"The face of gaming will change significantly in the next two years, as the computational power available to PC and video game players takes another huge step forward,

The face of gaming is that of a tired old prostitute. It doesn't really get changed, they just wash it, put some makeup, and try to sell her to the media again. We've been going in circles, really.

But the circles get prettier!

I guess at some point the embelishment of the circle lulls out of the notion we're going in circles... Beauty has that tendency.

Actually, I think that we're seriously moving up in the world.

 

The next-gen consoles and processors aren't just about new GPUs and higher poly-gon counts. With impressive multi-core CPUs, we can see better processing of physics, AI and the like.

 

We can see more complex games, more models on the screen at once, and worlds that seem to live and thrive.

 

Oblivion's engine doesn't just have prettier trees. The engine calculates weather erosion, soil deposits and the like to create a realistic virual ecosystem.

There's always an increased chance that new technology provides for more complex games. But how many have actually become more complex in things other than graphics or animations? When you look at systems like Geomod or Havok physics, they are exceptional tools; yet, how many games actually use them beyond their primary function? This is especially true of Havok, which allows for unique model collapse, which translates into my gaming experience as never watching an enemy die in the exact same manner. That's all cute but it's periphal, just as the proposed functionalities of Oblivion's engine.

It's difficult for most programmers to properly utilize these tools, but the new middleware is supposed to make it easier to integrate said tools.

 

Again, Oblivion utilizes Havok, and one preview I read on the game had a player utilizing stealth and clever tactics. He lured critters around a cave into a complex trap, demonstrating supposedly realistic physics.

 

We'll see when I play the game.

 

However, I remember how happy I was when I first installed Ultima: Ascension (with really high hopes) and I saw barrels float when tossed in water, while heavier objects sank to the bottom.

 

I'm all about the details.

We'll all see, I guess. While I also like details, sometimes I wish there was more than them to keep me going.

I agree that major developers seem to overlook actual gameplay (Morrowind comes to mind), but I think that we have gotten new features in games compared to 5 or 10 years ago.

 

I think with the advent of a handheld market we should see independent games, or simpler games ported there because of the smaller price-point, and the lack of high-end graphics.

 

Tycho from Penny Arcade suggested the same a few days back.

 

I wouldn't pay $50 for Galaga today, but if something with it's addictive gameplay was selling for $20 on the GBA or PSP, I'd be all for it.

 

Such a market and lower price point would put pressure on high-end game developers to innovate even more to justify the prices of their games.

I think that is true, and is a likely catalyst. However, let's be honest: most of the time developers can claim something is innovative without it actually being so. Most gamers by far and large gobble up developer promises and hype... Then amusingly nevermind the lack of what was promised or advertised.

Duke Nukem Forever will usher in a new era of peace and understanding between humans and extraterrestials.

 

http://www.neforum2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=614

Holy alien conspiracy, Wonder Boy!

Talk about making promises!

There's always an increased chance that new technology provides for more complex games. But how many have actually become more complex in things other than graphics or animations? When you look at systems like Geomod or Havok physics, they are exceptional tools; yet, how many games actually use them beyond their primary function? This is especially true of Havok, which allows for unique model collapse, which translates into my gaming experience as never watching an enemy die in the exact same manner. That's all cute but it's periphal, just as the proposed functionalities of Oblivion's engine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I liked how a game like Half-Life 2 tried to actually integrate physics into it's puzzles and whatnot.

 

They're still simplistic, but I enjoyed the slight difference to standard FPS play.

Hopefully we'll see more of that.

Everytime something cool physics related happens in a game, I can't help but think "Who says Physics isn't fun??"

The math portion of physics isn't fun. The rest isn't bad.

Meh, I don't even mind the math.

 

Although once it gets calculus based, then it becomes a bit more burden-some.

 

 

Fortunately watching a CT slide down the stairs and roll off the railing into the water doesn't require any math calculations on my part

The "experiments" are fun.

Some of the stuff I really enjoyed in Calculus courses though, was deriving the algebraic expressions for virtually everything!

 

And the little obvious things that weren't so obvious prior to the course :D

 

 

I'm likely taking a Linear Algebra course, and possibly an Intermediate Calculus course next year sometime (the Linear Alg is confirmed....not sure about the Calculus though).

Just as all things can be expressed digitally, all things can be expresed through physics.

Doesn't really surprise me that multicore support is coming in.

 

 

Eventually, Moore's Law is going to fail (you could argue that it already has). You can't have transistors made out of a single atom (can you?). So the logical step is to put them in parallel.

 

In fact, give the decreasing costs of chips, it's probably becoming more economical to just do what super computer designers have been doing for a long time.

 

 

I'm curious what Cell (come on Epiphany...where are you??) is going to bring to the general purpose CPUs (the Pentiums and the Athlons).

 

Also, speaking with my Dad (the Mac fan), he suspects a special version of the Pentium IV will come out that has 64-bit support, and this is likely why they are saying 2 years before a complete transition to Intel chips is going to be made.

 

I was curious what they were going to do there, since the G5 has a 64-bit processor in it. And even if the P4 is faster than the 32-bit processors (or even the G5 in some cases), there are still advantages that 64-bit processing can provide that I'm sure people would be angry about if they suddenly disappeared.

 

I'm also curious about software support. Are those running on older platforms screwed for newer software?

Intel released a Pentium IV with 64-bit support two months ago.

Well then I am the lose.

And AMD will have their new multicore line out in a few months.