MGS Creator Says "Next Level" Of Gaming Not Possible With Current Technology
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I agree with you El Arab. Developers are already doing that, and that's what I'd wish they continue with.ElArabDeMagnifico said:
What I'm trying to say is that the things Kojima is saying is not what I agree with. I'd rather, like a few others have stated, a developer work on story and gameplay then work on Kojima's ideas. I think it's a waste of resources, and shouldn't be the main aim of the developer, or really an aim, just in the back of the dev team's head.
In my opinion, if a game has a truely captivating cast of characters, a story that is damn interesting, and gameplay that is easy-to-use and, most of all, fun, then I'd rather play in that than if the leaves in the background moved in realistically.
I'm not saying that Kojima's an idiot. Just saying that Kojima and I differ on this issue, and well, what's life without differences?
Being able to "water the leaves" is technically feasible with current hardware, it's just a drag to code with current industry-standard programming tools.
The thing is, "watering the leaves" doesn't come without cost. An environment where you can mess with anything is an environment where most of your actions will not serve any kind of larger purpose. If, like Half-Life 2 or MGS 4, your game is a kind of rollercoaster -- a set of narrative rails with a bunch of improbable twists and turns, -- then packing that closed, linear world with "leaves" is going to turn it into a harrowing slog, reducing the gameplay to searching for that one seesaw puzzle buried amongst a hundred other interactive objects that don't meaningfully move you anywhere.
-- Alex
The thing is, "watering the leaves" doesn't come without cost. An environment where you can mess with anything is an environment where most of your actions will not serve any kind of larger purpose. If, like Half-Life 2 or MGS 4, your game is a kind of rollercoaster -- a set of narrative rails with a bunch of improbable twists and turns, -- then packing that closed, linear world with "leaves" is going to turn it into a harrowing slog, reducing the gameplay to searching for that one seesaw puzzle buried amongst a hundred other interactive objects that don't meaningfully move you anywhere.
-- Alex
Or add to the amount of possible ways to get from point A to B. Creative problem solving was what made Portal, for example, fun to me. I can't see the problem with adding things to do and ways to do them, even if they are ultimately pointless. The pointless stuff is usually what I remember the longest anyway.Alex_P said:
If you listen to the Developer Commentary on Portal (Which is fascinating I found), then you will hear there's a number of times where the levels were re-designed so as to slow the players down because they WEREN'T thinking. (The 'look up' moment).Mr. Bubbles said:
The real problem with 'fluff' is that it takes up a lot more programming time and testing time. Proper 'fluff', like Milla's hidden room in Psychonauts (How many people have actually found that one? It tells you something about her childhood) is often missed, and is ignored in the overall rating of the game; whilst Gordon's Stashes are very deliberate.
I wish that they'd finish making the games before they're released. No more of this bug-patching monotony. How hard can it be to just play through the game once and fix the bugs before you put it on the shelves?
Portal is minimalist by video-game standards. In their commentary, the devs talk about trying very hard to streamline and de-clutter the game. Very little in that game is there "just because." All the "creative problem solving" is really the result of just a few different elements interacting. (And, let's be honest here: most of the game is carefully set up to guide you towards a solution.)Mr. Bubbles said:
Nothing's stopping Kojima or anyone else from making an open-ended game with flexible solutions right now, with this "generation's" technology -- or last "generation's" technology, for that matter. The thing is, he doesn't want to. His particular formula is pretty linear, heavy on painstakingly handcrafted plot rather than emergent interaction.
-- Alex
I think Kojima is close, but I'm more inclined to believe that the next level of gaming technology isn't possible with current technology. Whether or not that will also represent the next level of gaming remains to be seen, but I'm not holding my breath.
This has been done before. In ASCII. By a single programmer. www.bay12games.com
And how exactly is "wave the stick in a preset pattern to activate a preset pattern ingame" more advanced then "push a preset button to activate a preset pattern ingame"? It's more complicated but that's not innovation.
And how exactly is "wave the stick in a preset pattern to activate a preset pattern ingame" more advanced then "push a preset button to activate a preset pattern ingame"? It's more complicated but that's not innovation.
He needs not worry, we've got Peter Molyneux for that!Malygris said:
... until he needs to retract his words a few months after shouting it out.
I think our brains are going to mush once games get to simple. Heres and example http://g4tv.com/videos/47758/Limbo-Review/
Wait shouldn't the next level of gaming be those headset's for virtual reality? I mean if they can pull that off then i have a feeling immersion wouldn't be a problem.
