The Future of Videogames

[Mr.Mattress]

I noticed that a lot of the Modern Day games do one of two things:

1) Give up additional Frames Per Second in favor of High Definition Imagery (Mainly XBone Games like Titanfall)

or

2) Give up High Definition Imagery in favor of additional Frames Per Second (Mainly WiiU Games like Super Mario 3D World)

I think the future of games is going to be pitting >30FPS at 720p Consoles (I call them "Speed" Consoles) versus 30FPS at >720p Consoles (I call them "Beauty" Consoles).

 

[Dragonheart57]

I'll start by saying that I didn't like the article. Some of his ideas were good, most were bad. As for the subject of videogames dying, I doubt that's possible now. Lots of AAA games might be failing, even the top sellers, but I think there's enough smaller talents who can make a good game without bankrupting a small nation to keep the industry going. Even if that fails, there will always be the indie devs willing to spend years to make a thing that they love and want others to enjoy.

On the future of games, I don't think it lies with VR. We have all that we need to immerse ourselves perfectly. When I'm playing, sometimes I forget I'm even looking at a screen. Everything else fades away. We don't even need better graphics. Morrowind was just as immersive for me as Skyrim, despite its limitations. Graphics don't mean much if you can make a world that the player wants to be a part of. They'll fill in the gaps themselves.

I think that people need to worry less about the technology the games run on, and more about the games themselves. We've gotten to the point where better graphics are making games worse, because of all the money and time that needs to be spent making them. If people weren't convinced that better graphics = better game, we could have games with deeper stories and characters and more fun mechanics. It's a lot easier to make a fun game when most of your resources aren't being spent making every character's nostril hairs wave realistically in the wind.

 

[Bad Jim]

I think the future of games is going to be pitting >30FPS at 720p Consoles (I call them "Speed" Consoles) versus 30FPS at >720p Consoles (I call them "Beauty" Consoles).

-edit no you did write that correctly sorry-

Anyway, speed vs definition is a developer choice. Consoles just do a certain amount of work per second, which can be divided among 30 nice looking frames or among 60 frames that are less pretty.

It is true though that Nintendo seem to understand games better than Sony or Microsoft so their games are more likely to be 60 fps, despite being on the weakest console by a large margin.

 

[Ratty]

Trying to save mainstream games from pushing out homogenized "Game-Like Product"? (Or GLP? for all you hip texting kids out there, keep saving those Mtn Dew rewards points!) is like trying to save Hollywood from pushing out crap all the time. It's a hopeless cause. To most people who play games it's just something they do to pass the time every now and then. They don't care if a game is bland and samey, it's what all their friends are playing. And just like with movies there's nothing inherently wrong with that, except with the predominance of racist, sexist and LGBTphobic tropes obviously.

Personally I think the future of the industry is gonna look a lot like this-

Big publishers will continue to take to heart the lessons of WoW and CoD: that selling a community, and building a sense of shared identity between player and product, will increase long-term player retention for less money. People will keep paying $60 a year for minor updates, plus a subscription and DLC if it means they can continue to play with their friends and/or strongly personally identify with a product. Which is the real secret to WoW/CoD/Madden's success.

Indie developers will continue to supply a smaller market with a lot of "boxed product" niche titles. When an innovation in the Indies is particularly successful and garners a lot of attention the AAAs will eventually try to (clumsily) implement said innovation in their own products.

So basically same shit different day.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I think the future of games is going to be pitting >30FPS at 720p Consoles (I call them "Speed" Consoles) versus 30FPS at >720p Consoles (I call them "Beauty" Consoles).

-edit no you did write that correctly sorry-

Anyway, speed vs definition is a developer choice. Consoles just do a certain amount of work per second, which can be divided among 30 nice looking frames or among 60 frames that are less pretty.

(Oh, okay, I was about to say where did I make a type)

According to both Sony and Microsoft, these Consoles are supposed to do both. Now I can buy that the Developers are being rushed to finish their products ASAP, but the consoles are supposed to do both >30FPS and >720p, and yet not one game from either of them are both. Not even games that aren't being rushed, like "The Witcher 3", chose Beauty (1080p for PS4, 900 for XBone) over Speed (It's max is 35-45 on PC, and it's impossible for it to do 60 based on other people's research). Meanwhile, both Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario 3D World are stuck at 720p, but both are smooth at 60FPS (Even if MK8 has a trick to do it). Maybe in the future, we will see games that are both 1080p and 60FPS, but from where I'm standing now, I'm seeing consoles being divided between Beauty and Speed.

 

[Pogilrup]

If there is at least one thing I definitely agree with in the article, is the need for protagonists other than the "grizzled white male" protagonist.

Hopefully in the future we might get more franchises featuring more diverse protagonists.

Of course there is the faint possibility that an existing franchise featuring a "grizzled white male" protagonist decides to reboot with either an individual of the opposite sex, of an alternate race, or with change in sexual orientation. This scenario is what some of the more "stubborn" members of the videogame community seem to fear.

 

[PsykoDragon]

...there is the faint possibility that an existing franchise featuring a "grizzled white male" protagonist decides to reboot...

The problem I'm having here is that you seem to have no issues with the idea of a reboot, & while there are a few great ones, I don't think we need more reboots considering how much of the original games get shafted.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

We care about video games right? We need more games that we can geek out over, right? & what is it about a game that makes them worth geeking out over? One word:

Immersion.

Immersion covers just about every aspect of what makes a game good. The whole shebang needs to be right for the game to be immersive, from style to pacing to gameplay to platform etc.

I'm not so sure. Street Fighter's massive popularity doesn't likely stem from how immersive it is.

 

[PsykoDragon]

Spoiler: PsykoDragon's Quote

We care about video games right? We need more games that we can geek out over, right? & what is it about a game that makes them worth geeking out over? One word:

Immersion.

Immersion covers just about every aspect of what makes a game good. The whole shebang needs to be right for the game to be immersive, from style to pacing to gameplay to platform etc.

I'm not so sure. Street Fighter's massive popularity doesn't likely stem from how immersive it is.

Again, you are thinking of immersion in terms of being transported into the game world.
I'm talking about immersion in terms of getting immersed in the game, that is, it holds your undivided attention & sucks you in, whether it's an FPS (Painkiller) or a fighter (Street Fighter) or a platformer or a puzzle game (have you played And Yet It Moves? It's a puzzle-platformer) or a tactics/strategy game (Silent Storm 2, Supreme Commander). That's the kind of immersion that makes or breaks a game.

Immersion [http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aimmersion]: deep mental involvement in something. "My daughter is so immersed in her homework, she's like a problem-solving machine!", "a week's immersion in the culinary heritage of Puglia".

As with my earlier post that I assume everyone skipped over, I figure that SF is popular due to the quick action it requires, & thus falls under games that demand high levels of attention & quick reflexes.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

-snip-

Then what is the point of this thread? I was pretty confused by the opening post, but now I'm even more so, because all you seem to be saying is "People like games that are good. Spread the word."

 

[PsykoDragon]

...

You gots to teach dem peeps dat they could be playing better games if they'd stop playing into the hands of big-budget marketing. Like this good fella does. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/11245-Triple-A-Aint-What-it-Used-to-Be]

Recent example: Watch Dogs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idA9BEA4Hxs]. The linked video is entertaining enough, but the captions are thorough. This pile of junk & lies is right up there [http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2014/Global/], in all its best-selling glory. Note that while it's #2 on the PS4, it is also #11 25 & 30 on other platforms, not including PC, & this is just after 2 weeks.

It's a clear message to the suits that they're doing it right. Market lies, deceive fans, manufacture cheap products. AND IT'S A PATTERN [http://www.vgchartz.com/game/25458/rage/Global/] THAT'S BEEN REPEATING [http://www.vgchartz.com/game/44952/call-of-duty-black-ops/Global/] ITSELF ALL [http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70350/the-last-of-us/Global/] THE TIME [http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/Global/]. (Those links are to single platforms because vgchartz is weak)