Yes. Graphics still need much improvement, and after we get past the point where very game can look realistic maybe we can spend some time getting some good writers in the mix to come up with some ORIGINAL concepts for the games, then some artist to make something that dose not look realistic that complements the game's story, wait a second...
Can games...really get any better than they are now?
- Thread starter SUPA FRANKY
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People are doing the good old mistake of thinking better hardware only improves graphics. Think about how many game designers (e.g. Peter Molyneux, Hideo Kojima, to name a few prominent ones) moan to this day about having so many 'restrictions'. I'm no professional game designer, so I don't know EXACTLY what they are missing, but I know that stuff like physics, AI and level design (I think they were talking about stuff like that) profit enormously of better hardware and that graphics are only the most conspicuous things that change.
Of course, a few points in the story here and there are most likely to be dropped during development, but that's the curse of the entertainment industry: If you want to make something, you gotta find someone to finance it, and that someone is going to make profit out of your work, like it or not.
Gotta disagree here. The storyline is usually written long before they even begin designing the game, so it's most unlikely to massively lose quality after it was written. Most games' stories are bullcrap to begin with, the graphics are hardly to blame. Developing a game doesn't work like starting a character in an RPG where you have several starting points to begin with and may choose which stats to upgrade, if you understand what I mean.Donnyp said:
Of course, a few points in the story here and there are most likely to be dropped during development, but that's the curse of the entertainment industry: If you want to make something, you gotta find someone to finance it, and that someone is going to make profit out of your work, like it or not.
Personally I'm in the group that strongly believes that we should quit obssessing over gimmicky innovations like motion sensing and better graphics and make ACTUAL games that succeed the game that already exist not in terms of technology, but quality and in-game innovation. Kinda like Yahtzee wished for, making a game with a much better dialogue system would be a welcomed step in the right direction towards a golden age of gaming, yet all the stupid console giants are obsessessed with bringing motion to video games, which has already proven to be undesired *points to Wii's unpopularity among gamers*.SUPA FRANKY said:
*gag* There were so many things wrong with that game... It still pisses me off to this day how game sites could give it a fucking 9.0 (or other equivalent of an almost perfect score).Daveman said:
In terms of Graphics, probably the next generation will get about as much polygon pushing and texture quality, etc, that you could hope for.
However, games can always get better. More importantly, they can keep being different. Even if games were to reach some sort of height, you eventually will want to try new game styles of play. If you listen to Mozart enough, doesn't matter how great it is, your going to want to switch to some 70's rock for the sake of variety.
Since you talked about dropping 400 bucks, I assume you are talking about new platforms. Well, new games are worth getting a new platform, even if you don't need the better hardware. In addition, game developers are sure to come up with more uses for powerful hardware, above and beyond simple realism. So that will be worth it as well. Lastly, don't worry. New platforms cost money to design, and selling a new platform loses the big companies money. If they release a new console, it's because it is a big enough improvement over the previous to give a considerable edge over the competition. Why put forth effort to lose money on a new system if the old one is still cutting edge enough? I think we are reaching a magical time, where the next big technological leap won't be as valuable as game play innovation. With any luck, if you need to drop $400, it will be worth every cent.
However, games can always get better. More importantly, they can keep being different. Even if games were to reach some sort of height, you eventually will want to try new game styles of play. If you listen to Mozart enough, doesn't matter how great it is, your going to want to switch to some 70's rock for the sake of variety.
Since you talked about dropping 400 bucks, I assume you are talking about new platforms. Well, new games are worth getting a new platform, even if you don't need the better hardware. In addition, game developers are sure to come up with more uses for powerful hardware, above and beyond simple realism. So that will be worth it as well. Lastly, don't worry. New platforms cost money to design, and selling a new platform loses the big companies money. If they release a new console, it's because it is a big enough improvement over the previous to give a considerable edge over the competition. Why put forth effort to lose money on a new system if the old one is still cutting edge enough? I think we are reaching a magical time, where the next big technological leap won't be as valuable as game play innovation. With any luck, if you need to drop $400, it will be worth every cent.
you guys are kinda forgetting the fact that we cant even render an entire game mao without loading times or draw distances without but fucking frmae rates and the game itself. We have a long prosperous life ahead of us and for an artistic medium that has only been out for 30 years or so it is advancing incredibly fast, especially so in the last 15 years.
Good point well made. My point is that the directors of the game still dicide what to focus on. for example it could be gining one department more funding, listening to their ideas more or pretty much any reason.NickCaligo42 said:
Also I am aware that programming is hard, thats why I gave up on it in college apart from poor teaching, but that is their job. If the people in control of the project put more time and money into this area instead of graphics then the programmers might be motivated to actually do some problem solving.
Also in answer to what is good gameplay I'm not sure. But I would hope that experienced game designers could make a rough stab at it.
This.The_Logician19 said:
Things _have_ to get better or they die out. I'm one of those freaks who find things really easy to pick up so games are generally really easy and boring. So multiplayer but even then I'm usually in the top scoring.
AI for games has a looooooong way to go, immersion can be taken to extreme lvls. Think the Matrix. Make a simulation good enough so people can't tell the difference with stupidly smart AI and I'll be happy. For a few hours at least. =P
To say that games can't get any better than they can now is a flawed statement based upon your frame of referance.
Induldge me and think for a moment about a certain situation:
Imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their arms and legs held in place, but their heads are also fixed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners can only watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.
If it is not reasonable that the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. Wouldn't they praise as clever whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world? And wouldn't the whole of their society depend on the shadows on the wall? (Thank you wikipedia, for havign most of that written, by the way!)
Now lets one of those people escape, and go outside, and see the world for what it really is. Do you think that if he went running back into the cave and told the other prisoners about the real world they would beleive him? NO! Of course not! It's because they have no frame of reference to understand what the real world is like.
This is called the Allegory of the Cave, and it applies well here.
When you play a game now, and say that games can't get any better, I think your being a bit short-sighted.
Lets do another example: A man from the future comes back in time, and is trying his hardest to tell you about video games in his time.
I contend that ultimently, he won't be able to.
I guess what I'm really trying to say he is wait and see, we don't know what the world of gaming holds in store for us.
Induldge me and think for a moment about a certain situation:
Imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their arms and legs held in place, but their heads are also fixed, compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners can only watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.
If it is not reasonable that the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. Wouldn't they praise as clever whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world? And wouldn't the whole of their society depend on the shadows on the wall? (Thank you wikipedia, for havign most of that written, by the way!)
Now lets one of those people escape, and go outside, and see the world for what it really is. Do you think that if he went running back into the cave and told the other prisoners about the real world they would beleive him? NO! Of course not! It's because they have no frame of reference to understand what the real world is like.
This is called the Allegory of the Cave, and it applies well here.
When you play a game now, and say that games can't get any better, I think your being a bit short-sighted.
Lets do another example: A man from the future comes back in time, and is trying his hardest to tell you about video games in his time.
I contend that ultimently, he won't be able to.
I guess what I'm really trying to say he is wait and see, we don't know what the world of gaming holds in store for us.
What can I say? I like RPGs but I don't have the time for games like Morrowind where it takes you a fucking week to get across the map. And oblivion did so many things right as well (the guild quests, the daedra quests, the separation of skill development and leveling up) that it really balances out the bad stuff. Not to mention the supreme modding ability means most of the bad stuff can be removed anyway. And what can I say, Fallout is too gray for me.Daedalus1942 said:
I remember seeing a quote somewhere about how technology keeps getting better and cheaper and part of the quote predicted that by 2050, a $1000 computer will exceed the capabilities of the entire human race put together. So I don't think a virtual reality world or holosuit would be too expensive.SUPA FRANKY said:
