'Next gen games will be too expensive to make...'

What do you think?

I think its nonsense, but lets see what you guys think...

 

Thats crap.
Games would only be expensive depending on who is behind the projects. The current fad at the moment is in Japan where they getting film-writers and directors to develop the storyline for the game.
If this was in America then it'll get expensive. Imagine a game written by Micheal (Pearl harbour) Bay? It'll cost like £100 just to sell at retail.
In Japan, there are so many games out there developed by independant comapnies and sell for like £5, game lasts for about a week or something.
Expensive to make? Depends on the people behind it.

 

i know they definately won't be as expensive as what we buy them for.

 

Not really -
back in the old days computer games was a cotage industry - one guy came up with the concept, wrote the manual, did the graphics, coded the thing.

Modern games are very modular..
You pick a physics engine,
Graphics engine, sound engine... etc. etc..
Development tools make it all very fast (look at the MOD communities out there)..

If anything, its getting easier..

 

I think the most expensive thing is for us gamers to keep our computers fast enough to run them.

 

A tiny bit off topic..

I saw some screens of some next gen ps2 titles and i know they're in development but the graphics were similar to the xbox games out there...

you think sony might want to get rid of the fact that their graphics are at the lowest end of the scale but... jeez.

Although, it could be that graphics have come to a point where next gen doesn't exactly mean "knock your socks off graphics"

 

Screw graphics, bring back the playability.

Perfect Dark - perfect shooter.

 

I know that there are massive graphical expectations these days, but is it not possible to create a good playable game???

That is - emphasis on the game (goal, tactics, ability to catch the imagination) over the attempts to push the boundaries of the machines that are out in the market. Tetris was not exactly rocket science - but talk about playability...

It should not be too expensive to make - it all depends on who is marketing it and what they are trying to prove. (IMHO)

Edit: Adam - you typed yours quicker than I typed mine

 

new-gen is up for debate as to what it is, visually we have almost hit the top of the scale. Sports games are nearly photo-realistic and i dont think we should make photo-realistic games cause it crosses to far into reality. As for the playability of games, i agree.

i like how GTA games constantly push the envelope(besides mature content) on what you can do in a video game with their blend of RPG, Action, and sim.

nex-gen games i think should add more functional things like the light gun and dance pads, things that require more than just a controller.

as for expense i dont think it will go up to $100 american for games but at least $60 for some. the new dual layer and holographic (www.optware.com) technologies make the discs really expensive. the programming facilitates itself, as graphics improve so do the tools to make the graphics ect.

Systems however i think are another story and will probably start at $500 or $400 and also feature hard drives, and online browsers. Consles are becoming more like PC's.

 

I think it is better if they develop a "Do it yourself Matrix kit" where you drill a hole in the back of your head and directly put yourself into the virtual game world, just imagine doing that with GTA or Tetris!

 

u do that and tell me what happens

actually thats a stupid idea cause we need to keep video games reasonably seperate from reality. part of the reason people are so mad about violent games (besides their liberalness) is that they are becoming so realistic. when you act out a shoooting in a game you become desensitized to it in reality. so if you shoot a photo-realistic M4 carbine at a photo-realistic Bush and then run in a real looking helicopter, it becomes alot more plausable.

 

I agree! Gameplay gets lost in all the fancy graphics. Not that there that fancy, I've got an XBox and thats years behind my PC. All this NexGen stuff is still being held behind due to cost, the XBox could have been 10 times better easily but it would have cost a £1000 instead of £100.

 

I think it is possible to have both - gameplay and graphics. In fact, if carefully designed these two factors can be combined to make a great game, it is just that the game developer needs to be more... creative. I mean, even when the next gen console came out, what will really happen? A lot of games would only be the one that existed today with more realistic graphics. Another fact is, a game doesn't have to be realistic to be "good", you can never "do" tetris in real life can ya? So I say game developers need to be creative, and not to always put realistic stuff into the "game".

 

Exactly, doom 3 became a dissapointment after 4 levels of alpha and delta labs and the same rooms all over again

Half life 2 will change that I hope as it did with HL1

|Cain|

 

I'm paying $50 for a new XBox or Playstation game. 10 years ago I was paying $70 for a new Sega Genesis game.

As long as the prices keep dropping, I don't care how expensive they are to make.

 

Modularity is good, but its EXPENSIVE. the next unreal3.0 warefare engine will cost hundreds of thousands to license and then royalties on top. Then you have to pay for support AND figure out how to use it.

we havent even got close yet, this is an illusion because we are starting to trust graphics...but there arent anywher near photorealistic. Thats just a buzzword.

As for gameplay vs. technology. The line is getting blurred. Halflife 2 for example uses a very advanced version of havok physics engine, which improves both visuals and playability(gravity gun, barrackading doors etc). There are many instances where graphics technology has been utilised to improve playabilty...depends on the developers. Players leaving foot prints behind, mirrors, fog etc can all add gameplay dynamics. You cant just seperate gameplay and graphics that easily anymore. I didnt even mention immersion.

The arguement is as follows. Imagine you make doom1, a few boxes here and there and you have a level.

The nextgen unreal engine can display levels with the equivalent of millions of polys (it doesnt actually display millions of polys since it uses normal maps but the high poly model still has to be created)...how long would this take to create?a yonk.

 

Actually the title is a bit wrong.

The argument is that they will be too expensive for small companies to compete.

 

Teh next gen games will be amde when the technology allows them to be made cost-effectively. That is, Bill Gates could invest a billion dollars to create the most amazing game ever, but it owuld have to sell for $500 each to make money. That isn't going to happen. So, that "next gen" is not here yet.

"immersion" is one aspect of gameplay, and is almost compeltely based on graphics and sound.

other aspects of gameplay are not. such as AI, or strategy, an engaging story line, or the game's ability to react to player actions (open-ended etc).

If a game offerd intersting strategic challenges, an interesting story, and realistic AI's that reacted to my actions, it might not need graphics or sound at all! Zork anyone! LOL

 

But the creation will be automated to a large extent... autopopulation of objects , enemies and puzzles.

 

I must agree with New Guy that a game can hold both graphics and gameplay. And i think there are some games out there who hold both. Metal Gear Solid 2 (hopefully the third too), ++ the new FF games got pretty good graphs and decent gameplay.