Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.