Last but not least is Mike with his first editorial for his Soapbox Nintendo column. Mike's column is a very provocative read, and is definately worth a look. Click the (more...) link below to view the whole article.

Soapbox Nintendo: You Say You Want a Revolution?

Change is Hard.

Look back at the games you've been playing since the Nintendo 64. The Nintendo 64's analog stick allowed for a new perspective on the games we were playing. It led to advances in the first person shooter genre for consoles and ushered in much more involved three dimensional worlds. Move now to our current generation of systems and look around for the innovation in hardware in these systems. Examine for a moment, the great changes and get a firm grasp of the evolution that these systems from the previous generation. Its a shame that the Playstation 2, Xbox, and yes, even the Gamecube did the disservice to the gaming community that they've done over the past four years. The disappointing current crop of systems stagnated game development and failed to challenge developers, the market, and us.
These systems have been, from the outset, simply upgrades from the previous generation's consoles. While they have certainly supplied great games, more often we've been left with stale scenarios that were new some ten years ago. Super Mario Sunshine would probably have been a lot more amazing were it the first of its kind, however, given the immense group of games populating the three dimensional platformer genre, it'll merely be another Mario game thrown in the series with some graphical upgrades and minor differences. Think back on the last truly revolutionary gameplay you've experienced. Remember the last time you experienced anything completely new on your consoles?

A Gaming Renaissance?

Thankfully, we're ushering in a new era of consoles on machines much more capable than the PC I type this on. So what's to expect from this new crop of systems? Microsoft's Xbox360 will launch November 22, 2005 touting its release as ushering in the wireless, HD era. Microsoft has created a much more elaborate online community and moved to dominate the online multiplayer market. The Xbox 360 will be backwards compatible with some Xbox games upon release, with downloadable patches in the near future which will expand the backwards compatible lineup. Sony's Playstation 3 will be released as early as 2006 and will be able to decimate small countries. Sony intends on ushering in its blue ray format as well as its Cell microprocessor. The two systems both boast more ergonomic designs than their previous controllers, though they stay with essentially the same button configurations, and make them wireless to boot.
We've seen screenshots of games, we've seen videos, you may have even have gotten your hands on an Xbox 360 already, so you can see the visual difference between the games. We've seen intended lineups for the Xbox 360, Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Project Gotham 3, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Ghost Recon: Advanced War Fighter, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, etc. etc. etc. We've seen promotional videos from Sony for the Playstation 3, which included trailers for Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo, Fight Night, Killzone, Metal Gear, etc. etc. etc. The games look immersive, amazing, involved... They look alluring. They look like a lot of fun. They also look like they are missing something.
What's new? Besides the hardware, what about the games looks as though you could describe it as something other than 'Ghost Recon 2, but with more weapons, different levels, and better graphics' or 'Devil May Cry with a more badass looking Dante'. After a few days of playing on these systems, the initial shock and awe of how incredible these games look will dissipate, and we'll be left wondering why we needed to spend more than $399 just to keep up with the technojoneses. Call me a cynic, but I'm looking at these systems wondering if 2 months after I've purchased them, will I still be wanting more?

Choices are Good.

Working in a video game store around the time of the Xbox and Gamecube launch left me with some hilarious memories. 'You have the Sony XCube?' Essentially, you can interchange various words and syllables from the current generations consoles and get something I've heard in a serious inquiry. At the time, I didn't realize what a sad example of foreshadowing these ignorant questions would be. These systems fail to differentiate themselves other than by the games they play. Sure, the Gamecube has a personality of its own, but to those who don't see personality in a piece of electronics hardware, that means little.

Everything you Know is Wrong.

From the Gamecube's beginning, Nintendo insisted the system was more a toy than an a piece of entertainment electronics, that it was not directly competing with the Playstation 2 or Xbox. Have they honestly been true to that sentiment? Other than exclusive titles, what has differentiated the Gamecube from the other systems? What has made the Gamecube so much more a toy than the other systems? While Nintendo talked interesting marketing talk, the system failed in its early days partly because of this weakness. The Gamecube was competing directly with the other systems, Nintendo just failed to recognize.
While the cliche 'its the games, not the system, that matters' is repeated by people, it remains completely untrue. Merely an excuse used to divert attention away from low system specs and combat criticisms of system capabilities, the phrase has been used to defend poor decision making in hardware creation for the past generation of consoles, and worse, gave companies a very simple line to feed back to the masses. While the library of available games for a particular console does play a major role in the success of that console, without some level of innovation in the hardware, no one will be inspired to create the incredible worlds that make you look at games and take notice. Without breaking the mold of the games we're playing, we're dooming ourselves to continue agreeing that hardware innovation isn't what drives this business and that systems are simply interchangable pieces in a puzzle we have no control over. A puzzle put together with deals between developers and publishers determining which system's core audience a game might appeal to most, and launching on that system.

Its a Movement, not a System.

The Nintendo Revolution isn't simply exciting because of its unique design. It isn't exciting just because we're told its exciting by Reggie at E3. The Nintendo Revolution is exciting because its teaching you something and it shows to you what Nintendo has learned. Gaming isn't about remodeled hack and slashes taking place in various time periods. It isn't about arguing over whether Wipeout 73 XL EXTREME is a port or a new game in a series that's been beaten to death and fails to explore any new ground whatsoever. The Nintendo Revolution isn't even a system. The Nintendo Revolution is a reminder that gaming is about innovation, its about creative designers and developers providing us with new, amazing, fresh experiences that we haven't thought of. Its reminding you that adding additional playable races or new weapons to a game isn't the future of gaming. The Revolution is reminding you that the future of gaming isn't adding multiplayer, isn't adding new playable races, isn't adding creating sequels with better graphics.
Love my Gamecube as I do, the Revolution is reminding me what gaming should have been, and will be, about.

Michael