Megatrend III - Increasingly believable universes
This trend shall surprise no one. Each year we witness
progress everywhere: facial animation, increasingly detailed character and
background models, lifelike physics, atmospheric effects, dynamic lighting, and
so forth. All of these features are must-haves for current game production.
What can we expect in the coming years? Here are some
likely tendencies and their consequences for game design:
Development of
outdoor environments
Today's gaming platforms are beginning to display both
vast perspectives and lush worlds. It was no random chance that action games
mostly occurred indoors up until now.
Far Cry for the PC was ahead of
its time in terms of rendering and utilizing outdoor environments, yet still
only scratched the surface, as future game design will need to take further
advantage of these perspectives.
For action games, vast panoramas allow
spotting one's opponents from afar, and vice-versa. New gameplay systems will
thus unfold: camouflage, new remote detection mechanisms (or disruption of the
latter), fusion between horizontal (on the ground) and vertical (airborn)
gameplay, use of atmospheric effects, etc.
Real-time impact of
atmospheric effects
Today we know how to create rain, mist or smoke, but
we cannot interact with it. New gameplay applications shall appear: wind can
directly impact the controls of a vehicle, or it may propagate or dissipate a
smoke column, as determined by player interaction.
Rain can be channelled by a
background element, perhaps though the player's actions, thus transforming into
a torrent.
Automatic
integration of character animation with the environment
Today, character animations are fixed according to
pre-defined environment elements. Tomorrow we shall no doubt see characters
whose animations will automatically adapt to the background. From a design
point of view, it will become possible to make the characters act in
environments completely based on reality.

Ubisoft Montreal's Assassin's Creed
Assassin's Creed shows the way.
This trend seems increasingly obvious as we see more third-person action games
being developed. In these games, the player sees the character and his
interactions with the environment and other entities of the game. The quality
of the animation becomes a key factor.
Completely
interactive environments
Interaction with background elements means that said
elements ought to react like the world surrounding us would. Thus, every object
can be moved, flipped over or broken according to its nature and the action
applied to it. The games of this current generation are starting to offer real
possibilities in this realm.
Higher interactivity with the background shall
doubtlessly contribute to a game's realism, but what would it bring to the game
design? It will first offer the players the pleasure of wrecking whatever
object they want.
While morally debatable, my own experience has shown it to be
a powerful motivating agent. A game such as Burnout, for instance, greatly
relies on answering this need.
Moreover, environmental interactivity will especially
allow for further development of what we call "systemic game design."
In this thoroughly ambitious approach to design, the player is placed into a
universe led by its own rules, and it is up to him to find solutions to overcome
the trials he encounters.
His only real guide thus becomes his common sense,
since he knows the game's universe works like the "real" one. Many
first-person shooters such as Denied Ops and Battlefield:
Bad Company are developing innovative gameplay along these
lines.
In my next article, I shall address the following
Megatrends:
-
The
search for immediate playability
-
Gaming
as a teaching tool
|
I also hope that "fast gaming" doesn't devolve following the quantity over quality mantra. The high number of shovelware on current consoles is already a sad sight.
@Anonymous: There will always be people willing to do what everyone else isn't; in the case you're projecting, there will always be people wanting to make larger, more epic games then a "fast game". There will be enough people left in the world to keep at least a few of those profitable.
In regards to fast games, I think its important to look at history. In the 60s, there was a huge surge of fast movies being made... later dubbed exploitation films, they were cheap, choppy, and had only one major selling point. It wasn't the end of the movie industry, the movie-goer simply had to realise that not all movies were made with the loving care of a talented director. The trend eventually subsided, although there are still and always will be cheap, crappy movies on the shelves.
Conversely, however, the video game industry has already made that mistake in '84... we flooded the market with cheap, crappy games and consumer confidence was shot. Enter the crash. Now that the medium has matured a little bit, people know they aren't toys for tots, they are intelligent forms of story telling. It's going to take a bigger blow to break consumer confidence. As long as good games are still being made regularly, I think consumers will eventually see the difference between a good game and a game that's only after their $9.98. Especially when we reach a point where the parents who buy games are gamers themselves.
I've worked on projects that fit this bill - we were given less than 9 months and a fraction of the budget of a typical AAA title to turn out a piece of licensed crapola where it was expected from the very beginning that hitting the release target (the movie premiere) would necessitate creating a sub-par game experience. It broke my heart because the franchise involved was one of my childhood gems - I desperately wanted to make a killer game but the suits tied our hands in so many ways that it was completely impossible given their budget and timetable.
Let's hope this Megatrend is on the way out.
Until people stop parting with their money on crappy titles because of timing with a movie. That trend will stay.
One thing I think is very unfortunate is the focus on money over everything else. This type of focus does not lead to creative quality. It can still happen, of course, but focusing on money rather than artistic creativity means that such an outcome is more of an accident than an intent. This is true for any media and I'd say that games already suffer in the same ways that older media have suffered.
The real problem here, unfortunately, is the very nature of our industry. Movie industries don't need to constantly rerelease new content because they do a great job at preserving the integrity of the content they've already created. Let's look again at what the movie industry is doing right.
-Name a classic movie... how about Citizen Kane.
-Now name a classic video game... Donkey Kong.
-Now go to a store and buy each of those.
There are 3 places within walking distance of my house where I can buy Citizen Kane. I'd be lucky to find Donkey Kong at a flea market.
Right now you're probably saying one of two things:
"Donkey Kong was an arcade game, you can only buy ports"
To which I would respond that Citizen Kane was a film, but was later reformatted to VHS and then to DVD. Citizen Kane was made 67 years ago and I can still easily get ahold of it. Donkey Kong was made only 27 years ago and I can't find it.
Or you might be saying:
"You can download it from _______"
Which is a fine choice for you and me. I can also download Citizen Kane, but what about the average customer who thinks the internet is a series of tubes.
We need a way to preserve our games, other than in our hearts. There's no reason a developer should have to put as much effort into a game as they do for it to be thrown away in the next hardware cycle.
For this to happen, we'd also have to stop fighting our own hardware. By the time developers learn how to really get some great games out of a new console, we get a few hits and we move on. Movie technology has remained essentially the same since the time of Citizen Kane. This has allowed movie makers to branch out and do wild things, because the technology is all a given.
Game makers, on the other hand, have been making the same damn games over and over again, with new technology. You can't expect a ballet if you keep pulling the rug from beneath the dancers' feet.
As a console gamer, I really don't like the solution, but what else can we do. We have to eliminate the 'console war' and make universal consoles that can play any game. With the step towards digital downloads, these consoles would be able to play any game that's ever been made, the only problem is getting them to play games that haven't been made yet.
This sounds a lot like a PC, huh?
But at the same time, on a PC I can play a 20yo game fine. I can't do that on a console, as much as I love them.
I guess we just have to wait and see, because I think its too early in the life cycle of our industry to make any solid predictions about the future. Baby steps.
-To a degree, consoles are becoming largely backwards compatible within a companies' library (Wii can emulate all old Nintendo consoles plus some other companies' consoles, 360 can emulate original XBox, PS3 can sort of (sometimes) emulate PS2 and PS1 games)
-With the Wii, you can download old games already. (and possibly other major consoles; I'm not familiar enough to say)
-A copy of a PC game that was actually produced 20 years ago won't work on current day computers; like old games, they're tied to hardware that can support them from that time.
-Having Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo come together into a room and agree on a unified console where they get equal profits will never happen in a million years.
Moore's Law is breaking... in a sense...
Basically, people are keeping their PCs alive for longer. It seems that PCs are kept alive for 7-ish years now. In the early 90's, a PC's lifespan was assumed to be 3 before it was closeted.
Plus, people are buying smaller/cheaper "PCs". The most extreme example are netbooks like the Eee.
What this means?
A new game must find a way to use a computer with 8 GB RAM, Intel's latest hyperthreading quad-core, and dual 16:9 32" monitors.
The same game must also run on a 512 MB Eee netbook with a single-core 1 gig processor and a 7" screen. Or, it must run on a PC bought 7 years ago. Both are roughly equivalent (other than screen size).
In other words: The CPU/GPU/Memory/Pixel usage of a game must scale by around a factor of 16.
In the long run, this means that while Intel/AMD may be doubling the speed of their chips every 18 months, the AVERAGE still-running CPU doubles in speed every 24(ish) months.
I think companies are starting to realize this, with things like Virtual Console releases and remakes (Bionic Commando, etc.). X-Com: Terror from the Deep was recently released on Steam - I bought a copy!
You'll see more of this in the future from some big-name players...
Dave Endresak , Henti Smith, many of you share my sentiments.
I know I speak on the subject of "East and West" allot; not to undermine the talent and hard work over hear (in the west), but to emphasize the importance of incorporating and adopting some of the eastern game design philosophy over hear(in the west) to address these issues, or "mega BS trends". These trends are not actually "trends", more like after-effects, of not recognizing games as an intellectual and artistic expression.
Who decided, that photo-realism is necessary anyway? Many IP that have benefited from long term success have not been remotely, photo-realistic. Mario, Zelda, FF, SF, Disgiea, and many other "AAA"-- class IPs. The emphasis is on "class" as opposed to "game". They are AAA class IPs, and not stand alone AAA games for next gen platforms. These IPs are adapted to whatever platforms are available at the time, with success. Designers must get their minds off of photos, and heads out of the sandbox.
In short: we have to move away from this idea of "sandbox" games and photo realism, and put our efforts into "character design", aesthetics, etc. Substance is the key to longevity. There is no other way.
I just don't understand why this seems to be such an enigma hear in the west?
Glad to see that the 'unfair' balance issue was addressed as it's commonly seen as the main detractor from f2p, microtransaction games. It's a valid point, and something that each publisher will have to address individually. Whether or not these titles and methods will shake out as the industry 'best practice' remains yet to be seen.
One thing games like gta and oblivion have is a large play space that's designed for much more re-use. Apart from the normal way this is leveraged for the initial retail release - giving the players enough interesting gameplay elements within that environment so the can 'do what they want' - there is the opportunity to increase games life time semi-cheaply by adding downloadable content (or modifications by the community) in the form of added variations of existing 'stuff' (cars/weapons) or
'missions/quests' (addition structured goals).
ie that kind of content can be more quickly produced than a new map/environment.
Oblivion is a good example for both dlc/community content, and GTA on the PC (pre IV) for community content (it will be interesting to see what comes of GTAIV PC).
On the other end (pure?) of sandbox games you have the Sims and soon Spore, also Little Big Planet, which increasingly leverage community created content, supported by in game tools and in game sharing/downloading of that content.
Media Molecule has mentioned they'll be keeping an eye on what the community is creating for Little Big Planet, and hope to bring in those users that prove to be talented in creating levels.
Then you have another couple of examples, the Halo 3 forge in-game editor and the in-game editor for the upcoming Farcry 2.
You mentioned Epic, there considerable efforts in both releasing in-house and supporting community content go back to the original UT.
There most resent step is making it possible for the community to port mods form the PC to the PS3 version of UT3.
Apart from Valve softwares long term modding support and bringing in mod teams wholesale to create commercial versions/sequals of their mods (counterstrike, a whole topic in itself, the q1 team fortress team). Valve has considerable after release support for most of their titles (in a couple of cases releasing several entire in-house created game mods for free for hl1), more recently you can see the continued support of TeamFortress 2 with more maps, gametypes and even additional weapons and abilities for their classes. I think in a soon to come update they are including a community created map.
Another interesting example is Quake 3. A pure multiplayer game that (like previous id titles) had it's life time extended by community mods and maps.
Now id software has taken another look at game, added some polish, got feedback from the remaining community on tweaking the base rules. They have built a player community portal/stats and matchmaking website and will be rereleasing the game playable through that site.
I half-agree with the Automatic Integration of Character Animation because it is, absolutely, the best way to bring more immersion. However, it is a double-edge system exactly like Euphoria [like it is in GTA 4]. From a visual stand point it's awesome, but from an interactive point of view it is very bad. In Assassin's Creed, the Technology behind is crazy, but the fact the you do not have to climb the wall yourself, you just go upward and the character is doing everything for you. You don't have to jump and press climb again, you just give a direction to your thumbstick. Imagine running 40 minutes in a call od duty map where your character is doing all the jump and climbing himself: it would be boring... Zzzz ZZzz. The best example I've seen recently concerning that type of system was "The Darkness" produced by Starbreeze. The hands of the character adjust their position depending of the nearest obstacles, what let you take a cover without having to scrap the gameplay by introducing a 3rd person cover system that breaks up the FPS genre.
On the other hand, Euphoria was also great, but once an NPC is hit by physic he breaks up the Interactivity if he is disturbed while trying to stand up to his primary "idle". It would be hard to take advantage of this sytem in a Boss Fight by example, but perfect for crazy death sequences.
Jarad Hansen brought a good point by stating FORGE in Halo 3, but also I think it is the major mistake (more like a controversy) in Halo 3. I didn't work on the game to confirm the following... just my feeling, but it seems (from a player perspective) that the Level Design behind the Halo 3 multiplayer maps looks half-done to give more possibility with Forge for the player who wants to use it. If it is the case, it would be a positive point for a negative point... But I don't buy a game to play half-done maps.
However, Forge is an outstanding tool for any Halo 3 player.
I agree with with the Automatic Integration of Character Animation.
Thanks...