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.
What "couple of screenshots"? It's the same damn "almost upside down place" screenshot on all ten pages!
What the hell ever happened to Project Offset?
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.
Which is a perfect example of how you can put the latest technologies into your game and it will still be mediocre, unless you think long and hard about the gameplay..
Video games have been a going concern for 30 years. We've had real 3d rendering for over 10 years. We're at the point where we can't make "better" games by just throwing technology at them. But that's what next generation consoles are all about, just throwing more technology. So that's what this article is about.
Anything that actually matters in terms of game design can be done on todays consoles. Hell, they could be done on the last generation of consoles. It's not about the grapics, it's about the gameplay.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think it's pretty common around every video game discussion to get mad about graphical improvements.
I like them. I like them a lot. They are fun in of themselves. If a game looks crappy, I don't like it as much. But boring game play can be boring gameplay. I played through crysis once, it looked sweet as hell, but I never came back to it. I've played games with great gameplay and bad graphics (playing stronghold real late in the part), and didn't come back cause the graphics were sub par.
Works both way. Great game has graphics and gameplay. I want bitchen audio/visual feedback when I play a game. I want to squeeze the trigger, here a cannon shot fire out my shotgun, and make some sort of crazy noticeable impact on something. I want to swing a sword and hack some monster's arm off and watch crazy blood spray everywhere. I want princess in another castle to be smoken hot and drawn perfectly. I want my RPG companions to have crazy flare and look compeltly badass.
I want hard action in your face over the top goodness. For the most part, games deliver that. It's the reason I don't play "real life" that often. All the excitement, none of the danger :)
Graphical fluff works towards making a game a more immersive experience. Could Bioshock tell the same story and have the same expereince with the graphics engines of 6 years ago? Probably. Would the experience have been as immersive and therefore memorable? Probably not.
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