Extrapolating the Near Future of Gaming

Sci-fi author Charlie Stross gave a keynote address at the recent LOGIN 2009 conference about what we can reasonably expect from games and game-related technology over the next 10 to 20 years. He takes a realistic look at the limitations we'll face with regard to processing power and bandwidth, and goes on to talk about how augmented reality software and aging gamers will affect future titles. Quoting: "But the sixty-something gamers of 2020 are not the same as the sixty-somethings you know today. They're you, only twenty years older. By then, you'll have a forty year history of gaming; you won't take kindly to being patronised, or given in-game tasks calibrated for today's sixty-somethings. The codgergamers of 2030 will be comfortable with the narrative flow of games. They're much more likely to be bored by trite plotting and cliched dialog than todays gamers. They're going to need less twitchy user interfaces — ones compatible with aging reflexes and presbyopic eyes — but better plot, character, and narrative development. And they're going to be playing on these exotic gizmos descended from the iPhone and its clones: gadgets that don't so much provide access to the internet as smear the internet all over the meatspace world around their owners."

Comments

Have a look at the age pyramide

[aepervius]

Those 60+ years old gamer will be a minority market in comparison to the 14-20 years old. Which is why today despite having 40 years old demographic, we still have a majority of game geared toward a less mature audience as a whole. And yes, I don't need to be 60 years old to recognize a trite story already made 100 times. I could already recognized that at 25. We don't get wisdom suddenly at 60 years old you know...

Re:Have a look at the age pyramide

[ouimetch]

Nostalgia is also a very big part of growing older, so I imagine it would be very wise to develop games with a more "classical" set-up that will appeal to these older users. Either re-releasing old goodies like various NES, SNES, Genesis titles etc, or developing titles with a familiar playstyle(who wouldn't want to play a sweet new side-scroller) would probly be the way to go.

Re:Have a look at the age pyramide

[mdwh2]

Unless there's going to be a population boom (unlikely in western countries), I don't see how. It may happen if people lose interesting in games as they get older, but I guess the premise is here that that won't happen. Okay, 60+ gamers won't be a majority, but it's plausible to say they'll be a significant part of the market. Certainly far more so than now, where elderly people mostly don't play games, because they never grew up with them.

And unlike middle aged people, they'll have a lot more time on their hands. And unlike 14-20 year olds, they are more likely to have the money.

We've already seen a shift in games marketing already - up until the mid 1990s, games were still mainly seen as "for kids", and I noticed that with the Playstation, there was a shift in advertising towards young adults. Makes sense really: firstly kids of the 80s were now in their 20s; secondly, they had more disposable income (especially important considering the increasing costs of games production). The last thing games companies wanted then was to have the image stick that games were something only children played.

Re:Have a look at the age pyramide

[ChangelingJane]

Which is why today despite having 40 years old demographic, we still have a majority of game geared toward a less mature audience as a whole.

This has more to do with outdated notions of what market demand there is, rather than actual market demographics. "Gamer" is a label that now constitutes way more than the stereotypical teenage boy image. There are now much older gamers, and much more women playing games. But the industry has yet to catch up, partially because of those outdated notions that still prevail in marketing departments, and also because industry composition hasn't changed nearly as much as its audience.

Re:Have a look at the age pyramide

[AKAImBatman]

Games are about writing stories

Never has their been a more absurd statement.

Games are about entertainment. Story-based gaming is one possible aspect. But when you're playing, say, Simon; what's the story there?

The answer is: NOTHING. There is not story. There's not even a flimsy plot to setup why you're pressing the lighted buttons. You just are. And it's fun.

Same reason why I don't need an excuse to blast aliens in Galaga. It's just FUN.

Story is a way of adding depth to a game. However, it is not a requirement for a game.

Re:Have a look at the age pyramide

[Keill]

No. It's only confusing if you don't understand the word story. We're talking about an account of a sequence of events - i.e. a story, except rather than telling one, a game is there to allow a player to write one. (Memories and personal experiences are stories too, btw).

Yes, it may be hard for people to look at games in such a light, and, tbh, most people probably don't need to - but I feel that's important for some to do so, especially any involved in their creation and design.

It's become very obvious to me that many do not, and therefore don't fully understand the implications of this on quite a few aspects of game design - (especially when all I seem to hear about these days is 'plot' and 'narrative' etc.).

Trust me, the implications of this viewpoint upon games are massive and numerous - and it's a viewpoint I've had for about 8-9 years now, but found hard to explain and fully understand until recently: I was arguing about someone over the definition of a computer-based-RPG, and we were arguing about story - she was talking about telling stories, I was talking about them being written, but I didn't fully understand that description until afterwards - (and I always knew I was right! :p).

Note: I'm trying to write a paper about this - (called Story-writing in Computer-based Role Playing Games) - but am finding it hard to fit everything I need into the first few 'chapters' atm. (Am planning to send them in to gamasutra and see what they think before writing the rest - it's going to be a LONG paper that one) - (I'll get there eventually, though).

Presbyopic eyes?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like bionic eyes. It should be easy as long as they're connected to your blue tooth.

And wtf is it with the iPhone reference, sure these future devices will be descendents of the iPhone in the same way they'll be descendents of Nokia 5110 or the original Gameboy. Srsly, the iPhone is nothing more than a portable touchscreen device with a rather childish looking interface. To put a reference to it in your article is only an attempt to freeload off it's hype.

Re:Presbyopic eyes?

[nyctopterus]

Perhaps the difference here is that I treat it like I would an appliance, not a handheld computer (seriously, handheld is a sucky form factor for computers--multitasking is hard to do properly technically, and the tiny interface does not lend itself to it anyway). As an appliance, it is good. Mostly reacts INSTANTLY to input, very short load times. It's not supposed to be a computer in your pocket--which is why it doesn't suck.

Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[Mprx]

Games are not art, and games are not a substitute for novels and movies. Games are games, and should play to their own strengths instead of poorly emulating other media. I hope that 20 years from now people will have realized that "narrative games" are a dead end. Interactive storytelling is "AI complete", so the only satisfactory way to include it in games is to use a real intelligent storyteller, as with pencil and paper RPGs. As graphics and physics simulation improve but narrative choice remains the same the railroading will only get more distracting.

The only change I anticipate in my game playing is switching from action to strategy if my reaction time slows too much.

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[ouimetch]

While some games are just games, there are many games that have a very artistic style to them. I remember playing Fallout 3 and just stopping and staring around at the scenery once I got outside of vault 101. It is certainly safe to say that many games transcend being simply entertainment, and have enough style and beauty to invoke a powerful emotional reaction in many of its users. Isn't creating an emotional response what art is all about?

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[Gerafix]

Of course games are "art" or whatever arbitrary labels people feel compelled to attribute to games. Or any other media. It's like saying photography isn't art because it should play its own "strength" instead of poorly emulating... painting? In any case mindless games are fun sometimes, but even a plot that's arbitrary can still be fun. This article leaves out the possibility that we could have implanted devices anyway and something as trivial as eye sight or reaction time wouldn't matter. One can only hope anyway. Maybe if I pray *realllly* hard at FSM.

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[mdwh2]

Games are not art

Says who?

Sure, there's no need for a plot in a simple shoot 'em up, but I think good storytelling is important to things such as role-playing games. No, it's not a full blown AI, but neither is a book or a movie. Surely part of the fun is using your imagination, just as we are expected to do for books.

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[Shivani1141]

I for one Love the opportunity a game provides for attention to specific detail and the scenario. If in a novel a writer were to spend a half or more of a chapter explaining the history of a minor character or the role of a nation, it might be seen as a waste of page space. Whereas in a Video game it is completely feasable to do this. You insert characters into optional areas or an inn or the like, that explains these things at the players option, thereby enriching the experience for those who choose to take the time.

There are numerous examples of exactly this type of content in most Final Fantasy games, But also Atlus titles, etc. Infact it's found in pretty much every critically acclaimed single player rpg.

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory... If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game.

Obviously, you haven't played anything after Pac-Man.

Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense

[Darkness404]

Movies are art because movies can inspire the full range of human emotions. The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory (which cannot exist without the former). These emotions are intrinsically linked to the game itself, and don't require any cutscenes or dialog.

Um, have you played anything more involved than an Atari 2600 game?

If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game. You can tell this is true because removing all the "gameplay" would improve it, eg. JRPGs would be better without all the random battles, wandering about the map, item management, etc. If the game were really good you would get annoyed at all the interruptions to the playable parts. It would be better to separate the "artistic" parts and repackage them as a movie or illustrated novel.

So wait, you would rather have a J-RPG thats a point and click adventure? Sure, sometimes random battles are annoying, sure, sometimes you think you would do better without them, but they add depth to the game and can be used in very creative ways (such as Pokemon). Wandering about the map is also part of the fun, otherwise the game becomes a chore. So what do you want to do? Have a point and click adventure with no plot, only boss battles and a giant checklist?

Games are supposed to be fun, not something you have to grind through to get to the "plot" and "achievements". The fun comes from challenging yourself and developing your skills, not mindlessly pressing buttons like a laboratory rat.

Um, so what games do you classify as "fun"? Pac-Man, Galaga, Space Invaders? You obviously haven't experienced a game with a decent storyline. They can invoke many, many, many emotions. Have you not played Final Fantasy VII and experienced its plot? Have you never played Halo and realized that it was a good game because of the strong plot?

Whaaa

[moogied]

I'm sorry, but wtf?? When will the FRIGEN industry understand that the LAST thing gamers care about is the frigen technology?? We just want NO lag, good FPS, and heres a crazy ass idea.. GAMEPLAY.

Everything else is just wasting everyones money and time.

Relationship cues for the mammalian brain

[tepples]

Its electronics and should concentrate on doing everything fast rather than trying to emulate the mechanical limitations of real life.

Prior to electronics, H. sapiens had thousands of years to adapt to the mechanical limitations of real life. Animations tap into that adaptation, giving the mammalian brain valuable subliminal cues as to how two pieces of information are related.

Re:Addendum

[TinBromide]

I dunno. It was my impression that ut2k3/4 was a mix of the strategic encounter of UT with the twitch of Q3. UT2k4 has too many effective spam weapons to be as twitchy as q3. In my mind, the pinnacle of Twitch was running around with the q3 railgun. It was also my impression that ut2k3 was more twitch than ut2k4.

I absolutely believe that the developers are abandoning the twitch gameplay for something more "accessible". Its a real minority that is willing to tune their reflexes and system to such a degree that they would bring themselves into what I would classify as Twitch. Combine that with the illusion of pc piracy (the scape goat for developers switching over to the massive base of consoles and the $60 price point), and developers switch to console dynamics, which are very unfavorable to twitch games.

That also explains why there aren't as many twitch gamers in u3, they stayed with ut2k4.

Re:The end of linear games

[PopeRatzo]

Fail a job and you have to deal with the consequences and impact on your reputation, start shooting people at random and you earn a reputation of psychopathic killer, by drugs, sell them on someone else's turf and watch things escalating with them, become a real estate agent, spend ten years in jail, join a gang, start a gang and delegate tasks, become a politician, etc

That sounds too much like real life. Can't I just shoot monsters in some underground bunker?

Some people like to achieve achievements.

[tecnico.hitos]

There is nothing wrong with achievements. They are not unethical at all.

They are part of gaming experience that many players find enjoyable. Gamers are not required to complete achievements, so as long as the player can choose whether he will pursue or not the achievements and still gets an enjoyable experience for doing or while not doing so, it is fine.

If there is still a sizable amount of game content and/or other games to satisfy the unsatisfied player, there is no need to complain.

Re:Some people like to achieve achievements.

[bluesatin]

But a vast majority of people I know feel the urge to complete every single last achievement, even if it means them sitting there getting more and more stressed out because they can't get it.

People are easily compelled to try and "compete" against things to beat them, it's the same mechanic that leaves people playing games like World of Warcraft for hours upon hours even if they're not enjoying it.

Most people on Slashdot will probably have not experienced this, I expect other people here are like me and will realise that we're not enjoying something and stop doing it, other people might not.

Re:Some people like to achieve achievements.

[Bodrius]

Does that have much to do with achievements and scoring systems per se, or rather with just game houses using this (or any method) to compensate for Bad Game Design?

Like it or not, many people find a lot of the entertainment in the process of finishing every quest, scoring every point and finding every hidden level in a game. This predates 'achievements', and for that matter video games in general.

Quite frankly, the same principle persistence of being "compelled to try and compete against things to beat them, even on the face of failure", is considered a virtue on most other entertainment activities (sports, chess, music, etc) - and most people recognize the hard-won victory as both highly enjoyable and a sign of some merit. Why would we expect differently of electronic games? Should we even want any differently?

Of course, what you may actually be complaining about is just the general prevalence of Lazy Design - where the intended actual game is lazily padded with mediocre assets to meet whatever is the Entertainment Value Metric of the season: hours of gameplay, # of levels, guns, characters, multiplayer maps... or, I guess, 'achievements'.

None of which is a new problem - or even a 'gaming problem' per se. It happens with every new element of enjoyment that gets added to a medium, and only time will tell if the usual cycle of obsession ends up enriching it, or the trend just dies by itself.

I grew up with ye olde Sierra games with their trillion ways to die and (later) "success => click-every-pixel" moments... and loved them *despite* those frustrations, because they had enough actual challenges, and typically even the death scenes were funny - it kept the whole experience entertaining.

Unfortunately, their style led to a lot of other adventure games which confused their failures with their success, and happily copied the wrong elements. Games where "challenging" was measured by obscurity of the puzzles, and "hours of entertainment" often meant higher count of dead ends and collecting irrelevant bonus items. And consequently to quite a few people thinking that's what 'adventure games' were about.

That had little to do with adventure games being frustrating excercises in surreal thinking, and a lot more to do with developers being unable to build an interactive narrative with coherent puzzles and enough meat for >20 hours of entertainment... and too willing to throw a few puzzles of the "this-should-keep-the-player-busy-restarting" variety at the problem (memories of "Darkseed" come to mind).

These days, adventure games have a challenging enough time in the market. But dead ends are well recognized as critical design defects on games of any genre - and it's hard to find an A-title padding its "hours of gameplay" with difficulty to complete-the-game... if anything, they'll provide as many 'alternative solutions' as possible to keep any player unblocked, lest they be massacred in the reviews.

I'd fully expect any misuse of achievements to see a similar correction.