Over the horizon -
July 26, 2001 - Chris Jones
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed
within this column are those of the participants and the
moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the
GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive
material afoot.
Now some folks say cancer's taken to the streets of this town.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Saw a link to this on the message boards today, but I'm honestly not sure what to think of it, especially in light of some of the letters we got today. Sure, there's the overwhelming need for some people to put a freeware OS on anything they possibly can, but does the PS2 really need one? What do you really want to do with a PS2, besides play games on it? And if you want a general purpose Linux machine, isn't it easier to just install stripped-down Debian on somebody's cheap old P2 box for about the same price as a PS2, and work with a far more widely supported Linux distribution?
I dunno. Make up your own mind and vote for yourself.
Onward.
| Dare to ask, Mr. Jones |
|
Since you dared to ask the question of what may be in store for us in
the next console "revolution"...
Let me first say this: If you had asked me 10 years ago what a console
system might be like in 2000, I probably would have pointed at my SNES
and said "something like that, with 1000 times more colors, lots of fast
pixel effects, a few more buttons on the controllers... blah blah blah"
Back then, the whole concept of "going 3D" was little more than a faint
vision, something that just came into focus as time went on. But once
realized, it was a gateway to a plethora of fresh ideas, and gave the
gaming industry a healthy boost in consumer interest.
Now that I've established that fact for you, let's look at what we have
now. Given the trend of consoles in the gaming industry since the
introduction of 3D into the mass market, is there any huge innovation
looming on the horizon like 3D was so many years ago? Not much...
I see companies trying to put their resources into online play, which is
interesting, but in my opinion it can't change things the way 3D did.
Unlike with 3D, making a game with the idea of including online play
streamlines the game's design, or at least the online portion. That,
and I don't see any improvement in the high costs to consumers and
developers alike of maintaining such a thing... if anything it seems to
have gotten worse in recent times.
Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be anything else happening. So all
we can do right now is look at a movie like Final Fantasy: The Spirits
Within and imagine that's what game systems will be able to do in 2010,
with the next generation being somewhere in between. It's a nice
thought, but what really does that promise that was not always
possible? Nothing more than greater visual realism, which is probably
going to wear thin over the next decade. Given, good game design can
overcome any obstacles. But there's a difference between "good" and
"new", and I think this lack of new, expansive concepts will hurt
consoles in the long run.
Jonathan Winkler |
Actually, I think there's a lot of different ways consoles can go, and most of the rest of this column is dedicated to guessing how that can play out. The main issue with gaming, tho, isn't going to be the ability to innovate, but the difficulty and expense of doing so. It's an axiom that you can get people to buy consoles, but often not accessories, which puts the utility of stuff like modems and hard drives in doubt, along with a lot of ambitious projects that might depend on such stuff.
| End of the line |
|
Hey,
How can it get any better than what we're seeing? Sony's hitting their second gen games, and the Cube's and the Box's games look just as good and better. If we compare the first SNES games to the last SNES games, or the first PSX games to the last PSX games, or the first N64 games to the last N64 games, we can see that there's quite a large jump. I don't see why it would be any different for the three new systems.
When the next next wave of consoles come, it had better be later than sooner. There isn't anything more a console can offer now. It's got the DVD player, it's got the internet connection, it's got the hard drive. The graphics now look fantastic, and in three or four years they're going to look more fantastic. When the PS3 comes out, it's just going to be the PS2 with more memory, a faster processor and (hopefully) a much more developer-friendly design. However, the Xbox and GameCube already have all three of those... why make another system after it?
The only things that can be improved upon in future systems are disc capacity, and that's about it. Making these super-powerful systems are fine an dandy, but when all PS3 games come in two or more DVD-ROMs because of all the polygonal data it needs to hold, then you've got yourself some major problems. Since there's nothing on the near horizon that is the same size of and can hold more than a DVD-ROM, there's little point in powering up a system more if there's nothing to hold the games that go on it.
That said, I expect very little out of the next new systems to come. Matter of fact, I think it'll be about 7 years down before we see the next (non-Sony) systems hit the future market. It'll be like jumping off of a boat that's 3 feet away from the dock. You think you can make it... until you hit the water three feet away from the dock.
The only reason someone would think that there needs to be a successor to the current new consoles is because that console screwed up in some way. Sony screwed up with the PS2. MS is coming back in 5 years win, lose or draw. There hasn't been a peep of anything about Nintendo's GameCube successor. Take that as you will.
Steven "WindyMan" Rodriguez
Nformer.com |
The thing is, even given that you can put any image you want to on screen, there's still some room for improvement. Consider ZOE, for example: great graphics, but tiny, largely uninspired fighting areas. The great majority of 3D games limit you to a small, limited domain of exploration, and it's not hard to see the surroundings as what they are: a painted shell of a world, where you're not that far away from being stuck on rails. Memory's largely to blame for this, and while PC games have been slowly chipping away at the borders problem (like Half-Life) console games still have a way to go. In a sense, the 3D revolution won't really be over until the skyline Snake looks at in MGS2 represents actual buildings, instead of painted, recycling scenery.
| Really really real... kinda |
| The fact is gaming is still 2D. Sure the computers in our consoles can give
the illusion of a 3 dimensional space but it is still all flat. As far as
the next generation goes I think we will simply continue to have faster,
more powerful computers put in our game consoles that will make this 2
dimensional 3D simulation look more and more realistic. The current model
for video games has really been about making games into a fully interactive
realistic looking motion picture type product. Due to technological
limitations game environments were first presented in a certain perspective
("2D" gaming) that was far from real. Then due to technological advances
games can now be presented in a different perspective ("3D" gaming) which is
closer to looking real in a television but still distinctly not.
The next huge jump will have to be something that removes the game play
experience from the current flat, 2D projection "window" that we play
through now. It would need to be some kind of true 3 dimensional projection
that we can look at and interact with. The natural end to this would be a
projection so large and real that the player can be in and apart of it -
maybe even interact physically with it - and that gives us real perspective
and real peripheral vision. This model will be about making games into a
fully interactive realistic looking virtual reality. When technology has
advanced far enough then games environments will be able to be presented in
a totally new perspective.
So, as far as graphics go the change will be like comparing watching a
sporting even on tv to actually being at the sporting event.
For sound, I really think that processing power of the console computers
will allow more ambient and environmental sound effects. There is so much
aural input from the real world. Games will continue to become more and
more realistic in this aspect and of course game music can also become more
complex and hopefully better due to technological advances.
Of course we all know the real thing that makes a game is how it is played
and what it consists of, not just how it looks or sounds. Consider this,
what if making games totally realistic does not lend itself to a comfortable
or sastisfying game play experience? We are so used to controllers and the
specified level of interactivity it provides us with. How would we feel
about a game that we play by interacting with it just like we do with real
life? What will sports games become? What about our beloved RPG? Maybe
the next big jump shouldn't really happen.
AL
|
There are a couple of issues with this, but I'll go with the most obvious one: cost. Right now it still costs a fair chunk of change to hook up a PS2 to a half-way decent analog TV, and it'll cost many times that to hook the digital-out feed of a Gamecube up to an HDTV, when they're widely available, which won't even be for a couple of years. Whatever amazing things get done at the chip level, the playing field for consoles, in 10 years or 20, will still be a television in the family living room - the kind of resolution and spatial tracking you'd need for real VR is unfortunately still decades away from being in anyone's living room for the sub-$1000 price point that consoles live at. And until it is, "pseudo" 3D's the best anybody's gonna get.
| PS9 fallout I |
| The PS3 will be a chip that is installed into your brain stem. It will track your thoughts and cater to your every need. It will turn on your Sony lamp when it's dark. It will cook a Sony dinner in your Sony oven when you're hungry. It will start your Sony car when you're about to leave. It will flush your sony toilet when you take a sony dump. It will bend your Sony knees when you want to sit on your Sony couch and watch your Sony TV in your Sony manufactured home. It will Sony control your Sony fate. You'll also be able to play Final Fantasy XIV....Sony.
katarac
|
The "implanted chip" thing is a pipe dream, but "all Sony, all the time" thing is not. Certainly Microsoft's more than happy to put their hardware (and software) in a greater share of American homes, and Sony's not likely far behind. Only Nintendo's seemingly happy to just sell a games machine, and even they've teamed up to build a combination Gamecube/DVD player. Even if the next generation of consoles isn't that much more powerful, it'll likely be able to do more and interact with more stuff right out of the box... the question is, is any of that stuff what you want done?
| PS9 fallout 2 |
| From the way Sony and Microsoft are talking, I somewhat fear that the end of this upcoming console war will involve a huge fallout. You see, everybody's talking about all the things you can "add on" to their system. Modems, hard drives, satellite guidance systems...it's ridiculous. Sure XBox comes with the hard drive and stuff, but they're still mentioning how it will "eventually become the center of our entertainment centers."
The last time this happened, everyone was rushing to add on but Nintendo pulled back and didn't. Sega flung itself into the add on bandwagon and we all know what happened. I like Sega WAY more than I like Sony or Microsoft, but I still hope we can somehow avoid repeating this mistake. Game systems shouldn't be about doing EVERYTHING. They just need to play games. I think the "PS3" generation will be about returning to "games only" systems.
Not that humanity will be around that long. You know those PS9 commercials? Did you know people actually walk into EB and SERIOUSLY ask if there are any in stock? They're crestfallen when they realize it was just an ad.
-Tomm, who thinks it's weird that "Justin" quoted him in yesterday's column, and then spoke of a GBA game he was designing.
|
Yes, I knew that; those people are called "morons", and they're sadly prevalent in today's society. (Although, in all fairness, they were around in the past too.)
The thing is, most people aren't morons, and it's interesting how they've slowly become conditioned about what's new and cool in video game systems. When the SNES came out, I was one of the few people I knew obsessing about how many on-screen colors it could display, or how many simultaneous sprites it could keep track of; everybody else just wanted to play the new Mario. In comparison, today you'll hear plenty of kids at the mall debating how many polys the XBox can push relative to the PS2, because as a whole we've gotten more sophisticated about technology. Heck, by the time the next consoles come around, you may hear soccer moms waiting in line to buy the PS3 because of the way it handles NURBS.
NURBS. I love that word.
| Games, games, games |
| This is my first letter to GIA, so here it goes. Instead of saying what I
would want in the
consoles of the future, I would just like to state that I think the game
companies need to
catch up first. Great games are put out all the time by huge companies, but
the smaller
ones just can't make it anymore. For example games like Onimusha Warlords or
FF X may be
incredible and really push the system to the limits (besides the fact they are
truly next
generation games), however how many companies can't put out games of this
caliber? These
games had production budgets more than some movies and hordes of people
acutally
developing the game. Systems may be getting better, but the companies making
great
games are dwindling.
I think the best thing a new system could have is easy developement and
usuable code
already created so companies don't have to spend as much time programming and
can spend
more time developing the actual game. Another idea is more engines available
similar to the
licensing of the Quake and Unreal engines. Basically what I am saying is
companies are
capable of putting out incredible games with current technology, but don't
have the time,
money, or just can't take the risk to do it. They can't be good at everything
which is why
games usually fail in one or two particular place i.e. graphics, loading,
control, etc.
-TheTroc
|
On the contrary, I think the number of people making great games is going to take off towards the end of this generation and the beginning of the next one, precisely because the kind of middleware you describe will begin to propagate all over the place. Perhaps not on the level of the Quake or Unreal engines (I can't quite see the console development world ever becoming that productized) but it shouldn't be that difficult for developers to get their hands on some basic build-a-world software, and let their game engines and storylines take it from there.
Besides, as the Dogma 2000 thing pointed out a while back, just because you can't compete technically with the big boys doesn't mean you can't put out a decent game all the same. I can't imagine I'd ever pass up a simple, tile-based Final Fantasy Tactics 2, no matter what kind of 3D wizardry was being used on other games.
| MMORPG has Mr. Pog inside. Enough said. |
| Chris--
The next influential step in video games probably won't be graphics, I think they'll just keep getting better and better, but there are a few things that could change things in video game land significantly. Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games(I love saying that) for one. Really, with a giant RAM and a fast processor, you could do some great things with MMORPGs. You could have such huge environments, such big worlds, you could even make open-source. Almost like an Active Worlds type thing, only not nearly as dull. Hobbyists could buy development kits and build on to the world, they could make scenarios, adventures, they could make it linear, they could make it huge and free. There could be Game Masters, like a dice-rolling RPG, they could even control things as the player moves along in the story. I think this would be a major step in the console world, or the computer world for that matter. Thats what I think, though people probably think I'm wrong.
--Oahnay Ackblay, oolercay anthay ouyay!!!!!
|
Well, anybody that uses pig latin is just intrinsically cool, you know? Anyway, I'm frankly not sure I want to do great things with MMORPGs; the way you've described it, you'd get something closely resembling a graphical MUD (or MOO, or whatever) and while that kind of community is certainly admirable, it's not what I play console RPGs for.
What I would like to see in an MMORPG vein, though, is a scripted story that took advantage of emergent situations from an interactive online world. I don't trust MMORPGs to develop any serious drama, because the place is likely to be overrun with bored middle school player-killers, but imagine a FFT-style battle, where hundreds of people control a soldier apiece, aligned into different armies fighting against each other. The battle's completely under the control of the players, but once it's over, depending on which side comes out ahead, a cinematic cutscene plays where the central NPCs react to what's happened, and set the stage for the next battle. (IE, if the White team wins, Ramza's forces take control of the castle, if not, Ramza flees and is forced to leave Agrias behind as a POW.) It wouldn't be a true MMORPG, but it would give multiple people a chance to become involved in something with a suitably epic plot.
Hey, if you guys can bs about what you'd like to see, so can I.
| Too realistic for its own good |
|
The most significant thing that will come from the post-next generation consoles will be completely photo-realistic graphics, and a subsequent call from the Senate for a ban on first-person shoot-em-ups, and maybe beat-em-ups and a few other games. It shouldn't be too big of a problem considering how in many videogames you'll only be shooting monsters or evil terrorists (albeit photo-realistic ones - although I've never seen an actual photo of a monster hee hee).
I'm not sure where it'll leave Grand Theft Auto and suchlike, but then GTA's never really appealed to me and would do so even less if it had photo-realistic graphics. I suppose videogames may just resort to cartoony violence in cases like that, which I think wouldn't be a bad thing. That's not to say realistic violence and suchlike couldn't ocassionally still be used - but hopefully it'll be used more responsibly in games in which it actually makes sense to use it or is needed (Saving Private Ryan wouldn't have been the same without the gore, and there are other films where it was probably 'artistically necessary', although I can't think of any right now. Fight Club maybe. Although the media fuss over a Fight Club type game would be enormous).
Development costs will rise so high that bankruptcies and mergers will become commonpace, leaving only 7 or 8 main developing companies - which won't have any detrimental effect on quality of the games being made (the opposite in fact).
In terms of actual games, I have no idea. We'll probably see more blending of genres and more online games, and maybe something 'artier' as people begin to realise the potential of videogames as an art-form. Also non-stop re-releases of all the FF and DQ games...maybe more Shenmue type things on a bigger scale with changing seasons and night and day and all the people leading their own lives and stuff (although Shenmue was so 'realistic' it got kinda boring)...but otherwise it's anyone's guess.
Paulo
|
Honestly, this is what I'd really love to see out of the next generation of gaming; not quantum leaps in technology, but the development of games that really make people sit up and take notice. Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan, Dogma - you may not think these are the best movies ever made, but they were each pretty memorable in their own way. I'd like to see a game good enough and intense enough so that the Senator Leibermans of the world feel compelled to try and restrict it, but the civil liberty people also rise up to defend it, because it's that much a work of art.
Closing Comments:
Wow, free topic Friday already. See you then.
-Chris Jones, wants to be a Dragoon/Monk in the big melee
|
