Diminishing returns, or chasing a dream?

I remember the first time that I really saw a 3D game in action. It was StarFox for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. It was clear that even with the help of the Super FX chip, StarFox was pushing the SNES to the absolute limit. The frame rate of the game was putrid by today's standards. At times it felt like I was playing a game on a flip-book. Still, it was a classic game and it showed that Nintendo wanted to push the boundaries of gaming as far as they could.

The game that really turned me on to the 3D world of gaming was a game called Battle Arena Toshinden for the Sony PlayStation. That was when I felt like 3D gaming had finally arrived. I was blown away by what I was seeing. Virtua Fighter for the arcades and later the Sega Saturn came before that, but the characters felt "too" blocky as Sega decided to sacrifice visuals for a more smooth gameplay experience. It had better game mechanics than Battle Arena Toshinden, but it just wasn't as fun to look at.

The point that I want to make is this. In my opinion, that was the last time that we truly had a significant generational-leap in graphics, gameplay, sound, scale, and overall presentation. Ever since then we have seen major improvements every generation, but the new gen just looks and plays like a much better version of what the previous generation offered.

When it comes to pushing boundaries in hardware, Nintendo bowed out of that race in 2006, and chose to try to push boundaries in the way we play games. There is a reason for that.

With the Nintendo64, the management at Nintendo chose to stick with the cartridge format rather than use CDs. This was obviously a grand mistake for numerous reasons, but the source of that decision was greed. With the Nintendo GameCube they chose to use 1.5GB mini-DVDs rather than a full-sized 4.7GB DVD and a built-in broadband adapter. They would claim they were trying to combat piracy, but that decision was also based in greed.

When it came time to make the Nintendo Revolution, then President of Nintendo of Japan, the late Saturo Iwata stated that he wanted a small device that could fit anywhere in the living room. Something about the size of three DVD cases together. Engineers told him that if they choose this form factor they would not be able to make a device that can compete with the Sony PlayStation 3 and XBOX 360 on the hardware side because it would be too difficult to put something that powerful in such a small package and be able to keep it from spontaneously bursting into flames. Putting a proper cooling-system in something like that would have made the console unaffordable.

So, they remembered that they had purchased motion-control technology, and decided to go that direction.

With the Nintendo Wii U, it was clear that Nintendo was trying to tap into the good faith they accrued with the Nintendo Wii, but it wound up backfiring because a lot of people thought that it was just an attachment for the Wii and not a next-gen device.

So, Nintendo rolled the dice one more time with the Nintendo Switch, and this time they hit the 7. They found their formula. They leaned heavily into what they do best which is portable gaming. They combined all of their development studios to be able to cut down on costs and redistribute that manpower into unified game development. The console has sold over 150 million devices worldwide and still counting.

I'm pretty sure than when Nintendo has the next investor's meeting that they will announce that the Switch has surpassed the Nintendo DS as it's best-selling hardware of all time and the previous marker held by the PlayStation 2. Of course, it probably won't have surpassed the new number Sony randomly pulled out of their ass last year of 160 million even though for the past 10 years they have reported the number to be 155-157 million.

Now, we have the Nintendo Switch 2. It has everything that people loved about the original Switch, but a better version of it. They have fixed a lot of nagging issues from the previous gen, and the system actually has some power. Is it on-par with the XBOX Series X and PlayStation 5? No. Is it in the room? Yes. It's waaaaaaaaay in the back, but it's in the room and quite frankly, that's all it NEEDS to do. Let's ask some tough questions here. How well has the massive jumps in horsepower for the XBOX and PlayStation devices worked out for them as of late? Honestly, just ask that question to yourself. Games are taking far too long to develop. The landscape is very bare with the PS5 compared to previous generations which has relied on many remakes and remasters with only a few ground-up titles for the device. On top of that, Sony HEAVILY invested money, time, and manpower into live-service games which they have decided to cancel which took a HUGE chunk out of their productivity.

As far as Microsoft goes, that is just a mess. They do seem to be re-balancing a little bit though. However, they suffer from the same problem as Sony. It takes too long and too much investment to produce games in a timely manner that justify the need for a PS5 or XSX. There also has not been any "killer-app" for either console. AAA 1st-party games that have had the benefit of time to fully take advantage of the power of the PS5 and XSX are going to look despicably good, but how long are we going to have to wait for those games? How long is the interval between those games going to be? How many of those games can we realistically get in one generation? Keep in mind that both Microsoft and Sony have closed down many studios and laid-off (or FIRED) thousands of people. Even Nintendo has stated that game development time will increase with them as well. So, if Nintendo is saying it's going to take longer for them to make games, it's really not sweet for Microsoft and Sony. Also, things have pretty much reached a point of equilibrium in gaming. There is always a "WOW" factor at the beginning of every new generation, but after awhile the new car smell is gone and you are stuck with what you had the previous generation in a prettier package. There is also a level of "uncanny valley" creeping into games as well. Things are starting to look too real to feel comfortable. Especially in games that depict graphic violence. I mean, warfare is NOT GLAMOROUS. How "real" do you want a game like Call Of Duty to look? I think that we have officially reached the point of diminishing returns. We are here. It's happening. I think that if the gaming industry does not figure out how to progress beyond "realism" as the purpose for new hardware and reasoning for pushing bleeding-edge technology into gaming, a MAJOR crash is in its future and this one will be far WORSE than the one in the early 80s.

Ironically enough, who saved the gaming industry from the first gaming crash?

Nintendo.

It may be up to them to save it again from another crash happening at all. From what I can tell, Nintendo seems to be using the new power from the Nintendo Switch 2 not just to make the games look better, but to do things in games that they couldn't before. To make larger and more expansive worlds in gaming. In fact, they were already thinking this way 13 years ago when they started work on The Legend Of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild for the Wii U. Just think of how massive that game is and it's just a Wii U game. The Wii U is basically an overclocked XBOX 360 with more RAM. The Nintendo Switch 2 is substantially more powerful than any console behind the PS4 Pro, possibly more capable than the XBOX One X and maybe on-par with the XBOX Series S. If nVidia's claims are true (and there is no benefit to them lying because once the system teardowns happen we will know for sure anyway) that the Switch 2 is 10 times more powerful than the Switch, that would put it around 4-5 teraflops. Probably closer to 5 because of the resolutions and frame rates it is able to produce. Keep in mind that this is just raw performance without any assistance of DLSS.

There is a LOT that Nintendo can do from a gameplay standpoint with this type of power. My final point is in the form of a question. It is clear that while you can have games with great graphics and great gameplay, I think gameplay is being hindered by graphics. Back in the 1980s, you had limited hardware to work with, so the gameplay had to be supreme. Once the hardware started to become more potent and capable, developers started to focus more on the visual aspect and less on the gameplay aspect which is why THE VAST MAJORITY of arcade games and many console games from the late 70s and early 80s still resonate today with people of all kinds today. A lot of AAA games from the 1990s forward don't have the same staying power except for the truly elite ones. A random person that has never played Pac-Man before can grab a joystick and start playing. A random person that has never played Final Fantasy VII before is gonna need some help. When I say gameplay aspect BTW, I don't just mean the level of enjoyment of the game itself, but what actually can be done IN the games. Nowadays it feels like 90% of gameplay development is dedicated to realism and optimization of the game to retain that realism. The actual gameplay experience itself often gets lost or just drag-and-drop mechanics of similar titles. I think people are still chasing that feeling we had back in the mid 1990s when we first started seeing 3D games or games with rendered sprites that blew our minds. We are never going to see that type of jump again.

EVER

So, my question is this. Now, all three big companies have capable devices. Microsoft and Sony have shown us that it is not sustainable to have BOTH supreme graphics and supreme gameplay. Which would you rather them focus on?

What Do You Feel Is More Necessary For Long-Term Survive Of The Gaming Industry?

• Bleeding-Edge Visual Presentation.
• Innovative Gameplay Design and Mechanics.