Whats the next big thing in realtime graphics?
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
_xxx_ said:The next big thing would be if we stopped worrying about gfx cards and just be able to enjoy the games the way they were meant to be played when you get in the game
Define the words:
Enjoy
Game
Play
_xxx_ said:
Gonna take a while, cause our brains are still much more capable of visualising "stuff" than computers are. Imagination is a tough beast to beat. I guess it will all come down to who can fool our senses the most...
As technology has progressed, so has gameplay. You'd be a fool to claim that advances in hardware have not resulted in advances in gameplay._xxx_ said:The next big thing would be if we stopped worrying about gfx cards and just be able to enjoy the games the way they were meant to be played when you get in the game
Chalnoth said:As technology has progressed, so has gameplay. You'd be a fool to claim that advances in hardware have not resulted in advances in gameplay._xxx_ said:The next big thing would be if we stopped worrying about gfx cards and just be able to enjoy the games the way they were meant to be played when you get in the game
then label me a fool and spank me (please?)
Well, I'll just use a simple example. Consider the original Metroid game vs. Super Metroid vs. Metroid prime.Sage said:
The original Metroid, while fun for its time, was really repetitive and had a large number of inane puzzles. This was really necessary for the hardware of its time for the simple reason that there wasn't any other way to make the game long. The puzzles had to be ridiculously hard for the game to take any reasonable amount of time to complete. We didn't think it was bad at the time for the simple reason that we expected this sort of repetitive, very hard gameplay at the time. It was a hallmark of the original NES, in fact. (note: you may be saying to yourself that this was an action game, there were no puzzles. Look a bit more closely: there were places where, for instance, you had to get very high by simply shooting the blocks above you, and jumping at just the right time to have the blocks below you reappear while you were above them...)
Fast forward to Super Metroid for the SNES. The SNES actually had enough storage (or, rather, the cartridges did) for there to be a large, varied world. The graphics, too, helped to make it look much less repetitive. It was no longer necessary to have inane, ridiculously hard puzzles to solve. So the game was now able to have length not just by making it hard to get past, but instead by giving you lots of things to do. The new hardware allowed the game to be less repetitive and much more fun.
And now let's move forward to the Gamecube, with Metroid Prime. This game really translated the original Metroid game well to the 3D world, and in doing so added a whole new level of immersion to the genre.
Now you should recognize that you only think of the previous two games as being good because of when they were released. If they were released today, with simply updated graphics but the exact same gameplay, you would think them to be poor games. Obviously, therefore, improved graphics doesn't always result in an improvement in gameplay, but improved hardware does allow game developers to have the freedom for other forms of gameplay, and therefore gives them the power to make better games.
The best games today are unequivocally better than the best games from five years ago. You may be able to pick out one game five years ago that has aspect X better than any game released this year, but if you look at the game as a whole, you'll find many other aspects to be much better in the game today.
ok i dont even know what Metroid is.
but, i still disagree. I STILL think that Super Mario Bros is one of the best games ever made. I STLL play it today. I still play Civ2. I still play Castles 2. I still play a lot of older games. Why? Because it is much rarer today that I am able to find a game worth buying. I baught BF1942 and Vietcong recently (within the past 2 or so years) because they are really great games. They couldnt have been made if it weren't for today's technology. But, that doesn't mean I think they are better than the older games. I actually find it pretty-much impossible to find games worth playing anymore. I actually think that games USED to be better. There used to be a lot of great games really worth buying but today it's just a sea of worthless titles. I wouldnt even be willing to expend the bandwidth to pirate most games that are made today, that's how poorly I think of them.
but, i still disagree. I STILL think that Super Mario Bros is one of the best games ever made. I STLL play it today. I still play Civ2. I still play Castles 2. I still play a lot of older games. Why? Because it is much rarer today that I am able to find a game worth buying. I baught BF1942 and Vietcong recently (within the past 2 or so years) because they are really great games. They couldnt have been made if it weren't for today's technology. But, that doesn't mean I think they are better than the older games. I actually find it pretty-much impossible to find games worth playing anymore. I actually think that games USED to be better. There used to be a lot of great games really worth buying but today it's just a sea of worthless titles. I wouldnt even be willing to expend the bandwidth to pirate most games that are made today, that's how poorly I think of them.
Well, fine. Take Super Mario Brothers, then. SMB 3 is quite a bit better than the first one in many ways, made possible by the larger cartridge size (yes, it had some things that annoyed some players, but the overall game was better in more ways). And Super Mario World for the SNES was still better, made possible by the better hardware and still larger cartridge size.
Obviously you can't say that every sequel is better than what came before, but the simple fact that you can find a game made today that is better than anything released five years ago is a testament to the fact that games are evolving.
If you like a five year old game better, it is probably only because of nostalgia.
Obviously you can't say that every sequel is better than what came before, but the simple fact that you can find a game made today that is better than anything released five years ago is a testament to the fact that games are evolving.
If you like a five year old game better, it is probably only because of nostalgia.
Then you should probably try actually playing a few. For example, City of Heroes is, quite possibly, the best MMORPG released recently for people who don't want to have to be on for many hours at a stretch to get anywhere. Sure, there are a ton of mediocre titles, but to claim that there are no good ones is just a statement that you haven't played enough new games. For example, I haven't really played that many new games, and I claim that's the only reason why I can't find more examples of great games released this year.
Chalnoth said:
I challenge any game to rank higher in my book than Castles2 Siege and Conquest. I think it's the best game ever made, and not because of Nostalgia. I'd love to have it remade with better graphics but I dont think that would happen. And, even then, it would still be the asme game with better graphics. Gameplay makes good games, not technology.
I'm sorr that you dont think I play enough games but the reason I dont is because games dont get me excited anymore. I have gotten very excited with about a few titles over the alst few years and all but Max Payne (the first) failed to live up to the hype.
Civilization 2 (multiplayer version) can still keep me occupied for weeks even though it's not even a real-time strategy game! I wish they would make a version of Everquest that just had the old world (maybe Kunark or even Velious but NOT Luclin) because I LOVED those zones. I'd still play it even if it reverted back to the old graphics, even the old bugs. Why? Because I think the new things theyve added suck and kill the game for me.
I guess it's hard to quantify that statement for the simple reason that I can't really remember a game since then that has had remotely the same game mechanics as Castles 2. Yes, it was a great game, but I don't think you can really compare it for the simple reason that nothing much like it has been done since.Sage said:
I do feel, however, that if the game was redone for today's computers, you'd have the capability to have a much better game. For example, the AI in Castles 2 was pretty crappy, and relatively easy to fool. Today if the game was made, the developers could spend much more processing power on the AI, making it more believable.
Also, you could do quite a bit to make improve the combat and the castle building. You could make a much larger world in which to play. There are many things that you could do to expand upon the original gameplay.
My point is that technology enables entirely new types of gameplay. See the Oblivion previews, for instance, for some insight into some ways that a next-generation RPG can really use technology to put it ahead of today's games. One simple way that Oblivion manages this is that the NPC's neither stand in one place all the time, nor do they have scripted sequences. They instead behave much more like "Sims." This wasn't possible in the past due to large CPU requirements.
Additionally, if you really want to see what I'm trying to say, look back at my Metroid example. Seriously find Metroid (NES) and Super Metroid (SNES) and try to play them. They were both superb games for their time. But, particularly if you've never played either one, tell me which one you think is the better game.
By the way, I'm going to add another little something:
It does also happen many times that a developer attempts to take their tried and true gameplay and convert it to a new medium as technology evolves, but fails. So yes, there have been cases where games have been released and the more advanced technology has actually proven to be to the game's detriment.
One example, I would claim, is Mario 64. Personally, I felt that the Mario games for the NES and SNES were great. But I just couldn't get in to Mario 64. I don't think the translation to the new medium was done properly.
Another example is Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware guys did an excellent job on many of their previous RPG's, not the least of which was the Baldur's Gate series. But the single player game for NWN really suffered, and it did so because Bioware put a lot more effort into the multiplayer portions of the game, as well as in making it easy for the community to modify the game. One could see this as NWN having poor gameplay because Bioware went along with a new fad: multiplayer (side comment: this does mean, of course, that through modifications and its multiplayer side, the game is at least as good as anything Bioware has made before, it's just that the built-in campaign is rather poor for single-player play).
But just because this does happen doesn't mean that new games are worse. All it does mean is that as technology advances, there are new possibile ways you can take old gameplay. This means that if game developers are prudent, they will always be able to make games better. They don't always succeed, unfortunately, but they do have more freedom to succeed.
It does also happen many times that a developer attempts to take their tried and true gameplay and convert it to a new medium as technology evolves, but fails. So yes, there have been cases where games have been released and the more advanced technology has actually proven to be to the game's detriment.
One example, I would claim, is Mario 64. Personally, I felt that the Mario games for the NES and SNES were great. But I just couldn't get in to Mario 64. I don't think the translation to the new medium was done properly.
Another example is Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware guys did an excellent job on many of their previous RPG's, not the least of which was the Baldur's Gate series. But the single player game for NWN really suffered, and it did so because Bioware put a lot more effort into the multiplayer portions of the game, as well as in making it easy for the community to modify the game. One could see this as NWN having poor gameplay because Bioware went along with a new fad: multiplayer (side comment: this does mean, of course, that through modifications and its multiplayer side, the game is at least as good as anything Bioware has made before, it's just that the built-in campaign is rather poor for single-player play).
But just because this does happen doesn't mean that new games are worse. All it does mean is that as technology advances, there are new possibile ways you can take old gameplay. This means that if game developers are prudent, they will always be able to make games better. They don't always succeed, unfortunately, but they do have more freedom to succeed.
Chalnoth said:
but... you're missing something imortant... there hasn't been a remake for modern computers. so, it's still the best game ever (imo). is it a game? yes. so is it fair to compare it's overall enjoyment factor to other games? duh. doesn't matter if it COULD be done better because it hasnt. we have better technology now and it hasnt made any game better than castles II because noone has made gameplay that's as good. thus, technology doesnt make games better. it gives you more things you can do but doesnt make it any easier to come up with a better end result. if anything it makes it easier to come up with a total flop.
The lack of a comparison means that your thinking that game was the best ever speaks more of your personal preferences than of how good that game was.
Edit:
By the way, now that I think about it, though I haven't played them, the Total War games may actually have rather similar gameplay to Castes 2. Have you played any of the Total War games yet?
Edit:
By the way, now that I think about it, though I haven't played them, the Total War games may actually have rather similar gameplay to Castes 2. Have you played any of the Total War games yet?
Chalnoth said:
but.... isnt "good" limited to personal preference? Some other games I would consider good- Civilisation2 (has been sequels, havnt liked any of them) Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale series. Outwars. Now Outwars is really just a shooter and those have been done to death. but, i still fnid outwars to be a GREAT game relative to most shooters nowdays. heck, i like Quake2 better than Doom3. I lik Unreal Tourney better than UT2k3. I still play UT. I loved Rune but dont know of any that are similar. Definitely one of my favorites- Earthsiege II. There have been plenty of mech-type games made and ES2 has always been my fav. I also loved the first turn-based strategy game Sierra made based on the Earthsiege series.
and nope havnt played any total war games. might have to try them although i still doubt they could beat castles II.