The Future of Video Games

[Killbert-Robby]

What is planned for now - Mind reading in FPS'. They're set to be the first mainstream games to use it, why? The plan is this... say you're playing Ghost Recon. Explosions going off all around you, you start panicing. Your brain reflects this. Result? In game, you accuracy drops. They said this could be put into GTA and pretty much any shooter. Its simple, and it rewards the player's ability to control themselves and focus. Personally, I like it.

[LibertyCabbage]

What is planned for now - Mind reading in FPS'. They're set to be the first mainstream games to use it, why? The plan is this... say you're playing Ghost Recon. Explosions going off all around you, you start panicing. Your brain reflects this. Result? In game, you accuracy drops. They said this could be put into GTA and pretty much any shooter. Its simple, and it rewards the player's ability to control themselves and focus. Personally, I like it.

Except that in most games like that you're roleplaying as a trained and experienced fighter who is psychologically quite different from a gamer nerd. Why should your own psychological inhibitions manifest as the character's? And, plus, constantly trying to repress anxiety as to not take a performance hit sounds pretty stressful and unappealing. Why should players be punished for having an emotional response to the content? Being surprised and overwhelmed in a game is fun and immersing, especially as games are getting more realistic and it's easier to get sucked into them.

[Killbert-Robby]

You're ROLEPLAYING a highly trained killer, so if you have to focus like one, surely that would just deepen the roleplay? Being SURPRISED is overwhelming, pulling yourself together after being ambushed is different. Think less of "Emotion - bad aim" and more "panic - bad aim". Say you're in a creepy enviroment (Think FEAR) and you're physically creeped out, then something goes BANG behind you and you have a physical "WAUGH" reaction, and your bullets go all stray. Panic, even in videogames, is a bad reaction, because you can't do shit til you collect yourself - This technology would just be enhancing an experience that already exists in a non-virtual sense rather than making a brand new one.

[The Neko]

I think that some of the appeal of videogames is the detachment people have from the experience of the characters.

[Killbert-Robby]

I think that some of the appeal of videogames is the detachment people have from the experience of the characters.

In which case the detachment is rewarded? I dunno. Actually this wouldnt be something I want in EVERY game, but I still think it would be a fun gimmicky thing, you know, like the Eyetoy.

[War]

What is planned for now - Mind reading in FPS'. They're set to be the first mainstream games to use it, why? The plan is this... say you're playing Ghost Recon. Explosions going off all around you, you start panicing. Your brain reflects this. Result? In game, you accuracy drops. They said this could be put into GTA and pretty much any shooter. Its simple, and it rewards the player's ability to control themselves and focus. Personally, I like it.

You can't really have that level of immersion. We don't want a generation of gamers ending up with shell shock.

[IVstudios]

As an ex-WC3 player, I don't think that mind control would be beneficial for RTS games. The current system of micromanagement via a physical interface rewards skilled players for their abilities to rapidly and accurately manage multiple units simultaneously. The top WC3 players generally average above 300 actions per minute, and their ability to do this is one reason that they're the best. Since taking out the physical aspect of management would make the micro a lot quicker and easier, I think this would especially hurt games like WC3 which is based at least 75% on micro. Basically, the easier a game is, the less skill is rewarded and the game loses appeal. It also seems kind of pointless to design an RTS with something as expensive and experimental as mind control because it wouldn't really enhance gameplay, as the quality of your micro only matters in relation to your opponent's. If you and your opponent are made equally better at micro then you're exactly where you were before all the fancy technology. The exception would be if the person with the higher intelligence benefited more, but I don't think video games would be as fun if they were based entirely on pure intelligence.

And, IV, I think you're seriously underestimating the impact that keyboards have in RTS games. You say that a mouse is an insufficient tool for micromanagement, but all serious players rely heavily on their keyboards in addition to their mice and it allows people to be a lot more competent than you seem to be implying. Managing a bunch of units at once isn't as intimidating when you have all your units and key buildings bound to various hotkeys and even though it's still difficult the person who can do it better will have an advantage which is how a game should be.

"Easier" and "more direct control" are not the same thing. I would imagine that directly controlling units with your mind would be much more challenging than doing it with your hand. Managing multiple units directly would be like (if you'll excuse the melodrama) preforming an intricate dance, having to coordinate the movements of many parts of your "body" at once, as opposed to just your fingers. The coordination it would take to effectively preform all the task would be much more intense than memorizing a bunch of hot keys.


And I know I sucked when we played together. But not wanting to take the time to learn hot keys isn't the reason I think this would be a good idea
... Well, not the only reason, anyway

[LibertyCabbage]

Keep in mind that one of the appeals of these games is that it lets the player roleplay as a heroic character, someone with exceptional power, skill, and bravery. If action heroes panicked, people would think they're pussies, because action heroes are expected to be better than other people. If regular people had the same characteristics as heroes, then, well, they wouldn't be very heroic. It's a game -- you get to be Gordon Freeman or Master Chief or whoever and wreck some shit. No one wants to be constantly reminded by the game of their own personal inadequacies.

[Killbert-Robby]

Increasinly, as gamers like to be more immersed, and have the story less spoon fed to them, THEY are the character. Gordon Freeman does not utter a single line of dialogue, monologue, or any logue. How do we know he's bad ass? Well he killed a Combine with a crowb-... WAIT NO. It was the PLAYER. Except for games like Halo where its split up with cutscenes "Oh, Master Chief, you're here!" "Hi, yes, I stuck my gun in an Elite's mouth, COZ I IS HARDCORE LIKE THAT" to dictate whats going on, the character is increasingly just an avatar for the player. In FEAR, oh shit there's a man leaning around the corner BAM BAM BAM he wont die! Oh wait he's dissolving... oh sheet. I dont know about you, but shooting at nothingness is NOT bad ass. Its vunerable. This affects the player. And your character jerked at freaky shadows when you did, got freaked out when you did. You could kick bad guys in the face, but ONLY if you already had the balls to run up to them in a game where (on the difficulty I played) it takes just a few stray shots to kill you.

Yes, some characters are inherently bad ass, lets take Kojima's classic, Solid Snake. But even Kojima is planning what he calls a "raw game". What does this mean? You lose the game, BAM, your disk sabotages itself and you cant play the game again. Game over is exactly that, game over.

And there are games like The Getaway, or Prey, where the character IS, by dialogue, worried, scared, and so on.

While yes, there are some forcibly bad ass characters, there is still a HUGE market for games in which some form of brain monitoring could enhance the experience. Picture it, opening mission "Kill that man". You do it, your brain activity is registered. As you play, it finds patterns, sees what parts of you are affected as you kill people, as you sneak around, as the tension builds. It could monitor you're finding it less and less stressful to kill someone in game. Imagine something like that used in a game such as an Elder Scrolls game, where characters shy away from you because they can tell, they can feel, that you're the kind of guy who doesnt mind getting his hands dirty. Or, because of the stress you're going through, characters see it might be worth it to ask for mercy in a fight, since they can see your heart isnt in it, and you may spare them.
This is all in the extreme long term of course, I dont expect this in release titles for mind reading systems.

Years ago, people were cynical about not using cinematics. They were cynical about having physics that were too real. Mind reading wont be without its faults, but it is a system that has a LOT of promise. I don't personally think it will EVER be its own control system - You'd be moving, what, your OTHER four limbs? I cant even begin to think how I'd THINK a character to walk. BUT, as a peripheral, used just to deepen rather than control the gaming experience? I see it as a very real eventuality.

[LibertyCabbage]

"Easier" and "more direct control" are not the same thing. I would imagine that directly controlling units with your mind would be much more challenging than doing it with your hand. Managing multiple units directly would be like (if you'll excuse the melodrama) preforming an intricate dance, having to coordinate the movements of many parts of your "body" at once, as opposed to just your fingers. The coordination it would take to effectively preform all the task would be much more intense than memorizing a bunch of hot keys.

Well, it would depend a lot on how powerful the human brain really is and how effective the technology would be, both of which are heavily based on assumptions. I mean, it could be possible that with the mind control you would automatically make anti-air if you saw air units, and certainly the thought of, "That DK's health is low," is quicker and more spontaneous than pressing F2 + T and clicking on it. Or thinking, "Expo," and your Peon walks over to the closest open mine and starts building a Great Hall. I believe that there's a real physical limitation on how fast you can accurately and intelligently click and press keys, and the pros are the people who, through practice and innate skill, are able to overcome this limitation better than everyone else. If that physical obstacle is removed, then practice and skill lose value, and, hence, the game loses value.

And I know I sucked when we played together. But not wanting to take the time to learn hot keys isn't the reason I think this would be a good idea
... Well, not the only reason, anyway

I'm not a particularly good player myself, but I've studied how the pros play and their abilities to micromanage are so impressive at times as to seem superhuman. So, I think making that ability less significant by instituting mind control would reduce the competitiveness of these sort of games.

Also, I'd be glad to play some more games with you sometime if you feel like it. I just play to have fun, and I don't care if I lose games since I don't even play WC3 anymore besides for a few games now and then.

[LibertyCabbage]

My point is that gamers don't want, and wouldn't enjoy, that level of immersion. People will always value enjoyment over realism. Why would people play games if they weren't fun?

[The Neko]

Let's make games and unpleasant, arduous affair! Just like... like work! Yeah!

[Killbert-Robby]

Let's make games and unpleasant, arduous affair! Just like... like work! Yeah!

Or... RPGs <_<

I dunno, I think you guys are overestimating this, we're not talking "oooh his brain is doing something, SET ACCURACIES TO LOWEST LEVELS NAO!", its just real time feed back from your brain slightly altering gameplay. I mean, come on, physics in games change how things look and behave, but besides things like Half Life 2 , they havent exactly totally revolutionized gameplay. Its not that you now have to worry about tripping over your own feet or anything. It IS capable of putting in new depth and keeping the fun. Subtelties, we're not talking them strapping C4 to your chest that explodes if your heartrate goes below a certain number... Its not about YOU, its about the GAME reacting. If YOU panic, yes the accuracy would drop marginally, because YOU panic. The game isnt saying "Stay steely", its more just taking YOUR mood, and imposing it on the character, which is at the end of the day, who you ARE. Just as if something jumps out at you in a horror game now you pump lead wildly til you hit it. Or you keep your cool, in real life, and peg it in the face. This is WITHOUT this technology. Seriously, we're talking about taking whats ALREADY happening to you, and just having the gameplay react to it, I dont see why thats such a frightful prospect. I'm not talking about the revolution of gaming here. I'm talking about a technology being applied to a situation, which, in the FUTURE could have big implications.

Emotion already affects us while playing games, and a technology is being offered that will respond to that. And this will be the first step to a whole array of new technologies and games that react directly to our thoughts. I'm sorry if I find this fact in anyway exciting, I guess I'm just weird that way. How did people react when they heard of the Eyetoy? "What, MOVE to play a game? Thats just EXERCISE. LAME.". A few years down the line we have the goddam Wii.

[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.

Why do we need future technology to give people an opportunity to experience what they already don't want to do now?

[IVstudios]

I think that short of any physical pain or actual risk of death, realism is a very desirable trait in some games. The ability to experience things you can't readily experience in your everyday like. Wether that be because it's unavailable to you, or because it's just plain dangerous.

Now there probably aren't a lot of people who want a game that will feel exactly like actual daily activities or the horrors of war. But games that feel like very realistic versions of idealized/fantasy situations would be very cool/desirable/exciting. Part of the fun of some games like first person shooters is that you really are scared/excited/nervous. When the imp jumps out from behind the door you almost crap your pants, but in a good way. The closer you can get to the feeling of really being there, while staying just short of actually having to worry about the ramifications of the situation, is what makes a lot of games fun.

Not to say all, or even most games would benefit form being like that. But some games are all about that sort of 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.

Why do we need future technology to give people an opportunity to experience what they already don't want to do now?

Who are you to judge what they dont want? This is a peripheral, an addon, its not going to hog the whole market. But there IS a niche market. If there wasn't a market for realistic shooters, where you screw up for a second and you're dead, there would be no Tom Clancy games, there would be no Far Cry, and there would be no Operation Flashpoint, all of which are extremely high selling, and considered very fine games indeed. If you wanna stick to Wolfenstein 3D, fine, but don't start going on about how nobody wants this technology, and it would fail and cock up everything, because everyone hates realism all people want is, basically, mindless shooters, when the evidence to the contrary is more than sizeable.

(Not you iv, this came just after your post, sorry if you read this and get the wrong idea)

[IVstudios]

(Not you iv, this came just after your post, sorry if you read this and get the wrong idea)

Don't worry, I knew what you meant. And agree.

[Rickford]

No offense LC, but you can't just assume you're speaking for the entire gaming community simply because you want someone to back up your opinion. What Robby's discussing at the moment sounds pretty damn fun to my mind, and if they brought out a game/system where that kind of feedback was implemented, I'd definately play it.

If you don't like the idea, that's fine, but say that you don't like the idea.

[LibertyCabbage]

Who are you to judge what they dont want?

It's very possible to look at existing models and predict how people will react to changes. This is relevant to these new technologies because game companies aren't going to finance experimental technology unless they're confident that enough people will want to buy it when it comes out that they can make a profit.

This is a peripheral, an addon, its not going to hog the whole market.

It's pretty elaborate (and expensive) for an "addon", not to mention that the game makers would have to put significant effort into development to make their games compatible with such a device. It's also the first addon I've heard of that's intended to make you worse at the game as opposed to better, and it would actually give you a disadvantage in PVP which is a pretty big element of FPS'ers. You could negate the disadvantage by only playing against people with the same addon, but that would be severely limiting your playerbase. Plus, I'm having a hard time imagining the advertisements. "With our handy tool, you can miss more shots and have less control over your character!" If you're going to spend money on an addon, you might as well get something that's actually supposed to help you win.[/quote]

But there IS a niche market. If there wasn't a market for realistic shooters, where you screw up for a second and you're dead, there would be no Tom Clancy games, there would be no Far Cry, and there would be no Operation Flashpoint, all of which are extremely high selling, and considered very fine games indeed. If you wanna stick to Wolfenstein 3D, fine, but don't start going on about how nobody wants this technology, and it would fail and cock up everything, because everyone hates realism all people want is, basically, mindless shooters, when the evidence to the contrary is more than sizeable.

But, there's a difference between realism and, say, ultra-realism. Realism can be appealing (and for some people more than others) but there's a fine line where realism stops making a game better and starts making it worse. It's the task of the gaming industry to find the right balance between realism and fun.

[LibertyCabbage]

If you don't like the idea, that's fine, but say that you don't like the idea.

My personal preference is insignificant, though. I don't have enough potential buying power by myself to influence technology. The only thing that's going to affect development in this area are the desires of large amounts of people who have the capital to make such a venture profitable. So, that's why it's necessary to apply my arguments to the general notion of "gamers," because that's who the companies are marketing towards.