the #1 thing that you "worry" about in Gaming

[emeraldrafael]

the gaming world shifting to a fully online and computer thing, where home consoles are obsolete.

it may sound dumb and old fashioned, but I still enjoy the way my ps3 controller sits in my hand, and sitting on my bed gaming at 3 am with only the glow of the tv to light my room.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

The sense of entitlement that pervades virtually every discussion of DLC and immature complaining about games/dev decisions/etc. that people don't like.

I'm not particularly worried about these things having a big effect on gaming itself since DLC is clearly an economic success for instance, but it engenders a lot of ill-will, makes us look very immature compared to fans of other forms of media (which many people take to mean that games are for immature people and not worthy of their attention), and damages the relationship between game makers and gamers.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

I actually emailed the Extra Credits guys about this, but it goes without saying that they haven't gotten back to me yet.

I've been a hobbyist developer for about 15 years now (I'm 25) and quite frankly, over the past few months (basically ever since I've started going to school for game development) I've become terrified that my efforts in learning to develop games will be all for moot. It seems that just about every game mechanic there is to create has already been done. And done very well. So where does that leave me? Writing the tools to enable it's use? Done. Porting it to another platform? Done. And boring.
What's an aspiring game developer to do? Granted, I only got into game development because I know that in order to create performant(sp?) games you have to be intimately familiar with your platform and you language and I plan on taking that to the world of business applications, but after actually making some games for a while, I actually want to try doing it for a living. I want to facilitate the creation of those experiences you guys talk about so often.

My fear is that I don't know if there is any hope for someone wanting to not *design* the games of tomorrow, but create the engines behind them? Are there really areas of the code side of things that have yet to be tapped into? I don't know. But I'm not in the games industry. Yet.

For one, I think there are still untapped ideas. If you ask just about any gamer, they've got at least a handful of ideas and, while most are probably pretty terrible (Sturgeon's Law), there are a lot of absolute gems. The fact that relatively few gamers will ever contribute substantially to making games means that there are a ton of untapped ideas and a lot of them are bound to be pretty great.

As for making engines, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done. Engines are improving constantly. Due to the nature of computers, pretty much every part of an engine is some sort of neat trick. No one, for instance, actually models collisions with even something like Newtonian physics (too computationally expensive). People find ways to make these illusions more convincing and less costly all the time. And then there are the people who aren't just improving the way things are currently done, they're changing things completely. Take a look at the minor trend toward voxels for instance - a lot of the techniques are still in their infancy and they're completely unlike current practices. And then there's the engine-building required for entirely novel gameplay ideas or for more abstract games.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

When EA takes over the industry.

When that day comes...

there will be only chaos.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

[

what worries me is that non-gamers think of our medium. it's not even a simple i don't like games its they refuse to conede games are due any respect as a form of artistic expression. and it worries me that designers and publishers keep making things that reinforce this mind set.

to be fair I feel this is changing for the better, I mean there are more games out thease days that are a "little" more mature than "BLOOD GUTS!!! S'PLOSIONS!!!".....I mean a little

plus I really do think its becoming a little more accepted...bit by bit, I mean people have pointed out how stupid it is to blame videogames for bad stuff that happens

and generally those who are REALLY against it are kind of dumb/ignorant

this is where we have to diasagree, i was talking about limbo not a shoote up to someone who studies literature(not closed minded) as i do . it wans't ignorance that made them refuse ro respect gaming it was the stigma that gaming created for itself. She didn't see limbo as a journey through a dark and threatening world expressing the fear that we all feel at the truly infinite nature of our existence she saw a simulator for murdering children. and when games as crass as buletstorm or saints row poulate our mainstream can i blame her. this is our biggest problem

as somone said above I supose its part of the issue of gamers growing up...but the games not so much

that said I dont think theres anything wrong with our violent games do we ned more "deep" games? yeah sure depending on your definition of deep, even AAA games have a little more than pure violence, but when an non-gamer sees them...they just see violence

perhaps its a combination of the stigma..so certain people are more likley to remain ignorant,

however keep in mind I think games are relitivley new...so they have a way to go..hopefully anyway

in this regard you could say casual gaming and the Wii isnt such a bad thing

i think you missed i was using LIMBo to encourage a friend that games deserve respect. its primarily passive gameplay with only two buttons and a control stick hardly a challenging interface to master it dosn't bog you down in eccoteric gaming language and it isnt gratuatous at any point its quite muted even if it is disturbing. quite simply its a great way to open someone to the possibility of games as art. i wasn't asking to be embraced open armed simply respected by a close friend and fellow artist.
It should bother gamers that our reputation is that bad with the arts comunity.

as for being young as an excuse, games being about thirty isnt to far from fifty. which is how old the modern comic was when it got a pulitzer.

I disagree...ALOT can happen in 20 years... gaming being a prime example

I mean look at gaimg 20 years ago compared to now....plus the medium is the fastest to change being directly linked to technology and all that

in twenty years the medium will be roughly fifty, sixty if you count the seventies, my point was youth is not an excuse for imaturity. but being fast moving dosn't matter if the world around you stays the same. (i take seeing as you didn't mention it you are somewhat coerced we should be bothered our literary and film compatriots looking upon our medium with utter disdain)
i was far too general and haphazard in being clear on my statement of youth, my apologies.

 

[JackWestJr]

That CoD will keep selling. At the moment, MW3 is gonna have more sales than Black Ops did. This is worrying because it makes me sick that people who DON'T play games stereotype us as asshole little kids like in CoD.

This post didn't make much sense, I know, sorry.