pubs
Toups: I will be confident to know that the Revolution will still be capable of making games that look as good as Wanda, or Resident Evil 4, or even Shenmue.
Toups: I guess I’ve decided that’s about as nice as games ever NEED to look to do what they need to do.
aderack: When the Dreamcast was new, I started to wonder what was next. What the next generation would be — because, you know, we couldn’t continue down this road much further. We’d explored all the options here.
aderack: Current games look adequate to express what they want to express, as you said. That wasn’t true with the PSOne or Saturn.
aderack: There’s… not much more to be explored in this direction.
aderack: So it’s time to focus on another aspect.
aderack: I mean. We had the pre-NES systems. That was one whole thing. Then (what is generally known as) the 8-bit and the 16-bit eras, the latter of which just refines the first. Then the 32/64-bit and 128-bit/whatever current generation, which is the same deal.
I was thinking, with the Dreamcast, maybe the following generation would have something to do with the Internet. And it seems it will! Though not in the sense I was thinking. That’s just a detail.
The Revolution I think will actually be the only next-generation system.
aderack: The other two are just souped-up current-gen systems.
aderack: The thing is. We’re done with visuals.
aderack: Now we need to tackle some of the rest of the picture. As such.
Toups: I mean. A part of me appreciates the need for higher resolution and stuff. The real question is, at what cost?
aderack: That’ll come, though.
aderack: It’s nothing to strive for.
aderack: Who cares! It’ll just happen, whether you try or not.
Toups: Yeah.
Toups: Either way.
Toups: It’s…
Toups: Like… the space race or something.
Toups: Or the arms race — though, I guess… that’s maybe not so inconsequential.
aderack: So we have presentation, and that’s basically perfected — at least to an adequate level. Great! But that’s only one part of the interface.
aderack: The other part has remained the same since 1985.
aderack: Now let’s catch up.
I was thinking about this recently after I read Kohler’s discussion of past industry shakeouts. 84, then 94/95. Both occurred, essentially, between generations. A ten-year cycle; two console revisions: something new, something refined, SHAKEOUT. Repeat. Is it really that people aren’t interested in playing the same games for more than ten years?
We’re about due. And all the market indicators seem to agree.
But MS and Sony aren’t aiming for something new in the next generation.
It’s not like there aren’t various interesting, new gameplay ideas that are only made possible by the addition of a ton of computing power. Living malleable worlds, etc. But with their HD-only policies, MS and Sony have essentially mandated to developers that much (most?) of those performance gains must go into graphics. Gee, thanks guys.
The Revolution, as much as I love the attitude Nintendo has with it, really only addresses half the problem. It gives a new way to interact with games, but it doesn’t necessarily do anything to encourage games having new things to say. Where 1996 was 1986 in THREE DEE, will 2006 be 1996 with graceful gestures and wild arm movements?
Apologies in advance, I just can’t resist:
It gives us new pings. Will they have new pongs?
I’m not so sure that we’ve hit any sort of visual wall, myself. Now, I’m not particularly against the “underpowered” nature of the revolution–particularly since it’ll drive the cost down–but there’s more work to be done. Our games haven’t yet reached a technological point wherein they can be completely dynamic. It’s difficult to interact with our environments. It’s even more difficult to impart any sort of lasting change on the gameworld. Remember what Nintendo was talking about regarding the 64DD, baack before even the N64 itself was released? How someone could possibly plant a seed and watch the tree grow in real time? We’ve never even seen something that simple. Extrapolate that idea out in any direction. The whole sandbox thing could really benefit from a deeper level of interaction.
Hell, just think of Half Life 2.
What about advanced facial dynamics? Odd camera tricks? Morphing?
There’s a lot that we haven’t tried yet, and I think as long as we stop getting so carried away by the nuts and bolts of it we’ll be fine.
I’ve been talking about this with my gaming friends and thinking about it for a while. The only REAL improvement I can say would be nice would be better framerates. Of course, I believe a lot of this has to do with the programmer themselves seeing as MGS 2 and ZOE had fantastic framerates with great graphics.
It’s precisely because of the points you fellows are making why I haven’t been truly excited by any new games in quite a while. Wanda got my interest, and so did (suprisingly) Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. (It’s not that bad of a game, throws out the whole Doom 3 survival horror thing and goes back to the formula of well lit rooms and running full speed through toxic waste shotgunning demons in the face and not having to worry about running out of ammo). People have been showing me new games and drooling over them and I can’t help but just feel apathetic to the whole next-gen thing.
I probably won’t even buy a PS3, the only games I’m interested in are MGS4 and RE5, and I’m not going to pay $600 to play two games. I’ll go play Super Ghouls and Ghosts on my SNES or something…
It’s more fun anyways.
http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2005/12/06/how-the-revolution-controller-might-work-part-1-swords/
The thing is. We’re done with visuals.
I’d bet Fumito Ueda would disagree.
The other part has remained the same since 1985.
Call me a nitpicker, but this isn’t exactly true. Disc formats and analog controls are just two of the more prominent advancements that have had an impact on interface. And we’re really only at this current crossroads because of the things that can finally be done with visuals. There’s still a lot of potential there, and as long as it’s tapped effectively, it shouldn’t be ignored. I mean, imagine Shadow of the Colossus on the PS3, totally free of its graphical blemishes and hiccups. Look at Dragon Quest VIII, and what a leap that is! I’m totally with you and the need to focus on gameplay innovation and I’m really excited about the Revolution, but these other consoles will serve their own purposes and the overall purpose of videogames as well. Graphics are as important to videogames as, say, cinematography is to film.
Again, though: that’s stuff that’ll just happen as it’s needed, without anyone paying attention to it.
I remember one rumour that one of these next-generation systems will have controllers without individual controls on them, just a blank gamepad that you rub different parts of.
If you don’t automatically see the flaws in that idea, imagine a bunch guys sitting around playing videogames by rubbing their joysticks, or grouping two large bulbous extrusions on a gamepad.
Although I can think of a particular genre that might really take off with that kind of control pad.
I’m not saying we’ve hit any kind of wall — just that any further advancements in graphics will have diminishing returns in terms of the overall experience. Creators really aren’t that limited in terms of what kind of things can be displayed on screen anymore. And what things are on screen will only look marginally nicer as technology improves.
In terms of procedural technology, and dynamic game worlds, well. Hardly anyone seems interested in going down that road anyway. For the most part, the focus on HD runs counter having procedurally deep games. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in that regard, the Revolution was capable of the same amount of depth as the other next gen systems — the PS3 maybe being an exception, depending on exactly how the hell the cell processor works.
It’s worth noting that the most procedurally “deep” games of this generation were pretty much inarguably the GTA series, which are native to the PS2, which was the most underpowered console.
So!
I know this is old, and I apologize, but I have to disagree. Note Dave Halverson’s currently ongoing diatribe against things like “floating heels” and other quirks of character models not dynamic to terrain. This would likely go on unchecked if he wasn’t raising such a fuss over it. It may still, but even so, some attention is obviously needed.
What?
I recall developers figuring out how to match climbing animations to the spacing of ladder rungs without any great social movement to back it up.
True, but not every game does even that much. Or those that do still have their characters gliding up stairs without touching them, cycling through the same old running animation. Is that even excusable in games for the current consoles, let alone the upcoming generation? Go pick up the new issue of Play, if you can, and read Halverson’s interview with David Siller. You’ll see what I mean. They get into a little more detail about the planning and process of design. It’s interesting stuff.
Point is, none of this is terribly important; it all just comes down to attention to cosmetic detail. That kind of attention happens organically, one way or another, as people strive for a more naturalistic appearance. All it comes down to is paying attention. As detail increases, bizarre lapses in detail become more glaring, therefore they are more likely to be addressed. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.
Point is, none of this is terribly important
Halverson would argue that the feel and functionality of a character is absolutely vital to the experience, and I’m inclined to agree. Dynamic-to-environment animations and better collision detection may be cosmetic (for the most part (although it often has just as much to do with gameplay, if you think of something like Shadow of the Colossus)), but haven’t you ever been jolted out of the ‘realism’ of a game because, say, his arm stuck through a wall or he stood on a slope with one foot in the air, as if standing on a flat surface? That stuff still happens, as if it’s an anomaly in design that has not yet been organically worked out, and it should have been fixed long ago, so some extra attention and input is more or less required. What’s wrong with that?
How can a real advancement have a “diminishing return”? Do you mean to say that if someone does something new and impressive, later games might not include this advancement? Or are you saying this advancement will become less impressive upon each return? And if so, who cares? Have polygonal graphics been suffering from “diminishing returns” ever since the first game to feature polygons in true 3D? That seems like a silly thing to say.
I think creators are still quite limited and can do much more. Ask Fumito Ueda — I’m sure he’d agree.
I don’t give a fig what Halverson says. Of course the details help immersion here and there. Get some perspective, though. What you’re bringing up is an issue of nuance that only really comes into play within a particular framework of visual expression, which itself is only a fragment of the overall psychological experience. I’ve rarely played a game as effective or visually appealing as the original Legend of Zelda, and in light of its visual design, arguments such as these are patently ridiculous.
He’s saying the more work you put in, the less it matters. When you have ten polygons, a hundred seem like a miracle. When you have four billion, ten billion don’t do a lot more for you.
I am a huge fan of nuance and immersion. To me, these things are far more than mere fragments of the overall psychological experience. If The Legend of Zelda is the be-all, end-all for you, well, have a ball. I love it, too, but it’s been eclipsed many times over, and not just in terms of visuals and effective impact. I’m already getting tired of referencing Shadow of the Colossus, but, uh, you know where I’m going with that.
Anyhow, I hope you understand that I’m not trying to be antagonistic here. This is fun. Right?
I see what you’re (he’s) saying, but I still think that’s silly. So polygon counts are the example here, but other things like memory capacity and physics come into play and, as I’m sure you can imagine, things get a little more advanced. Forgive me for referencing Shadow yet again, but could you imagine that game running on the PS1? It simply wouldn’t have been possible, if only because of graphical limitations (and think of how amazing a game like Metal Gear Solid looked back then). On the other hand, ideally, the game could have been visually flawless on the PS3. (And keep in mind that some of the game’s “cosmetic” flaws actually broke up play at some points. Have you ever seen a colossus lock up in an animation loop? Or watched the wanderer vanish before your eyes after jumping off of Agro? And these are glaring flaws, unlike, say, the wanderer’s sword melting into his back while he lays on the temple floor. Of course, none of this stops the game from being an utterly sublime and thought-provoking experience, but for the sake of discussion I point these things out.)
You say we’ve reached a point where we can settle into the progress that’s been made so far, but I think much more can be done, and we’ll see even more significant leaps in design. If you really think about it, “the other part” (gameplay) has certainly not remained the same since 1985, and has in fact progressed concurrently (generally speaking) with graphics.
I believe it will continue this way.
“When I wrote the Death of Pixel Shaders a few years ago (Years! Ack!), I was lured into thinking along the same lines that a lot of folks are doing now, that somehow good game design was the antithesis of graphics. But it isn’t. People that make games decide how much to spend on graphics, and while some may feel that is an area of diminishing returns, I say to them ‘just wait, because the level of immersion and experience that graphics will soon bring to you will dwarf what you currently understand.’”
http://www.corante.com/gotgame/archives/2005/06/13/graphics_dont_matter_and_other_assertions.php
Well, yes. Shadow of the Colossus is nice. I don’t see how that helps your point, though — because there you go. It’s already happened organically, without anyone having to especially pay attention. It’s just one of many design decisions made for an expressive purpose. They could have done a lot more with a lot more time and budget and effort. Yet there it is.
And it’s been happening since at least Prince of Persia, at least as far as the animation is concerned.
That’s precisely why it’s not a very important thing to concern yourself with. If a developer wants it, if a designer feels it’s necessary, if there’s a budget and time, it will be implemented. And there’s very little technological barrier to this happening.
Furthermore, there are plenty of situations where it’s simply not an issue. Surely you understand that there is a difference between realism and verisimilitude. The latter can be achieved through many means; the former thruogh none.
Have you seen my other comments, where I point out that Shadow of the Colossus is also flawed, and likely wouldn’t be without the technological barrier presented by the PS2?
http://www.livejournal.com/community/dailyvideogame/24716.html?thread=385676#t385676
It has a diminishing return in the sense that improved graphics technology will be ten times as expensive to produce but only twice as impressive to behold, if that.
Yes, though even in that context the level of immersion is ultimately a matter of how skillful your art team is and not what kind of hardware you’re using. Even old PSx games can be immersive in the right hands. It’s ultimately not a matter of hardware; if anything more powerful hardware can often be crippling to a team that can’t use it holistically.
Shadow of the Colossus is a good example because it’s one of the few PS2 games to really make unique use of the hardware.
Mind you — I agree that grapics ARE important, though mostly in a functional sense. If you’re really curious you can read my article in the new issue of The Gamer’s Quarter which is more or less lengthy defense of game aesthetics, including the importance of in game graphics.
For what it’s worth, however, the I haven’t experienced any of the serious glitches you mention in SotC, and the visual glitches that ARE there only serve to make the experience more magical and dreamlike. Not that I”d mind playing it on the PS3 or anything.
I don’t have a problem with graphics becoming better — it’s really just that I don’t want my game consoles to cost +$400 for that privilege. Video Games no longer have the excuse of hardware to be ugly, and that’s really enough for me. Whether Sony or Microsoft so aggressively push the most advanced graphics technology or not, it will eventually become standard, and cheap! What I really don’t understand is the rush.
The other side of the coin is that the real graphical advancements (like Shadow of the Collosus and Dragon Quest VIII) occur at the end of a console’s life span. In the short term introducing new hardware is counterproductive to the end of breakthroughs in game visuals.