The "next" generation of gaming has offered all spectacle and no substance

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

I was playing Call of Duty 3 yesterday when something happened that pretty much optimizes what gaming has become today: Allied troops set to take a hill from the entrenched Germans. Fairly well rendered rain pouring down to add some atmosphere. Dramatic music kicks in and the suicidal charge starts. At this point, I?m fairly psyched. But the euphoria quickly fades because instead of staying behind their cover and gunning down my allies, a horde of Germans stupidly run into the field, move to point blank range with the allied troops, and stare at them. Actually, both sides sit there staring, occasionally taking pot shots at each other from five feet away in the open field and somehow missing. It?s ridiculous to the point of being comical, yet its symptomatic of what the new systems are offering.

 

For the most part, it?s an arms race to cram more soldiers on screen, make cooler explosions, and do next to nothing in terms of providing a deeper experience. For launch and the months after, this was OK. Everyone wanted to see what the new hardware could do, and there was some thrill in watching a matrix-style camera cut when blowing through a roadblock in Need For Speed. But the "next" generation has been going for a while now, and sadly hasn?t evolved much beyond that type of experience. Sure, the games are fun, but they aren?t particularly memorable. The latest and greatest destructive driving game or first person shooter just gets topped by an incrementally better one next month. Classic games that we'll treasure for years aren't being made. Compare what we have now to what we had at this point in the Xbox/Gamecube/PS2 cycle:

 

Baulder?s Gate: Dark Alliance

Twisted Metal: Black

Gran Turismo 3

Final Fantasy X

Klonoa 2

Silent Hill 2

Ico

Devil May Cry

Grand Theft Auto 3

Ace Combat 4

Metal Gear Solid 2

Halo

Rogue Squadron

Super Monkey Ball

Pikmin

Super Smash Bros. Melee

Jak and Daxter

Jet Set Radio Future

Max Payne

Dead to Rights

Shadows of Destiny

Gunvalkyrie

 

A lot of variety on that list, and a lot of good games. In fact, plenty of ?games of record? on that list?the type of game that dominates its genre and is recognized as the leading entry for years after release. What do we have nowadays? Essentially, there are driving games, shooting games, and games that offer some combination of driving and shooting. And the worst part is that they aren?t even as good as the games on the above list. Saint?s Row and Crackdown don?t hold a candle to GTA3, and we haven?t had a driving game that rivals Gran Turismo 3. Don't even get me started on how poorly the newest Super Monkey Ball stacks up to 1 & 2.

 

This really sunk in when I scanned my library for something to take my mind off of Call of Duty 3. Sixteen out of my 19 360 games fall into the driving/shooting/driving+shooting categories, and it?s not because that?s all I buy, it?s because that?s all there is. The only games that offer even a small change of pace are Dead Rising, Tomb Raider, and Splinter Cell, which are good but nothing special. I enjoyed playing through them, but they?re admittedly not AAA games like an Ico or MGS2. There?s not much to play when looking for more depth (unless you?re one of the poor souls playing Oblivion on the 360 instead of the PC), and that doesn?t look to change in the near future.

 

The art of storytelling is essentially gone. When is the last time you found yourself wondering what was going to happen next in a game? For the most part lately, the story serves to give you some sort of vague reason to move from one shooting gallery style level to the next. It?s all ?Oh noes! The Mexicans are fighting each other and some have nukes and they?re going to blow up the US!? or ?Oh noes! The terrorists are going to blow up Vegas!? or ?Oh noes! The Mexicans are STILL fighting, go kill some more of them!?. Not to hate on Clancy since I think the games are excellent, but why not add some character development and plot twists? Games like Max Payne and Dead to Rights did a good job of making the story actually an incentive to play through the shooting instead of just serving as a device to loosely connect the missions. It wouldn?t be AS big of a problem if not for the fact that RPGs and other story-driven games just aren?t coming out. I?d really like to play something along the lines of a Silent Hill, Shadow Hearts, Indigo Prophecy, or Final Fantasy, but those types of games haven?t been released.

 

I was hoping that time would show that my previous complaints about the current gen of gaming were wrong, but it seems to have borne them out. It?s just too expensive to make a game for a genre that offers uncertain sales prospects. Also, a lot of important franchises are late to the party because the PS3 was a year later to release, or because they were started on too late or have long development times.

 

Seriously, how sad is it that a year and a half into the next generation, Enchant Arm represents the gold standard for "next" gen j-rpgs and there aren?t any s-rpgs?

[Cyberwoo]

While I completely understand your point I still think it is way too early to judge this generation. The games I am eagerly anticipating (Mass Effect, Bioshock, Forza2, etc) take much longer to develop than your standard run of the mill yearly released update of a game. I agree that up to this point the Xbox 360 hasn't had anything groundbreaking. Its first year has been full of what I describe as safe and/or quick releases. You have your Clancy games, your arcade racers, yearly sports updates, etc. You didn't think Microsoft was going to release truely unique and unproven titles in its first year in the next gen war did you? As you said it is just too risky. However it is looking like 2007 is shaping up to be the year when we next gen starts delivering the goods. The 3 games I listed above have me pretty excited. 2007 should be one heck of a year for gaming. I believe that the majority of games will still be mediocre at best but the must own AAA titles will still wow us and keep us playing video games for years to come.

 

I’d really like to play something along the lines of a Silent Hill, Shadow Hearts, Indigo Prophecy, or Final Fantasy, but those types of games haven’t been released.

 

Sounds like the PS3 is your system which would explain why you haven't been impressed with next gen at this point. I'm sure by late 2007 and into 2008 the PS3 will see its share of titles you will enjoy. I'm not big on the kind of games Playstaion offers (j-rpgs, horror, fighting, etc) and have been quite happy playing games like Gears Of War, Ghost Recon, etc on the 360. I'm all about shooters, western rpgs, racers, etc.

 

This really sunk in when I scanned my library for something to take my mind off of Call of Duty 3. Sixteen out of my 19 360 games

 

You own 19 360 games? IMO there aren't more than 10 or so 360 games worth owning. Maybe I'm just more selective than most gamers but I just dont feel the need to own a bunch of games. As long as I have 1 good game every month or 2 to play I'm happy. I think I own about 10 titles and that includes games like Table Tennis, Chromehounds and Test Drive: Unlimited. 3 games I hardly consider must own titles.

[EnemaEms]

There is so much to disagree and agree with in this post. I would argue that Saints Row doesn't hold a candle to GTA3. Saint's Row is a totaly a GTA ripoff, but it does everything right that GTA3 did wrong. The game plays a lot better and looks a lot better. Is it more important than GTA3 though? Of course not. Same goes for Crackdown. I love the GTA games and cannot wait for GTA4, but I can honestly say that I never had as much fun in a GTA game as I do in Crackdown.

 

I would also argue that MGS2 and Ico are AAA titles. Ico has a cult following, but I don't think it is as iconic as others. Same goes for Shadow of the Colossus. Artsy games are great, but they better have good controls/cameras/etc. Okami is a great example of a AAA title that has great gameplay and is artsy at the same time. MGS2 was a disaster. Terrible story and a terrible whiny ass character in Raiden. I am not a fan of the MGS series. I loved the 1st one. Played through the entire 2 one, and played a bit of the 3rd. I just do not like the stealth mechanic in ths series anymore and that is do to Splinter Cell being superior in the gameplay department.

 

COD3 is a bad example of quality AI. I actually enjoy the AI in Condemned, R6: Vegas, and Resistance. Enemies take cover, and in the latter, they do their best to flank you. Condemnded never gets mentioned, yet the AI in that game is very good.

 

I am not a fan of the GT series at all. I drive over 2 hours a day. I do not need to come home and have a drving simulator. I do it in real life.

 

You have mentioned some great games from Last Gen and you also have to look at the times. The PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox were huge steps up from the PSone and N64. Developers were pumping out new types of games left and right because of all this new power. The 360 has been a very good system for software. Games like Dead Rising, Oblivion, Gears of War, PGR3, Crackdown, and some great Arcade games. The other thing this gen is getting right is Co-Op in the single-player campaign. Co-Op is a huge deal for myself and many others. Play Crackdown or Gears in Co-Op. It is phenomenal. As far as J-RPG's go. It sounds like Blue Dragon and the other Mistwalker games will be pretty good. I know there are a few others coming out as well. Also, don't forget about Mass Effect. This looks to be something that will live up to the hype.

 

Once the PS3 hits its stride is when I think you will see more variety in games. 360 has had zero competition until recently and now that the PS3 is here and games are starting to come out for it, you will start seeing the real battle of this gen. Sony's 1st party is what we need to get things really going software wise. They do a tremendous job with 1st party stuff and seeing that they are also devoting 1st party material to the PSN Store is also nice. This will hopefully push MS to start making better use of the Arcade.

 

This gen, for me, is about improved AI, physics, and better changing environments (Motorstorm is a perfect example of this). We are slowly starting to get these. Whether this gen is as good as the last gen is a question mark. The PS2 library alone makes it a hard mountain to climb. With development costs so high now, I am hoping we will see more quality over quantity. Either way, IMHO, this is a great time to be a gamer.

 

-Dean-

[GreenMonkey]

 

For the most part, it’s an arms race to cram more soldiers on screen, make cooler explosions, and do next to nothing in terms of providing a deeper experience. For launch and the months after, this was OK. Everyone wanted to see what the new hardware could do, and there was some thrill in watching a matrix-style camera cut when blowing through a roadblock in Need For Speed. But the "next" generation has been going for a while now, and sadly hasn’t evolved much beyond that type of experience. Sure, the games are fun, but they aren’t particularly memorable. The latest and greatest destructive driving game or first person shooter just gets topped by an incrementally better one next month.

 

 

I was hoping that time would show that my previous complaints about the current gen of gaming were wrong, but it seems to have borne them out. It’s just too expensive to make a game for a genre that offers uncertain sales prospects.

 

There's a reason I am so lukewarm on the new generation. I need more than better graphics. I don't think the AI in Gears is really much better than Quake 2.

 

 

This gen' date=' for me, is about improved AI, physics, and better changing environments (Motorstorm is a perfect example of this). [/quote']

 

Boooooring. That's exactly what BDBB just complained about. None of that is really bringing anything new to the table. It's just eye candy with very little impact on bring new GAMING experiences to the table.

 

I'm with you, BDBB.

 

I will say that I thought Rayman Raving Rabbids was very unique for a minigame game. That's about it. I thought it was different stylistically and control wise, although the minigame thing has been done to death on the Wii so far.

 

If better graphics, physics, and snazzy environments is all the new gen is bringing to the table, I'm selling my consoles. Zero interest. I want more unique gaming experiences. I guess that's why I love the DS but never liked the GBA much. I have whatever consoles I have for the unique or great games out there. I don't have a lot of interest in your run of the mill games or the same old with snazzier graphics. Not since I was a teenager and had a lot more time to burn than I do now.

 

For that matter I generally don't bother with same-old RPGs either and RPGs used to be my favorite genre.

[EnemaEms]

How is better AI, physics, and changing enivironments boring? You don't want CPU opponents acting more intelligently? You don't want a changing environment?

People need to realize is there is only so much you can innovate on subject matter. There comes a time when you have to build upon the current foundation. I love what Lucasarts is doing with the Euphoria engine. Take a game like Little Big Planet. The game appears to be a 2d platformer, but being able to bulid my own levels that have "very realistic" physics applied is awesome. In Motorstorm the mud in the environment changes once vehicles go through it. This in turn applies to how you go through it later. It isn't just for purdy-ness, your vehicle reacts to it and handles differently depending on what you are going through. I think that is greater than some new magic ability in a J-RPG with a feminine male. You may think it is boring, but little things like that make you change how you have to approach a track. Another instance is Crackdown. How you take out the generals of a game will directly affect how the game flows. If I decide to take out the recruiter, the gang will barely have more than the original guys. If I decide to take out the arms dealer, the gang will not have better weapons. There is strategy being dealt in games that did not have it before. Imagine if Sony makes a Twisted Metal game using the Motorstorm engine. The entire environment will change depending on how the battle goes. It will be more than just buldings blowing up. THe battles will change everytime.

 

The new Battlefield game is a perfect example of this. I can have my teammate use his tank to blow up a portion of a building to create a sniper position for me. This in turn makes how you play the map different everytime. There is no more "sniper" spots. They change everytime depending on how the environment changes. These are just a few examples. If things like this don't excite you, then you are going to be hurting for games to play. Lets face it, there is hardly any new innovation anymore because shit has been done and it is hard for someone to dump 20 million in someone's wacky idea of some new game. Some people think that moving your controller around is innovation. I think it is fun, but a gimmick at the end of the day. Improving the things I mentioned is where innovation will ultimately come from, IMHO.

 

-Dean-

[GreenMonkey]

In Motorstorm the mud in the environment changes once vehicles go through it. This in turn applies to how you go through it later. It isn't just for purdy-ness, your vehicle reacts to it and handles differently depending on what you are going through.

 

That is the most minor change I have ever heard of and I couldn't care less. And certainly not $60 worth of caring.

 

 

How you take out the generals of a game will directly affect how the game flows. If I decide to take out the recruiter, the gang will barely have more than the original guys. If I decide to take out the arms dealer, the gang will not have better weapons. There is strategy being dealt in games that did not have it before.

 

That sounds like good gameplay design. That could have applied to a SNES game. Kudos to the designers.

 

These are just a few examples. If things like this don't excite you, then you are going to be hurting for games to play. Lets face it, there is hardly any new innovation anymore because shit has been done and it is hard for someone to dump 20 million in someone's wacky idea of some new game. Some people think that moving your controller around is innovation. I think it is fun, but a gimmick at the end of the day. Improving the things I mentioned is where innovation will ultimately come from, IMHO.

 

-Dean-

 

This, I think, will be a large part of the problem. Massive development costs. No one wants to take a chance and lose big money. Kind of like what massive budgeted movies did to the movie industry. Homogenized, re-re-re-written scripted movies that are tediously predictable.

 

I am hurting for games to play and geting bored. Apparently I'm not the only one.

 

What you describe doesn't sound like 'innovation' to me. Innovation means new ideas, new concepts. It sounds more like 'tweaking'.

[General Zot]

Even without the pretty graphics, show me the previous console that could have run Oblivion. I guess that's the end of my contribution here

[Romier S]

How is better AI, physics, and changing enivironments boring? You don't want CPU opponents acting more intelligently? You don't want a changing environment?

Sure, all of those improvements are fantastic but with nothing to compel you to experience them it can be terribly hollow as well. Mind you this is entirely preferential. For you it may be ok to experience the gameplay while the story sits in the background. Which is fine. For others (like myself), I have been craving more "substance" as of late. At least in so far as storytelling and narrative is concerned.

 

The focus on emergent gameplay and the advances your talking about (which I would argue have yet to truly materialize) have shifted the focus away from a good narrative based game which is unfortunate. I believe the core of the argument is that this generation needs balance. Lord knows I've had plenty of disagreements with Bling in the past but this is actually something I truly agree with. Though I think it's fair to say this generation of gaming is still in its infacy as well. However, I don't think the gaming industry is done "innovating" in so far as content/subject matter is concerned at all. If anything I think games are still trying to find thier voice.

 

Don't get me wrong, i don't necessarily agree that this entire generation has been nothing but fluff. I loved games like Dead Rising and Condemned. They provided the types of gaming experiences I'll love and remember as fondly as some of the previous gen titles mentioned earlier. Hell, I enjoy Ghost Recon. I love Rainbow Six Vegas (it's one of my favorite games released last year). As Bling mentioned they are fantastic games but there's a reason I would prefer to sit down and generally get more excited for a game like God of War II (Narrative and storytelling is a big portion of that).

 

Ico has a cult following, but I don't think it is as iconic as others. Same goes for Shadow of the Colossus. Artsy games are great, but they better have good controls/cameras/etc.

We're kind of arguing subjectivity which does nothing but prove we all have different tastes. That's fine, but you tell me that Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are games that have bad gameplay and I'll gladly tell you that I completely disagree with that notion with every fiber of my being.

 

Both games also happen to take a brilliant minimalist approach to thier storytelling which makes more of an impact, IMO, than 90% of the games on the market.

 

The new Battlefield game is a perfect example of this. I can have my teammate use his tank to blow up a portion of a building to create a sniper position for me. This in turn makes how you play the map different everytime.

Which is great marketing speak Dean, but let's see it in action and then we can talk about how innovative it is and whether they followed through with that potential.

 

Again, we go back to the emergent gameplay well which is all great but despite all of the games trying to push that innovation...very few actually feel any different then the games we've playing in the last 5-6 years. Maybe that's ok though? I mean if it's fun, it's fun afterall. Though maybe it's also okay to see progression in specific areas as well, right?

 

The point for me really is that pushing gameplay forward and pushing good storytelling doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. How about the industry place more importance on quality voice acting? Or more focus on actually getting a good writer to flesh out a quality tale for us to experience with all of that emergent gameplay? From a visual perspective how about the industry in general focus on actual art direction instead of the continued 20 million dollar push for technology as you said? Mind you, not every game is going to have these things. I don't think we need Madden with cel shaded graphics and a beautifully animated dog;), but I do think games (like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six for instance) and more importantly gaming will benefit from it in the end. Psychonauts is a wonderful example of that.

 

Even without the pretty graphics, show me the previous console that could have run Oblivion

Did you miss Morrowind? Which outside of the Radiant AI, did what Oblivion does and does it at twice the size of the world and content. The advancement in AI behavior is certainly appreciated but it wasn't exactly the level of AI performance that made me believe we had sudenly jumped a revolutionary step forward. (and user mods on the PC have pushed it beyond anything Bethesda did to begin with).

 

Good subject for discussion by the way.

[Graeme]

Part of the problem is a shift in the Market since the last generation. Shooters and driving games are now a dominant force in the marketplace along with sports titles... and unfortunately the Xbox, which is the only platform that's been our long enough to have a real variety of titles, caters to this audience more than the others.

 

I have no doubt that things will change a bit once the PS3 and Wii have matured a bit.... but not a huge amount since these are the popular genres now. Remember when the PS2 launched, the idea of a good FPS on a console was almost laughable. Except for the odd exception (Goldeneye), they didn't do all that great, and were usually pretty bad. Now a console FPS is the biggest franchise in gaming, the PS3's strongest launch title was a FPS, and even the Wii had a number of high profile shooters at launch.

 

But we will get more and more games that you're looking for, and they will do things that couldn't have been done in previous generations. Games like Mass Effect will probably be a good example. Little Big Planet is something that needed this generation.

[GreenMonkey]

 

Did you miss Morrowind? Which outside of the Radiant AI, did what Oblivion does and does it at twice the size of the world and content. The advancement in AI behavior is certainly appreciated but it wasn't exactly the level of AI performance that made me believe we had sudenly jumped a revolutionary step forward. (and user mods on the PC have pushed it beyond anything Bethesda did to begin with).

 

Good subject for discussion by the way.

 

I was thinking of Daggerfall for DOS based PCs. Same idea

 

Don't get me wrong. There's some typical games that are so well polished and designed that I play them (look at how I've been cracking out on Gears of War online). But there are less and less games like this lately IMO.

[Sparkz]

I think the 360's constant "Live Aware" features define a key component of Next generation gaming. I know the regular Xbox had a similar feature, but the 360 guide button, dashboard, and the ability to call up friends list at any time to see what your friends are doing has redefined my gaming experience. That's a little bit different "substance" than the above arguments, but its something that I didn't have before. I never liked Multiplayer games, and would much rather play a game with a good story than with some randoms online. But the 360 and its easy to use interface and voice chat have changed all of that. Is this the reason that the majority of the 360 games are shooters, racers, and sports games...because of the on-line aspects? Probably. I think as this thread grows bigger, we'll find that each gamer will have different opinion on what "substance" means to them.

[Romier S]

I never liked Multiplayer games, and would much rather play a game with a good story than with some randoms online. But the 360 and its easy to use interface and voice chat have changed all of that.

That's entirely fair. It does depend on how you view multiplayer gaming. Multiplayer gaming is very much a treat for me. It's great to jump online with friends and play/compete for an hour or two. I have a wonderful time playing with the guys here and laughing our butts off at some of the silly stuff we do and say online (head to the LZ! ). I also have a competitive streak in me that is satisfied when I sit down to play a game like Resistance with the masses via thier games ranking system. However, that's where it ends for me. Multiplayer gaming is a "treat" but it doesn't fill what I personally consider to be a much meatier void that a game like Shadow of the Colossus, Zelda or Psychonauts can fill.

 

As you said, our definition of substance is going to vary greatly.

 

Is this the reason that the majority of the 360 games are shooters, racers, and sports games...because of the on-line aspects?

Therein lies another problem for me. I don't want to make this about just the Xbox 360 either because all of these consoles will eventually provide thier own unique multiplayer experiences. However, the narrow mindedness surrounding online gaming from a development standpoint can be irksome. Online gaming doesn't just need to be about FPS and racing games etc. As Graeme so eloquently noted above, we are coming off of a market shift that has elevated those genres to the forefront right now but that needs to change. Thankfully, it has (to an extent).

 

For instance, where Gears of War truly succeeds for me isn't so much in its typical 8 player Deathmatch mode (which is fun) but the way it integrated online cooperative play into its single player storyline. Gears is a good game whe played alone but it's an /fantastic/ game when played cooperatively. We're seeing more titles like Crackdown do more interesting things with coop play. Too Human is another title that will be pushing heavy doses of coop and frankly I love every minute of it. I imagine a future where not only can I enjoy the story and gameplay in a Ratchet and Clank game by myself but I can hop online with a friend and share in that experience. I welcome that day with open arms.

[Sparkz]

Therein lies another problem for me. I don't want to make this about just the Xbox 360 either because all of these consoles will eventually provide thier own unique multiplayer experiences.

 

I agree. It's just that at the moment I can only argue to what I believe is "Next" generation is how I think the 360 has handled online implementation. I don't think the PS3 has done anything to warrant that feeling yet. But I am very excited about Playstation Home. And I have spent more time playing Resistance online than the story mode, and have had a blast. I just can't argue that it is not all spectacle and no substance...to how I was defining substance.

 

And I truly enjoy the Wii, and one of the reasons is for the virtual console...but there's nothing I can say about that to support the Wii as a next generation console.

 

It's great to jump online with friends and play/compete for an hour or two.

 

That's where I have been defining my "substance". An hour or two of gaming a night is pretty much all I have been able to get these past few months. When I get more time to play (usually on a weekend day) I'll play a single player adventure/RPG game (Oblivion/Zelda/NWN2). And to satisfy that kind of substance, from what I've been reading about Mass Effect and Spiderman 3 (PS3 version)...there will be some next generation elements there that were not possible on the older consoles.

[dogbert]

First off, it's a bit disingenuous to use a bunch of example games from the last generation that came out at a later time to where we are in this generation, but that's by the by, I don't want to start arguing dates, just making a comment.

 

This console transition is notably different to the last for a number of reasons. We have more viable platforms for a start and nextgen platforms are frankly dwarfed by the existing (and active) userbases for the likes of the PS2 & DS. That greatly affects the viability of 'niche' games like (most) RPGs, strategy games, "vanity" projects - do you put them on the PS2 where you know there's an audience because they bought 600k of your last title, or do you create an all new engine & toolchain to put it on the PS3 where the install base is 2 million?

 

The "oldest" next-generation platform is so far thoroughly aimed at Western hardcore gamers. Of course, games like shooters, racers etc are what sell to that market. Microsoft have tried pushing for niche genres and Japanese developers. Has the market responded for it? It's too early to tell. As they sell more machines, there's more chance of it being viable to have a SRPG on the 360.

 

As to people arguing against engineers focusing on better physics & AI? I just have no words.

[Graeme]

Is this the reason that the majority of the 360 games are shooters, racers, and sports games...because of the on-line aspects?

 

I would say that it's more because these are the big genres right now, and they're financially sound. Halo, Resistance, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Madden, NBAs, Fifa, Gran Tourismo, PGR, Need for Speed, Burnout... these all sell boatloads of copies, and in the case of sports and racing, it's easy to churn them out year after year and they continue to sell lots of copies.

 

The fact that they are all inherently competitive games makes them easy for online experiences. It takes no thought whatsoever to take Madden or PGR and turn it into an online multiplayer game, any idiot can figure that out. Shooters aren't much more difficult, but they can take a bit more effort.

 

Taking a game like GTA, Ratchet and Clank, or Tomb Raider and making it a compelling online experience (not some tacked on deathmatch mode) takes thought and perhaps a complete shift into a different type of game experience. But I think that is where Co-Op is going to play a part as Romier has mentioned. Gears of War is simply the first major stepping point into a co-op explosion, I guarantee it.

 

Much like how developers were constantly being asked about multiplayer and online features when Quake, Warcraft 2, Diablo, C&C, and similar games hit it big in the young multiplayer explosions, multiplayer and online features is now barely a question for the majority of games that are released on the PC. And you can already see the same thing happening with co-op.

 

Gears got it right. They are the model for easy, seamless, drop in and out co-op multiplayer, and now ever developer has to answer if they will be including something similar... and eventually they all will whenever possible.

 

I don't know if this the the savior that everyone is looking for though. I feel that there is something big that is going to happen soon, I just don't know what it is. Nor do I think the developers really know. The whole industry seems a little lost right now, and there's more questions than answers.

 

How do we tell amazing stories and get people involved in the characters we create. Some will say we have to get away from the Hollywood stylized cutscenes that take the player out of the game. Others will argue that without taking the player out of the game, they can't control the story well enough. Not to mention, how do we get away from story being a stopgap between areas of gameplay?

 

How can we create living breathing environments that are truly interactive and react to what the player is done... but still create a structured game around it? How can we do the same thing, but in an online environment where hundreds to thousands of people are interacting with it?

 

How do we bring more people into playing games? How can we create games that anybody can pick up and play and have a great time with regardless of familiarity with a controller or other games?

 

These are questions I hear over and over again, but nobody seems to have any real answers. Honestly I don't think anyone really knows how to do any of this, but they desperately want to. Someone will figure it out. Maybe someone unknown to us now. It may take smarter minds than the game industry currently has, but I think something will break sometime soon, it will take a number of years most likely, but then everyone else will jump on board.

 

The only constant lately has been the obvious sentiment that technology and visuals are becoming less and less of a factor. So what's left is things like I've mentioned above and everyone is left scrambling on what to do.

 

In the meantime, we have to suffer through the continued effort to wow us by upping the visuals and initial WOW factor, but be left with the same thing we've been playing for the last 10 years. There will be minor revisions and new things thrown in of course, but not much all that mind blowing I'm sure.

[Rainmaykr]

As a mature entertainment medium, is it unfair to expect evolutionary change with each hardware generation?

 

Seems to me the problem is perception, namely what "next generation" means to you. For me, it's always been defined by the jump in ability of the hardware. That does not necessarily translate into an equal, generational jump in software.

 

Surely the video game experience had to plateau sometime. Afterall, as humans, with our expectations and abilities, we haven't changed all that much in the last 30 or so years.

 

I'll call it the Porche 911 Factor. The 911 hasn't had a significant platform change for many years - each year, it gets progressively better, but certainly nothing evolutionary. Take the body style - it's remained largely unchanged for 20+ years. Why? Because the limitaions of humans (business) and unyielding laws of physics are such that once you attain a certain level of performance, evolutionary positive change is impossible. What is possible, and what is being done with the 911, is the further honing and perfecting of the product - but certainly nothing "evolutionary." The Chevrolet Corvette has only recently reached this level - the difference in body style from the two most recent generations is, for the most part, unchanged. Why? Because once you reach the performance plateau, it then becomes a matter of finely honing and perfecting.

 

What if video games have reached the "entertainment plateau?" What if what we have now is more or less what we can expect - and it's just a matter of honing and perfecting the experience?

 

It would surely explain why we don't see anything "evolutionary."

[Derrik Draven]

Army of Two is a game that seems to be heavily developed around co-op play. I have high hopes that this game is a kick ass online co op experience. As for the "oh so tired" typical online deathmatch experience, I could care less. It's a beaten horse in my humble opinion. I did it with lousy graphics and sound, running through a castle named Wolfenstein, and it's the EXACT same thing today except for beautiful graphics (that I can't admire or I'm shot dead), and surround sound.

 

Co-op seems to present the greatest possibilites for new gameplay than run, jump, shoot, repeat ad nauseum.

[foogledricks]

I haven't read any of the posts yet, I intend to, they are long. But I'd say that the PS3 and Wii are exempt from criticism in this thread because they're so new. So this is all about the 360. And starting soon, the 360 is about to have a fantastical year. I don't even have to list the games. I'm sure other people have or will.

[exile]

The OP has a point but I think it's too early to judge. I don't think we've really experiencing much of next gen yet.

[EnemaEms]

I know you folks crave a great story, but the problem is that if a game with a great story has gameplay that is tired (I'm looking at you MGS and Shadow of the Colossus), I won't struggle with it to reveal the story. I am really hoping that MGS4 has some new gameplay mechanics because I really want to enjoy it. If the game isn't fun to "play" then why do I want to experience the story?

 

 

Brian,

 

I am all for in advancing AI and Physics in games (if you haven't read ). These tools will help a games overall production value. Bioshock is a game that "appears" to take story, art, and AI to the next level. I hope so, because I am expecting them too.

 

People may knock Crackdown's game design and say it could of been done in SNES, but I don't recall ever witnessing a game of Crackdown's caliber on that 16-bit system. The foundation for this series has been created and I cannot wait to see what Mr. Jones will do with it next.

 

Once again, I cannot stress enough how important Co-Op gameplay is to this generation. Building a game around it is where I think games should move. Gears is an incredible game in Co-Op and Crackdown is a total blast. Army of Two looks to be doing it right. I am not saying you guys are wrong in your thinking, I just don't think you are going to get innovation like you want. We will see some games, but nowhere near what we have seen in the past.

 

-Dean-

[dogbert]

People may knock Crackdown's game design and say it could of been done in SNES, but I don't recall ever witnessing a game of Crackdown's caliber on that 16-bit system. The foundation for this series has been created and I cannot wait to see what Mr. Jones will do with it next.

 

Billy Thomson was the lead designer on Crackdown, not Dave Jones.

[EnemaEms]

Thanks for the correction.

[Brandon H]

I'm with you, Dean . . . right up to the point where you said the gameplay in SotC was "tired."

[Romier S]

I know you folks crave a great story, but the problem is that if a game with a great story has gameplay that is tired

 

If the game isn't fun to "play" then why do I want to experience the story?

You don't have to. I'm not sure why you think anyone is requesting such a think. You make the assumption that a game that happens to have a good story will automatically not be fun to play. I don't get that. You noted Bioshock as a game that will provide both excellent gameplay and a great story to back it up. See what happens when some effort is actually placed? It just so happens we can have our cake and it eat it too on many occasions Dean.

 

People may knock Crackdown's game design and say it could of been done in SNES, but I don't recall ever witnessing a game of Crackdown's caliber on that 16-bit system.

Replace Crackdown with Shadow of the Colossus and you have my thoughts exactly. Though for the record I happen to be a fan of Crackdown as well.

[EnemaEms]

I keep mentioning SOTC as an example. This is why I do not consider it a AAA title. Camera and controls. Both are clunky as hell. I agree 100% that the game is beautiful (other than the running animation) and the story is very good. However, two of the most important pieces of the puzzle are broken. Maybe Sony pressured the Ico team to get this out before it was done or maybe the Ico team just doesn't have the ability to create a good control mechanic. Either way, a game that is clunky as all hell to play is no way a AAA title.

 

Another thing I was thinking about was Mass Effect. RPGs are some of the most cookie cutter genre of games out there. Bioware is really trying to change that. They started it with KOTOR and seem to be taking it light years ahead with Mass Effects gameplay decision of using dialogue and facial expressions to convey and advance the story. Molyneuax is another person who has grand ideas for the genre, but money and time alsways seem to hold him back.

 

I just like the fact that the Doctor's at Bioware and Peter Molyneaux are trying to build upon a popular genre. A genre that I do not care for all that much, but I do play their games because they usually offer something new.

 

You make the assumption that a game that happens to have a good story will automatically not be fun to play.

You abviously misunderstood what I wrote. I was talking about the games mentioned. Not all games with great stories are shitty to play. Zelda, Okami, KOTOR, Silent Hill, Half-Life, etc. These are all great story driven games that also have great gameplay mechanics.

 

-Dean-