Intrinsic said:
Jazz2K said:
1 - I'm sorry but things need time and todays people aren't ready to give any of it. No new innovation was super great when it was first released it got better with time and as it was refined. New gameplay mechanics often comes with new hardware and new controllers. From the Atari to Nes to SNES and then to Playstation' Dual Shock but since then it's like we stagnated. Whatever anyone can say about Nintendo, at least they tried to bring new types of gameplay with each of their new hardware. Sometimes it was for the better while other times it was for the worse but they tried. If you keep the same controller then come up with things you didn't/could do the gen before. Will every gamers jump in the new thing? No of course but at least try it.
2 - Great AI requires time of development too. It also requires ressources but I read somewhere that if AI was too intelligent in games it would ovverpower the gamer and the gamer wouldn't have any fun so he would stop playing. I think this is true to some extent. AI isn't only about ennemies and sometimes it would be great to feel how the new hardware could pull this foward. When I first played Halo, the AI was what I remember most about the game back in 01. I thought it would get only better from then on but ehh, some AAA games today can't even compte with it.
3 - I'll say it again, I don't think replacing button presses with camera movements work at all. I think cameras could do what buttons can't. There are things we can do with this but people decided that cameras were to be hated like AIDS. Buttons can't see you nor can they hear you. I think it's devs work to come up with ways to implement them properly. Last gen they tried to replace button commands with camera movements and it failed. Does this mean there is nothing we can do with them? I don't think you are agains't wheels for racing games. Now imagine if you had to play a shooter with a wheel when the controls aren't adapted for that kind of game. You would be agains't wheels immediately. That's what happened with last gen but you would be surprised how motion controlled games are nice when done properly.
4 - I'm talking about their usefulness in gameplay. Not only for esthetics. This is getting better and better but how many games offer destruction where you can use destroyed objects to deal with ennemies. Not many games offer you the option to use what's in background at your advantage and/or at your disadvantage. Enemies could interact with objects more than just hide behind them waiting for you to kill them. As for weather and environments I'm not talking about scripted set pieces.
5 - Better graphics in higher resolution and better lightning. These won't give you different gameplay.
Bolded: It's not that easy really. Gaming is mostly a matter of opinions and preferences. The fact that some people can't tell you exactly what new features they expect doesn't mean there isn't anything new to be done. There will be new things of course, wew are only one year with the new hardwares. But I hope devs put a little less ressources in graphics fidelity and push other features more. The possibilities are there.
|
- same can be said about the automobile, after we got the combustion engine I guess we can say we stagnated for over a 100yrs. And are now only finally beginning to explore other types of powertrains. The simple answer to your staganation problem, is that meaningfulchange can only be made when the technology is there to support it. And by meaningful I mean things that are as long standing as analouge sticks on a controller and not motion controls.
- There are also some games with great AI. AI is just one part of a game development process, and every developer has a right to chose how much or how little of their time they want to invest in the game AI. Sometimes, what a game needs a stupid AI, next gen doesn't automatically mean that you should have alien isolation like AI in every game. Imagine playing Mario and that thing you are trying to hop on to kill decideds to take cover then flanks you.
- Ok, indulge me, give me one... just one meaningful usage case scenario where having a camera adds/expands the depth in gameplay found in any type of game.
Camera's didn't become AIDs overnight, they had years to prove their worth and even now people are still willing to give them a ahcance. There is still noting about using a camera to augment or bolster gaming as we know it that comes off making sense or being better than just using a controller to carry out that function.
People didn't just adopt analouge sticks, or vibrating controlers because someone had the sense to put them into a controller, people adopt things because it makes sense to have them and not just cause they are there. If analouge controls suck, no one would use them and they wouldn't be in every controller today. If motion controls suck, they would fade away too, if camera assisted gaming suck, they go away. If the wiiU gamepad ends up adding no real meaningful value to wiiU games, be rest assured that you won't see it in the next console. And its not about gamers not wanting to give things a chance, if the devs even knew what to do with these "next gen" control inputs that you seem to be referencing, they would have made great games on them that everybody will want to go and play. Thats kinda how the industry works you know?
- Now this is someting you have said that I can fully get behind. Then again, I think like you said in your first point here..these things take time. This gen has only just begun and we can already see traces of such things, like in DC.
- Thats one way to cherry pick my comment... what about the rest of things that encompass bigger and better instead of just resolution and lightning. What about bigger levels? More NPCs on screen, Better animations...etc. These things not only all affect gameplay but can determine what kinda game you even make.
I don't doubt the possibilities are there. Personally I think that the only major changes we will see as far as conventional games go are in the feilds of AI and even better more synced presentation. Anything outside that will be in the realm of VR. But what I don't get is, those that do complain about the current gen consoles especially by saying "next gen gameplay" have never been able to show, give an example of or refernece what to them qualifies as next gen gameplay in this day and age. We CANNOT have a Mario 64 moment again right now. Its almost like movies are praised for finally being in colour, then criticized for remaining in color, no matter how much betterthose colors are or how much better the stort teling methods are. Thats exactly what "no next gen gameplay" sounds like to me.
|
1 - The automobile is a great example of stagnation. There is only one reason why the automobile is still using combustion engine and it's because it makes them more money than they can deal with. There are countless other technologies that were developped in 100years, some of them were pollution free, some were energy free, a lot using electricity but only combustion remained and it's not because it was the most efficient one. You have to factor that ROI is way more important for companies than getting new things done for the sake of innovation. If the market is unsure, there is no way they'll pursue in such direction. The same applies to the gaming industry. The technology is there but if making money out of it will take too much time they'll just avoid using it. Why do you think both PS4 and X1 struggle to catch up to 2ys old PC? Because of lack of technology?
2 - Almost every AAA games use stupid basic generic AI. Tell me then how do you expect gamers to adapt to more brilliant AI when less than 1% of games make clever use of it? Making good AI requires time I know, and a lot of ressources. You have to understand that what I'm trying to say is that with good game design there should be good AI that works along the game design. Taking your Mario example, the way you analyse this is wrong. You act like you could just put clever AI in a game like Mario but keep the same Mario game design. Mario would have to be reworked in a way to put that AI to good use. It's the same logic people use when they think that any racing track is good for any kind of driving and car races. Tracks have to be redesigned to accomodate the kind of racing event you want.
3 - Cameras didn't have anything to prove. They're just tools for creators to use. If I give you a screwdriver and you use it to put nails because all your life you used hammers and nails then you're not doing it properly. But you'll keep on hating screwdrivers. The problem with how motion gaming was used last gen was that they just tacked gestures on regular controls. Games that were primarily made to use cams were far better. Of course dancing games are still better with cams than mats of controllers. But I think devs should try to think outside the controllers. I'd be willing to play a ping pong game with enemies similar to the ones in Punch Out but with gestures way more than button presses. Because in real life I like ping pong. There are many ways that cams could be used but again, companies need to make sure they'll get a return of investment so they don't put too much ressources in developing these games.
Also analog sticks are an evolution of the regular cross controls. Going from left to right in 2D was enough but I remember some games in the arcades that used a ball to make movements more fluid. Analog sticks were only logical. Does it mean they are the only way we should control things in games? They can't go further? Would people embrace change?
4 - DC shows how stron graphics are for immersion and I think it's great. I just hope as the gen goes, weather effects won't only be used as eye candy and/or only during set pieces. If there was a huge water tank that enemies blew up then water should be all over and everything should start to be slippery. Not just for you but also for enemies.
5 - Bigger levels? When they make bigger levels than what was possible during PS2 era then we'll talk. Games last 8hours if not 6h. There are very few games that have more than 10 AIs on screen at the same time. Collision detection is better but not that better from PS2 era and animations in the background are still lacking.
To me advances in gameplay can mostly be done through controllers, AI, physics and how we communicate with consoles (other devices such as cams). Are you gonna stop using controllers with VR? Is VR going to make enemies smarter or physics better? Will you suddenly think motion or voice in games are relevent if done (properly or not) because of VR? If games aren't adapted for it it won't be different from tvs attached to your head.
There is also one thing to note. Games sport multiple genres and there is more ways to experience gaming than there is for movies. Your way of interacting with movies is passive since the movie dictates the outcome of the movies while games is different. You don't have to have stories in games, you don't have to have sounds or nice graphics. There's no such things as proper games, there's all kinds of games and some of them benefit from controllers, some from wheels, some from arcade sticks, some from cameras and motion controllers etc.
Currently Online 
