You forgot OLPC, mithro. They have a good ideas list for doing games for the OLPC such as Mastermind, flash cards, typing tutor, and a small 3D game. I think both TP and OLPC sound like great GSoC projects so Hooray for FOSS Gaming!
With careful training a person can send nerve signals to their vocal cords without... /HEAVY_SARCASM on
Training? Who the hell has time for that crap in this day and age? I want to telepathically tell Google to find me porn and I want it NOW! I mean really!? Who has time for training except for fucking crip... oh, nevermind.
/HEAVY_SARCASM off
Sounds like a cool and useful device, especially for the disabled, who I am guessing are its current intended target. Now Dr. Hawking has a new way to berate my intelligence... HOORAY!
Well, I don't claim my way is for everyone. People should bid how they feel comfortable bidding. And as for sellers getting the highest amount for their goods, whether I am sniping or not, I am never in the mindset "Let me get this seller the most money for his/her item". I presume that, If the seller is posting an item on eBay, that person understands the fact that people are on ebay looking for a deal, so you aren't going to get the most you possibly could.
If you are a seller trying to get the most for your item, there are other valid venues, like Amazon. Amazon's new and used items listing is great because they are shown on the same page as the item, so the traffic you get is people specifically looking for that item, and you can list your item for what you think is fair. I personally don't think eBay is about buyers offering sellers a fair deal for their item. Like in the example I gave, $110 is in no way a fair deal for a fairly new PSP, but I in no way feel guilty about getting it for that, because I came into the auction saying "I am trying to get your item for the least amount possible". Is that not one of eBay's positive qualities? Have I completely missed eBay's philosophy? Because if their philosophy was to get sellers the best money for their items then it is eBay's fault for implementing a shitty auctioning system that allows sniping and drastic undervaluing (not a word, I know). But, I assume that since eBay didn't nip that shit in the bud from the beginning, that their philosophy is for buyers to come and find great deals on a sellers items and let sellers make at least some money on that stuff that they want to sell. And I see that philosophy reflected in every add they post and in every email they send me.
Snipers hurt bidders. Snipers never help anyone but themselves, and are not useful or productive to the auction process.
I disagree. First, Bidders generally know how much they want to spend before they place a bid, so if I snipe them then it isn't really a snipe, I just outbid them because they weren't going to bid any higher anyway. Second, Snipers can actually drive the price up on an auction. For example, just recently I bid on a PSP. When I found it it was in the $70's, a terrible amount to get for a fairly new PSP. I went in with a bid of 120 and actually drove the price up about $30. Now, I am sure the seller is still sore about getting about $80 less than what his auction is really worth, but on the upside, he could have only come away with $70. I just made him $30.
Finally, who ever said that my purpose as a bidder/sniper was to get the seller a good price for his item and generally promote goodwill among bidders? MY objective is to deny the seller as much of my money as possible, and the seller's objective is to get as much money from people as possible, whether or not the object is even worth that much. Just like, if you sell a crap chair for 10x what it is generally worth then it is all the better for you. So, if I can get your item for $80 less than its actual current market value, then sucks for you but hooray for me. It is just classic red vs. blue: we are on different teams and have vastly different goals approaching an auction, so lets not fool ourselves in thinking that the opposite team just wants what is best for everyone? Now, that said, I support sniping because it is fun and in all cases I have seen, the seller still gets a fairly good price for the item. I do NOT support being a bad buyer though. It is one thing to get a good deal, but it is entirely another to extort a seller for a better deal, I think that is reprehensible.
The problem is how do you keep away the assholes. The people who in real life would get thrown in jail or, at the very least, get the shit kicked out of them for pulling stupid and asshole moves like trying to scam a shop keep or rip off a street vendor, get on the internet and somehow anonymity == anarchy. "If nobody can see me do it, and nobody is going to kick the shit out of me or throw me in jail, why not fuck up the lives of everyone else?" how do you keep the assholes from ruining good social interaction? That is the problem IMO.
If anonymity breeds villainy, then you remove anonymity from the whole interaction. I think if you were an ebay buyer and, say you are the winning bidder on an item, you had to have a Video chat with the seller and some kind of impromptu feedback review, I think it would drastically reduce the number of bad interactions. You wouldn't have anymore asshole sellers because you have to talk, face to face, with every customer to finalize the auction, so if you came off as a prick, the buyer could just back out, and the seller can freely re-list their item or talk to the next highest bidder. It would also reduce asshole buyers because you could talk face to face with every buyer and, if for some reason you don't trust them or they come off as a prick, you just don't sell to them.
Granted this is not a good coverall solution, but in damn near every online interactive experience, from games to ebay, it is the assholes and fucktards who ruin things for the rest of us honest folks. So, if you got the chance to look the WoW corpse camper or the asshole ebay power seller right in the face and decide THEN whether you want to buy an item, I think it would, in time, make the internet a better place. Wow, that sounds really naive and optimistic, sorry
2 big thumbs up to Valve for helping support indie game developers. This could be a great first step toward breaking free of the fiercely Big-Money Publisher-Driven Development system that is PLAGUING independent games (and games in general.)
And when graphics/physics/AI get as good as real life, there is no major drive for a new console for "next-gen" games, they won't be able to get any better
I disagree. You are making the assumption that the entire future of console development rests on graphics/physics/AI and this, in my opinion, is false. Even when we get to the point where games look, react, and think realistically, they will never begin to approximate reality until the interface changes. In my opinion, the future for game development needs to lie not in the in-game, but in the out-of-game, and by this I mean I/O, the way we as players fundamentally interact with the software.
It is my belief that no matter how good graphics/physics/AI get in games, if we are still interacting with them in the same ways we are today, then they will be no better than what they are today. Seeing a realistic character in Crysis is cool, but what is more realistic, seeing an approximation of a 3D person on a 2D surface or seeing them as if they were standing right in front of you? You need to feel how it feels to run through underbrush and you need to react and emote like your character would react and emote in the game. Only when we as players can interface with the game on a level that is indistinguishable from reality will the drive for "next-gen" end. And even then, as time progresses, the interface can be done better, smaller, and cheaper, so there will always be a new system until the interface becomes so common-place that is integrated into our everyday lives.
Now, do I know any of this to be true? No, of course not. But, in my mind, the future of gaming is in hardware ann specifically, player interface and I/O. The industry faces the choice of evolution or stagnation because, a decade from now, if we are still interacting with games in the same way, looking at a 2d surface and giving simple input, then video games are dead. At that point you aren't creating new experiences, you are grave-robbing basically, re-hashing old gold into new shit. You can see it even now when you walk into any software store. Tell me how many unique experiences do you see on those walls. Now tell me how many clones of old, successful games you see. If that ratio doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I don't know what to tell you.
In my opinion, the peak of video games is the holodeck fro Star Trek. That is the ideal and that is where we need to start moving toward... in my mind at least.
I hate to be a hater, but Halo is the single most over-hyped game in history. It is a par shooter at best and the fact that it gets as much attention as it does is disgusting. It is not a revolution in FPS games. It is not a revolution in anything. It is just a decent shooter... that's it. Why can't anyone see that?
You're right, you don't see any DigiPen grads running game companies. That's the entire problem: shortsightedness. But, I guarantee you, those of us who enjoy the experience here and who have a passion for this have at least though about the prospect. For others, like myself, it's the entire goal. I am not trying to get rich, I just want to spend the next 30 years doing something I love. So, hopefully, a decade from now, you WILL find DigiPen grads running game companies as well as those of us who choose to "slave away for lousy managers and corrupt bosses."
It's damned well time that we install a government that will protect the American consumer
Who is this we? I can't remember the last time that voting Americans installed a government that really gave two shits about the American people. And as far as protecting the American consumer, shit, not in this republic. In this republic the slogan is "Cash rules everything around me." Like George W Bush gives 2 shits about the American consumer.
don't get me wrong, I totally agree. It would be nice to see a government of, by and for the people. But chances are slim and getting slimmer all the time. As long as cut-throat capitalism rules the day, its every person for themselves. As such, big corporate rules our lives and administration and there is not much we can do about it.
Hopefully in time things will change, but I doubt it will be as soon as November '08 and it is going to require the American people actually speaking up and taking charge of their nation. But that's doubtful.
Why anyone would be crazy enough to entrust a AAA console title to a pc developer like Epic is a completely separate question.
When a developer decides that they want to make a competitive 3D game nowadays they have 2 options: write your own engines -or- license an engine from someone else. On the one hand, writing your own cutting edge, competitive engine is going to take a hell of a long time and money, just look at the guys who do it primarily: Id, Valve, Epic. These engines take several years, a lot of money, and some freaking brilliant coders (John Carmack for example). But once these engines are done, they can compete with almost anything else out there. And because they are done SO well, others want to use said engine too.
Now, if you are a developer trying to make a competitive and interesting new game, if you decide to write your own graphics and physics engines then you have to spend all the time and money just to get a good engine and then spend even more time and money working on all the actual gameplay. In short, you have to spend almost double or triple the time to make the game, after which time your game may not even be competitive or innovative anymore. But, if you license an engine from another company then you only spend the time+money to work on gameplay plus the amount of time needed to get acquainted with the engine, which is not anywhere near as long or expensive as writing an engine from scratch. So, by licensing an engine you save time which equals money which equals a (hopefully) earlier ship date and a (hopefully) more competitive product.
I'll note here that the large amount of time it takes to develop both an engine and a game is why you don't see the big engine developers publishing a ton of games. They spend the years to make one engine and then they publish several games using that engine while possibly working on a new one on the side. Take Valve for example. They spent a ton of time developing Source for HL2 and since then they have been doing the episodes. Adding a little to Source with each episode but also publishing (not developing, mind you) a lot of smaller games using Source while they (most likely) work on a new engine. Same can be seen with both Id and Epic: they will produce one new Game+Engine every 5-7 years, afterward developing a few titles using the current engine while writing a new one.
When you license an engine you are putting your faith in another company that they are providing you with a robust and well documented engine because that's what you are paying a quarter of a million dollars for. So, when something like this happens with Unreal 3.0 where the engine developer actually provided licensees with an incomplete/broken engine not only have you committed fraud by falsely advertising and licensing something you never had, the licensee now has to spend even more development time trying to fill in the gaps and write work-around components to get the engine to do what you bought it for. As such, when something like this comes up it not only heavily hurts the many developers using the engine, but it harshly damages the reputation of the engine developer, who makes a good portion of its income from licensing their engines.
So, yeah, I agree that the market could really use some good, innovative games, and I don't think it would be too hard to get these out of developers. I am sure that there are a BUNCH of developers who would like to work on an innovative game, the only problem being: PUBLISHERS DON'T FUCKING BUY INNOVATIVE GAMES!!! Publishers hate a fucking innovative game because there is no guarantee they will make back their investment. This is why we see "Lord of the Rings 5: Frodo Rides Again" consuming stores instead of more interesting, innovative games. If this EA asshole wants to impress me then he should go out, look for an indie dev working on interesting games, and say "Hey, EA wants publish your game!" instead of being a total fucktard and saying "I don't know why more developers don't make more innovative games?" As you can probably tell, this is a serious bone of contention for me =/
It seems strange to me that blizzard would not have been able to pull off ghost to their own standard of quality. From the sound of it, it would seem that the designers didn't have a good idea of what they wanted from the start. Also, they need to realize that in a market flooded with shooters, it is hard to put one out nowadays that is new and does something that hasn't been done before. I think if they had a good idea of what they wanted from the start and a solid plan for how to make it happen, SC: Ghost could have turned out great. Not revolutionary, mind you, but a good, fun, solid stealth-shooter. I honestly don't think it isn't for any amount of timing or flow that Ghost slipped through the cracks, it was just poor expectations and poor planning. That's just my opinion though.
I definitely agree with one of the previous posters that, I am not sure how much good a virtual world "game" would do for paralyzed individuals. I do think though that it could serve as a novel source of entertainment for them which could lift their spirits some. I can imagine that, myself, if I were ever in that kind of situation, the inability to play games would incredibly depress me since I get a great deal of enjoyment from them, so this virtual world would sound pretty fun, especially if it could be implemented as a game. I mean, I am certain there must be some developer out there who would jump at the chance to make a game for paralyzed individuals utilizing this interface.
I fail to see how game trailers on the internet are within the jurisdiction of the ESRB. I mean, they are the Entertainment SOFTWARE Rating Board, and, while these trailers are not software in and of themselves, I understand that they do pertain to software. Still, to me, it doesn't seem like it is the ESRB's decision which trailers can be shown on the internet and which cannot. If that decision is left to anyone, it should be left to those websites that choose to put up the trailer.
And can someone inform me as to what age-gating is, because I tried to look it up on Wiki and got nothing.
... who exactly is surprised by this? I mean, they could be not addressing the issues because the slow pickup of the OS or maybe due to some other patent issues, but the fact that M$ would push out a bugged OS and then not expediently address the bugs can't possibly surprise anyone. I would assume they just patch enough to keep the user base quiet and then figure "we'll get it right on the next one." Seems that many hardware and software developers have adopted this stance of instead of taking the time to refine and perfect one thing, they push out a bunch of crappier things in the hopes that they get it right on the next iteration. Infuriating!
I have to agree. I happen to like deeper characters more than dog fights. Don't get me wrong, dog fights and edge of the seat action are great, but, to me, it is nothing without character development, back stories, and interpersonal relationships. That is what I love about Battlestar; I get to really know the characters so that when those characters get into those dog fights and hairy situations it heightens the action because I have much more invested in that character. I start liking a character not because the writers tell me "she's a smartass pilot ace" but because I can see what she goes through, her history, and her personality as it evolves over the seasons. This is true about Starbuck and every other character in the show.
I love every single "filler" episode and see it as character and story building. I think the writers are doing a great job with the characters, not making them just these one dimensional stereotypes, but sculpting them and manipulating them in such a way that, I can't tell you how many times I have gone from loving to hating and back to loving The president or even Baltar for that matter. I think they are doing a great job and adding a lot of depth to the entire universe and I really can't understand how people can't see that. I mean, they have definitely changed focus from the first to the third season, but somehow everyone is relating this change of focus to total crap and they criticize the writing up and down... but you still tune in every week.
So either thay have a really good design that they hope will keep users entertained for a decade... or just like the brand namesakes they mentioned, are trying to cash in on one brand and bleed it out as long as possible. I hope the former rather than the latter.
Personally, I like Oblivion, but for every one thing I love I can name three things I hate. It saddens me to see that Bethesda now owns the Fallout series. It saddens me because I am sure it will turn out to be "The Elder Scrolls V...er we mean FALLOUT 3" where Bethesda takes the same tired, uncreative template and forces a great design into an old, bad mold. I would say that Bioware (or wherever the original dev team is now) could do it better, but I doubt it. I almost think Fallout 3 would turn out better if it were made by some no name developer who had a lot of experience with the original Fallout and was willing to take it in a new direction while staying true to what Fallout is.
I just don't see this happening at Bethesda. They already have it in their heads the game they want to make, regardless of the IP. Fallout 3 is just going to be the same old tired Bethesda game with a new Fallout theme. And, most likely, they won't give it the amount of time it needs and will just churn out a buggy, lackluster product. And I will go out and buy it. And there is probably no way that Fallout 3 could live up to anyone's hopes, which is why no more games should probably be made based on fallout, let the Franchise die with some decency. But we all know that isn't going to happen. It is like hoping for a good X-Men game - never going to happen.
I am hoping that all my speculation is wrong and that I am totally surprised by Bethesda's Fallout 3, but my hope hangs on by a thread called "past experience" and while past experience holds up pretty well over time, in this case it is certainly nothing to pin one's hopes on.
6. The mouse won't die, and graphics cards will get more powerful.
I pray to God the mouse does die. If, in ten years, we are still sitting in front of a 2D monitor and using a mouse and keyboard to play our games then video games are officially dead. I doubt most people would complain if the status quo kept up for the next decade, but it is my belief that the true ideal of gaming, PC included, is the holo-deck from Star Trek. Unless we keep heading toward that ideal, games are going to stagnate and if you think you are seeing the same old thing now, in a decade you will see absolutely nothing new anymore. everything will be re-hash with better graphics.
Graphics cards are not the only things that need to change. The fundamental revolution in gaming NEEDS to happen in I/O. I think The Wii is the first iteration of this, but not necessarily the be-all end-all. I/O technology needs to take the hint from the Wii and continue to push the bounds of how we interact with the game on a fundamental level. It may sound like I am talking about VR, but the peak game experience should be much more than this. It should be as though you were stepping into a whole other real world
This is not to say that we NEED the HoloDeck in the next decade, but we need to start making progress towards this or interactive media as we know it will stagnate and die. And the masses won't know that what they once loved is dead until somebody comes along and points out how things could have been and what the original goal was.
Of course, this is all my opinion and I may just be a wacked out nut-job who loves video games too much but, mark my words, if things haven't changed within the next decade then you WILL see the death of video games, no matter what platform. Nobody's immune...
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot OLPC, mithro. They have a good ideas list for doing games for the OLPC such as Mastermind, flash cards, typing tutor, and a small 3D game. I think both TP and OLPC sound like great GSoC projects so Hooray for FOSS Gaming!
-BZA
Training? Who the hell has time for that crap in this day and age? I want to telepathically tell Google to find me porn and I want it NOW! I mean really!? Who has time for training except for fucking crip... oh, nevermind.
Sounds like a cool and useful device, especially for the disabled, who I am guessing are its current intended target. Now Dr. Hawking has a new way to berate my intelligence... HOORAY!
Well, I don't claim my way is for everyone. People should bid how they feel comfortable bidding. And as for sellers getting the highest amount for their goods, whether I am sniping or not, I am never in the mindset "Let me get this seller the most money for his/her item". I presume that, If the seller is posting an item on eBay, that person understands the fact that people are on ebay looking for a deal, so you aren't going to get the most you possibly could.
If you are a seller trying to get the most for your item, there are other valid venues, like Amazon. Amazon's new and used items listing is great because they are shown on the same page as the item, so the traffic you get is people specifically looking for that item, and you can list your item for what you think is fair. I personally don't think eBay is about buyers offering sellers a fair deal for their item. Like in the example I gave, $110 is in no way a fair deal for a fairly new PSP, but I in no way feel guilty about getting it for that, because I came into the auction saying "I am trying to get your item for the least amount possible". Is that not one of eBay's positive qualities? Have I completely missed eBay's philosophy? Because if their philosophy was to get sellers the best money for their items then it is eBay's fault for implementing a shitty auctioning system that allows sniping and drastic undervaluing (not a word, I know). But, I assume that since eBay didn't nip that shit in the bud from the beginning, that their philosophy is for buyers to come and find great deals on a sellers items and let sellers make at least some money on that stuff that they want to sell. And I see that philosophy reflected in every add they post and in every email they send me.
I disagree. First, Bidders generally know how much they want to spend before they place a bid, so if I snipe them then it isn't really a snipe, I just outbid them because they weren't going to bid any higher anyway. Second, Snipers can actually drive the price up on an auction. For example, just recently I bid on a PSP. When I found it it was in the $70's, a terrible amount to get for a fairly new PSP. I went in with a bid of 120 and actually drove the price up about $30. Now, I am sure the seller is still sore about getting about $80 less than what his auction is really worth, but on the upside, he could have only come away with $70. I just made him $30.
Finally, who ever said that my purpose as a bidder/sniper was to get the seller a good price for his item and generally promote goodwill among bidders? MY objective is to deny the seller as much of my money as possible, and the seller's objective is to get as much money from people as possible, whether or not the object is even worth that much. Just like, if you sell a crap chair for 10x what it is generally worth then it is all the better for you. So, if I can get your item for $80 less than its actual current market value, then sucks for you but hooray for me. It is just classic red vs. blue: we are on different teams and have vastly different goals approaching an auction, so lets not fool ourselves in thinking that the opposite team just wants what is best for everyone? Now, that said, I support sniping because it is fun and in all cases I have seen, the seller still gets a fairly good price for the item. I do NOT support being a bad buyer though. It is one thing to get a good deal, but it is entirely another to extort a seller for a better deal, I think that is reprehensible.
The problem is how do you keep away the assholes. The people who in real life would get thrown in jail or, at the very least, get the shit kicked out of them for pulling stupid and asshole moves like trying to scam a shop keep or rip off a street vendor, get on the internet and somehow anonymity == anarchy. "If nobody can see me do it, and nobody is going to kick the shit out of me or throw me in jail, why not fuck up the lives of everyone else?" how do you keep the assholes from ruining good social interaction? That is the problem IMO.
If anonymity breeds villainy, then you remove anonymity from the whole interaction. I think if you were an ebay buyer and, say you are the winning bidder on an item, you had to have a Video chat with the seller and some kind of impromptu feedback review, I think it would drastically reduce the number of bad interactions. You wouldn't have anymore asshole sellers because you have to talk, face to face, with every customer to finalize the auction, so if you came off as a prick, the buyer could just back out, and the seller can freely re-list their item or talk to the next highest bidder. It would also reduce asshole buyers because you could talk face to face with every buyer and, if for some reason you don't trust them or they come off as a prick, you just don't sell to them.
Granted this is not a good coverall solution, but in damn near every online interactive experience, from games to ebay, it is the assholes and fucktards who ruin things for the rest of us honest folks. So, if you got the chance to look the WoW corpse camper or the asshole ebay power seller right in the face and decide THEN whether you want to buy an item, I think it would, in time, make the internet a better place. Wow, that sounds really naive and optimistic, sorry
2 big thumbs up to Valve for helping support indie game developers. This could be a great first step toward breaking free of the fiercely Big-Money Publisher-Driven Development system that is PLAGUING independent games (and games in general.)
Awww, man! And I had the Risk 2210 board all set up =(
Is there anything better than taking from the your fellow man?
I submit that there is not.
I disagree. You are making the assumption that the entire future of console development rests on graphics/physics/AI and this, in my opinion, is false. Even when we get to the point where games look, react, and think realistically, they will never begin to approximate reality until the interface changes. In my opinion, the future for game development needs to lie not in the in-game, but in the out-of-game, and by this I mean I/O, the way we as players fundamentally interact with the software.
It is my belief that no matter how good graphics/physics/AI get in games, if we are still interacting with them in the same ways we are today, then they will be no better than what they are today. Seeing a realistic character in Crysis is cool, but what is more realistic, seeing an approximation of a 3D person on a 2D surface or seeing them as if they were standing right in front of you? You need to feel how it feels to run through underbrush and you need to react and emote like your character would react and emote in the game. Only when we as players can interface with the game on a level that is indistinguishable from reality will the drive for "next-gen" end. And even then, as time progresses, the interface can be done better, smaller, and cheaper, so there will always be a new system until the interface becomes so common-place that is integrated into our everyday lives.
Now, do I know any of this to be true? No, of course not. But, in my mind, the future of gaming is in hardware ann specifically, player interface and I/O. The industry faces the choice of evolution or stagnation because, a decade from now, if we are still interacting with games in the same way, looking at a 2d surface and giving simple input, then video games are dead. At that point you aren't creating new experiences, you are grave-robbing basically, re-hashing old gold into new shit. You can see it even now when you walk into any software store. Tell me how many unique experiences do you see on those walls. Now tell me how many clones of old, successful games you see. If that ratio doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I don't know what to tell you.
In my opinion, the peak of video games is the holodeck fro Star Trek. That is the ideal and that is where we need to start moving toward... in my mind at least.
I hate to be a hater, but Halo is the single most over-hyped game in history. It is a par shooter at best and the fact that it gets as much attention as it does is disgusting. It is not a revolution in FPS games. It is not a revolution in anything. It is just a decent shooter... that's it. Why can't anyone see that?
You're right, you don't see any DigiPen grads running game companies. That's the entire problem: shortsightedness. But, I guarantee you, those of us who enjoy the experience here and who have a passion for this have at least though about the prospect. For others, like myself, it's the entire goal. I am not trying to get rich, I just want to spend the next 30 years doing something I love. So, hopefully, a decade from now, you WILL find DigiPen grads running game companies as well as those of us who choose to "slave away for lousy managers and corrupt bosses."
Who is this we? I can't remember the last time that voting Americans installed a government that really gave two shits about the American people. And as far as protecting the American consumer, shit, not in this republic. In this republic the slogan is "Cash rules everything around me." Like George W Bush gives 2 shits about the American consumer.
don't get me wrong, I totally agree. It would be nice to see a government of, by and for the people. But chances are slim and getting slimmer all the time. As long as cut-throat capitalism rules the day, its every person for themselves. As such, big corporate rules our lives and administration and there is not much we can do about it.
Hopefully in time things will change, but I doubt it will be as soon as November '08 and it is going to require the American people actually speaking up and taking charge of their nation. But that's doubtful.
There's also Canada...
When a developer decides that they want to make a competitive 3D game nowadays they have 2 options: write your own engines -or- license an engine from someone else. On the one hand, writing your own cutting edge, competitive engine is going to take a hell of a long time and money, just look at the guys who do it primarily: Id, Valve, Epic. These engines take several years, a lot of money, and some freaking brilliant coders (John Carmack for example). But once these engines are done, they can compete with almost anything else out there. And because they are done SO well, others want to use said engine too.
Now, if you are a developer trying to make a competitive and interesting new game, if you decide to write your own graphics and physics engines then you have to spend all the time and money just to get a good engine and then spend even more time and money working on all the actual gameplay. In short, you have to spend almost double or triple the time to make the game, after which time your game may not even be competitive or innovative anymore. But, if you license an engine from another company then you only spend the time+money to work on gameplay plus the amount of time needed to get acquainted with the engine, which is not anywhere near as long or expensive as writing an engine from scratch. So, by licensing an engine you save time which equals money which equals a (hopefully) earlier ship date and a (hopefully) more competitive product.
I'll note here that the large amount of time it takes to develop both an engine and a game is why you don't see the big engine developers publishing a ton of games. They spend the years to make one engine and then they publish several games using that engine while possibly working on a new one on the side. Take Valve for example. They spent a ton of time developing Source for HL2 and since then they have been doing the episodes. Adding a little to Source with each episode but also publishing (not developing, mind you) a lot of smaller games using Source while they (most likely) work on a new engine. Same can be seen with both Id and Epic: they will produce one new Game+Engine every 5-7 years, afterward developing a few titles using the current engine while writing a new one.
When you license an engine you are putting your faith in another company that they are providing you with a robust and well documented engine because that's what you are paying a quarter of a million dollars for. So, when something like this happens with Unreal 3.0 where the engine developer actually provided licensees with an incomplete/broken engine not only have you committed fraud by falsely advertising and licensing something you never had, the licensee now has to spend even more development time trying to fill in the gaps and write work-around components to get the engine to do what you bought it for. As such, when something like this comes up it not only heavily hurts the many developers using the engine, but it harshly damages the reputation of the engine developer, who makes a good portion of its income from licensing their engines.
Heh, yeah, all the way to the BANK!
So, yeah, I agree that the market could really use some good, innovative games, and I don't think it would be too hard to get these out of developers. I am sure that there are a BUNCH of developers who would like to work on an innovative game, the only problem being: PUBLISHERS DON'T FUCKING BUY INNOVATIVE GAMES!!! Publishers hate a fucking innovative game because there is no guarantee they will make back their investment. This is why we see "Lord of the Rings 5: Frodo Rides Again" consuming stores instead of more interesting, innovative games. If this EA asshole wants to impress me then he should go out, look for an indie dev working on interesting games, and say "Hey, EA wants publish your game!" instead of being a total fucktard and saying "I don't know why more developers don't make more innovative games?" As you can probably tell, this is a serious bone of contention for me =/
It seems strange to me that blizzard would not have been able to pull off ghost to their own standard of quality. From the sound of it, it would seem that the designers didn't have a good idea of what they wanted from the start. Also, they need to realize that in a market flooded with shooters, it is hard to put one out nowadays that is new and does something that hasn't been done before. I think if they had a good idea of what they wanted from the start and a solid plan for how to make it happen, SC: Ghost could have turned out great. Not revolutionary, mind you, but a good, fun, solid stealth-shooter. I honestly don't think it isn't for any amount of timing or flow that Ghost slipped through the cracks, it was just poor expectations and poor planning. That's just my opinion though.
I definitely agree with one of the previous posters that, I am not sure how much good a virtual world "game" would do for paralyzed individuals. I do think though that it could serve as a novel source of entertainment for them which could lift their spirits some. I can imagine that, myself, if I were ever in that kind of situation, the inability to play games would incredibly depress me since I get a great deal of enjoyment from them, so this virtual world would sound pretty fun, especially if it could be implemented as a game. I mean, I am certain there must be some developer out there who would jump at the chance to make a game for paralyzed individuals utilizing this interface.
I fail to see how game trailers on the internet are within the jurisdiction of the ESRB. I mean, they are the Entertainment SOFTWARE Rating Board, and, while these trailers are not software in and of themselves, I understand that they do pertain to software. Still, to me, it doesn't seem like it is the ESRB's decision which trailers can be shown on the internet and which cannot. If that decision is left to anyone, it should be left to those websites that choose to put up the trailer.
And can someone inform me as to what age-gating is, because I tried to look it up on Wiki and got nothing.
... who exactly is surprised by this? I mean, they could be not addressing the issues because the slow pickup of the OS or maybe due to some other patent issues, but the fact that M$ would push out a bugged OS and then not expediently address the bugs can't possibly surprise anyone. I would assume they just patch enough to keep the user base quiet and then figure "we'll get it right on the next one." Seems that many hardware and software developers have adopted this stance of instead of taking the time to refine and perfect one thing, they push out a bunch of crappier things in the hopes that they get it right on the next iteration. Infuriating!
I have to agree. I happen to like deeper characters more than dog fights. Don't get me wrong, dog fights and edge of the seat action are great, but, to me, it is nothing without character development, back stories, and interpersonal relationships. That is what I love about Battlestar; I get to really know the characters so that when those characters get into those dog fights and hairy situations it heightens the action because I have much more invested in that character. I start liking a character not because the writers tell me "she's a smartass pilot ace" but because I can see what she goes through, her history, and her personality as it evolves over the seasons. This is true about Starbuck and every other character in the show.
I love every single "filler" episode and see it as character and story building. I think the writers are doing a great job with the characters, not making them just these one dimensional stereotypes, but sculpting them and manipulating them in such a way that, I can't tell you how many times I have gone from loving to hating and back to loving The president or even Baltar for that matter. I think they are doing a great job and adding a lot of depth to the entire universe and I really can't understand how people can't see that. I mean, they have definitely changed focus from the first to the third season, but somehow everyone is relating this change of focus to total crap and they criticize the writing up and down... but you still tune in every week.
So either thay have a really good design that they hope will keep users entertained for a decade... or just like the brand namesakes they mentioned, are trying to cash in on one brand and bleed it out as long as possible. I hope the former rather than the latter.
MUAHAHHAHA
Either this is the first sign of the apocalypse or the times they are a changin'
Can't you just see Bill Gates crying, "But I'm the Juggernaught bbbbbbbbiiiiiitttttccccchhhhh!"
funny mental images =)
Personally, I like Oblivion, but for every one thing I love I can name three things I hate. It saddens me to see that Bethesda now owns the Fallout series. It saddens me because I am sure it will turn out to be "The Elder Scrolls V...er we mean FALLOUT 3" where Bethesda takes the same tired, uncreative template and forces a great design into an old, bad mold. I would say that Bioware (or wherever the original dev team is now) could do it better, but I doubt it. I almost think Fallout 3 would turn out better if it were made by some no name developer who had a lot of experience with the original Fallout and was willing to take it in a new direction while staying true to what Fallout is.
I just don't see this happening at Bethesda. They already have it in their heads the game they want to make, regardless of the IP. Fallout 3 is just going to be the same old tired Bethesda game with a new Fallout theme. And, most likely, they won't give it the amount of time it needs and will just churn out a buggy, lackluster product. And I will go out and buy it. And there is probably no way that Fallout 3 could live up to anyone's hopes, which is why no more games should probably be made based on fallout, let the Franchise die with some decency. But we all know that isn't going to happen. It is like hoping for a good X-Men game - never going to happen.
I am hoping that all my speculation is wrong and that I am totally surprised by Bethesda's Fallout 3, but my hope hangs on by a thread called "past experience" and while past experience holds up pretty well over time, in this case it is certainly nothing to pin one's hopes on.
I pray to God the mouse does die. If, in ten years, we are still sitting in front of a 2D monitor and using a mouse and keyboard to play our games then video games are officially dead. I doubt most people would complain if the status quo kept up for the next decade, but it is my belief that the true ideal of gaming, PC included, is the holo-deck from Star Trek. Unless we keep heading toward that ideal, games are going to stagnate and if you think you are seeing the same old thing now, in a decade you will see absolutely nothing new anymore. everything will be re-hash with better graphics.
Graphics cards are not the only things that need to change. The fundamental revolution in gaming NEEDS to happen in I/O. I think The Wii is the first iteration of this, but not necessarily the be-all end-all. I/O technology needs to take the hint from the Wii and continue to push the bounds of how we interact with the game on a fundamental level. It may sound like I am talking about VR, but the peak game experience should be much more than this. It should be as though you were stepping into a whole other real world
This is not to say that we NEED the HoloDeck in the next decade, but we need to start making progress towards this or interactive media as we know it will stagnate and die. And the masses won't know that what they once loved is dead until somebody comes along and points out how things could have been and what the original goal was.
Of course, this is all my opinion and I may just be a wacked out nut-job who loves video games too much but, mark my words, if things haven't changed within the next decade then you WILL see the death of video games, no matter what platform. Nobody's immune...