That's Innovation!
Hooray for developers who care about something other than shinier graphics.
Read Full Article
Hooray for developers who care about something other than shinier graphics.
Read Full Article
That's Innovation!
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I remeber putting in Mercenaries for the first time in my PS2. Let me tell you, calling in carpet bombs to scorch the cities, bunker buster bombs to cause buildings to topple, it was the most fun I had in a long time.
Its also why I'm enjoying Bad Company 2 so much, the destructible enviornments offer so much to the game. A group of enemies in a building? Blow out the walls and destroy the thing while your teamates pick off the straggelers. Is your objective in a building? Destroy the building and you destroy the objective without having to go through masses of enemies.
Games look just fine nowadays, I'm glad more seem to be focusing on giving us more fun games instead of prettier games.
Its also why I'm enjoying Bad Company 2 so much, the destructible enviornments offer so much to the game. A group of enemies in a building? Blow out the walls and destroy the thing while your teamates pick off the straggelers. Is your objective in a building? Destroy the building and you destroy the objective without having to go through masses of enemies.
Games look just fine nowadays, I'm glad more seem to be focusing on giving us more fun games instead of prettier games.
sounds like you would love BC2, but who wouldn't.
and destructible environments does almost automatically make a game more fun and intense, instead of hiding behind the same rock popping you head up every 10th second to shoot some more bad guys until they are all gone, suddenly you have to be cautious when taking cover, how long can i stay here before i have to move out in the open to a new location, and it also changes which targets are the most valuable (or dangerous, depending) instead of just gunning down whoever is closest to lower the risk of missing, you have to think about what route your going to take when this wall gets blown to pieces and which enemies will post the greatest threat when taking that route.
so yeah, i like to break things.
and destructible environments does almost automatically make a game more fun and intense, instead of hiding behind the same rock popping you head up every 10th second to shoot some more bad guys until they are all gone, suddenly you have to be cautious when taking cover, how long can i stay here before i have to move out in the open to a new location, and it also changes which targets are the most valuable (or dangerous, depending) instead of just gunning down whoever is closest to lower the risk of missing, you have to think about what route your going to take when this wall gets blown to pieces and which enemies will post the greatest threat when taking that route.
so yeah, i like to break things.
Considering MW2 spent more on advertising then on making the actual game, it seems to me that more games should be pushing the boundaries with gameplay stuff like this. Apparently, they can afford it.
Anyway, kind of surprised this week's article had nothing to do with Ubisoft.
Anyway, kind of surprised this week's article had nothing to do with Ubisoft.
I loved the scene in Uncharted 2 where you were in the building as it was falling, shooting Lazaravic's men and dodging helicopter missiles. One of my favourite videogaming moments ever. It's this sort of environment that really sets Uncharted 2 apart for me; the attention to detail is amazing, and the sense of urgency and awe that you get from experiencing it is unparalleled in most other games. I can appreciate that this kind of exerience is extremely hard for devs to produce in other games, but that fact that Naughty Dog have gone that extra mile to produce something never seen before in others of its kind is very commendable.
Graphics can only take your game so far before their existence is rendered pointless by lacklustre gameplay.
Graphics can only take your game so far before their existence is rendered pointless by lacklustre gameplay.
Same here actually, I was expecting some about Uni too, but, this is good on its own.Nimbus said:
And I agree. They have the money, and they have the resources. It just putting it into action which seems to tbe stumbling block they neither can, or will come over. We can prolly guess which
I dunno. If we truly get to the point where EVERYTHING in the world is destructible or morph-able that might be notable. Until then, designers are just mucking around with the same basic gameplay features that can be found in Ultima V in 1988.
Of course, most modern game designers couldn't go too far wrong in reviewing the old Ultima series. It continues to amaze me that the innovations of that series were somehow swept aside and forgotten for the better part of two decades. It's still difficult if not impossible to find a game that gives you as much freedom of choice and environment as Ultima VII did in 1992.
Of course, most modern game designers couldn't go too far wrong in reviewing the old Ultima series. It continues to amaze me that the innovations of that series were somehow swept aside and forgotten for the better part of two decades. It's still difficult if not impossible to find a game that gives you as much freedom of choice and environment as Ultima VII did in 1992.
Bang on, Shamus! 
I thought the first Uncharted, while perfectly competent and pretty good, was also pretty overrated for what it was. Uncharted 2 blew me away because of it's huge set pieces that actually pushed the limits of interactivity to a new level. They took stuff that was normally just a cutscene and made it (at least halfway) playable. Keep pushing guys!
I thought the first Uncharted, while perfectly competent and pretty good, was also pretty overrated for what it was. Uncharted 2 blew me away because of it's huge set pieces that actually pushed the limits of interactivity to a new level. They took stuff that was normally just a cutscene and made it (at least halfway) playable. Keep pushing guys!
Red Faction is awesome due to all that sexy destruction.
Bring on the fully destructible environments!
Bring on the fully destructible environments!
So true...I think I might go play it now!Irridium said:
Shamus writes about something I've been saying for a long, long time. I think it's on the minds of a great many gamers too. Unfortunately those of us who think about these things make up a small percentage of the gaming public I think. Otherwise games like MW2 wouldn't have sold 50 million copies (or whatever). Watching adults 'Ooo'ing over new 1st person shooter releases reminds me why gamers can't have nice things...
It's probably nothing any of you haven't heard of already, but, it's all about risk. You can't go wrong with better graphics, gamers are only gonna like them, assuming they are indeed better. While with 'how it plays' you can go all sorts of wrong. And neither investors, nor important people with ties that can prove with flowcharts and diagrams that you've evolved from a medusa like risk. A company would have to have at least this and this amount of money and time allotted for a game, as well as daring executives, in order to risk how a game plays...
Destructible environments would be fun to a point, likely until some NPC shopkeeper is standing stupidly in a heap of rubble completely unfazed by the wanton violation of his property. But I guess that's what purpose the limiting factors serve.
Hell, I be happy if more games would just incorporate Euphoria animations.
Hell, I be happy if more games would just incorporate Euphoria animations.
I am sick of graphics improvements, everyone just stop, pool your resources and make an engine that allows for the most to appear on screen with little to no drop in graphical quality.
End of challenge, build the game, everyone has the same graphics as you, shut up.
Grrr...
*Cough*
End of challenge, build the game, everyone has the same graphics as you, shut up.
Grrr...
*Cough*
Part of the push for more and better graphics ties into pushing people to keep forking up money for better systems. Ever wonder why your game does an ad for Nvidia or ATI? That would be why.
I agree that more should be done with a game beyond just making it pretty. Though I can imagine the code that went into Half Life 2, Episode 2 for just that one bridge melting from the core outburst is staggering. I think I remember hearing the mention though that Valve had worked its own mini-engine for those kinds of effects, making future applications of it easier to implement. Now if they can work it into a real time implementation, so Gordon can pilot his own Strider. That would rock.
Reminds me of one of the funnest parts of Medal of Honor:Allied Assault, driving the tank. Not only could you blow up buildings (albeit only select ones), but the mission orders downright encouraged it. I knew that was a forebear to many new things to look forward to in games.
I look forward to what comes next, especially when Battlefield Bad Company 2 succeeds.
I agree that more should be done with a game beyond just making it pretty. Though I can imagine the code that went into Half Life 2, Episode 2 for just that one bridge melting from the core outburst is staggering. I think I remember hearing the mention though that Valve had worked its own mini-engine for those kinds of effects, making future applications of it easier to implement. Now if they can work it into a real time implementation, so Gordon can pilot his own Strider. That would rock.
Reminds me of one of the funnest parts of Medal of Honor:Allied Assault, driving the tank. Not only could you blow up buildings (albeit only select ones), but the mission orders downright encouraged it. I knew that was a forebear to many new things to look forward to in games.
I look forward to what comes next, especially when Battlefield Bad Company 2 succeeds.
But there is a downside to innovation, when someone comes up with something new/innovative, theres a rush to build the game around this one thing at the expense of all other features. Red Faction comes to mind here, the destructable terrain was nice, but as for the gameplay or plot (lack of) there was nothing else to hold your attention.Shamus Young said:
I think videogames will only come of age when graphics don't matter any more. By this I mean when graphics are so perfectly lifelike that any further improvmenet to the actual technology is not really feasible. Until then, videogames will never be an artform, and will never rise above the ephemeral "look how pretty it is" reaction of gamers.
It's as simple as that.
It's as simple as that.
These things tend to come in small doses. I recall back in the 90's thinking that they should stop improving all the graphics and start improving game play with things like this.
Unfortunately, they tend to come in small doses and a time. Like Prince of Persia being one of the first games that showed the consequences of falling down a pit or Fallout allowing character stats to change dialog options and a person's overall gaming experience. I also seem to recall Twisted Metal (possibly #2?) being one of the first games that also allowed destructible environments, albeit only for about 1 or 2 buildings throughout the game.
Point is, too many companies would rather make games look shiny and pretty than offer a new game play feature. They're in it to make money and the best way to do that is to milk a good idea to death, not create new ones. Sadly, it's the indie developers who tend to be the only ones to break the mold. The more we see the publicly traded, multi-billion dollar conglomerates take over the gaming industry the less innovation we're going to see in games to come.
Unfortunately, they tend to come in small doses and a time. Like Prince of Persia being one of the first games that showed the consequences of falling down a pit or Fallout allowing character stats to change dialog options and a person's overall gaming experience. I also seem to recall Twisted Metal (possibly #2?) being one of the first games that also allowed destructible environments, albeit only for about 1 or 2 buildings throughout the game.
Point is, too many companies would rather make games look shiny and pretty than offer a new game play feature. They're in it to make money and the best way to do that is to milk a good idea to death, not create new ones. Sadly, it's the indie developers who tend to be the only ones to break the mold. The more we see the publicly traded, multi-billion dollar conglomerates take over the gaming industry the less innovation we're going to see in games to come.