As I'm reading IGN's interview with Peter Molyneux, I think about pets. No, not because Fable 2 has a dog. Pets come to mind because they demonstrate how personal something can be without verbal communication.
All a dog needs from you to respond accordingly is your face. Project Natal currently includes accurate enough facial recognition to distinguish one player from another, but I doubt it can detect all the subtle signs of emotion in a human face.
If a game publisher can create a camera system with that kind of accuracy at an affordable price, the sympathetic connection between players and game characters will be able to strengthen exponentially.
Showing posts with label consoles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consoles. Show all posts
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
consoles as PC support
I might be mistaken, but I bet a console could be designed so that it could be hooked up to a PC via USB (or something similar) so that the console could augment the PC's processor and RAM.
My computer is over six years old. At this point, it cannot play many games at decent graphic levels and performance. But if it could offload some of its needs to my Xbox 360, then I could probably play almost any game.
I hope something like this is included in the design of next generation consoles.
My computer is over six years old. At this point, it cannot play many games at decent graphic levels and performance. But if it could offload some of its needs to my Xbox 360, then I could probably play almost any game.
I hope something like this is included in the design of next generation consoles.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
OnLive predictions
It's way too early to comment specifically on OnLive. But what it represents is of great interest and concern to everyone. I hear "cloud" gaming is a popular topic of discussions at the GDC. Here are a few predictions of my own.
First, I doubt this heralds the end of consoles. It's possible, but I'd be surprised if consoles ever disappeared. It doesn't matter if nearly all the games are the same. It doesn't matter if they share essential hardware and software features. Competition can flourish on things such as brand loyalty, familiarity, aesthetics, and ease of use. Look at automobile competition. Look at the PC-vs-Mac.
Second, OnLive sounds good for PC gamers. The greatest barrier to consumers interested in PC games has always been compatibility issues. And the costliest issues for PC game developers are compatibility and (arguably) piracy. If OnLive works as they say it will, those problems are eliminated.
Third, this isn't the end of traditional PC gaming. Modding has become increasingly popular over the years, and a person can't modify a game unless he has access to the code. Also, many consumers will want hard copies of games so that they don't have to worry about a service changing, provider-publisher contracts, internet access interruptions, etc.
What do you think? Where is cloud gaming leading us?
First, I doubt this heralds the end of consoles. It's possible, but I'd be surprised if consoles ever disappeared. It doesn't matter if nearly all the games are the same. It doesn't matter if they share essential hardware and software features. Competition can flourish on things such as brand loyalty, familiarity, aesthetics, and ease of use. Look at automobile competition. Look at the PC-vs-Mac.
Second, OnLive sounds good for PC gamers. The greatest barrier to consumers interested in PC games has always been compatibility issues. And the costliest issues for PC game developers are compatibility and (arguably) piracy. If OnLive works as they say it will, those problems are eliminated.
Third, this isn't the end of traditional PC gaming. Modding has become increasingly popular over the years, and a person can't modify a game unless he has access to the code. Also, many consumers will want hard copies of games so that they don't have to worry about a service changing, provider-publisher contracts, internet access interruptions, etc.
What do you think? Where is cloud gaming leading us?
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
mods for console games
I'm more of a console gamer these days, but I still enjoy games on both my 360 and my PC. Because my computer is old now and I like being able to lounge as I play games, I tend to buy the console version of multi-platform games. But one factor I always consider before making that choice is mods. When a game is popular with modders, then their creations can add many hours of fresh gameplay and even refinement of old gameplay.
User-generated content is increasingly common in console games (Little Big Planet, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Halo 3, etc). But console players are still limited to in-game toolsets, few of which are near as extensive as the Aurora toolset provided in Neverwinter Nights. Consoles have yet to see anything like this -- hundreds of mods, including graphical touch-ups, UI changes, new areas/levels, new skills, new items, and complete revamps. Total conversion mods, such as the Iron Grip mod for Half-Life 2, are unheard of in console games.
Now, I'm not denying that the inherent differences between current consoles and PCs matter in regard to modding potential. But if we can create console games from the PC, why can't we mod them from the PC?
Developers, do you worry about the resale market? While I generally agree with Gamestop CEO Dan DeMatteo, consider how much longer players would hold onto your game if a mod community could constantly refresh your game content at no charge to you. Modding can even improve game sales in general. I'm more likely to buy a game if I know modders will expand its replay value.
Mods for console games seems like a no-brainer. Shouldn't this be a goal?
User-generated content is increasingly common in console games (Little Big Planet, Guitar Hero: World Tour, Halo 3, etc). But console players are still limited to in-game toolsets, few of which are near as extensive as the Aurora toolset provided in Neverwinter Nights. Consoles have yet to see anything like this -- hundreds of mods, including graphical touch-ups, UI changes, new areas/levels, new skills, new items, and complete revamps. Total conversion mods, such as the Iron Grip mod for Half-Life 2, are unheard of in console games.
Now, I'm not denying that the inherent differences between current consoles and PCs matter in regard to modding potential. But if we can create console games from the PC, why can't we mod them from the PC?
Developers, do you worry about the resale market? While I generally agree with Gamestop CEO Dan DeMatteo, consider how much longer players would hold onto your game if a mod community could constantly refresh your game content at no charge to you. Modding can even improve game sales in general. I'm more likely to buy a game if I know modders will expand its replay value.
Mods for console games seems like a no-brainer. Shouldn't this be a goal?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wii versus 360 and PS3
My friend Darren repeated something often said about this batch of consoles: the Wii is the only truly next-gen console, while the 360 and PS3 are not really very innovative. I disagree.
As I told Darren, he's in good company. Will Wright, my favorite game designer, has made much the same claim. But I think that view is a failure to look beyond the obvious. It fails to recognize that a simple increase in processing and memory can and often does have a huge effect on gameplay -- not just evolutionary change, but also revolutionary change.
I only have experience with the 360, so I'm going to focus exclusively on that console. And let's be clear about something: this is not a fan post. If I had the money to, I'd own all three consoles. This is in no way bashing the Wii. I just want to explain why the 360 and PS3 should not be accused of failing to innovate.
Even the Xbox 360's first batch of games hinted at the new possibilities unlocked by the console's power. Kameo, a game by Rare that reminded me a lot of DonkeyKong 64, proved the different type of fun that could be had from charging through an endless horde of enemies. Gears of Wars 2 will apparently explore that idea further.
Oblivion could not have happened on the Wii. The visuals in that game are not fluff... they're an essential part of the experience. The massive gameworld, which requires a lot of memory, is essential to the experience. Something else that's essential to Oblivion: complex controls. The Wii remote and nunchuk are cool, but they're not capable of as many control options as a single 360 controller with two pressure-sensitive analog sticks and 19 buttons (including being able to click the analog sticks and push the d-pad in 8 directions) aside from the Start button.
Could the lighting and shadows of Dead Space, combined with the game's strategic dismemberment feature and its zero gravity environments, be done on the Wii? Or the water effects of Bioshock? How about the flurry of AI and animations for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2? Or the detailed cities and motion-captured animations of Assassin's Creed?
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed will be released on every console, yet the 360 and PS3 aren't getting the multiplayer component that the other versions get. Why? I don't know, but I think it's probably meant to make up for the better experience the more powerful consoles are able to provide solely due to their power. One of the devs explicitly mentioned that the 360 and PS3 inspired them to make such a game. I'd be willing to bet that there's more than merely a difference in visuals between the game versions (but I could be wrong).
To be clear, the Wii is capable of impressive visuals, physics, and greater things than we've yet seen. But it's indisputably not capable of many specific designs.
One might argue that these new types of gameplay all could have been seen in PC gaming. But so could the Wii's motion controls. There's nothing any of the consoles have done that could not have been developed for the PC.
As I told Darren, he's in good company. Will Wright, my favorite game designer, has made much the same claim. But I think that view is a failure to look beyond the obvious. It fails to recognize that a simple increase in processing and memory can and often does have a huge effect on gameplay -- not just evolutionary change, but also revolutionary change.
I only have experience with the 360, so I'm going to focus exclusively on that console. And let's be clear about something: this is not a fan post. If I had the money to, I'd own all three consoles. This is in no way bashing the Wii. I just want to explain why the 360 and PS3 should not be accused of failing to innovate.
Even the Xbox 360's first batch of games hinted at the new possibilities unlocked by the console's power. Kameo, a game by Rare that reminded me a lot of DonkeyKong 64, proved the different type of fun that could be had from charging through an endless horde of enemies. Gears of Wars 2 will apparently explore that idea further.
Oblivion could not have happened on the Wii. The visuals in that game are not fluff... they're an essential part of the experience. The massive gameworld, which requires a lot of memory, is essential to the experience. Something else that's essential to Oblivion: complex controls. The Wii remote and nunchuk are cool, but they're not capable of as many control options as a single 360 controller with two pressure-sensitive analog sticks and 19 buttons (including being able to click the analog sticks and push the d-pad in 8 directions) aside from the Start button.
Could the lighting and shadows of Dead Space, combined with the game's strategic dismemberment feature and its zero gravity environments, be done on the Wii? Or the water effects of Bioshock? How about the flurry of AI and animations for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2? Or the detailed cities and motion-captured animations of Assassin's Creed?
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed will be released on every console, yet the 360 and PS3 aren't getting the multiplayer component that the other versions get. Why? I don't know, but I think it's probably meant to make up for the better experience the more powerful consoles are able to provide solely due to their power. One of the devs explicitly mentioned that the 360 and PS3 inspired them to make such a game. I'd be willing to bet that there's more than merely a difference in visuals between the game versions (but I could be wrong).
To be clear, the Wii is capable of impressive visuals, physics, and greater things than we've yet seen. But it's indisputably not capable of many specific designs.
One might argue that these new types of gameplay all could have been seen in PC gaming. But so could the Wii's motion controls. There's nothing any of the consoles have done that could not have been developed for the PC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
