The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I've grown up with games, from the early days of pong to the current stuff on the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, many of you here have done the same. I guess the future is very hard to predict, especially when gaming was first starting out, but there are some things I thought I would see by now that haven't appeared.
Though the spectrum and C64 had 3d games, these were crude efforts, Driller, Robocop 3 and Sentinel spring to mind. Most were pretty restrictive in the way you could move around and the things you could do, but they were fun in their own little way. Looking at the current list of games out on the three consoles and the PC platform, a lot of them are now 3D too, but have things really changed all that much from those days?
Polygons started to become big on the 8-bits with the aforementioned games, they were a next step up from vector graphics and made games like Star Wars suddenly look ancient. Now we have such a detailed mass of polygons that we can see such wonders as GTA3, it's a giant leap, but at the same time it's also not much of a jump. Let me explain.
While the detail has come a long way, as it should with more powerful graphics processing and the main processor itself able to cope with a lot more, the environments of the game have not really improved that much since the 2D days. The Great Escape and the Land Before Time were immersive 2D games with lots to do and large areas to explore freely, GTA3 is a long way in front of this in terms of graphics, but the environments are still almost as restrictive as those old games.
We are promised a much larger area in the new GTA game, now that the team have got to grips with the basics of putting a game like this together. We are also promised much more interactivity with the surroundings, but will it be enough? No, because there are always more improvements to these engines and to make the game too restrictive would mean it was harder to lay ground rules for the tasks you would have to perform. Will we be able to go in a house? Yes. Will we be able to cook dinner? Probably not, we might not even get the option to lock the door so the police or gangs can't get in.
Metal Gear Solid 2 let you perform your missions how you wanted, but imagine being able to find a drill and drill straight through the walls, or hit any of the guards over the head and dress in their uniforms, not even to sneak around, but to pretend to be a guard for a bit. There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards. Ok, a bit far fetched, but you get the idea. The worlds we inhabit in games must become more flexible, but keep the rules of the game in our sights so as not to lose interest in the main task.
We need more freedom in the games we play. Even racing games could be improved. Think about being able to go off the track down a mountain and appear on the track below in front of another car, or take another turn (not a shortcut) to find yourself on another route. perhaps you could even stop at a petrol station to fill up and buy a map.
Looking back on the last 15 years of gaming, it has changed a great deal, mostly for the better. It would be nice to think that we will see more changes to the games we play in the next 15 years too. Here's to the future and the freedom of gaming.
Though the spectrum and C64 had 3d games, these were crude efforts, Driller, Robocop 3 and Sentinel spring to mind. Most were pretty restrictive in the way you could move around and the things you could do, but they were fun in their own little way. Looking at the current list of games out on the three consoles and the PC platform, a lot of them are now 3D too, but have things really changed all that much from those days?
Polygons started to become big on the 8-bits with the aforementioned games, they were a next step up from vector graphics and made games like Star Wars suddenly look ancient. Now we have such a detailed mass of polygons that we can see such wonders as GTA3, it's a giant leap, but at the same time it's also not much of a jump. Let me explain.
While the detail has come a long way, as it should with more powerful graphics processing and the main processor itself able to cope with a lot more, the environments of the game have not really improved that much since the 2D days. The Great Escape and the Land Before Time were immersive 2D games with lots to do and large areas to explore freely, GTA3 is a long way in front of this in terms of graphics, but the environments are still almost as restrictive as those old games.
We are promised a much larger area in the new GTA game, now that the team have got to grips with the basics of putting a game like this together. We are also promised much more interactivity with the surroundings, but will it be enough? No, because there are always more improvements to these engines and to make the game too restrictive would mean it was harder to lay ground rules for the tasks you would have to perform. Will we be able to go in a house? Yes. Will we be able to cook dinner? Probably not, we might not even get the option to lock the door so the police or gangs can't get in.
Metal Gear Solid 2 let you perform your missions how you wanted, but imagine being able to find a drill and drill straight through the walls, or hit any of the guards over the head and dress in their uniforms, not even to sneak around, but to pretend to be a guard for a bit. There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards. Ok, a bit far fetched, but you get the idea. The worlds we inhabit in games must become more flexible, but keep the rules of the game in our sights so as not to lose interest in the main task.
We need more freedom in the games we play. Even racing games could be improved. Think about being able to go off the track down a mountain and appear on the track below in front of another car, or take another turn (not a shortcut) to find yourself on another route. perhaps you could even stop at a petrol station to fill up and buy a map.
Looking back on the last 15 years of gaming, it has changed a great deal, mostly for the better. It would be nice to think that we will see more changes to the games we play in the next 15 years too. Here's to the future and the freedom of gaming.
Sounds like you're bemoaning the hit'n'miss application of real world rules to games, something I kind of agree with, but kind of don't. I feel that the problem is that as a game seeks to be 'realistic', the player's expectations of it's realism rise.
I can probably explain better with examples. Let's take Tetris. Tetris is bounded by an extremely simple set of rules, and it sticks to these rules. You can't say that it's not logically consistent within those rules.
Rez provides us with a different slant - because it's so abstract, the player has no pre-determined expectations of how the rules _should_ be structured, so there's little logical inconsistency there.
However, with something like MGS2, it's ruleset is based on the real world - it's 'realistic'. The bugbear that comes with all games which focus on realism is that we're all familiar with the real world. We know how it works, and what to expect. And the problem with the real world is that there are so many options. Short of modelling the universe in all it's detail, the developer is doomed to fall victim to 'not having thought of something'.
I feel that there's a happy medium that realistic games need to aim for, where the player is allowed enough freedom within the confines of the game's story and action, and the gameworld is consistent with real-world expectations within the prescribed actions of the character.
i.e can't open a locked door in Tomb Raider X? Shooting it with a rocket launcher should be an option to open the door. Logging onto yahoo, looking up a locksmith, and making a booking for next Tuesday, while being a possibly working solution, is beyond the scope of the games story and the character's actions.
I can probably explain better with examples. Let's take Tetris. Tetris is bounded by an extremely simple set of rules, and it sticks to these rules. You can't say that it's not logically consistent within those rules.
Rez provides us with a different slant - because it's so abstract, the player has no pre-determined expectations of how the rules _should_ be structured, so there's little logical inconsistency there.
However, with something like MGS2, it's ruleset is based on the real world - it's 'realistic'. The bugbear that comes with all games which focus on realism is that we're all familiar with the real world. We know how it works, and what to expect. And the problem with the real world is that there are so many options. Short of modelling the universe in all it's detail, the developer is doomed to fall victim to 'not having thought of something'.
I feel that there's a happy medium that realistic games need to aim for, where the player is allowed enough freedom within the confines of the game's story and action, and the gameworld is consistent with real-world expectations within the prescribed actions of the character.
i.e can't open a locked door in Tomb Raider X? Shooting it with a rocket launcher should be an option to open the door. Logging onto yahoo, looking up a locksmith, and making a booking for next Tuesday, while being a possibly working solution, is beyond the scope of the games story and the character's actions.
VenomByte wrote:
> Several games have tried to add extra features, small touches not seen
> in other games, but rarely has it done them any good. In the later
> games on the Road Rash series you could turn off at any of the
> junctions, and continiue on your way for miles on end, but for no real
> reason. Kingpin let you beat people up for no reason, Duke Nukem let
> you pay strippers to show their stuff, but it wouldn't keep you
> entertained for long (ahem).
>
I would disagree, I think that as long as the objectives are clear and how to complete them is not so hard as to put you off playing, then there is plenty of scope for adding bits and pieces to the game world.
> The problem isn't the lack of freedom in the existing games, but the
> lack of scope in the 'main plot'.
Agreed, the plot needs to be spot on, but then it does in most games anyway, even beat-em-ups nowadays have a decent plotline. To keep the narrative going you would set a time limit or push the player in the right direction, or even have several different ways to complete the game.
> Adding the extra features then, is not cost effective....
No, it will make the game longer, and all gamers want games that go on for a long time if the game is enjoyable, making games shorter may be more financially rewarding for companies in the short term, but it annoys the hell out of gamers.
> Several games have tried to add extra features, small touches not seen
> in other games, but rarely has it done them any good. In the later
> games on the Road Rash series you could turn off at any of the
> junctions, and continiue on your way for miles on end, but for no real
> reason. Kingpin let you beat people up for no reason, Duke Nukem let
> you pay strippers to show their stuff, but it wouldn't keep you
> entertained for long (ahem).
>
I would disagree, I think that as long as the objectives are clear and how to complete them is not so hard as to put you off playing, then there is plenty of scope for adding bits and pieces to the game world.
> The problem isn't the lack of freedom in the existing games, but the
> lack of scope in the 'main plot'.
Agreed, the plot needs to be spot on, but then it does in most games anyway, even beat-em-ups nowadays have a decent plotline. To keep the narrative going you would set a time limit or push the player in the right direction, or even have several different ways to complete the game.
> Adding the extra features then, is not cost effective....
No, it will make the game longer, and all gamers want games that go on for a long time if the game is enjoyable, making games shorter may be more financially rewarding for companies in the short term, but it annoys the hell out of gamers.
pb wrote:
"There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards."
Heh, that'd be ace. You could pick what to say, and start slating his wife. A fight'd break out and they'd discover who you really are. They'd stand there stunned as you poked them all in the eye with a fork, killing them instantly.
Ha!
Game
"There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards."
Heh, that'd be ace. You could pick what to say, and start slating his wife. A fight'd break out and they'd discover who you really are. They'd stand there stunned as you poked them all in the eye with a fork, killing them instantly.
Ha!
Game
Well Done for Winning Gameaday Pb
Do you really need or want this extra freedom, or is it just one more novelty?
Several games have tried to add extra features, small touches not seen in other games, but rarely has it done them any good. In the later games on the Road Rash series you could turn off at any of the junctions, and continiue on your way for miles on end, but for no real reason. Kingpin let you beat people up for no reason, Duke Nukem let you pay strippers to show their stuff, but it wouldn't keep you entertained for long (ahem).
The problem isn't the lack of freedom in the existing games, but the lack of scope in the 'main plot'. A linear plot set in a 3D environment will never be enough. It's important not just to be able to do these new things, but to see their short and long term effects on the game, for good or evil.
However, for the sake of appealing to the mainstream, the plot cannot stray too far. There are many people out there who like to test the limits of their games, to see what the developers thought of and what they didn't, but these people are in the minority.
Adding the extra features then, is not cost effective....
Several games have tried to add extra features, small touches not seen in other games, but rarely has it done them any good. In the later games on the Road Rash series you could turn off at any of the junctions, and continiue on your way for miles on end, but for no real reason. Kingpin let you beat people up for no reason, Duke Nukem let you pay strippers to show their stuff, but it wouldn't keep you entertained for long (ahem).
The problem isn't the lack of freedom in the existing games, but the lack of scope in the 'main plot'. A linear plot set in a 3D environment will never be enough. It's important not just to be able to do these new things, but to see their short and long term effects on the game, for good or evil.
However, for the sake of appealing to the mainstream, the plot cannot stray too far. There are many people out there who like to test the limits of their games, to see what the developers thought of and what they didn't, but these people are in the minority.
Adding the extra features then, is not cost effective....
I've grown up with games, from the early days of pong to the current stuff on the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, many of you here have done the same. I guess the future is very hard to predict, especially when gaming was first starting out, but there are some things I thought I would see by now that haven't appeared.
Though the spectrum and C64 had 3d games, these were crude efforts, Driller, Robocop 3 and Sentinel spring to mind. Most were pretty restrictive in the way you could move around and the things you could do, but they were fun in their own little way. Looking at the current list of games out on the three consoles and the PC platform, a lot of them are now 3D too, but have things really changed all that much from those days?
Polygons started to become big on the 8-bits with the aforementioned games, they were a next step up from vector graphics and made games like Star Wars suddenly look ancient. Now we have such a detailed mass of polygons that we can see such wonders as GTA3, it's a giant leap, but at the same time it's also not much of a jump. Let me explain.
While the detail has come a long way, as it should with more powerful graphics processing and the main processor itself able to cope with a lot more, the environments of the game have not really improved that much since the 2D days. The Great Escape and the Land Before Time were immersive 2D games with lots to do and large areas to explore freely, GTA3 is a long way in front of this in terms of graphics, but the environments are still almost as restrictive as those old games.
We are promised a much larger area in the new GTA game, now that the team have got to grips with the basics of putting a game like this together. We are also promised much more interactivity with the surroundings, but will it be enough? No, because there are always more improvements to these engines and to make the game too restrictive would mean it was harder to lay ground rules for the tasks you would have to perform. Will we be able to go in a house? Yes. Will we be able to cook dinner? Probably not, we might not even get the option to lock the door so the police or gangs can't get in.
Metal Gear Solid 2 let you perform your missions how you wanted, but imagine being able to find a drill and drill straight through the walls, or hit any of the guards over the head and dress in their uniforms, not even to sneak around, but to pretend to be a guard for a bit. There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards. Ok, a bit far fetched, but you get the idea. The worlds we inhabit in games must become more flexible, but keep the rules of the game in our sights so as not to lose interest in the main task.
We need more freedom in the games we play. Even racing games could be improved. Think about being able to go off the track down a mountain and appear on the track below in front of another car, or take another turn (not a shortcut) to find yourself on another route. perhaps you could even stop at a petrol station to fill up and buy a map.
Looking back on the last 15 years of gaming, it has changed a great deal, mostly for the better. It would be nice to think that we will see more changes to the games we play in the next 15 years too. Here's to the future and the freedom of gaming.
Though the spectrum and C64 had 3d games, these were crude efforts, Driller, Robocop 3 and Sentinel spring to mind. Most were pretty restrictive in the way you could move around and the things you could do, but they were fun in their own little way. Looking at the current list of games out on the three consoles and the PC platform, a lot of them are now 3D too, but have things really changed all that much from those days?
Polygons started to become big on the 8-bits with the aforementioned games, they were a next step up from vector graphics and made games like Star Wars suddenly look ancient. Now we have such a detailed mass of polygons that we can see such wonders as GTA3, it's a giant leap, but at the same time it's also not much of a jump. Let me explain.
While the detail has come a long way, as it should with more powerful graphics processing and the main processor itself able to cope with a lot more, the environments of the game have not really improved that much since the 2D days. The Great Escape and the Land Before Time were immersive 2D games with lots to do and large areas to explore freely, GTA3 is a long way in front of this in terms of graphics, but the environments are still almost as restrictive as those old games.
We are promised a much larger area in the new GTA game, now that the team have got to grips with the basics of putting a game like this together. We are also promised much more interactivity with the surroundings, but will it be enough? No, because there are always more improvements to these engines and to make the game too restrictive would mean it was harder to lay ground rules for the tasks you would have to perform. Will we be able to go in a house? Yes. Will we be able to cook dinner? Probably not, we might not even get the option to lock the door so the police or gangs can't get in.
Metal Gear Solid 2 let you perform your missions how you wanted, but imagine being able to find a drill and drill straight through the walls, or hit any of the guards over the head and dress in their uniforms, not even to sneak around, but to pretend to be a guard for a bit. There could be some great comedy moments there as you sit there drinking coffee and discussing life with the other guards. Ok, a bit far fetched, but you get the idea. The worlds we inhabit in games must become more flexible, but keep the rules of the game in our sights so as not to lose interest in the main task.
We need more freedom in the games we play. Even racing games could be improved. Think about being able to go off the track down a mountain and appear on the track below in front of another car, or take another turn (not a shortcut) to find yourself on another route. perhaps you could even stop at a petrol station to fill up and buy a map.
Looking back on the last 15 years of gaming, it has changed a great deal, mostly for the better. It would be nice to think that we will see more changes to the games we play in the next 15 years too. Here's to the future and the freedom of gaming.