During what Next-Gen calls the best session of GDC, some of the industry's biggest cone heads came together to talk about games and the future. Something we do everyday in the office, in fact.
Crowd-pulling names like Phil Harrison (Sony), Peter Molyneux (Lionhead) and David Perry (Acclaim) piled into a posh hotel room, along with a handful of press. One of the more interesting nuggets to come from the meet involved Phil Harrison talking about his constant battle to get social gaming on the map at Sony Japan.
"It's frustrating for me to experience, because I've been saying for years that playing games together is the future, but the guys in Japan [Sony] said that people just didn't play that way," he said.
Harrison's been leading the family-friendly gaming charge for years now with the likes of SingStar and Buzz. But it sounds like Sony Japan thought he was talking rubbish, until the Wii came out and Nintendo won the war in record time.
"The Wii ads show the perspective from the television - of people on the sofa having fun together - which is very clever, so how pissed off am I?" We're sure it was said with a smile though. After all they do pay his massive wage...
Spilt screen FPS are becoming rarer now; this attitude is effecting the whole industry; while the wii encourages people who have friends to play together more and more games encourage people to play in "virtual worlds".
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
Spilt screen FPS are becoming rarer now; this attitude is effecting the whole industry; while the wii encourages people who have friends to play together more and more games encourage people to play in "virtual worlds".
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
That is sooo true, i used to love having my mates round playing split screen!
Also another thing i find missing - on FPS multi player games thesedays, you cant add bot's! which i find really annoying! A massive map with only your friend within it - takes forever to find each other!
Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast was the best, Along with Goldeneye for N64!
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
Some of us are too old to go inviting friends around to our houses to play games...
Yes that is true, but what about the younger people that have these consoles? When I was at school we always used to play on SNES, MD, N64, PS1 etc at peoples houses, but todays kids cant do that. They have to send their mates home to play multiplayer. Its ridiculous how its easier to play against people thousands of miles from you than it is someone sat in the same room
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
Some of us are too old to go inviting friends around to our houses to play games...
I'm 30 in 2 weeks, am married with a baby on the way, and I've got a mate coming round to play games on Tuesday night... Hopefully we're going to finish off Gears Of War co-op...
Well I don't get that many opportunities to get my friends round our house. I also don't have that many friends who are interested in the same kind of games I am (fast-paced hardcore competitive), so having same-console multiplayer is pretty pointless for me most of the time.
Also, I never really got into multiplayer FPS on the same console because your opponents can easily find you simply by looking at the screen, taking away any element of strategy or stealth. Even back playing Goldeneye on N64 this was a problem.
So it really depends. The family market is sorted. If you have a load of siblings then the odds are you'll have them to play against until one of you leaves home. But take the current average gamer - early to mid 20s male, probably either living alone or with a partner - it's rare they'd be into party games. You might get the occasional party title they'll like, or the odd game their partner likes too, but it's not a big enough market to base an entire strategy around.
<rant part> I still object to being marginalised. Seriously. I was a gamer 15 years ago and I'm a gamer now. I like the same stuff now I did then. So people like me are the very reason these companies still exist. Why are we being ignored for the sudden influx of "family" gamers who will abandon or ignore a title as quickly as they looked at it? It's sad that they'd rather get the quick sales than keep their long-term customers happy.</rant part>
Spilt screen FPS are becoming rarer now; this attitude is effecting the whole industry; while the wii encourages people who have friends to play together more and more games encourage people to play in "virtual worlds".
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
That is sooo true, i used to love having my mates round playing split screen!
Also another thing i find missing - on FPS multi player games thesedays, you cant add bot's! which i find really annoying! A massive map with only your friend within it - takes forever to find each other!
Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast was the best, Along with Goldeneye for N64!
Very true about the bots thing. Why should I have to get utterly destroyed online by angry teenagers when I could just set up some challenging bots to add to the split-screen mix? Why has this feature been absent for so long?
After all, if they can get AI running in the single player and 12 or more players running around online it can't be that hard.
Why this constant push for networked gaming all the time? I'm 30 and still have mates over to play stuff like PGR4, Worms and Halo 3 death matches and you know what? It beats the pants off being verbally abused by some anonymous little brat across XBL.
The best times were the sleepover where we played Amiga, Megadrive, SNES, Saturn, PS1, N64 and PC. It was so great. Split screen gaming, tried playing Nights online, it was horrible! Not the same as playing against someone in the same room and looking at their face as they lose.
I have been meaning to post about this for ages, especially in response to all the angry young hardcore gamers who seem to look at Nintendo like they're the cause of all their dating problems.
Sony created the market the Wii is capitalising on. The majority of people I know that owned a PS2 are the people who now own or want to own a Wii. The difference is Nintendo have always maintained a hardcore fan base who return again and again for their evolutionary titles like Mario and Zelda.
This is in comparison to Sony who are still relatively new. They brought gaming into the mainstream with the PS and then expanded upon that massively with the PS2. The natural progression following that user base lineage was definitely NOT the PS3, though I believe Sony have achieved their main goal with the PS3 which was to bury HD DVD.
Gaming has be in decline for a long time if hardcore gamers are correct. Sony started it, Nintendo may be finishing it. However, with a market that can support four formats simultaneously, I don't think any kind of gaming will die. We're just going to see a proliferation of more casual games.
It's easy to see what so many of you are crying about. Damn Nintendo. I'll go play real games on my PS3 now, all those I haven't played on my PC. Or maybe I could get my fill of FPS's on the 360. Maybe only just?
So they shouldn't include offline multiplayer because some are too old too play games with friends at their house?
And since when is there an age limit to friends hanging out in their own house? Most idiotic thing i ever heard.
Agreed - I regularly have mates come over to my place. Last time we resorted to playing Baldurs Gate on the GameCube More split screen with bots would be brilliant - how hard can this be?
The best gaming sessions I've *EVER* had are me and one, two or three mates sitting around a PS 2 playin the latest version of Pro Evo. Either every man for himself or all four of us on the same team trying to win the World Cup. Constant p**s-taking and over the top celebrations - resulting in the best gaming experience/laugh ever.
PES online - ignoring the fact that it's a shoddy piece of crap - nowhere near the same atmosphere even with the mic's setup.
I have been meaning to post about this for ages, especially in response to all the angry young hardcore gamers who seem to look at Nintendo like they're the cause of all their dating problems.
Sony created the market the Wii is capitalising on. The majority of people I know that owned a PS2 are the people who now own or want to own a Wii. The difference is Nintendo have always maintained a hardcore fan base who return again and again for their evolutionary titles like Mario and Zelda.
This is in comparison to Sony who are still relatively new. They brought gaming into the mainstream with the PS and then expanded upon that massively with the PS2. The natural progression following that user base lineage was definitely NOT the PS3, though I believe Sony have achieved their main goal with the PS3 which was to bury HD DVD.
Gaming has be in decline for a long time if hardcore gamers are correct. Sony started it, Nintendo may be finishing it. However, with a market that can support four formats simultaneously, I don't think any kind of gaming will die. We're just going to see a proliferation of more casual games.
It's easy to see what so many of you are crying about. Damn Nintendo. I'll go play real games on my PS3 now, all those I haven't played on my PC. Or maybe I could get my fill of FPS's on the 360. Maybe only just?
It is sad that local multiplayer is becoming a thing of the past, and I am glad the Nintendo have not abandoned the concept.
I miss the social aspect of split-screen multiplayer - there is nothing more fun than playing multiplayer split screen, in the same room as your friends/family. That is one of the reasons I am not too fond of playing online multiplayer - there is no real social aspect. It's missing something.
I think the best multiplayer experiences are on the N64. I still play multiplayer Mario Kart 64, Perfect Dark, and even Bust-a-move 2!
Also, i don't think social gaming/local multiplayer means the end of games catering to the core gamer. I own a Wii (for Metroid and Zelda) and a 360, and the two co-exist quite happily next to each other.
The best gaming sessions I've *EVER* had are me and one, two or three mates sitting around a PS 2 playin the latest version of Pro Evo. Either every man for himself or all four of us on the same team trying to win the World Cup. Constant p**s-taking and over the top celebrations - resulting in the best gaming experience/laugh ever.
PES online - ignoring the fact that it's a shoddy piece of crap - nowhere near the same atmosphere even with the mic's setup.
Completely agree with you there mate, i like single player dont get me wrong but its the very experience of enjoying a competitive or co-op game with friends that has kept me playing for the vast majority of my life. i still remember the first time i played worms with three others, it was so funny i had tears running down my face
Also i dont quite believe that no one listened to phil, would you say no to a man that large?
wow. buzz. because id really spend my money of that peice of crap. im 18 years old and i live in the same house as my two brothers. we used to have one ps2 which we always played on together as multiplayer etc. now ive got a gaming pc and my brothers both have a 360 and we all play multiplayer online our seperate ways. HOWEVER, ive been thinking what about LAN? should LAN be made more accessible and easier to just get into? everyone in one house could just get online against each other on a screen to themselves and we could still talk (or at least walk over to each other). i think LAN gaming should be reformed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Phil jumps ship and takes up one of the vacancies created by the Nintendo move from Washington to California. Sounds like he's disgruntled with Sony's direction.
I wouldn't be surprised if Phil jumps ship and takes up one of the vacancies created by the Nintendo move from Washington to California. Sounds like he's disgruntled with Sony's direction.
Nah he's gonna take Peter Moores old job at M$haft
I only bother playing online when it's with people I know, there's no satisfaction in beating on strangers. Thinking about it, when I'm playing against friends, everyone else are just replacement bots . Still doesn't beat everyone sitting 'round the same telly, having a laugh though, does it?
Completely agree with you there mate, i like single player dont get me wrong but its the very experience of enjoying a competitive or co-op game with friends that has kept me playing for the vast majority of my life. i still remember the first time i played worms with three others, it was so funny i had tears running down my face
To re-quote you back, I'm totally with you too. The face-to-face with your ally/enemy is a big pull for me multiplayer-wise and the *only* alternative game that has made me think twice in the last 10 years is Burnout Paradise.
There's many reasons I think this. I've played online games competitively since Quake 3, and all I've learnt is that you have to be a bloody expert at the game offline, to get anywhere online. The games are just too competitive for the single player, it literally is survival of the fittest. And as a working man and father I don't have the time to be a master of such things.
Burnout P on the other hand introduces the co-operative element, and what I would class as a community spirit. You might get a s**t player on your online game who screws every challnge up. But I've seen so many others online help them do the challenges, show them the ropes and they soon get the hang of it.
It's wonderful really. Have I missed the boat with this kind of thing? Maybe it's been going on for years without me knowing (as I said I've avoided much of the online stuff).
DOes this kind of community spirit exist among the MMORPG's? I've read a lot about it but never experienced it. If so, may the online FPS be dead (or belong only to those who savour it) long live the communal game.
Sony's big problem is that it doesn't seem to care which franchises become multi-format. Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Devil May Cry are, or will be, all on Xbox360 as well as PS3.
For me, there is only Motorstorm, Uncharted: Drake's fortune and, possibly, Heavenly Sword as reasons to buy the PS3.
The whole looking at each others screen/each screen being too small will be a moot point soon enough - aside from LAN play - I've seen screens that have been developed which show completely different views depending on the angle you are looking at it. One version does this by filtering out certain sections of the picture emitted via some oh-so-sexy goggle/shade thingies - the other seems to be built along the same principles as those holographic/"moving" collectors/toy cards where the image changed according to whether you tilted it left or right, and is being implimented into ridiculously expensive cars - the driver views the SatNav, the passenger a DVD/TV show.
I think the argument regarding solo game playing is more to do with the Japanese culture as opposed to age - its a helluva lot less likely for someone (especially over 20!) in Japan to ask his mates over for a few tins and a shoot-em-up than someone in the West. The whole Nerd/Otaku thing is taken a lot differently - here it can be a badge of honour! Plus a large amount of games that are played solo there are dating/H/ecchi, an experience that (as a rule) you don't want to share! Mind you, I'm a girl and I have no problem with that sort of thing...
Anyway, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this culture specific view yet?
I only bother playing online when it's with people I know, there's no satisfaction in beating on strangers. Thinking about it, when I'm playing against friends, everyone else are just replacement bots . Still doesn't beat everyone sitting 'round the same telly, having a laugh though, does it?
you NEED to play Tekken 5 Online, you get the best satisfaction kicking anyone's bottoms on there!
More 4 player split screen co-op is required because some of us actually have real friends.
Some of us are too old to go inviting friends around to our houses to play games...
you're never too old. i'm 31 and still love wasting friends on splitscreen mario kart (can't wait for the wii version) as much,if not more,than pulling headshots off online.
I have been meaning to post about this for ages, especially in response to all the angry young hardcore gamers who seem to look at Nintendo like they're the cause of all their dating problems.
Sony created the market the Wii is capitalising on. The majority of people I know that owned a PS2 are the people who now own or want to own a Wii. The difference is Nintendo have always maintained a hardcore fan base who return again and again for their evolutionary titles like Mario and Zelda.
This is in comparison to Sony who are still relatively new. They brought gaming into the mainstream with the PS and then expanded upon that massively with the PS2. The natural progression following that user base lineage was definitely NOT the PS3, though I believe Sony have achieved their main goal with the PS3 which was to bury HD DVD.
Gaming has be in decline for a long time if hardcore gamers are correct. Sony started it, Nintendo may be finishing it. However, with a market that can support four formats simultaneously, I don't think any kind of gaming will die. We're just going to see a proliferation of more casual games.
It's easy to see what so many of you are crying about. Damn Nintendo. I'll go play real games on my PS3 now, all those I haven't played on my PC. Or maybe I could get my fill of FPS's on the 360. Maybe only just?
So many stereotypes. So many retards.
Sigh.
I agree with many of your points.
People forget that it was Sony who first branched out to search for an audience that wasn't as finicky as hardcore gamers of the time. An audience that wasn't as informed (by way of magazines or the net) and thus was more willing to spend their cash if you only showed them pretty FMV's on TV. The Final Fantasy series perfected that strategy.
Sony hit gold when they catered to other demographics with their first Playstation console. And I remember how some would moan and complain that Sony was catering to people that didn't have any business playing videogames. And yet, millions were attracted to it by games like Tomb Raider (mostly due to Lara Croft's breast size than the sub-par gameplay), the Resident Evil series and other games that had the "cool factor" branded all over them.
Now Nintendo is branching the industry yet again, moving into more mainstream markets... and the complains are again present. But the fact is, in order for the industry to continue growing, it needs new blood. The industry can't live off those 400 pound FPS nerds that spend every dime on games. They're actually a small crowd compared to the millions of casuals that are being introduced to gaming.
In my opinion, Sony's refusal to do as they did in their day with the first PSX console, reminds me of what Yamauchi (former Nintendo president) did during those years where Ninty was failing in the consoles wars. He was stubborn about supporting the cartridge format and thus missed the boat when the CD format took over.
The best thing Yamauchi did, was to step down and let new people handle the company... and as you can all see, it was the right thing to do. Iwata had better relationships with third party devs (unlike Yamauchi, who was hated by most of them) and Reggie was able to help place the "Big N" back on top.
Maybe Sony should listen more to their American/European brothers and sisters, no? Not doing it sure hasn't made things easier for them.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
