Next Generation of Gaming: Evolution vs. Revolution

Another "Next Generation of Gaming" thread brought to you by Double A.

I've been thinking about this for a while, so basically my question is:
Do you think the three main developers should focus more on Evolution or Revolution in the Eighth generation of gaming? Also feel free to include reasons as to why you think so.

Let me elaborate:
A focus on Revolution is displayed by the Nintendo and the Wii (duh, revolution.). This is shown by a near-complete focus on the word innovation .

A focus on Evolution is displayed by the PS3 and the Xbox 360, in that they both have a major focus on power, and in many aspects are basically inproved versions of PS2 and Xbox1 consoles (not in any way meant to offend, infact this can actually be a good thing).

Revolution - Creation/utilization of newer gaming concepts
Evolution - Improvement of existing concepts and/or hardware

Personally, I believe that the roles of this generation will be reversed next generation (i.e. this gen Wii=Revolution. PS3, 360=Evolution /// next gen Wii 2=Evolution. PS3, 360=Revolution). I believe that this is because Microsoft and Sony will attempt to invade Nintendo's newfound casual audience while keeping their hardcore potential, and Nintendo, seeing the threat, will attempt to focus more on hardcore gamers.

Note that the key word is FOCUS

Revolution? I call it disruption. Seriously, Nintendo caters to a new crowd but this is by no means a revolutionary discovery, because these "casual" games have always existed, just not in plain view. You'd find them mostly online before the Wii came along.

You do know that through evolution revolution happens? The amount of things possible on cell processors and high end graphics chip certainly beat a waggle mote.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

Revolution? I call it disruption. Seriously, Nintendo caters to a new crowd but this is by no means a revolutionary discovery, because these "casual" games have always existed, just not in plain view. You'd find them mostly online before the Wii came along.

By revolution he probably means the Wii controls and such.

Originally Posted by L176

By revolution he probably means the Wii controls and such.

I wouldn't call that revolution (yet).

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

I wouldn't call that revolution (yet).

Then what is? It's enough of a revolution for now.

Since I own an XBOX360 and a Wii, I'd like from the next gen of consoles:

Nintendo
- Better graphics, at least at the level of early 360/PS3.
- Better motion controls (if used).
- Backwards compatibility with Wii games.

Screw its online, I don't care about it.

Microsoft
- A console I love like the 360, without having to worry about an inevitable **** up.
- Erm.. That's it really. The 360 is perfect, besides the console breaking all the time. Problem needs fixed.

EDIT: lol1k

Originally Posted by fratey

Then what is? It's enough of a revolution for now.

Motion controls? It would be a step ahead, but not really a downright revolution (in my eyes at least). Then again, that's not really the topic, so forget about it.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

You do know that through evolution revolution happens? The amount of things possible on cell processors and high end graphics chip certainly beat a waggle mote.

The PS2 and Xbox effectively "evolved" into the PS3 and 360. These are great consoles, I'm sure, but the concepts of better graphics and internet and better hardware are by no means revolutionary.

The Wii is considered revolutionary not because of the Motion-Sensing, but by how they are implemented.

WTF? Graphics only serve to make the game look better. And I'm sure that cell processors would not make an actual game that much better...

That "waggle mote" has more potential because it makes games easier, and there are more possibilities with motion control.

Originally Posted by Double A

The PS2 and Xbox effectively "evolved" into the PS3 and 360. These are great consoles, I'm sure, but the concepts of better graphics and internet and better hardware are by no means revolutionary.

The Wii is considered revolutionary not because of the Motion-Sensing, but by how they are implemented.

WTF? Graphics only serve to make the game look better. And I'm sure that cell processors would not make an actual game that much better...

You know more processing power allows developers more possibilities of what they are able to do with their games, right?

Yeah... A processor doesn't just make the game look pretty.

Originally Posted by Double A

That "waggle mote" has more potential because it makes games easier, and there are more possibilities with motion control.

And how is this a good thing?

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

You know more processing power allows developers more possibilities of what they are able to do with their games, right?

Exactly why people state that the PS3 and 360 are the better consoles, without looking at their libraries (Of course, it isn't as if the Wii's library is better. The 360's- and soon, the PS3's, as well- easily trumps the Wii's.)

A game that takes advantage of the PS3's hardware can yield an experience that has a scope far beyond what the Wii is capable of. In other words, longer, deeper games.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

You know more processing power allows developers more possibilities of what they are able to do with their games, right?

My bad. I am not technically inclined so I didn't know much about a cell processor.

My point is, the Wii was revolutionary and the PS3, 360 were evolutionary. The Wii was wildly new while the PS3, 360 took existing technology and made them much, much, much more powerful.

The point of this thread is to ask people whether or not Nintendo should keep revolutionizing, and whether Sony and Microsoft should keep evolving at such a rapid pace.

Originally Posted by Twilight Wolf

And how is this a good thing?

It wouldn't help, but it would be better if you read the whole statement. And btw, making games' controls slightly easier is a good thing, is it not?

Originally Posted by GKANG

Since I own an XBOX360 and a Wii, I'd like from the next gen of consoles:

Nintendo
- Better graphics, at least at the level of early 360/PS3.
- Better motion controls (if used).
- Backwards compatibility with Wii games.

Screw its online, I don't care about it.

Microsoft
- A console I love like the 360, without having to worry about an inevitable **** up.
- Erm.. That's it really. The 360 is perfect, besides the console breaking all the time. Problem needs fixed.

So basically the Wii should evolve and Microsoft should do nearly nothing?
I think Nintendo should upgrade its online, too.

If modern consoles were "evolutions" as you said, then we would still be using fixed function lighting and transformation, no pixel shaders normal maps and so forth. (And we would still use single core processors)
If anything, the Wii's controller is an evolution of traditional controllers, rather than a revolution.

Originally Posted by Double A

My bad. I am not technically inclined so I didn't know much about a cell processor.

My point is, the Wii was revolutionary and the PS3, 360 were evolutionary. The Wii was wildly new while the PS3, 360 took existing technology and made them much, much, much more powerful.

I don't see why you think the Wii was so new or revolutionary. Motion controls like the Wii's have existed in gaming in the past; the Wii was just the first console to make them a primary selling point.

Originally Posted by Andross

I don't see why you think the Wii was so new or revolutionary. Motion controls like the Wii's have existed in gaming in the past; the Wii was just the first console to make them a primary selling point.

As a main feature, more specifically.

Personally, I would have been much happier if WiiMotion+ had came somewhere closer to launch, instead of halfway through the Wii's third year. Though now there's talk about how this generation is going to be longer than prior generations, where it could be OK in that regard, but on the other hand, it's that much longer where we have to deal with Wii processing tech.

Originally Posted by Double A

It wouldn't help, but it would be better if you read the whole statement. And btw, making games' controls slightly easier is a good thing, is it not?

I don't see what's easier about stick waggling then button pressing. In most games the motion controls could easily be substituted for button presses, and some Wii games such as Brawl and Mario Kart play better without the motion controls anyway.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

If modern consoles were "evolutions" as you said, then we would still be using fixed function lighting and transformation, no pixel shaders normal maps and so forth. (And we would still use single core processors)

Maybe the Wii isn't the first revolution? My point is, the Wii was advertised as something dramatically different from the competition, while the PS3 and 360 were advertised as being extremely technically advanced, which is why I consider them an evolution.

Sure, motion controls and casual gaming were around before the Wii, but the way the Wii implemented them changed gaming philosophy. Before, casual gaming was a minor aspect of gaming, and gaming was all about the hardcore. The Wii changed all that, which is why I consider it a Revolution. It is not only the motion controls which make the Wii revolutionary. It is also the business practices applied to the Wii.

By "revolution", I mean a large focus on change. You cannot admit that the Wii wasn't a change to gaming. By "evolution", I mean a large focus on making something that already exists far more powerful, e.g. PS2 -> PS3.

Can you honestly tell me that you don't know what I mean by "revolution"
and "evolution"?

Originally Posted by Twilight Wolf

I don't see what's easier about stick waggling then button pressing. In most games the motion controls could easily be substituted for button presses, and some Wii games such as Brawl and Mario Kart play better without the motion controls anyway.

It's not only waggling, but more of the possible motions detectable by the remote. FPSes are much, much easier on the Wii than on conventional consoles because of the aiming with the 'mote. Also, basic selection (like in turn-based games) is made faster because you don't have to scroll through more options.

Originally Posted by Double A

So basically the Wii should evolve and Microsoft should do nearly nothing?
I think Nintendo should upgrade its online, too.

Er, yeah. The Wii is sucky in a lot of ways, it can improve. I honestly have no beef with my 360 at all.

Well, on top of making the consoles work for years, they could like.. Cut out jaggies in games and attempt to conquer framerate issues that plague lots of great games?