Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Console Gaming
I've come across a well-written piece regarding the future of console gaming. The op-ed piece deals with machinery, games as well as working within the video game industry.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
From the article :
My first exposure to modern console gaming was in 1989 when I first played Revenge of Shinobi on the Genesis, followed by hours of time lost to Tetris, and Golgo 13 for the NES.
One of the interesting, and really, sad things about old video games is how much they suck. A friend of mine had a Golgo13 NES game, and I played it for the first time a few months ago when he finally got his NES hooked up again. That game sucks, and sucks bad. (btw, has anyone here seen the Anime it's from? I thought it was pretty bad to, actually)
I think the most fun old games are the ones that didn't try and 'push' the system to far. By that I mean, games that didn't try to produce 'amazing' graphics, because by default those graphic will appear to suck to future generations. When you compare a game like "super Mario bros. 3" for the NES, to a game like "Batman 3" or something, witch was supposed to have lush graphics at the time, looks like crap.
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
"I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games."
I think this would be a major step backwards. What I expect to see is better AI/Storyline management, combined with better graphic rendering which will produce dynamic stories in which the characters act and react realistically (but still programmatically) to situations and conversations. As graphic quality improves the ability of a character to appear realistic, combined with more available computing power and better character AI should be capable of producing a game in which characters look, act, and respond to the events in the story in a believable manner. I think that switching from dynamic game mode to static video playback mode based on events in a story is simply far too limiting and ultimately not cost effective - since someone has to film and act out all of those video clips. It also limits the gameplay, since only a limited number of options are possible in the story, or the number of video clips which need to be filmed quickly go astronomical.
Creating game characters that interact more believably, while programmatically very difficult, will in the end produce games which are more dynamic, less predictable, and by consistently staying in game graphics mode, more believable. If this can be combined with any sort of learning algorithm down the road, we may even have characters whose AI permits them to react in ways that make sense and really challenge the player.
Of course, writing the scripts for games like this will prove to be truly challenging. As a onetime script consultant/writer for a computer game (okay, so it was a kids title - "Anastasia - Adventures with Pooka and Bartok" if you are interested) I can attest that even a simple title requires an incredible amount of written dialog to cover all of the options. Since this dialog has to cover all possibilities, yet still have some useful content, it can be extremely difficult to create. Furthermore, just like any other element in a game, it is liable to be edited by higher ups (and even by the programmers who enter it) which can ruin the eventual result (Gee, just like the film industry). Writing for truly dynamic storylines will be a daunting task.
The one thing that the games industry needs to get straight IMHO, is that game development should be run more like the production of a major film, and less like disorganized-but-clever gaggle-fsck that seems to be the approach of many game companies (not the best ones I hope).
Anyways, just my $0.2 worth
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games. It'll start out slowly with just replacing still scenes with video clips, but eventually playing a video game is really going to be like being a part of a movie. People will look like real people, not like drawn characters. People will ACT not just stand in place. People will speak rather than make you read words on the screen.
If you're talking FMV with live actors, I think we've already seen that this just didn't work out so well. I'm not talking about the horrible "games" which were little more than movies with a minor bit of interaction. I'm talking the ones that tried to integrate live actors into the game...
It's just not the right medium for this. Games aren't SUPPOSED to be like movies. Movies are serial, uninteractive. Games are much more interactive, and often more parallel. The best adventure games, while having a story to rival a great movie, don't require you to do things in a specific order, working on one puzzle at a time.
And any game that tries to place you into the game as one of the characters is destroyed by using FMV. The Wing Commander series is a great example for me personally. I could feel at least partially that the character was me (though the gender was an obstacle). But when I started playing WC3, I felt like I was pulled completely out of the game. It was no longer a generic character to represent you. It was Mark Hamill playing Blair. I just can't feel like the character when it's another person playing it.
I think CGI animation is going to grow, because they're going to be able to do so much more with that environment than they could with real actors. And because they're not real people, those of us who like to really get into the character will still be able to do so.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
The games "industry" is broken because it is too expensive to develop and market games.
It is absolutely impossible to make a business case for a "new idea" that costs $3 million to develop, unless you are an established team with at least one, preferably a half dozen hits.
Of course, if you are an established team, its a lot easier to make a sequel to one of your hits than it is to convince the checkbook to invest in a "new idea."
That's why you get so many similar games at retail.
Such an investment requires the game to be a hit just to break even. You can't make money in a limited market starting out $3 million in debt.
"How do you know this game will sell?" Greatest question in the whole industry. You know what? There IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. You don't know it will sell, and neither does anyone else. Anyone who tells you they "know" something will sell and is still working for a living is being "creative."
Not to mention the unbelievable cheese grater that stands between a developer and the retail shelves. Why do games cost $50?; because there are about eleventeen levels of companies who want their part before it gets to the shelf.
When a small team (2-5 people) can develop AND MARKET a game for the cost of their labor, the game industry will improve. Prices will drop, quality will rise, development schedules will be measured in months instead of years, and there will be a much better selection of games.
Walk into almost any arcade nowdays, excepting the ones that specialize in older games, and what do you see?
A half dozen Mortal Kombat wannabes, a mess of Lethal Enforcers clones with mabye a few Operation Wolf copies mixed in, and a mess of sit-down racing games which are, mostly, less fun than
Pole position.
Would Pac Man even be made in todays market, if it weren't a classic?
I'm sure burgertime would never have been introduced.
Tron?
Joust?
Lunar Patrol?
Q-Bert?
Centipede?
Asteroids?
Defender?
Zaxxon?
Zookeeper?
Donkey Kong?
Spy Hunter?
Afterburner?
Asteroids?
Would any of the above even be introduced to arcades nowdays if ther were not considered "classics"? These were all treeibly fun games, most more fun than ant recent game, most of which defined their own genres.
But, bomehow, I doubt that any of them would see the light of day today if they were not already "Classics", because none of them is:
A) A fighting game
B) A first peoson shooter
or
C) A racing game (with the arguable axception of Spy Hunter)
I think there is DEFINATELY a lack of originallity in today's cookie-cutter arcade game industry.
The art *IS* dead... the only art left in the arcades is that of creating a more bloody fatality when you defeat your opponent.
john
Imagine all the people...
The article's premise is wrong. A game programmer isn't the equivalent of a movie industry star. S/he's the equivalent of a grip or at most a set designer.
This touches on the overwhelming failure of indie game developers.
This has links to some good articles about the future of gaming and the rise and fall of shareware and hobbyist game programming.
Apologies to OT.
:) ) are still creatively, technically, or financially under the thumb of money or funding.
Thank you for kudos. If you don't mind, I would like to clip your quote and forward it to George and Scott. They are devoted to the small developer culture and would be pleased by it.
The following are my personal opinion, and not representative of my game project, nor my company.
I had and have a huge choice of companies to code at, and Apogee really stands out as a big company that works very hard to stay feeling like a small indie developer. That Apogee exists. That we are making some cool games and projects. That it feels like we will be making many for a long time to come. Just gives me renewed faith that small guys can still be around to make cool stuff.
I personally (not as representative of the company) contribute what I can to indie game dev. Because indie is fresh blood, and living creativity, of our industry. We will stifle ourselves with clones if we do not maintain and encourage a healthy indie culture.
I agree our field is still very money, very (large) publisher driven. That many small developers (and you would be surprised by *who* are *still small* developers, you would expect after such kicka** titles they should be *big* by now
A few lucky groups break free of that. And I am grateful I code for one of them.
Not necessarily.
Photo-based rendering combined with video, actual shots, digitization can merge realism and dynamism.
Polygonal complexity shall outstrip the "art development budget" required to create that many polygons to build that many models, not only for indie developers, but even for mid-size (non-Square-Final-Fantasy-size) development teams.
Polygon as a basic content primitive shall soon become unwieldily expensive.
Mathematically, both the ideas of "convex hull polygon shell" and "affine transformation of bitmap onto hull -- *ahem* texturing" are temporary artificial constructs eventually inadequate to represent reality.
Infocom used essentially the same game engine for most of their titles. But the games were sufficiently different and entertaining that this wasn't a problem but a benefit.
Perhaps game engines these days aren't sufficiently general to allow for different games, just different graphics?
// What I think the article meant
:)
:)", optimization, in all counts there are some on the console world that exceeds Carmack, and are not household names.
:) )
:)
:)
There lacks "famous" console developers, not on the same fame level as PC developers.
Console bestsellers (the titles, and the "companies") actually reach a larger audience, and generate more income, than even a "famous PC hit" that is a popular household name.
It is true the "fame spotlight" falls on PC developers a lot more disporportionately than on "equally influentially, talented, successful" console developers.
// console superstar coders
Understanding this lack of limelight, I do my part to praise the coding ability of my fellow console coders (some on and even above the ability of Carmack, but are way less well-known only because of platform) when opportunities arise.
Sales, development record, talent, ability, knowledge, that "super code god power
(Yes, this means they exceed me obviously in code-god-hood.
// fame the harsh mistress
As I "pity" my talented console coder friends for not having the limelight of fame, and discuss this issue, we come to the conclusion that the "PC game superstar celebrity syndrome" is a mixed blessing and harsh mistress:
1. PC fame attracts the *wrong* people. In the early years, it is only about people who do it for the love.
Now because there is so much fame (and sometimes money) involved, we attract a new breed more interested in turning themselves into celebrities, instead of loving the game, loving the code, loving the work.
We also start focusing our admiration of PC developers based more on "glamor", "photogenic", "great personality" instead of honest-to-goodness knowledge, ability, talent, and contribution.
My console developers are grateful their development world did not get "turvey-ed" like ours (PC).
2. Fame means Flame
With additional attention comes additional scrutiny. With additional scrutiny comes additional abuse.
PC developers face the level of drubbing and abuse the likes of which console developers laugh at.
Conclusion is, my smart console developer friends are happy to be anonymously optimizing to the latest ARM instructrions, instead of dealing with the "glamor queens" and the "flaming fanatics."
Good for them.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/24/09392 46&cid=123
I saw several posts bemoan the sadness of game development not having superstars or celebs.
Not having celebrity is a good thing!
Besides the 2 points above (fame draws the *wrong* people, fame leads to flame) another advantage comes to mind:
Celebrity and superstar worship can stifle as much as it inspires.
Instead of growing into the coder one can become, a fanatic may dovetail his code development into that of whoever is "famous."
While good learning can take place.
Uncreative clon-ing can also take place.
I would much rather game coders and developers are people.
And that good smart knowledgeable talented game coders and developers are "respected people."
Respected for their knowledge and insights. And nothing more.
Even so, there's a lot of originality on display at the arcade, and it's essentially all imported. The last two times I went to the arcade, I played Crazy Taxi (love that game), Mr. Driller (a Namco puzzler), Jambo! Safari (another Sega gem), Guitar Freaks ("Play the guitar rhythmically!"), some Megatouch games (come on, they're cool), Virtua Tennis (yes, arcade tennis, and it's great!) and the incomparable Dance Dance Revolution. All quite original and almost all Japanese, because their arcade market is still doing well and they just tend to be more goofy, original, risk-taking developers. Unfortunately, only the big entertainment centers will ever have these wonderful games because they tend to be heinously expensive (another reason why so many arcades have died).
Now, certainly, there was a fair share of fighting/gun/driving games like Tekken Tag Tournament, Dead or Alive 2, Silent Scope, Crisis Zone, Rush 2049, Ferrari F355, and Off-Road Thunder being played too. But let's not forget that there was a glut of maze games, space shooters and driving games in the classic era too -- there will always be popular genres.
Anyway, here's a success story for you; Psynogis' Wipeout series. They actually put some work into branding and recognition, and they've produced a great series. I have Wipeout, Wipeout 2097 & Wip3out for the PSX - they also have one or two PC versions and a Wipeout 64 for the N64. A great series, wonderfully produced. It's not impossible, but it needs more skills than just programming - it needs a bit of marketing savvy. Just like any industry.