers release new consoles to drive the growth in the video games market.

b) Technically, if the video games market is growing, large companies can look to greater sales (on branded/genre games) in order to justify increased development costs.

c) Additionally, console makers have reduced incentive to try and reduce development costs for developers, and increased incentives to provide features consumers will like; hence the reason the consoles do more than "just play games".

d) Smaller developers *can* release for the new consoles using e.g. Xbox 360's download capability, which eliminates distribution costs and increases shelf life of product. The games obviously are less "polished" but can cater to niche audiences (e.g. those who really just wanted to play Bejewelled on their TV using their remote).

Essentially, console makers aim to drive console sales, then rely on big manufacturers to make "market establishing" games (and killer apps) which will then create a large enough customer base to mitigate development costs. Small developers can make cheaper properties with more limited sales ambitions, but by targetting a larger install base still make a return.

Its going to get easier as time goes on to make games alot of people talk about cost and dev of ps3 but its been the same way with ps1 and ps2 same things were said a bunch of titles were made and all that hatting washed away.

Are crappy games really something bad for the PC?
everyone can make a game for PC for free and i see there are good games for it..

A top game doesn't cost $30 million..its up to how they are developing it (+a license cost and a minimum number of workers to employ).
and you know- as there are more "crappy" games there are more top games..
there will be more developer teams that can make a game for the console and since every team* can make a top game (next-gen consoles only give the developers more possibilities but they doesnt improve the game), well you know- there may be more top games for the console (every team learn from reviews, or at least need to).
By the way, high cost also means less games for good companies.
After all, there are lists of top games and reviews, and best of all- free demos! so who cares if there are some crappy games.

Most of the "big" developers of the moment started out as small developers and simply happened to succeed big with some particular title. The first couple of GTAs didn't really set the world on fire. It wasn't until 3 that they hit on their current formula and made it big. Bungie's always done pretty well critically, but on the first couple of games they were just one, then two guys in their basement. Even when they had some serious success with the Marathon games...it was serious success for the Macintosh. Still pretty small in the scheme of things.

If you want to see something besides endless sequels and games that might as well be, the small developer needs to be able to access the market.

(I think the changeover from 2D to 3D was premature, personally. Early-gen 3D ALWAYS looked hideous. I can remember laughing at the LEGO people in FFVII back when my friend first acquired it lo these many years ago. And I've always thought the first couple of Quakes paled in comparison to 2D shooters like Hexen or the Build engine games. Well, the good Build engine games.)

Whilst there occasionally is good games from small developers, the vast majority of them suck, and even the good ones are usually just good because of some quirky feature or gimmicky and nothing that really lasts like a Metal Gear, a GTA, or a Halo. I don't see htis as a huge problem. Less krap on the shelves.

Somehow i see the revolution coming out and stealing the show away from the ps2 and 360, since it wouldn't be so flashy. Personally i rather see great game play, rather then fantastic graphics.

It's sad to note that rising development costs will eventually win out over innovation. Does this mean less games, more costs? Let us hope things like the Xbox LIVE Arcade helps in this matter.

Yo this i my look on things. Graphics may lure the hardcore gamer in but gameplay and plots may bring the big customers. I prefer to have a long game with great gameplay and mediocre graphics then some game with superblasted graphics, a mediocre story and a short game. i want uniqueness, originality, the same old can impress me but something with all this can really bring me in. and dlaqiun u r right, they overspend and replace old products with new more expensive equipment too fast.

I completely agree, trj156.
Everyone, stop blasting the FPS. There are many innovative FPSs. Look at Quake. Do you consider the jump from 2D to 3D better graphics? That's innovative. Halo. Grenade system, vehicles. There had been vehicles before, but not so refined. Quake 3 had insane multiplayer. Half-Life 2. The graphics were amazing, but look at the physics, AI, presentation. And the faces! This demonstrates how a company like Valve with 1 good game can survive.
This is also why I the PS3. Its just raw FLOPS. The Cell processor isn't for gaming, its for networking and making things look pretty. The PS3 won't be a gamer's machine. All pretty graphics and nothing else. No great AI, physics, etc. 7 processor cores!? That's hell to develop for. Its also mega-expensive .

graphics dont necessarily make the game, but they certainly help. one of the biggest problems i had with the ps one was that some of the games were actually hard to look at. all the pixelation and shifting polygons really took the concentration off the game. if a company is going to make a good game with a plot and excellent gameplay, why not make it look good too? start with the gameplay, finish with the graphics.

This is just what i love about DS and revolution. They arent focusing on making the games the prettiest but instead are focusing on innovation. DS is the first system in a while to have games that are not rpgs that i actually enjoy. On current gen systems apart from katamari, RE4,and the occasional Shadow of the Colosus, i find that most games that are not rpgs are not very fun or long lasting enough to be worth my money. DS On the other hand has given us meteos, Phoenix Wright, new animal crossing, and nintendogs to give fun game experiences besides the normal action/sports/racing/fps that we have to play besides my favorite the rpgs. I also think it will be a sad day if we only have bioware making their super shallow rpgs from the western front. I am very glad that we have titan's quest being developed because it looks like the kind of western rpg we have been needing, a quality deep, pretty, game and it even has the tools to make your own story centered areas so if someone wanted to they could make their own 50 hour quest as the dev in the interview states.

katamrai had marginal gfx, and was one of the best recent games imo. i know i still play all my old smes roms frequently, because i enjoy the stories and ideas that went into those games. not just the same old recycled game concep with slightly better gfx

Ferumfierek, because the masses are slobbering and conformist, a poll like that would unerringly result in "Graphics over gameplay", completely ignoring the fact that appearance and sound are integral to a game. Really, the "Graphics over gameplay" argument is heavily regurgitated and has no support in practice. You'll notice that the best-looking, best-sounding, best-funded games tend to be the funnest. They also happen to sell better. Tell me, did Resident Evil 4, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, and Wind Waker have good graphics? Were they fun?

there should be a gamespot poll on this:
which is more important, graphics or gameplay?

you mean sacrifice graphics for game play ?

and yes, next generation console raise the ceiling, not the floor, if you get what i mean.

when you say ' crappy teams ', are you talking about the people that bring us INNOVATIVE games like alien hominid and katamari damacy, or the prople that re-hash the same FPS game every year. this time its nazis, this time its zombies, next time its terrorists....>_>

ferumfierfek, you have expressed the thoughts of many. The key is to mind a balance between graphical touches and a well-developed core game. If the world isn't ready for the next-generation, perhaps publishers should just concentrate on making higher quality games with reduced costs, even if it means graphics that aren't so nice. I too will sacrifice gameplay for graphics anyday (although good graphics certainly heighten the overall experience significantly).

acuatlly, Stiker71, it means we will be seeing the same games over and over again, just with better graphics and larger budgets.

i say screw the graphics and high def. functionality!
really good games that endure the test of time are the ones bsed on good ideas, not spend-lots-of-money-and-push-the-limits-of-the-console graphics.
and yes, a game could have an awful plot and game play and still sell lots of copies just because it had the best graphics, but it will be quickly be replaced when a game with better graphics comes out.

graphics don't make good games, ideas do.

hopefully this mean all those stupid game just stop getting made so we only got top brand games....

The crying of the last generation is just loader now that we can all hear it. Thing will just go on as they have been doing and the crappy teams will fall and the Biowares will keep on trucking and making money.