|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > March 2005 > Editorial: Losing enthusiasm in games
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Editorial: Losing enthusiasm in games
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Adam McCann" <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> wrote in message
news:423ed081$0$65047$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
quote:
> What do you think? Are we all loosing enthusiasm in games?
>
Didn't I read this same spill back in 1982?
| |
| Adam McCann 2005-03-21, 10:19 pm |
| Not sure, I was born the year after ;)
"xTenn" <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote in message
news:erxXo5kLFHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
quote:
>
> "Adam McCann" <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:423ed081$0$65047$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
>
> Didn't I read this same spill back in 1982?
>
>
>
| |
| xTenn 2005-03-21, 10:19 pm |
|
"Adam McCann" <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> wrote in message
news:423f5074$0$65061$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
quote:
> Not sure, I was born the year after ;)
>
>
Man, you missed it. Back then the video games looked like, well, crap
compared to today's standards. But it has been proven that at the time the
world was actually running at a lower resolution as well, so we didn't
notice the difference...
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-22, 4:29 am |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Adam McCann <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> What do you think? Are we all loosing enthusiasm in games?
quote:
> Keza MacDonald @ Pro-G talks about it:
> http://www.pro-g.co.uk/features/fid/25/
Thanks to usenet, we've all been "loosing" our enthusiasm for years. ;)
However, as for *losing* it, that's another story.
I think the big problem is that by the middle of the current generation of
consoles, we were largely just seeing 'more of the same' - and it all
looks about the same, too, if you ask me. Add in the fact that the next
generation of consoles - so far - just promises more of the same again,
only, maybe a little prettier, and it's easy to see why people would lose
their enthusiasm.
Then there's rumors like Xbox is going to cost $400 or even $500 at
launch, and games will be $60-70 - and one has to stop and ask 'Is it
*really* worth the cash?' When the current consoles were new, you were
already looking at $300 for the console, at least another $50 or so in
accessories (memory card, extra controllers, DVD kit, whatever) and
another $50/game - quite an investment up front. If the next generation
is more expensive, I have to wonder if maybe it's getting too expensive.
After all, how many are going to be willing and able to throw down $700+
for an initial console purchase when you'll just be getting the same old
games with slightly better graphics and sound?
Who knows? Maybe next generation will see another 'crash' of sorts in the
console world. Meanwhile, I've been rediscovering the world of shareware
and independent developers on the PC. If corporate-run game companies do
indeed crash, it'll fall to these entities to carry us through and slowly
re-invigorate the gaming industry.
What I would consider worse would be the other alternative - where
corporate-run game companies complete their transformation from "game" to
"media" conglomerate, and just churn out Hollywood-style formulaic drek
that has all the interest, texture and playability as a bowl of cold
oatmeal. Of course, they'll continue to sell millions of units because
the games by this time will be created to appeal to the largest, lowest
common denominator out there - the true casual gamer. And before you feel
a bit insulted because you consider yourself a casual gamer, I got some
news for you...if you're reading this, you're *NOT* what the industry
considers a "casual gamer."
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-22, 4:29 am |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote:
quote:
> "Adam McCann" <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:423ed081$0$65047$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Didn't I read this same spill back in 1982?
So, you're saying we're heading for another crash then?
Wonder if the lull will only last 2-3 years, or if it'll go longer this
time?
Somehow, I think even if there is a crash, the arcades, at least as they
existed in the 80s are permanentaly a thing of the past...
Pity, since the urge to bring the arcade home is what drove the next
generation.
| |
| stormbringer@clouds.net 2005-03-22, 4:29 am |
| I agree with the fact that the excitement over getting a new game wears out
quicker than it did before.
We all are becoming desensitized to the games coming
out.Sequel,sequel,sequel........etc. A lot of
developers hopping on the same bandwagon to cash in,just look at all the
war/military games out there now.
The next gen console will be more of the same,true,better graphics,slightly
better gameplay, but, still looking at a screen with a controller in your
hand.Gaming has reached a plateau,its levelled off for a while.The next step
is virtual reality,with real time 3d immersion into the game.
How many years away ? And it will cost some bucks too ! Start saving now.
Just another take on the angle of "are we losing are enthusiasm?"
--
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| |
|
|
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:113v1mic98he974@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, you're saying we're heading for another crash then?
>
> Wonder if the lull will only last 2-3 years, or if it'll go longer this
> time?
>
> Somehow, I think even if there is a crash, the arcades, at least as they
> existed in the 80s are permanentaly a thing of the past...
>
> Pity, since the urge to bring the arcade home is what drove the next
> generation.
I think the market penetration is so deep now that a crash similiar to what
happened in the 80s would not happen - the market is there even for the
non-mainstream, enough to drive creation of new games regardless of lulls.
There could be times that the pickings would be slim, but some high-quality
titles could actually be produced in this time as compared to an "anything
will sell" market.
One thing I am curious about is the backlash that is possible when games
really do approach live quality. Human beings are wired to reject something
that is fake, and the closer to real life the greater our instinct is to
look for the telltale signs that state otherwise. IMHO Final Fantasy the
movie suffered from this (among many, many other things). A game that
looked as good as the movie may not fare any better, yet we are rushing to
this level with each generation. It will be interesting to see how it plays
out, but designers may find themselves purposely altering a view, giving
unique camera angles, etc. just to distinguish it from real life in order
to please an inherently suspicious market. In time it will be accepted, for
the pure escapists fare possiblities if nothing else, but I do expect there
to be an issue with wide acceptance at some point. Personally I say "bring
it on" - I would like to be on the bridge of the Enterprise, with Spock
backing me up as we go into a new adventure, even if he does tend to look
behind me as we speak.
Who knows, maybe the new digitized Bruce Lee movie will prove all this wrong
and be accepted immediately.
| |
| Swamigo 2005-03-22, 6:29 pm |
|
"Adam McCann" <adam.mccann@pro-g.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:423ed081$0$65047$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
quote:
> What do you think? Are we all loosing enthusiasm in games?
>
> Keza MacDonald @ Pro-G talks about it:
> http://www.pro-g.co.uk/features/fid/25/
>
>
> Adam McCann
> www.pro-g.co.uk
>
>
>
well my opinion is, the less graphic quality a game has, the more addictive
it is (ie tetris, frogger, pacman)
| |
| Jacob Oost 2005-03-22, 6:29 pm |
| stormbringer@clouds.net wrote:
quote:
> I agree with the fact that the excitement over getting a new game wears out
> quicker than it did before.
> We all are becoming desensitized to the games coming
> out.Sequel,sequel,sequel........etc. A lot of
> developers hopping on the same bandwagon to cash in,just look at all the
> war/military games out there now.
> The next gen console will be more of the same,true,better graphics,slightly
> better gameplay, but, still looking at a screen with a controller in your
> hand.Gaming has reached a plateau,its levelled off for a while.The next step
> is virtual reality,with real time 3d immersion into the game.
> How many years away ? And it will cost some bucks too ! Start saving now.
> Just another take on the angle of "are we losing are enthusiasm?"
>
I think the next step is a truly 3D controller. The D-pad was a great
2D controller, and while the control stick was described by Nintendo as
a way of controlling and navigating 3D environments, it was still just a
2D controller. A 3D controller would be a device that could be moved
about in 3D space and an object on the screen would have corresponding
movement (such a controller would have to be wireless). Imagine for a
second a controller shaped like a stick. It could use gyroscopic motion
sensors (like Revolution is rumored to have), and be held in a variety
of ways. You could swing it like a sword or a golf club or a baseball
bat and an onscreen sword or club or bat would move exactly as you move
the controller. Or you could hold it like a steering wheel and steer a
car with it (the movement of the steering wheel in the car would
correspond to the way you move the controller). The possibilities are
endless, virtually any 3D object could be programmed to move with the
controller, so you could turn it over in your hands and an onscreen rock
would roll across the ground. Imagine taking this one step farther and
creating some kind of glove with motion sensors (they have gloves like
this already but they are extremely crude and not sensitive enough), you
could manipulate an onscreen hand to tie 3D rendered rope into knots.
Obviously, this would be a step in the direction of "virtual reality,"
although we still have a long way to go. My point is that there are
always more possibilities that you may not have thought of yet.
--
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version 3.1
GAT d? !s !a C++++ UL+ P L++ E- W+ N+ o-- K- w--
O- !M !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP- t++>++++* 5? !X-- R- tv b++ DI+ D++
G e !h !r !y
...... END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----
| |
|
| I agree with what's been said here about too much of the same type of games,
and I think the bandwagon thing is strangling game production.
What's needed are some new genres, as well as new games.
There are several videogame frameworks, and almost all games are made
according to these guidelines of play style, genre etc.
I'd like to see it shaken up more, see companies trying to create new
genres, because it's folly to think they can mine the current ones forever.
"Adam McCann" wrote:
quote:
> What do you think? Are we all loosing enthusiasm in games?
>
> Keza MacDonald @ Pro-G talks about it:
> http://www.pro-g.co.uk/features/fid/25/
>
>
> Adam McCann
> www.pro-g.co.uk
>
>
>
>
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-23, 10:21 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Jacob Oost <zork@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
quote:
> I think the next step is a truly 3D controller. The D-pad was a great
> 2D controller, and while the control stick was described by Nintendo as
> a way of controlling and navigating 3D environments, it was still just a
> 2D controller. A 3D controller would be a device that could be moved
> about in 3D space and an object on the screen would have corresponding
> movement (such a controller would have to be wireless). Imagine for a
> second a controller shaped like a stick. It could use gyroscopic motion
> sensors (like Revolution is rumored to have), and be held in a variety
> of ways. You could swing it like a sword or a golf club or a baseball
> bat and an onscreen sword or club or bat would move exactly as you move
> the controller. Or you could hold it like a steering wheel and steer a
> car with it (the movement of the steering wheel in the car would
> correspond to the way you move the controller). The possibilities are
> endless, virtually any 3D object could be programmed to move with the
> controller, so you could turn it over in your hands and an onscreen rock
> would roll across the ground. Imagine taking this one step farther and
> creating some kind of glove with motion sensors (they have gloves like
> this already but they are extremely crude and not sensitive enough), you
> could manipulate an onscreen hand to tie 3D rendered rope into knots.
3d controllers have been tried on and off on many other systems - even
the original NES had that glove-thingie.
Anyways, using a camera, like the eye-toy, would give you that sort of
control without the hand-held sensor thingie (which would be pretty
expensive due to the number of sensors and stuff that'd need to be crammed
into it.)
Other issues that come to mind would be how would you handle the concept
of moving "forward"? Walk in place? Use a treadmill? At some point,
linking the capabilities of the blob of flesh behind the console to the blob
of pixels on the screen stops making sense because most games require the
player to do things that few humans (if any) are physically capable of doing.
An example would be running for miles on end during an RPG. Would you
really want to have to walk all the 100s of virtual miles your characters
spend in dungeons? Or even in your favorite FPS, just how big are those
levels? Now you want to play the game while running in a permanent
crouched position?
| |
| Jacob Oost 2005-03-23, 10:21 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> 3d controllers have been tried on and off on many other systems - even
> the original NES had that glove-thingie.
>
Please. I'm not talking about a novelty glove with a control pad taped
on, I'm talking about a device that lets you control all three axes.
Right now the control stick only controls the x and y axis, you have to
use two 2D devices together (mouse and arrows keys, dual control sticks,
control stick and c-buttons, etc.) to manipulate an object in 3D space
and this is cumbersome.
quote:
> Anyways, using a camera, like the eye-toy, would give you that sort of
> control without the hand-held sensor thingie (which would be pretty
> expensive due to the number of sensors and stuff that'd need to be crammed
> into it.)
That is also possible but sounds at least twenty years away from
something workable. Nobody would want a multi-camera setup, or put
little white balls on their hands for mo-cap. You would need a program
that could take a video image and work out where your hands and each one
of your fingertips were.
quote:
>
> Other issues that come to mind would be how would you handle the concept
> of moving "forward"?
Oh, you're talking about actual virtual reality. I wasn't, when I was
discussing a gyroscopic controller, just so you know. I was talking
about something for the next generation of consoles, not a holodeck
(though I would like to have a holodeck...right now).
quote:
> Walk in place? Use a treadmill?
If you accept Star Trek "science," then the simulated floor surface
could be a treadmill. All objects in Star Trek holodecks (yes, I'm a
nerd) are either made of holograms (objects that are seen but not
touched) or "force fields." For example, a ball would be a spherical
force field, the ground would be a big flat force field, etc. Nobody
even knows a workable way of creating such a device, but even if it were
possible it would be fifty years off.
As for the hear and now, I imagine virtual reality taking the shape of a
set of goggles (using LCOS screens), some kind of control (either
motion-sensitive gloves or a gyroscopic dealie that you hold with both
hands), and that's it. You wouldn't walk around, you'd just sit (or
stand) and glide about the environment like in a first-person shooter.
Or maybe your in-game character rides a wheelchair everywhere, that
would be easy to simulate if you're already in a chair. Walking in
place would be silly, and a treadmill would only go in two directions,
what if you wanted to turn? Besides, save physical activity for the
non-gamers (you know, the healthy people with girlfriends), if I want
exercise I'll go ride my bike.
quote:
> At some point,
> linking the capabilities of the blob of flesh behind the console to the blob
> of pixels on the screen stops making sense because most games require the
> player to do things that few humans (if any) are physically capable of doing.
> An example would be running for miles on end during an RPG.
You could have a horse or a magical dragon to ride, that would speed
things up. Or you could inexplicably be given a magical flute that
transports you around.
quote:
> Would you
> really want to have to walk all the 100s of virtual miles your characters
> spend in dungeons? Or even in your favorite FPS, just how big are those
> levels? Now you want to play the game while running in a permanent
> crouched position?
I think sitting down is here to stay for gaming, novelty games like DDR
notwithstanding.
--
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version 3.1
GAT d? !s !a C++++ UL+ P L++ E- W+ N+ o-- K- w--
O- !M !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP- t++>++++* 5? !X-- R- tv b++ DI+ D++
G e !h !r !y
...... END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----
| |
| Matthew Gunn 2005-03-24, 4:22 am |
| Walking in
quote:
> place would be silly, and a treadmill would only go in two directions,
> what if you wanted to turn?
I think the whole idea is a bit silly but at the same time forward
thinking. How about using a huge trackball that you stand on instead of
a treadmill. That alone gives you 2 dimensions of travel.
Matthew
| |
| Matthew Gunn 2005-03-24, 4:22 am |
| Jacob Oost wrote:
Besides, save physical activity for the
quote:
> non-gamers (you know, the healthy people with girlfriends), if I want
> exercise I'll go ride my bike.
>
I really should look before posting. I also wanted to say, I vaguely
remember a game years ago where you were riding a pedal powered flying
machine. I can't remember the name of it but you actually had to pedal
to get teh thing to go anywhere. Great fun for about 2 minutes and then
it seems all to much like excercise.
Matthew
| |
| Jacob Oost 2005-03-24, 4:22 am |
| Matthew Gunn wrote:
quote:
> I think the whole idea is a bit silly but at the same time forward
> thinking. How about using a huge trackball that you stand on instead of
> a treadmill. That alone gives you 2 dimensions of travel.
>
> Matthew
>
Not very practical for home use, especially when you consider that it
would have to be pretty darn big to feel flat so you're not falling over.
--
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version 3.1
GAT d? !s !a C++++ UL+ P L++ E- W+ N+ o-- K- w--
O- !M !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP- t++>++++* 5? !X-- R- tv b++ DI+ D++
G e !h !r !y
...... END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----
| |
| Jacob Oost 2005-03-24, 4:22 am |
| Matthew Gunn wrote:
quote:
> I really should look before posting. I also wanted to say, I vaguely
> remember a game years ago where you were riding a pedal powered flying
> machine. I can't remember the name of it but you actually had to pedal
> to get teh thing to go anywhere. Great fun for about 2 minutes and then
> it seems all to much like excercise.
>
> Matthew
>
I saw a white-water rafting game for the arcade, complete with a paddle.
I think it's great when developers come up with new ways of
communicating with the game, whether it's a light gun, vr helmet,
steering wheel, jetski, etc., but at the sametime I'm always thinking
about home use, which is where games wind up, and many of these arcade
devices just aren't practical because they're so huge or so specific to
a particular game. Arcades seem to be the place where developers just
throw out every idea they have and see what sticks, it's just a shame
that you can't experience it in the home, whenever you want, like Mario
or Half-Life.
--
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version 3.1
GAT d? !s !a C++++ UL+ P L++ E- W+ N+ o-- K- w--
O- !M !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP- t++>++++* 5? !X-- R- tv b++ DI+ D++
G e !h !r !y
...... END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----
| |
|
| Hello - author here. :-)
I'm seeing some absolutely fascinating responses to the article which
have in fact brought to my mind an idea for another one. The chance of
a market crash is something that has been hanging around at the back
of my mind for quite some time - but the way I see it, it would be
nothing like the crash of the 80s. Videogames has become too big for
itself in many respects. The industry has expanded enormously in terms
of its monetary worth during the past two decades, and advanced at a
ridiculously rapid pace; it's at the point where the industry is
starting to stumble in an effort to keep up with the technological
progressions and rapidly expanding markets. The crash I forsee is not
going to be caused by a lack of interest, but instead by a sort of
implosion; technology and costs are escalating so rapidly that
everything will simply fail to keep up and we'll be left with EA and
Microsoft rapidly snatching up failing studios and putting their staff
onto mediocre projects. The way I see it, this is no longer an
industry with sufficient vision to keep itself afloat in terms of
creative as well as demographic expansion.
Course, I'm no market analyst, and so am hardly qualified to pass
judgement as to what the consequences of such an occurrence would be.
But surely escalating costs, decreasing creative impulse and
increasing work hours for developers will lead to an unfavourable
situation.
-Keza
---------------------------------------------------
The Society of Gamesplaying Gentlemen and Womenfolk - where educated
gamers thrive. http://society.miskie.net (membership facilitated by
recommendation from an existing member - email me for details)
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-24, 10:19 pm |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Matthew Gunn <matthewgunn_au@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> I really should look before posting. I also wanted to say, I vaguely
> remember a game years ago where you were riding a pedal powered flying
> machine. I can't remember the name of it but you actually had to pedal
> to get teh thing to go anywhere. Great fun for about 2 minutes and then
> it seems all to much like excercise.
The gym I used to go to did try out these machines that were essentially
excercise bikes hooked up to a PC. You had to keep peddling to keep the
computer responding to you, though (so no slacking!) You could surf the
web (with their ad-laden browser) or play this game in which you scooted
around a playing field in what looked like a bike from Tron, shooting
other bikes which represented computer opponents, or other people peddling
next to you. The faster you peddled, the faster you could move and
shoot. Your speed also determined how fast your pages loaded, too. So I
wouldn't recomend sniping on Ebay while exercising, unless you're Lance
Armstrong, or looking to bust a lung. ;)
The bikes didn't last long. Besides the computers being ultra flakey
(I've never seen a BSOD on a bike before) the game wasn't very popular
because the jocks tended to dominate. Nerds like me got into gaming to
get away from the jocks. I don't think we'd want physical prowress to be
that much of a factor for games, otherwise you'd have tech-savy jocks
running roughshod over the nerds in a whole new format.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-03-25, 4:22 am |
| In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Jacob Oost <zork@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
quote:
> Please. I'm not talking about a novelty glove with a control pad taped
> on, I'm talking about a device that lets you control all three axes.
> Right now the control stick only controls the x and y axis, you have to
> use two 2D devices together (mouse and arrows keys, dual control sticks,
> control stick and c-buttons, etc.) to manipulate an object in 3D space
> and this is cumbersome.
Well, there were other glove-controllers that allowed you to manipulate 3d
space.
quote:
> That is also possible but sounds at least twenty years away from
> something workable. Nobody would want a multi-camera setup, or put
> little white balls on their hands for mo-cap. You would need a program
> that could take a video image and work out where your hands and each one
> of your fingertips were.
I've seen some pretty impressive camera-based things in the arcades
though. There's a boxing game and a light-gun game. In the boxing game,
you can move around on a small pad, but you can duck punch and defend like
a real boxer. Your actions are then translated to your onscreen character.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Oh, you're talking about actual virtual reality. I wasn't, when I was
> discussing a gyroscopic controller, just so you know. I was talking
> about something for the next generation of consoles, not a holodeck
> (though I would like to have a holodeck...right now).
So, you'd tip your forward to move forward? I guess that could work.
Naw, holodecks are way too dangerous and raise way too many ethical/moral
questions.
quote:
> As for the hear and now, I imagine virtual reality taking the shape of a
> set of goggles (using LCOS screens), some kind of control (either
> motion-sensitive gloves or a gyroscopic dealie that you hold with both
> hands), and that's it. You wouldn't walk around, you'd just sit (or
> stand) and glide about the environment like in a first-person shooter.
> Or maybe your in-game character rides a wheelchair everywhere, that
> would be easy to simulate if you're already in a chair. Walking in
> place would be silly, and a treadmill would only go in two directions,
> what if you wanted to turn? Besides, save physical activity for the
> non-gamers (you know, the healthy people with girlfriends), if I want
> exercise I'll go ride my bike.
Maybe use one of those small trampoline things. That way you could
walk/run in place, then turn right, do the same thing. Yeah, motion se
quote:
> You could have a horse or a magical dragon to ride, that would speed
> things up. Or you could inexplicably be given a magical flute that
> transports you around.
Ack! Now I have to learn to ride a horse and play the flute!? ;) I just
want to whack bad guys, not "learn" something ;)
| |
| Jacob Oost 2005-03-25, 6:21 pm |
| Doug Jacobs wrote:
quote:
> I've seen some pretty impressive camera-based things in the arcades
> though. There's a boxing game and a light-gun game. In the boxing game,
> you can move around on a small pad, but you can duck punch and defend like
> a real boxer. Your actions are then translated to your onscreen character.
>
In reality though a system like that is rather simplistic. The computer
isn't as "smart" as it seems to be.
quote:
> So, you'd tip your forward to move forward? I guess that could work.
> Naw, holodecks are way too dangerous and raise way too many ethical/moral
> questions.
>
Huh? No, in a holodeck you walk forward and the entire simulated world
moves, and the forcefield under your feet moves under you as well. The
whole ground wouldn't need to be simulated, just the part under you.
One thing they never explained on Star Trek was how multiple people
could be in a holodeck at the same time and be farther away from
eachother than the confines of the holodeck would allow. Those things
are the size of racketball courts and yet some holodeck simulations are
outdoors, with people miles away from eachother. I guess I should
repeat to myself "It's just a show, and I should really just relax."
quote:
> Ack! Now I have to learn to ride a horse and play the flute!? ;) I just
> want to whack bad guys, not "learn" something ;)
Nah, it would be easier than in real life. Riding a horse would be as
smooth as riding in a car in the VR world, whereas in real life, riding
a horse even at a slow pace is like sitting on a broken washing machine.
--
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version 3.1
GAT d? !s !a C++++ UL+ P L++ E- W+ N+ o-- K- w--
O- !M !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP- t++>++++* 5? !X-- R- tv b++ DI+ D++
G e !h !r !y
...... END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----
| |
| NemaLive 2005-03-30, 8:13 pm |
| I think that new sid game pirates(or what eva its called) is a move in the
right direction as well GTA/Morrowind type games they r just the tip of the
iceberg for these genres
"Conor" <Conor@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7C0D9C4F-6AFC-4F93-A88D-637A5F2982DE@microsoft.com...
quote:
> I agree with what's been said here about too much of the same type of
games,
quote:
> and I think the bandwagon thing is strangling game production.
>
> What's needed are some new genres, as well as new games.
> There are several videogame frameworks, and almost all games are made
> according to these guidelines of play style, genre etc.
> I'd like to see it shaken up more, see companies trying to create new
> genres, because it's folly to think they can mine the current ones
forever.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> "Adam McCann" wrote:
>
|
| |
|
|