The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Note: started off as a reply to an Ali Boy comment about all encompassing, do anything game worlds i.e. some one challenges you to a fight, you can chose whether to fight or run away. Anyway, we would have been diverting way off the threads topic, so here's one all of it's own :)
Do you have any idea how far away all encompassing game worlds are? Years and years and years and YEARS. And then a little more. It simply isn't anywhere near the capabilities of any of the current consoles and engines.
Also, there is no reason for anyone to make a game like that - it simply isn't economical. To be done properly it would require simply unimaginable amounts of coding hours to even get an engine running - one could argue that such a diverse engine isn't even possible with current language restrictions without it become a "jack of all trade, master of none".
This is before you even begin to fill the engine with a game and non-linear games simply don't work (in the vast majority). There has to be a goal and to achieve that there has to be some linearity almost by default. If anything, games are becoming more objective based as the market is "dumbed down" e.g. the introduction of clumsy levels into Black & White. This took away from the game secondary objective of creating a village/society as ever so often you dumped what you'd built - there wasn't the Sim City feeling - the game became more objective based and hence linear.
The only place non-linear worlds are/will grow is MMORPGs for two connected reasons. One, and most importantly, they are organic worlds. Coding isn't limited to a shipping date and "patches" are seen as a Good Thing. Objective based coding is still the primary factor, but coders have more freedom to include things under the remit of "creating a society". So there are buildings with no plot forwarding purpose, there are characters there just for colour and such.
The second reason is that players are tied to a monthly fee to use the servers. After the initial launch buying frenzy there is still a substantial flow of revenue from the title. There is a conflicting yet agreeing relationship here - the gamers want more updates and improvement for their monthly fee and the developers need these fees to justify keeping people coding for the game.
Non-linear, "real" worlds are one of the things often mentioned when people go on about the future of gaming, but it won't happen. Current gamers simply donít demand it and there isn't the technology or capital there to achieve it. And why bother anyway? Mario 64 manages to give players a feeling of freedom, yet is pretty tightly reined at the same time. There's no need to waste time putting useable items into ever drawer on every desk in every office in a game - it simply won't add enough to the game to warrant the hassle.
There will be psuedo-real worlds sooner or later - but the still won't be real-real worlds. There's no point in being able to take a break from Zombie bashing to go and get your haircut and have a cup of coffee. Console's have an off button for stuff like that. And there's the most important point - why generate a real world when there is a perfectly good one around us. What you actually want is more branching, more decision nodes in the game and that's fair enough. But often people take this too far, what exactly would be the benefit of being able to look into every room of ever house in the whole city on GTA3?
Do you have any idea how far away all encompassing game worlds are? Years and years and years and YEARS. And then a little more. It simply isn't anywhere near the capabilities of any of the current consoles and engines.
Also, there is no reason for anyone to make a game like that - it simply isn't economical. To be done properly it would require simply unimaginable amounts of coding hours to even get an engine running - one could argue that such a diverse engine isn't even possible with current language restrictions without it become a "jack of all trade, master of none".
This is before you even begin to fill the engine with a game and non-linear games simply don't work (in the vast majority). There has to be a goal and to achieve that there has to be some linearity almost by default. If anything, games are becoming more objective based as the market is "dumbed down" e.g. the introduction of clumsy levels into Black & White. This took away from the game secondary objective of creating a village/society as ever so often you dumped what you'd built - there wasn't the Sim City feeling - the game became more objective based and hence linear.
The only place non-linear worlds are/will grow is MMORPGs for two connected reasons. One, and most importantly, they are organic worlds. Coding isn't limited to a shipping date and "patches" are seen as a Good Thing. Objective based coding is still the primary factor, but coders have more freedom to include things under the remit of "creating a society". So there are buildings with no plot forwarding purpose, there are characters there just for colour and such.
The second reason is that players are tied to a monthly fee to use the servers. After the initial launch buying frenzy there is still a substantial flow of revenue from the title. There is a conflicting yet agreeing relationship here - the gamers want more updates and improvement for their monthly fee and the developers need these fees to justify keeping people coding for the game.
Non-linear, "real" worlds are one of the things often mentioned when people go on about the future of gaming, but it won't happen. Current gamers simply donít demand it and there isn't the technology or capital there to achieve it. And why bother anyway? Mario 64 manages to give players a feeling of freedom, yet is pretty tightly reined at the same time. There's no need to waste time putting useable items into ever drawer on every desk in every office in a game - it simply won't add enough to the game to warrant the hassle.
There will be psuedo-real worlds sooner or later - but the still won't be real-real worlds. There's no point in being able to take a break from Zombie bashing to go and get your haircut and have a cup of coffee. Console's have an off button for stuff like that. And there's the most important point - why generate a real world when there is a perfectly good one around us. What you actually want is more branching, more decision nodes in the game and that's fair enough. But often people take this too far, what exactly would be the benefit of being able to look into every room of ever house in the whole city on GTA3?
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Note: started off as a reply to an Ali Boy comment about all encompassing, do
> anything game worlds i.e. some one challenges you to a fight, you can chose
> whether to fight or run away. Anyway, we would have been diverting way off the
> threads topic, so here's one all of it's own :)
Cheers for mentioning me, my idea in a lot more detail. Good topic. Only a matter of time in my view before we see the technology and programmers ability that makes all this possible.
> Note: started off as a reply to an Ali Boy comment about all encompassing, do
> anything game worlds i.e. some one challenges you to a fight, you can chose
> whether to fight or run away. Anyway, we would have been diverting way off the
> threads topic, so here's one all of it's own :)
Cheers for mentioning me, my idea in a lot more detail. Good topic. Only a matter of time in my view before we see the technology and programmers ability that makes all this possible.
Great post, Doctor Gonzo.
Unfortunately, I would reply in considerably more detail if I fully understood the topic and had even a faint idea of how to reply.
Firstly, would someone be able to explain to me what 'linear' means? My guess is that it means: 'Thin' or, lacking in detail.
Secondly, what on Earth are 'patches'?
SHOCKY d;OD
Unfortunately, I would reply in considerably more detail if I fully understood the topic and had even a faint idea of how to reply.
Firstly, would someone be able to explain to me what 'linear' means? My guess is that it means: 'Thin' or, lacking in detail.
Secondly, what on Earth are 'patches'?
SHOCKY d;OD
Little by little our freedom in games is increasing.
Fully free games are a long way off but we are advancing towards them.
Zelda and Mario were major steps in this advancement.
Revolutionary at the time but now their freedom has become standard.
There are lots of other games that i can't think of right now but with every generation we get closer to gaming freedom and complete non linearity.
I think that we'll be a fair bit closer in 10 years time...
Fully free games are a long way off but we are advancing towards them.
Zelda and Mario were major steps in this advancement.
Revolutionary at the time but now their freedom has become standard.
There are lots of other games that i can't think of right now but with every generation we get closer to gaming freedom and complete non linearity.
I think that we'll be a fair bit closer in 10 years time...
Note: started off as a reply to an Ali Boy comment about all encompassing, do anything game worlds i.e. some one challenges you to a fight, you can chose whether to fight or run away. Anyway, we would have been diverting way off the threads topic, so here's one all of it's own :)
Do you have any idea how far away all encompassing game worlds are? Years and years and years and YEARS. And then a little more. It simply isn't anywhere near the capabilities of any of the current consoles and engines.
Also, there is no reason for anyone to make a game like that - it simply isn't economical. To be done properly it would require simply unimaginable amounts of coding hours to even get an engine running - one could argue that such a diverse engine isn't even possible with current language restrictions without it become a "jack of all trade, master of none".
This is before you even begin to fill the engine with a game and non-linear games simply don't work (in the vast majority). There has to be a goal and to achieve that there has to be some linearity almost by default. If anything, games are becoming more objective based as the market is "dumbed down" e.g. the introduction of clumsy levels into Black & White. This took away from the game secondary objective of creating a village/society as ever so often you dumped what you'd built - there wasn't the Sim City feeling - the game became more objective based and hence linear.
The only place non-linear worlds are/will grow is MMORPGs for two connected reasons. One, and most importantly, they are organic worlds. Coding isn't limited to a shipping date and "patches" are seen as a Good Thing. Objective based coding is still the primary factor, but coders have more freedom to include things under the remit of "creating a society". So there are buildings with no plot forwarding purpose, there are characters there just for colour and such.
The second reason is that players are tied to a monthly fee to use the servers. After the initial launch buying frenzy there is still a substantial flow of revenue from the title. There is a conflicting yet agreeing relationship here - the gamers want more updates and improvement for their monthly fee and the developers need these fees to justify keeping people coding for the game.
Non-linear, "real" worlds are one of the things often mentioned when people go on about the future of gaming, but it won't happen. Current gamers simply donít demand it and there isn't the technology or capital there to achieve it. And why bother anyway? Mario 64 manages to give players a feeling of freedom, yet is pretty tightly reined at the same time. There's no need to waste time putting useable items into ever drawer on every desk in every office in a game - it simply won't add enough to the game to warrant the hassle.
There will be psuedo-real worlds sooner or later - but the still won't be real-real worlds. There's no point in being able to take a break from Zombie bashing to go and get your haircut and have a cup of coffee. Console's have an off button for stuff like that. And there's the most important point - why generate a real world when there is a perfectly good one around us. What you actually want is more branching, more decision nodes in the game and that's fair enough. But often people take this too far, what exactly would be the benefit of being able to look into every room of ever house in the whole city on GTA3?
Do you have any idea how far away all encompassing game worlds are? Years and years and years and YEARS. And then a little more. It simply isn't anywhere near the capabilities of any of the current consoles and engines.
Also, there is no reason for anyone to make a game like that - it simply isn't economical. To be done properly it would require simply unimaginable amounts of coding hours to even get an engine running - one could argue that such a diverse engine isn't even possible with current language restrictions without it become a "jack of all trade, master of none".
This is before you even begin to fill the engine with a game and non-linear games simply don't work (in the vast majority). There has to be a goal and to achieve that there has to be some linearity almost by default. If anything, games are becoming more objective based as the market is "dumbed down" e.g. the introduction of clumsy levels into Black & White. This took away from the game secondary objective of creating a village/society as ever so often you dumped what you'd built - there wasn't the Sim City feeling - the game became more objective based and hence linear.
The only place non-linear worlds are/will grow is MMORPGs for two connected reasons. One, and most importantly, they are organic worlds. Coding isn't limited to a shipping date and "patches" are seen as a Good Thing. Objective based coding is still the primary factor, but coders have more freedom to include things under the remit of "creating a society". So there are buildings with no plot forwarding purpose, there are characters there just for colour and such.
The second reason is that players are tied to a monthly fee to use the servers. After the initial launch buying frenzy there is still a substantial flow of revenue from the title. There is a conflicting yet agreeing relationship here - the gamers want more updates and improvement for their monthly fee and the developers need these fees to justify keeping people coding for the game.
Non-linear, "real" worlds are one of the things often mentioned when people go on about the future of gaming, but it won't happen. Current gamers simply donít demand it and there isn't the technology or capital there to achieve it. And why bother anyway? Mario 64 manages to give players a feeling of freedom, yet is pretty tightly reined at the same time. There's no need to waste time putting useable items into ever drawer on every desk in every office in a game - it simply won't add enough to the game to warrant the hassle.
There will be psuedo-real worlds sooner or later - but the still won't be real-real worlds. There's no point in being able to take a break from Zombie bashing to go and get your haircut and have a cup of coffee. Console's have an off button for stuff like that. And there's the most important point - why generate a real world when there is a perfectly good one around us. What you actually want is more branching, more decision nodes in the game and that's fair enough. But often people take this too far, what exactly would be the benefit of being able to look into every room of ever house in the whole city on GTA3?