What I picture as the future of gaming... [Archive]

Bobdude161

Jul 1, 2006, 04:26 PM

Seeing as incoming gaming systems can now utilize disks with large storage capacity, more opportunities are arising. More storage means more textures and larger maps in the game. These large maps can support the landscape of a small island like the upcoming Test Drive: Unlimited that lets you drive all over the island of Oahu, but I thinks that's just the beginning.
I can imagine developers using USGS satellites to make a game for people to drive around your neighborhood or even the whole world. Seeing how Google Earth can show sloping landscapes along with real-life textures with perspectives, why not use those models to make a larger version of Test Drive? Looking at Google Earth though, it seems that some parts of the country are poorly rendered. So, I guess it seems that there will be some difficulty creating maps in rural areas?? But nonetheless I believe that this could someday become a reality: to race across the U.S. in a virtual world and to not worry about smokeys givin you problems. :cool:

Mackilroy

Jul 1, 2006, 04:36 PM

You sound like the PS3 fanboys who keep saying Blu-ray is going to make better everything. More space means more content, yes, but also means more time, a lot more money, and more patience on our part.

It's an interesting idea, nonetheless.

MacRumorUser

Jul 1, 2006, 05:11 PM

You are getting confused :confused:

More storage does NOT mean more details and bigger areas in a game.

Only a certain amount of detail can be loaded into RAM at any given time.

The 360 has only 512mb of ram which it can allocate dynamically to cpu and gpu depending on its needs

The PS3 has only 512 split into 2 256/256mb between CPU & GPU Gpu & CPU can use only 256 maximum.

If anything the only thing MORE STORAGE will make any difference in the dicernable future (the next 3-5 years anyway) is sticking uncompressed HD FMV onto the disc as well as the game.

No game uses double layer DVD to anything like its full capacity yet.

I guarantee NO game on the PS3 will ever use full BluRay capacity.

Besides physically bigger games require more money, more developers, and usually what happens is quality control goes down to make the game bigger - rather than better... It's highly risky for developers.

greatdevourer

Jul 1, 2006, 05:21 PM

I guarantee NO game on the PS3 will ever use full BluRay capacity. Ah, but Blu-Ray is infinte! Seriously, first it was 25GB, then 50GB, then 200GB! Either they've found an über technology from space that'll remove the need for magnetic storage, or some PR dude is talking out of his ass

raggedjimmi

Jul 1, 2006, 05:33 PM

MRU said it all. Storage space just means they can store more stuff. It doesn't mean it can be used at once. BluRay really is taking an unnecessary step, at least at those "claimed" 200gb discs. 50gb is probably going to be the max for next gen. but even then, especially when you consider that the big games on current gen consoles take up a max of 4gb. add an extra gb or 2 for the higher resolution textures. as the 360 proves. or without HD textures 4gb is all you need (Wii).

It probably won't be the future of gaming, at least MS and Sony's vision. but my vision is load-free games. It's 2006 now and we're still looking at loading bars. I'd rather the graphics take a step back a little bit and Sony/whoever come up with some system of superloading SD graphics. HD for the next gen *I say with HDTV in hand* when they can finally get things running smoothly.

mark!

Jul 1, 2006, 05:47 PM

I don't know but I want the ultimate game that is like Driver, The Sims 2, and Mario 64 DS put together.

Where you can live your life telling the person what to do, but also drive around town and do missions, and earn stars and such. All the buidlings you see in driver...I wish you could go in them. In The Sims 2, you can only see one lot, I want to be able to be like in a REAL neighborhood and be more interactive with the other people. and....I like Mario 64 but I just want all 3 combined.

...this is what I want. but i dont think its gonna happen. something that is like...an all around game

Counterfit

Jul 1, 2006, 05:50 PM

Ah, but Blu-Ray is infinte! Seriously, first it was 25GB, then 50GB, then 200GB! Either they've found an über technology from space that'll remove the need for magnetic storage, or some PR dude is talking out of his ass
They need to reliably manufacture single-layer discs in quantity before they can even think about making 6 or 8 layer discs outside of a lab.
And I'll echo what MRU said. Storage space is NOT the limiting factor in texture quality. You can have a longer/wider/taller game with more space, but the quality won't be any better unless the code is good.
I don't know but I want the ultimate game that is like Driver, The Sims 2, and Mario 64 DS put together.

Where you can live your life telling the person what to do, but also drive around town and do missions, and earn stars and such. All the buidlings you see in driver...I wish you could go in them. In The Sims 2, you can only see one lot, I want to be able to be like in a REAL neighborhood and be more interactive with the other people. and....I like Mario 64 but I just want all 3 combined.

...this is what I want. but i dont think its gonna happen. something that is like...an all around game
I've had a similar idea for a while. You can go into any building that currently exists (well, that is known. :p), go into any (known) room, and travel between any city on the planet.
It would also be the most expensive game ever made. :D

GFLPraxis

Jul 1, 2006, 06:22 PM

More storage does NOT mean more details and bigger areas in a game.

To clarify: It means you can have more areas, but not bigger areas. The console can only work on so much at once (limited by RAM).

GFLPraxis

Jul 1, 2006, 06:24 PM

but even then, especially when you consider that the big games on current gen consoles take up a max of 4gb. add an extra gb or 2 for the higher resolution textures. as the 360 proves. or without HD textures 4gb is all you need (Wii).

8.5 GB, actually. Dual layered DVD's.

Spanky Deluxe

Jul 1, 2006, 06:29 PM

If the system has some kind of dynamic loading then the game world could be as big as you wanted and not limited by the RAM. The quality of the game world would be limited by the draw distance and the amount of textures and polygons can be stored in the RAM. 512MB can probably hold quite a lot of this information, probably more than enough to max out the graphics hardware of the systems concerned. Think how big the WoW world is, it doesn't need huge amounts of RAM to run and has very few loading screens indeed.

I think the size of the game world is no longer limited by memory but by costs.

Besides which, the future of gaming isn't this stuff, its... the Wii!!

thegreatluke

Jul 1, 2006, 06:42 PM

"This PS3 game has great loading times! I only need to wait 20 minutes for all the maps to load!"

I imagine there will be some games with very large maps, but I also imagine those games would be Animal-Crossing-style (not Wild World) in that you can only see one square of the grid at a time.

Bobdude161

Jul 1, 2006, 06:44 PM

Oh hell ya it would take lots of money and time. But maybe they could automate in making the maps like Google Earth. They could take a half step to that goal of obtaining world-wide availibilty for racing and stick with cities for now. Small cities maybe, like Louisville. Oh yeah.

raggedjimmi

Jul 1, 2006, 07:45 PM

8.5 GB, actually. Dual layered DVD's.

oh yea I know but the only game I have seen exceed the single layer DVD size is some Team Force (not the name, but i'm sure it had either Team or Force in the title) game that used up about 5gb. I've never seen a current gen game hit the peak of a double layered DVD.

Atlasland

Jul 1, 2006, 08:52 PM

They need to reliably manufacture single-layer discs in quantity before they can even think about making 6 or 8 layer discs outside of a lab.
And I'll echo what MRU said. Storage space is NOT the limiting factor in texture quality. You can have a longer/wider/taller game with more space, but the quality won't be any better unless the code is good.

I've had a similar idea for a while. You can go into any building that currently exists (well, that is known. :p), go into any (known) room, and travel between any city on the planet.
It would also be the most expensive game ever made. :D

There is such a game...

...its called "Life".

mark!

Jul 1, 2006, 09:26 PM

There is such a game...

...its called "Life".

You walk in buildings all your life :confused:

he said he had a similar idea for a game as mine...

I don't know but I want the ultimate game that is like Driver, The Sims 2, and Mario 64 DS put together.

Where you can live your life telling the person what to do, but also drive around town and do missions, and earn stars and such. All the buidlings you see in driver...I wish you could go in them. In The Sims 2, you can only see one lot, I want to be able to be like in a REAL neighborhood and be more interactive with the other people. and....I like Mario 64 but I just want all 3 combined.

...this is what I want. but i dont think its gonna happen. something that is like...an all around game

i hate it when people say the sims is pointless, and that there is a REAL game like that called 'life'. the sims is soo different from real life.

jdechko

Jul 1, 2006, 10:07 PM

Well, I'll try to be optimistic to the original post and think in the (more) distant future. It's true that larger textures require more RAM, but think abou the current G5's which are capable of 16 GB of RAM (Or almost 2 full Dual Layer DVD's). Now I know that there are overheads in running any system, so not all of that 16 will be available for textures. But given a high enough speed for the system (EDRAM or whatever is in the 360 and rumored to be in the Wii) some of the shortcomings of the amount of RAM can be overcome. Also, technology will progress, which means faster and larger amounts of RAM.

My second point is that some games (XPlane, for instance) already have what you speak of (Allowing you to fly in real-world terrains, real-time weather conditions, etc.). Incorporating that into more games really doesn't seem like it would be too difficult (though accurate models of entire cities for games seem a bit overkill. Maybe some generalizations in most areas with larger cities being more accurate would be more practical.

I'm just trying to say that as technology progresses, the idea will become more feasable.

Counterfit

Jul 1, 2006, 10:15 PM

There is such a game...

...its called "Life".
Right, but you get arrested and such for shooting people in this "life" you speak of. :D

Mackilroy

Jul 1, 2006, 10:28 PM

If you really want to try a game like that, take a look at Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com).

GFLPraxis

Jul 1, 2006, 11:12 PM

oh yea I know but the only game I have seen exceed the single layer DVD size is some Team Force (not the name, but i'm sure it had either Team or Force in the title) game that used up about 5gb. I've never seen a current gen game hit the peak of a double layered DVD.

Actually, Star Ocean on PS2 comes on two DVDs. So does Xenosaga, also PS2.

mark!

Jul 1, 2006, 11:14 PM

If you really want to try a game like that, take a look at Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com).

that game is gross.

chairguru22

Jul 1, 2006, 11:51 PM

are you ready for full length CG cut-scenes (hours worth in-game) and bonus documentary and making-of videos? im not.

the only good use for blu-ray is really good graphics. and unless the game is good the graphics wont mean crap.

Mackilroy

Jul 2, 2006, 01:20 AM

that game is gross.

Then don't play it. Quite a few others will keep enjoying it.

Actually, Star Ocean on PS2 comes on two DVDs. So does Xenosaga, also PS2.

IIRC, both of those games have a lot of FMV. I could be wrong, however.

GFLPraxis

Jul 2, 2006, 01:28 AM

Probably (don't own them), but it's still important to note that these are PS2 games filling 8.5 GB.

mark!

Jul 2, 2006, 01:29 AM

Probably (don't own them), but it's still important to note that these are PS2 games filling 8.5 GB.

:eek:

Mackilroy

Jul 2, 2006, 01:34 AM

Probably (don't own them), but it's still important to note that these are PS2 games filling 8.5 GB.

True, but FMV generally takes up a LOT more space than most other things. And I've seen a lot of stuff about horrible compression on the PS2, among other things, which would contribute to its using more space.

steelfist

Jul 2, 2006, 02:01 AM

you don't want to play this game...

raggedjimmi

Jul 2, 2006, 04:48 AM

I wouldn't include the Sims 2 anywhere in my dream game formula. I don't want to manage people. I think thats where gaming started to go downhill, something the PS3 and 360 are going to have to compete with.

Realism for realisms sake.

I use this example quite often. but MGS3 is trying to look real. yet you won't see Snake having a poo as his urge to do so metre increases. I hope there isn't any music in that game, as you don't run about being a sneaky soldier with music in the background. Yet they are trying so hard to make it look real. Whereas the Sims actually has that level of character management. I don't want to take a virtual self to the toilet. or organise a BBQ. or change clothes for the sheer sake of it. Maybe it's just me but I see no gameplay there. I struggle to find the gameplay in Sims games. Ok, so it's menu based like classic RPGs. But there is no levelling up (an addictive form of gameplay) or any other game mechanics.

My perfect game wouldn't have any level of character management distracting from the main game, the gameplay mechanics. Markkk, have you played GTA:SA? It's a pain. Keep energy levels up, but don't eat too much. and exercise. oh dear your sex appeal level has dropped.
that's not a game. that's management.

ddrueckhammer

Jul 2, 2006, 06:04 AM

MMORPGs already have hugely massive worlds. They could be more realistic in most cases, but I'm pretty sure that games like WoW already use more space than one Blu-Ray disk. Games where the content is held online will always be larger than games on traditional formats because of the ease of storing Terabytes of data on an online server.

If you haven't played WoW or a massively multiplayer game you should try it at least once. I had to quit Evercrack and WoW both because they sucked away all of my free time. I now try to stick to games with smaller worlds like those on my trusty DS Lite because they are easier to put down!

See we can turn anything into a DS Lite thread!

raggedjimmi

Jul 2, 2006, 06:55 AM

I haven't played an MMORPG properly. I dabbled a bit with Ragnarok when it first started but it's the MMO part that puts me off. I like local multiplayers, and the occasional limited number of players in online HL2 and DS games. It's just not my thing. an FPS war style MMORPG or something like that LotR big battle in Return of the King would be great. Something that can end and be restarted.
I know I'm alone in this. everyone else loves MMO's! I just prefer my stuff offline :)

Which is why I'm absolutely loving Castlevania DS :p no need to connect to servers, no need to play at certain times of the day when gamers (aka Americans) are awake.

MacRumorUser

Jul 2, 2006, 08:01 AM

I wouldn't include the Sims 2 anywhere in my dream game formula. I don't want to manage people. I think thats where gaming started to go downhill, something the PS3 and 360 are going to have to compete with.

Realism for realisms sake.
.

Yeah it is a royal pain, though I do like The Sims generally, but there are plenty of games who aim for reality and for a real experience but then do STUPID things like GRAW. What your a rock hard army man that cant jump or climb over a little stone?

Realism tends to only highlight the glaring problems and how fake it all really is.

FN Round 3 on the 360 looks spectacular until you fall against the ropes and the body twitches and acts like its fallen again a wall. Or a close up of a punch going through a persons body? or close up of the legs and yo see after the shorts theres no polygons at all.....

I play games because I want to escape reality. Why do I want to play a game where I go to work. Get in a car. Get stuck in traffic. Cant overtake or the police come after me and give me a fine. Have to stop and get somthing to eat because I'm hungry etc.....

I can do all that in reality FAR FAR more 'real' than any fricking game can ever do..... Hey and if I'm in compton or such, I can have all the drive by action I could take...

GTA can go kiss my ass.

Life is mundane, hence we have entertainment to distract us from the mundanity of modernity, and yet developers seem to spend all that time & money feeding us the same supposed real world experiences that just fall flat on their faces.. everytime.....

I want to be lost in a world that isnt real, where I can be someone I never ever will be, do acts of courage or dasterdly deeds that would never cross my mind...

The era of HD has only exacerbated the step into 'more reality' in games, with even more glaring obvious flaws (i mention GRAW above)....

I want to sit down for half an hour to an hour and have a laugh, have fun.
I dont want to have come home from work and sit down and play a fricking game that makes me repeat everything I've just come home to escape from.....

Give me Viva Pinata now :D :D :D :D :D

raggedjimmi

Jul 2, 2006, 08:29 AM

Yea give me HD, but give me the obscure game-games. Viva Pinata, some kind of super Tetris etc. hell. Give me cel shading.

Spanky Deluxe

Jul 2, 2006, 08:58 AM

Some of the best games I've ever played have been a good way away from reality. Mario Kart, Parodius, Sonic the Hedgehog. All are completely not realistic but that's what makes it fun! I play games to 'escape' the real world.

MacRumorUser

Jul 2, 2006, 12:58 PM

mark!

Jul 2, 2006, 01:29 PM

My perfect game wouldn't have any level of character management distracting from the main game, the gameplay mechanics. Markkk, have you played GTA:SA? It's a pain. Keep energy levels up, but don't eat too much. and exercise. oh dear your sex appeal level has dropped.
that's not a game. that's management.

i said a combination of sims 2, super mario 64, & driver...not lets feed the baby :confused:

batman123

Jul 2, 2006, 01:53 PM

Is it just me or did you steal this ENTIRE idea form the book... Tom Clancy's "Net Force" ;)

crachoar

Jul 2, 2006, 02:01 PM

To clarify: It means you can have more areas, but not bigger areas. The console can only work on so much at once (limited by RAM).

That's not entirely true.

Have you played 'Operation Flashpoint' (OFP), or seen anything on 'Armed Assault' yet?

They are military simulation games with vast islands (no loading times), night/day/weather cycles, etc. Walking across an island will literally take you hours. The draw distance is simply amazing.

It's unreal how massive the islands are - and this game was released five years ago. Imagine what kind of games these guys will make in ten years.

A lot of it has to do with the engine.

...but there are plenty of games who aim for reality and for a real experience but then do STUPID things like GRAW. What your a rock hard army man that cant jump or climb over a little stone?

That's not a game design choice, that's a flaw. Or rather, something they missed.

GRAW doesn't allow you to jump because gamers abuse the function, and it essentially ruins the genre (as does strafing).

What GRAW does is, it allows you to climb over certain walls and to climb up to objects that aren't level with the normal geometry.

It's not perfect, but I prefer this method to the bunny-hopping that ruins every other FPS game.

Yeah that's my point, we play games to escape reality, not to have it forced down our throats.

Maybe that's why you play games.

I play games to experience reality (in most cases). Games that simulate experiences I can't possibly ever enjoy in real life.

For example, learning the start-up procedures for a military aircraft and becoming an ace helicopter pilot. Or learning how to properly fire a sniper rifle at long engagement ranges.

Dangerous tasks that I can enjoy within the confines of my room. If I mess up, I don't die. I try again.

I play realistic games because I want realism games.

mark!

Jul 2, 2006, 02:27 PM

That's not entirely true.

Have you played 'Operation Flashpoint' (OFP), or seen anything on 'Armed Assault' yet?

They are military simulation games with vast islands (no loading times), night/day/weather cycles, etc. Walking across an island will literally take you hours. The draw distance is simply amazing.

It's unreal how massive the islands are - and this game was released five years ago. Imagine what kind of games these guys will make in ten years.

A lot of it has to do with the engine.

That's not a game design choice, that's a flaw. Or rather, something they missed.

GRAW doesn't allow you to jump because gamers abuse the function, and it essentially ruins the genre (as does strafing).

What GRAW does is, it allows you to climb over certain walls and to climb up to objects that aren't level with the normal geometry.

It's not perfect, but I prefer this method to the bunny-hopping that ruins every other FPS game.

Maybe that's why you play games.

I play games to experience reality (in most cases). Games that simulate experiences I can't possibly ever enjoy in real life.

For example, learning the start-up procedures for a military aircraft and becoming an ace helicopter pilot. Or learning how to properly fire a sniper rifle at long engagement ranges.

Dangerous tasks that I can enjoy within the confines of my room. If I mess up, I don't die. I try again.

I play realistic games because I want realism games.

thats not a game that's training simulation.

raggedjimmi

Jul 2, 2006, 02:59 PM

Yup. That's a very common mistake.

Games= away from reality
Sims= closer to reality.

ie. F-Zero GX is a racing game. Gran Tourismo is a racing sim. Hedz was a flying game. X-Plane is a flying sim. etc etc.

crachoar

Jul 2, 2006, 03:27 PM

It's still a game.

ScarletRed

Jul 2, 2006, 03:35 PM

No game uses double layer DVD to anything like its full capacity yet.
Allow me to prove you wrong: X-Plane Deluxe (http://www.macgamestore.com/detail.php?ProductID=555)

Seven double-layer DVDs. The full install requires over 60 GB.

crachoar

Jul 2, 2006, 03:41 PM

OMGINTERNETS!!!111 SIMS DON'T COUNT, ROFLZ!1/1!1

And yes, X-Plane for the win.

chairguru22

Jul 2, 2006, 03:57 PM

Allow me to prove you wrong: X-Plane Deluxe (http://www.macgamestore.com/detail.php?ProductID=555)

Seven double-layer DVDs. The full install requires over 60 GB.

well that game is a flight sim and almost all of those GB is for graphics/levels/maps/cities/textures. (which btw dont even look realistic, where's the animations and real time environment rendering? 60GB of low-res jpegs... :rolleyes: )http://www.macgamestore.com/images_screenshots/product_555_2703_559552246.jpg

basically what im saying is the blu-ray capacity will be utilized only if graphics are made to be very realistic. you wont see 60GB of gameplay code...