What's the Big Idea?
It happened for me like it happened for so many before me. Wet, sticky, and more than a little frightened under a moonless night in the front seat of Â"… wait, wrong article. Let me start again.
It happened for me like it happened for so many before me. Wet, sticky, and more than a little frightened under a moonless night in front of my computer. Light exploded from the monitor, and a guttural sound growled through the speakers. There in something like a 3d glory stood a demon from hell. I fired my hapless pop-cap gun, but in my heart - my non-virtual heart - I was struck with fear, excitement, and awe. I realized for the first time how truly affecting and visceral video games had the potential to be; realized how, unlike books and television, the medium could blend imagination with an interactive experience and entertain in a way that absolutely no previous method could possibly achieve. It was one of a few moments where the shape of video gaming changed entirely and dramatically for me, and itÂ's a sensation I havenÂ't felt for some time.What happened? It used to be leaps and bounds, great evolutionary mutations in gaming that changed everything all at once. Now itÂ's incremental steps steeped in the bogged down specificity of individual technical advancements. Where once we leaped from 2d straight into 2d that pretended to be 3d, now we talk about the minutia of slightly faster megahertz and rendering pipelines. Where once strategy gamers suddenly sat down before the tumultuous glory of Command and Conquer, now the best we can do is occasionally blend genres into FPS-RTS and ActionRPGs. Where is the new technology thatÂ's as revolutionary as the 3d accelerator? Where is gamingÂ's next big idea? Are those days now truly gone?
Part of the blame for this creative plateau has to be laid directly at the feet of developers and publishers, as innovation is clearly not the buzzword of the industry these days. Not only are companies either unwilling or incapable or redefining gaming, but theyÂ've stagnated to the point of simply repeating themselves with only minute technical advances left to distinguish one game from the next. Even the relatively new MMOG genre has quickly become moribund as Ultima X (sequel), Everquest 2 (sequel), and World of Warcraft (established franchise) make up the most anticipated titles. Look further at the big games across every system for the past year and the coming year, and youÂ'll find them littered with roman numerals, and familiar franchises such as Halo 2, Final Fantasy X-2, Mario Kart: Double Dash, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and the like. Even the so-called Game Gods from whoÂ's minds leapt entire genres are failing us, with the very Zeus of them, Sid Meier, working merely on a remake of a previous success. Where are the industry leaders, be they individuals or corporations, to lay the groundwork? Where are the big idea men of gaming these days?
But, I donÂ't want to point the finger only at those working the hardest to make games in the first place. The problem is not simply a function of rampant cashing in on easy ideas, though that trend certainly doesnÂ't help. Despite the industryÂ's apathy toward innovation, thereÂ's a more obvious issue at hand. ItÂ's easy to be the idea man when there is no shortage of great ideas to be had. In the early days of gaming it was easy to imagine eventually creating a game with smooth detailed 3d animation, that waged massive wars with hundreds of units, that sounded as heavy and thick as a film, that even had voiced responses. The problem was not a lack of ideas, but a lack of technology.
Technology has always been the inspiration for great redefining games, from the hard drive, to the graphic accelerator, to the modem, to the sound card. I recall the first time I played Star Wars in the arcade, and my relative joy at hearing a voice that vaguely sounded like Luke Skywalker saying, "This is Red Five, IÂ'm going in." Not only was the game portrayed in a kind of green vector 3d, but that was the first time my interaction created a voiced response that sounded real, and it fulfilled a desire IÂ'd had for a long time. I think now that IÂ'd like to feel that awed by a game again, but I lack the specific desire that IÂ'm waiting for developers to fulfill. Where before I would have said, "IÂ'd like a 3d world to shoot monsters in", now I can only say, "I want to be impressed."
The problem these days is in even answering the question of whatÂ's next. Imagining gaming ten, twenty, even fifty years from now leads to a few obvious advances that arenÂ't practical yet – haptic interfaces, sensory gaming perception, true photo-realism, or a computer opponent indistinguishable from a human to name a few – but basically the fundament gaming we imagine probably looks a lot like what we have now. In the early 90s the advances in gaming that lived right over the horizon were obvious, from online multiplayer, to 3d gaming, to arcade quality and beyond. Now those gaming advances are matters of degree. Just as movies made their last great technological mutation with color film, perhaps gamingÂ's last great bastion was incorporating the internet.
So I think back to the first time I played Ultima Online – in all itÂ's distressingly laggy glory over my 56k modem that barely connected at 14.4 – and wonder if thereÂ's a similar birth of a new gaming genre anywhere on the immediate horizon. I think back to playing Doom and wonder if IÂ'll ever be that amazed at the singular leap from what I had known before to what I was suddenly enjoying. I think back even to the first time I played Super Mario Brothers on my brand new NES, and I wonder if that awe at what gaming was suddenly capable of was so fleeting?
And I wonder what it would take for me to feel that way again. Certainly a complete, or at least sensory complete virtual world could reproduce that impression. If I could look in every direction and be immersed in a living world IÂ'd feel that way again, or if somehow I could feel – to a degree within reason – the play world around me, then certainly that would constitute a quantum leap. Additionally, if the world I looked at on screen were suddenly indistinguishable from the real world, then that would have to be considered a monumental jump. If I could play a game against my PC, and have it interact with me, learn from my strategies, and compete against me at or near human level, then no doubt color me impressed. But how realistic are any of those goals in the coming years? And when they do come, wonÂ't they be more a function of increments as opposed to a single leap?
I actually have hope that thereÂ's another revolution coming, perhaps not to arrive soon, but on the horizon. And, despite a lack of innovation, we have no shortage of quality games to play in the meantime, so I canÂ't complain too vigorously. But I look forward to feeling the way I felt playing Doom, or Wing Commander, or Super Mario, or Ultima Online for the first time again. ItÂ's a feeling worth waiting for.
- Elysium
Print
Delicious
Digg
Imagine this. Tomorrow someone creates a cheap realiable vr interface that consists of a simple headband. Wearing this projects you into a virtual world so real that it is indisdinguishable from the real thing.
Yes it would be pretty cool. We'd all be wowed for quite some time.
That does not necessarily mean that the games designed for this medium would be very good. And even if they were good, there's flaws to any system. If you try to break it long enough.
What I'm trying to say I guess is not that a vr interface wouldn't be cool but rather that good games impress me more than hi tech interfaces.
(i recently reinstalled X-Com: Terror From the Deep on my desktop and must say I enjoyed it more than a lot of newer games I have)...
Do you really think that is a better start for your article?
Actually, those are some great points. I've been noticing lots of hype for Black & White 2. Now, the original was a game that was supposed to be a reinvention of lots of ideas about gaming. Instead, it was a reinvention of lots of ideas about boredom and frustration. And the developers could have said, "Look, we tried to do something revolutionary and it didn't work out. At least we tried shaking things up a little." Instead, they make a sequel. And what's worse, it is getting hyped by Gamespy right after the original topped their list of the Most OverHyped games! So I think that's a good example of what you're talking about here...
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
I'm gonna follow Eoin's sentiment and say there's more than a technical plateau that's wrong with the industry. If anything a plateu in technical innovation would give developers the time to become comfortable with the machines and work on the game itself, which is a common complaint with the release of each new generation of consoles.
The problem is that we have a plateau in innovation, not just technology. I think it has more to do with this part
The trick is, developers are inspired by the same emotions that cause us to wish for the "next big thing". The fact that most people really can't think of what the next big thing is means that by and large developers don't know either. There are some pushing the envelope but by and large the developer and publisher communities seem content to rehash old content. Whereas before, the limitations imposed on them by technology would cause them to pine for the next step in hardware and dream up ways to use it, now we are left with "Where do we go from here?". There are no constraints to what we can do, or at least we haven't ran into them yet, so what's next? The hardware isn't the limiting factor anymore, and most people don't seem to know or understand what exactly the limiting factor is. Without something to struggle against the medium becomes complacent and listless, yearning for the grand struggles and victories of old.
So where is the envelope and why aren't we pushing it? That's my question. My guess is that the limiting factor for a while won't be technological but social. Not "how the game works" but "how the game is built". Think about it like this, what are the biggest gripes with the industry today? It's usually QA and delivery related, pricing, copy protection, lax QA, buggy games, ect. The innovation needs to come in how we make and get games to solve our current problems. To me the percieved quality of the game suffers because of the things surrounding the game, not the game itself. When we can download a stable game for $19.99 and have it work, that game will be way more fun than the same game in a box on a shelf for $50 that was released 6 months earlier. I know I'd have way more fun gaming if I could do that.
"We've learned irishmen have huge nipples, and that intellectual film critics are all huge gaywads. But most of all, we've learned that creeping corporate influence over the news media ... protects us from terrorism" - Norm Archer, Onion Movie
Let's see... If the idea of "Matrix head plug" is discarded as a way, way long shot one, what would be relatively quick remedy?
VR is certainly first thing that snaps to my mind. Even a simple , rudimentary demonstration of such technology is sure to take anyone's breath away. I just don't understand what happened with dual-display (hence real depth perspective), surround sound helmet thingy for the masses? Let's face it, affordable technology that can do it is right here. Nobody can persuade me that it's not doable, even if initial development cost and final product would be extremely expensive (from a consumer point of view) at first. Look what happened with mobile phones in just a couple of years... Maybe the current set of mind is so entrenched in what we have now that nobody even dares to make an attempt? What would it take? Someone to make the hardware and someone to support it with at least a couple of games innitialy, and before you know it, everyone will scurry to grab a piece. I know that technology is widely used in military, I just can't believe that it still isn't widely available.
Force Feedback on a much bigger scale than currently available. I'm talking about "Get shot, feel the pain!" FF kind of thing. That would put a very different perspective on some of FPS'es, now wouldn't it?
It's doable with a suit that has a few electrodes on strategic places, or maybe not even suit, simply those thingies that docs use and that you just stick on. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to get ellectrocuted by a headshot either, but a nicely dosed pinch would do really nice, especialy for some 3l33t d00dz that I know. 
VR and, let's call it "enhanced FF" would be a nice techological bbase for some extraordinary rushes that would put gaming on a whole different level than it is now.
Panem et circenses
"You really need to smoke a tree first to appreciate that one." - Sanjuro
Actually there are still HUGE technological barriers that developers are dealing with. Take some time coding with a 3d engine and it won't be long at all before you have it crawling at 5 fps.
What I think has happened recently is the lack of tricks. DOOM was a trick, all games before it were filled with tricks to make them appear the way they did. We could tell it was a trick, but we didn't care because it still looked so cool.
Now as machines advance, less and less tricks are needed / used. They have that character actually drawn in 3d, instead of a flat sprite that gets larger.
Instead of suddenly turning lighter because the player stepped on a different part of the "light map" (Half Life 2 is still using these I noticed), he can be half in and out of the light because it's no longer a trick, the computer is tracing the lights.
John Carmack is quoted often about it when talking about Doom 3, "No more tricks". He says it all the time.
There's no more tricks to be had. You can see right through them if they try. So games are more tied to the incremental steps in computer advancement than ever before.
So what? You say. It's not all about the graphics, but more of it is than you think. The more cpu used to draw the graphics, the less there is left for everything else. I could go on with how the leap from 16 bit to 32 bit was major for videogames and computers in general (doom was one of the first 32 bit), but that 64, 128, 256 aren't really going to have much of an affect, but this post is already WAY to long.
Developers have all sorts of things they want to do, but can't. The machines just don't have the power.
So to get Elysium's wish to come true we'd have to see one of these things to happen.
1 - A really big leap in technology
2 - Some new gaming device that really changes things (Like VR, but I still don't think that will ever fly)
3 - Some new tricks. Tricks so good it makes you believe number 1 has occurred.
I have a lot more ideas in my old post "The FUTURE of gaming" lost somewhere on this site.
I disagree with the second statement. The machines do have the power to do pretty much anything. I didn't mean photorealistic or "omg I can see each indiviual hair move!" kind of everything, I mean't gameplay. As far as any game is concerned they can do pretty much whatever they want now. But very few people know how to get it done without it becoming a buggy, boring mess. The how of making games needs to be improved before we can even take advantage of that new technology that isn't here yet, was my point.
"We've learned irishmen have huge nipples, and that intellectual film critics are all huge gaywads. But most of all, we've learned that creeping corporate influence over the news media ... protects us from terrorism" - Norm Archer, Onion Movie
A great example is an RTS game. Or even Sim City.
Each piece has to run an AI routine to figure out what it's going to do next.
Multiply your routine by a few hundreds, and the machine starts chugging.
I'm sure you've seen what I'm talking about. Too many things start happening and the game slows down. The computer can't handle it.
They can't do anything they want game play wise.
We have a long ways to go before making that statement.
Ridlin
Lead Programmer
I'm telling you the next big thing is a more interactive game experience. And I'm not talking about being able to flush toilets or use a coke machine. I'm talking about about sensor pads that plug into a a port of some kind and deliver an electrical shock when and enemy hits you. I'm imagining that guy at the beginning of Ghostbusters that Bill Murray is shocking when he gets the answer wrong. Imagin how much fun deathmatch would be if not only di you get to kill your friends but you get get to shock them as well.
Screw rumble, I want to feel the pain!
"Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin
Ok, now is there ANYONE else on this forum besides me, who doesn't have multiple PhD's?
Sorry for going of topic, but there seems to be so many "heavyweights" around here that I start to feel a bit awkward... Developer there, lead programmer here... Where am I? And how did I get here? This obviously ain't your average Joe forum.
Is there an "Let's introduce ourselves" thread somewhere? Not that I am scared to blurt out something stupid, I mean, it's bound to happen anyway sooner or later, but still...
Panem et circenses
"You really need to smoke a tree first to appreciate that one." - Sanjuro
I think this example illustrates Pyro's point very well. This can't be the best way to write AI. Maybe for an RPG or FPS, but not RTS. I wonder what would happen if an AI played like a human and had to discover the map and forgot about its units once in a while.
For me, it will always be about gameplay. High poly counts are nice, VR and haptics would be fun, but it's all gimmickry. It may not be "tricks" but it's still gimmickry. Give me a stable game, a role to play and an intuitive, transparent interface and don't call me for supper.
A lot of people on this board love BG, Torment, KOTOR and are excited over Fable and Jade Empire. To me, this is where game development needs to go: learning to tell an engaging, immersive and adaptive tale starring me, the player, not some soldier/scientist/contract killer with more guns than is humanly possible to carry.
Will this model support the masses? Hell no. There will always be the someone who wants to blow everything up or throw touchdowns. And there'll be more of them with more money than I'll ever make, but I'll just keep voting with my wallet. There's not much else I can do.
Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit. - Oscar Wilde
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.) - Roedy Green
Keep an eye on the front page, we'll be doing something about this very soon
Yeah, it's scary. I'm staring into the abyss right now, and it's staring into me, which I think is kind of a dick move on the abyss's part. - Nyles
BOOM! I, in my overly naive state, tend to think that some of the sequels are out there because the orginals were so good. The characters deserve revisiting. There may have been things they wanted to do/accomplish with the first one that they couldn't due to budget/tech/time constraints. I would also like to see the stories, characterizations, and dialogue continue to improve to the point where it is akin to movies or... or... Literature(?). How great would it be to see an emotionally-dirven cRPG story thread that didn't sound like it was lifted from a dime-store novel? Or a game whose scope is truly genre-shattering?
It would be kewl.
Psychotic Foreign Teenage Chicks are so hot. - Legion
...they can also come bathe in the glorious, healing light of my Johnson. - Prederick
I personally hope that use of VR and tactile feedback in mainstream games are decades away. To me, it's just another distraction from making fun games.
Yes, but you're not describing any gameplay we can't achieve, merely saying there are technical limits. There are always technical limits.
Maybe I should clairfy my stance here. There are plenty games that can be done with the current technology but aren't being done because the development processes are so error-prone. It's so risky to make a game because the development processes are so unpredictable, expensive and often produce buggy boring games. Yes 90% of anything is crap, but I believe that the other 10% is being choked to death by clueless publishers and unstable developers, each problem feeding off the other.
So maybe I don't necissarily disagree with you. There are technical limits. It's just my opinion that the technology isn't what's holding developers back. It's that the industry as a whole just isn't sure where to go because the games that are supposed to show them where to go are either buggy, late and/or cancelled.
"We've learned irishmen have huge nipples, and that intellectual film critics are all huge gaywads. But most of all, we've learned that creeping corporate influence over the news media ... protects us from terrorism" - Norm Archer, Onion Movie
Elysium wrote:
Danjo wrote:
Let me start by saying, I dont emote well but THIS right here is why I continue to return to Gamers With Jobs.
Secondly... Hi. long time listener, first time make with the yap yap.
This essay describes exactly to the letter (give or take a few words I didnt understand) the current problems with all of the mainstream entertainment media. TV, Cinema, Music and Gaming all have no clue as to what direction they should head in next yet material continues to be churned out, with formula and script replacing innovation and invention. Id like to say that we can put all blame squarely on the shoulders of business ethic and fat cash injections but it honestly feels like new ideas are at an all time low. I believe, like others, that the next major leap has to be towards engaging the player to the point of disassociation from reality - drug of choice, anyone? But how we become that immersed in an entertainment medium is beyond me - other than the knowledge that sooner or later Im going to be breathing in the simulated air of another world and grappling with the emulated kick-back of the rifle gripped, moist with digital sweat, in my hands. Or maybe gaming has to stop here - maybe the next step is rubbing the sleep from my eyes, opening the curtains and stepping out into the sunshine. Oh wait, I live in England.
Sorry for the long post but its made me honest-to-dog happy that im not the only one with these feelings.
Well, I do think there's developers out there with plenty of ideas (and even more without), the problem's getting the money men to give them a chance. If you're going to innovate, you have to take risks, and there's nothing financers hate more. And really, why should they? The gaming public keeps buying the same regurgitated crap time after time, while original and quirky games like Giants and Sacrifice languish on the store shelves. It makes sense for publishers to go for the safe buck as long as we keep letting them get away with it.
Oh, and I second whoever said character interaction will be next big area of innovation. Unless I dreamt that part.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Yes and no. Yes, we buy the same things time and again, but it's usually by the third time (or second time in the case of look-alikes) that it's devolved into crap. No, I think Sacrifice deserved to stay on the shelf -- great concept, horrible control scheme. But then, maybe it would have lost some of that magic if it lost the over-the-shoulder, impossible to send units where you want viewpoint.
Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit. - Oscar Wilde
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.) - Roedy Green
I would posit that maybe the technological abilities at the moment are part of the problem. Everyone is so tied up with bump-mapping vertex-shaded rag-doll-physicked that it seems like a lot of games forget the game part of it. There's a thread in the Games forum about Super Mario 3 being the funnest game ever - and what system did that come out for? Personally, I'm thinking of picking up a GBA because it looks like fun. It looks like it has a lot of games, not tech demos.
Don't get me wrong; I like me a well put together piece of software, with bells and whistles and flashing lights, but those are all add-ons. Those things should never be the sole focus of the game. It kinda reminds me of EverQuest, in a way. I played for a couple of months about 6 months ago, and while there was a lot to see, a lot of places to go and monsters to meet and items to find, there wasn't a whole lot of game to tie those things together. It felt like they'd worked so much on the expansions that they'd forgotten to include the core game. (Not that that's actually the case; just that that's the way it felt to a newb.)
I think the difficulty will be in reminding the brainless monkeys that buy (and then complain about) all the crap that comes out that they can enjoy a game without being blown away by the technology behind it. There is certainly a time and a place for fancy-schmancy computer tomfoolery, but it's not all the time and everywhere. It's way past time to go back to the game first, and the fancy second.
Don't you understand, Cliff? We put a chainsaw on a machine gun! That's it! It doesn't get more awesome than that! We've peaked, man! We've peaked! - ctrl-alt-del on Gears of War 2
Thanks for the kind words and for diving in SleepyJack.
Yeah, it's scary. I'm staring into the abyss right now, and it's staring into me, which I think is kind of a dick move on the abyss's part. - Nyles
That's all different than the kind of technology leaps I'm talking about. I don't mean new ways of rendering will suddenly create new methods of play, but rather the quantum leaps in technology - the 3d accelerator as a concept - facilitate innovation. Suddenly being able to present gaming in a way that's never been possible before stimulates the creative process in a way that simply refining existing techniques can't. Further understand that I draw a distinction between innovation and quality. And none of this is to eliminate the creative mind from the process.
I guess my point is,even in this discussion, I hear a lot of people talking about how new genres and fantastically innovative games should be possible now. I don't hear anyone, though, describing what those games would be like. I don't think we lack creative people in the industry, but rather lack the lightning rod of inspiration that those creatuve folks need.
- Elysium
Ok, let's try a different approach then. What CAN you do in games, now? If you put it down to basics, it would be something like this (not in the order of importance or prefference):
kill
craft/customize different things
buy/sell
move around (be it walk, fly, drive, swim, etc.)
solve puzzles
build
coordinate (armies, economy, team members)
compete
enjoy as many of above factors nicely wrapped up in interesting storyline
do all or some of above things in multiplayer
Add as many other things as you see fit, my point will be the same. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but these basic "things" were doable in games since day one. Only thing that is different since mentioned day one is technological advance. I would like to be enlightened by an explanation of what that "next big thing" about what the games that we want will be like.
In my oppinion, INTERFACE in the broadest term is pretty much what can still give us that next big push. Let's face it, we all played probably hundreds of games and it's harder and harder to be impressed. But by building better and more immersing interface with the game itself is what can probably still press "the big WOOHOO button" of any of us.
When I play, I see my monitor, clock and camera on it, my desk, keyboard, lamp, and window. I am still aware of my room, my chair and my surroundings. Cut me of from those "interferencies" and I will be lost in the game world. Way to do that is to be enveloped in as many ways as possible. Thus, give me helmet, give me sound and give me as acurate as possible feddback from a game. Chair that rocks and shakes when "my airplane get's shot"? Why not? Pinch from being shot? Sure! If I look around, and there is no my room there, just jungle/warehouse/Mars/younameit, I'll be pretty much engulfed in game experience.
With that kind of interface, it won't much matter am I Navy SEAL in the middle of the firefight, astronaut bouncing happily on Moon base, house painter in "Paint the house blue, or die" game, or a frog on a rotten leaf in some swamp, i will be 100% THERE, IMMERSED.
Wirh such technological base there'll be something for everyone. Just like today.
Panem et circenses
"You really need to smoke a tree first to appreciate that one." - Sanjuro
This is something that has been bothering me as well.. I buy a new game, play it for a while.. think "this is just like X" where X is some other game that I've played before and don't care to play again, and then I put the game on a shelf and never play it again.
I think that maybe the problem is that our "generation" if you will, has become accustom to selecting games because of new tech., pretty graphics, online play, etc.
But I personally think that the next evolution(note: not revolution) in games is going to be more games like KOTOR. A game where they take technology that's for the most part proven and stable and tell somebody with a vivid imagination to write a script.
If we use the usual comparison to the movies, I'd say that major things like 3d acceleration are really novelties. Much like "talkies" were when sound was able to be added to a film. It was neat, innovative, technology that when applied correctly greatly added to the content of a film. However when they first came out you can bet there were alot of movies with no plot that took advantage of the ability to put voices on the film just to sell tickets. I think we may be in a phase like that right now, 3d acceleration is really "neat" and when used well it can add alot to a game.. but right now games will sell well enough if it just has 3d.
Eventually I think this will level out.. much like 2d games eventually did, once eveybody got tired of playing "pong" or "arkanoid" clones they evenutally went on to create 2d games with actual plots(ex. Sierra's *Quest series or lucasarts "Loom") that exploit the technology to tell a story.
Sorry about the lead programmer stamp, el_dino. I don't put it anywhere in my posts usually, but I was having a particularly buggy and frustrating day yesterday and was getting ... huffy, I guess.
Pyro and I agree to half agree with one another, so that's cool. We agree that we both have good points.
Within the current boundaries, yes. I can think of lots of things they could be doing, but the reply back would always be - "That's not possible now".
Can't you think of something different we can do with the current tech??
Um .... no, not really.
No need to appologize, dear friend, au contre. My post was more of a "bewildered" kind than "look at this guy flashing his shiny thingy". It is of course very interesting and challenging to discuss with highly educated people. It's even better when someone as new as myself gets such a nice welcome. Man, I really like this place
Back to the point, I certainly wish I had a diploma or two, by all means I could/should have by now, but I guess I'm just too darned lazy...
Still chugging away, though...
In any case, Maximum Respect.
Panem et circenses
"You really need to smoke a tree first to appreciate that one." - Sanjuro
The only thing I want to make clear - and you guys may already get it - is that I'm not talking about quality. I think the wealth of creative people in the industry are producing some fantastic games, and I'm not trying to be dire about the industry. What I'm speaking of is not really a 'trouble' with the industry, as I see it, just a feeling I haven't gotten from gaming in a long while. For as great as a game like Half-Life was, it didn't make me look at gaming in a way I never had before, and I think technology plays an integral part to that.
To put it another way, the first time I played a great game that utilized a graphic accelerator, I had a sensation that has been rarely duplicated. Here was this amazing hardware blended with the creativity of a developer to produce an experience I'd never had before. Sure, better games came along, higher quality games that used the hardware better, but none of them reproduced the first impression of playing a 3d accelerated game. So when I talk about technology being an intergral part of this experience, I don't mean that technology defines quality, but that a suitably new technology in the right hands can produce an experience one has never had before. That's what I'm waiting for.
- Elysium
I agree that we don't lack creative people in the industry but I don't think we need some shiny new piece of hardware to make them come out of the woodwork. I think the technology is already here, i.e. the internet, but it's not being taken advantage of for several reasons. One, the traditional development process lends itself to distributing on CD and only CD. You build up to one release and you're done. This is not the way software development works with other distribution methods such as the internet, take Galactic Civ as an example. They're still producing patches to the game. If they were publisher funded, they would've been told to quit and move on a long time ago. As it is they keep making sales and patches regardless of shelf space.
Another problem is buggy QA. Publishers test a game, stick on safedisc and launch it out the door. Games developers are somewhat taking advantage of the internet by reading their own forums and patching based on those requests. However often the publisher steps in and makes them ignore their requests and move on, or they actively delete posts in order to make the game look better. The potential of the internet to improve the quality of the game is hampered by the social and political situation.
I can see your viewpoint and I don't want you to think I think your point is invalid. I just don't believe it's the primary cause of the trouble the industry has recently found itself in. The development process is just plain dysfunctional. All of these brilliant games discussed here were not developed under this kind of process, they had much looser publisher control, little hype and incentive to do proper QA since patches were costly. The technology comes and goes in cycles and will always be at a high or low point. What we're seeing isn't a temporary low point, however, it's a consistently degrading chance of a game being successful. I just don't think a VR interface alone is going to save us.
"We've learned irishmen have huge nipples, and that intellectual film critics are all huge gaywads. But most of all, we've learned that creeping corporate influence over the news media ... protects us from terrorism" - Norm Archer, Onion Movie
Hah! These, IMHO, are statements practicaly worth a separate discusion. And here's why: I believe that these "feelings" are dependant on your age and previous experience much more than on actual, let's call it "objective" technology leap.
How can you duplicate the rush of first getting your little, kiddy hands on a console and plating Mario? How can you duplicate the impact of "awesome" 320*200 graphics on your high-school friends PC? After all, how can you duplicate adrenaline overflow when you first sat on a drivers seat of a car and drove those first few yards? By flying an F-16? Doable, but let's say you did that too, then what? Shuttle? It's harder and harder. The more you see and do, the less can surprise and bafle you. And for that, my friend, there ain't no cure.
Even if I get all those things that I babled about few posts north of here, I don't believe that they would make me feel the way I felt when for the first time ever I sat in front of a computer, about 20 years ago. I strongly doubt it.
Gee, I sound like I'm 90 or something. Forget rushes, there is always something that can be enjoyed in any given moment, and that's what I'm happy with.
Panem et circenses
"You really need to smoke a tree first to appreciate that one." - Sanjuro
I think part of this is reflected in the rising popularity of the indy publishers. It used to
be that small companies released games that were basically ignored, but now you have
people looking for the next big thing, the new twist or innovation. Games like the CM
series, or Coliseum, or even Dominions 2 pay attention to gameplay more than just
resembling last year's best seller, and now that we are all jaded by look-alike RTS's
and cookie-cutter Tycoon clones, gamers are looking less for well-known labels and
more for substance.
Not a bad trend, I think.
Robear
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
The next big thing will be what arrises from the tech behind Planetside. When network technology improves (cheaper, bigger bandwidth) even further so that we can get real twitch MMO's there will be another explosion. Just like Diablo did for 28.8 modems, a responsive MMO able to handle 8 player battle.net games with 50-75 players in the area and hundreds of monsters will be the first multimillion seller MMO. Of course, most people will require at least a half T1 and I dont think the graphics and physics are anything a P4 + Radeon will handle anytime soon.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.