The next wave.
by AzraelK · in General Discussion · 02/01/2002 (11:29 am) · 6 replies
Some food for the brain.
Ive reading some articles at Game research And it got me thinking, what do you think the next big game Genere will be like?
We lived the fps era (doom),the online shooter era (quake world, quake 2),the thinker shooter era(half life), and now the team play era (counterstrike, tribes2, ghost recon, operation flashpoint) what comes next?
We have moved from playing hunt and shoot, to play hunt and shoot with someone else , then we wanted more of an intellectual challenge and played something more complex (alone), then we moved to solve those puzzles with someone else on our team (counterstrike) and realized the challenge it takes to defeat an organized enemy and the need to organize ourselves, tribes 2 added more complexity and vehicles to that very same formula and ghost recon/flashpoint added more realism to it.
This comes from satisfying the basic 2 desires of the gamer, challenge, fun. Playing in teams has always more fun (and socially accepted than playing alone) but to be fun it has to be challenging. Competition has always been a challenge, therefore we have team competition.
Im going to speak about in game Violence as a part of the part of the "joy" of the game, simulating physical danger makes the game more exciting and involving, perhaps even more attractive. (only in a game you can damage and be damaged in return without facing the huge consequences this act would imply in reality, therefore is attractive to many).
But what comes next?
Society, danger, conflict and cooperation, where does that lead us on a higher scale (possible due to game technology advancing?)
Massive online battles? a community of gamers takes on another? or perhaps virtual game communities, trying to solve community conflicts together? Online war? why only war? is there some other way to express a phisical danger or conflict?
We are the makers of the games of tomorrow, perhaps we should think about this answer.
Ive reading some articles at Game research And it got me thinking, what do you think the next big game Genere will be like?
We lived the fps era (doom),the online shooter era (quake world, quake 2),the thinker shooter era(half life), and now the team play era (counterstrike, tribes2, ghost recon, operation flashpoint) what comes next?
We have moved from playing hunt and shoot, to play hunt and shoot with someone else , then we wanted more of an intellectual challenge and played something more complex (alone), then we moved to solve those puzzles with someone else on our team (counterstrike) and realized the challenge it takes to defeat an organized enemy and the need to organize ourselves, tribes 2 added more complexity and vehicles to that very same formula and ghost recon/flashpoint added more realism to it.
This comes from satisfying the basic 2 desires of the gamer, challenge, fun. Playing in teams has always more fun (and socially accepted than playing alone) but to be fun it has to be challenging. Competition has always been a challenge, therefore we have team competition.
Im going to speak about in game Violence as a part of the part of the "joy" of the game, simulating physical danger makes the game more exciting and involving, perhaps even more attractive. (only in a game you can damage and be damaged in return without facing the huge consequences this act would imply in reality, therefore is attractive to many).
But what comes next?
Society, danger, conflict and cooperation, where does that lead us on a higher scale (possible due to game technology advancing?)
Massive online battles? a community of gamers takes on another? or perhaps virtual game communities, trying to solve community conflicts together? Online war? why only war? is there some other way to express a phisical danger or conflict?
We are the makers of the games of tomorrow, perhaps we should think about this answer.
#2
As I mentioned the intention of a designer is to create challenge via conflicts and they are LOTS of ways to create one. The sims use the most well known conflicts those we deal in ordinary real life and have been very succesful with it. Black & white tried to challenge us with the conflicts of a god (or a very powerful entity) and also their share of success with it.
However I understand interaction with objects has already hit extremely high (in games like metal gear solid 2 per example) what do you mean by interacting with people you mean with AI characters or with other players?
02/01/2002 (2:11 pm)
I agree mostly, and I agree that violence is not always the best resource for a videogame but it IS the most used, and I kind of tried to explain/understand why. Some users actually retract from games due to violence.As I mentioned the intention of a designer is to create challenge via conflicts and they are LOTS of ways to create one. The sims use the most well known conflicts those we deal in ordinary real life and have been very succesful with it. Black & white tried to challenge us with the conflicts of a god (or a very powerful entity) and also their share of success with it.
However I understand interaction with objects has already hit extremely high (in games like metal gear solid 2 per example) what do you mean by interacting with people you mean with AI characters or with other players?
#3
It's a unique game, and can be pretty fun if you like that kind of stuff.
I have to disagree with your summation of FPS subgenres.
1. Mindless shooter (doom, duke nukem, quake)
2. Online mindless shooter (duke nukem, quake)
3. Team deathmatch (quake ctf, counter-strike)
4. Team strategy oriented (Team fortress, Battlezone)
5. Roleplaying FPS (deus ex)
6. Large scale team warfare (WWII Online, Tribes 2 sorta)
Personally, I find the first three dull as hell. Run around, fire guns die or live. The end. happy happy. CS is just deathmatch masked as strategy, but things really start to open up when everyone isn't the same person (like in TFC or Deus Ex) and when people can develop as the game goes on (like in Deus Ex or WWII Online)
I feel the future of the FPS will be based around balance between different classes and player types. No more "Rocket launcher versus shotgun" debates, but trying to figure out what class and skills would be necessary to take over an enemy base.
I guess that's why much of the project I'm working on is integrating the more open-ended aspects that are found sparsely in some of the games on the market.
Personally, I felt CS was a step backward for online gaming. I mean, we have Deus Ex wiht it's class-based RPG setup in multiplayer. and Tribes 2 with it's classes and unique vehicles.
Hopefully those independant folks here at GG will try to advance their genre instead of falling back into ruts set by successful games.
Stand up and make a unique game! No need to make it genre busting, or art-house kinda innovative... just make it different. Something new and improved.
02/01/2002 (2:44 pm)
Sims is in a "pop" genre. Like backstreet boys is to music. Or other games like Who wants to be a millionare.It's a unique game, and can be pretty fun if you like that kind of stuff.
I have to disagree with your summation of FPS subgenres.
1. Mindless shooter (doom, duke nukem, quake)
2. Online mindless shooter (duke nukem, quake)
3. Team deathmatch (quake ctf, counter-strike)
4. Team strategy oriented (Team fortress, Battlezone)
5. Roleplaying FPS (deus ex)
6. Large scale team warfare (WWII Online, Tribes 2 sorta)
Personally, I find the first three dull as hell. Run around, fire guns die or live. The end. happy happy. CS is just deathmatch masked as strategy, but things really start to open up when everyone isn't the same person (like in TFC or Deus Ex) and when people can develop as the game goes on (like in Deus Ex or WWII Online)
I feel the future of the FPS will be based around balance between different classes and player types. No more "Rocket launcher versus shotgun" debates, but trying to figure out what class and skills would be necessary to take over an enemy base.
I guess that's why much of the project I'm working on is integrating the more open-ended aspects that are found sparsely in some of the games on the market.
Personally, I felt CS was a step backward for online gaming. I mean, we have Deus Ex wiht it's class-based RPG setup in multiplayer. and Tribes 2 with it's classes and unique vehicles.
Hopefully those independant folks here at GG will try to advance their genre instead of falling back into ruts set by successful games.
Stand up and make a unique game! No need to make it genre busting, or art-house kinda innovative... just make it different. Something new and improved.
#4
The Sims is a cute game but gets extremely boring, extremely fast. It is/was so popular cause nearly everyone could get into it (even those among us who don't know how to program the VCR...). Virtual pets were always big...remember Tamagotchis?
I think Counter-Strike became so popular because it took a fun concept and boiled off all the excess bull...it got right down to a classic cops and robbers game. Now people live by round-based games. It's fun for a while but fans and foes have taken it all too far and it's way too vicious to be any fun.
02/04/2002 (12:21 am)
I think (well, it's almost sure to happen) that FPS games will continue to get more realistic and complex, and dynamic. Certain actions will bring on certain consequences, and the worlds will be more "useable." There is so much dead space in some of these games, that it just boils down to you walking down a pretty corridor towards the exit. The Sims is a cute game but gets extremely boring, extremely fast. It is/was so popular cause nearly everyone could get into it (even those among us who don't know how to program the VCR...). Virtual pets were always big...remember Tamagotchis?
I think Counter-Strike became so popular because it took a fun concept and boiled off all the excess bull...it got right down to a classic cops and robbers game. Now people live by round-based games. It's fun for a while but fans and foes have taken it all too far and it's way too vicious to be any fun.
#5
Games seem to be going back to the open-ended game play that was explored in text games like the original Zork series or even that old main-frame "Adventure" game. We're going back to a world in which the player can explore and interact with.
Never games like MGS2 or GTA3, Sims, B&W, give you this but with an added twist of a higher level of interaction with the elements of the world -- and they interact with you too. This is not new idea and is what makes MUDs and MUSHs so engrossing. But the new trick is that it's now available in a high level interaction with objects of a programmed world than just with other players. And now these programmed world objects are actually interacting with themselves and you at the same time. If done well this can really pull the player into the world and can be as engrossing of playing a MUD in which all people are truly role-playing (rather than spouting things like "brittney spears is HOT!!!"). Peter Molyneux's new Project Ego is going even further into this direction, and is solving some of the technical issues of having a really huge world all interacting real-time. Ego will hopefully be able to implement interesting stuff like interacting with the world in a way that changes it slightly and will thusly interact with you in kind. Now the player will truly have to lie in the bed that he/she has made. Rather than allowing them to just be a bastard to everyone and constantly be treaded neutrally by everyone in return. Or not allow NPC's to help players in return when they are helped, etc.
It's interesting to think that this new direction might partially be due to a shift in game programming to using C++ and object oriented game engine design -- which has become the standard direction over the last few years. Now the programmers are automatically thinking how to build a object model of game objects so that each can be interacted with in a set of generic ways by any other object in the system. So now it's up to them on what can not interact with other objects rather than building a interaction matrix with specific construct for interactions between every object type which was typically the case in the past. Now there is a new paradigm in game production that can create weird and interesting possibilities with a limited amount of implementation (if done right). It can give the game interesting and weird object interactions. For example, when B&W was developed and they first implemented the main creature that you "control" in the game it just sat there looking at it's feet because it was hungry and it saw itself and thought that it would make a good meal. They didn't expect this to happen and they took that out in the final game. Things like this can give added functionality to the game exponentially. Just add a construct for eating something to the base class of the game objects and suddenly everything in the game can eat anything else. Talk about a double edged sword though.
Some game play aspects of this new level of interactions can give the player multiple (believable) ways of completing missions or of opening doors, etc. And can allow them to prepare for things that will happen down the road. Like "I can't kill the mayor if I ever want to run for office myself (or maybe could it help me get there faster if no one finds out I did it)". Because of cause and effect in the world, it becomes in part a creation of the player as well as a creation of the designer.
02/06/2002 (9:58 am)
My guess is that next wave in gaming is not really a genre but a style of play that is afforded by the game design. This may just be a natural evolution of the game hardware capabilities that has become available to us lately that allow us to go in the direction that Jim mentioned. Games are now more open-ended than they have been in quite some time. For the last 10-15 years the big craze was going on a rail type mission of one astounding graphical or increasingly challenging game-play after another. Games seem to be going back to the open-ended game play that was explored in text games like the original Zork series or even that old main-frame "Adventure" game. We're going back to a world in which the player can explore and interact with.
Never games like MGS2 or GTA3, Sims, B&W, give you this but with an added twist of a higher level of interaction with the elements of the world -- and they interact with you too. This is not new idea and is what makes MUDs and MUSHs so engrossing. But the new trick is that it's now available in a high level interaction with objects of a programmed world than just with other players. And now these programmed world objects are actually interacting with themselves and you at the same time. If done well this can really pull the player into the world and can be as engrossing of playing a MUD in which all people are truly role-playing (rather than spouting things like "brittney spears is HOT!!!"). Peter Molyneux's new Project Ego is going even further into this direction, and is solving some of the technical issues of having a really huge world all interacting real-time. Ego will hopefully be able to implement interesting stuff like interacting with the world in a way that changes it slightly and will thusly interact with you in kind. Now the player will truly have to lie in the bed that he/she has made. Rather than allowing them to just be a bastard to everyone and constantly be treaded neutrally by everyone in return. Or not allow NPC's to help players in return when they are helped, etc.
It's interesting to think that this new direction might partially be due to a shift in game programming to using C++ and object oriented game engine design -- which has become the standard direction over the last few years. Now the programmers are automatically thinking how to build a object model of game objects so that each can be interacted with in a set of generic ways by any other object in the system. So now it's up to them on what can not interact with other objects rather than building a interaction matrix with specific construct for interactions between every object type which was typically the case in the past. Now there is a new paradigm in game production that can create weird and interesting possibilities with a limited amount of implementation (if done right). It can give the game interesting and weird object interactions. For example, when B&W was developed and they first implemented the main creature that you "control" in the game it just sat there looking at it's feet because it was hungry and it saw itself and thought that it would make a good meal. They didn't expect this to happen and they took that out in the final game. Things like this can give added functionality to the game exponentially. Just add a construct for eating something to the base class of the game objects and suddenly everything in the game can eat anything else. Talk about a double edged sword though.
Some game play aspects of this new level of interactions can give the player multiple (believable) ways of completing missions or of opening doors, etc. And can allow them to prepare for things that will happen down the road. Like "I can't kill the mayor if I ever want to run for office myself (or maybe could it help me get there faster if no one finds out I did it)". Because of cause and effect in the world, it becomes in part a creation of the player as well as a creation of the designer.
#6
As far as trends and genres go -- for the PC, the HUGE definable trend is towards MM games, be they RPG or FPS. Largely, this is because this is one of the few bright spots money-wise for publishers and developers. But also, it is because this is the one area where the PC will continue to dominate for quite some time, due to the social/interaction element. This is true even for MMOFPS-style games. So MM games will definitely be a huge part of the future of gaming, but that's a game type rather than a genre.
All I would predict is that the games will be larger and more open, especially single-player games, and that MM games will become prevalent in almos all genres.
Heh, nobody has made a MMOHG (Massively Multiplay Online Horror Game).
02/11/2002 (11:17 am)
In terms of overall gameplay and the future of said -- it's all about larger, more open-ended worlds, where you can use more things in more ways with more options and more consequences. GTA3 is a great example.As far as trends and genres go -- for the PC, the HUGE definable trend is towards MM games, be they RPG or FPS. Largely, this is because this is one of the few bright spots money-wise for publishers and developers. But also, it is because this is the one area where the PC will continue to dominate for quite some time, due to the social/interaction element. This is true even for MMOFPS-style games. So MM games will definitely be a huge part of the future of gaming, but that's a game type rather than a genre.
All I would predict is that the games will be larger and more open, especially single-player games, and that MM games will become prevalent in almos all genres.
Heh, nobody has made a MMOHG (Massively Multiplay Online Horror Game).
Logan Bender