Are new gameplay possibilities going to be enabled by more processing power? *spawn

[Prophecy2k]

Gameplay is less and less limited by hardware power. The exception is large scale sandbox where you can go nuts with simulation. Even then, core gameplay will often scale fairly well too.

But linear fps? 1 v 1 fighter? Racing games? Puzzle? Action? Mostly power is about eye candy now, and it's memory that allows worlds to scale.

The rush to move beyond 8 x Jaguar in 2017 won't be so desperate for the majority of games out there.

Edit: Rise of the Tomb Raider and Forza Horizon 2 were made without consideration for the 360 downports. The 360 version still ended up being pretty damn good by the looks of things ...

This HAS been true between the PS3/X360 to PS4/XB1 generation, but was never true for any generational transition before then, and is possibly not necessarily true for all future ones.

If all we care about making is the same linear FPS/TPS/same old game genres going forward but with a little more eye-candy then yeah maybe that will be the case. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be however.

E.g. a game whose design is based around realistic and interactive fluid simulation. Probably would be a non-starter with current gen console's cruddy CPUs and limited capability for efficient GPU compute. A traditional console generational HW leap however (lets say conservatively 6-8x jump) could provide enough processing juice to allow you to make said game and it perform at a playable framerate. However, an iterative incremental HW model will make the development of said game impossible until the console on the bottom of the list of supported HW is powerful enough, i.e. could be in 10 to 15 years time.

The point is incremental HW upgrades will limit game development by limiting the performance available for more ambitious game projects, as well as push the potential to see those more ambitious ideas further into the future as business realities (i.e. the target platform installed base distribution) will delay those prospects significantly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Was thinking something more like this:

Although I agree with the sentiments, I think realistically there aren't new experiences to be had from tech. That is, some may be possible, but they're fringe experiences that'd be a novelty in a small indie title but won't change the way games operate. We had fluid mechanic terrain modelling in From Dust last gen, in one title, that was a novelty. Not even a full God game based on the tech. No-one looked at the tech and started making other games based on similar concepts. eg. A marble rolling game where you need to model the virtual sand, pouring piles of sand and shaping them before releasing the ball to make the course and avoid the obstacles. We could do that now but no-one's going to because it's too niche. There's a whole thread talking about physics based emergent gameplay. That was possible for the past 8 years but no-one particularly explored it.

More power will drive bigger worlds populated by the same core mechanics. This will scale well for an interim generation. If we lose the interim generation, we still won't get any more varied or interesting gameplay models based on new, more powerful hardware driving calculation heavy engines. If such games were to exist, they'd have been coming out over the past years on i7 and decent PCs.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Although I agree with the sentiments, I think realistically there aren't new experiences to be had from tech. That is, some may be possible, but they're fringe experiences that'd be a novelty in a small indie title but won't change the way games operate. We had fluid mechanic terrain modelling in From Dust last gen, in one title, that was a novelty. Not even a full God game based on the tech. No-one looked at the tech and started making other games based on similar concepts. eg. A marble rolling game where you need to model the virtual sand, pouring piles of sand and shaping them before releasing the ball to make the course and avoid the obstacles. We could do that now but no-one's going to because it's too niche. There's a whole thread talking about physics based emergent gameplay. That was possible for the past 8 years but no-one particularly explored it.

More power will drive bigger worlds populated by the same core mechanics. This will scale well for an interim generation. If we lose the interim generation, we still won't get any more varied or interesting gameplay models based on new, more powerful hardware driving calculation heavy engines. If such games were to exist, they'd have been coming out over the past years on i7 and decent PCs.

You make very solid points Shifty, but in an industry where genuinely new gameplay ideas are few and far between, where pubs are becoming more and more risk averse as game dev budgets soar, where the games themselves are becoming so homogenised and derivative in terms of core gameplay mechanics and systems, then surely "novelties" will be the only things left to differentiate games?

New idea are always needed to keep even the core work-horse game genres feeling fresh with each new iteration. Of course more HW performance is more likely to result in these staple genres merely looking prettier than previous iterations on new gen. HW. But on the other hand, significant increases in HW performance will be more likely to add sufficient headroom to not only see in an increasing in graphical fidelity but also may facilitate some novel new ideas in anything from physics simulation, to more complex AI, to more dynamic game worlds meaning greater interactivity and thus more gameplay depth. I'm fairly confident that incremental HW upgrades with forward compatibility on consoles will not necessarily result in the same, rather I can very much see it being a limitation placed on developers that further stagnates an already stagnating creative industry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think it's about power, but what differences can actually be achieved. Given an infinite amount of processing power, what new gameplay models can be created that people actually like and will shift software? As per the physics discussion, a completely open physics simulated world can result in bugged gameplay and all sorts of issues. I think the major enjoyment derived from physics is when it goes wrong and funny!

Let's look at fluid dynamics in particular. Hydrophobia was announced for PS360 in 2007.

"Hydrophobia is a game like no other, utilising Blade's groundbreaking technology to deliver an experience which is set to redefine the boundaries of gaming," the description reads.

(High quality vid)
Then the game released in 2010 to a metacritic score of 58 - the ground breaking water simulation doesn't really add a lot.

That's adding water physics to a conventional human-avatar-in-threat mechanic. If you want to be truly original with the fluid dynamics, you have to either ditch the human avatar or come up with something different. And let's face it, there's not a lot people do with water other than swim in it or drink it.

Further discussion probably warrants its own thread, "what new gameplay might be achieved by more power?" or somesuch. I'll move these.

 

[upnorthsox]

Isn't VR a big new gameplay tech and this proposed mid-gen upgrade in response to the needs to bring this gameplay tech to realization?

 

[Clukos]

It is the case for Uncharted 4 in comparison to Uncharted 1/2/3. Now it may not be strictly down to hardware but U4 is using a significantly more complex set of animations that blend together and allow the player to simply do more at the same time. I gave an example here: https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1904002/

It is a small detail, but adds another layer of depth in the moment to moment gameplay.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Isn't VR a big new gameplay tech and this proposed mid-gen upgrade in response to the needs to bring this gameplay tech to realization?

VR's playing the same mechanics, just in VR.

 

[cheapchips]

VR's playing the same mechanics, just in VR.

Not sure I agree with that. Even something as ducking is a new mechanic when you actually have to duck to duck, rather than hit a button.

 

[Egmon83]

No;
Developers make both gameplay, and graphics.

Look at GTA5 on PS3. 256MB system ram, of which about 50 was used for other things.
Then looking at Watch_Dogs, or Assassins Creed; you could say that PS4/Xbox One is only incremental, as it enables no "new gameplay possibilities" right?
But while you are thinking that, Rockstar is developing an engine which will drive GTA6. In 2 years you will understand what PS4 was capable of, gameplay wise. It is not 2013 hardware which is limiting developers, it is lack of imagination and creativity which is limiting developers in creating "new gameplay possibilities"

 

[Globalisateur]

Yes. But you have to think about better human / machine interface too. Power alone is not enough.

- Atari 2600 controller + very simple joystick with one button + SD TV
- Decent hardware + dual analog stick & multi-buttons controller + full HD TV
- Powerful hardware + motion controllers + VR headset
- Very powerful hardware + mental control + Matrix full reality
- etc.

It's never going to stop. Nevah

 

[orangpelupa]

Yes. But you have to think about better human / machine interface too. Power alone is not enough.

- Atari 2600 controller + very simple joystick with one button + SD TV
- Decent hardware + dual analog stick & multi-buttons controller + full HD TV
- Powerful hardware + motion controllers + VR headset
- Very powerful hardware + mental control + Matrix full reality
- etc.

It's never going to stop. Nevah

I wish I was born a few yesrs later

 

[turkey]

Might as well this "cloud" into the mix.

Crackdown and city wide destruction seems on the surface to be very CPU hungry , the question is does this make a new gameplay mechanic or is it just a simple evolution of destruction we have seen for a decade?

If we truly need crazy power is it likely we even need it locally and host it centrally.

 

[DieH@rd]

Shadow of Mordor is an obvious example. It simulated "living world" of villains in a way that we did not see before.

 

[orangpelupa]

A real living npc with believable conversation should be nice. It's also already doable if using Internet right?

Like those chat bots or siri or something.

Although it may be harder to define each npc story and character?

Or do the reverse, and make them make their own story. Like those silly radiant quest in syringe.

 

[function]

More processing power certainly can offer new gameplay opportunities, but there are many other potential limitations that can cap the processing requirements necessary for a given set of gameplay mechanics before processing becomes the limiter. And as processing power scales, those other limitations or bottlenecks come to the forefront more often.

Limitations that certain games or game-types have already hit in the real "this has to sell" world:

- Number of objects a human can track e.g. top down shooter
- Speed with which humans can react e.g. FPS, 1v1 beaterfight
- Number of entities with which humans can interact simultaneously e.g. scrolling beaterfight
- Number of moves ahead which even ultra dedicated human prodigy genius freaks can handle e.g. chess (and most of us 'tards would be whipped by an 8-bit CPU with a good algorithm)
- Precision of inputs e.g. thumbstick
- Number of simultaneous distinct or complementary inputs a human can consistently handle e.g. joypad, mouse and KB, and everything else in gaming-land

The challenge has moved increasingly away from "more" or "more precise" to other areas. Everyone loves a sandbox ... until they've spent 15 minutes in one and then they're bored as shit - unless there's a commonly agreed challenge, competition, rule-set, system of interaction and taking turns etc. And that doesn't involve "doing more" than mass scale simulation, it always involves adding limitations to improve the experience. That's what game rules are.

Game rules are limitations to improve the overall experience.

Coming up with a gameplay concept that requires a huge amount of processing power to pull off is easy. We can all do it. Turning that idea into a polished, highly tuned, balanced product that a large enough number of potential customers are prepared to pay enough for is far more difficult. And there it is increasingly human concerns rather than the ability of processors to simulate or apply rules that are the challenge.

 

[steveOrino]

Even something as ducking is a new mechanic when you actually have to duck to duck, rather than hit a button.

No its not, and those ducking actions (along with many others) are going to be limited by physical space, sensor limitations and the bundle of cords attached. Hitting the button has a huge "cost of input" advantage over physical ducking motions, so the VR version better offer a gameplay advantage & experience thats EONS above hitting controller/keyboard buttons...... Which it wont because there exists zero tactile feedback from the objects in the game world in relation to the players own (the same issue previous motion gaming sensors had). Room VR falls right back into the theme park problem those past devices had.

 

[cheapchips]

No its not, and those ducking actions (along with many others) are going to be limited by physical space, sensor limitations and the bundle of cords attached. Hitting the button has a huge "cost of input" advantage over physical ducking motions, so the VR version better offer a gameplay advantage & experience thats EONS above hitting controller/keyboard buttons...... Which it wont because there exists zero tactile feedback from the objects in the game world in relation to the players own (the same issue previous motion gaming sensors had). Room VR falls right back into the theme park problem those past devices had.

I agree with your points on space limitations. We'll see how that pans out. It doesn't detract from new and novel gameplay offered by VR, even if people tire of it eventuality.

Cost of input isn't always a negative. Pick three versions of tennis for example, Virtua, Wii and real life. They're all entertaining games but the cost of input for swinging your bat* is pretty wide between them.

* I don't really like actual tennis.

 

[Akumajou]

No;
Developers make both gameplay, and graphics.

Look at GTA5 on PS3. 256MB system ram, of which about 50 was used for other things.
Then looking at Watch_Dogs, or Assassins Creed; you could say that PS4/Xbox One is only incremental, as it enables no "new gameplay possibilities" right?
But while you are thinking that, Rockstar is developing an engine which will drive GTA6. In 2 years you will understand what PS4 was capable of, gameplay wise. It is not 2013 hardware which is limiting developers, it is lack of imagination and creativity which is limiting developers in creating "new gameplay possibilities"

Gamer, both hardcore and casuals along with gaming media and buying practices is what's limiting that imagination.

Last gen was nearly a disaster or catastrophe of online FPS (with Stuck in Quake III gameplay mechanics, word design) and TPS with cynical gaming media jumping bandwagons as usual and not informing the gaming public as they could have.

Too much forgiven hand holding and go here play throughs...immortal gaming experiences.

Thanks to Sony's wild risk with FS that Demon's Souls brought back some non media and general consensus buzz whicj wanted online socialmedia multiplayer with zero imagination.

 

[Commenter]

Guys repeat after me...quantum barriers maketh 6-8x leaps in power not.

 

[Commenter]

Anyway, this question is surely a rhetorical one. Of course new gameplay possibilities will emerge with more advanced physical simulations of worlds.