Musings

[Holkeye]

Back when I first started playing video games, a gamer basically had four choices in the type of game he/she would like to play. You had your platformers, your sports games, your puzzlers, and your adventure games. With the coming of new technology, more capabilities were included in these 8-bit ventures, and soon genres began to branch off. The internal battery allowed for longer, more involved adventures, since saving to a file was a lot more user-friendly than writing down a password. Thus, the RPG was born. New chips were made to allow vertical and parallax scrolling, and games like Metroid and Kid Icarus began to come into existence. Granted, these were great games, and revolutionary at the time, but they all basically adhered to the 4 genre rule.

As the next generation of systems arrived, new technology bred new genres, such as the 2 on 2 fighter, the world-builder, and the first person shooter. This led to more diversity in a gaming experience, and we began to see cross-pollenation of genres, such as Actraiser, which is a 2D platformer combined with a scaled-down world building sim. To me, the 16-bit days were the golden age of gaming. New avenues were being opened up left and right, and (the majority of) each game was something new and exciting. Remember when Donkey Kong Country came out, and we all stared in awe of a SNES displaying prerendered 3D graphics?

Soon after, 3D was commonplace, and the next generation of systems combined prerendering with real-time models. Of course, looking back on most of the games from the 32-bit era, the 3D is noticeably a young technology, and many of the games are seen as plain by today's standards. However, fully 3D environments led to a new genre: the 3rd person adventure. I'm reminded of a certain gun-toting cavern-crawler that became the first female icon of the 3D era. Another thing to note in this generation was the overwhelming publicizing of gaming in general, and a slew of casual gamers coming to the scene. Some people say that gaming was never the same after this, and I agree. Not that it was all bad though.

I'll pause here for a second and note that as games were evolving, the genre lines were becoming less and less apparent. You had platformers that included a wide range of minigames, of all shapes and sizes. Sports games were becoming more RPG-like, with the heavy reliance on statistics and skill building. Speaking of RPGs, what constituted as an RPG was becoming unclear, as most games were including some element from what was once considered a "traditional" RPG.

Now we come to a first: three different companies, three different systems. Which one to buy? Truthfully, I can really find no fault with any of them. Each has its positives and negatives, and the only thing that true gamers should be concerned with is which games you want to play. There were many new aspects to gaming applied to this era of gaming, including on-line support, the inclusion of internal memory, and more concentration on a multiplayer experience. This, I think, developed in unison with the surge of casual gamers, that want to get a quick gaming fix and then be on with their lives. This is all good stuff, but many people have their particular complaints with the way games were evolving. Some claimed that the single player experience was dying, while others balked at the GameCube for its "games for children". While the latter shouldn't matter one lick even if it were true, (the games are still excellent, regardless of the intended demographic) the former couldn't be farther from the truth...

Here we are. The current generation. The current state of gaming. I would have to say that one glaring aspect of modern games is their similarities to PC games. Since gaming consoles are becoming more similar to personal computers specifically designed for gaming, this seems obvious. This generation of consoles should prove that while multiplayer is the strong selling point, rumors of single-player's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Perhaps riding hand in hand with this observation, is the simple fact that genres have become nearly obsolete. This is the point that I'm trying to make with this "article".

I would like to hear people's opinions of the future of gaming. In my mind, I believe that the majority of games will shun the genre complex, and instead provide immersive, completely interactive stories. It's a trend that has already begun, and from what I can gather, it is what gamers and creators alike have been striving for from the beginning. There are many games such as this being released right now. With games like Bioshock, Fallout 3, Fable 2, and Oblivion, the industry is less selling games, than experiences.

Time will only tell what will become of games in the future, but I'm looking forward to the day when I can come home from work and travel to a distant land, immersed in every sense, and ready to save (or destroy) some fantastic and strange world.

[Sophist]

I think that people should stop looking at review scores, stop getting advice of whether a game is good or not and play it to enjoy it. If it is bad enough, then you won't enjoy it. Most people, as in nearly everyone on /v/, plays games with a bad disposition, because they expect everything to be perfect or it is a waste of time. They parrot review scores even if they are 90 out of 100. To me, that's a game worth playing. But of course too many people play games without the intent to get from them what they were meant for. Enjoyment. I enjoy Oblivion and Morrowind because I didn't expect Oblivion to be a carbon copy of Morrowind with better graphics. I enjoy Fallout 3 because I didn't expect a carbon copy of Fallout 2, I didn't expect the free roaming world to be MASSIVE, I didn't expect it to be as open ended. I play games to enjoy them, no matter what the review scores are, if it looks good enough, i'll play it.

Except Vampire Rain on the 360.


Avoid that like the plague.

[tSwitch]

I also see games changing as we move forward in the industry.  Along with casual games has come a concept of 'serious games'. (No not like Serious Sam, that's as far from a serious game as it gets.)  Games that are less about fun, than about projecting a view, or a criticism, or the like.  Designed as say, an interactive documentary (Super Columbine Massacre RPG), or a satire on the business world and fast food chains (McDonalds: The Game).  This breaks from the norm and pushes the limits of what a 'game' is, or is meant to do.

Then there are also people like myself, who see Game Design as an art unto itself.  It takes music, pictures, stories, and gives them life, putting them together into a reactive world.  Some of the best artists, composers, and writers have taken their craft and turned it to gaming.  And like most art, games can be used to create an emotional response from the audience.  Be it sad because X character died tragically, or happy because Y and Z characters finally got together. (just as examples)  This, again pushes the limits of a 'game'.

Finally, more and more independent companies are making their way into the gaming world.  Through the internet, people are able to break into the industry without resorting to licking corporate shoes for money.  And seeing the profit from games, more companies seem willing to publish a game for an upstart company.

The gaming world is changing, I agree, and I see it as a change for the better. Games are expanding to be more than just 'save the princess' stories.  They're more than just side scrollers or first person shooters.  Though, I do miss the day of the epic RPG, that would take 20+ hours to beat, as opposed to recent RPGs that you can beat in a single 2 hour sitting.

[Leventhan]

I think that the future of gaming will not differ that much from what we are seeing and experiencing right now, except in a more immersive and universal way. As in nowadays, hardcore gamers of the past is slowly dissapearing from their unique groups and communities. Casual gamers pops up and other family members now indulge in video games as well. We are all gamers (or most of us) and what we do has become a huge necessity and part of daily life. Countries like Korea for example has in a sense become a gamer's country (thanks Starcraft) and it turns out to be a great source of income for many game developers. It's now an inseparable part of our modern lives.

Over the years, there has been many changes. So-called "artsy" games starts to appear, degrees in game design theory increases in popularity, and independent games are on the rise. What the future holds for video games can greatly affected by what major game developers will do in this current generation or point in time. Will it be the perfect RPG? Ambient games like fl0w? Perhaps concentrating on pure interactions instead? It can seem hazy at times, but one thing's for sure is we will be seeing more and more ideas thrown into the world of gaming.

Of course, on the negative side video games may just turn out to be a dangerous world for anyone to roam and enjoy in. If someday we happen to obtain the technology for us gamers to

be immersed in every sense, and ready to save (or destroy) some fantastic and strange world

- there is bound to be groups of people who wish (and will) try to exploit it. Spending too much on the game world will slowly separate us from the physical world whether we like it or not. If it runs out of control, games will be once again viewed like how the older generations view GTA and violence in gaming.

What I personally hope to see, is games being released for the sole purpose of expressing ideas and thoughts of the game devlopers who make them and not for mere profit. Indie games are what provides us with "the spirit of true gaming" and they could be the pioneers of new types of games in the future. Braid and World of Goo are great examples of what indie developers are capable of and what games we ought to look forward to.

[Holkeye]

Great points, everyone. I agree with everything that's been said so far.

[Malson]

I enjoy Oblivion and Morrowind because I didn't expect Oblivion to be a carbon copy of Morrowind with better graphics. I enjoy Fallout 3 because I didn't expect a carbon copy of Fallout 2, I didn't expect the free roaming world to be MASSIVE, I didn't expect it to be as open ended. I play games to enjoy them, no matter what the review scores are, if it looks good enough, i'll play it.

http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,29518.0 =/

[Sophist]

I enjoy Oblivion and Morrowind because I didn't expect Oblivion to be a carbon copy of Morrowind with better graphics. I enjoy Fallout 3 because I didn't expect a carbon copy of Fallout 2, I didn't expect the free roaming world to be MASSIVE, I didn't expect it to be as open ended. I play games to enjoy them, no matter what the review scores are, if it looks good enough, i'll play it.

http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,29518.0 =/

That was a long time ago, and I still don't like Dracula X whether or not it is compared to Rondo or not, I thought I made that clear.

[Malson]

It's alright, I wasn't trying to instigate an argument. I'm actually glad you said what you did in this thread, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.

What I didn't like about your posts in that thread was that you claimed it to be a BAD game, not just a non-preferential game as you're saying now.

[Kathryn]

Around the time i picked up video games, the n64 was the only console i had, And that was a while ago and i didn't even really play ot, i just watched my brother play it.

One difference i've noticed between gaming now and gaming then? graphics are one thing (Which most of the time, unless they are spectacularly good or bad, i do not notice anyways, hurray!) but games are slowly becoming more user friendly, which translates to most of the gaming community as "easy".

Anyhow, i've always loved RPGs most of all and i love it when a game has a good story to it, so based on what you have all said, games of the future seem okay.

What was my point? shit, i lost it again. oh well.

[Holkeye]

I agree with you on the difficulty issue.
In my opinion, games don't have to be "difficult" to be good. Games that suddenly get impossible toward the end are annoying, and very unrealistic. It's not like when you're almost done painting a picture, the last few parts are four times as hard as the beginning. I think a good game has an even feeling throughout, even if it does increase in difficulty slightly.

[Sophist]

I like a game with difficulty, I find myself choosing Normal often, and even more often the Hard difficulty on my first play through of any game. Of course though, playing most games on the easiest setting still gives the same experience, I can play through Devil May Cry 3 on Hell or Hell mode, and play it again on Easy and feel like I am breezing through it, but it doesn't actually change anything. I just feel playing it on hard makes me more into the game, as if it was longer because it generally takes more time to progress. Difficulty doesn't matter in a game, what matters is how it is played by the player. Some games that weren't designed on a huge budget, but still try and push through commercially end up being more difficult than usual, playing on hard is asking to burst a blood vessel.

[Kathryn]

To play a hard game or an easy game really, in my opinion, is an option between which experience you want to have. Some gamers will get frustrated and may give up on a game that is impossibly hard, but others may want to push themselves to become better at gaming. Some people play games for the story, and some play it for the gameplay. I think for most gamers it is the latter, but i think the difference between these two kinds of gamers is most apparent in whether or not they choose to play multiplayer.

I'm sorry if that isn't coherent, i'm tired ;o_-