The Ghost of Gaming Future

[lorax]

According to the vice-president of Epic Games, EA has said the next-generation game will cost over 30 million dollars to develop. The question is now beset before you – wherefore come high-risk innovation if development costs are sky-high? Expect more rehashes with updates to “eye-candy” for the graphics devotee. Let’s see what Epic has to say:

• “You know, people are such snobs, with this ‘oh, it's not about graphics’ thing. That's such nonsense. It's totally about graphics…”
  “The main thing, though, is that I think your games will just look a hell of a lot better.”
  “A game like Half-Life 2 that had maybe 20 guys walking around a level, maybe now you'll see 30 or 40.”

So we can expect graphical gimmicks to reign supreme. And what about gameplay? We have to assume that gamers asking for gameplay advances will be labelled as “snobs”. Do you consider yourself a gaming snob?

The Ghost of Gaming Future has pointed the way ahead for us. Expect your favorite games to have more lens flares and bump mapped textures. Anticipate the remaining morsels of gameplay novelty to be gobbled up by corporate suits. The answer to these so-called advances is simple – follow the Ghost of Gaming Past into the “bargain bin”.


Here are some recommendations from gogamer’s “bargain bin”:
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay $25 (action)
Combat Mission II: Barbarossa to Berlin $10 (for the wargame enthusiast)
Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow $11 (action)
Warcraft III Battlechest $25 (real-time strategy)
Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri $13 (turn-based strategy)
Planescape Torment/Soulbringer $8 (RPG)
Baldur’s Gate II: The Collection $20 (RPG)
UT2004 $18 (action/online)

[bluefugue]

Oh god the sky is falling!!! Games have never been worse!!!

Wait a second -- yeah they have...

[Blackhawk]

The question is now beset before you

That poor, poor question. Should I help?

Expect more rehashes with updates to “eye-candy” for the graphics devotee.

No, expect to see a bigger division between mainstream games and games from smaller developers.

[bluefugue]

I don't think there has to be some kind of inherent conflict between good graphics and good gameplay. I've played 4 great games in the last year -- Thief 3, Half Life 2, WoW, and Rome Total War -- all of which have great graphics.

Of course excessive attention to art/technology could siphon development time/dollars away from other areas. But as far as I can see there continue to be new games that navigate these pitfalls quite well.

And god help me, I like nice graphics. Check out this sweet screenshot:



Of course, in that particular instance, the gameplay *did* suck...

I take it back!! The sky is falling!!!

[LawBeefaroni]

“A game like Half-Life 2 that had maybe 20 guys walking around a level, maybe now you'll see 30 or 40.”

10-20 more guys per level? BFD. Besides, I'm fairly certain HL2 could support more than 20 character models on screen it just would have been too hectic in most levels. 15 at a time was plenty to deal with.

This incredible game of the future features 30-40 Guys walking around per level!!!! It also looks "a hell of a lot better!!!!" Coming Q4 2006!!!!!!!

[CeeKay]

Where's the pickles?

[SuperHiro]

Will Wright to the rescue!

[Daehawk]

Id like to know why games cost so much more than they used to. I can see a higher salary for employees but 30 million? I remember when Origin spent a million and the industry thought that was outlandish. Think it was WC3.

Game are games..they look a little better but they are'nt paying actors now without FMV. I cant see why a game would be over 400,000 or so never mind into the millions.

Games like Space Empires, Starshatter and others dont seem to cost a lot..least not into the millions.

[Ridah]

So we can expect graphical gimmicks to reign supreme. And what about gameplay? We have to assume that gamers asking for gameplay advances will be labelled as “snobs”. Do you consider yourself a gaming snob?

The wrong assumption everyone is making is that we can only have one or the other: graphics or gameplay. Half-Life 2 has some of the best graphics out there, yet its gameplay is on par with the best in it's respective genre. The Splinter Cell titles, Resident Evil 4, and Devil May Cry 3 all sport beautiful graphics yet they can be extremely difficult to master. I'm just not seeing the arguement holding properly, everyone likes to scream is "EA!", and then its end of discussion.

[killbot737]

Anyone who spends more than a million dollars on a game should talk to Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software. Sometimes I think he could use an art department, though

[YellowKing]

I don't believe graphics are everything, but then again I'm not going to kid myself and say that they're not important. Take a look at the Brothers in Arms impressions thread. What's the first thing out of people's mouths? Not "this has great gameplay" or "this is a very realistic WWII representation." It's "Well the graphicss aren't HL2, but they're OK....."

In talking about almost any game, the first thing people are going to mention is the graphics.

I wouldn't go so far to call people who say they don't care about graphics, "snobs." But I do agree that graphics are important, and the company with the better looking game has an advantage right out of the gate.

I've played some great games with sub-par graphics. I've played some terrible games with fantastic graphics. But in the end, I want what every gamer wants. A great game with great graphics.

[warning]

The question is now beset before you – wherefore come high-risk innovation if development costs are sky-high?

Wherefore camest this magnicious sentence which hath beset my self?

[ChrisGwinn]

Id like to know why games cost so much more than they used to. I can see a higher salary for employees but 30 million? I remember when Origin spent a million and the industry thought that was outlandish. Think it was WC3.

Game are games..they look a little better but they are'nt paying actors now without FMV. I cant see why a game would be over 400,000 or so never mind into the millions.

Games like Space Empires, Starshatter and others dont seem to cost a lot..least not into the millions.

Improved graphics (especially the transition to 3D) and generally higher production values have dramatically increased the need for art assets, which leads to more people, which leads to more costs. It's not "lens flare and bump mapping", it's more and more complicated modelling/texturing/animating/etc. A higher focus on emergent gameplay requires more testing. There's a whole lot more to do to make one of the big A-list titles.

[moss_icon]

Oh god the sky is falling!!! Games have never been worse!!!

Wait a second -- yeah they have...

bollocks, thats a spectrum game so it is by default way better than anything else ever. even if it is a manic miner rip of.

[docvego]

Will Wright to the rescue!

WhooRah!!!

[qp]

Ghost of gaming future? I think Derek Smart will be assassinated by a message board troll but using his "special" powers will turn himself into a Lich and continue to make crappy BC games that are even more advanced, implementing his new found extradimensional senses. The interface will consist of a black square, a white circle, and the letter x..if you can't figure it out he'll turn you into a zombie for being a dumbass.

[CeeKay]

I enjoy Lorax's pickle-centric posts more.....

[Jaymann]

The question is now beset before you – wherefore come high-risk innovation if development costs are sky-high?

Wherefore camest this magnicious sentence which hath beset my self?

It was birthed from the vociferous loins of thy onerous blogersnatch, methinks.

[FFG909]

I've written about this a few times. I honestly think there is a PC game crash looming in the near future. 4 out of 5 titles don't make money, the ones that do make money are sometimes loss-leaders for other things. So with an unstable market, they are actually predicting HIGHER spending for development? The market can't take it.

The discerning gamers will go underground, frequenting the bargin bins, indy developers, garage games, and small euro studios, and wait out the crash. Many have already gone underground, or are approaching it. They can feel the crash, and want to get out of the way while their hobby is turned to crap by endlessly crappy big budget titles.

Publishers are sucking up small development houses and talent like some giant vaccum, and spitting out overworked, underpaid engineers making them so delusional with the industry they walk away. Studios they don't suck up, they keep them at such slim profit margins that they become slaves to the system. These publishers have entire networks of slugs out there to ensure their latest big budget pile of crap gets good press and publicity. They suck up exclusive licenses because their games suck, they can't compete, so they need to lock out the people actually doing the good stuff. They stifle creativity at every turn, and go to great lengths to ensure mediocracy and the status quo isn't disrupted.

Its all really messy right now. Fortunately for us, plenty of great indys and garagegames out there being made, lotsa great stuff in the bargin bin, and Euro/UK/German/Russian developers seem to be the ones to push the envelope on gameplay and innovation. While the US houses keep pushing out Lameness2004, Evenlamer2005 and whatever silly license they can aquire for a crappy game to sucker people to buy.

Maybe with luck, EA will develop themselves into the ground with overbudget titles, and we'll all live happily ever after.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

The death of PC Gaming has been heralded for years now, and yet it just keeps chugging along. I'll believe it when I see it.

[qp]

I think one problem PC games face is that they are too good and too long..sometimes...

Well obviously this can't be said for every game, but once and awhile some games come out that are so good and have so much play time that for most people they can play the same game for months and not need to drop cash on anything new. Like Morrowind for instance; how many people still play this game? Also I think MMO's could possibly affect game sales I know my purchases of new games plummets drastically when I start a new MMO - haven't bought a game since i started WoW (except that war game for XBox, because i thought it'd be one my wife would play with me...heh bit more complicated then Risk 2150!)

[Giles Habibula]

The death of PC Gaming has been heralded for years now, and yet it just keeps chugging along. I'll believe it when I see it.

I personally budget ~ $100/month for PC games. I have a rather narrow field of interests, and I CANNOT KEEP UP! There are far more games constantly coming out that I can no longer afford to have them all. Frustrating.

I remember 10 years ago, I had the same budget for this hobby, and I could not spend it all. I was desperately and actively SEARCHING high and low for even halfway decent games. I wasn't fussy. I just wanted something decent to play.

Now, I'm passing over about half the stuff I'd otherwise be interested in, just because there's too much to choose from.

Of course, a part of that is that I have a good 10 years worth of stuff to choose from (thanks eBay). And the selection just keeps getting bigger every year. Kind of like used cars. With every passing year, there's just more to pick from.

[Kobra]

VERY good point Giles.. I had a lan party over at my house last weekend, and we discussed this exact topic over some cold beer.

A few years back, most gamers would be content with 2-3 blockbuster games per year. When they purchased a game, they would play it constantly for months and months. I remember playing the original Pirates! for nearly a year, and nothing else. Nowdays it seems like people do more "Buying" than they do playing! How many people finish most of the games they buy? I've finished 1 game this year, thats it, yet i've purchased about 10.

Games really aren't any better or worse than they were years ago. Its just that we have far far more being released now. On a given month, there might be 30 titles released (On average 1 per day). Even if only 10% of those are worthwhile, thats still 3 games a month to buy and TRY to play!

Unfortunately I have no answers or solutions. April is looming, and theres full 12 titles coming in April alone that i'm interesting in. All the while, i'm backlogged on another 15 titles I still need to finish or get good playtime out of. The first thing that came to mind is just buy the best one, play it out over a month, then the next month buy something else, ignoring the publishers release cycles, and just do your own thing.

Anyone have any better ideas?