1. #1

    Are video games reaching their limit?

    The gameplay, control and graphical leaps from Snes/Sega to PS1/N64 to PS2/Xbox were huge. Then the jump from PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360 was not quite as huge. And it seems more and more, that games are the same as they were 4 years ago. There appear to be not very many improvements made, just sequels to previous games that look and play almost the same.

    I was playing a few games on my iPhone the other day and the games did not look all that different from console games. The controls were slightly more clunky but otherwise, the differences were minuscule. The Wii U doesn't really look any better than the current generation. I also am really starting to doubt that the next-gen Playstation and Xbox will be that much better either. I'm starting to doubt if developers still have what it takes to wow us with new games.

    -Have innovation and technical advancements finally slowed to the point where new games are barely any better than older ones?

  2. #2
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Spirestone
    Posts
    1,361
    Innovation? Yes. Technical Advancements? No. Games are starting to look more and more realistic all the time, and more and more objects are starting to be able to be rendered at the same time.

  3. #3
    No - I think the notion of a limit on an interactive medium is a ridiculous notion, personally. While graphical improvements can only get so close to photoreality without being too ridiculous with production time, graphics do not make a game. There are still improvements to be made in terms of optimization and efficiency in code.
    There is no visible ceiling for the technical side of Video Games.

  4. #4
    Graphics-wise? Eh.

    Story, gameplay and everything else? Not even remotely close yet. Especially story. Just because the industry's running out of technical space (and there's probably, in my layman eyes, a good 10-20 years until then) to work with doesn't mean video games don't have a long way to go.

    Also, you're generalizing like crazy and overlooking a lot of things in the past that pretty much mirror perfectly what's going on today, but I figured I'd take on the more logical point.

  5. #5
    There is very probable reason games today are very much alike games 4 years ago in the aspects you mentioned.... =p
    Same console cycle and a lot of milking our wallets from some companies.

  6. #6
    Mechagnome NeonX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    677
    I would like to say yes but we'll have to wait for the new generation of consoles to come out but I don't suspect they'll be much greater different graphically.

    Also I don't think it's the developers fault, I think they're restricted by the current technology also the fact most people are suffering financially (business included) Microsoft, Sony and nintendo and the like I don't think can afford to cram in the top end technology that would make a difference because it would be too expensive.

  7. #7
    Innovation is risky, and big publishers don't like taking risks on the games they publish.

    With hardware innovation, just look to Nintendo. They've been the most bold console creators in the past 10 or so years, willing to try out new concepts before others.

    With software, for the most part the risks are taken in smaller titles. Not just indie games though, some of the indie+/AA titles as well. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see some pretty interesting things coming out on the Wii U and maybe on the next generation of Xbox/PlayStation as well.

  8. #8
    Video games blew up over the past 10 years. The graphics and fluidity of controls have improved in leaps and bounds.

    Innovation and technical advances have not slowed. They have just become much more expensive.
    So, why would a game company release a console valued at over $1,000 in parts in this economy?

    Games have only slowed down for the time being. I expect them to ramp back up again in five-ten years, and then finally make the virtual world breakthrough in another twenty..

    It comes down to laying the groundwork, and that costs lots of moolah.

  9. #9
    Technical advancements, no. Some of the demo footage from Unreal Engine 4 is jaw-dropping.

    Innovation-wise? Possibly. The nature of games now(everyone wanting multiplayer and connectivity, plus the cost and dev time of graphics to meet the standards of current-gen games and gamers) doesn't leave much time for actual gameplay innovation. That's why we're seeing more of it come from the indie game devs, as they (except for one instance whose name is eluding me) can't meet the art, so they don't try, and focus more on gameplay and mechanics.

    Warren Spector and Richard Garriott did a lecture one night and this topic came up, where Richard mentioned how he would watch games become more innovative at the end of a hardware generation, then when the new tech came out, everyone would focus on graphics and have no clue how to use the hardware, so everything reverted to simple gameplay, then they would make more advancements, then new hardware would come out, etc. Interesting stuff from a few years ago that still seems to hold true. Plus, while there's still life in the 360 and ps3, and there's nothing wrong w/ the graphics they can produce, it's still the same hardware from 6-7 years ago. There is an upper limit with current-gen stuff.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    Innovation is risky, and big publishers don't like taking risks on the games they publish.
    This. This. This.

    Look at the biggest titles of the past year, how many of them had a number after the main title? Almost all of them. The biggest issue with the gaming industry right now isn't so much the technology is growing stagnant, hell the tech just keeps getting more amazing in my opinion. Software on the other hand is increasingly ridiculously expensive which is why we're seeing lower numbers of risky and innovative projects in favour of sequelitis which are known money makers.

    World of Warcraft is a perfect example, I never quit because it's a bad game.. it's still the best MMO out there imo.. problem is every expansion has been the same thing with some tweaks and shiny new toys instead of groundbreaking gameplay changes and I just got tired of playing the same game for 6 years.

    *crosses fingers Wii U ends up being as cool as it looks with ZombiU*
    Last edited by Aerai; 2012-06-24 at 04:49 AM.

  11. #11
    One of the big advances that happens over time and shouldn't be discounted is A) stuff looking awesome while B) not lagging when there's a lot of shit going on. They know how to make it pretty, but most of the time that comes at the cost of performance, especially on consoles where the hardware is static.

  12. #12
    Stories can only be retold for so long. I cant really remember a game where the story hasnt been at least 50% predictable. Im pretty sure its just my view on it tho, been gaming since SNES came out, and played through a lot of games since then.

    The jumps between gaming generations and new content had to slow down. the amazing and innovation of playing side scrollers and then playing an RTS, was a huge jump in the gaming world. Then from rts to fps, rpgs, third person's and so forth.

    Thinking back to playing N64, and zelda and goldeneye, where huge milestones from when i would play that duck hunt game on NES, or Mario and Double Dragon.

    We've been spoilt rotten with the availability of genres, and with the speed that they were released and created. Over a span of 30 years seems quite long, but its obvious its begun to slow down now. Granted, for any new gamer they have a plethora of amazing game types and styles to play, but for the older gamer, it seems a little rewashed and published.

    These days i go for games with replay value, great co-op and something with a strong story. Sadly, games that have the potential to amazing, are usually just built to be MP based rushed to reach that market (see CoD. I thought the storyline of MW/MW2/MW3 was pretty decent and didnt seem too bullshit, for a game, yet how many of its sales were really for its story?)

    Graphically, recently in this generation (ps3, xbox360, high end pc) its slowed down, i see Some difference, say the facial detail of ME3 to MGS4, but its nothing as huge as a console jump.

    I think ive been rambling here and gone off topic, but i hope this helps give you some insight, at least to how i think of it.

    Also, OT: Compare Halo:CE to Halo 2, that was in 1 console "cycle", the Xbox, and the graphical difference was Amazing between the two. Then from Halo 3 to Halo: Reach, didnt seem as they pushed the borders as much as they did with Halo 2. That something that just makes me think these days, once a company makes a "great" game (for what ever reason, story or multiplayer) they seem to just publish average stuff to keep their profits up so their boss is happy.

  13. #13
    what people forget is that all the innovating games of the past where followed by heaps and heaps of crap cash in games trying to make a buck from the latest gaming hit or popular tv show

    I remember playing halo 1 and turning to my friend and saying " I dont know how they could improve games beyond this"....

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Woceip View Post
    One of the big advances that happens over time and shouldn't be discounted is A) stuff looking awesome while B) not lagging when there's a lot of shit going on. They know how to make it pretty, but most of the time that comes at the cost of performance, especially on consoles where the hardware is static.
    That's just making your game well and knowing the hardware limitations. Not an innovations or much of a "significant" advancement.

  15. #15
    Immortal Clockwork Pinkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    7,550
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperMechatronGamer View Post
    The gameplay, control and graphical leaps from Snes/Sega to PS1/N64 to PS2/Xbox were huge. Then the jump from PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360 was not quite as huge. And it seems more and more, that games are the same as they were 4 years ago. There appear to be not very many improvements made, just sequels to previous games that look and play almost the same.
    Was a pretty huge jump. Also why would you only compare games that came out 4 years ago? 4 years ago next gen was already 2 years old. Of course they'd be the same, as they are on the same system, and the only games that sell on consoles seem to be the same game, from the same franchise. Are you really this surprised?

    I was playing a few games on my iPhone the other day and the games did not look all that different from console games. The controls were slightly more clunky but otherwise, the differences were minuscule. The Wii U doesn't really look any better than the current generation. I also am really starting to doubt that the next-gen Playstation and Xbox will be that much better either. I'm starting to doubt if developers still have what it takes to wow us with new games.

    -Have innovation and technical advancements finally slowed to the point where new games are barely any better than older ones?
    Comparing iPhone games to things on the console and they weren't the same? What the hell were you playing? O.o The difference is huge. Wii U looks alright, it's also alright to doubt next gen, as it really, officially, does not exist, yet. Developers still have what it takes, players just don't want to be wowed any more, they care more about how skilled they are at owning the other guy.


  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperMechatronGamer View Post
    -Have innovation and technical advancements finally slowed to the point where new games are barely any better than older ones?
    I'd say too many game developers emphasize technical advancement (which is bound to hardware capabilities and it is exponentially harder to make and optimize game engine for better and more advanced hardware) or some irrelevant features over the gameplay. Who cares if game is photo-realistic, but gameplay behind it is non-existent. Gameplay-wise games reached their limits few years ago (with rare exceptions here and there).

    www.gamefaqs.com - I use this site as kind of measure of actual gameplay by reading boards, reviews and walkthroughs (carefully ofc, without spoiling myself much) and looking at what approx. length I can expect from the game, and how rich is it on genre-specific elements. Say, someone advertises ARPG (genre is purely for example), posts vidoes, etc., trying to show strong points of game (graphics), instead of weak points. Then you go to gamefaqs and see that, in example, this ARPG doesn't have respawns, doesn't support backtracking and/or have miniscule loot/areas list. But hey, it uses super-puper realistic Graphic Engine and mega-precise shadows and water effects! -.-

    And many games, instead of having innovations and evolution in their genre, have degradation. Same Dungeon Siege III vs Dungeon Siege II - can't make party anymore, can't backtrack anymore. Could as well call it Dungeon Siege 0.5 Graphic Revision.
    Last edited by Ferocity; 2012-06-24 at 08:56 AM.

  17. #17
    Pandaren Monk Mechazod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dimension 324325
    Posts
    1,978
    Personally I would of been fine with graphic advancement reaching its peak with the SNES.

  18. #18
    The Lightbringer Rukh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,601
    This is a silly thing to think of as their limit. Yes people think they always have to keep pushing the technology in order for games to get "better", but they don't. Games have actually got worse because they ignore what makes good games.

  19. #19
    Games have about every type of character movement covered, without a new input method much more improvement in some categories will make games overly complicated

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperMechatronGamer View Post
    The gameplay, control and graphical leaps from Snes/Sega to PS1/N64 to PS2/Xbox were huge. Then the jump from PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox360 was not quite as huge. And it seems more and more, that games are the same as they were 4 years ago. There appear to be not very many improvements made, just sequels to previous games that look and play almost the same.

    I was playing a few games on my iPhone the other day and the games did not look all that different from console games. The controls were slightly more clunky but otherwise, the differences were minuscule. The Wii U doesn't really look any better than the current generation. I also am really starting to doubt that the next-gen Playstation and Xbox will be that much better either. I'm starting to doubt if developers still have what it takes to wow us with new games.

    -Have innovation and technical advancements finally slowed to the point where new games are barely any better than older ones?
    terraria was more fun than skyrim.

    If people would spend less money making games shiny we might end up with better game play and faster content. just sayin.
    Lv30 (Warframe) - Zephyr - Boltor Prime - Lex Prime - Dakra Prime - Gold Seeker -
    Lv40 (Firefall) All Battleframes
    Lv60 (Neverwinter) - Rogue - Fighter - Wizard - Guardian - Cleric -

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •