Slashdot Mirror
Top Technologies of Next-Gen Gaming
SlappingOysters writes "Gameplayer is running an article that examines the key technology developments of the next-generation of gaming. They go into plenty of detail as to why they believe each piece of technology is helping to take gaming on the PC, Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii to more spectacular heights. They also have a related story which takes a look at the best game engines of next-generation games."
Widespread use of non-standard inputs. You know, like a little wand we could wave around... or a light sabre ... Only, this time, with decent graphics.
...are we talking about the next generation, or this generation? Because the formerly "next-gen" systems are already here. We can stop referring to them as "next-gen" now. In fact, using that moniker is starting to get a bit confusing as consumers are beginning to look out toward what the 2011-2012 generation will bring (if anything!).
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
that the Call of Duty 4 engine didn't make it onto the list. At first I thought it was because it was proprietary, but most (all?) of the other engines on the list are as well.
For me, the games that have astounded me (in order of my seeing them and being suitably impressed) are HL2, F.E.A.R. and CoD4. HL2 was for me the first semi-realistic fps. F.E.A.R showed me what a game engine can do, and had great "startle-factor". CoD4 showed me what a game engine combined with good gameplay and replay value can do (it's the first game I've _wanted_ to play more than once in single player, although it's a bit short).
Still no VR total immersion interfaces =(
Also no sex droids =(((
Nowhere on that list did I see the key technology of 'fun' mentioned. Isn't that all that really matters when it comes to games, is it fun? All the technology in the world can't make a bad game fun.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
#5 is procedural generation -- which suggests that, rather than drawing each individual texture, we'd write algorithms and let them generate themselves.
#7 is id's megatextures, which suggests that, rather than doing anything algorithmic, we'll just add more and more detail to a gigantic image.
These seem to be pretty much direct opposites of each other. Are they suggesting that each will be good for different areas? Or do they just not know what they're talking about?
Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
One person's fun is another person's misery. I loathe action games, but love adventure games. Many people feel the opposite. You can't just say "make it fun" without discussing what that really means to your target audience. Gee-whiz technology brings the fanboys, and that used to be enough, but not any more. Enabling technology like the Wii controller, however, allows people who wouldn't otherwise play to enjoy themselves.
I piss off bigots.
Oh, come on, people. Seven of the ten are graphical fluff, and the rest are gimmicks that make no meaningful difference to the gameplay experience. Why couldn't they have listed things that actually, you know, matter?
Oh, wait; I know why. This is a review outlet; they like Shinies (tm) because it's easier to throw up a couple of screenshots and say "this game is pretty" than actually write a meaningful description and say "this game is entertaining." A cancer on gaming, the whole lot of them.
This game uses Euphoria, havoc, and dmm(don't remember what it does) engines to produce almost realistic physics and AI.
What the hell ever happened to Project Offset?
This is a bullet-list of top technologies that are being promoted in new games.
The 9th page says MIDI is making a comeback. That's great. It ends with this sentence, ". Thereâ(TM)s nothing more awesome than a technology from a bygone era stamping its foot firmly on the present, and the future of gaming."
Consider this: "Well, glad to see DRM and online activation making a comeback after dying off around the time of the Atari...."
It depends on whether what's being done is hardware-based or software base (or, at least, whether it can run on current hardware).
While not quite as adaptable as a PC, a 360 (and I'd assume a PS3) can still adapt to anything that doesn't require a core hardware change. After all, not everything is about horsepower, sometimes it's how you use it.
"Remarkable" is how closely a game engine fits one's needs. If you have to pick another engine, then it's not remarkable enough.
I wonder what the next best game engine will be for computers!
Learn about Programming (C++ ASM) and Web Design and Development (PHP, CSS, Photoshop) from InfernoDevelopment.com