The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What will the distant future of gaming hold? Well, I've thought about it, and come up with some of the things that I feel will have come around by 2050...
*Artificial Intelligence in games will have become so real that enemies really did act in a human way. Furthermore, games would actually adapt to your style. If you always shot of the lights in levels, the guards would equip night-vision goggles for the next level.
No longer would you have to play "one-player". You could be the commander of a team consisting of yourself and computer characters who would act just like real people... but how would you interact with them in a real way...
*Interaction. The plastic pad with coloured buttons is dead! It can never allow you full interactivity. Instead there will be two major changes. Firstly, voice recognition software will be perfected so that you could order computer characters around. Secondly motion sensors, and perhaps VR, will replace the controller for most tasks.
*Multiplayer gaming will be identical over the Internet or in your front room. You will be able to talk to the other players, and maybe even see them. There will be no slowdown, no lag.
*Internet gaming will be realised. Masses of true online games will be launched where you are part of a bigger community. There will be cyber plannets where you compete with millions of other people for supremicy and worlds of car races where you had to go up the ranks to win world championships.
*Photorealism will be acheived and gameplay will be the focus of developers efforts. Middleware will mean that extra game characters (like the people living in the city) will be bought off-the-shelf for use in games, as will objects and buildings.
The future is looking good indeed!
Sonic
*Artificial Intelligence in games will have become so real that enemies really did act in a human way. Furthermore, games would actually adapt to your style. If you always shot of the lights in levels, the guards would equip night-vision goggles for the next level.
No longer would you have to play "one-player". You could be the commander of a team consisting of yourself and computer characters who would act just like real people... but how would you interact with them in a real way...
*Interaction. The plastic pad with coloured buttons is dead! It can never allow you full interactivity. Instead there will be two major changes. Firstly, voice recognition software will be perfected so that you could order computer characters around. Secondly motion sensors, and perhaps VR, will replace the controller for most tasks.
*Multiplayer gaming will be identical over the Internet or in your front room. You will be able to talk to the other players, and maybe even see them. There will be no slowdown, no lag.
*Internet gaming will be realised. Masses of true online games will be launched where you are part of a bigger community. There will be cyber plannets where you compete with millions of other people for supremicy and worlds of car races where you had to go up the ranks to win world championships.
*Photorealism will be acheived and gameplay will be the focus of developers efforts. Middleware will mean that extra game characters (like the people living in the city) will be bought off-the-shelf for use in games, as will objects and buildings.
The future is looking good indeed!
Sonic
Page:
Personally, I think it'll only happen when photorealism is reached. When that happens, the distinguishing factor in the game charts of today, graphics, will simply be redundant.
Then people will have to buy games either based on developers, licences, or gameplay.
Sonic
Then people will have to buy games either based on developers, licences, or gameplay.
Sonic
Developers will only start innovating into gameplay when the consumer demands it- ie. when consumers (as a whole) stop buying the games with the nicer graphics in favour of a game that has better gameplay. When that happens developers will HAVE TO take notice.
But will it happen?
But will it happen?
I agree that Nintendo are one of the few companies still promoting graphics over gameplay, but will they really make a difference in the way gaming is going.
There are two reasons I don't think this is the case.
Firstly, which games sell better- original, innovative titles or games with good graphics. Every time (with the odd exception) it is the game with the graphics. Even the mighty Jet Set radio got mediocre sales.
Secondly, Nintendo have a big luxury that other developers don't- time. They can, and often do, delay games for months (sometimes over a year) to perfect the gameplay. Most developers cimply don't have the investment to do this, and so just use pre-existant gameplay that they know will sell.
So, I certainly doubt that Nintendo will change the way gaming os going. If anything is going to come from their innovation it will simpy be a string of cloned games made to copy Miyamoto-san's genius. For example, Mario led to Banjo Kazookie and Jak and Daxter, and F-Zero X led to Wipopeout.
As for your massive generalistaion about the Gamecube ("Gamecube defines originality and is going to to change the way games are going") this will almost certainly not be the case. Although the cube does host more original games than other consoles, it will not have a massive input in the market (ie. Nintnedo will have about 20% of the console market). So there is absolutely no incentive to developers for, say, the PS2 to put down their "graphics over gameplay" approach to adopt an approach that clearly isn't going to amass any more sales.
Simply put, developers are in it for the money... and graphics sell.
Sonic
There are two reasons I don't think this is the case.
Firstly, which games sell better- original, innovative titles or games with good graphics. Every time (with the odd exception) it is the game with the graphics. Even the mighty Jet Set radio got mediocre sales.
Secondly, Nintendo have a big luxury that other developers don't- time. They can, and often do, delay games for months (sometimes over a year) to perfect the gameplay. Most developers cimply don't have the investment to do this, and so just use pre-existant gameplay that they know will sell.
So, I certainly doubt that Nintendo will change the way gaming os going. If anything is going to come from their innovation it will simpy be a string of cloned games made to copy Miyamoto-san's genius. For example, Mario led to Banjo Kazookie and Jak and Daxter, and F-Zero X led to Wipopeout.
As for your massive generalistaion about the Gamecube ("Gamecube defines originality and is going to to change the way games are going") this will almost certainly not be the case. Although the cube does host more original games than other consoles, it will not have a massive input in the market (ie. Nintnedo will have about 20% of the console market). So there is absolutely no incentive to developers for, say, the PS2 to put down their "graphics over gameplay" approach to adopt an approach that clearly isn't going to amass any more sales.
Simply put, developers are in it for the money... and graphics sell.
Sonic
Sibs wrote:
> The distant future may be looking good, but what about the near
> future...?
Will we continue to see developers concentrate on graphics over
> gameplay until we reach the photorealistic stage...?
Nintendo are going for gameplay over graphics - like in the new mario sunshine game. Or even the cell shaded Zelda. And as for Animal Leader - i rest my case. Gamecube defines originality and is going to to change the way games are going (like you stated graphics over gameplay)
> The distant future may be looking good, but what about the near
> future...?
Will we continue to see developers concentrate on graphics over
> gameplay until we reach the photorealistic stage...?
Nintendo are going for gameplay over graphics - like in the new mario sunshine game. Or even the cell shaded Zelda. And as for Animal Leader - i rest my case. Gamecube defines originality and is going to to change the way games are going (like you stated graphics over gameplay)
Nah, it's a good name! Far more original than, say, calling yourself after a character from MGS2! Now that's just unoriginal!
Sonic
Sonic
It's the name of one of the races from the PC game Starcraft, I know its sad but it was late and I couldn't think of a differant name. Your second suggesstion...I never thought of that...lol.
Protoss wrote:
> Right, I know what you mean. Wonder what they will blame for this countries
> problems on next?
People?
Nah! That would be too obvious!
Anyway, can I just ask about the name...
Are you a Proton-like being, or just a pro at ****ing?
Sonic ;)
> Right, I know what you mean. Wonder what they will blame for this countries
> problems on next?
People?
Nah! That would be too obvious!
Anyway, can I just ask about the name...
Are you a Proton-like being, or just a pro at ****ing?
Sonic ;)
Right, I know what you mean. Wonder what they will blame for this countries problems on next?
Protoss wrote:
> Rock and Role? Whats that got to do with this topic?
Well, the press ALWAYS needs someone else to blame for the world's troubles.
In the past it's been TV, before that films, and before that Rock n Roll. Now it's video games
> Rock and Role? Whats that got to do with this topic?
Well, the press ALWAYS needs someone else to blame for the world's troubles.
In the past it's been TV, before that films, and before that Rock n Roll. Now it's video games
Page: