CC

Just having thoughts on what games are going to be like in several years.

Obviously better graphics/sound.

I cant see a big future for essentially linear games such as Medal Of Honor...I played it, yes it looked nice, but it was so linear and pre-determind that I found it boring.

I think games will become more and more online based with completely 3 dimensional playing environments that you are free to roam within; such as the Delta Force series, Operation Flashpoint. Playing games with set routes is very boring imo and does nothing to progress the genre. Also, I find computer AI is very limited, after entensive online gaming.

Also, driving games such as Colin McRae alreadly have spot on gameplay, so how far can they actually go? OK, graphics can improve, but once graphics become photorealistic, what then?

super_si

my uni's researching something called VR cave!You can search for it on google.

look at games progression nothing new has come out really since alex the kid on the Master system to be fair!

VR racing just progressed into games such as GT3,Sega rally, MGS id say was a break through with multiple ending etc due to options in game

DazV

I think with the added processor power we'll be getting, all the usual components will be afforded more resources, eg...

-More advanced AI
-More realistic Physics Modelling
-More advanced 3D graphics
-More bandwidth for internet based resources (eg client/server prediction, etc..)

Further on, you'll probably also see the death of the 3D accelerator card, with those functions being incorporated into the host CPU.

It would be nice to see a move away from the conventional 2D display screen too, to something a little more 3D like a proper headset, but I think that'll be a while off yet due to the health implications on the eyes, nausea, etc...

I disagree on the online aspect - I think that'll be a 50/50 split. Some people will want it, others not. Unreal2 is a good example of this. They've decided to drop multi-player from it altogether and focus on the single player game. Another game, Unreal Tournament 2 will deal with multiplayer only.


[Edited by DazV - 3/17/2002 8:24:51 PM]

dsmith

I think the split of Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2 is another sign of the difference between on-line joint gaming and the single player game. The only thing they have in common is the graphics engine.

I am constantly amazed at the appeal (to me) that Counter-Strike maintains. The gamplay is simple. The maps are not that large. The graphics engine shows it age. And yet because of the human aspect its a different game every time.

I struggle to concentrate/enjoy on singleplayer games now. I thought Max Payne was very very linear. Ghost Recon was visually superb but I ended up running all over the place as a sniper rather than spend time organsing my squad. I couldn't see what the fuss was about with RTCW at all.

As there is more processor power available I'm sure the AI will improve so that it can genuinely feel like an on-line game with just the computer - and yet - you can't abuse/take the **** ot of/ swear at an AI opponent the way you can with other Humans. For me the difference is huge.

in 10 years time - I can't wait to be playing similair games to Counter-Strike in photo realistic environments with everyone looking like their human selves, in full 3d and with maybe some sort of Pain actuators to enhance the experience.

Hang on - thats paintball

Deano

super_si

Well AI i suppose is in its early days as for CPU power i find that ridiculos!

3d cards are made to take pressure off the cpus!!

I think there all gona end up being pcs! but with a set spec n upgrades about

Si

DazV

Si, at the moment 3D cards DO take the strain off the cpu, but they won't be needed 5 years or more from now. The CPU will handle all that with power to spare. In fact you're already seeing this theory in its infancy - 3D functionality in the CPUS of today, like AMD "3DNow" and Pentium "SSE" or whatver its called.

Don't take my word for it - John Carmack mentioned it (Creator of Quake)

super_si

Look at p4's running 2Ghz im sure that having a cards ALWAYS going to take it off, AMD 3ds alrady gone they've got those new ones!

CPU powers nothing, we cant see the differece, If we sat down with a 1000 mhz 2k Mhz i bet you couldnt tell me which was which without knowing already!

Si

DazV

Si, don't mean to offend - could you repeat that, with a little grammar perhaps ?

-DV

[Edited by DazV - 3/18/2002 3:30:07 PM]

Dream Weaver

I'm also not sure about the online gaming thing. Sure, it must be good to have online battles, and the idea of trading cars in GT4 or GT5 and other driving games is great.

But.... The UK has a long way to go yet with internet connections, broadband etc before online gaming becomes the be all and end all.

I am desparate to play CS over the net, but with my 115kb AOL connection it is too slow, and if there is one thing I hate in games it is slowdown or lag. Unfortunately broadband is not available where I live so I have no option. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

I am looking forward to gaming in the future though, I just wish they could get the games to play better. GT3 is great, but it still has the niggles there that I complained about in GT1.

As for PC games, they are a bit of a pain to setup, and they usually crash on my system.

DW

super_si

Sorry was in a rush and the keyboard was broke....

If i places 2 pcs in front of you, a P3 and P4 id be willing to bet you wouldnt notice processing power, its so minute!

3d acceleration will help bring things along i mean MMX and 3D AMD had has long since departed the market

DazV

si, your wrong on both counts.

3DNOW / SSE is incorportated into every AMD and Intel CPU on the market today. AMD now call it 3DNOW Professional and Intel still calls it SSE.

Now, for your 2nd point - I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at...

Beyond the next 5 years, CPU performance will be in such abundance, that your Pentium (or AMD) will be powerful enough to do away with a 3D Card and revert back to running a software renderer in conjunction with the CPUs enhanced SSE instruction set.

...So, to get back to your point and compare a 1GHz processor to a 2GHz processor - nobody will be running them in 5-10years time, so its irrelevant, but out of interest though, if you did run a software renderer on a 1GHz machine and compared it to a 2GHz machine, there would STILL be a BIG difference. A 2GHz cpu will chomp through geometry and do the math a hell of a lot quicker than a 1GHz!

-DV



[Edited by DazV - 3/18/2002 9:32:32 PM]

dsmith

DW - Agree to an extent re: broadbandonadon-linegaming.

I play C/S on a 64K isdn with very ver few problems. However I would say you can beging to see it struggle on a very ful verybisy server. So to play games that require more bandwidth will require more home broadband connections.

Its not just the home end which needs upgrading though, many internet sites still have very small bandwidth - if you compare against mutiple users all using cable modems or ADSL.

Hopefully in 10 years ADSL will be a long forgotten flash in the pan and we'll all have decent broadband connections no matter how far out in the sticks we live

Deano

DavidRB

Daz, I disagree. Intel & AMD want you to believe that the CPU alone can do everything so the punters will buy the latest and greatest CPUs. The fact remains that a Terahertz processor with a graphics accelerator will still look better than one without. Plus, in the long run, a low-end processor with an accelerator is both better and cheaper than a high-end processor without an accelerator, it's just that Intel & AMD want you to think that CPU power is the be-all and end-all.

In fact, Intel are bucking the trends in computers by pushing everything onto one all-powerful chip. Most of the really powerful work is done by multi-processor or multi-server arrays.

Saying we'll have enough CPU power to everything in 10 years time is like saying 640K will be enough RAM for everyone. Each time there is more power available, someone finds something to do with it.

Dream Weaver

super_si - I guess you are at the Uni of Teesside then?

I was there 1992 to 1996. Great uni, and even back then we had the leading computer and technology school.

Oh how I miss the Dickens Inn, Madisons, the town and Roy's Coffee Shop.

DW

super_si

Im at Newcastle Upon Tyne alot better!

Teesides visual graphics etc

fast bloke

I'm with DavidRB on this. I remember the first 486 SX16's with a 100 Meg hard disc. Most people were going - wow - you will never need all that processing power and storage

DazV

Quote from Tim Sweeney, 3D programming god of Unreal and Unreal Tournament:

Question -- I believe you previously mentioned that at some point in time, when machines are fast enough, developers will go back to software rasterization. Do you still believe this? What order of magnitude performance increase from current machines will be needed to switch back to a software rasterization scheme. Will the CPU need many more instructions to support this? What other performance factors of a system will have to increase(bus speeds, memory latency, etc...)?

Tim -- A return to software rendering appears inevitable at some point -- an unavoidable consequence of the technology, but it could easily be 10 years before chips grow so fast that a CPU is able to fulfill all your rendering needs as well, from a user's point of view, as a 3D card.

-DV

DazV

fastbloke, how can you possibly make a generalisation like that ? The CPU market of today doesn't remotely resemble what is was back then.

Ok, lets work off Moore's Law (CoFounder of Intel) who says processor power will double every 18 months...

With that in mind, fast forward from March 2002 with the 2.2GHz intel to March 2011 and you'll be playing Quake 9 on your 140GHz CPU with its billion transistors.

Are you getting the picture now ?

[Edited by DazV - 3/19/2002 3:44:06 PM]

Mo

Surely Moore's Law wont always apply?

DazV

They say Moore's Law will apply for AT least the next ten years, then we'll run into barriers will the limitations of lightwaves (which are used to print circuits), then things will slow down from 18months to 3 years.



[Edited by DazV - 3/19/2002 4:02:20 PM]

[Edited by DazV - 3/19/2002 4:07:37 PM]

DavidRB

Regardless of how fast Moore's Law (more correctly, Moore's "Observation" ) runs, a computer with two CPUs (whether they are two Intel CPUs or one Intel CPU & one graphics accelerator) will always be faster than a computer with only one CPU.

DazV

DavidRB, most people (even Mr Moore's company, Intel) commonly identify it as "Moore's Law" so we'll leave it at that...

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly. Your theory works fine for todays machines. A complimentary 3D card WILL obviously help out the CPU.

In the future though (10years from now), if a game needed X ammount of CPU performance to let it run fully at say 60fps 1920x1600x64 resolution, and your typical consumer CPU (140GHz)offered several times that level of performance, there is NO NEED to bring in a 3D card to help out the cpu.

-DV

[Edited by DazV - 3/19/2002 7:38:16 PM]

fast bloke

Daz - If this is indeed the case then you are implying that there will be no need for any further hardware development? This seems to be the implication, unless the software chaps do their thing and use all the processor power available, in which case a spare processor somewhere would probably help out. I am not stating that this is how it will happen, but you seem to be taking a rather blinkered view?

DavidRB

Daz, I think, perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly. Moore's Law isn't a law (like Newton's laws of motion) - it's a prediction about what device physicists and process engineers can achieve.

Regardless of this, Moore's Law says nothing about computers becoming more powerful than the software writers. Moore's Law is nearly forty years old and in that time there has never been a time where nobody could think of something to do with "all that computing power", so why would it change in the future?

Like fast_bloke, I believe your theory works fine for today's games. Are you seriously telling me that a further ten years of development will only see a 25% increase in resolution and a doubling in colour-depth??? In ten years time, I plan to be playing games on a ten-foot high wrap-around 20 million pixel x 17 million pixel screen. And that's when I'm not using a virtual-reality headset. Games of the future will have millions of semi-sentient artificially-intelligent "bots" (for want of a better word) capable of audio-driven free-speech processing, driving a 3-degree of freedom hydraulic chair while at the same time maintaining a real-time link with every other player on the planet.

Everything in the history of computers shows that if a computer offers X amount of CPU power, then someone will write a piece of software that requires X+1 amount to run smoothly. It's all amount inventiveness and realising what you can do with the extra horsepower. Look at the step change that occurred when Steve Jobs & Steve Wosniak realised that all those ones & zeroes could represent.

I will be very surprised if we ever see computers that are more powerful than our total software needs.

fast bloke

David - If you are planning a group buy for the screen put me down for one.... and a chair as well if you don't mind

P1Fanatic

LOL fb!

DavidRB

Sign up here.

DazV

I know Moore's Law isn't a law, hehe! I'm simply describing it they way 99% of people (including Mr Moore and Intel) describe it!

Sod's Law = Sodds Observation in your book ?

And yes, I have no idea what res we'll be using in 10 years, and that was an obvious example, heh!.

My "blinkered view" is also shared by John Carmack and Tim Sweeney who'd I'd desribe as an authority on 3D games programming - that a 3D card will simply become obsolete and simply swalled up inside the instruction set of the CPU, just like the integrated memory controllers , etc, already are on the new spec Intels and AMDs.

-DV

fast bloke

OK - We can all meet up in 2012 to see who was right

DazV

Hehe, yeah - I'll bring my Zimmer Frame! Funny thing is fast bloke is that 10 years ago from now, I probably had big dreams as to how FANTASTIC video game would be NOW.

Bit of a let down really - I thought I'd have my virtua helmet, and romper suit a la lawnmower man! Instead I'm stuck with a PC that constantly needs driver updates to get the bloomin games to work!! Hows that for evolution?

I wonder if games will CRASH more spectacularly in 10 years ? I wonder what the NEW blue screen of death will be ?

Talking of such things, I had to laugh today when putting together a new Pentium 4 system when the motherboard came with a disclaimer saying DON'T ATTEMPT TO FIT AN AGP2X CARD - IT MAY BE DESTROYED AS A RESULT - This motherboard requires AGP4X only!!