Slashdot Mirror
On The Trendiest Concepts In Game Design
Thanks to the Guardian Gamesblog for its post discussing some of the 'trendiest' concepts currently infusing the world of videogames. The author notes: "Like every other entertainment sector, the videogame industry is prone to sudden fads and fashions that seem to spring out of nowhere, take the scene by storm, and then disappear only to be replaced by more advanced technologies, or better ideas, or something really silly", before pointing out trends such as 'sandbox gameplay' ("Sandbox is the new 'non-linear' - a favourite buzzword for open-ended game design... the dole office is full of unemployed end-of-level bosses") street racing games ("All the big driving genres - arcade, rally, F1 - have been done to death, so developers, already fascinated by crime and edgy urban themes, have turned to street racing"), and 'historical accuracy' ("Once the preserve of sad PC strategy titles, history has become a major videogame theme.")
Most of the items on the list seem to be the inevitable result of our current progress with respect to graphics technology...we are advanced enough for moderately complex real-time physics, but not so advanced that we can swing real-time ray-tracing, etc.
I'd say the real trends are things like episodic gaming, MMORPG's, the leveling treadmill, the limits of player interaction, etc. In short, the things that we actively choose, not those that are dictated to us by the limits of our technology.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Wikipedia to the rescue
Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
Is sandbox really a good term to use for video games? Maybe it's just me, but when I think of sandboxes, I think of something that's gritty and irritating to my eyes, usually full of crap, and that after you're done playing in it you haven't accomplished anything.
Bump mapping is used to make a surface look more 3D by making the small details get light differntly (like the grout between bricks). It gives the illusion of depth. The problem is if you view across the surface, it's still just a flat surface.
Normal mapping actually changes the geomety of the object when it's rendered. So while the effect might end up looking the same (probably not, but they could be used for the same kind of thing), when you look across the surface, this time it's not flat, it's actually 3D.
Now that's a lousy way to use it if all it does is the same as bump mapping. Do the little tiny bumps (like on bricks) really matter that much? Wouldn't bump mapping be faster? Yes. But normal mapping lets you do more. You could edit the normal maps on the side panels of a car in-game to "bend" it so that it is dented because it was hit by another car. You could use slightly different normal maps on all the soldier in a game so that they are all the same model, but seem to have slightly different faces, body structures, etc. It allows some interesting stuff, which bump could, at best, hint at.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The biggest buzzword at the annual Game Developers Conference this year was "Innovation".