At E3 2011, Nintendo announced their next-gen console, the Wii-U. Nintendo is confident that this new console is exactly what casual and hardcore gamers are asking for. Personally, I think it's garbage. Just because something is possible, does not mean it's practical. Supposedly coming out Holiday 2012, this "next-gen" console is said to have a higher price than that of the Wii. My guess is around $399. Although this console can compete with the current-gen consoles, will it be able to compete with Microsoft and Sony's next consoles?
Many rumors have been stirring about the "Xbox 720" in the past few weeks, claiming that there will be an announcement made at CES in January 2012 and that it will launch alongside the Wii-U. If this is true, this is bad news for Nintendo, as many people would rather pick up the new Microsoft product rather than the Wii-U.
For the sake of adding to the mix, Sony has stated that "the [PS4] will not release after the new Xbox." It would seem that Sony has learned from their past mistakes. However, this poses a new problem for Sony: if the new Xbox does release next year, will Sony have their console and ground-breaking launch titles ready?
In my honest opinion, I think that Nintendo should have waited a few years to release a new console. They should have built more on the Wii-U idea, rather than releasing a flawed system. Also, I don't think I'm quite ready for a new Xbox. Perhaps in 2013, but I think that the Xbox 360 still has some life in it that developers have yet to squeeze out of it. It would be wise of Sony to launch a new console Holiday 2013, because the PS3 is slowly losing popularity, whereas the Xbox 360 is (somehow) gaining popularity. Only time will tell what will happen.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Personal Video Game Opinions
Video game forums these days are full of people claiming that Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3 and vice-versa. Then there's those that say "I'm mature and I play both games, because they are two different games." While the fact that they are "different games," they are of the same genre, meaning that there is common ground to compare the two. The fact is that if you just want to shoot and kill people, play Call of Duty. If you want to have an immersive experience, or if you like working as a team and using strategy, play Battlefield. Battlefield 3 IS better than Modern Warfare 3, and it is really hard to argue this for this reason: Call of Duty has not changed drastically in five years. It's like a Madden game: if you buy Madden 08, then the next year buy Madden 09, you'll be disappointed by the fact that there's very little changes aside from rosters and a few mini games. However, if you buy Madden 08, and then years later buy Madden 12, your experience will be much better and you'll be able to see the progress. If you play MW1 then MW3, you can see the difference, but if you slowly transition from MW1 to MW3 every year with the new game that comes out, it's just like buying the same game five times in a row. Don't get me wrong, Call of Duty is an amazing game, possibly one of the best shooters, but its failure to improve upon itself rather than copy and paste the same experience as before limits how great the franchise could really be. With Activision pushing a new game every year, it is not very likely that the 2012 COD game will be any different, because to make a truly revolutionary and brilliant game, it takes 2+ years of development. Hell, look at Skyrim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)