scotth266 said:
Uncompetative said:
You're just SUPPOSED to have good gameplay in your games though. Otherwise nobody would play them.
So innovating and improving the way games play is just sort of a given for the industry.
Graphics have been the big other thing that game devs have been throwing their time at though, at the expense of good storytelling, characterization, and so on. Hence I'm happy that photorealism has nearly been achieved: once we get there, developers will focus more on other things.
Many developers don't see it this way, or rather their publishers fund the projects that are likely to sell, which are those that are likely to be popular (readily identifiable character, some form of story for reviews to chew over, ideally some movie licence, or something structurally akin to a popcorn action movie rather than a proper game), and in many cases take the development team
away from actually working on the software to make early artist renders/representative "in game" screenshots or flashy non-interactive demos for trade fairs and privileged magazine previews - magazines who, later in a secret deal, give the game suspiciously high scores despite its hollowness.
Lot's of people play 'games' without gameplay, which are more about evoking a cinematic experience - do I need to name names?
There is no pressure in the market or culture (as supported by magazines and web-sites) to actually make games better, with superior AI, controls, freedom of choice as to the path you take through a level. Occasionally, you will hear a gripe that the in-game camera is rubbish, or that the handling of a racing car isn't realistic (as if they know how it should feel to drive one), but they make no constructive criticisms, hiding behind the pathetic excuse that it isn't their role to do that and they can only review how the game turned out - despite having the opportunity to direct its development by commenting on the previews they were privileged to have access to, or... failing that, say something that would fix the apparent problems in the inevitable sequel (whilst it is still on the drawing board).
Once graphics achieve video-realism (which crucially depends on what they attempt to represent... people's faces are more than just skin over muscle and bone, but AI directing responsive behavioural animations representing suppressed psychological states... until I deal with an NPC and forget it is "graphics", but are so immersed in the story as to be trying to determine from their subtle facial expressions if they are lying to me, I doubt that 'graphics' will be finished with - besides, it isn't really about graphics at that point, but AI). Furthermore, given photorealism (which isn't "just around the corner"), developers will innovate graphics by making them look arty - like Jet Set Radio Future or Okami. There will still be dull collect-'em-ups where you reach a static NPC and hit the (A) button to advance through some burbled dialogue, they will just look extraordinarily beautiful.
If you think that with graphics 'out of the way' story, emotion and character could be developed, you are wrong there too. Developers don't know how to write. Games and stories don't mix. Half-Life's hero doesn't talk so there is about nil characterisation there (Oh... wait, the box art shows that he has a goatee and glasses, like the nerds who play the game... instant empathy /sarcasm). A game (like football or tennis is a set of well defined rules and dynamic events and AI, i.e. the other players, which form a space of possibilities capable of generating behaviour entertaining enough to warrant paid spectators, not merely participants - yet, if the rules were changed enough these 'sports' would not be so much fun to watch... i.e. no offside rule, no double-fault), whilst a Story requires its participants to be 'shoved around' by the requirements of the drama and the needs of their character development. A game of football has no theme, yet it has drama. It has no pre-scripted narrative, it is a sequence of unexpected events, something which keeps it vital and stimulating. A story is dead, it only comes alive by revealing the inner life of its characters and the constraints that confound their desires, they are trapped at the mercy of the author, who contrives the circumstances of their existence to some poetic conclusion, any exercise of interactive freedom would be totally at odds with 'the script'.
So, in summary you are wrong on every point you made.
