Is there any innovation in gaming?

[Kuciwalker]

I'll use Civ4 as a clear example. One avid Civ4 player has spent his own time making changes to the AI following Firaxis's decision to release tools that made this possible. These are really good changes and I'm sure could have been done by Firaxis (they actually took several of them for their most recent patch, so it's not a quality issue). But they don't care enough to spend the resource - improved AI matters to too few people at the end of the day, and spanky new 'cool' features and nice graphics matter to more given the current market composition.

It seems to me it's more a function of their own skill. Blake is a really, really good Civ 4 player, and we've had a year to figure out many of the best strategies. It seems to me that the AI's priorities were just wrong (and Firaxis has focused mostly on bugs/balance in patches). That's different from, say, introducing entire new algorithms to the AI.

And I think the reason AI progress has been slow is because it's hard.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Because the phenomenon is shared amongst genres which do have some significant proportion of the playerbase engaged in MP and those that do not.

Take Civ4 for instance. MP is small beans compared to SP yet still a gifted amateur was able to make significant improvements to the AI.

yeah, but as I was told years ago by Horsey, Civ in SP is for wimps, a trained monkey could win on deity, and REAL men play MP exclusively.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'll use Civ4 as a clear example. One avid Civ4 player has spent his own time making changes to the AI following Firaxis's decision to release tools that made this possible. These are really good changes and I'm sure could have been done by Firaxis (they actually took several of them for their most recent patch, so it's not a quality issue). But they don't care enough to spend the resource - improved AI matters to too few people at the end of the day, and spanky new 'cool' features and nice graphics matter to more given the current market composition.

It seems to me it's more a function of their own skill. Blake is a really, really good Civ 4 player, and we've had a year to figure out many of the best strategies. It seems to me that the AI's priorities were just wrong (and Firaxis has focused mostly on bugs/balance in patches). That's different from, say, introducing entire new algorithms to the AI.

And I think the reason AI progress has been slow is because it's hard.

Blake is good. But I just don't buy that Firaxis couldn't make improvements of the same quality if they wanted. They just don't want to - they have other priorities.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yeah, but as I was told years ago by Horsey, Civ in SP is for wimps, a trained monkey could win on deity, and REAL men play MP exclusively.

That's a bit of an aside LotM.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=El_Cid]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.[/q]

But that's not his point. His point was that AI has GROWN linearly. Not remained static, but has grown. Sure graphics have grown at an even greater pace, but to ignore the AI advances and how they have allowed for more innovation in games (as cronos pointed out compare Half Life 2 to Doom - ducking for cover is an obvious innovation due to technology advances).

No one argues that graphics haven't grown more, but also few argue that the AI has remained 'static'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Again rose tinted specs. Old games were often riddled with bugs that you never even noticed, because there was no online community to point them out to you. And they were much harder to fix too.

I present to you Ultima IX .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Blake is good. But I just don't buy that Firaxis couldn't make improvements of the same quality if they wanted. They just don't want to - they have other priorities.

They couldn't have on release. They could have in patches, but their patch focus has always been on bugs and balance.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Just for clairification, I never said that AI and gameplay were static, they are growing in complexity and depth, but graphics/sound are growing at a much higher pace.

Also FYI, sony put the CPU and GPU for the PS2 on the same chip, but I'm not aware of any CPUs being worse or better at AI (aka computations), unless it was just underpowered for that application. However, I admit to not being up on consols.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Just for clairification, I never said that AI and gameplay were static, they are growing in complexity and depth, but graphics/sound are growing at a much higher pace.

Yep, that's exactly what I thought you had made clear, which is why it confused me to hear others say you said it was static. That was somewhat amusing.

[El_Cid]

Just to get this out the way:

"Nostalgia" has nothing to do with ANY of my discussions on the merits of game design in anyway. Why?

Because i play all the games i talk about or refer to side by side. Nostalgia means - a longing for a 'forgotten' or distant memmory.

Xcom/Elite/Monkey Island/Civ/UlitmaIII etc etc are NOT distant memories to me - i play then now alongside all the new fluff

It pi**es me off when the knee-jerk reaction is 'oh its nostalgia rose tinted specs' etc. games is my job - so i make sure i'm experiencing them in the here+now.

Crap games existed in the past - Crap games exist now, to get that clear also.

SO lets bury the 'nostalgia' ticket here and now - thanks

Originally posted by Sandman
The reason for slow AI advancement is obviously increased multiplayer offerings.

Is a valid point imho.

Originally posted by Dr.Spike
.....Unlikely...

As is that

Not that i dont like MP - its essential to provide the long-term life span of pretty much any title imho, but with many titles on-line(so were talking fps i guess) this aspect has evolved along with graphics, although the are very different componants. But i think to some degree where the pressure is on to provide the great graphics the masses 'demand'(?) and provide a killer MP enviroment to show them off in....then AI has its place in the pecking order of the dev schedule. So its a yes and no on this i would suggest?

at Asher(and the bunch of guys who really didnt understand what i was trying to draw attention to - probably my fault for not being arsed to write a huge document in detail with clear examples etc etc. Luckily many other folks have got it and made some very good and pertinant posts on some of the aspects)

I think whats struck me most over my 'discussion' with people of your viewpoint is the almost fanatical desire that anything 'could' be wrong with the current model.

Pretty much all the modern examples you give(while being some of the 'best' this generation of gaming has to offer) have left me either cold or indifferent to the playing experience - but then i'm a guy who doesn't jump around in his seat at the movies when there are lots of 'explosions' and special effects.

I'm there for the narritive, the story and ultimately the questions that movie poses about its plot and the answers it offers(or not). thats MY reasons for watching.

Physics engines ARE part of the graphics of a game - sure its complex - its incredibly dificult to grasp maths, so it should be complicated. What does it effect most? the way the graphics look. Its nothing to do with the narrative or story or idea of what the game is trying to do - unless the whole plot revolves around physics type problems, which is about as dull as trying to find that exact correct combination of verb/adjective in an old school text adventure imho.

I suppose at least in the text adventure its trying to stretch your use of vocabilary? never was my cup of tea, but i can see its merits more than trying to get something from watching a corpse twitch realisticaly in the corner.

Anyway i can only wonder if from the personal way you reacted, (almost as if i had insulted your family) reguarding my opinion on next-gen and what it has to offer in relation to the thread posters question, that either you must have shares in it(next-gen) or work for a company involved in it - and dont want the bubble to burst quicker than it probably(imho) will?

Fine thats cool - but dont expect me to bother explaining myself again in length to your or anyones elses affront at my opinions.

Time will tell - that will be the proof of the pudding.

Just to distill my main concerns over next-gen - for easy to swallow bites that you might remember in the future :

Next-gen(ref innovation+future of gaming):

1. Will mean the increasing push for more realistic graphics which will lead to:

a) better graphics(duh!)
b) more detailed physcis engines....um better graphics
c) higher costs of production.....because of better graphics
d) Games giveing less hours per 'experience'
e) Games having less replayability due to design constraints and higher concentration on graphics
f) 'Probably' less actual innovation - plenty in graphics evolution.
g) Many more companies going bust due to the higher cost and risks of development.
h) More expensive games
I) higher risk of the growth of 'renting'
J) Less actual all round game design innovation - graphics get precident.
K) the kicker - 'worse' or if you like less memorable gaming experiences.

why? when you focus on primarily short very glossy games with little actual content(other than graphical) or replayability that focus heavily on the 'hollywood' tactic of trying to provide one 'Wiz-bang!' special effect momment after the other, all you end up doing is creating a disproportionly(sp?) visual medium which gets stale quick - untill the next more 'Whiz-bang' title comes along(and they will come in quick succesion believe me - you can see it now).

That in turn over the medium to long term will create apathy(like the current scene has done with people like me for the most part) and less sales.

A number of those listed concerns are very real worries in developement circles - and as a customer a number of them are things you should be concerend about also?

I think this is all i'll say on the issue. Those who point blank refuse to even accept the possibility of the truth in those points - well i dont really care, enjoy it while it lasts might be the best thing to say (or enjoy spending your money - quite a bit i suspect)

I'll be keeping an eye out for the real gaming 'revolution' - maybe even helping in it

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They couldn't have on release. They could have in patches, but their patch focus has always been on bugs and balance.

But they could have made the AI better in the Warlords XP, but as far as I could see they didn't touch the AI code
I believe the reason for releasing the modding tools was to get the fans do that hard work for them

[Asher]

I think whats struck me most over my 'discussion' with people of your viewpoint is the almost fanatical desire that anything 'could' be wrong with the current model.

I don't see how anything is "wrong" with a model that allows both the simple games of old and complex games of new.

There's simply nothing wrong with extending hardware capability to permit new types of gameplay. It doesn't remove the opportunity to make basic games either.

Look into "XNA" for the Xbox 360, as well as Xbox Live Arcade.

[Asher]

b) more detailed physcis engines....um better graphics

Physics aren't for graphics only. They directly impact (and in some cases, define) the gameplay: eg, simulation games, HL2, etc.

Despite your huge list of items, everything actually comes down to the exact same, unsubstantiated point: better graphics are detrimental to innovation and gameplay because they take more resources.

I strongly disagree, mainly because I understand that in development the graphics teams have absolutely nothing to do with the game design or game programming aside from the graphics engine. Hell, the vast majority of games recycle their game engines (Unreal Engine, etc).

[El_Cid]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6158798.stm

does this strike a cord? I'm not playing it so i dont know - but the remarks i probably would make might be along the same lines?

Other reviews may well be glowing - i have no interest to look, this just happened to come my way out of accident.

Oh and its not only you Asher - a few others were as quick to mock/dismiss

End.

[Asher]

Considering how much I've been enjoying Gears of War for its fresh take on a genre, I think it's almost the anti-thesis to your point.

The game is only short if you ignore the well-done multiplayer aspect and you play it on the "casual" setting, and only once. It's kind of like playing Civilization through once on Chieftain and labeling it a short game.