The next big step in gaming evolution

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Something interesting about stalker was the A-life system

"Are day/night cycles in real-time, and also, what can you tell us about weather/climate in the game?

Yavorsky: Day & night shifts in real-time, which is one of the features that makes S.T.A.L.K.E.R. stand out. Players will have plenty of opportunities to enjoy beautiful dawns, mid-day heat, sunsets, starry nights, with weather effects (wind, fog, rain, thunder etc) all shifting dynamically. Interestingly, the time of the day affects your gameplay in several ways.

Firstly, all stalkers see worse at night, which is pretty normal. At the same time, most of the animals can see perfectly well at night. On top of that, some monsters who prefer to sit underground at daytime, crawl out in darkness. On the other hand, some of the artefacts are visible at night only. So ultimately, it's all up to the player whether to take the risk of the dangerous night travelling or sit in wait until dawn in a safe place.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s game world is pretty much an ecosystem. What motivates or drives the "residents" of the game world, and how do they interact?

Yavorsky: The idea of creating a huge and dangerous Zone with the player being a mere element of the whole system brought us to the need to develop an innovative AI system. We wouldn't be able to solve the task with traditional scripts and triggers as we needed the player to believe in what's happening around him in the Zone. Hence, it was a matter of creating a living and breathing world, in a way MMORPG games do it, but in single-player.

This is the way the concept of life simulation was born. Life simulation (or A-life) is the environment where the game characters live. It provides the NPCs with information on the Zone. Driven by A-life, the NPCs live in accordance with their life cycles: stalkers traverse the Zone, accomplish individual tasks, take rest, eat and sleep. Monsters are preoccupied with hunting for prey, feeding, sleeping, taking rest, migrating the areas and fighting for their lives.

The A-life provides for two detailing levels of the NPCs vital activity (LOD): the first one, when the characters live in the real time of the player, the second one - when characters process their actions in less detail, but do it all the time. The A-life has groups of characters who behave as separate beings. As a result factions fight with each other for spheres of influence and monsters arrange assaults on stalker camps."

It was far to ambitous and they had to scaled back.
In games at the moment, like Call of Duty and Halflife they use scripted sequences and triggers. e.g. player triggers Y which causes of X (or more events) to happen.
They have path nodes an stuff but it's still pre-programmed stuff that's artificial. Grand Theft Auto and Fallout 3 although they appear to be a living world also I believe.


[YT]mp7fmW2nqaM&feature=channel_page[/YT]


In Shadow Of Chernobyl of you go off the road you can see can pig dragging a body off into the bushes. If you stay on the road and don't see this, the event still happens.

[YT]PRsrzf54D0w&feature=channel_page[/YT]

For something like MMO's, were alot of the time it's just, 10 enemy standing in a area waiting to be killed, then spawning 10 minutes later like you are in a disney theme park or sandbox games, something like with a world that acts more independently could make the games feel alot more organic.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

There is still much to do with AI, that´s a given.
Choises, urgency, relationships and death, those are the 4 things i still think that gaming is way off.

I´m still wanting for a game that is always diferent everytime you play it and you can play it way you want.
Imagine a building where have to kill the man in the last floor.
You should be able to kill him anyway you want to.
Enter the building in disguise, enter by the sewers, play the sniper game from the across the street, create a distraction to lure out the guards, enter from the top, either jumping from a plane or climbing the side of the building or go guns blazing.
And the way you have been playing will change everything, from people not knowing who you are, from not even realizing the man upstairs as a bullet with his name or everyone is expecting you and know your face.

As for urgency, i´m still wanting for a game that stresses you out, meaning that, if you have 2 days to save the Earth, you really just have 2 days to save the Earth.

Relations, no game, so far, as made a great love relation, just because, all it´s given to you are 2 or 3 characters and the pick one game.

But the biggest of all, the one that no one as made right is death.
Death is the most pointless and meaningless thing in gaming because, if you die, all you have to do is hit the load button.
So, there is no reason not to die, there is no fear, no: i don´t want to die, you have nothing to lose.

I totally understand that everything i state is extremely hard to make right, but i´m still waiting.
Molyneux is one of the guys that wants too much to evolve AI, even the rumor of it´s next game say it as something to do with it, so, Peter...i´m waiting.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Relations, no game, so far, as made a great love relation, just because, all it´s given to you are 2 or 3 characters and the pick one game.

But the biggest of all, the one that no one as made right is death.
Death is the most pointless and meaningless thing in gaming because, if you die, all you have to do is hit the load button.
So, there is no reason not to die, there is no fear, no: i don´t want to die, you have nothing to lose.

Sounds like the game you want here is life.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Sounds like the game you want here is life.

Not really, but i do want a game that aims to be more than just a game.
When games are trying to be movies, trying to convey feelings, with big and epic stories and characters, those two are not far-fetched.
Remember the old question, can a game make someone cry?

Of course i would not want every game to be like that, but i would like at least one.

 

[terry78]

Basically a la the Matrix where they jam **** into your brain and you actually are there in the gaming world. Of course that can cause more problems than it's worth.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Not really, but i do want a game that aims to be more than just a game.
When games are trying to be movies, trying to convey feelings, with big and epic stories and characters, those two are not far-fetched.
Remember the old question, can a game make someone cry?

Yeah, but you're talking about having death be more then just dying in game and then restarting, like you wanted a more significant death or something. Well, dying in real life is significant, and permanent thus far in human knowledge. Then you said you wanted to have love relations, but want my options other then 2 or 3. Well, go out for dating purposes.

The other things you mentioned not so much, but those made it sound like you just wanted life as a game or something

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Yeah, but you're talking about having death be more then just dying in game and then restarting, like you wanted a more significant death or something. Well, dying in real life is significant, and permanent thus far in human knowledge. Then you said you wanted to have love relations, but want my options other then 2 or 3. Well, go out for dating purposes.

You´re missing the point.
I don´t want to die and cry about it, i don´t want fall in love and marry my game character sweetheart, that´s not the point.
I don´t to live by means of a videogame, i have a life, and it´s pretty good so far.
I never said i wanted death to have more "meaning" in a spiritual sense (that would be stupid, it´s a game afterall), i said i wanted to wanting not to die, for example, take an RPG where, if you die, you lose 1 level; or in the original PC Far Cry, where, before the patch, you couldn´t save, you only had checkpoints, so, if you died, you had to make it all over again.
Something like this, but more "meaninful".

 

[Tron Bonne]

You´re missing the point.
I don´t want to die and cry about it, i don´t want fall in love and marry my game character sweetheart, that´s not the point.
I don´t to live by means of a videogame, i have a life, and it´s pretty good so far.
I never said i wanted death to have more "meaning" in a spiritual sense (that would be stupid, it´s a game afterall), i said i wanted to wanting not to die, for example, take an RPG where, if you die, you lose 1 level; or in the original PC Far Cry, where, before the patch, you couldn´t save, you only had checkpoints, so, if you died, you had to make it all over again.
Something like this, but more "meaninful".

There have been RPGs with similar punish effects like that. I can't think of any off the top of my head, though, because it's a very, very rare thing. I don't think many really like the idea.

Checkpoint systems are actually fairly common I thought..

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Euphoria could be the next thing too, maybe.

I find ragdoll physics to be pretty funny...but Euphoria seems to be replacing it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Wow, I guess the cynics were right. The future almost always sucks

What's the problem in getting people to be more interactive with their games? It's not like it's just going to completely get rid of traditional gaming. It's just going to expand our horizons.

 

[Tron Bonne]

What's the problem in getting people to be more interactive with their games? It's not like it's just going to completely get rid of traditional gaming. It's just going to expand our horizons.

The problem is, if it takes off, eventually it will breed out traditional gaming or at least reduce it to nothing more then a niche market. It may not be right around the corner, but eventually it will be seen as just natural progress by most and the masses will just keep going with it.

If you like the idea that's fine, but I personally have zero desire for full motion and VR technology

 

[terry78]

You guys sound like old men. "Back in my day", etc. **** gets phased out over time. Eventually nostalgia always brings it back because everything cycles, but that's how our somewhat hypocritical society works.

 

[Tron Bonne]

You guys sound like old men. "Back in my day", etc. **** gets phased out over time. Eventually nostalgia always brings it back because everything cycles, but that's how our somewhat hypocritical society works.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I just personally don't like the idea of either of them. I'm sure traditional, controller based gaming will stay around, but if this stuff like what MS is supposedly doing with full motion takes off, coupled with the mass success of the Wii, well it's only a matter of time.

I'm sure they'll co-exist for a long while, but eventually one is going to be favored because of 'progression' and the other is going to be minimized. That's just how the entertainment industry works really.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Sure, but look at it this way, if full motion takes off because it works better than we are expecting it to, better than traditional...

 

[Tron Bonne]

It may work better for some, but for me, I don't play games to wave and jump around. Nothing is going to replace sitting down with a traditional controller and enjoying a game. It's something that's I'm simply not interested in.

 

[Galactus]

Epic: Photo-realistic games in '10-15 years'
Tuesday 26-May-2009 11:38 AM Graphical realism is only a "factor of a thousand" away, says Sweeney
Epic's answer to John Carmack, Unreal Engine mastermind Tim Sweeney, says videogames are only '10-15 years' away from photo realism.

Speaking in an interview with Gamasutra, Sweeney said "we're only about a factor of a thousand" away from perfect graphical realism - but we might see it happen in as soon as a decade.

"We'll certainly see that happen in our lifetimes," he said. "It's just a result of Moore's Law. Probably 10-15 years for that stuff, which isn't far at all. Which is scary.

"But there's another problem in graphics that's not as easily solvable," he continued. "It's anything that requires simulating human intelligence or behaviour: animation, character movement, interaction with characters, and conversations with characters. They're really cheesy in games now.

"A state-of-the-art game like the latest Half-Life expansion from Valve, Gears of War, or Bungie's stuff is extraordinarily unrealistic compared to a human actor in a human movie, just because of the really fine nuances of human behaviour.

"We simulate character facial animation using tens of bones and facial controls, but in the body, you have thousands. It turns out we've evolved to recognize those things with extraordinary detail, so we're far short of being able to simulate that.

"And unfortunately, all of that's not just a matter of computational power, because if we had infinitely fast computers now, we still wouldn't be able to solve that, because we just don't have the algorithms; we don't know how the brain works or how to simulate it."

The tech man said game developers would first have to "simulate the brain and nervous system" in a computer before they could create a truly realistic game. In that case, is there any chance of seeing a really "photo-realistic" game in our lifetimes?

 

[Tron Bonne]

Hah, I remember developers saying the same thing back in the PS1/N64 era. How close we were to photo-realistic graphics. It's more believable now, of course

 

[terry78]

Half Life 2 is still one of the prime examples. The graphics aren't ridiculously real, but the way you interact with characters is. The way they talk to you, or just stare at your ass if you walk by or walk up to them.

 

[SouLeSS]

Gaming evolution was always on Nintendo´s shoulders, from the D-Pad to the Analogue Stick, from Rumble to Motion Control.
Then, it was Microsoft, that brought system evolution, from Xbox Live to Gamertags, from XBLA to Achievements.

WHAT?!

I doubt gaming will "evolve" much for a while. I mean, sure there's going to be more and more detailed motion sensoring, but you can't really expect all gamers to be doing that kinda crap. What about us that just want some sticks, a mouse and a keyboard and a screen and we're good? For us there isn't much else gaming can do. Graphics are getting to a near realistic level, so past that...3d?

 

[Tron Bonne]

WHAT?!

I doubt gaming will "evolve" much for a while. I mean, sure there's going to be more and more detailed motion sensoring, but you can't really expect all gamers to be doing that kinda crap. What about us that just want some sticks, a mouse and a keyboard and a screen and we're good? For us there isn't much else gaming can do. Graphics are getting to a near realistic level, so past that...3d?

If this motion stuff continues taking off, it'll just be a matter of time before our kind gets minimized for what some will call 'progression' of the medium. It will be quite some time I believe, but eventually it'll happen if motion is really here to stay.

 

[GL1]

Teardop, that's like, the third time you've said that. It's just a 'matter of time' until the D-pad disappears, but, 3 analog sticks later, it's still here, and it's still great for fighting games. The kind of phasing you're talking about is something that will take decades, not years. If you are really intent on doing anything the same way 20 years from now as you do it today, you're plain out of luck. Don't take it personal.

As for inputs, there'll be more motion sensing and touch screen stuff, but honestly, what's done is done. There's really not more there than what the Wii already has, unless they go back to the eye toy. There'll be new inputs for music games, I presume. I'm waiting for the piano keyboard myself. We'll likely see other specialty inputs as well, perhaps even outside of the music genre. Not exactly innovation, though.

I think the next big evolution in gaming will have to do with algorithms, especially procedural generation, that will allow developers to multiply their development efforts by large factors and A.I. opponents (and allies) and challenges that will make games dramatically more replayable. Suddenly, the game becomes a 'person' to take on instead of just a board to play upon.

Choises, urgency, relationships and death, those are the 4 things i still think that gaming is way off.

All of these require large increases in algorithmic potential. The code has to be able to adapt and react dramatically and in a wide variety of situations. Choices and Urgency, and Death, especially require replayability, and a lot of it. If Death is 'game over' like in an old school arcade game, then today's players will want something engaging and not repetitive when they start over. It would fit in a game like the 'invade a building' scenario that you suggest, not in, God of War IV, for instance.

Urgency without game over requires that a mission be pass or fail. This makes it the same as choices, from a storytelling and development perspective. There are great games that use urgent tasks and choices as storyline branches, however, to consistently make objectives pass or fail with consequences other than game over, requires that subsequent missions either be extensive in number (1000+ endings, for instance) or (more likely) be mad-libs in terms of what is included. On top of that, developers would need to code story into algorithms so that the storyline resonates even when you make radically different choices, which may require the storyline to be entirely in the code, in the A.I. and not scripted at all. That's a level of writing skill that I can barely wrap my head around. To code the essence of a story, with only the premise predetermined. Wow. It'd be like writing a program to create a choose your own adventure book -- without actually writing any of the book.

No pre-rendered cutscenes, pre-recorded dialog or game guide for this game, by the way.

Relationships are easy, and, in many ways, are just combat with different animations and sound effects. The tough part with that is WRITING relationships is not easy and DEVELOPING (gameplay wise) relationships is not always 'fun.'

But a developer that can tackle that will certainly win more than a few awards. You may want to check out some of Japan's dating sims to see if they are what you are looking for. It may be the western market doesn't seem to want these types of games, rather than a lack of ability to make them.

 

[Syncos]

Gaming evolution was always on Nintendo´s shoulders, from the D-Pad to the Analogue Stick, from Rumble to Motion Control.
Then, it was Microsoft, that brought system evolution, from Xbox Live to Gamertags, from XBLA to Achievements.
As for Sony, maybe that´s my problem, but i can´t really see anything they ever brought to the table, besides the inclusion of two analogue sticks insted of one.

So, what is in store for the future?
Because we are not done yet, video games are still evolving...
3D? 4D? Virtual Reality? Holograms? Holodeck?....

Sony Developed CDRom Console gaming. It was a barely tapped market for PC gaming at the time Sony developed it. The Playstation was the first Console to use CDs and the first to use 3d graphics.

They brought a LOT to the table.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Teardop, that's like, the third time you've said that. It's just a 'matter of time' until the D-pad disappears, but, 3 analog sticks later, it's still here, and it's still great for fighting games. The kind of phasing you're talking about is something that will take decades, not years. If you are really intent on doing anything the same way 20 years from now as you do it today, you're plain out of luck. Don't take it personal.

For one, I never said that traditional gaming would 'disappear'. I just said it would be minimized in favor of 'progression'. I even specifically said it would be around, but mostly be put into a more niche audience.

Secondly, yep, guess I'm just out of luck

 

[GL1]

For one, I never said that traditional gaming would 'disappear'. I just said it would be minimized in favor of 'progression'. I even specifically said it would be around, but mostly be put into a more niche audience.

Secondly, yep, guess I'm just out of luck

I see. Well, I hope you're not thinking of Casual gaming taking off as something that minimizes traditional gaming. Traditional gaming is still growing slowly, as it always has been, and it may look small when compared with the Wii's popularity, but it would be, more or less, the same size if the Wii had been a traditional system. Traditional gaming has always been niche, honestly, and will continue to be.

MS and Sony aren't going to change their game plan because dropping their player base doesn't make any business sense.

I don't see where the more niche is coming from...

 

[Tron Bonne]

I see. Well, I hope you're not thinking of Casual gaming taking off as something that minimizes traditional gaming. Traditional gaming is still growing slowly, as it always has been, and it may look small when compared with the Wii's popularity, but it would be, more or less, the same size if the Wii had been a traditional system. Traditional gaming has always been niche, honestly, and will continue to be.

MS and Sony aren't going to change their game plan because dropping their player base doesn't make any business sense.

I don't see where the more niche is coming from...

When I say traditional gaming, I generalizing it into controller, button based gaming without motion and what have you. Motion and VR I'm generalizing as the new breed of upcoming gaming