By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 24 August 2013
Edit Thread
the-pi-guy said:
richardhutnik said:

//I like games, because there is a wide variety of possibilities, games without stories, games with open stories, and games with closed stories.  I don't seem to have a preference at this point.  Though that'll change once some things become more possible.  

//I haven't seen Star Trek, but I get your point.  Can't say I agree though.  Some of the best games (imo) do have pre-canned stories.  Pre-canned stories mean the developer can tell me a story.  They can tell me about their experiences.  I think many of the best stories in books were ones that the writer had a heart in.  Meaning it was inspired.  Where we are currently, we can't really have the player make very inspiring stories.  The Last of Us has my favorite character from anything ever.  Ellie feels real to me, yet I don't think (right now at least) that a nonpre-canned story could've given me a character half as delightful as Ellie was.  

//Games shouldn't have budget issues, that would be a publisher's fault.  GTA V can afford to cost more than 100 million dollars, because it has been successful.  No one but the publisher (or perhaps the developer is making the publisher) is causing games to become expensive.  My point with Skyrim was not to force a specific decision. It was to force any decision.  Playing Skyrim, there is no flow.  No reason I have to take part in any of the game's quest. I could just buy a house and farm for as long as I want.  I don't have to partake in the story in any capacity whatsoever.  It doesn't make me.  

// I brought up Strong AI for a reason, it is very different from weak AI.  We'll create new technologies to allow costs to stay relatively the same while game worlds become much larger, much more immersive.  What Strong AI is, is essentially actual intelligence, albeit still artificial.  Rather than having actors, we create characters with profiles, with no actors theoretically needed.  I actually have a compound idea about an application for replacing an actor.  With strong AI, precanned missions won't be necessary.  The computer will make and remember missions as the game progresses. Though still, I doubt Strong AI will even be possible in my lifetime.  

//The video game market is massive and growing, MS thinks that eventually 1 billion video game systems could be sold.  Not everyone that buys a system will want the same type of experience.  As the market expands, so will the number and variety of games expand as well.  

So as time goes on, not only will we have the technology but also the market to make a large variety of games.  

Because it would get too confusing, I had to chop out what I wrote and get to what you wrote.  I do want to take the points one at a time:

* A wide variety of games is possible, IF you keep dev costs down, and are able to target new niches.  When doing this, you have the chance of something unexpected all of a sudden becoming a phenomenon.  So long as the videogame industry follows the AAA model, and has HUGE teams and decides it wants to emulate movies, you are less likely to get the wide variety you want.  What you will get is a narrow band of titles copying top sellers. 

Also, sales are down.  The industry is hoping for a tech refresh to fix everything: http://bgr.com/2013/06/18/video-game-sales-may-2013/

* In regards to the said best games having a force narrative and flow, I can see someone arguing that.  However, what I will also argue is that those are too few in number to have the entire industry focus on it.  Also, the industry is now going open world, because they can justify selling DLC.  Too many games like Enslaved, which did push a narrative, and got praised for it, ended up not being viable (Spec Ops: The Line also fits here).  So now, you are seeing more and more Skyrim type games.  You also have Alan Wake as another example, and a sequel not being done, because it didn't return sufficient profitability.  And that was an excellent game.  But, it just isn't sustainable.  X hours of gameplay, without sufficient replayability leads to adding multiplayer to avoid filling the used game bin.  Guys working in the videogame industry want to kill of used game sales so they can work on single player heavy story driven narratives and feel like storytellers, and be able to sell their stuff at $60 a pop, having ALL stuff sold once.  But, as seen with the XBOX ONE protests, the market revolted.

* Strong AI doesn't provide the emotional impact using humans to do the voice acting does, and drive the narrative.  That isn't about having reactive AI that acts human, and can provide dynamic worlds.  What it is about is having human actors be able to add emotional impact to telling a story, like you have in movies.  When you end up having story driven games, you push for the movie-like experience.  Sand box and open world is a different animal completely.  With the story driven side, you end up scripting about everything.  It is a different animal.

* And I did speak on the sales numbers above.  The industry is HOPING that a tech refresh will be the boom it needs.  However, if the Wii crowd is what drove sales last time, they are now playing 99 cent apps on their smart devices and isn't going to be showing up.  The industry could be in for a rude awakening.  And sales are down, a bunch.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-17