The Future of Game Design

IGN has the beginnings of an interesting series up entitled The Future of Game Design. The first part of this series covers game design elements that we've seen in the past that the author would like to see show up more often in future games. From the article: "We need better art direction in our games. Not just more polygons or slicker textures, but games with a better sense of visual style. Off the top of my head, one of the first games that really showed a distinct sense of art direction and style in this generation of games was Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus. That game oozed with style, and even though it was simple and quick, it became one of my favorites because the main character, Sly, had real character." As we start to get into Uncanny Valley territory I hope more artists take the approach that Sly and WoW have.

Comments

This article is... beautiful

[bersl2]

It gives me hope that there is still a future (that doesn't suck) for video and computer games.

Re:This article is... beautiful

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't trust those overinflated egos over at IGN to design the wheel let alone decide what the future of game design should hold.

Re:This article is... beautiful

[Mr.Dippy]

Can we really trust a website to tell us about design when their website design is full of popup flash ads and "Click here to go to the article or just click our ad" pages thrown throughout the site.

Atmosphere

[Dachannien]

Art direction is good and all, but is anybody writing games to convey *atmosphere* these days? Take the first two Thief and System Shock games. These games had atmosphere. You felt the panic and dread in SS2 as a former human rounded the corner, lead pipe in hand, swinging at you while moaning, "Kiiilllll mmmeee!" Your heart pounded as you crept up behind that guard and clocked him over the head, picking up his corpse just in time to duck into the shadows before his friend saw you.

These were games you could play at night, with the lights off, and actually scare the crap out of yourself. And it wasn't because of toonish graphics or special effects - it was because of atmosphere.

Re:Atmosphere

[papadiablo]

I'd say that Doom 3 attempted to create an atmosphere similar to what you are describing. Unfortunately it was a bit too repepitive so you no longer got scared when the lights went out in a room and the monsters appeared around every corner. Half-Life 2 really startled me at times, when you'd round a corner and there would be some baddies right in your face. It also created a great claustrophobic atmosphere in the city levels for a more urban warlike feel.

I think one of the problems is that in order for something to really get your heart pounding there has to be some risk involved. If you can save your game at any point, this takes away risk as you can run in, attack the baddie and if you die just load your saved game.

Re:Atmosphere

[UWC]

Try to find a cheap copy of ICO for PS2 somewhere. Its atmosphere is one of the best I've experienced on a current console. It's fundamentally a puzzle/exploratory/adventure game. Combat is very simple but spaced out so as not to ever get particularly repetitive. The main draw of the game, thuough, is the interaction with and exploration of the environment. The complete integration of the puzzles into the environment is a very, very large part of the effectiveness of the atmosphere, I think. The art style is similarly effective in the immersion, though. While none of the graphics are particularly detailed, the entire environment is cohesive and nothing at all sticks out as just there for the gameplay. Portions of the game remind me of the atmosphere established in the original Myst. It was apparently initially intended for the PS1, though judging from the final game, I think it was probably moved to PS2 reasonably early in development. It unquestionably benefits from the PS2's more powerful hardware. Nevertheless, it's the only PS2 game I've seen on a CD instead of DVD.

Also, Half-Life 2 does a great job at establishing immersion and atmosphere despite complaints about the story and lack of gameplay innovation.

Re:Atmosphere

[centauri]

I find that the Splinter Cell games have a lot of good atmosphere. It begins to wear thin after the twentieth attempt to make it to the next save point, but the shadowing and sound effects are generally pretty cool. Too bad the acting decreased in quality for the second one.

Re:Atmosphere

[Alkaiser]

Why does it not surprise me that some dumbass at IGN is talking about how important visuals are to a game?

We haven't gotten past the sh*tty storyline phase of game design yet. I think we could probably work on that, and figuring out how to create memorable character that aren't simply pulled from an earlier game. I think that might be a little easier in terms of you know, cash, and stress on a developer.

Next week, you're going to hear about how games can be launched into the future by judicious use of the freaking EyeToy.

Re:Atmosphere

[Sebadude]

Atmosphere is usually a direct result of good art direction.

Re:Atmosphere

[Kwil]

No.

There's a difference between creating atmosphere and simply attempting to scare you.

Doom 3 did the latter. Which is why it didn't work. You can only *be* scared a finite amount of times by the same occurrence.

If you create an atmosphere though, you don't even need anything to happen to be scared. Some of the tensest and scariest moments in thief come simply because of the atmosphere. You can be completely alone in the game and be scared simply because you're think that you're not alone.

Re:Atmosphere

[obeythefist]

I've played through HL2 and DooM3 now. I think the gameplay in HL2 is better, but not as good as it was in HL. DooM3 did get repetitive but the atmosphere, while different, was conveyed better than HL2. In HL2, so many things were just... not right. For starters, there were many areas, like security towers with guards, that had no ladders! How did the guards get up there? Also, HL2 had the same problem that the HL2 advocates were laughing at DooM3 for... monsters "appearing" out of nowhere behind you all the time. Not as often in HL2, but it did happen. At least in DooM3, there was a flimsy excuse for it, they were teleported in from Hell. HL2 just had monsters stuck in places for no real reason than to "make you fight". Everything in the original Half Life was there for a good reason, it all made sense! In HL2, they lost that message.

While we're talking atmosphere, HL2 just didn't cut it. I've played Devastation and similar games, and HL2 doesn't come up with anything more novel than that, we've all seen trashed up old city environments before. DooM3... well the parts in Hell made my skin crawl. Genuinely creepy.

Let's talk graphics. Half Life 2 had some awful lighting effects... sometimes I'd shine a torch in a room and it would shed no light whatsoever, othertimes it would be blinding. It's pretty obvious the graphics are a bit cludged. DooM3 had incredibly realistic lighting, you could see shadows in all the right places, and some of the effects were very dramatic and inspiring. Sure, DooM3 needed more grunt for the superior graphics engine, but what price should we expect to pay for progress? I'm looking forward to Quake 4, Raven has made some brilliant games in the past and that coupled with the DooM3 engine will be unstoppable.

Re:Atmosphere

[obeythefist]

Storyline is really important! But it depends on the game. The FF series probably has a great storyline, but the gameplay has always bugged me as a serious PC RPG player. NFS2U has no story whatsoever, but it's a lot of fun to play because the graphics are okay and the racing is a lot of fun.

System Shock and SS2 had pretty average graphics and gameplay, even for their time... but the storyline and atmosphere is amazing.

Some games don't need a storyline. Some games don't need great graphics. Some games don't necessarily need great gameplay (if the story and graphics make up for that). Some games don't need graphics, storyline, gameplay or even taste to be fun! (For an hour or so)(Postal 2 anyone?)

But certainly, the point seems to be being missed more often than hit lately.

Re:Atmosphere

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: Shalebridge Cradle
Scariest/Creepiest level in any game(thief3) I've played. I still give a nod to doom3 and rtcw though, they both have their moments no matter what people say.

Re:Atmosphere

[joeljkp]

For me, MOHAA had atmosphere. Especially the snowy-woods mission, where you, sniper rifle in hand, crept through a winter forest trying not to get shot by the German turrets scattered here and there. There was no background music, just the crunch of the snow under your feet. I would jump clean out of my chair when I got a bullet to the head out of nowhere.

Re:Atmosphere

[Dougie Cool]

Did anyone play the Alien mod for the original Doom? The first level of that had no meetings with any enemies at all, but it had their sounds, through the walls. That was atmosphere.

Re:Atmosphere

[wickedj]

You beat me to it. I love ICO. I'd wager it's one of the best games ever made. I've never had a game that got me so deeply involved in the story.

Sure, I've played things like Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid and the like. Sure they are impressive graphically and the action is sometimes intense. But I always felt I was on the outside looking in.

With ICO, I definitely felt as if I were there in person. Even though dragging that princess around was annoying sometimes, you actually began to feel an attachment to the character and even began to worry about her if you had to leave her by herself.

I can't wait for Wanda and the Colossus, the next game from the same team that made ICO.

Re:Atmosphere

[mo^]

Must agree here, though the only game in the MOH series I have played was pacifi assault...

the LACK of ingame music really adds to the feeling that you are there....

even the cut scenes in that had me feeling sad as reports of dead collagues came in after each level

Re:Atmosphere

[arkanes]

There's a level in Thief 3 that's the scariest thing I've ever played, SS2 included. You are in 100% zero danger for the first half of the level - there are no enemies and nothing that can hurt you. Even replaying it, when I KNEW that, I still was scared out of my mind. THAT is atmosphere.

Re:Atmosphere

[Riddlefox]

Aliens vs Predator has great atmosphere too (the original; I've never played the sequel). Playing through the Marine missions in near-pitch black, with the clicking of your motion sensor and the faint 'tink tink tink' sounds of Aliens crawling on the ceilings somewhere ahead.. I actually could not finish the Marine missions because it just creeped me out too much. I ended up cowering in a corner, tossing flares constantly, and dreading the sound of the aliens crawling.

Re:Atmosphere

[Mr.Dippy]

Alien Trilogy for the original PlayStation also had atmospher up the wazzu. Although AvP had better graphics, Alien Trilogy got the job done with everything you said. Also, just the fact that to take out one alien you needed like 5 shotgun shells made the game hard and scary as hell. You were constantly trying to conserve ammo and god help you if two or more aliens came at you at once.

Re:Atmosphere

[Anonymous Coward]

The immersion in HL2 is ruined by the frequent and long load times that occur throughout the level.

FarCry has been one of the most immersive games I've played.

Re:Atmosphere

[Anonymous Coward]

Games this day do a wonderful job of using technology for what its worth, to create atmosphere. Here are some non-spoiler laiden reccomendations:

Fatal Frame - this does an excellent job of drawing you into the story and atmosphere of a haunted, Japanese fudal-era mansion. The use of the rumble function in the controller along with well timed sound and graphics do a wonderful job of establishing atmosphere. The storyline is unpredictable and very enthralling. Bring an extra pair of shorts, and do not play this in the dark.

Silent Hill 4: The Room - another horror title that gets creepier and more surreal, the further you go along. The end result is something like "Jacob's Ladder" with heavy dose of occult gnosticism (a trademark of Silent Hill games) thrown in for good measure. The use of a first-person-only camera in the apartment sequences do a fantastic job of driving home the sensations of paranoia and helplessness. And like all Silent Hill games, the use of atmospheric sounds and bizarre monster designs add to it all.

Metal Gear Solid 4 - 100% atmospheric. The more you think like you're in the woods, the better you do at this game. You eat, you treat your wounds individually, use camoflauge to good effect and try to avoid detection while infiltrating Soviet territory (circa 1964). Food can spoil and make you sick, untreated wounds will slow you down, and if using the wrong camo won't turn you into a corpse, the variety of poisonous snakes, aligators and man-made traps will. Every 'set' has so many ways through it, that the gameplay is very open ended; giving the illusion of a 'dense' game world. Even the story pulls you in and may manage to draw a tear from your *remaining eye* at the end of the game.

Re:Atmosphere

[CoffeeJedi]

finally! someone who shares my pain! i completed the other 2 missions, saving the marine for last, but i couldn't get through it, the last time i played, i jumped 3 feet off my chair when a face-hugger got me

the first level in the original AvP was like the Doom mod the grandparent poster described, you had to walk out to another area through a cavernous dark environment with no weapons, your only ally was your CO over the radio

Re:Atmosphere

[CronoCloud]

ICO is a great game, too bad it didn't sell very well.

It's one of the few games I've played where I had a real emotional attachment to the onscreen characters. I found myself actually "talking" to Yorda. And some of the locales in the game actually gave me "vertigo".

There are other PS2 games that come on CD's (from my own collection): Tekken Tag,Tournament, Legends of Wrestling, RPG Maker 2, Gauntlet Dark Legacy, Half-Life, The Sims, Okage Shadow King.

What about classic games?

[jgclark123]

I don't think that the graphics are as important as the gameplay. That's why we download emulators! Why else would perfectly intelligent computer geeks knowingly navigate spyware-ridden web sites searching for games? They must be good games.

Of course I'm glad that graphics are becoming more realistic, but that's not good for every game. Who really wants to play a game starring an overweight plumber or an actual hedgehog.

Re:What about classic games?

[bersl2]

Of course I'm glad that graphics are becoming more realistic, but that's not good for every game. Who really wants to play a game starring an overweight plumber or an actual hedgehog.

Perhaps you missed the point of this article. This is not about graphical realism, this is about graphic style. Details, not truth to actual reality, make the style.

Huh?

[*s.panzer*]

"Off the top of my head, one of the first games that really showed a distinct sense of art direction and style in this generation of games was Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus."? I just do not know what this guy is smoking... has he played Amplitude, Battle for Middle-Earth, Splinter Cell, DDR:Extreme... the list really does go on and on... I mean seriously... did he just forget about Rez?

Re:Huh?

[Phu5ion]

I mean seriously... did he just forget about Rez?

I don't think his woman would have forgotten about Rez assuming he had the Trance Vibrator.

Re:Huh?

[DarthMAD]

Yeah, nothing struck me as overly brilliant about Sly Cooper and Thievus Raccoonus. I would say that DDR is the best example of a clear style which is different than anything else and brilliantly simple. The author of the article did make some good points, but he basically stated his own opinions as definite fact.

Re:Huh?

[StocDred]

I think he's pointing out that the art direction for Sly is complete and immersive, but with a distinctive style - cartoony, slanted buildings, etc. Amplitude, Rez and DDR definitely have style, but it's more abstract... pop art, if you will. Which is fine and cool, but really doesn't require the forethought and work that goes into creating a visual world like Sly's. I love Amplitude and DDR, but I get the feeling the designers are just throwing up whatever visuals they feel like. Sly is cohesive and structured, yet looks free-form and natural.

But Splinter Cell? That one is just a big Tom Clancy rubber stamp.

Re:Huh?

[*s.panzer*]

One game I forgot to add to that list: Half-Life 2. I felt like I literally was Gordon Freman in that game - it was spectacular. I played one bit for nearly five hours straight... it was crazy.

Mmmm...criticism...

[flabbergast]

I can agree with the author on just about every criticism he makes, but some of the things he wishes were better are huge hurdles. For instance its trivial to say "We should have better AI in games!" but, in reality its damn hard to try to make AI better. Most current AI (the AI the author was talking about) is scripted and is therefore limited by the programmer's ability to think outside the box. Yeah, when you're in a game and the enemy does something weird we automatically think "Duh! Its obvious that this is stupid!" But when you're designing and writing the game, its not always obvious. The designer has to think ahead "Well, what would happen in this situation?" and then program that particular situation in.

Or take voice recognition AI. It would be great in KOTOR if I could simply tell a companion to go attack the guy on the left and then I attack the guy on the right. Again, this is not a trivial hack or by any means some hidden conspiracy to prevent ease of use. The AI would have to understand the idea of left, right, and attack along with actually understanding when I state into a microphone "Attack the guy on the left." Yeah, we could script this, but see previous problem.

I realize the author is critiquing games to make them better, which is good, but failing to understand how some problems are very difficult can sometimes aggravate more than motivate. Nothing aggravates me more than a fanboy who simply states "How hard could it be to do X?"

Re:Mmmm...criticism...

[bluGill]

Its worse than you say. Even if the designer considers something, how do you go from seeing it to code, and still be done in reasonable time.

I have some obvious ideas to improve the AI on some open source games. I looked into the AI and quickly realized that humans can instantly process something that computers take a long time to figure out. You look at the map and think "Oh, there was someone in place X, but he isn't there, he must have the invisible suit on, but I know he only moves so fast, so there is only one logical place for him to be. Computers can do that, but even on todays computers it requires a lot of RAM and CPU time.

Thats just one example where a human can quickly see the solution, but can't write it into a good program.

Re:Mmmm...criticism...

[mhtmartins]

This piece is a nice criticism of IGN's article. It seems that the author doesn't know much about games from previous generations and the complexity involved on creating the fancy stuff he wants so much.

Interactive Cut Scenes

[Zen Punk]

The author mentions the desire for cutscenes to be less static and more interactive, citing Metal Gear Solid 3's zoom feature. Looking at Eva's boobs was the only thing I saw anyone ever use it for. Does anyone remember Shenmue's interactive cutscenes? You would sometimes run into situations that would require you to push buttons at the right time a la Parappa the Rapper. Say you were being hassled by some punks, get the sequence right and you lay the smack down, mess up and you get layed out. A lot more interactive than MGS cutscenes. What do you think about a system based on this for cutscenes? Too simplistic? Not appropriate for most types of games?

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[Babbster]

For most games, I would expect such interactivity during cutscenes to be pointless and potentially destructive. Using KOTOR as an example, if I had the opportunity to screw around with the camera in cutscenes it could only ruin the cinematic effect the designers are attempting to convey. In Shenmue, I would argue that the interactive scenes weren't cutscenes at all - they were minigames with a cinematic feel, which is an entirely different gameplay tool.

Bottom line: Cutscenes are supposed to be just that - cuts away from the action. They're also usually meant to have the feel of a movie and I, unlike most actors, have no desire to direct. Just give me a button to allow me to skip them on my second playthrough and I'll be happy.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[xenocide2]

Ironically, Twin Snakes had the MGS3 zoom feature. I don't remember noticing that on MGS2, but its certainly possible. Its not a great invention, compared to say, not having cutscenes. If you want interactive dialog, take a cue from Deux Ex already. Something like 80 percent of the dialog was "heads up." Sure, its stealth action was hampered by the FPS POV, but there's plenty of redeeming factors that make Deus Ex a game worthy of study, and imitation.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[KillerDeathRobot]

The thing is, if you make them interactive, they're not really cut-scenes anymore. The guy is basically just asking for games to get rid of cut-scenes.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[computertheque]

This exact tactic is employed in RE4 to great effect.

The authors description wasn't really a desire for interactive cut scenes, but rather just the ability to always play all the time without being pulled out of the experience by a cutscene.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[Ian_Bailey]

But games aren't movies. There's no commandment that states: "Thou shall have cutscenes. And the player shall appreciate them." Once you've played through the game once or twice, cut scenes are skipped to get back to the action.

Games have certain properties that movies do not have. They are meant to be interactive. Why do games have to emulate other mediums, when they are free to strike out on their own and define a new medium? Why not integrate these scenes into the game itself?

Cutscenes aren't "supposed" to be anything. Rules are meant to be broken.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[Babbster]

There's also no "commandment" that a banana has to be a potassium-rich fruit with a yellow peel that comes in bunches...but it IS what it IS.

A cutscene directly integrated into the gameplay where one controls the action is NOT a cutscene. A cutscene where I press particular buttons to advance the scene (a la Shenmue) isn't a cutscene either.

In other words, I'm not saying that game designers can't use other methods BESIDES cutscenes to flesh out the story in their games. In fact, I'm in favor of fresh approaches to game design (assuming they're fun, of course). All I'm saying is that if a game is going to have cutscenes, I don't want to fiddle with them.

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[Dougie Cool]

Half Life 2 had interactive cutscenes. Did no one notice?

Did we not spend ages waiting for Alyx to get back? A time in which we were chatted to by others, and we got to fiddle with things in the office.

Personally, I was highly impressed by the way the guy said "Wait" and I actually waited for a while; not so long I got bored, and not so short a time that it was obvious he didn't really mean wait. Was that not an interactive cutscene?

Re:Interactive Cut Scenes

[mink]

Those bits in Shenmue remind me of the arcade versions of Die Hard Trilogy. Maybe thats where they got the idea.

"an actual hedgehog"

[JimTheta]

After following your Google image link, I know who wants to play a game with an actual hedgehog...

My girlfriend! Even I have to admit those pictures are cute. She would love it!

128-bit systems?

[dstillz]

"The jump from 32-bit systems to 128-bit systems did usher in a great new realm of possibilities."

Aren't today's game systems still 32-bit? I know for a fact that the Xbox is, because it's powered by a crippled Pentium III. The graphics architecture is certainly still 32-bit.

Re:128-bit systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Playstation 2 uses a 128-bit MIPS microprocessor. In fact, I know it .

Also, the Nintendo 64 uses a 64-bit MIPS microprocessor and co-processor.

So we're already a long way from 32-bit, Dorothy. It just goes to show you, it's not all that much different than Kansas after all.

The common misconception is that more bits equals better. While it can help to some extent, it really only gives you a few things depending on other architectural decisions. 1) Longer opcodes meaning more different opcodes (not necessarily an important thing; there are only so many ways you really need to add binary numbers). 2) More addressable memory space - which for consoles is a long way from the 4 gb a 32-bit processor affords you. 3) Higher native floating point arithmetic accuracy - most games probably don't need to know the significant digits beyond 32-bits of accuracy.

So there you have it. 32-bit, 64-bit, 128-bit, it's really not that big of a deal. "But, but.. the bits," you say? Well fine, don't believe me.

Re:128-bit systems?

[Osty]

I believe the Playstation 2 uses a 128-bit MIPS microprocessor. In fact, I know it.

I don't know whether or not the PS2 uses a 128-bit CPU, but I would be wary about blindly trusting the word of the console's developer. After all, NEC wanted us to believe the TurboGrafix/PCEngine was a 16-bit machine (the CPU was 8-bit, the graphics processor was 16-bit) and Atari tried to tell us that the Jaguar was 64-bit (it was really a mish-mash of 32-bit processors and maybe one or two special-purpose 64-bit processors). If Sony said, "128-bit XXX cpu" where "XXX" is something like, "Intel Pentium III" or "IBM PowerPC" or "NEC SH3/4" or "Motorola 68000" or whatever, then I may believe them because you can use the information about what type of CPU it is to independently verify its "bitness". By just listing "128-bit cpu", I'm going to have assume that they're lying.

Not that bit-ness matters at all anymore except as a way to label a generation. The PS2 may be 128-bit, the XBox is definitely 32-bit, and the GC is 64-bit (well, it's PowerPC based, but I don't know if it's using a 64-bit or 32-bit PPC so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt), but they're all in the "128-bit generation".

Re:128-bit systems?

[AltaMannen]

the ps2 cpus has 128 bit registers, which are usually used as 32 bit registers (no real need for a 128 bit pointer), the main memory bus is still 32-bit but the graphics hardware has something ridiculous like 2048 bit bus..

Re:128-bit systems?

[Anonymous Coward]

GC is certainly 32-bit . The 970 (Power4/G5) is the first widely released 64-bit processor in the PowerPC family aside from the defunct PowerPC 620 (circa 1994). I believe the 620 didn't yeild the kind of results IBM was hoping for so they canned it.

And the PS2 does use a 128-bit MIPS-based processor designed by Sony and Toshiba. MIPS-"based" means that they bought a 64-bit MIPS architecture license from MIPS (about the only thing they sell) and adapted it to their application. Now, I'm not an expert on that architecture and and there is some argument as to what truly makes an n-bit processor (its data bus or address bus). I'm going to have to say that it is at minimum 64-bit data bus with a 128-bit address bus or 128-bit data bus with a 64-bit address bus, but it could just as well be fully 128-bit.

Not that ANY of that matters, like you say. The PS2 CPU isn't what's interesting about it at all. It's the VPUs , which have caused oh-so-much pain for game developers around the world.

yawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I want.. like a friggin' orgy!"

This guy just takes a handful off the latest buzzwords and says he wants them "only better." What's new?

Nothing he mentions actually relates to real GAMEPLAY. It's all just buzzword nonsense. Better AI, better art, better physics. I'll tell you what, I've played plenty of board games that can't conceptually have any of that and are 10x more fun than any video game. Or look at great games that are still fun today. Mario? Physics? Yeah right. Tetris? Art style? Not a chance. Robotron? AI? Laugh! Would they be better if they had these things? No. They're games, not a cyber utopia.

Get over yourself, Mr. Douglass C. Perry. Just admit you want to get jacked into the Matrix and you don't really want to play games.

Alien Hominid

[JimTheta]

How about Alien Hominid? That game oozes style, though it's rather short. I've beaten it on Hard and I'm still playing it. Armies of ridiculous FBI and KGB agent enemies, crazy guns, hilarious huge bosses, cartoony gore and a smiling alien that my girlfriend thinks is cute.

It's hand-drawn graphics, but not cell-shaded. It doesn't push any technical limits. It doesn't need to.

You can't go wrong.

Rose-colored glasses

[Osty]

There were just as many bad games Back in the Day (tm) as there are now. You've simply forgotten about them. In 5-10 years, you'll forget about the bad games taking up shelf space today and only remember the stand-out titles, and make the same complaint.

This doesn't just apply to games, either. It applies to almost everything. The "Good Old Days" were not necessarily any better than today, but the effects of time have made you forget the bad and remember the good. That's why people want a return to the "values" from the 1950s, or complain that Hollywood is just churning out mindless blockbuster action flick after mindless blockbuster action flick, or complain that the airwaves are overrun by Britney Spears wannabes. Do you really think that there wasn't divorce, death, rape, abortion, violent crime, or any of the other ills of today's society back in the 50s? Do you really believe that back in the day Hollywood only released one or two films a year, or even went years without releasing antyhing because nothing was good enough? Do you really think that there were entire stretches of years where no artist released any music at all? Of course not. The collective consciousness has just swept all of the bad behavior, bad movies, bad music, etc under the rug and idolized what came before.

Tuck this thought away in the back of your mind, and drag it out in 10 years when you find yourself lamenting that the current crop of video games pale in comparison to the gameplay found in the "classic" Half-Life 2.

Re:Rose-colored glasses

[jgclark123]

You make an excellent point. Perhaps it was more of the innovation that impressed us years ago. Today's video games, while constantly (arguably) increasing in quality, are not very different. Maybe it was because video games were uncharted territory that we liked them so much back in the "Good Old Days".

I suppose the way to revolutionize gaming would be to make games more innovative (like the Nintendo DS, the Sony EyeToy, or DDR). If only the companies tried more stupid stuff, then they might hit something worthwhile.

Re:Rose-colored glasses

[Osty]

Video games are a medium of entertainment, just like movies or music. Just as movies and music have matured to the point where you rarely see or hear something innovative (not saying you don't, just that it's much more rare), video games are coming up on that point as well. Of your examples, I'd say only the EyeToy was a true innovation, using video recognition as an input mechanism. The DS is just a gimick (oo! two screens, and one of them is a touch screen!), and the other is just an evolution of a concept that's been around for decades (NES Power Pad, any one?). However, that's not a bad thing. At this point, it's more about evolution, taking concepts that have come before and tweaking and fine-tuning them, maybe even merging them (real-time combat in RPGs, RPG elements in action games, etc).

Back when there was nothing to compare against, even a simple scrolling platformer like Super Mario Bros. was innovative. That's not to say that there's no room for new game type innovations (see Katamari Damacy, for example), just that the frequency of such innovations naturally increases as a medium matures. You will see major innovations in video games in the next ten years, but will there be as many as there were in the first ten years of video gaming? Certainly not. Does that mean that the spark is gone, or that the industry is dying? Absolutely not.

As for why more companies don't often make crazy games, I'll leave you with a quote from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back:

You gotta do the safe picture. Then you can do the art picture. But then sometimes you gotta do the payback picture because your friend says you owe him. And sometimes, you have to go back to the well.

Re:Rose-colored glasses

[mothlos]

Perhaps, but I think there is a lot more going on here than simply selective memory. Firstly, our first love sets the bar for what is acceptable and desireable. I for example am primarily a 16bit console kid. I love going back and playing the good games of the early ninties, but I can't stand going back and playing much comodore64 or intellivision because the graphics tend to get in the way for me. This tends to apply forward as well, graphics in current games often seem overdone and I think, where is the subtlety of design that I grew up loving? In another way games today have very different pressures on them than they had 'back in the day'. Today, so very often, game companies have to release something which is a synthesis of visual art, story telling, sound design, and gameplay in a way which was not done back in the day. They also pile lots of cash into a single project and thus go to the hype machine with greater intensity to try and get their money back. This combination of greater expectations and more difficult game design (thus more chance that something in the game is 'broken') logically create a situation where it feels like new games just aren't as satisfying as old ones.

The best I've seen for plot or style

[0x4a6f6e43]

Grim Fandango - Dang that was a clever plot, voice acting over the top excellent, and artwork that was spot on. If you trimmed a few scenes it would be a great Tim Burton movie. The final scene about killed me...

Re:The best I've seen for plot or style

[Propagandhi]

I hate posting a "me too" but in this case, I can't resist. That game was the pinnacle of adventure gaming, and one of my favourite games of all time. It was pure genius..

Re:The best I've seen for plot or style

[KillerDeathRobot]

I have to further the "me too"-ness and agree with you there. It is definitely one of my all-time favorites. Great plot, style, and gameplay if you're into adventure games.

Re:The best I've seen for plot or style

[0x4a6f6e43]

I replay that game every Halloween-eve with my kids. The only thing the game needed was a "play the shortened version or play will all the puzzlely goodness" option. If it had it I'd take the shortened version so I could just get the plot and really cool scenes without have to take time to do all the puzzles.

Gah!

[Anonymous Coward]

frequency of such innovations naturally increases

That should be naturally decreases, as in, you see innovations less and less often. Alternatively, I could've said that the interval between innovations increases, but I only previewed the comment once and didn't skim through it. Oh well.

katamari damacy

[jcruelty]

I think he's right on about art direction. I think one of the reasons I like Katamari Damacy so much is that it has a really unique, coherent visual aesthetic (bright psychedelic colors, boxy shapes). I haven't played Viewtiful Joe but from what I've heard it also benefits from great art direction. Realism gets boring, so does standard cartoonishness or tired anime style characters. I want to see more stuff that diverges from the norm.

Don't RTFA.

[stonecypher]

This article is actually worse than most of IGN's bilge.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[DingerX]

skimmed that little tri-bit article. Since the critique hinges in part on poor copy-editing involved, I'll permit myself to add some some commentary on the tri-bit evaluation:

per se is latin (being a literal translation of the Aristotelian kath'auto), and thus has no sharp accent on the last word. The only case I can think of where you'd use per sé instead of per se is if you were writing in Italian.

The Bard's Tale was released several years after Wizardry. I'm also fairly sure that Wizardry II beelongs to the early 80s.

I found this conclusion amusing:

God, but do I hate reviewers which fail to understand their place in the machine. Between your knowledge of gaming, your insight into future approaches to gaming, your wisdom regarding development, and the near Strunkian quality of writing herein, I tend to wonder how the hell you got your job.

Since the critique counts grammatical and stylistic errors, I figgered a little tu quoque was in order:
First sentence:
which fail: should be "who fail"

Second sentence:
between: is used to indicate relationship of among two elements, not four, as used here.

you: the tone has shifted from referring to the reviewer in the third person to referring to him in the second person.
near Strunkian quality: undoubtedly you're a big fan of Strunk and White. If you consult them on this matter, you'll find that when you have one adjective modify another in a noun phrase, you need to hyphenate, viz.: near-Strunkian
herein: this is both archaic and incorrect. "herein" in this context refers to the tri-bit critique of the article, and not the article itself.
tend to wonder: cf. Strunk and White: "OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS". "I wonder" is fine.

In general though, the tri-bit critique pretty much points out what's obvious in the original article, namely:
A. The author has a poor understanding of the past.
B. The author doesn't grasp the present reality.
C. The author offers sweeping, self-indulgent hopes for the future.
D. Software developers will find little of interest here. You want real world physics, and photorealistic art, and style, and all the sweet angles and dialog of cutscenes, only completely dynamic, and AI that's as smart as humans?
I want to live in a sea of pearls. BFD.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[Flyboy Connor]

I agree that the IGN article isn't very good. It whines "why don't you developers give us all this good stuff I just pulled out of my ass?!" There are plenty good reasons why developers don't do this, not least of which are technological, financial, and hardware limitations.

But the Tri-Bit response is even worse. It just whines back, for dozens of paragraphs: "You reviewers don't know what you are talking about! And you can't properly write either!". Example games mentioned are often not appropriate (Diablo as an example of a gamne that blends action with roleplaying? Give me a break! Diablo is action and nothing more.) Good arguments are seldom given, as if the author is so annoyed with the reviewer that he can only ramble (which is probably the case).

I think the point of the IGN article is clear: games leave a lot to be desired. The question why that is so, why developers haven't solved the obvious problems in games, is a valid one. There are good answers to that question, which the IGN reviewer doesn't seem to know. A far better response to his article would be one that explains, in understandable terms, what difficulties must be overcome to solve the problems.

Just whining back doesn't really contribute anything.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Word.

This is the most beautiful response of all time.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[discoalucardx]

Yeah, that Tri-Bit article is pretty bad too. His arguments are "I have more knowledge about obscure, twenty five year old games than you do!" and "I'm a grammar nazi, so I win!" *sigh*

Then he brings up examples without knowing what he's talking about, or backing them up. It's great you can bring up the names of tons of old titles, now tell us why they're relevant. The author seems bitter than he's not in the game journalism industry, and for good reason. If every video game reviewer wrote like that arrogant jerk, nobody would want to read anything by them, ever.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[Tofino]

Best reply I've read all day. No mod points.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[stonecypher]

Since the critique hinges in part on poor copy-editing involved

You misunderstand. The critique hinges solely on the bargain basement content; the continued commentary on the quality of the editing involved is mere tangential slander intended as catharsis.

The Bard's Tale was released several years after Wizardry. I'm also fairly sure that Wizardry II beelongs to the early 80s.

You are correct: it's from 1982. However, I believe I was relatively clear about my uncertainty regarding the dates involved. You have convinced me to research and specify.

per se is latin (being a literal translation of the Aristotelian kath'auto), and thus has no sharp accent on the last word.

Many things which were imported into English from French in the 1500s had various alterations made to their spellings; the British liked to add "ue" to things ending in 'g', and are famous for adding "u" everywhere. Per se, as clearly documented by Bierce, is an aberration: the accent was added after the import from the French, and Bierce explicitly guesses that this was the error of an Englishman during the acceptance of the word. The canonical example of the import of the term is some or another of Sir Walter Raleigh's essays (I've had this argument before, and am too bored to follow it through again, though I'm sure my not doing so will incite anger, and maybe not undeservedly so. My forward apologies and candor about being blasé.)

Nonetheless, that shouldn't actually matter. That you're willing later to address your own argument in terms of fallacy, I feel confident that when it's pointed out that you should realize this as a clear instance of a straw man.

There is no disgrace in someone which is not an author making such a mistake, but there is shame in a professional being caught so often by an amateur. By correlary the parallel embarrasment to me would be someone which wasn't a programmer catching me writing void main(), or some such similar device of pure programming evil. On those grounds this may also be seen as false analogy on grounds of similarity required between skill level of amateurs and professionals, which itself might be refactored as false premise; if one feels particularly cruel, this can be seen as secundum quid (this man should be embarrassed by a writing error, therefore everyone should be embarrassed by writing errors.) Besides, there's a fallacy of scale here: (possibly) misplacing an accent isn't nearly of the scale of multiple-instance sequences of sentence fragments, misplaced commas, misconjugation and failures of definition.

Of course, this can all be seen as my engaging in a fallacy of relativism, in that I am attempting to dodge what you percieve as an error based on my not being an author; that would be a valid viewpoint with which I could not argue, though I would disagree on grounds that such a supposition would represent dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Unfortunately, the matter is clearly one of opinion.

Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that more than one person had to read that before it went online, though for the sake of IGN I hope that they simply allow their editors far too much leeway in self-checking.

To wit, kath auto is not a contracted or glottalized word; rather it is two seperate words. So, if you're happy to point out an accent, accept my pointing out an apostrophe. ;)

First sentence: which fail: should be "who fail"

That's not actually as clear as you suggest it to be. American english especially under the guidelines established by the Chicago Manual of Style make clear that either is acceptable, and that they mean subtly different things: who refers to the group, and which refers to each individual seperately. It's roughly parallel to referring to people or persons, though unfortunately less obvious. It's worth noting that though this isn't the typical use in everyday life, it is the typical use in academia, and is hi

Re:Don't RTFA.

[stonecypher]

That said, from the way you've phrased things, I wonder (note the difference!) whether or not you realize that the tri-bit critique was mine.

On second read, I withdraw this question: it is absurd, as in other parts of the post you challenge the choices as my own, rather than those of some arbitrary article author. My apologies. It's been a long day.

Re:Don't RTFA.

[stonecypher]

Example games mentioned are often not appropriate (Diablo as an example of a gamne that blends action with roleplaying? Give me a break! Diablo is action and nothing more.)

This is one of those cases where it's difficult to argue the point. As a traditionalist pencil-and-paper gamer, I tend to agree: there is no playing of a role within Diablo. That said, that apellation applies to virtually every game labelled an RPG; Diablo has as much plot as any NES or nearly any SNES RPG. Granted more modern RPGs have a larger sense of scale; that said, that Banjo and Kazooie is huge compared to Mario Brothers makes Mario Brothers no less an action game. There is a plot, which has a concrete beginning and conclusion, involving a specific and unchanging list of non-player characters. There are events which are gone through in a concrete order. There is an apex to the story. You have one of a few roles, each of which has backstory, each of which has their own specially-available quests, there are character promotion decisions to be made, you engage in equipment use and ability use (spellcasting, drap defusing, etc;) whereas it isn't a particularly strong RPG, by video game standards it is indeed an RPG nonetheless.

It just whines back, for dozens of paragraphs

I believe this to be dishonest. It is relatively trivial to show literally dozens of points at which I give concrete examples of my criticisms, as well as justifications thereof and even the occasional refactoring of a point into what I believe to be its more correct form. In order to go beyond what I wrote, given my limited abilities, I'd pretty much have to sketch out a novel. That I am not willing to do.

Good arguments are seldom given

That is a matter of opinion; among the six people which replied, four feel this is a good article and two feel it is not. I find the polarization here surprising: three feel strongly for it and two strongly against; there is only one moderate opinion among the set of six, which categorically unsurprisingly was also the person which bothered to argue against me with examples rather than ad hominem.

I think the point of the IGN article is clear: games leave a lot to be desired.

I did not argue with the intent of the article, only its specific items and execution. I agree with you and your evaluation of the article's intent: it is clear that games have a long way to go. I would like to think that in my occupation I have made small steps in that direction, and hope to make more still, hopefully in larger and more obvious ways than in my past.

The question why that is so, why developers haven't solved the obvious problems in games, is a valid one.

No such question is posed. Indeed, the article poses no question at all: it is simply a laundry list of unrealistic goals and failure to understand or remember mechanisms which have already been invented. Of course, it seems quite curious that on the one hand you accuse me of not justifying my arguments, and on the other decry my use of examples, when my argument is solely that something which exists cannot be invented; how else would you have me address the issue?

"Someone needs to invent a metal box which can be used to transport great weight at great speed with a high quality of user safety under its own power." "Okay, look at Ford, Chevrolet, International, Fiat, Honda, Yugo, BMW." Do you have a more appropriate form of response? If so, I'm ready to learn; if not, I suggest you more carefully consider your own criticisms before forwarding them. (Before you fly off the handle about how I'm treating you, please observe that I am being neither rude nor condescending, something you cannot claim.)

A far better response to his article would be one that explains, in understandable terms, what difficulties must be overcome to solve the problems.

Read the rest of my site. Many such explanations are given. I shall endeavour to link them from wit

Re:Don't RTFA.

[Flyboy Connor]

It just whines back, for dozens of paragraphs
I believe this to be dishonest.

Maybe it is more of an impression than what appears after scrutinising the response. The problem is that if you make valid complaints but intermix them with continuously criticising the author's grammar, often in a derogatory way, the whole response starts to come over as whining.

The question why that is so, why developers haven't solved the obvious problems in games, is a valid one.
No such question is posed.

True. And that is probably my first criticism on the IGN article, that they fail to pose that question and try to answer it.

A far better response to his article would be one that explains, in understandable terms, what difficulties must be overcome to solve the problems.
Read the rest of my site. Many such explanations are given. I shall endeavour to link them from within that article, in order to allay the perception that justifications are not given, though it is my opinion that in fact they have been in spades.

I think that would make the response a LOT stronger. That, combined with removing the grammar complaints to one paragraph at the start of the response, would IMHO elevate the quality of the response considerably.

Just whining back doesn't really contribute anything.
I wonder: do you find your response to my response to be stronger of content and less whiny than my response is of its own?

Not really as far as content is concerned. But I used three paragraphs, not two long pages.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This article really is awful.

Re:Mod Parent up

[stonecypher]

Why do I always run out of mod points right before I read a comment that really deserves to be modded up?

Because I have bad luck. I appreciate the compliment.

Mod Parent up

[Siener]

Why do I always run out of mod points right before I read a comment that really deserves to be modded up?

I read the IGN article, and I'm sorry, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

I was planning to write a long critique on the article, until I read the link in the parent post ... it says most of what I wanted to say. So go ahead and read it

Graphics are meaningless

[Kentsusai]

Graphics are meaningless. But you can't sell a game unless it has cool screen shots eh? What I need are story lines! Also an atmosphere and good characters. Take a look at games like Final Fantasy VI and Xenogears. These are good examples. To be honest, I haven't come across a GOOD game for a while. Pretty sad eh? Oh well.. gives me more time to study! :-)

What we need

[ThePolkapunk]

More Rez, less EA.

Re:What we need

[Anonymous Coward]

On-the-rails shooters, the zenith of gameplay?

Piece by piece

[MilenCent]

On a side note, I don't think anyone would have predicted that open-design games such as Grand Theft Auto, sandbox games such as Battlefield 1942, and innovative customizable games such as Deus Ex would be such huge influences on the future of game design.

GTA is simply an elaboration (though a great one) upon the ideas in the Zelda series.

The biggest disappointment in this generation of games has to be the lack of innovation in artificial intelligence.

Oh so wrong, Altoid-breath! The biggest disappointment this generation is that games are still largely as they were in the LAST generation. The same old genres, for the most part, are still the most popular. Not even Nintendo has escaped this as far as one would expect.

Ugh, the Emotion Engine. What a disappointment. Sure, I've played games in which I felt intense emotions besides fear, anxiety, rage, and excitement. But not that many.

Wow, so someone actually *did* drink Sony's code name marketing Kool Aid? You don't get emotion from a chip, foo! You get it from artistic direction. The best emotion I've ever seen in a game comes from a PS1 game, Grandia, that didn't even use 3D for its characters.

That game oozed with style, and even though it was simple and quick, it became one of my favorites because the main character, Sly, had real character. He wasn't some fuzzy-ass thing with pointed ears and an attitude. He was a smart, slick thief, and a raccoon no less. Not so strangely it worked.

I've never played Sly Cooper, but I want to like it if just because Sucker Punch made Rocket: Robot on Wheels. That said, it sounds like this guy is two steps behind the curve -- not having "attitude" helps something not to be bad, but is not necessarily good by itself. I'm frankly unsure where his racoonness comes into play.

Former Naughty Dog President Jason Ruben once said that the amount of polygons you have on screen doesn't matter anymore, it's what's you do with them. He is often right, and on this point, he is dead on.

Well, lah-de-dah dude, welcome to the obvious party.

New ideas in sports games have really accelerated in the last three years as Visual Concepts and EA have fiercely fought for market dominance. But things could always be better. For instance, in the latest NBA Live, when a new rookie talks to a coach, you should see him doing it and see the reaction of the team players.

Oh, I'm sure that'd add so much to a sports game.

Why hasn't anyone taken a clue from this revolutionary game and made a newer better one?

Hopefully because they're working on their own unique new concepts, but I know better than to invest in such a pipe dream. Probably because they don't "get" it, or think they have but failed due to one of those unique ways developers have of missing the point in so many subtle ways.

Why isn't there some smart developer out there making a better, smarter, faster version of Warren Specter's Deus Ex?

Dude, I think you just nailed it. It was designed by Warren Spector! That is not an easy act to top.

The article talks more about game superficials as it does about true game design. It's not really that hot a story, I'd say. The author sounds like he might be at the beginning of true insight in his gaming journalism career, but I'd give him a few years first -- assuming he's still playing games by then.

More originality is needed

[vadim_t]

There's too much 3D shooter lately. There are some decent games, but a lot of them just repeat the same old stuff with better graphics.

One great game I played recently was Sacrifice (Shiny). It's just great. The game you play is a story that the protagonist tells. The creature are all really strange, done with this style Shiny uses that's quite unique. The replayability is nice as well, with the wizard gaining different powers depending on the missions that are done.

Graphically, these days it's not that impressive. The mechanics themselves are simple. And still, it's really, really good.

Jet Set [Grind] Radio......?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jet Set [Grind in US] Radio for the Dreamcast was simply oozing style and innovation back a few years ago. This game was one of the first real cell-shaded console games that looked close to cartoon graphics. Plus this game had a killer soundtrack and so much colour/bad-ass personality to it.

If anyone doesn't have an old Dreamcast kicking around, you can also pick up Jet Set Radio Future on Xbox (for dirt cheap).

The reason...

[bitkari]

You want to know the real reason that there is genreally a lack of interesting visual style in today's games?

Take a look at the top ten games at the moment. I don't know what they are, but I can tell you that there will be a sports title, a racing title, a shooter game, and that many of the ten will invariably be published by our beloved Electronic Arts.

These big titles aren't sold on their artistic bent, but on selling sure-fire derivative formulae to the mass-market. In order to convince publishers that the true art of game making needs to be realised it is up to the buying public to convince them.

I'm sure most slashdot readers are already buying quality titles - but maybe we can do our bit to encourage our friends and families to play these as well?

Ugh...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we need challenging gameplay, not CHEAP gameplay.