The Future of Gaming

[Acriku]

I was wondering what the future has in store for us with gaming. It won't always be the usual "looks nice" and "fun mouse + keyboard" gaming that we are used to today. There a couple theories out there that are completely possible and somewhat exciting: I and others speculate that gaming, and specifically the gaming industry, will dumb itself down in quantity as the games get more complicated and immersive into what would the pinnacle of the future. That is, having a few games out on the market that are so immersive, so interactive, and so vast in scale and depth, that there leaves little to no time for any other gaming. So, could our future hold for us a world where everyone plays one or two games that have developed into alternate but viable and immersive realities? Could the gaming industry transform into a duality of competing gaming developer giants (much like Microsoft and Apple) that each focus on their own incredible game that people could easily devote their lives into playing them? My vision of the future is this, where only a couple or few games exist but the vastness and immersiveness of them are enough for generations of people to include themselves in.

That's my theory, what's yours?

[veK]

I'm waiting for the ultimate fps- experience, meaning:

I want to have some kind of suit & helmet which directly gets me into the middle of the battle.

I'll have a m4 rifle in my hand and it just is like real life - that's why they maybe won't ever produce such a thing, the governments already cry about the usual shootings and violence in games. but imagine how nice it would be to throw a grenade by really moving your arm (just not throwing stuff through the room). you can also add vibration sensors like the shock pads have so if you get hit you feel it. just some kind of virtual gotcha/paintball. one of the last 2 james bond movies had an invention really close to it - 007 is doing some training at the mi6 headquarter as far as I can remember.

(no, I don't want war - I can still differ between reality and virtuality but hopping around and shooting stuff is just so much fun)

[Megashrap]

Well, I think games like BF2 and EVE have broken the mold in terms of "vastness and immersiveness" and has pretty much proved to be the way I would like to see gaming turn towards. I mean any given day there are around 60,000 on-line players. BF2 has truly been (so far for me anyways) sheer endless hours of enjoyment. It really is a game that never gets old nor has it ever become boring or repetitive. As long as the gaming moguls keep it maintained, patched and refreshed, and I think the proof is in the pudding on this game anyways, it's the path I see gaming heading, and will only get better. Wether it's a Shooter, RTS or any genre of game.

As far as the gaming giants and developers competing on that huge of a level(as MS or Apple), it kind of only makes sense that it will only grow into huge rival corps. supply and demand would take it that route alone I think. One thing is for sure, gaming will only improve and I think it is possible to one day have such great games, that they could rival the Coke vs.Pepsi effect as the result of high quality games being produced.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I agree with scar... i believe what Acriku is referring to has already come.... i mean game slike EVE and BF2 are easy to get immersed into and heavily addicted to.

BF2 may not be a true universe.... but EVE:online definately is my alternate reality... graphics are great and the universe is so immersive... you can claim lawless space outside of empire for your own if you are part of an alliance and you can build conquerable structures that have real world value.  My corporation in EVE  is part of an alliance that has constructed an outpost in lawless space that has a real ebay value of 5,000-10,000 dollars.  We are working on constructing a massive Titan that can wipe  out entire fleets which will have a real world ebay value of $25,000 dollars.  This is all  video game yet the things we fight for have real tangible value. So everything is really "on the line" when we are attacking someone or coming under attack. I dont see how it can get anymore immersive than that.   :O

Well i guess all games can improve... but seriously... i would say that the golden age of gaming is soon to come in 4-5 years with  physics cards, and monster SLI setups and CPUs that have 4 times the power than what we have now.  However i dont think that classics like elderscrolls RPG's or BF-esque First person shooters will ever lose their appeal.

I think you will always have

-Single Player RPG's

-Single Player FPS

-MMORPG's

-MMOFPS's

-MMORTS's

(FYI....MMO = Massive Multiplayer Online)

The catch is this tho... the games with the longest lifespan are the MMORPG's (like EVE or Everquest) which can last for 7-10 years.... but not much more after that.  The reason being that a developer can only offer so much content before you have seen and done everything... and eventually your character will become close to god-status... rendering the game boring or less-satisfying.  Most veteran gamers know that its the journey that is the most exciting part of the game.. not the destination... once you reach the destination (god status.. or accomplishment of all goals) then you become bored and want a new game.  Also most game buyers are kids... and since most kids have A.D.D. they wont be able to play a game for generations to come.  Only a few games like EVE or Everquest can last for 10 years... and EVE is in its 3rd year... so EVE has about another good 7 years to go before its life dries up.

Guns

[jeff2429]

Wonder how soon it will be before they charge online play for all (PC)games, since they're all gonna be so fancy and what not.

[Swordmaster_Duncan]

I hope not!

More innovation, change, whatever you want to call it. I can walk into a games store now and not even be tempted by games (though if we got a decent amount of games for the DS down here that would change: ouenden, Trauma Center: Under the Knife, tetris ds, metriod prime: hunters, brain age, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney to name a few...I might save up and import). I hate to sound like a fanboy, but I'm hanging out for Nintendo's next console (if you haven't guessed)... :P

I'm not a fan of MMO universes. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, just not the reality. And that has nothing to do with the community (I don't really play any MMO's). It's to do with the time/dedication aspect. I can't (and I'm scared what would happen if I do get addicted to one of these games...) afford to spend that much time on one game. Those days are past me (if they ever existed).

I am all for a big drive to make a truly universal engine though. And I mean universal. All branches of scientific modeling would use it, anything that requires computer modeling for tests, research, etc would use it, as well as games. That's why it would be possible in my mind. It would be a subscription based thing, and all parties get the latest and greatest. It's all in my mind, but that's what I would like to see structurally.

As for games, I would like a new game where you the competition is style. Full matrix style controll (IE. you don't move your actual arms/legs), in a big room/hall, where you need to do whatever the playtype (of multiple playtypes) says.

Examples:

- Make your way across the room. There would be stuff in the way, Think of an adults version of a playground, and you would make your way across, combining elements of free running and tricking into it. And your score would be based on how stylish it looks.

- Ditto, but a time trial.

- Ditto, but with targets, and the additional challenge to shoot them.

- you get the idea.

And all aspects of the engine would be modifiable; Your muscle boost percentage (face it, you want some boost), gravity percentage, the ability to change the source of gravity for a short time(wall running anyone?), Air resistance, etc. Not only does this add more scope to it, it lets people find their niche, their speciality. If they want to be competitive (I would like to see it as a passive competitive game) by only playing 0-40 Min's a day, they might be right up there in their setting field.

But this needs to be true: If you want to play for 20 Min's once every blue moon, you'll have a ball. If you want to hone your technique, you can spend some more time on it, with a healthy time VS gain ratio.

Okay, that's really more of a preference than a theory, but it stands...

[GUNWOUNDS]

well.... i think acriku was referring to hard core gaming.  20-40 minutes of gaming a day means you might as well not even bother buying the 50-70 dollar game (god knows what it will cost in the future) and the multi-thousand dollar gaming system on which to run it.  I am not bashing casual gaming.. because i love a "quick fix" now and then... which is why i love emperor... but even in emperor you need to be prepared for atleast  1-2 hours minimum.

The only thing that comes close to 20 minutes would be a Counterstrike round.  And i think most people are outgrowing that as you can see the lengthier games like BF2 are becoming more popular... lengthier games with more detailed objectives and greater need for teamplay, will be the wave of the future.   "junk food" games ike city of heroes or counterstrike with their quick rounds will slowly die out.

I often get baffled by gamers who say they cant "devote" the time to a game... i mean.. its totally possible to have a wife, kid, job and still sit back and have a 8-12 hour gaming marathon on the weekends with maybe 3-4 hours during the weekdays...and still have time to go out to a movie, hang out with friends or whatever else... its called time management  ;D.... but of course if the wife or kids need something then sure they take precedence but unless you are a newlywed or newly employed i cant see your wife or job devouring your time up so badly that you are only able to enjoy a meager 20 minutes of gameplay a day.  However if you are mentally unstable and think you might end up like the guy who played everquest 24/7 and commited suicide when his character died.... then by all means stay away from video games.

Back to the point tho... i think games will get more expensive but much more satisfying... and i think gaming will always be the most cheapest efficient form of entertainment.  I mean... my EVE subscription is 10 bucks a month.. so thats like 33 cents a day.  I can go blow 20 bucks at the theater... so 33 cents a day for gaming is pretty damn good deal.  So even tho gaming entertainment might increase in price... it will definately always be the best bang-for-buck.

Oh and lastly, i sure HOPE futuristic games are not virtual reality.... because the last thing i wanna do when i get home from work is run around in a virtual suit, and jump and duck, etc. I'm in shape but if i want a work out, i will go to the gym.  Hopefully gaming stays  Keyboard + Mouse.  I wouldnt mind more advanced displays... but leave the keyboard and mouse alone!

Guns

[Egeides]

That "little games" which thrived before are now in a dead-end is partly mythic. The difference is that they now need to aim for niche markets, and they then look smaller compared to a now huge mass-market. But the cinema industry might show some parallels: the best of the world get together in big budget products.

A part of the market which is still to be explored is women. And it seems they like games which are more "social" and take less time per session. Asia has a strong phenomenon among the youth, with some social MMORPGs where people hang with friends. I read an article saying that once girls get into such games, boys follow.

As for the changes... what about slicing virtual opponents with real hands, and going back to duck hunt with real (plastic) guns?

Now, starters might have a reason to move their hands with Mario's jumps since it might be within the Nintendo Revolution:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147317.html

Will players swing Link's sword?...

[Swordmaster_Duncan]

Apparently you can aim Link's bow uning the rev. control in twilight princess (It's a gamecube game that's not out yet). And the first Rev. game has been announced, called red steel.

[SpiceGuid]

Acriku, what you describe is the situation of hardcore gaming, the general market trend is the reverse : many games with shorter life-span, finish it in a few hours and forget it.

[Acriku]

Acriku, what you describe is the situation of hardcore gaming, the general market trend is the reverse : many games with shorter life-span, finish it in a few hours and forget it.

When you see more interactive games like Oblivion or WoW, the time to beat the games or the time people play them is increasing as they get more popular, and so I extended it to having a couple games that have a hold on the market that are not "finished" games, because the developers would keep adding to the world, so very little would remain the same and it would be impossible to finish (either because there's no end or they keep extending the end). But with these games, it would be so immersive or interactive (possibly a VR gearset [for those who say nay for VR because they are tired after work, maybe it's a sit-down VR set, where you have a head set and hand set with gyro capabilities to simulate walking without actually doing it (leaning forward to walk forward, perhaps)]) that buying another game would be either too expensive or rediculous considering how you have a game that evolves and adapts to what you do and what others do. Just my future theory, though.

Also, with gaming becoming more popular (after entering in different mediums (movies, comics, etc)) more people would find it societally acceptable so that "hardcore" gaming is just as normal as a good game of tennis or a league of bowling.

[Egeides]

It is a good part of offer and demand, and I expect that there will be demand for both. The more people into gaming with the most different demands, and the more it'll actually permit both.

At times, people all get satisfied by a same homogenized product but it doesn't seem so easy. Nintendo is going for new markets, those currently out. At the same time, Asian games tend to be cheap MMORPG which serve both hardcore and social players (actually, it is an intense social phenomenon which seems similar to Friendster).

As well, still looking at what is presently here, some game companies take orientations which are more "little story" based. Some people like a smaller thing which sticks together more than an biggest-of-all-time-whattever-which-you-cannot-see-the-whole MMORPG of death. Who knows... maybe huge MMORPG with little stories within could catter to both by assimilating all specialized fields.

[Edric O]

I think the size of a game world exhibits diminishing marginal returns. In other words, if you make the game world too big, very few people will bother exploring all its corners. As the world gets bigger, fewer and fewer people go exploring the new areas you added. Sadly, this means that it is very unlikely for game worlds to become complex enough to form an entire alternate reality.

[Cyborg]

But if the new areas could be created by a computer, and not humans, that problem would be gone.

However, bigger game worlds need a larger number of players.