Frankly, I think this generation has been something of a disappointment. We've seen improvements in graphics and technology, but when it comes to games, the landscape hasn't changed much. Things like online play, camera peripherals, and even connectivity (as ultimately embodied in the Nintendo DS) may have helped evolve the industry, but in the end, they didn't noticeably alter how we play games, or inherently change the formula. Games haven't gotten fundamentally better–for the most part, we've only seen tweaks to existing formulas. This, consequently, raises the question of what we can realistically expect out of the next-generation console games (it also brings up the fact that we expected too much out of this generation in the first place–our hopes were too high–but that's another story). What achievements will we see emerge?
Of course, I don't expect the industry and the games produced to be any different come next-generation–I remain wholly skeptical about improvements, "revolutions," evolutions, new means of playing games, etc. Personally, I think we'll see many empty promises, unfulfilled goals, and ideas that never fully materialize, just as we did with this generation. So to make any predictions, we need to determine what drives the industry right now, and what's wrong with the industry right now–what's keeping it from moving forward faster than it already is. In my mind, the answer is simple: developers need to worry about what sells, and they need to balance how profitable they think an idea is, and how difficult it will be to accomplish.
What good is a hugely innovative, revolutionary game that takes tens of millions of dollars, a development team of upwards of a hundred people, and advertising that chokes the publisher's budget just to be successful if Madden NFL 2000-whatever is going to push more units? Money makes the world go round, not innovation and artistic expression. A sequel to a proven franchise will sell better and more consistently than an original project, which is one big reason why originality has been so hampered in the games this generation–too many publishers are unwilling to take risks. And that won't be any different by 2006.
And therefore we won't be seeing developers try much harder than they are today. Which means we'll need to look at how much easier it will be to make games in the first place. Development tools like XNA could have the potential to give developers the freedom to create better games, but–as I tend to be pessimistic–this won't work out, because in the normal-case scenario, you'll end up seeing dozens, even hundreds of games that all look and feel suspiciously similar.
That may work for developers like Acclaim and EA who either don't give a damn about how good their games are, or can rely on franchises to the point where it doesn't matter if they all feel similar, so long as gameplay improvements come with each new installment, (respectively). But I highly doubt that other developers will pursue that route for fear of cash-in branding and industry over-flooding. Whether it will work out that way is up in the air–I'm not a professional, so I don't really know. I'm just making educated (read: loosely educated) guesses.
And so, I'm not of the persuasion that the game development landscape will be considerably different in the future. As a whole, I'll wager that game development will remain just as difficult and time-consuming as ever, albeit the games will look better, technical issues won't be quite as noticeable (or they'll be more easily maneuvered around), and games will generally feel like "bigger" versions of what's out now. And that leads me to my only major hope for the next generation (aside from seeing games that look significantly better, run better, and are slightly larger in scope than they are today):
Interactivity.
Today's graphics look good. Today's games are epic enough, and are more than complex enough for my liking. However, even with the good looks, something is missing. Take, for example, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Chronicles of Riddick. They both look damn fine in the strict sense of visual appeal. But when playing, I get the continual impression that they're just too static; it's confining. The impact of the beauty of the graphics is diminished by the eternally present notion that there isn't that much going on. It doesn't feel as realistic or immersive as it should and very well could.
I really hope that the environments of next-generation games are more interactive and dynamic. If you could move every object in an environment, if leaves could sway in the wind, if a collision with an object leaves it damaged, and if this could be prominent in all games, it would be a fantastic improvement in tomorrow's titles.
Following a scripted, linear path is fine, but to better a player's immersion, that player should feel like he's in the world the developers have crafted. Friendly AI should always be smart, and should be part of the environment and make use of the environment, rather than just a talking head that paces in a straight line until you get the potion or the credits you were looking for. An environment should be ever changing and dynamic in order to feel real, and every subtle detail should be a dynamic object, rather than just a non-interactive textured surface that sits there and doesn't change. You may think this is an odd, or otherwise impractical or unnoticeable hope for next-generation games, but I think games will play better–better absorb and better immerse the player, and better make that player feel like part of the game, if interactivity becomes a bigger priority than the quality of the graphics.
With the next generation of consoles, it is my belief that we shouldn't dwell on graphics, we should dwell on interactivity. Graphics are already good enough. It's interactivity that needs to improve, above all else.
And with the way things are shaping up, we may just be getting there. Let's hope the trend continues.
But that's just my opinion. What are your hopes for the next round of consoles? What improvements or changes do you think will happen, or wish would happen? Send e-mail to Aristotlekh@gmail.com.
Of course, I don't expect the industry and the games produced to be any different come next-generation–I remain wholly skeptical about improvements, "revolutions," evolutions, new means of playing games, etc. Personally, I think we'll see many empty promises, unfulfilled goals, and ideas that never fully materialize, just as we did with this generation. So to make any predictions, we need to determine what drives the industry right now, and what's wrong with the industry right now–what's keeping it from moving forward faster than it already is. In my mind, the answer is simple: developers need to worry about what sells, and they need to balance how profitable they think an idea is, and how difficult it will be to accomplish.
What good is a hugely innovative, revolutionary game that takes tens of millions of dollars, a development team of upwards of a hundred people, and advertising that chokes the publisher's budget just to be successful if Madden NFL 2000-whatever is going to push more units? Money makes the world go round, not innovation and artistic expression. A sequel to a proven franchise will sell better and more consistently than an original project, which is one big reason why originality has been so hampered in the games this generation–too many publishers are unwilling to take risks. And that won't be any different by 2006.
And therefore we won't be seeing developers try much harder than they are today. Which means we'll need to look at how much easier it will be to make games in the first place. Development tools like XNA could have the potential to give developers the freedom to create better games, but–as I tend to be pessimistic–this won't work out, because in the normal-case scenario, you'll end up seeing dozens, even hundreds of games that all look and feel suspiciously similar.
That may work for developers like Acclaim and EA who either don't give a damn about how good their games are, or can rely on franchises to the point where it doesn't matter if they all feel similar, so long as gameplay improvements come with each new installment, (respectively). But I highly doubt that other developers will pursue that route for fear of cash-in branding and industry over-flooding. Whether it will work out that way is up in the air–I'm not a professional, so I don't really know. I'm just making educated (read: loosely educated) guesses.
And so, I'm not of the persuasion that the game development landscape will be considerably different in the future. As a whole, I'll wager that game development will remain just as difficult and time-consuming as ever, albeit the games will look better, technical issues won't be quite as noticeable (or they'll be more easily maneuvered around), and games will generally feel like "bigger" versions of what's out now. And that leads me to my only major hope for the next generation (aside from seeing games that look significantly better, run better, and are slightly larger in scope than they are today):
Interactivity.
Today's graphics look good. Today's games are epic enough, and are more than complex enough for my liking. However, even with the good looks, something is missing. Take, for example, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and Chronicles of Riddick. They both look damn fine in the strict sense of visual appeal. But when playing, I get the continual impression that they're just too static; it's confining. The impact of the beauty of the graphics is diminished by the eternally present notion that there isn't that much going on. It doesn't feel as realistic or immersive as it should and very well could.
I really hope that the environments of next-generation games are more interactive and dynamic. If you could move every object in an environment, if leaves could sway in the wind, if a collision with an object leaves it damaged, and if this could be prominent in all games, it would be a fantastic improvement in tomorrow's titles.
Following a scripted, linear path is fine, but to better a player's immersion, that player should feel like he's in the world the developers have crafted. Friendly AI should always be smart, and should be part of the environment and make use of the environment, rather than just a talking head that paces in a straight line until you get the potion or the credits you were looking for. An environment should be ever changing and dynamic in order to feel real, and every subtle detail should be a dynamic object, rather than just a non-interactive textured surface that sits there and doesn't change. You may think this is an odd, or otherwise impractical or unnoticeable hope for next-generation games, but I think games will play better–better absorb and better immerse the player, and better make that player feel like part of the game, if interactivity becomes a bigger priority than the quality of the graphics.
With the next generation of consoles, it is my belief that we shouldn't dwell on graphics, we should dwell on interactivity. Graphics are already good enough. It's interactivity that needs to improve, above all else.
And with the way things are shaping up, we may just be getting there. Let's hope the trend continues.
But that's just my opinion. What are your hopes for the next round of consoles? What improvements or changes do you think will happen, or wish would happen? Send e-mail to Aristotlekh@gmail.com.
Recent Features
- Exclusive Interview: Deca Sports Wii (Nintendo Wii Interview) » NintendoSpin talks with Hudson about its upcoming casual sports game. Find out why they think you'll have more fun figure skating than you'll want to admit to your friends. Exclusive screenshots inside as well.
- The Five DS games that you should get this Christmas (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Three off-the-shelf titles and two imports that you just shouldn't skip.
A special article by Mykas A. - NintendoSpin Recommends Multiplayer DS Games (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Tired of playing your DS alone? NintendoSpin gives you our top multiplayer DS game recommendations.
- Left Hand, Right Hand (Miscellaneous Editorial) » No, they're not the same.
- Interesting DS titles released in October (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in October should you look for? - Interesting DS titles released in September (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in September should you look for? - Interesting DS titles released in August (Nintendo DS Editorial) » Monthly article by Mykas A.
What Nintendo DS games released in the past month should you look for?
