The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, when will gaming end?? What will it reach and what will be achieved? Whatever it is, I’m sure it won’t be seen in my lifetime…(cue space age sound effects, an epic soundtrack, a starlit sky and general space cheesiness).
If graphics, sound and game interaction are said to improve with every next generation of games or consoles, will a gaming experience ever become so realistic as to be indistinguishable from life off a computer? Could a human being ever be tricked into believing they are having a real life experience, when they are actually experiencing a virtual reality created by a computer?
There is no reason to suggest why games would never reach such a stage (if there is, then someone please tell me and let me correct myself!). But if actual photo-realism is reached, will any sequential games still have the same appeal or market? Is it possible to improve upon photo-realism? Most new games and consoles will sell themselves upon their graphical merit; alongside the improved game play elements. If such a graphical plateau is reached, will programmers have to rely merely upon game play merit to produce the next big seller? I for one hope so. Can anyone imagine game packaging that doesn’t boast the latest graphical trick?
When a gaming platform can generate life like graphics and environments, will governments begin to lay down more restrictions upon programmers?? Take Goldeneye on the N64, the aim of the game was to act as James Bond and to utilise his license to kill. Once graphics are of a high enough standard to convince a human that they are experiencing a real event, what is to say that a game (that can replicate real life) such as a first person shooter will be legal? Obviously murder is illegal, possessing a handgun, let alone an M-16 machine gun is illegal, so surely the seemingly life like reality created by programmers would be unsuitable. If actions such as murder are illegal (and feasible within a game environment), why should an artificial reality that allows people to commit life like crimes be legal?
If all game genres reach a life like standard, then most could be banned, e.g. even racing simulations, do you have a license to drive that ‘life like’ F1 car? I don’t think so! Surely if we reach this stage, then games are going to end up back where they started and programmers will degrade graphics to so low a level so that a game will be considered legal AND fun to play.
Enough with the contemplating, I’m off to play the ‘School Day Simulator 2’ and finish my I.T. homework before I get a detention (has anyone beaten the third homework for Mr.Debney yet?)
neilc
Hey Sonicrav, me main man! Sonic rules! You rule! I’ve got a favour to ask, Prime Topics?
If graphics, sound and game interaction are said to improve with every next generation of games or consoles, will a gaming experience ever become so realistic as to be indistinguishable from life off a computer? Could a human being ever be tricked into believing they are having a real life experience, when they are actually experiencing a virtual reality created by a computer?
There is no reason to suggest why games would never reach such a stage (if there is, then someone please tell me and let me correct myself!). But if actual photo-realism is reached, will any sequential games still have the same appeal or market? Is it possible to improve upon photo-realism? Most new games and consoles will sell themselves upon their graphical merit; alongside the improved game play elements. If such a graphical plateau is reached, will programmers have to rely merely upon game play merit to produce the next big seller? I for one hope so. Can anyone imagine game packaging that doesn’t boast the latest graphical trick?
When a gaming platform can generate life like graphics and environments, will governments begin to lay down more restrictions upon programmers?? Take Goldeneye on the N64, the aim of the game was to act as James Bond and to utilise his license to kill. Once graphics are of a high enough standard to convince a human that they are experiencing a real event, what is to say that a game (that can replicate real life) such as a first person shooter will be legal? Obviously murder is illegal, possessing a handgun, let alone an M-16 machine gun is illegal, so surely the seemingly life like reality created by programmers would be unsuitable. If actions such as murder are illegal (and feasible within a game environment), why should an artificial reality that allows people to commit life like crimes be legal?
If all game genres reach a life like standard, then most could be banned, e.g. even racing simulations, do you have a license to drive that ‘life like’ F1 car? I don’t think so! Surely if we reach this stage, then games are going to end up back where they started and programmers will degrade graphics to so low a level so that a game will be considered legal AND fun to play.
Enough with the contemplating, I’m off to play the ‘School Day Simulator 2’ and finish my I.T. homework before I get a detention (has anyone beaten the third homework for Mr.Debney yet?)
neilc
Hey Sonicrav, me main man! Sonic rules! You rule! I’ve got a favour to ask, Prime Topics?
Page:
gnaghrantarae hammspmteroner
my spelling is immense
my spelling is immense
neilc wrote:
> sorry about that gangsta hamsta, that was one of the worst spelling mistakes i
> have ever made.
so you should be! can't you even spell Gnagtser hmasrter? :D
slik ~_~
> sorry about that gangsta hamsta, that was one of the worst spelling mistakes i
> have ever made.
so you should be! can't you even spell Gnagtser hmasrter? :D
slik ~_~
sorry about that gangsta hamsta, that was one of the worst spelling mistakes i have ever made.
neilc wrote:
> hey gangstga hampsta,
i think everyone who read that post was thinking the same
> thing!! (lula!)
Congratulations, thats the worst spelling of Gangsta Hamsta I have ever seen. Even beats dogsnads effort of 'gangsa hampsta'.
Lol :D
> hey gangstga hampsta,
i think everyone who read that post was thinking the same
> thing!! (lula!)
Congratulations, thats the worst spelling of Gangsta Hamsta I have ever seen. Even beats dogsnads effort of 'gangsa hampsta'.
Lol :D
No probs.
cheers afroman!
I have to admit, this post is just as good as your last one, and well worthy of another GAD.
I wouldn't have seen this if it weren't for the topic in Prime, which made me look for it here. Thank Wookiee, but don't thank any of the useless topics in here. I agree that this should be called General Chat.
I wouldn't have seen this if it weren't for the topic in Prime, which made me look for it here. Thank Wookiee, but don't thank any of the useless topics in here. I agree that this should be called General Chat.
hey gangstga hampsta,
i think everyone who read that post was thinking the same thing!! (lula!)
i think everyone who read that post was thinking the same thing!! (lula!)
Hmm I think newbies, when they get down to it, can post some really good stuff
But still, only 118 posts to go!!!
But still, only 118 posts to go!!!
This proves my point of what I said in the Customer Service forum about why newbies should be allowed to post in Prime.
If Wookiee hadn't spotted this, it probably would have got lost under all the chit chat stuff in here. This forum should be renamed General Chat, or something like that.
If Wookiee hadn't spotted this, it probably would have got lost under all the chit chat stuff in here. This forum should be renamed General Chat, or something like that.
Page: