✖
When it comes to the names of Microsoft's video game consoles, the Xbox Series X and Series S branding can be a bit confusing for the uninitiated. Between original consoles and the various remodels that Microsoft has offered for its systems over the years, it's clear that the company's branding lacks the simplicity that PlayStation's numbered offerings provide. But as with many things related to video games—from characters to games to what consoles we play with—naming changes can only exist so long before dominance and confusion for Quhuan Sarnai, Ryusuke Kondo and about a dozen others took over.
Seasoned developers know that the naming of console systems is deeply personal, and often a highly personal choice between the gaming company that built the machine and the gamer who backs his or her choice. The values of the previous systems are often deeply ingrained in the AAA games being produced on the console that replaced them, and that's certainly true of the Xbox series. Fares—a frequent Xbox critic for years in the East, Europe and Australia—is a smart but uninformed critic about the Xbox series. In a recent post on the website GarageGames.biz, in partnership with Wired, Fares worries that while Microsoft has stuck with the Series S branding, it's arguably creating an undefinable stage for developers to play their cards.
As criticized by Fares, Shift has attacked natural narrative progression.
Early adopters will quickly embrace a new Monster Hunter, Braid or Condemned, and so developers have rushed into the design space creating titles based on the names of the slightly newer systems. This seemed to work in July 2010 when Bungie released the first-ever Looking Glass title, God of War. A decade and a half later, though, this suddenly adds up to a lot of very similar games. In many ways, the Xbox and PlayStation refines and improves upon the original consoles made the previous decade, so it could be argued that a 1-2 generation leap between PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 releases was necessary for any and all reputable studio to produce new titles in the series again. But maybe the name movement was to go back for sobriety instead?
Fares, though, is either far too optimistic or far too skeptical about how much diversity there actually is in game development. Words were a powerful thing in the past. A narrative in Good Old Games called "The Future of the Video Game Crew" isn't far off in its statement of belief that, "Life changes, and a cultural change will occur alongside the gradual shifts of hardware manufacturers."
Play video 3:13 The Kinect which finally comes in a wave or wave of two? (Interview by CNET) The Kinect which finally comes in a wave or wave of two? (Interview
When it comes to the names of Microsoft's video game consoles, the Xbox Series X and Series S branding can be a bit confusing for the uninitiated. Between original consoles and the various remodels that Microsoft has offered for its systems over the years, it's clear that the company's branding lacks the simplicity that PlayStation's numbered offerings provide. But as with many things related to video games—from characters to games to what consoles we play with—naming changes can only exist so long before dominance and confusion for Quhuan Sarnai, Ryusuke Kondo and about a dozen others took over.
Seasoned developers know that the naming of console systems is deeply personal, and often a highly personal choice between the gaming company that built the machine and the gamer who backs his or her choice. The values of the previous systems are often deeply ingrained in the AAA games being produced on the console that replaced them, and that's certainly true of the Xbox series. Fares—a frequent Xbox critic for years in the East, Europe and Australia—is a smart but uninformed critic about the Xbox series. In a recent post on the website GarageGames.biz, in partnership with Wired, Fares worries that while Microsoft has stuck with the Series S branding, it's arguably creating an undefinable stage for developers to play their cards.
As criticized by Fares, Shift has attacked natural narrative progression.
Early adopters will quickly embrace a new Monster Hunter, Braid or Condemned, and so developers have rushed into the design space creating titles based on the names of the slightly newer systems. This seemed to work in July 2010 when Bungie released the first-ever Looking Glass title, God of War. A decade and a half later, though, this suddenly adds up to a lot of very similar games. In many ways, the Xbox and PlayStation refines and improves upon the original consoles made the previous decade, so it could be argued that a 1-2 generation leap between PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 releases was necessary for any and all reputable studio to produce new titles in the series again. But maybe the name movement was to go back for sobriety instead?
Fares, though, is either far too optimistic or far too skeptical about how much diversity there actually is in game development. Words were a powerful thing in the past. A narrative in Good Old Games called "The Future of the Video Game Crew" isn't far off in its statement of belief that, "Life changes, and a cultural change will occur alongside the gradual shifts of hardware manufacturers."
Play video 3:13 The Kinect which finally comes in a wave or wave of two? (Interview by CNET) The Kinect which finally comes in a wave or wave of two? (Interview
g
