The Future of Console Gaming 196
I've come across a well-written piece regarding the future of console gaming. The op-ed piece deals with machinery, games as well as working within the video game industry.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Future of Console Gaming
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
Today, the games are developed by teams of people, sometimes past 100 members. There are programmers, artists, marketeers, and even people whose job it is to do nothing but manage the aforementioned people.
This has happened in other areas as well. For example, the movie Terminator was never expected to be a success, and was filmed on a very small budget. After it became popular, a sequel was made, which (IMHO) was nowher near as good, although it cost a lot more, and IIRC was at one time the most expensive movie ever.
--
Grrr. (Score:1)
huh? (Score:2)
Yes, games used to be made by one person, now there made by lots (although, actualy the number of people who work full time on the game is usualy less then 10). Movies used to be cheap, now there not. But what does it mean?
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
The Gaming Industry Is Broken (Score:2)
"First off, it's plain unfair to merely release a game with the exact same engine. New graphics, new level maps, and new sounds do not constitute a sequel. Such a change should be labeled an expansion pack. If you think I'm lying about trying to do this, I'd like to relate a quote I heard at E3 a few years ago, "We used to call it, 'slapping new make-up on the whore and sending her back out.'"
Beautiful.
R.I.P brings up some very interesting points. The point that there's no real indie scene in the gaming industry however belies the fact that while there are in fact small development groups who come up with games, they're very, very often pretty awful...and when they're not awful, suddenly they're plucked from the indie scene and morphed into a GT or Microsoft product.
One of the nicer things about the Shareware scene--noticably absent from R.I.P.'s paper, but it's still in progress--was that small guys actually could make a living. iD and Apogee/Epic are probably the single best examples.
But, overall, you may wonder why I think the gaming industry is broken. See Messiah and Daikatana for that one. The only bright side is that Half Life was *also* horrifically delayed, but managed to far exceed expectations. That gives some hope. But overall...the complete inability to hype with any sense of reality is just disturbing and wrong, to the point where, even with my copious amounts of net addiction, I simply refuse to read gaming news anymore.
It's Just Not Worth It.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
My thoughts (Score:2)
However, I do have thoughts on gaming. I've been around games all my life. From back in the day of Atari, up until the playstation. I haven't shelled out the money for the dreamcast yet, because I did purchase the Saturn for $300 with 2 games when it was new, and promptly sold it to some other sucker for the same price. Beofre that I bought the 32X to go with my sega, and both systems were poor ideas and died shortly after their release. The only worse game system (which i was smart enough to never buy) was the Virtual Boy.
I remember back in the day, playing games over and over again. Games like Space Invaders, Pac Man, and such classics on the Atari. I also remember Pitfall (the original), Donkey Kong (ditto), and Porkys (I think the first shower scene ever in a video game, even back in the Atari games people wanted chicks in showers). *L*
Over time I've seen games improve in all areas. I've seen graphics get better, speed improve, AI improve (anyone play the old baseball game on Atari? I think it was called baseball.
Final Fantasy 8 (FF8), Resident Evil 1,2,and 3, Dino Crisis, Silent Hill, all of these are games that played like movies, but still all of which were cartoony. I'm not talking bugs bunny and loony toons type cartoony, I'm just talking artsy drawing type cartoony.
I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games. It'll start out slowly with just replacing still scenes with video clips, but eventually playing a video game is really going to be like being a part of a movie. People will look like real people, not like drawn characters. People will ACT not just stand in place. People will speak rather than make you read words on the screen.
I think the start would be games similar to the Tex Murphy games on the PC (Under a Killing Moon, The Pandora Detective, and I forgot the 3rd once since I dont have a DVD to play it on.) They are all detective games, but when you talk with people you see video clips of real people answering you. Yeah it took up 4 cds, but I'd rather disk swap and have a great game than have a crappy game with some great options tossed out of it to make it fit on one. And with the incorporation of DVD and larger media such as that into console systems, well it's now possible to fit it all into one disk and have room to spare.
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
---------
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
MSOFT (Score:1)
Golgo 13 (Score:4)
My first exposure to modern console gaming was in 1989 when I first played Revenge of Shinobi on the Genesis, followed by hours of time lost to Tetris, and Golgo 13 for the NES.
One of the interesting, and really, sad things about old video games is how much they suck. A friend of mine had a Golgo13 NES game, and I played it for the first time a few months ago when he finally got his NES hooked up again. That game sucks, and sucks bad. (btw, has anyone here seen the Anime it's from? I thought it was pretty bad to, actually)
I think the most fun old games are the ones that didn't try and 'push' the system to far. By that I mean, games that didn't try to produce 'amazing' graphics, because by default those graphic will appear to suck to future generations. When you compare a game like "super Mario bros. 3" for the NES, to a game like "Batman 3" or something, witch was supposed to have lush graphics at the time, looks like crap.
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but...
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
With the complexity of todays target systems (voodoo, gl, nw-games
Might be the economy (Score:1)
are popular because of the bad economy. He said people
want cheap intertainment.
Now that the economy is "booming", I've noticed a drop off
in the number of people in the local arcade.
So, vote republican if you want to have better video games.
Other great gaming journalism (Score:1)
mahlen
When a team of marketing minions from Sears paid a visit to the company's production facilities, Bushnell made a lasting impression by riding around the factory floor on a conveyor belt, in a box. Elsewhere in the organization, happy employees tried to drive an executive mad by gradually adding lead weights to his telephone receiver.
--ATARI, 1974
Re:Golgo 13 (Score:1)
The cool thing about golgo 13 was the mode change. It was a side scroller and a FPS depending on the situation. I still remember when I got to the first sniper scenes. That's one reason I like syphon filter so much. Sniper scenes like that kick so much ass.
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:2)
This was IMO not necessarily a good thing - not everyone is good at everything.
For example, I'd think I could write a game engine and decide about gameplay - but I'm horrible with graphics (the fact that I'm spending 99.9% of my time on the console and writing this with lynx should give you an impression
Today, the games are developed by teams of people, sometimes past 100 members. There are programmers, artists, marketeers, and even people whose job it is to do nothing but manage the aforementioned people
Leave out the marketeers and managers, and you have a system that works.
We're trying to do just that over at the Free Film Project [za.org] - and from my experience there, I can say that we have some people who are excellent programmers, but who couldn't write a script, then we have script writers who couldn't even think of designing starship models,
Does that prevent it from being a work of art?
I don't think so.
Old dogs, new tricks. (Score:1)
Having recently played NFL2K on a dreamcast, I was appauled at the user interface. The game was just difficult to play. A major disappointment.
Though some games rise above the general level of white noise, most games a relegated to some grey area. Most likely because they don't provide the user with the most integral part of the experience:
Most modern games are not engaging!
Add to this the clones (1st person shooters, 2-player fighters, etc) we end up with a muddy environment of gaming that people quickly tire of.
Though I adore Quake, and my current choice of game is Soul Calibre, very few other games appeal. The quote about slapping new paint on the old whore is so poignant its not funny.
Soul Calibre offers engagement, namely, letting you and your friends have a fantastic laugh at the crazy (and sometimes suggestive) special moves you can make.
Quake allows you to pit your skills against other actual people, not just some badly designed AI. Engaging.
The future of gaming consoles? Bring Soul Calibre to a PC, and my Dreamcast is history.
Sakhmet.
"When I want to do something mindless to relax, I reinstall Windows 95."
Re:huh? (Score:2)
When I started gaming, back in 1983 or so, nearly all games were as original the Warcrafts or the Dooms. Or so it seemed.
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
Re:My thoughts (Score:3)
"I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games."
I think this would be a major step backwards. What I expect to see is better AI/Storyline management, combined with better graphic rendering which will produce dynamic stories in which the characters act and react realistically (but still programmatically) to situations and conversations. As graphic quality improves the ability of a character to appear realistic, combined with more available computing power and better character AI should be capable of producing a game in which characters look, act, and respond to the events in the story in a believable manner. I think that switching from dynamic game mode to static video playback mode based on events in a story is simply far too limiting and ultimately not cost effective - since someone has to film and act out all of those video clips. It also limits the gameplay, since only a limited number of options are possible in the story, or the number of video clips which need to be filmed quickly go astronomical.
Creating game characters that interact more believably, while programmatically very difficult, will in the end produce games which are more dynamic, less predictable, and by consistently staying in game graphics mode, more believable. If this can be combined with any sort of learning algorithm down the road, we may even have characters whose AI permits them to react in ways that make sense and really challenge the player.
Of course, writing the scripts for games like this will prove to be truly challenging. As a onetime script consultant/writer for a computer game (okay, so it was a kids title - "Anastasia - Adventures with Pooka and Bartok" if you are interested) I can attest that even a simple title requires an incredible amount of written dialog to cover all of the options. Since this dialog has to cover all possibilities, yet still have some useful content, it can be extremely difficult to create. Furthermore, just like any other element in a game, it is liable to be edited by higher ups (and even by the programmers who enter it) which can ruin the eventual result (Gee, just like the film industry). Writing for truly dynamic storylines will be a daunting task.
The one thing that the games industry needs to get straight IMHO, is that game development should be run more like the production of a major film, and less like disorganized-but-clever gaggle-fsck that seems to be the approach of many game companies (not the best ones I hope).
Anyways, just my $0.2 worth
Sweatin' out the code (Score:2)
Re:The Gaming Industry Is Broken (Score:1)
As far as the indie gaming scene, I think the closest equivelent we have nowadays is the ability for players to design scenarios (Civ, AoE, etc...) or build levels (Quake, etc...) Very few unique products come out for a variety of reasons, and as you mentioned, the good ones get snatched up quickly.
Some games of late have been horrific, despite repeated delays. As the author of the original piece notes, programmers are rushed to make it by Christmas, or the next Electronics Expo. That in mind, I -really- hope Blizzard continues to impress us, since Diablo 2 was just pushed back again. At least according to our psychic friends at pvponline [pvponline.com].
Re:Might be the economy (Score:1)
What happened to the truly original sorts of games, like "Tempest", or "Joust", or "Robotron"? Those are the sorts of things that will keep your interest.
Re:Might be the economy (Score:1)
But, anyway, I think the decline of the arcade is in that it just can't keep up anymore with the home systems, as well as the fact that near-sighted arcade game makers made it imposible to get more then a few minutes at the system without plunking down more quarters (at the behest of the arcade operators) Thereby taking away the 'inexspensiveness' of the game.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Cars Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
You know, a long time ago, cars were usually built by just one person. He'd design and build the engine, assemble the chassis, hammer the body panels, etc. One person decided how the car would look, how the driving controls would work, and which side of the car the driver would sit on. This gave the car a certain feel, similar to the one you experience when you read a poem or look at a painting. The car was an artform.
Today, the cars are developed by teams of people, sometimes thousands. There are engineers, designers, marketeers, and even people whose job it is to do nothing but manage the aforementioned people.
Who cares about "objective" measures of quality, like acceleration, top speed, fuel economy, and polution. Who cares about trivial issues like a standardized control system. I'd give up knowing that the gas and the brake were always in the same place for the soul of one of those old fashioned cars.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
"Warcraft". Very, very few are really, truly original.
I actually have played some of these games. I can tell you that not all of them were so interesting. I can show you games that are absolutely garbage and probably not worth the media that they were stored on. While I am sure some of these games were original they most ceternally not good.
When I started gaming, back in 1983 or so, nearly all games were as original the Warcrafts or the Dooms. Or so it seemed.
In the beginning of all things everything is original then it becomes boring and tired. I am glad that people now are doing all this "boring" stuff now because if this were 1983 I sure as hell wouldn't be able to get any games.
Re:My thoughts (Score:3)
If you're talking FMV with live actors, I think we've already seen that this just didn't work out so well. I'm not talking about the horrible "games" which were little more than movies with a minor bit of interaction. I'm talking the ones that tried to integrate live actors into the game...
It's just not the right medium for this. Games aren't SUPPOSED to be like movies. Movies are serial, uninteractive. Games are much more interactive, and often more parallel. The best adventure games, while having a story to rival a great movie, don't require you to do things in a specific order, working on one puzzle at a time.
And any game that tries to place you into the game as one of the characters is destroyed by using FMV. The Wing Commander series is a great example for me personally. I could feel at least partially that the character was me (though the gender was an obstacle). But when I started playing WC3, I felt like I was pulled completely out of the game. It was no longer a generic character to represent you. It was Mark Hamill playing Blair. I just can't feel like the character when it's another person playing it.
I think CGI animation is going to grow, because they're going to be able to do so much more with that environment than they could with real actors. And because they're not real people, those of us who like to really get into the character will still be able to do so.
---
Goldeneye (Score:1)
Never knock on Death's door:
phisical demand (Score:1)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Game Development is too Expensive (Score:3)
The games "industry" is broken because it is too expensive to develop and market games.
It is absolutely impossible to make a business case for a "new idea" that costs $3 million to develop, unless you are an established team with at least one, preferably a half dozen hits.
Of course, if you are an established team, its a lot easier to make a sequel to one of your hits than it is to convince the checkbook to invest in a "new idea."
That's why you get so many similar games at retail.
Such an investment requires the game to be a hit just to break even. You can't make money in a limited market starting out $3 million in debt.
"How do you know this game will sell?" Greatest question in the whole industry. You know what? There IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. You don't know it will sell, and neither does anyone else. Anyone who tells you they "know" something will sell and is still working for a living is being "creative."
Not to mention the unbelievable cheese grater that stands between a developer and the retail shelves. Why do games cost $50?; because there are about eleventeen levels of companies who want their part before it gets to the shelf.
When a small team (2-5 people) can develop AND MARKET a game for the cost of their labor, the game industry will improve. Prices will drop, quality will rise, development schedules will be measured in months instead of years, and there will be a much better selection of games.
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:1)
Pay-to-play (Score:1)
Its already seen in everquest and ultima online with a ton of new ones coming soon. If upper management sees the revenue models for these sort of games you can bet they will get all "hot-and-bothered".
Its not so bad now since they do provide you with servers to play on, but it could lead to a charge-per-use of single player games. For example, if Q3A required not only to authenticate your CD key to play over the internet but also charges you a monthly bill.
Good article (Score:1)
I've noticed a lot of things mentioned in the article, like how "sequels" are just the same old game with a new coat of paint. In fact, I just bought Half-Life: Opposing Force, which is just another set of levels (only half as many as the original). Good thing I bought it in a 3-pack that included the original Half-Life (and an upgrade CD that installs Team Fortress Classic), since I mostly enjoy Half-Life's TFC and Counter-Strike multiplayer mods.
Anyways, the article does a great job of making sense out of where the gaming industry is today, including why PC games are so buggy and why there are so many of the same types of games for consoles.
There are some developer "rock stars" out there. (Score:1)
Although not many. Looking Glass Studios, for one, has attracted a pretty rabid following [ttlg.com]. I know that I, for one, put myself through all kinds of hell getting my system to run the original System Shock, and it was worth every second.
So- why do you think that this one group of developers has been so successful in creating a public image, while others remain obscure?
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
the problem ? variables. you just plain CANNOT have a seperate clip for each and every little thing the player could do (well you could but it would be a very short game).
another argument is the real person + real background = pseudo video. this wouldnt work either. people are stupid, but a person is smart. and a person knows when hes seeing a live character moving falsely against a live background (in a game anyway. movies are a bit better at this due to the static nature of what you see).
the point is, this idea only really applies to games where there are a certain number of variables. Myst was an EXCELLENT example of this. myst is a damn good game still, and definately a pioneer into that field. but there are only so m any places you can go.
the only way to make a dynamic game look and feel like a static film is to improve the CGI and the artwork to the point of realistic.
i think it will happen. look at how far we have come in the passed 10 years alone.
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:2)
than "this is cool to play" I still like mario brothers, that game rocks! It definately pushed the limits of gaming when it was released, but they did it in a really well-organized fashion. Using technology to supplement an idea is good,
but using an idea to show technology usually turns out badly.
An example of this idea I think would be the release of Tomb Raider III. Maybe I have half a brain but didn't the movement just suck a little even with the analog control stick for the playstation? And it seemed that there was always some little pit of nasty spikes or some insanely hard puzzle to solve just to get anywhere.
My question why make it so that I have to take out paper and pencil and do come complex mathmetical analysis on the situation or delve deeply into human motivation to win a game now? Why do people feel that taking out real cheat codes is in the best interests of the gammer?
I agree that mario was interesting in many ways. I think that Mario64 was just a cheap knock off and a first demo/test of what the N64 could really do and not a really good game in terms of actual content or ideas or even graphics (can you say obvious 3d graphics primitives).
The reality of games production today. (Score:2)
Lack of superstars
Any mark except a publisher leads to an expectation of Genre. Molyneux leads to god game, Meier leads to resource management. Most film directors manage not to get hemmed in like this.
Ordinary programmers who work in the industry, personally I want my name on the box, but I'm not too interested in being a superstar.
18 month production cycles lead to a fluid base of people working on the game making picking a single person difficult.
System's like Valve's Cabal are basically design by committe, a sin in most areas, but here it resulted in a hell of a game (Half-life).
Todays games rely on a lot of organisational work. They are more like other large media projects
Sequels
Juxtaposed with the above, we had a rant about sequels.
Sequels are just making the game characters stars.
This isn't always bad. Crash Team Racing is an example.
This kind of shit regularly pops up. Always negative and just ranting about how bad it all is. Sure its not always fun, but its just a matter of remembering what your building and how cool its going to be.
I know when someone I work with works like a bastard to get their work done, I respect them more than any star.
Anyway, back to it...
Re:Sweatin' out the code (Score:1)
About the only programming more complex than Game Programming would be Compiler Programming and OS programming. Since I fall into the former category I am probably slightly biased. ;) Straight application programming normally can't hold a candle to that kinda stuff. I mean really, how complex can you get with Cobol?
Mordred
There is an indie scene. (Score:1)
It's the people doing mods for the Quake engine, producing new games based on Unreal, producing scenery for MS Flight Simulator.
There's an indie scene producing engines (see Crystal Space, for one of many examples).
There's many, many people out there working on products. No, they can't compete with the big boys, but they can produce real games, played by real gamers.
And just because sometimes these small groups are sometimes funded by the big boys, doesn't stop them from being just as real.
In some ways, game producers are always going to be small groups. It's very hard to write code with more than a few people. ID Software started to have problems when it got too big. Lionhead have decided to stick to less than 20 people.
More than pictures.... or why I love MAME (Score:2)
A company that does it right (Score:2)
And that company is... Squaresoft. From Final Fantasy to Chrono Trigger, this company has always astounded me when I consider the depth of the story line, and the use of technology.
For instance, Final Fantasy VII was the first RPG game to really penetrate the average adult video game market. Also, its 3D rendering overlay on video was pretty cool stuff.
Now, take a look at Chrono Cross and Final Fantasy VIII (If you want to see the Chrono Cross opening - I have it here [cmu.edu]). These games are truly amazing. Chrono Cross' 3D overlay is even more impressive than Final Fantasy VII's - including shadows and other effects. Final Fantasy VIII's gameplay is unlike any other game.
Squaresoft has always amazed me with what comes out of their Hawaiian offices (who wouldn't want to live there?
Good Point... The same is true in the arcades... (Score:3)
A half dozen Mortal Kombat wannabes, a mess of Lethal Enforcers clones with mabye a few Operation Wolf copies mixed in, and a mess of sit-down racing games which are, mostly, less fun than
Pole position.
Would Pac Man even be made in todays market, if it weren't a classic?
I'm sure burgertime would never have been introduced.
Tron?
Joust?
Lunar Patrol?
Q-Bert?
Centipede?
Asteroids?
Defender?
Zaxxon?
Zookeeper?
Donkey Kong?
Spy Hunter?
Afterburner?
Asteroids?
Would any of the above even be introduced to arcades nowdays if ther were not considered "classics"? These were all treeibly fun games, most more fun than ant recent game, most of which defined their own genres.
But, bomehow, I doubt that any of them would see the light of day today if they were not already "Classics", because none of them is:
A) A fighting game
B) A first peoson shooter
or
C) A racing game (with the arguable axception of Spy Hunter)
I think there is DEFINATELY a lack of originallity in today's cookie-cutter arcade game industry.
The art *IS* dead... the only art left in the arcades is that of creating a more bloody fatality when you defeat your opponent.
john
Video console games are dead. (Score:1)
In terms of game play, what's -really- changed between the days of Wizardry I, Chuckie Egg, Revs, or Elite? AFAICT, there's really nothing new there. It's at best re-hashes, and (at worst) trivialised.
Where's the idea that games players are -smart- gone? A decade ago, people fussed that games were causing people to become stupid, but psychology studies showed that the reverse might be true. These days, I doubt they'd get the same results.
Large sprites, simple blocky movement, and they call that a game. And me, with this pain down my left diodes...
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
>I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games.
Actually I don't think you will get any video in games in the future.
1. Video/live actors/real props costs lots of money. CGI is much cheaper, the director has more control over the environment/actors and can be reshot easily.
2. Resolution. If you record video for TV resolutions and only play back at video then its ok. But with different HDTV, SVGA output on the Dreamcast, it would just look blocky.
3. Video limits you to X scenes. With CGI I am still limited but I can do a whole lot more.
FFVII on the PC (Score:1)
>Built a game that *works* 100% on the target platform
Actually they failed on this one. When FFVII first came out for the PC, the game didn't work correctly for those who had non-3dfx 3d-accelerators.
Squaresoft does make good games but they are still not perfect.
Re:Might be the economy (Score:1)
I agree. I spent hours playing games like Elevator Action, Silkworm.. anyone remember Star Castles?
I could kill for a Star Castles MAME ROM.
Ahh.. memories.
NJV
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:2)
From a psychological perspective you could say that our inate human need to look at different things is what motivates the above. Mario is not around really then it comes into the picture via your emulator and then people are interested because it's something new and different from their immediate experience.
Re:The Gaming Industry Is Broken (Score:2)
Most of their games are truely beuatiful (sp), engaging, and fun to play. They can all be downloaded from AmbrosiaSW.com, and most of them are not even crippled, allowing you to play through most games with out registering.
Another great advantage to Ambrosia's ideology is that the game engine and the other bits and peices (sprites, sound, etc) are kept in seperate files and there are generally instructions for creating new sprites etc. In some cases, this allows for players to create completely different games (check out Escape Velocity: Overide, then the Frozen Heart plug). Without knowing any programming languages at all, one can make a game that, while not completely original, can still be labled unique or "inovative."
I am sorry to plug so heavily for something that is Mac only, but Ambrosia is one of the only reasons I even try to get Mac-on-Linux working.
Re:Might be the economy (Score:1)
the reason nobody goes to the arcade anymore is simple. the games are about a dollar apiece(when did THIS happen, anyway ?) and you get maybe 4 minutes into the game IF your lucky (dont expect anything over 2 min).
what ever happened to the good old days when you could plunk in a quarter and play double dragon for hours ? *sigh*
oh and by the way, arcade games are not limited by the inability to keep up with consoles. arcade games are actually lucky in the respect that they are limited only by funding and the current state of technology. not by the current state of the console.
A game engine is a whore now? (Score:2)
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or even just ironic, but in case you weren't being either, I must very strongly disagree.
The quote is a sad reflection of the state of the game industry today. Most of the time, games seem to be almost purely technology-driven, with little regard for gameplay or even originality.
Why is it necessary for a new game to have a completely new game engine in order for it to be worth of being called a new game and not a "mere" expansion pack or add-on?
In the "good old days", game developers would release many games based on basically the same engine. Infocom's classic text adventures were all based on variations of their Z-Machine interpreter. Sierra On-Line created literally dozens of terrific adventure games using their AGI engine -- and when they switched to SCI0 in the late eighties, they stuck with that for at least a dozen more games.
Infocom and Sierra are just two examples of the many companies that used to be able to create many games using the same engine. I don't recall Sierra or Infocom ever being accused of releasing mere "expansion packs" or games that were not worthy of being called sequels, simply because they happened to use the same engine.
To use a more contemporary example, take Looking Glass Technologies' Thief: The Dark Project. Their Dark Engine did not exactly have state-of-the-art graphics even at Thief's time of release. Yet, very few people who played the game complained that the game was "bad" simply because it wasn't as gorgeous to look at as, say, Unreal. For what it's worth, I personally consider Thief to be one of the finest gaming experiences I have ever had in my two decades of gaming.
More importantly, the upcoming Thief 2: The Metal Age is being created with what is at best described as an incremental upgrade to the original Dark Engine. Even Thief 2 will not look as good as the best games did at the time of the original Thief's release. But I'm hardly complaining, and neither are most of Thief's fans. Why? Because I know that Looking Glass's use of an existing game engine is allowing them to devote much more time and energy to the game itself, making for a much deeper, better-crafted, and more robust product than would have been possible if they had been forced to create a brand-new engine again from scratch.
It is an unfortunate reality that most of today's gamers do demand over everything else that their games look cutting edge. Developers are not to blame for the demands of their customers -- although I should point out that it is probably id Software that is to blame for starting this trend in the first place. Perhaps in the mindless shooter genre, graphics do make the game, to some extent; however, in other genres, it may be desirable, and possibly even crucial, to relegate the "engine arms race" to a back burner in favor of the all-important Gameplay.
Re:Videogames Are No Longer a Work of Art (Score:2)
unbelievable what Namco pulled off. The major difference between having one person or 100 people working on a gmae is scope. You can have a 7 disc Role Playing game full of story and intrugue, instead of a repeating shooter,
which is what most games worked on by one person seem to be. I'm sorry, but games are very much still works of art from time to time, you just have to dig through all of the "me too" crap to find that one game.
Wow interesting! Can you name the game for me? I thought that FFVIII was the longest game with 4 discs as an RPG however maybe I was wrong.
I am really not going with the dreamcast until it proves itself to me and my wallet. I made a little bit of a mistake in getting an n64 and I really regret it. They have a number of games but either they fall into one of 2 categories.
1. Stupid little games that I call "cartoonie" games. Meaning that they have little cartoon characters that run around and the entire world it done with the rules of cartoons and no real intricate human plot development.
2. Good games that are interesting but are either extremely hard or are just limited because they only have that one cartrage on it. Actual voice clips are rare and are usually extremely primitive if they are there. One exception to this would be Shadow Man. That game is actually quite close to what I like. Still a little difficult but getting all of the really nice elements of things.
Demographics (Score:2)
In a nutshell, for those who won't read the article, the people who really dictate what will sell are the magazine reviewers and the shop salesmen, who are mostly males between 14 and 25.
A mother goes to a games shop, and says she's looking for a game to give to her 12 yr old daughter. The shop assistant is a 16 year old boy. He likes Quake. Either he tries to sell her Quake, or he'll sell her a random "kiddies" game, of unknown quality, knowing nothing as he does about quality children's software. As a result there is nothing driving children's software to improve.
(the same thing applies to "women's software", "senior citizen's software"). Why is there nothing on the Playstation that will appeal to my Mum? I'm sure if anyone actually put some thought into it, they'd think of something. Sim Country Garden. There, that didn't take long.
--
Tomb Raider : Creeping Sequelitis (Score:2)
I wonder if he's talking about Tomb Raider
What are we at now? III? IV? I still haven't noticed any improvement in the rendering or gameplay... what's that you say? A movie? Oh that'll help a lot. Look at what it did to Wing Commander.
---
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
I think that one of the improvements we're going to see in games is more video, not CGI but actual video shots in video games. It'll start out slowly with just replacing still scenes with video clips, but eventually playing a video game is really going to be like being a part of a movie. People will look like real people, not like drawn characters. People will ACT not just stand in place. People will speak rather than make you read words on the screen.
Personally, I dread this. Years ago, simple games entertained gamers for months at a time. Who (who was around then) wasted less than $25.00 on the original Star Wars? Who played gauntlet well past level 100 (just to see if there were ever an ending...) Who spent hours and hours mastering jumping onto vines and over crocodiles to survive to the end of Pitfall - just to win the ability to play it again *harder*. We did all these things without saving games, without taking pee breaks, just subsiding on what was within arms reach and the glow of the TV or monitor.
With the advent of modern computer games, it is rare that my interest is actually captured. The shelves of stores are usually cluttered with crap. And games with the most glitzy graphics of these time usually lack largely on story, or force distinctively linear plots (who wants to remember Cyberia). For some reason or another, I could spend hours learning to play Joust, but my patience to find a specific key to open a door has begun to wane.
Tex Murphy was great (I did play the first one), but I never managed to purchase the second - yet I played almost every Sierra game up to Kings Quest V. It wasn't the graphics, it was the puzzle. Now, if a character you meet doesn't talk, you know that they are not critical to the plot.
Bionic comando for NES mesmerized me for months before I learned how to make it through level 9 (the rest was just one night). Nothing could match that feeling of success. Now, badguys come in waves, they come in force. I can open up a door and know that they will be there. I can almost guess what will be in that room, what its contents are and so on. Oh, I haven't seen an abandonded power plant yet - that must be the next level. Or, I haven't found the blue key over on this end of the map, I guess it must be through that other door. I'm getting jaded. Gone is the puzzle of tetris, the coordination of joust and the fun of Contra.
My point is, that you can spit and polish an industry all you like, but if the quality never gets any better, all that you've done is drool on the product. We need someone not to reinvent the wheel, but to find something better.
Re:Golgo 13 (offtopic?) (Score:1)
Yup, seen it, and I have to agree that it sucks. Just like the game. =)
Mikael Jacobson
wrong premise (Score:3)
Re:FFVII on the PC (Score:1)
No, they aren't perfect, noone is, and I HIGHLY doubt ANY company could be perfect. However, I think the overall point was that of all the game publishing/development out there, Squaresoft does a remarkably good job at producing solid games that (on their PRIMARY platform(s)) work. NOONE can really call FF8 a knockoff of FF7, just as FF7 has virtually nothing to do with FF5 and FF6.
Hell, outside of the world, the Dragon Warrior series was somewhat discontinuous as well. New engines + better gameplay + solid story lines == good RPG games. That's what Squarsoft does best, and folks like me eat it up.
Re:huh? (Score:1)
Q3A is nothing but an engine (Score:1)
It is true but some of us don't. Look at Planetscape:Torment or HalfLife when it came out. Even AlphaCenturi's graphics are nothing to write home about but all of these games sold well.
>relegate the "engine arms race" to a back burner in favor of the all-important Gameplay
Oh please do. I mean graphics are good enough unless you make something like Starshiptroopers animated series on my PC. Quake3 is one which would could use some gameplay. The model and bots are nice and all but how about something more than just 4 CTF maps! Future mods should improve this but id seems to be relying on cheap community labour to finish off their game. Why should I buy Q3 when it doesn't provide anything over Q2 in terms of gameplay?
As an game-engine, Q3 is nice but as a game its quite lacking.
Re:Good article (Score:1)
How long will we need new engines? (Score:2)
In the long run (long run being less than 10 years from now in the computer software world), storyline development should be far more important than engine improvements to how good a sequel to a game is. There's already insufficient attention paid to storyline in most games, and the "tournament/arena" game variety isn't helping. Are people going to be buying Baldur's Gate II in droves because they expect another engrossing world and story, or because they want to see the cool alpha-blending effects in the new engine?
The fact that people can think exactly the opposite is true, that a new game engine is the most important part of a new game, is just an artifact of the current situation where computer hardware and the computer gaming market are improving exponentially, and so compromises made in previous games due to slow hardware and low development budgets are no longer necessary. This situation won't last forever - eventually the size of the market will level off and the rate of hardware improvement will slow or become less relevant. The difference between a 100 and a 1000 poly model is much larger than the difference between a 1000 and a 10000 poly model, and a good engine will allow users with vastly differing systems to use any of the above models in the same game.
There's only so far that you can go with a game engine before other things become more important. There's a reason why the Marathon games (and even Duke3D) had better single player play than the technically superior Quake. Atmosphere, level design, etc. can be more important than whats under the hood.
Quick reality check, though - when I say that the days of huge game engine improvements won't last in the long run, that isn't to say that there isn't lots of room to improve today. Check out the upcoming Halo, for an example of how far we have yet to go.
Interesting further reading (Score:4)
This [dadgum.com] has links to some good articles about the future of gaming and the rise and fall of shareware and hobbyist game programming.
Re:Good Point... The same is true in the arcades.. (Score:1)
I think that we have definately strayed from the orginal concepts and are just a bunch of clone making fools. Sure we have remakes of Frogger, Gauntlet, and of course the original Pong.
The main problem that exists is that we don't have many types of cake out. Instead of making our games full of more icing we need to develop more types of cake. Sure in the beginning before we had icing the flavor of the cake was the most important thing, but now people are just changing the flavor of the icing while keeping the three flavors of cake, fighting, 1st person shooters, and racing. IMHO The remakes barely live up to the greatness that the classic was. Sure they have new and "better" graphics, "better" sound, but all of these are icing on the cake. If a video game is a cake then the icing sould add flavor but not take away from the flavor of the cake itself.
Nowadays games are just about all icing with little to no cake at all. Sticking a spoon into a tub of icing and eating it is good for one or two spoon fulls, but eventually you need to get same cake in your diet, and that is why I go back to the classics. Sure I indulge in the occational game of "Police Trainer".
What??? (Score:1)
when I try to explain how an interactive movie
shouldn't be done.
I mean c'mon this was far to easy (even for my
11 year old sister). Most people finish it the
first time they play I (if they have an afternoon
to spend)
Some games featured movies wich really helped set
an atmosphere (Wing Commander or Gabriel Knight 2
f.i.) but most "interactive" movies are just a
pile of crap pressed on a CD.
Of course
"de coloris et de gustibus non disputandum est"
J.
Re:wrong premise (Score:2)
Yes there are 'peons' who will just code parts of the graphics engine, game algorithm etc. HOWEVER, there usually are many classes of people working on a project:
Someone has to 'direct' the project, give it the general atmosphere, write the 'script'
Someone has to do the artwork (he may not even be a programmer).
Same for music and sound effects.
No one can just sit down and 'create a world' just like that.
One of the points of R.I.P is that there are no 'stars' in the gaming scene. And that's a crying shame, because they deserve recognition.
---
Re:The reality of games production today. (Score:2)
Would ID's John Carmack be the exception to the rule?
Video console games are ALIVE (Score:1)
Because the market is HUGE. The 13 to 25 market specifically.
3D gaming is coming on strong (for better or for worse.) Take a look at Soul Caliber for state of the art of 3d graphics on consoles.
Granted, gameplay innovation is solely lacking today. Hence the reason for tons of "clones"
As a 3D programmer, I cringe when I see 3d as the first priority and gameplay second. Ironic I know. Unfortunately marketing seems to think, if the game isn't 3D, the game won't sell.
Cheers
Re:MSOFT (Score:1)
Re:Good Point... The same is true in the arcades.. (Score:2)
That being said, there were PLENTY of rip-offs back then too. How many pole position ripoffs or pac-man-guy-moves-thru-maze-running-from-enemy-th
20 Years from now the kids today will look back on Gran Turismo and Quake (both excellent games IMHO) as reverently as we look back on Pole Position and Pac-Man.
-Rich
Re:There are some developer "rock stars" out there (Score:1)
Hell, I saw an advert in a magazine recently for John Romero's company's (Ion Storm IIRC) new game, which featured his name in far bigger letters than the publisher (ok, maybe that's probably more Rock Star ego (Id/ego - geddit?) than rock star fame.)
--
Re:Golgo 13 (Score:1)
Re:Goldeneye (Score:1)
Re:Sweatin' out the code (Score:1)
Re:Golgo 13 (Score:1)
As far as modern games go, Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast does some amazing things [min.net] with graphics and they're not even pushing the hardware. Most of the graphics are "slight of hand", and you don't really notice how they did it unless you look very closely. A good game keeps you busy enough watching the foreground to not even have to worry about looking at the background.
Those are the kind of games I like to play, the ones where some real thought went into the question of "How do I present this image to the player with the least possible resource usage?"
I'd say a game like Soul Calibur pushes [min.net] the Dreamcast to about 50% of its potential, and it's phenominal. Probably the best-looking and best-playing fighter out there now. It's a system seller.
Just makes me want to see what they'll come up with next.
Apologizing for Mac (offtopic) (Score:1)
"Forgive me, father Taco, but I have sinned. I really like Linux, but there's these games that run on the Mac. I really like them and, well, sometimes I play them. I'm terribly sorry. Once I get a Mac emulator running under the One True OS, I swear I'll never boot up a Mac again. Please don't hate me."
"My child, you have obviously been tempted by the bright case and easy interface of the Jobsian devil. Your penance shall be to read Hemos' essay 'Why I spelt stuff good' twice. You must also read every Jon Katz article for the next week. Do this and you will be forgiven. Now go in peace and configure your Debian box."
Consoles have their PLACE (Score:1)
Console vs PC game genre comparision [firingsquad.com]
Certain styles of games work better on PC, others play better on consoles. The console isn't going to go away anytime soon, especially as Sega, Sony, and Nintendo are pouring huge amounts of money into R&D for the next generation consoles. The 13-25 age market is just too huge too ignore also ;-)
As a 3d game developer its very interesting to see which way the game industry is going to go. Having marketing basically ignoring a game unless it's 3D certainly isn't helping. Some games just don't play as well in 3D.
Unfortunately, the article is generally correct in how the game industry works overall.
Cheers
Re:Good Point... The same is true in the arcades.. (Score:2)
A) A fighting game
B) A first peoson shooter
C) A racing game (with the arguable axception of Spy Hunter)
It actually has more to do with the way games are displayed and played than how good the game actually is. I agree that the "classics" would never see the light of day in today's arcades. But todays arcades aren't about good games, they're about making money. And because the older games were all about fun and getting the high score, that doesn't translate into money for vendors. If you are going for a high score on Pac-Man, it could take you a couple hours...on one quarter. Instead, arcades put driving or shooting games in where the play is about a dollar and the game lasts for about 2 mintues. They get you to play with fancy cabinets and graphics, not good game play or high scores. Times have changed, and I must say, it is really sad.
Re:A company that does it right (Score:2)
In case you didn't know, Sqaresoft recently laid off their entire US division at their Hawaii offices. Trouble in paradise perhaps?
Secondly, I agree that Sqaresoft has put out some phenominal games, but I don't think we can forget some of the other talented places out there. Namely Namco, Sega, and Nintendo. Say what you want about their games, but the fact is that all of these companies have made games with very high quality, which is something that is sorely lacking from most game companies today.
OT but thank you (Score:3)
Thank you for kudos. If you don't mind, I would like to clip your quote and forward it to George and Scott. They are devoted to the small developer culture and would be pleased by it.
The following are my personal opinion, and not representative of my game project, nor my company.
I had and have a huge choice of companies to code at, and Apogee really stands out as a big company that works very hard to stay feeling like a small indie developer. That Apogee exists. That we are making some cool games and projects. That it feels like we will be making many for a long time to come. Just gives me renewed faith that small guys can still be around to make cool stuff.
I personally (not as representative of the company) contribute what I can to indie game dev. Because indie is fresh blood, and living creativity, of our industry. We will stifle ourselves with clones if we do not maintain and encourage a healthy indie culture.
I agree our field is still very money, very (large) publisher driven. That many small developers (and you would be surprised by *who* are *still small* developers, you would expect after such kicka** titles they should be *big* by now
A few lucky groups break free of that. And I am grateful I code for one of them.
Re:The Gaming Industry Is Broken (Score:2)
But what I've realized is that it really doesn't matter what the graphics look like. I don't even see the curved surfaces and lightmaps. I just see things to shoot. The novelty of the graphics wears off in a week or so, but if the game is well designed you will play it because it's a great game. Q3A is just like that. Messiah has a better rendering engine that Q3A, but the game isn't nearly as fun.
Team Fortress 2 is going to be the halflife engine with new maps/textures/etc, but it's going to be a fundamentally different game and much more fun. Yet I wouldn't call this simply new makeup on the old whore.
Re:My thoughts (Score:2)
Pure FMV games aren't dead yet, [hyperbole.com] by the way.
Re:A game engine is a whore now? (Score:2)
Guns don't kill people. Technology or 3D engine doesn't kill game design.
I do agree *most* of technology development become *solely devoted* that which could be displayed in screenshot (or short AVI).
There is worthy technology and engine development technology (like higher dynamism), that won't give you "a screenshot to spooge on", but shall be vital to growing design and game play to a higher level than camp and frag.
More technology and engine development should look inward to revamp data structures and networking concepts, to impress and satisfy not only the eye (though that is very important), but also the fingers on the mouse, and the heart thumping in the chest.
Thoughts on the Article (Score:2)
No, it is the consoles, with their proprietary technology and strict content controls that don't have much of an indie scene. The content controls on consoles are driven by a few different things:
1. Profits: By controlling every aspect of video game creation, companies like Nintendo and Sony can make killings. Everytime someone makes a game, they get a cut of the profits. I don't think Microsoft weilds that type of power with developers, but if they do it is a relatively new thing.
2. Fear: The attitude of the U.S. Government and certain powerful political lobbies in the U.S. is that videoogaming and gaming in general are evil and should just disappear. Console game companies have come to the conclusion that if they are to continue to exist (in the U.S.), they will have to restrict content, despite the First Amendment. Electronic Arts did this with a game by a company they bought. Their attitude was "We won't produce it but we are going to sit on the rights and prevent anyone else from producing it either."
Oh, I've read Game Over by David Scheff and I think it is an excellent reference for people interested in the industry. An online reference (which I got due to a Slashdot poster on another thread) is The Dot Eaters [emuunlim.com] an online history of console games.
I agree with the article about the consoles niches, Nintendo seeks to appeal to younger kids, and Playstation to older. However, I think that while it is true that among teenage salespeople the Playstation may get support, a far more powerful persuasion was summed up for me by a kids mom in Toys 'R' Us. She said, "Look at all the games for the Playstation, the Nintendo 64 has only a few." For the inexperienced game buyer, more is going to seem like better because they'll figure there are more chances to find a good title.
Oh, and I want to address the 'life' issue brought up by someone in another thread. The fact is, the first responsibility of games is to have an immersive environment where the player feels that they have some control. They tried creating photorealistic games in the past, but these games didn't sell because they were limited to point and click quick decision making. I'm not talking about more impressive stuff like the rotoscoping in Prince of Persia which allowed for fluid life like movement in characters but to games like Night Trap or Fox Hunt which were just badly made movies with limited interactivity.
Personally, I'm not interested in photorealism (as some people are), I'm not sure I'd even like it if it were possible. I like games that feel immersive like System Shock 2 (or on consoles, the much maligned Resident Evil) but this is a personal opinion. If a game will sell in big numbers, someone will try to make it. I just think photorealistic graphics will continue to be a low priority if it continues to mean low player interaction.
video, CGI, actual video shots (Score:3)
Photo-based rendering combined with video, actual shots, digitization can merge realism and dynamism.
Polygonal complexity shall outstrip the "art development budget" required to create that many polygons to build that many models, not only for indie developers, but even for mid-size (non-Square-Final-Fantasy-size) development teams.
Polygon as a basic content primitive shall soon become unwieldily expensive.
Mathematically, both the ideas of "convex hull polygon shell" and "affine transformation of bitmap onto hull -- *ahem* texturing" are temporary artificial constructs eventually inadequate to represent reality.
Article wasn't "Future", just gripes about present (Score:2)
R.I.P.'s article (and yes, I read it all) strikes me as less of an article about the future of console gaming than a rant about what he thinks is wrong with the game industry today. There's an inferred suggestion of where he'd like the industry to go, but nothing about where it actually will go.
Yes, publishers hold a lot of power, and seek to keep that power by minimizing the role of the developer (just like music until about forty years ago, when the Beatles hit, and the standard contract gave everything to the label). Yes, a lot of publishers release a "new" game by using the same engine and new graphics (but criticizing this strikes me as a bit like complaining that not every movie developed a new camera or lens or special effect during production). And yes, the industry has been dominated by the "adolescent male" segment (though, in PC games particularly, that is starting to change - I don't think 16yo boys are playing all those copies of "Trophy Bass Hunter").
But none of that says anything about the future of console gaming!
So, let me put my money where my mouth is.
During the next year or two, clearly, the landmark event will be the introduction of the PlayStation 2 (and, having been privileged enough to see this beast in action in person, I can safely say, it is a landmark). How is that going to change gaming?
Just my quick thoughts about where the future is really going, and not just complaints about what's wrong today.
Infocom? (Score:3)
Perhaps game engines these days aren't sufficiently general to allow for different games, just different graphics?
Square (Score:2)
Namco does it right often too. Though Soul Caliber does sway the vote a little.
// Devil's Advocate
Directly from their offices, I shall put up flame retardant and state that Parasite Eve failed my (admittedly high) expectation of smooth gameplay.
PC FF port was listed, but weren't they done by Eidos-contracted developers, and not the "Japanese"?
(Internally Square segregates "real" Square as the "Japanese" Square. To them "American" Square *doesn't* count.)
// How they succeed
1. You are right. Millions of dollars. Teams, no, hordes of developers. How many in America can afford to the same?
2. No press before its time. "Shut up." "Don't say anything." "Doesn't matter if all the FF fans keep bugging you when it's done, or when they can know something, not a word."
Development of good games sometimes takes lots of people, sometimes takes lots of time, sometimes take both. Japanese fans are more "well-behaved" when it comes to "understanding" the manpower or length of time needed.
You don't see Square posting a screenshot a day starting the 1st month of development of Final Fantasy VIII. No point in showing anything until it is ready.
3. Like all good games, from small teams or big teams, developed in 6 months, or takes 4 years: good, talented, hardworking developers who put it all in it just for you.
// Even more admirable
While Square's game development is admirable, we should perhaps admire "small" game teams without millions of dollars (and hordes of "development ninjas"
superstar (Score:3)
There lacks "famous" console developers, not on the same fame level as PC developers.
Console bestsellers (the titles, and the "companies") actually reach a larger audience, and generate more income, than even a "famous PC hit" that is a popular household name.
It is true the "fame spotlight" falls on PC developers a lot more disporportionately than on "equally influentially, talented, successful" console developers.
// console superstar coders
Understanding this lack of limelight, I do my part to praise the coding ability of my fellow console coders (some on and even above the ability of Carmack, but are way less well-known only because of platform) when opportunities arise.
Sales, development record, talent, ability, knowledge, that "super code god power
(Yes, this means they exceed me obviously in code-god-hood.
// fame the harsh mistress
As I "pity" my talented console coder friends for not having the limelight of fame, and discuss this issue, we come to the conclusion that the "PC game superstar celebrity syndrome" is a mixed blessing and harsh mistress:
1. PC fame attracts the *wrong* people. In the early years, it is only about people who do it for the love.
Now because there is so much fame (and sometimes money) involved, we attract a new breed more interested in turning themselves into celebrities, instead of loving the game, loving the code, loving the work.
We also start focusing our admiration of PC developers based more on "glamor", "photogenic", "great personality" instead of honest-to-goodness knowledge, ability, talent, and contribution.
My console developers are grateful their development world did not get "turvey-ed" like ours (PC).
2. Fame means Flame
With additional attention comes additional scrutiny. With additional scrutiny comes additional abuse.
PC developers face the level of drubbing and abuse the likes of which console developers laugh at.
Conclusion is, my smart console developer friends are happy to be anonymously optimizing to the latest ARM instructrions, instead of dealing with the "glamor queens" and the "flaming fanatics."
Good for them.
Good Summary, But Nothing New... oops, repost (Score:2)
While I agree with almost everything in this article, I've come to realize that just about every engineer, artist, designer, and producer in the industry agrees as well. They all want to make cool games, but since that involves risk, the suits aren't willing to let them. Yes, there is a minority of superstars who can do anything they want, but that's not the mass of people who inhabit GDC and read Game Developer and GamaSutra. Most are wage slaves who love games and stick around in the hopes that something will change.
But nothing is changing. And the siren song of the dot coms and hardware companies is sucking away many of the best. In my own experience, I've interviewed for lead coder positions 3 times in as many years and there's always been a more a lucrative and creatively free position in engineering fer cryin' out loud than any game position offered.
And don't cry for the suits. While only 1 game in 35 breaks even and only 1 in 4 of those makes the big bucks, the power of being a publisher absorbs much of the loss. Just read the quarterly reports of the REALLY big guys as they gobble up the little guys and there merely big guys. The developer OTOH is forced to design a game he knows no one wants to play, on a schedule that will consume his staff, and for the arbitrary system of milestones covered in the article.
So what to do? Sony says use Middleware and concentrate on the gameplay. Of course, the "Middleware" is currently "Vaporware" and Sony's 2 months away from launching in Japan, but pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Not surpringly, the developers balk and look forward to harnessing the power of Sony's new widget on the metal and see right through this well-intentioned but impractical scheme.
So what happens next? I'd say thank god for the Dreamcast. Soul Caliber restored my faith in the ability of a company to deliver an excellent game to the consumer even in this day and age. But of course, at only 2 million units sold, the big guys still won't touch it, favoring an unreleased collection of parts in a box called the Playstation 2 because it got all the best hype. Talk about chasing vaporware. Meanwhile, Nintendo hems and haws about a fantastic new machine called the dolphin with a graphics chipset designed by the same guys who tried to pull that awful scam over on Ars Technica and has anybody seen one of these things yet? And then there's Microsoft who isn't working on a console called the X-Box that won't be released in 2001. Yawn, what's next? The T-Buffer?
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
No superstar or celeb is a good thing! (Score:3)
I saw several posts bemoan the sadness of game development not having superstars or celebs.
Not having celebrity is a good thing!
Besides the 2 points above (fame draws the *wrong* people, fame leads to flame) another advantage comes to mind:
Celebrity and superstar worship can stifle as much as it inspires.
Instead of growing into the coder one can become, a fanatic may dovetail his code development into that of whoever is "famous."
While good learning can take place.
Uncreative clon-ing can also take place.
I would much rather game coders and developers are people.
And that good smart knowledgeable talented game coders and developers are "respected people."
Respected for their knowledge and insights. And nothing more.
Re:The reality of games production today. (Score:2)
But isn't that defining stardom as crossing as boundaries? Take the following example: coming from the other side of the Atlantic, I have an extremely hard time playing Trivial Pursuits in North America. There will be questions about "superstars" (music, TV, film, etc) of whom I'm the only person in the room who hasn't heard of them. I don't know of this "superstar" as I've never been exposed to their particular field. The average American would not be able to tell you who are the superstars of India's "Bollywood" (which I believe is the largest film industry outside of Hollywood). Likewise, why should one expect a non-coder/gamehead to have heard of Mr. Carmack?
Originality isn't dead, it's just on vacation... (Score:3)
Even so, there's a lot of originality on display at the arcade, and it's essentially all imported. The last two times I went to the arcade, I played Crazy Taxi [crazytaxi.com] (love that game), Mr. Driller [namco.com] (a Namco puzzler), Jambo! Safari [sega.co.jp] (another Sega gem), Guitar Freaks [konami-arcade.com] ("Play the guitar rhythmically!"), some Megatouch [meritind.com] games (come on, they're cool), Virtua Tennis (yes, arcade tennis, and it's great!) and the incomparable Dance Dance Revolution [konami-arcade.com]. All quite original and almost all Japanese, because their arcade market is still doing well and they just tend to be more goofy, original, risk-taking developers. Unfortunately, only the big entertainment centers will ever have these wonderful games because they tend to be heinously expensive (another reason why so many arcades have died).
Now, certainly, there was a fair share of fighting/gun/driving games like Tekken Tag Tournament [tekkentagtournament.com], Dead or Alive 2 [tecmo.co.jp], Silent Scope [konami-arcade.com], Crisis Zone [namco.com], Rush 2049 [rush2049.com], Ferrari F355 [sega-rd2.com], and Off-Road Thunder [offroadthunder.com] being played too. But let's not forget that there was a glut of maze games, space shooters and driving games in the classic era too -- there will always be popular genres.
Re:Video console games are dead. (Score:2)
Re:Article wasn't "Future", just gripes about pres (Score:2)
Re:We will forever need new engines ! (Score:2)
As a 3D game programmer I *am* seeing very densely populated computer worlds, and not just in my engine.
Re:We will forever need new engines ! (Score:2)
In many technology engine developments, many are satisfying the eye, and neglecting many useful things.
Coding gears more towards screenshots that spooge, or short AVI's that spooge.
Spooging is important.
And there are many non-spooging things (related to engine/code/tech) that is also important to research, and develop, that is being neglected in many engines.
So
All industries suffer the same... (Score:3)
Anyway, here's a success story for you; Psynogis' Wipeout series. They actually put some work into branding and recognition, and they've produced a great series. I have Wipeout, Wipeout 2097 & Wip3out for the PSX - they also have one or two PC versions and a Wipeout 64 for the N64. A great series, wonderfully produced. It's not impossible, but it needs more skills than just programming - it needs a bit of marketing savvy. Just like any industry.
Re:A company that does it right (Score:2)
oppressed coders and Katz (Score:2)
Welcome to the Hellmouth, today we talk to the poor suffering coder who was told by marketing he's gotta massively irretrievably f*cked up the code base in 1 week for E3 deadline or else.
Wipe Out (Score:2)
Wipe Out success, but at what cost?
My friends who worked on the first Wipe Out, in order to make some deadlines to get into the movie "Hackers" (Kate plays the first Wipe Out game in the movie "Hackers"), were given amphetamines / speed-like drugs to stay awake longer and work faster.
It worked. Productivity was amazing.
Then after Wipe Out shipped, my friends just crashed from all the drug use.
Despite the improved productivity and lack of need of sleep, my friends who tried to develop-game-on-speed route heartily recommend against it.
I just stick with my Diet Coke caffeine of choice and stay away from the meds, because of what my friends told me.
P.S. It was funny how I knew this story. I was coding engine on a game with some developers who were on the first Wipe Out team at Psygnosis. I am hyper-energetic. I sleep little to none. I am coding at the computer all the time, and always have an up-beat energetic cheerful hyper attitude. I eat copious amounts of food, and appears to stay thin.
My ex-speed friends were convinced I was using speed to code. And tried to talk me out of it. They told me how drugs eventually messed you up.
I kept telling them I am not on speed!
Re:I got your point. It was a good one. (Score:2)
At the same time, I got Star Wars pod racer, which I thought would be fun. Lame. Looked beautiful, but went through a progression of levels like this: Very easy ->> very hard with no in-between. PROGRESSION people!