The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Okay, yep, blatant Gameaday attempt, but it might start an interesting conversation.
I guess this is a two-pronged question. Firstly, WHAT do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you want gaming to stick on televisions (albeit on the future high-res TVs), with blistering flame rates and realistic graphics? Or would you rather have the cartoony-style of today's graphics? What about games that are holographic, like the weird chess-variant that they had in Star Wars : A New Hope? Or would you rather go for the full blown Matrix-style immersion so that you're actually IN the game world? Do you want that? Surely it would hurt playing an FPS... and I'm not a glutton for pain (*realises that this techonology could be used for... disturbing purposes*). Do you think that we should always be able to differentiate between computer graphics and real life?
And then, WHERE do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you subscribe to Sony's convergence theory, where everything is in one box, or do you prefer the Nintendo and Microsoft view that consoles are for playing games - period.
Personally, my view is that games SHOULDN'T become photo-realistic, because I think the slightly cartoony look is pretty cool, and we play games to get away from real life. Shenmue was boring, because it was real life. We don't play games to go to work! (although, the Japanese seem to like their job simulators). Anyway, I don't know about whether convergence is a good idea, or whether the console as a box under your telly will die out... but I'm happy at the moment :)
Opinions please!
--Ed
I guess this is a two-pronged question. Firstly, WHAT do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you want gaming to stick on televisions (albeit on the future high-res TVs), with blistering flame rates and realistic graphics? Or would you rather have the cartoony-style of today's graphics? What about games that are holographic, like the weird chess-variant that they had in Star Wars : A New Hope? Or would you rather go for the full blown Matrix-style immersion so that you're actually IN the game world? Do you want that? Surely it would hurt playing an FPS... and I'm not a glutton for pain (*realises that this techonology could be used for... disturbing purposes*). Do you think that we should always be able to differentiate between computer graphics and real life?
And then, WHERE do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you subscribe to Sony's convergence theory, where everything is in one box, or do you prefer the Nintendo and Microsoft view that consoles are for playing games - period.
Personally, my view is that games SHOULDN'T become photo-realistic, because I think the slightly cartoony look is pretty cool, and we play games to get away from real life. Shenmue was boring, because it was real life. We don't play games to go to work! (although, the Japanese seem to like their job simulators). Anyway, I don't know about whether convergence is a good idea, or whether the console as a box under your telly will die out... but I'm happy at the moment :)
Opinions please!
--Ed
If I want to watch a film, I either watch it on TV, or use my PS2. When you have it, you might as well use it, and it ain`t bad either.
A good topic, wish I had time to post an answer.
Quick thing though, Nintendo are on the right track by keeping away from the "all in one" thing, and keeping just to gaming. A console is a games machine. If I wanted to watch a film, I will use my film machine.
Quick thing though, Nintendo are on the right track by keeping away from the "all in one" thing, and keeping just to gaming. A console is a games machine. If I wanted to watch a film, I will use my film machine.
Where - Here, as it is now. Its easy to find because I have a link to here.
What - A good discussions board!
What - A good discussions board!
Okay, yep, blatant Gameaday attempt, but it might start an interesting conversation.
I guess this is a two-pronged question. Firstly, WHAT do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you want gaming to stick on televisions (albeit on the future high-res TVs), with blistering flame rates and realistic graphics? Or would you rather have the cartoony-style of today's graphics? What about games that are holographic, like the weird chess-variant that they had in Star Wars : A New Hope? Or would you rather go for the full blown Matrix-style immersion so that you're actually IN the game world? Do you want that? Surely it would hurt playing an FPS... and I'm not a glutton for pain (*realises that this techonology could be used for... disturbing purposes*). Do you think that we should always be able to differentiate between computer graphics and real life?
And then, WHERE do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you subscribe to Sony's convergence theory, where everything is in one box, or do you prefer the Nintendo and Microsoft view that consoles are for playing games - period.
Personally, my view is that games SHOULDN'T become photo-realistic, because I think the slightly cartoony look is pretty cool, and we play games to get away from real life. Shenmue was boring, because it was real life. We don't play games to go to work! (although, the Japanese seem to like their job simulators). Anyway, I don't know about whether convergence is a good idea, or whether the console as a box under your telly will die out... but I'm happy at the moment :)
Opinions please!
--Ed
I guess this is a two-pronged question. Firstly, WHAT do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you want gaming to stick on televisions (albeit on the future high-res TVs), with blistering flame rates and realistic graphics? Or would you rather have the cartoony-style of today's graphics? What about games that are holographic, like the weird chess-variant that they had in Star Wars : A New Hope? Or would you rather go for the full blown Matrix-style immersion so that you're actually IN the game world? Do you want that? Surely it would hurt playing an FPS... and I'm not a glutton for pain (*realises that this techonology could be used for... disturbing purposes*). Do you think that we should always be able to differentiate between computer graphics and real life?
And then, WHERE do you want the future of gaming to be? Do you subscribe to Sony's convergence theory, where everything is in one box, or do you prefer the Nintendo and Microsoft view that consoles are for playing games - period.
Personally, my view is that games SHOULDN'T become photo-realistic, because I think the slightly cartoony look is pretty cool, and we play games to get away from real life. Shenmue was boring, because it was real life. We don't play games to go to work! (although, the Japanese seem to like their job simulators). Anyway, I don't know about whether convergence is a good idea, or whether the console as a box under your telly will die out... but I'm happy at the moment :)
Opinions please!
--Ed