Is there any innovation in gaming?

[Arthedain]

Originally posted by MORON
Greatest innovation ever is DOTA

Me DotA

[Asher]

Ruling on the Wii so far: So innovative it's medicore.

Go figure gimmicky controls with some quirks don't innovation make.

[duke o' york]

Yes, and the latest horrible innovation is that the local games shop won't give refunds if you've removed the plastic wrapping.

My mate used to decide whether he liked new games over a weekend, and take them back on Monday if not. He can't any longer.... (even though it was pretty mean anyway, but they do cost a lot to buy new these days).

Has anyone got a plastic wrapping machine?

[Asher]

My mate used to decide whether he liked new games over a weekend, and take them back on Monday if not.

No offense, but that's ****ing retarded. I can finish most games in a weekend.

You have two choices:
1) Rent the game
2) Download a demo

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Yes, and the latest horrible innovation is that the local games shop won't give refunds if you've removed the plastic wrapping.

Sounds perfectly fair to me.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, we'll have greater innovation due to hardware increasing what we can do with games. Its made games have more realistic physics and effects. It's allowed for games like Grand Theft Auto, where you can have an entire city to just explore, with plenty of stuff to do outside of the main quest. That was particularly innovative (you were playing in a living, breathing city)

hmm i think its a common misconception about technology actualy improving or advancing game design or innovation.

Elite was a whole load of galaxys on a tape(or disk). look at the early Ultima games - far more complex and detailed than recent games like GTA.
Liberation on amiga had a vast graphical city to explore with 1000's of npcs to deal with.

No technology/hardware has long since passed the point of being the answer for the creation of good innovotive games.

Hardware is currently totaly involved with pushing as many detailed polygons around the screen as possible and thats about it i'm afraid.

handhelds are looking interesting, the Wii might be a disaster(it can happen) but if so it will be an interesting disaster.

I think as the graphics whores/hype fans follow the next-gen consoles to oblivion(get it? ) then we can just let them get on with it.

Ultimately i think your humble pc and games made by small devs will be where the most interesting new games will come from. in fact i'm kinda looking for the re-emergence of the bedroom devs.

Real interesting, thoughtfull, truely deep and complex games will have a rennaissance - on pc, with respectable hardare requirements, +much less graphical bang - because to be honest the power of a computer game is what it can feed your imagination. Super graphics actualy get in the way imho.

viva la revolution.

[Asher]

Elite was a whole load of galaxys on a tape(or disk). look at the early Ultima games - far more complex and detailed than recent games like GTA.

Are you kidding? Elite was a very simple game. Very good, but very simple.

And I very much disagree that faster technology doesn't permit more innovation in games. For one, artificial intelligence is the #1 problem with games -- and it was even worse for those archaic games. More power means more meaningful environments, that permit games like Assassin's Creed to be possible.

While you don't need high-end hardware for games like tetris, you do for games such as Flight Simulator, Assassin's Creed, Gran Turismo/Forza Motorsport, etc. Hell, the NHL games get better every year because the players get smarter, too.

It's important not to let your biases blind you. While you may be content with sidescrolling jumping games, some of us grew out of those over a decade ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Asher 1
El Cid 0



But to really claim that increased technology is mainly about graphics (which is basically what you said) is just willfully blinding yourself. New technology allows for greater complexity. Asher is right, a lot of those games were far simpler due to technological limitations. It was harder to have, say, multiple independent personalities creating a 'world' (which is the result of an AI that can handle those more complex instructions) because of how far the technology could be pushed.

Hell, just compare Civ II to Civ IV in terms of how 10 years of technological improvements in hardware can (and have) help with more complex game structures.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Speaking of the current games in general, I think that eye-candy is increasing exponentially, while AI is on a linear growth curve. Overall innovation is also on a linear scale.

Perhaps this is the meaning that El_Cid is trying to convey. I still remember some pretty good ai back in the early micro days. I mean C64 games were 40k, while today's games are easily 5G, how much of that code and data is graphics versus better ai?

[Asher]

The reason AI isn't growing as fast as graphics is because of Sony. On the PS2 and PS3, the CPUs are TERRIBLE at AI and excellent at graphics.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I did not know the CPUs did graphics, I always thought that was the GPUs???

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Speaking of the current games in general, I think that eye-candy is increasing exponentially, while AI is on a linear growth curve. Overall innovation is also on a linear scale.

Perhaps this is the meaning that El_Cid is trying to convey. I still remember some pretty good ai back in the early micro days. I mean C64 games were 40k, while today's games are easily 5G, how much of that code and data is graphics versus better ai?

I couldn't have said it better myself

Spaced Cowboy/El Cid 1
Asher/Imran 1



Lets get Elite out the way first. 48k(48 kilobytes) - you try writeing a game on your current technological wonder that can get near the complexity of Elite - i think just powering up the graphics card will take a lot more memmory

Sadly of those games you mentioned Asher that i have played(Gran Turismo/Forza Motorsport) is far less complex than many of the F1 type games that came out over 10 years ago - bar the graphics of course. Check out the F1 series of games by geof crammond if you dont believe me.

And the arguements for AI - please. In theory sure, we have way more harddrive space/proccesor power etc, but as many just plain stupid games get made today as they did 20 years ago!! For every smart current game you could give me i can give you an older example. Likewise for every dumb one.

Side scrolling shooter/platform game. The only difference with those say over modern 3D versions is what..............hmmm graphics(as in graphical viewpoint) maybe? - they still do exactly the same thing

back to SpaceCowboys points - Graphics are the only thing that has really seen huge growth in the last 10years - the other aspects of game design have more or less stayed fairly static.

Still as long as Asher+Imran(and others) are happy to snap up this current fodder it will remain as such

The bottom line is this: if you graph the rise of comparative computer power over the last 10 years, then graph the rise of really great games(ones that generaly eveyone agrees are something special) over the same time period......guess what?

El_Cid 2(just in case spaced doesnt want to play)
Asher/Imran 1

[CrONoS]

@El_Cid:
You're wrong on some part:
Took these games, and compare the A.I.

Doom1 - Half Life 1 and Halo2
or
Dune - Command & Conquer and Warcraft3

You'll see a good progression of the A.I., not as great as the graphics(if were able to draw a graph about A.I. evolution), but still a good overall progression.

I do not know for F1 games of the nineties because; younger I was easily impressionable.

and Fixed:

El_Cid 1
Asher/Imran 1

[CrONoS]

ohh and about innovation/evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgtT6v5zNo

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
I did not know the CPUs did graphics, I always thought that was the GPUs???

If you look at the PS2/PS3...the CPU does a lot of (or all of, in the case of the PS2) the heavy lifting for graphics.