The Future of Video Games

[Rickford]

If people really wanted to be snipers or soldiers or whatever, there'd be more people in the military. It's the most realistic FPS there is =D Most gamers don't join the military, though. They prefer to stay home and play their unrealistic games and have fun.

Paintballing. Suck it.

[Killbert-Robby]

Looking at current models, I can tell you this : Realism sells REALLY well. What WOULDNT sell is if, in order to be a soldier, the game requires you to do a real life physical before you can buy it, and spend 3 months playing the game to get through basic training, so they get sent out after 5 years of play, and die in the first hour of combat. THAT wouldnt sell. Not because its realistic, but because its unaccessable. Why is the Wii so popular? No sir, not because people have always dreamed of playing golf and are only now releasing their urges, but because ANYONE can play. Its wave wave BAM you're on the court swinging a club with your friends.

Especially when it comes to realistic games, the aim is to bring you to as authentic an experience as possible, no matter who you are, at the click of a button. This is why these series pride themselves on REALISM. A real experience available to ANYONE.



And Rick, damn, paintball is superlatively fun

[LibertyCabbage]

If people really wanted to be snipers or soldiers or whatever, there'd be more people in the military. It's the most realistic FPS there is =D Most gamers don't join the military, though. They prefer to stay home and play their unrealistic games and have fun.

Paintballing. Suck it.

Oh, c'mon. You know Paintball is just a simulation of the real thing.

[Killbert-Robby]

If people really wanted to be snipers or soldiers or whatever, there'd be more people in the military. It's the most realistic FPS there is =D Most gamers don't join the military, though. They prefer to stay home and play their unrealistic games and have fun.

Paintballing. Suck it.

Oh, c'mon. You know Paintball is just a simulation of the real thing.

What the fuck are realistic videogames?

[LibertyCabbage]

Paintballing. Suck it.

Oh, c'mon. You know Paintball is just a simulation of the real thing.

What the fuck are realistic videogames?

It depends on the game and the audience. "Realistic" is pretty subjective. I'm sure that some people thought Doom was pretty realistic when it came out, even though it looks pretty cheesy by today's standards. However, you make a mistake in equating Paintball with video games because the former is reality and the latter is virtual reality. They are related, though, in that both are designed to simulate real killing. So, I guess the hierarchy would go:

1. Real killing
2. Paintball
3. Video games

Whether you want to argue whether or not virtual reality is capable of replacing reality (in the Matrix-esque sense that "reality" is just what we perceive) is up to you, although you could just as easily argue that nothing is real and we don't actually exist, etc. But, avoiding existentialism, I'll just say that I think video games should abandon the pursuit of trying to be ultra-realistic and rather focus on its big strength which is that they aren't real, that they are in fact unrealistic.

[Killbert-Robby]

Realistic? Doom? We're talking SUBSTANCE, not how it looks. Flashy graphics dont mean shit. Flashpoint has SHIT graphics by todays standard, but is still in the top 5 most realistic games of all time. I dont think anyone accidentally mistook Doom for a realistic portrayal of combat as a Marine...


Realism = real life = more than just bells and whistles.

Hell, videogames simulate real killing BETTER I'd say, since Paintball doesnt factor in things such as headshots and REAL damage. I can run between paintball pellets in a long burst. You just TRY that with bullets.

[IVstudios]

I'll just say that I think video games should abandon the pursuit of trying to be ultra-realistic and rather focus on its big strength which is that they aren't real, that they are in fact unrealistic.

That's like saying no artist should try to paint realistically because art isn't reality. True, a painting of a person can never be a person, but would you tell someone to abandon their pursuit to create realistic art? That makes no sense.

[LibertyCabbage]

Looking at current models, I can tell you this : Realism sells REALLY well. What WOULDNT sell is if, in order to be a soldier, the game requires you to do a real life physical before you can buy it, and spend 3 months playing the game to get through basic training, so they get sent out after 5 years of play, and die in the first hour of combat. THAT wouldnt sell. Not because its realistic, but because its unaccessable. Why is the Wii so popular? No sir, not because people have always dreamed of playing golf and are only now releasing their urges, but because ANYONE can play. Its wave wave BAM you're on the court swinging a club with your friends.

I don't see how this is supposed to help your argument. The Wii doesn't probe people's brains and make the ball not go as far if the player's nervous or anything like that. It probably wouldn't be as popular if it did (or, players just wouldn't use that realistic technology.)

Especially when it comes to realistic games, the aim is to bring you to as authentic an experience as possible, no matter who you are, at the click of a button. This is why these series pride themselves on REALISM. A real experience available to ANYONE.

No. Unless a game is free for whatever reason, it's primary purpose is to make money for its creator/s. And consumers have always preferred enjoyment to realism, which also applies to film, literature, drama, and art (especially post-photography, but also before it.)

[LibertyCabbage]

Realistic? Doom? We're talking SUBSTANCE, not how it looks. Flashy graphics dont mean shit. Flashpoint has SHIT graphics by todays standard, but is still in the top 5 most realistic games of all time. I dont think anyone accidentally mistook Doom for a realistic portrayal of combat as a Marine...

I can see people saying the same thing about today's games 10 years from now, or whenever.

Hell, videogames simulate real killing BETTER I'd say, since Paintball doesnt factor in things such as headshots and REAL damage. I can run between paintball pellets in a long burst. You just TRY that with bullets.

It doesn't matter. It still just a bunch of a pixels, an illusion.

That's like saying no artist should try to paint realistically because art isn't reality. True, a painting of a person can never be a person, but would you tell someone to abandon their pursuit to create realistic art? That makes no sense.

It's more complicated than you're implying, since the issue has both philosophical and practical aspects. For example, one philosophical frame of mind could legitimately say that trying to make art as realistic as possible is futile because it's still less real than the thing it represents, that it's just a copy of reality. And a practical concern could be that the invention of the photograph makes realistic art irrelevant because of how much easier it is to just point a camera at something and take a picture. But, this is really an elaborate issue on its own and could use its own thread if you're interested in it.

Edit: Keep in mind that there's no definite answer to what the purpose of art is. I'm just saying that realistic art isn't inherently better or worse than unrealistic (stylistic) art.

[Johndar]

I'm going to have to go with the pro-mind reading guys here. A game reacting to your panic and emotions sounds awesome to me. Aren't there games where the character's level of panic affects the game? It would be similar except instead of the game deciding how panicked the character is, the players actual level of panic does.

Someone mentioned games like the elder scrolls series, that would be amazing. You'd be fighting some bandit, the game would read you getting antsy so it adjusts the enemy's attack pattern to be more aggressive as to take advantage of your panic. Imagine a boxing or fighting game! your opponent would read your mood the same way. Look at it the other way around, what if your confident, it could intimidate the enemy and cause him to mess up!

[Montyandwoolley]

How about a system where you sit in an enclosed box, the lighting, sound, temperature etc is all effected by the content of the game? - That's bound to be quite good with the right game!


Course... its not too practical to buy



Or build.



I have stupid ideas.

[Killbert-Robby]

Realistic? Doom? We're talking SUBSTANCE, not how it looks. Flashy graphics dont mean shit. Flashpoint has SHIT graphics by todays standard, but is still in the top 5 most realistic games of all time. I dont think anyone accidentally mistook Doom for a realistic portrayal of combat as a Marine...

I can see people saying the same thing about today's games 10 years from now, or whenever.

Ok, stop being contrary for the fuck of it, and just open up your mind here - Life is life. If I shot you in the gut with a high caliber bullet right now, you'd die. THIS is the realism we're talking about. In 10 years time, I dont think the human physiology will change so much that this will be any different. Try to get through your head that realism is how a game acts, not looks.

Hell, videogames simulate real killing BETTER I'd say, since Paintball doesnt factor in things such as headshots and REAL damage. I can run between paintball pellets in a long burst. You just TRY that with bullets.

It doesn't matter. It still just a bunch of a pixels, an illusion.

Art is an illusion. Magic is an illusion. One prides itself on coming CLOSE to reality, the other to DEFYING it. Different forms of illusion lead to different aims. Since we're arguing games that try to be true to life here, its pretty safe to say the aim of the illusion is to be as close to reality as possible.

And Monty, they kinda beat you to it. They have a rig with wind turbines in it, ambient lighting, and surround sound in order to be really immersive.

And John, you're thinking of Call of Cthulhu, which was pretty awesome, you should give it a shot if you haven't. Iffy sneaking squence at the start, but very atmospheric.

[IVstudios]

That's like saying no artist should try to paint realistically because art isn't reality. True, a painting of a person can never be a person, but would you tell someone to abandon their pursuit to create realistic art? That makes no sense.

It's more complicated than you're implying, since the issue has both philosophical and practical aspects. For example, one philosophical frame of mind could legitimately say that trying to make art as realistic as possible is futile because it's still less real than the thing it represents, that it's just a copy of reality. And a practical concern could be that the invention of the photograph makes realistic art irrelevant because of how much easier it is to just point a camera at something and take a picture. But, this is really an elaborate issue on its own and could use its own thread if you're interested in it.

Edit: Keep in mind that there's no definite answer to what the purpose of art is. I'm just saying that realistic art isn't inherently better or worse than unrealistic (stylistic) art.

Philosophical belief have very little to do with this. It's whether some people would enjoy it or not. And some people enjoy some games based on how realistic they are. Like you said yourself, it's a business and if people will buy realistic games then people will make realistic games to sell them.

No one is saying that realistic games are inherently better than not realistic games. Just that some people enjoy realistic games and would enjoy games being more realistic in the ways already described.

And again, we're not talking "100% exactly like what the real thing would be" realism, we're talking "how close can we get so that people can fell like they are really in the game, but still know it's just a game" realism.

[ShineDog]

Again, i think you guys are getting excited and ahead of yourselfs.

Even if the tech existed, i doubt the market would pick it up readily, and what the hell is the cost going to be for machine brain interfacing? People are happy to pick up an electronic stick and wave it, but i doubt they are going to be so ready to let a computer HOOK UP WITH THERE MIND.




And these brain experiments are still very very basic. It's a long way off.

[CJBurgandy]

I only chose other, because Gesture and voice reconition are things that games already use, and further devolpment in those fields are sure to peak within a few years and the other two items on the poll I don't feel would impact the gaming world at all. I remember years ago that the local arcade had a 3d hologram game where you needed to touch characters and what not to get them to move. And while it can be blamed that mid-nineties didn't have the tecnology to really made this game work, it was one of the worst games in the whole arcade. It was very buggy to the point where touching the main character would sometimes cause him to die for unknown reasons. We never could figure out how to get very far in the damn thing. And Eye Tracking seems dumb, because most everyone I know who games, gets distracted at some point and will look away from the screen for one reason or another.

If I find something online about that hologram game, I'll link it, but seeing how it was over 10 years ago, I can't even remember the name of the stupid thing.

[ShineDog]

I think EndWar is going to be the first game that really uses Voice Recognition in an interesting way, looking forward to it.

[Killbert-Robby]

I think EndWar is going to be the first game that really uses Voice Recognition in an interesting way, looking forward to it.

Man, that game slipped right under my radar, it sounds like its going to be damn awesome.

[LibertyCabbage]

Ok, stop being contrary for the fuck of it, and just open up your mind here - Life is life. If I shot you in the gut with a high caliber bullet right now, you'd die. THIS is the realism we're talking about. In 10 years time, I dont think the human physiology will change so much that this will be any different. Try to get through your head that realism is how a game acts, not looks.

Not really. Humans are historically very near-sighted when it comes to technology, since we're really only able to define advancement by what we're already conditioned to. This has been especially true with the rapid advancement of computer technology in the last few decades. Today, a 44MB/s T3 internet line is fast. A 4 GHz processor is fast. Ten years ago? We defined what was fast, what was cutting-edge, by our 32kb/s dial-up modems and our 233 MHz Pentium II's. While today's state-of-the-art games may seem realistic (which is another relative term), I have no doubt that in another 10-15 years we'll view today's "realistic" games as being primitive and childish, and we'll easily spot flaws in areas of today's realistic games that we take for granted. Even in terms of FPS games, we take real-time online FPS games like TF2 for granted, while 15 years ago the World Wide Web was just being presented to the public.

Art is an illusion. Magic is an illusion. One prides itself on coming CLOSE to reality, the other to DEFYING it. Different forms of illusion lead to different aims. Since we're arguing games that try to be true to life here, its pretty safe to say the aim of the illusion is to be as close to reality as possible.

I don't see what's so great about reality, though, that video games should strive so hard to imitate it, especially since no matter how hard game makers try they can never make something as real as the reality it's based on. Having a video game be as realistic as possible doesn't really have a purpose aside from perhaps being instructional (like training soldiers for combat) but this doesn't apply to the general consumer base ("gamers") where such skills aren't really applicable to real life. And they're not instructional in terms of morality (e.g. simulating reality as a way of teaching people to be better) because no one wants to play games like that (LOL Bible games.)

Also, I think one of the big and long-lasting appeals of video games is that if you fuck up you get to respawn, reload, or reset and try again. People like this because it's preferable to reality where fuck-ups are permanent. I know I've heard the expression "There's no reset button in life" a buncha times. This is one major area where I think it's clear that games are better off being unrealistic. And, once that aspect is realized, all other aspects of games become subject as well.

My point is, as I've maintained through the whole thread, that realism =/= enjoyment, and enjoyment is what people primarily seek in games. I say that ultra-realistic mind control wouldn't be very enjoyable, and you say that it would, and both of these views are merely interpretations of a hypothetical concept. We can't know how fun the technology would be until we get our hands on it (or brains, rather), but I think the ability and function of prediction has a real value in society even if the opinions on this forum don't.

[The Neko]

Art is an illusion. Magic is an illusion. One prides itself on coming CLOSE to reality, the other to DEFYING it.

"Sorry, Mr. Magritte, you apparently don't make art anymore."
"Aww, shit. How am I going to break the news to Dali?"

[Mr.Bob]

I think EndWar is going to be the first game that really uses Voice Recognition in an interesting way, looking forward to it.

voice recognition is hella gay nothing ever recognises my voice