Nintendo's Innovation

recently, i believe at CES, Reggie Fils-Aime (nintendo's vp in charge of marketing in the US) basically challenged nintendo's competitors by claiming that in the video-game industry the credo is "innovate or die." this was coupled with what i found to be a rather bold assertion: that in the coming generation, nintendo is the only company really innovating, the others are just giving you more of the same. i found this comment very interesting and would like to discuss nintendo's next-gen plans and how they relate to innovation as well as to the plans of their competitors.

let me preface all that i am going to say with this statement: i have great respect for nintendo, for all they have done for the industry, for the innovations they have brought, for their constant pursuit of excellence. i want them to succeed on the next-gen stage and i want developers to embrace the revolution and its controller in order to bring us some truly innovative experiences. it is only us, the gamers, that will benefit.

i also need to say that i realize it may not be true that Reggie thinks nintendo is the only company innovating. it is his job to make it sound like nintendo is the only company doing anything right. but just this once, i am going to hold a marketing representative responsible for their claims and see what comes of it.

now for my take on the situation.

i think there are three ways in which nintendo is attempting to innovate and thereby draw in both new and old customers: they are bucking the industry trend of assuming the next-generation of games (and therefore conosles) have to be represent a huge leap graphically and auditorily. their console will be a great deal less powerful than either the 360 or ps3. i read on game daily the opinion that the latter two will be neck and neck in terms of graphics whereas the revolution will seem like a ps2 being compared to an xbox. this seems a highly generous evaluation of the revolution's power as the 360 is in most ways 4 times as powerful as the original xbox while the revolution will only be about 2 times as powerful as the gamecube (and according to sony, the ps3 will be 32 times as powerful as the ps2...but we all already knew that when sony lies, they like to lie big). given this, i think we can expect to see beautiful games on the revolution, but for those of us who really want to experience the beauty possible during the coming generation, one of the other two consoles will be the way to go.

nintendo made the decision that the revolution would be markedly less powerful than its competitors so that they could also sell it for less. in doing so, they are attempting to appeal to the people who think video gaming is becoming too expensive.

in addition to this strategy, nintendo's focus seems to be less on improving the presentation of games and more on changing the way we interact with games. this is where the new controller and the next innovation comes in. nintendo is attempting to appeal to those people who typically aren't gamers and to those who enjoyed games when there was a d-pad and two buttons, but who got lost along the way and now suffer from spasms of interface anxiety everytime they look at a modern controller. the revolution controller is an exciting idea that could really change the way games are played and something which (if successful) may end up being copied by everyone else.

and finally, nintendo is making available through online downloads the games from nes, snes, and n64.

now, the question we must ask is not how innovative is all this, but in what way is it innovative?

i think the problem with nintendo's approach is that they assume both that innovation really is all that important in this industry and that what the other companies are doing isn't innovative. the former: people don't necessarily crave something new and fresh all the time. in fact the general public is much more likely to embrace what is old and familiar. they just want bigger, better, louder. look at the movie industry and how many carbon copy movies it puts out that still do well. sure it has been hitting some difficulties lately, but it would be hard to deny it was a strong run. likewise, people will eventually get tired of the same game being released year after year with minor improvements, but not before that franchise sells a hell of alot of games (cough...madden). i'm sure nintendo is quite aware of the power of familiarity considering the extent to which they use (or overuse) mascots like mario. i'm certainly not encouraging a lack of innovation or the overuse of successful formulas, simply pointing out that the options aren't as clear cut as "innovate or die."

the latter: just because the advancements made by the other companies seem less bold and striking (or maybe just less touted as being the next big innovation), it does not mean they are not innovative. microsoft does a great job of recognizing which technologies will be embraced and successful. they know that these technologies will continue moving forward and advancing, all the while becoming more ubiquitous, more a part of our daily lives. they gambled big on xbox live, but how much of a gamble was it really. they knew online gaming had a big market, and they were pretty damn sure broadband connections were going to become increasingly common as the internet evolved into a consistent undercurrent of modern life. their foresight definitely paid off and now xbox live is a huge selling point for the 360. as for nintendo, they were of the opinion that people didn't want to play online but, instead, wanted to hook their gameboys up to their consoles (good call nintendo). this time around microsoft is guessing that HDTVs (and to a lesser extent surround sound) are going to become more common, so a big part of getting the most out your 360 is having these technologies available to you. sony is making the same bet and even upping the ante by including a built in blu-ray player in the ps3. sure its going to be absurdly expensive, but it'll be the cheapest b-r player around and you can bet that's a selling point (just like the dvd capabilities of the ps2). nintendo, on the other hand, is not offering a console designed to take advantage of the recent advances in home entertainment. the revolution is not a monster graphics and sound rig (or even one that plays regular dvd's), because nintendo doesn't think the average person has the money to afford (or willingness to buy) all of extra technology required to really appreciate the capabilities of the other consoles. well, i hope that works out for you nintendo, but i dont think it's looking good.

of course, they are correct in thinking that only the hardcore gaming crowd will shell out the cash for an HDTV and surround sound just to enjoy the best possible gaming experience. and nintendo is trying to return gaming to the masses, so they don't want to appeal only to this crowd. the thing they don't seem to realize is that people (in general) aren't buying HDTVs and surround sound so that they can play games. they are buying them because people interested in home entertainment will always want to get the next great thing (and those not interested in it won't be buying any video game consoles anyway). it is not only gamers that are making HDTVs into a successful new technology, it's everyone. technologies like these are only going to become more and more a part of our lives (the same way tvs, and computers did). i have read that HDTVs are the biggest advance in television since colorization. well, if that is the case, then lets construct a hypothetical situation using this knowledge.

it's sometime around the mid 1950's. game consoles have been around for awhile, but have been playing in black and white only (because color tvs are just starting to become popular). despite this, nintendo's gameplan for the next-generation is to release a console (meant to stay on the market for around 5 years) that is heavily targeted towards use on black and white tvs because thats what people have now and because they don't think people are interested enough in gaming to buy a color tv. little do they know that they are right, most people aren't that interested in games. they are, however, definitely that interested in owning color tvs.

now, this plan doesn't exactly sound like progressive thinking to me. in fact, it seems to assume that the present state of home entertainment technology will remain stagnant in the coming years, and this is a gross miscalculation. as much as nintendo can claim to be the masters of innovation, i believe there weakness is their apparent inability to recognize how progress and innovations made in the general technological realm can be used to drive the progress of their own product. they used cartridges when cds were a better choice, little disks that made it impossible to use the gamecube as a dvd player, didn't offer even the possibility of internet connectivity, and now they are denying the increasing prevalence of HD as a product supported by the average consumer. at times it seems like they make these choices just to be different from everyone else, just to be the weird artsy kid who is strangely intruiging but who isn't very popular because the other guys on the block are bigger, stronger, better looking and more sociable. but from a business perspective, this isn't an enviable persona to embody. or maybe they just live in what can be referred to as the nintendo bubble, a magical land where it will forever be the mid to late 80's, where kids never grow up and mature, and where the same character can be reused in 60% of your first-party games over a span of 20 years without becoming tiresome. in this place the proliferation of technologies like computers and the internet is a fairy tale and tvs will never advance beyond the color zenith with the massive rear end squatting in the corner. nintendo is phenomenal at innovating within this bubble, at coming up with ways to keep things fresh despite the technological constraints. but these innovations lack a sense of what's really going on with technology. unfortunately in the real world, nintendo's competitors understand the trends behind technological evolution and how to take advantage of them in order to appeal to the best possible cross-section of consumers. and i submit this is (at least a large part of) why nintendo is now trapped in a corner, forced to watch as the console war it used to dominate plays out beyond its reach. but its not all bad... at least their little corner has fairy dust and magic mushrooms to keep them entertained.

lets just take a breather now and remember that i respect nintendo alot and will be buying a revolution. its just that i don't agree with many of their decisions. and on that note...

nintendo also decided the revolution would not include any media functions other than gaming. bad idea. the pure functionality of the 360 is damn fine innovation if you ask me. i use it all the time for things other than playing games (if you care, read joule's 360 post to find out more). i don't even watch tv anymore because the 360 is always on. even if i dont feel like playing one of the games i bought (which is rarely) there are so many other things i can do. the 360 is my stereo, movie player, online store, telephone, chat room, etc... its not just about gaming. its about functionality. e.g. i plug my i-pod into the 360, make a playlist, and then make myself dinner to a kick-ass soundtrack playing beautifully through my surround sound setup. then, while eating, i'll watch some episodes of family guy or the game/movie trailer i just downloaded. and when i'm finished i play a game or two of geometry wars before doing the dishes. when alone and not intellectually inclined or horny, the 360 is how i entertain myself, period. and with the inclusion of an i-tunes like service, and any other online download services that will be available in the future for the ps3 (and maybe the 360 as well), this trend towards increased functionality will only continue. i know nintendo realizes that increased functionality is good innovation as soon the ds will be able to browse the web in addition to acting as a language tutor and a cookbook. it may just be that nintendo thinks people dont want to do the aforementioned 360 things with their consoles (trust me, they do). or they may just think such pledian innovation is below them. but, the most likely culprit is that they realize people will only need one of these highly functional consoles and don't want to go head-to-head with the big boys. but whatever nintendo's reasons for shunning an innovative approach to the roles consoles can play in our lives, the truth is that in the next-generation and those to follow, consoles will become more and more the center of our entertainment universe. and that, in my humble opinion, is fuckin innovation baby.

thankfully, foregoing any changes in how we interact with our consoles and deciding to make a machine that is only good for playing games(?!?) isn't nintendo's only innovation. the other reasons the company feels justified in criticizing microsoft and sony for their lack of fresh ideas, are the revolution's controller and its classic games library. i personally fail to see how the latter (offering 20 year old games for a price when they can easily be played for free on an emulator) is innovative at all. nintendo has kept itself going for a long time by using its tried and true franchises (mario, zelda,...) and i will be the first the say that they put out quality games making use of these franchises. but you better believe that it is because these games are consistently good that people stay true to them and keep coming back for more. if all of the mario games that nintendo put out (and that's alot of games) began to suck, you can bet people would lose their fondness for mario pretty quickly. e.g. nobody but the most diehard fanboys or the terribly uninformed buy sonic games anymore. sure they would fondly remember the old days of mario and when they got to play one of the older mario games it would be a nostalgic thrill.... for about 5 minutes, at which point they would realize how much better games have become and these so called "classic" games would feel like playing an abashed game of doctor when you could be having sex.

my point is this, franchise loyalty is based on the continuing quality of that franchise, not on nostalgia. even though they may talk about how fantastic the original super mario brothers is (was), people won't enjoy it the way they did when they were kids. nostalgia can make you think a game is incredible, but it is the quality of the game that keeps you playing. these classic games were fantastic for their time, but it's no longer their time and when compared to what we have now it becomes obvious that their only appeal is a nostalgic one, making them not much more than a distraction. so yeah, people will want to play these old games, and people will be excited by them, and all of my friends who dont play games anymore will be stoked that they can play the only games they seem to have respect for (the ones that entertained them when they were 10). but, having experienced what we have, and knowing what is possible in gaming, these games will lose their nostalgic appeal very quickly. count on it. and while everyone is spending their time finding this out, trying to decide whether to run left or right on their scrolling screen, i'll be relishing the startling intensity and realism of COD2 or the white-knuckle, heart-pounding thrill ride that is burnout revenge. come see me when you realize the truth.

so who exactly does this appeal to? surely not the kids of today who have grown up with their own set of classic games. the adult gamers of now? yeah, but the appeal is severely limited for all but an extremely select group. non-gamers? they'll be excited about it, but will soon realize that, like so many other things they did when they were young, these games used to seem a whole lot bigger and better. and then maybe all those people who lost touch with games somewhere along the way will realize just how fantastic a beautiful, simple to control game like geometry wars really is. all the benefits of modern gaming with no interface anxiety.

now for the controller. yes, it is damn innovative. i think alot of incredible things will be done with it. i think it will be copied by the other game companies (sony already has plans to use something similar for the ps2, and rumor has it the webcam for the 360 will be able to judge distance and movement). i think the changes it brings will allow non-gamers to enjoy modern games again because they won't have to deal with all the buttons and can interact much more intuitively. but do i think it is the greatest innovation of this coming generation? no. that honor belongs to all of the ways in which the 360 and the ps3 will invade my life and make everything more convenient, more accessible, and more about the way i want it (not to mention a buttload prettier and better sounding). the revolution is innovative as hell (because of its controller), but so are the 360 and the ps3. that being so, i feel it is safe to say that the revolution is poised to change the way we game, but the 360 has already changed the way i live. so Reggie, i guess we will have to wait and see whose innovation pays off, and whose just ends up getting ripped off.

how will these "innovations" affect sales you ask? here's my opinion.

will the lower price be a selling point: probably. nintendo fanboys will buy one regardless of cost, but the price will probably be a big reason i buy one. the lower price won't persuade non-gamers because of the console's lack of non-gaming functionality and because, unlike the also innovative ds, the revolution is not a handheld, play anytime, distraction that allows you to play with cute puppies. you cannot play the revolution during your commute, or while standing in line. it is an actual console and in order to play it you must use time you could spend doing something else. this is a scary and foreign concept to non-gamers (and the difference between how the ds and the revolution will succeed with this market is evidence that nintendo just has a knack for handhelds that they lack for consoles). gamers will buy the revolution, but only gamers who have enough money for both a revolution and one of the big two (because they will want to be able to play the better looking/sounding versions of multiplatform games), and only if it has some (really) good exclusives. it may sell very well with the half-gamer crowd, but who cares about them....they're just lame.

will the classic games be a selling point: only for fanboys who would have bought the console anyway. regular gamers will realize that if you really want to play these games you can use an emulator making the purchase of a console a silly expenditure. and though the thought of playing goldeneye online makes even my cold heart flutter with warm excitement, after a short time with it i'm pretty sure most people will simply realize how good some of the more recent online fps's are as well as recognizing the massive strides the genre has made since... and they will come crawling back, tail bewteen there legs, ashamed for having ever doubted the newer generation. in short, i feel bad for any regular gamers who get sucked into buying a revolution for its classic games. i just hope for their sake that alot of good new games will come out for the console so they don't end up thinking it was a waste of money. nongamers will be happy that the games are available (until they get bored), but not happy enough to spend the money or risk being labelled a video gamer.

will the controller be a selling point: only if it is used well, and only for gamers. non-gamers will like that it makes games accessible and will probably enjoy alot of the titles more than most other recent games, but not enough to warrant a console puchase. theyll just mooch off their gaming friends. but, if sucessful, the controller idea will spread and you can bet it will be copied. this, however, will probably just lead to nintendo taking a big hit it terms of sales because once their product is copied, it will probably also be improved, or at the very least the 360 and ps3 versions will offer the same versatility with more technologically advanced games. this would make the revolution a pretty tough sell.

-Asano

why they can keep their mice

so, i have read on a number of gaming sites (typically in the form of a somewhat offhand comment) that the keyboard and mouse is universally accepted as the preffered control method for first person shooters. this is usually brought up in the context of a game developer trying to port or otherwise convert a pc shooter to a console, which then inevitably raises the concern that it won't control well because of the inherent shortcomings of all console controllers. well, if it's true that everyone else loves the keyboard mouse combo so much, then good riddance. that just means more console controllers for me.

now, its not that i dont enjoy the aiming precision afforded by the use of mouse.... actually, thats exactly what i don't enjoy. other than preferring to pull a trigger rather than click a button (which provides a kind of interactivity that makes the experience more visceral), and enjoying the ability to pass the controls to a friend without vacating my seat, i simply enjoy the ease of mouse aiming less than the more difficult aiming of analog sticks. i have always found that pc gamers who try to use console controllers get frustrated very quickly with the apparent lack of precision. but let the record show that this is by no means a fault of the controller (though it may have something to do with the particular game), but that more often the fault lies with the gamer. the controller only seems imprecise because you are unskilled at using it.

learning to be good with console controllers is a skill that must be developed. it takes practice. it is not as intuitive or as pick up and play as mouse aiming because it requires greater delicacy and a more developed feel for how the game will react to your inputs. chances are, mouse aiming is so much easier and more intuitive not just because of the actual instruments, but because people are in general more accustomed to using a mouse than a thumbstick. but just because it requires more developed skill and more practice to become good with a controller, does not mean a mouse and keyboard are better. after all, if the world ever needs someone to perform an important activity requiring rapid, deft, and sensitive thumb movements, you can bet they won't be looking up the names of pc gamers.

the reality of aiming and firing a gun at a target is this: it isn't easy. becoming accurate requires practice and i tend to believe that this is more accurately reflected by the analog sticks of a controller precisely because it is more difficult to get them to do what you want. in my mind, this difficulty only increases the importance of skill and rewards those willing to put in the time. i consider myself a pretty fast and accurate manipulator of fps's, but there are some people out there who are ungodly good, and i have alot of respect for them. i think alot of this is lost when you transition to a mouse. there is a sort of elitist charm about being able to consistently get headshots using a controller whereas accomplishing the same thing with a mouse is virtually commonplace.

let me provide and example to illustrate my point. i used to play unreal tournament on the pc. i didnt play it very much, but when i did i loved to load the opposing towers map (you know which one i'm talking about). on this map, i would just get to the top of one of the towers where there was conveniently located a sniper rifle. from this point on i would just get headshot after headshot, racking up monster kills... in a game i barely played. granted this wasn't against humans as i didn't have the means to play online at the time, but the point remains. this was my first mouse controlled fps, and it was almost absurdly easy to get headshots. by comparison, headshot sniping in a game like halo 2 (even with the autoaim) is a great deal more challenging despite the fact that i have played that game for countless hours. getting a headshot snipe in halo 2 feels like an accomplishment every time, and i think it should. realistically, it is not easy to shoot a moving target in the head with a sniper rife (actual snipers are taught not to aim for headshots), and it shouldnt be in videogames either.

now, the point of this is not to deride pc shooters/gamers for making use of the easiest means of being accurate. if everyone is using the same controls, then the playing field is level and skills such as map knowledge, tactical ability, and reflexes (all of which i have the deepest respect for) determine the winner. i mean only to suggest that controllers are not inferior to mice. instead, i would like to suggest that they simply appeal to a different kind of gamer personality. i personally prefer the rewarding feeling i get when my aim is spot on, despite my more challenging controls. becoming a good shot using analog sticks is something you can always improve at, something you can always practice more and something that will reward you in a way mouse aiming cannot precisely because it is more of a challenge. there is nothing like being able to witness your own progress as you go from stuggling to hit the opponent, to having the reticule obey your every whim without hesitation. for those of us who really consider ourselves gamers, lets take a moment to appreciate the glorious difficulty of analog stick aiming, as well as how far each of use has come through our own individual efforts, to overcoming that difficulty. and finally let us recognize that there is no end to how much better we can become through practice and the continual pursuit of perfection.

also, you dont have to worry about running out of room on the mouse pad or table when repeatedly spinning in circles.

-Asano

why look inversion isn't wrong

this is just a notice to everyone who makes the fatally flawed argument that inverted makes no sense because pressing up on the analog stick should make you look up instead of down. you are not pressing up on the analog stick, you are pressing forward. if i am incorrect and you do happen to be pressing up then you must be holding your controller vertically, possibly in front of your face. it seems to me this would be the most nonsensical and/or uncomfortable manner in which one could hold a controller, so i will assume that the rest of us, the sensible ones whose opinions may have some credence, are holding their controllers horizontally around waisthigh, thereby avoided interference with vision and/or discomfort and strain of the wrists.

in this case you are in fact pressing forward on the right analog stick. with this in mind, and based upon the knowledge that pressing forward on the left analog stick makes you walk forward (left,left, right,right, and so on), we can only assume the locus of the analog sticks in relation to your character is the top of the head. if this is true, then pressing forward (ie moving the top of your head forward) should imply looking down. anyone who looks up when they move their head forward has either experienced severe neck trauma in the past or belongs in the same terrifyingly uncomfortable/unsensible camp as the people who hold their controllers in front of their faces, and whose opinions i have long since decided to disregard as a function of apparent mental instability.

given this, only if the stick represented the front of the characters face would pushing forward suggest looking up. this is certainly not impossible, though this case suggests the left and right analog sticks must be operating disparately from one another with one bearing a certain relationship to the character and the other working based upon a quite seperate relationship. this must be the conclusion we reach based upon the knowledge that it is, in fact, impossible to customize your controller (in any game i am aware of) in such a way that pressing forward on the left analog stick makes you jump, pressing back makes you crouch, and pressing left and right have the same effect they have when set to default.

basically, if the default setting makes sense then the two sticks must be operating based upon indepent relationships to the character. while this undermines the consistency i prefer in my control scheme, we have no necessary reason to value such consistency. even granting this, however, does nothing to suggest that default is any more correct or sensible as the analog control scheme is rendered arbitrary by the inconsistency between analog sticks. if there is no reason to assume they should have the same relationship to the character, then there is no reason to assume they shouldnt. put differently, if we have no reason to value consistency, then we have no reason to value inconsistency either. objectively, both are equally valuable.

now, it might be argued that because most in most games the default setting is non-inverted, that they are meant to be played that way. but this is flawed in a number of ways. first, we must assume that either the game maker's decision to make this the default was based on something objective, or that it was arbitrary. obviously there is no higher authority with objective knowledge about proper control schemes, and if you happen to believe in one then you'll have to excuse my saying that you are probably a raving lunatic or a religious fanatic of a magnitude sufficient to qualify you for the former category. some might argue that the higher authority is the effectiveness of the control schemes relative to one another, but i have no reason to believe, and sincerely doubt one is in fact better than the other. this really only depends on what you are used to. so if we accept that there is no higher authority on control schemes, then the game maker's decision was arbitrary and we have no reason to abide by it based purely upon the idea of authority.

but none of this is even necessary as the simple fact that the game makers made non-inverted the default implies nothing about their real intentions since we are, in fact, given a choice in the matter. they may have decided on non-inverted simply because they assumed it was what most people thought was more sensible, and looking at the present results of a poll taken on bungie.net (64% to 36% in favor of non-inverted) this certainly seems like a possibility.

the point of all this is that the argument against inverted based upon the premise that it is nonsensical because when you press up you should look up (or as i have so often encountered it, it's an fps, not a flight sim) relies upon the flawed assumptions that you are in fact pushing up on the analog stick, something that i know i at least am not doing, and that a control scheme making logical sense even matters in the first place (in which case inverted would obviously be superior).

bear in mind i harbor no ill will towards people who use default controllers, whatever you want to play with is fine, i couldnt care less. this argument is directed only at those people who claim that inverted makes no sense (coupled generally with the belief that it is somehow inferior). it does make sense, in fact it makes more sense, but neither one is better or worse. its all about what youre used to. i dont play inverted because i think its sensible, but only because its what i got used to playing back in the halcyon days of goldeneye. please feel free to offer thoughts or counter-arguments of the well thought out variety ("u suck u n00b, ill pwnz u" doesn't count).

-Asano

Is the Xbox 360 truly "Next-Gen"? Yes!

Ever since the Xbox 360 launched last Novermber, critics have been slamming its launch titles, saying that they don't look "next-gen" enough. This often extends to assertions that the 360 launched too early or that, in one way or another, the 360 falls short of being next-gen.

Some titles, especially multiplatform titles like Gun and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland show almost no graphical leap over the previous generation. Others, like many of EASports' games, shipped with updated graphics, but pared-down gameplay options. Madden, for example, looks nice (though not as nice as the target renders shown before launch) but lacks many modes that are available in the Xbox version. Tiger Woods '06, another offender, has about half as many course as the Xbox version.

So is the next generation really about marginally improved graphics and fewer gameplay options, all with a $60 price tag? Of course not. Neither is the 360.

The games described above are unfortunate victims of launch. The multiplatform games appeared because the current consoles are still viable. Multiplatform games, by their very nature, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of technology. Naturally, the 360 versions just aren't that impressive. A prettied-up version of a current generation title would have to be damn pretty to be considered next-gen anyway. The sports games and the others that just aren't worth $60 were most likely rushed to meet the 360's launch. This is inevitable and happens with every console, regardless of the timing of its release.

Simply releasing a title on next-gen hardware does not necessarily make a game next-gen. Neither, though, does releasing a sub-next-gen game suggest that the console itself is sub-next-gen.

Games like Project Gotham Racing 3 and Call of Duty 2, for example, clearly demonstrate that the 360 is capable of next-gen graphics. In fact, CoD2 in particular, shows that the next generation isn't just about hot new graphics. The incredible sound, artificial intelligence that's actually intelligent, sweet physics and huge set-piece battles contribute to an immersive experience that screams next-gen. Games like this aptly demonstrate that the weaker 360 titles should not disqualify the 360 from being considered the next generation of consoles.

CoD2 shows us that graphics are just a small part of the picture. We are going to see a more substantial leap in visuals as the console ages anyway, but there's another aspect where the 360 is already clearly next-gen - online. Xbox Live on the original Xbox was ahead of its time and far superior to anything on the consoles. The improved Live on the 360 is far and away the best online gaming service there is. In fact, I would argue that the leap between Xbox Live iterations is at least as big as any generational leap that we've seen.

I had read about the improved online capabilities of the 360, but I didn't really grasp how great they were until I actually got one. Actually, I should say until Asano and I both got one. My single favorite upgrade is the private chat option. While private chatting, Asano (who lives in Japan) and I (who lives in America) can talk pretty much no matter what we're doing. We can play the same game or we can play different games; we can even watch movies or download content. It's really cool that we can talk to each other while not playing together, just like when we used to play different games on our adjacent TV's. With the wireless controller, we don't even have to be in front of the TV- we can grab a beer, take a piss... I even went outside once.

Private chat is just one of a panopoly of awesome upgrades that make the 360 Dashboard a pervasive and compelling environment, rather than a stupid menu that you have to look at before you can play a game. The Dashboard has fundamentally changed the way I game. Never before have I spent so much time not playing retail games. There is so much to do on the Dashboard like downloading Xbox Live Arcade games, demos of retail games, trailers, themes and icons; playing demos or Arcade games; customizing my system (like making my controls inverted for all FPS's); and listening to ripped music. Honestly, there is just so much good stuff on the Dashboard that I don't even use it all, nor do I have time to even list it here.

Gamercards are another upgrade that sounded ho-hum, but in practice are awesome. Having a custom profile that lists your achievements in games is a fantastic idea. Achievements add a more tangible incentive to attempting hardcore feats. Not only do you have the satisfaction of completing a difficult taks, but your achievements are listed on your gamercard for everyone to see. This really resonates with me, because I want to be rewarded for completing difficult tasks in games. It therefore encourages me to reach for higher scores or beat games on additional difficulty levels, which both extends and intensifies my gaming enjoyment. By virtue of adding achievements, Microsoft has essentially added replayabilty to any game, which is welcome when they cost an extra 10 dollars. I sure as shit wouldn't be constantly playing Geometry Wars (as awesome as it is) just to get a higher score. If I get a high score, I want that shit on my gamercard. That goes for all games from now on.

I could probably go on, but I think you get the point. Good graphics or no good graphics, the Xbox 360 has changed the way I play and view games. The Xbox Dashboard and its integrated Live capabilities represent a vast leap (even vaster that Asano's mom's vagina) over anything we've seen before. This alone is enough to consider the 360 to represent the next generation of console gaming. And anyway, soon enough, games for the 360 will make our eyes bleed with how goddamn gorgeous they are. Maybe not enough of them looked good enough at launch, but I don't care. I'll be over here, playing Geometry Wars.

-Joule