The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
How are the games of the future going to be made? The way it's heading we'll have photorealistic landscapes, every object of which will have to be hand rendered, totally intelligent non-playable character, each having massive amounts of artificial intelligence, and massive plots that will be affected by players' actions.
So, how to develop such a game?
Graphically, the work will be massive. Every polygon, texture and pattern will have to be made from scratch.
Perhaps we'll see a new kind of middleware emerging- the item makers. Such companies would spend all their time rendering items, like tables, chairs, doors and walls, and then sell these to game companies as they were needed. After all, to make a photorealistic game, no developer can possibly render all the items in the game. Instead they'd go to the Item Maker saying "we need a Victorian interior for this building design- furnish it".
To keep the idea of realism, new techniques of generating textures will be needed. Perhaps fractal geometry could answer many of these answers. Rather than rendering hundreds of different wooden surfaces, instead you have one piece of code that will take some information, like the type of wood and number of knots in it, and then produce a unique wooden surface for every single piece of wood in the game.
The next big leap to make is the AI of the computer. No longer will it be acceptable for them to walk through cars, into doors or around in circles. Each computer character must have their own real lives that they lead, and must respond to the actions of the player.
The first of these is easy- you can give each character a "diary" that they follow each day. The second task is much harder. Not only must computer characters react to what you do, but also to each other. So, if, for example, you pull out a gun at someone they should scream, and everyone around would also enter a state of panic.
Such ideas are far off today's developing methods- but they needn't be. What is needed is to replace the development ethos of coding millions and millions of set events, and instead to just code the characters with a few simply rules and facts. Tell them that guns are bad, and food is good. Then code a few simple rules like “avoid bad things”, and see how it goes from there.
The final great development needed in games is truly interactive plots. Truly interactive. That means that the player should be able to anything they want, and the game will respond accordingly. Of course, there will always be some limit to how interactive things can be- you can’t just shoot the guy you’re protecting and think the game will continue on that path. However, why not have space shooting games where you can go towards your target in any direction? Must levels always be on tracks?
So, who’s to say that game development is a boring place. We could see some of these ideas being implemented sooner than you might think...
Sonic
So, how to develop such a game?
Graphically, the work will be massive. Every polygon, texture and pattern will have to be made from scratch.
Perhaps we'll see a new kind of middleware emerging- the item makers. Such companies would spend all their time rendering items, like tables, chairs, doors and walls, and then sell these to game companies as they were needed. After all, to make a photorealistic game, no developer can possibly render all the items in the game. Instead they'd go to the Item Maker saying "we need a Victorian interior for this building design- furnish it".
To keep the idea of realism, new techniques of generating textures will be needed. Perhaps fractal geometry could answer many of these answers. Rather than rendering hundreds of different wooden surfaces, instead you have one piece of code that will take some information, like the type of wood and number of knots in it, and then produce a unique wooden surface for every single piece of wood in the game.
The next big leap to make is the AI of the computer. No longer will it be acceptable for them to walk through cars, into doors or around in circles. Each computer character must have their own real lives that they lead, and must respond to the actions of the player.
The first of these is easy- you can give each character a "diary" that they follow each day. The second task is much harder. Not only must computer characters react to what you do, but also to each other. So, if, for example, you pull out a gun at someone they should scream, and everyone around would also enter a state of panic.
Such ideas are far off today's developing methods- but they needn't be. What is needed is to replace the development ethos of coding millions and millions of set events, and instead to just code the characters with a few simply rules and facts. Tell them that guns are bad, and food is good. Then code a few simple rules like “avoid bad things”, and see how it goes from there.
The final great development needed in games is truly interactive plots. Truly interactive. That means that the player should be able to anything they want, and the game will respond accordingly. Of course, there will always be some limit to how interactive things can be- you can’t just shoot the guy you’re protecting and think the game will continue on that path. However, why not have space shooting games where you can go towards your target in any direction? Must levels always be on tracks?
So, who’s to say that game development is a boring place. We could see some of these ideas being implemented sooner than you might think...
Sonic
Cheers for the reply Liquid.
With the enevitable improvements in realistic graphics, I wonder what non-realistic gaming styles will evolve. What will follow Cell Shading as the next "in" style?
Interesting questions indeed. With the potential power of consoles in 10 years time, possibilities will be limitless
Sonic
With the enevitable improvements in realistic graphics, I wonder what non-realistic gaming styles will evolve. What will follow Cell Shading as the next "in" style?
Interesting questions indeed. With the potential power of consoles in 10 years time, possibilities will be limitless
Sonic
Good topic.
I think that games in the future, graphically, will be amazing. We have already incounted the first sign of these with games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Rogue Leader. But I think they have only just scratched the surface when it comes to graphics. As time passes, graphics will become more and more life-like, prehaps even more than what it is now. You never know, about 15 years ago, there were the most basic kind of graphics, wityh the most basic kind of gameplay and that seemed to be affective int the gaming world, as well as being revolutionary in it's own way.
The gameplay will become more and more advanced, dependinng on the direction the gaming world takes in the future. We have already experienced games like Mario and Sonic, which in my opinion, are some of the best ever made, but are there just going to be loads more sequels, so by the year 2010, there'll be about five more sonic games. Don't get me wrong though, Sonic is a classic, but it will it get boring, because of the same old storyline. We'll have to wait and see.
So, the direction gaming takes will depend, I think, on the way the the graphics and gameplay takes us.
I think that games in the future, graphically, will be amazing. We have already incounted the first sign of these with games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Rogue Leader. But I think they have only just scratched the surface when it comes to graphics. As time passes, graphics will become more and more life-like, prehaps even more than what it is now. You never know, about 15 years ago, there were the most basic kind of graphics, wityh the most basic kind of gameplay and that seemed to be affective int the gaming world, as well as being revolutionary in it's own way.
The gameplay will become more and more advanced, dependinng on the direction the gaming world takes in the future. We have already experienced games like Mario and Sonic, which in my opinion, are some of the best ever made, but are there just going to be loads more sequels, so by the year 2010, there'll be about five more sonic games. Don't get me wrong though, Sonic is a classic, but it will it get boring, because of the same old storyline. We'll have to wait and see.
So, the direction gaming takes will depend, I think, on the way the the graphics and gameplay takes us.
Cheers for the replies people!
Dr. Duck, contrary to popular belief, Cell Shading isn't as easy as you might thing to implement- you still have to create every polygon you usually would, and then have to code an algorithm to "cell shade them". So, although the effect is ultra simlistic, the method behind it is pretty complex- especially seeing as few dev kits support such methods straight out of the box.
Solskjaer, good point about the complexity of games- what's the point in photorealism if you can only interact with items using big coloured plastic buttons! To an extent analogue buttons have helped, but in the future something more radical will be needed- motion sensors? VR headsets? Who knows!
Anyway, thanks for the replies!
Sonic
POWER TO THE HEDGEHOG
Dr. Duck, contrary to popular belief, Cell Shading isn't as easy as you might thing to implement- you still have to create every polygon you usually would, and then have to code an algorithm to "cell shade them". So, although the effect is ultra simlistic, the method behind it is pretty complex- especially seeing as few dev kits support such methods straight out of the box.
Solskjaer, good point about the complexity of games- what's the point in photorealism if you can only interact with items using big coloured plastic buttons! To an extent analogue buttons have helped, but in the future something more radical will be needed- motion sensors? VR headsets? Who knows!
Anyway, thanks for the replies!
Sonic
POWER TO THE HEDGEHOG
Good topic.
One problem that immeadiatly comes to my mind with a vastly-improved AI to the type we know to day envolves the youngest and newest generations of gamers.
Remember when you were younger and first started gaming??
I bet it was all simple games that were easy to just pick up and play and enjoy. Yes, that was the best we could find around 14 years ago, but it still applies to kids today.
You won't honestly see a child of 5 get home and pick up Halo on the X-box, and just the reviews of Resident Evil games could be enough to give young.... 'Billy' nightmares!
Can you guarrentee that the simple games of today and the past will still be around when we reach the limits of games developments????
Kids are just as important as older gamers to the firms.
If they can attract them at an early age then they can keep them for life - like us Nintendo and Sega fans out there.
Kids won't take to the games like what I mentioned above, they're just way too complicated and serious for such simple-mided individuals.
One problem that immeadiatly comes to my mind with a vastly-improved AI to the type we know to day envolves the youngest and newest generations of gamers.
Remember when you were younger and first started gaming??
I bet it was all simple games that were easy to just pick up and play and enjoy. Yes, that was the best we could find around 14 years ago, but it still applies to kids today.
You won't honestly see a child of 5 get home and pick up Halo on the X-box, and just the reviews of Resident Evil games could be enough to give young.... 'Billy' nightmares!
Can you guarrentee that the simple games of today and the past will still be around when we reach the limits of games developments????
Kids are just as important as older gamers to the firms.
If they can attract them at an early age then they can keep them for life - like us Nintendo and Sega fans out there.
Kids won't take to the games like what I mentioned above, they're just way too complicated and serious for such simple-mided individuals.
Great post.
I just wonder if as data storage capacity in future media increases, we could see photo-realism being produced, at least to an extent, by using digital photographs to create the textures and images used in the games - the only computer manipulation would need to be shaping and resizing to fit the target polygon.
Maybe for characers we could see, again only where it could be appropriate, online gaming used to let other human players replace computer-controlled characters.
Of course, it's already happening to an extent in some rpgs, and to be fully used, would require online gaming to have flourished to become something of a standard. And still, it couldn't work for all situations, not by a long way. But if it could be worked into some kind of a flexible storyline, it could be another... well, maybe an easy way out really, saving a lot of work. I think you're probably right that to really improve AI without greatly increasing workload, we do need another way of doing things.
And is it just me, or does cell shading seem like a cheap way of getting round graphical standards? Still, if it looks good, why not?
I just wonder if as data storage capacity in future media increases, we could see photo-realism being produced, at least to an extent, by using digital photographs to create the textures and images used in the games - the only computer manipulation would need to be shaping and resizing to fit the target polygon.
Maybe for characers we could see, again only where it could be appropriate, online gaming used to let other human players replace computer-controlled characters.
Of course, it's already happening to an extent in some rpgs, and to be fully used, would require online gaming to have flourished to become something of a standard. And still, it couldn't work for all situations, not by a long way. But if it could be worked into some kind of a flexible storyline, it could be another... well, maybe an easy way out really, saving a lot of work. I think you're probably right that to really improve AI without greatly increasing workload, we do need another way of doing things.
And is it just me, or does cell shading seem like a cheap way of getting round graphical standards? Still, if it looks good, why not?
How are the games of the future going to be made? The way it's heading we'll have photorealistic landscapes, every object of which will have to be hand rendered, totally intelligent non-playable character, each having massive amounts of artificial intelligence, and massive plots that will be affected by players' actions.
So, how to develop such a game?
Graphically, the work will be massive. Every polygon, texture and pattern will have to be made from scratch.
Perhaps we'll see a new kind of middleware emerging- the item makers. Such companies would spend all their time rendering items, like tables, chairs, doors and walls, and then sell these to game companies as they were needed. After all, to make a photorealistic game, no developer can possibly render all the items in the game. Instead they'd go to the Item Maker saying "we need a Victorian interior for this building design- furnish it".
To keep the idea of realism, new techniques of generating textures will be needed. Perhaps fractal geometry could answer many of these answers. Rather than rendering hundreds of different wooden surfaces, instead you have one piece of code that will take some information, like the type of wood and number of knots in it, and then produce a unique wooden surface for every single piece of wood in the game.
The next big leap to make is the AI of the computer. No longer will it be acceptable for them to walk through cars, into doors or around in circles. Each computer character must have their own real lives that they lead, and must respond to the actions of the player.
The first of these is easy- you can give each character a "diary" that they follow each day. The second task is much harder. Not only must computer characters react to what you do, but also to each other. So, if, for example, you pull out a gun at someone they should scream, and everyone around would also enter a state of panic.
Such ideas are far off today's developing methods- but they needn't be. What is needed is to replace the development ethos of coding millions and millions of set events, and instead to just code the characters with a few simply rules and facts. Tell them that guns are bad, and food is good. Then code a few simple rules like “avoid bad things”, and see how it goes from there.
The final great development needed in games is truly interactive plots. Truly interactive. That means that the player should be able to anything they want, and the game will respond accordingly. Of course, there will always be some limit to how interactive things can be- you can’t just shoot the guy you’re protecting and think the game will continue on that path. However, why not have space shooting games where you can go towards your target in any direction? Must levels always be on tracks?
So, who’s to say that game development is a boring place. We could see some of these ideas being implemented sooner than you might think...
Sonic
So, how to develop such a game?
Graphically, the work will be massive. Every polygon, texture and pattern will have to be made from scratch.
Perhaps we'll see a new kind of middleware emerging- the item makers. Such companies would spend all their time rendering items, like tables, chairs, doors and walls, and then sell these to game companies as they were needed. After all, to make a photorealistic game, no developer can possibly render all the items in the game. Instead they'd go to the Item Maker saying "we need a Victorian interior for this building design- furnish it".
To keep the idea of realism, new techniques of generating textures will be needed. Perhaps fractal geometry could answer many of these answers. Rather than rendering hundreds of different wooden surfaces, instead you have one piece of code that will take some information, like the type of wood and number of knots in it, and then produce a unique wooden surface for every single piece of wood in the game.
The next big leap to make is the AI of the computer. No longer will it be acceptable for them to walk through cars, into doors or around in circles. Each computer character must have their own real lives that they lead, and must respond to the actions of the player.
The first of these is easy- you can give each character a "diary" that they follow each day. The second task is much harder. Not only must computer characters react to what you do, but also to each other. So, if, for example, you pull out a gun at someone they should scream, and everyone around would also enter a state of panic.
Such ideas are far off today's developing methods- but they needn't be. What is needed is to replace the development ethos of coding millions and millions of set events, and instead to just code the characters with a few simply rules and facts. Tell them that guns are bad, and food is good. Then code a few simple rules like “avoid bad things”, and see how it goes from there.
The final great development needed in games is truly interactive plots. Truly interactive. That means that the player should be able to anything they want, and the game will respond accordingly. Of course, there will always be some limit to how interactive things can be- you can’t just shoot the guy you’re protecting and think the game will continue on that path. However, why not have space shooting games where you can go towards your target in any direction? Must levels always be on tracks?
So, who’s to say that game development is a boring place. We could see some of these ideas being implemented sooner than you might think...
Sonic