NooBTooB Forum

I would crap in my pants if Microsoft put out a starcraft 2 with a mouse and keyboard package, that would be like the friggan coolest thing ever. Long live the Dark Templare

I personally think the next 'big' thing will be Spore. But specifically, games with user generated content that automatically show up in your game via an online network, despite the game being a single player game.

Spore is also going to shake the totem poles of gaming. If it explodes like the Sims 2 did then we may see other companies trying to emulate spore. They are mixing like 7 genres of gaming into one game. So yeah, cross genre titles with user generated content.

I think the next biggest if it was to come out big arrows towards WAS if they made helmets that show where your character is heading so if you see a enemy you can aim your controller (especially with the wii) lock, load and shoot the crap out of your enemy. If they did that wow I would be hooked to shooters.

Kingman

therealfirestarter said:

I think the next big game thing on:

Computers: Would be FPS-RTS (First-person shooter + Real time strategy = Freakin Sweet)

Console: I personally think that since the blue-ray holds a lot more data then dvd, more games like - Oblivion will become the next big thing. Since Oblivion is huge and stuff on a single dvd imagine a game like it, only expanded 5-10 time bigger. Talk about life destroyers :lol:

Anyways Cya

Ehhhh I really want to post more but most work, yet I have to say this real quick.

I really hope consoles don't go in that direction completely. It's that kind of we have to give them a story, or a single player mode mentality that needs to be lifted. Space is great, but I like Shadowruns idea which is to be JUST an online game. Think like this... how much crap space is wasted on single player mode in games where a good amount of people only play multi-player and vice-versa. There needs to be a split in how games are manufactured for there to be a REAL big design change. Meaning market to the audience, There are many casual gamers that want awesome single player games but see multiplayer as more of an extra. There are harcore gamers that die for the online competitveness. Use a disc for each. Hell, use 4 for all I care! FF7 was 4 when it came out... CD's but still... we didn't care. No online play, but we didn't care. It was well thought out, rivoting and eye candy (for the time). We need that.

I want a DVD full of multi-player goodness and not bundled with some story; which is often lame or horribly written anyways. To further it, I don't see why I need blu-ray in a multiplayer game. If there is a team that can make a game to fill that great... but wow. Figure in with multiplayer that you only need bare minimum mechanics on the DVD you have plenty of room. You need all the art files, the mesh's and maps and what not. You need the level and all information needed stored on it. And you need any executable files as well as coding that may be called upon frequently during gameplay to lessen the server load. Why lessen the server code? Because things like spawning of monsters and interactive enviroments and ambience should all be on the server as well as a database of any needed player stats/inventory/achievements. This would easily make enough room for the a truly awesome game. Wow is a perfect example. Now just imagne the quests being gone, no need for leveling up, relatively the same trade skill system or one mimicing it very closely. What you would have is a game that would be almost completely player contributed. You could have houses, cars, and whatever else you wanted in there that could all be owned by players. Every house could be destructible, but that would really take away from the size unless you had blu-ray... but thats some years away and completely straying from my point. You could have alot of interactive enviroments, buildings that were scarred from battle or even demolished just by adding a lifebar with mucho HP and damage reduction. That way say a player weilding a normal knife would be able to take down a building because it would have damage reduct.

Essentially you could take away the PVE of multiplayer, and save space of those annoying critters running around aimless. The occasional animal for flair and simple X-factor would work, no need for hordes of useless weenies getting in the way. So I guess that means we could just throw in some more plants and buildings that could be blown to hell... or more items. To replace leveling, simply add tons of items. you stop wasting time on lines of codes dictacting rules to make sure the classes and races and all that other jazz start using that time putting tens of thousands useable weapons. Essentially they all say the same thing in computer talk. This is a ranged weapon/melee weapon, it has a range of this many pixels or in game feet, it does this much damage, it has a rate of fire = x. Throw some art on it and... poof you have an arsenal.

I really don't see why this is improbable and not available atm. WoW does it, EQ2 does it, Starwars Galaxies did it. They just focused on coding things to make it painfully slow and boring to take our hard earned money more effeciently. What they haven't quite figured out is that if you have a rotation of 50,000 weapons, great abilites/powers, and an interactive enviroment that has things happen even if only temporarily (i.e the blown up building respawns but only say after a week in real time) they wouldn't need to do that. What aggravates me is I know it can be done. I have seen how coding works, I have seen how games are developed, they just aren't doing it.

On the flip side I would be just as okay to have an epic size game for single player/co-op online but not massively. I don't need every game to be some huge immersive PVP place. Just don't give me a damn disc with both. Give me 2 discs if you want to do that one for each.

Grrrr dam work... I will be back to talk about more of this stuff.

2 words: dating sims

Digital distribution of games instead of going to the store to buy a plasic disk, and popping it into the disk drive.

silverbullet1080 said:

Digital distribution of games instead of going to the store to buy a plasic disk, and popping it into the disk drive.

I think that's definitely true, and for a different reason than you might think.

If I go to a store and buy a game, I can resell it to someone else.

If I get a digital copy, I'm not able to sell it to anyone.

Which would you prefer if you were a game company?

I'm not a huge fan of digital distribution, either. Besides the resale problem mentioned above, it's got other drawbacks:
* I can't take a game over to a friend's house or let him borrow it
* If I get a new piece of hardware, with a game I physically purchased I can just put it in there and it will work. No need to deal with transferring it, getting new rights, worrying if the company that sold it is still in business, etc.
* I like being able to look at a shelf and pick something out.

I've got the same issues with music and movies, too. I still download a lot of music, but I vastly prefer going to a good music store, flipping through the albums, and taking home something physical. I'm a fan of the tangible.[/list]

Sunflower4000 said:

But yknow, I thought this was about the next big thing gameplay-wise :)

Well said. 8)

So last time I wrote I said I would like to tell you what I thought about the next single player hit gameplay wise. I think the big change there would be in fact changing it to the ideal it's single player. As Yuzo and Tobin have stated they love it and I think alot of people agree that seamless co-op is a big deal. So basically I think I should have stated that rather than talk about single player, I talk about how single player is really nothing more than multi-player by yourself. Basically, taking the meaning of multiplayer and single player idea and turn those into online and offline play.

It would be so awesome if you went over your buddies house to grab him for some activity other than video games and he keeps saying "Dude, just a minute I need to finish this level.". Rather than wait for his sorry ass to die at the boss at the end of the level; you grab a controller and speed things up. There's a million reasons why this HAS to be the next big thing. Changes the way we game. No matter the type of game, it has to be that way, unless the game is specifcally designed for a real reason not to be. The only reason I can think of is that for some reason the game loads differently for one player, but then you could just make it check for more players every level.

I digress... peace.

sir synth said:

ergh no thank you, i realy dont like the whole digi selling crap. i would much prefere to go to a shop with real money i have earnt and actualy buy a new game with a cool picture on the front which i can actually hold and smile as i walk to the counter give my real money to the lady behind the counter smiled and walk away with the reciept and the game. get home and stare at the lovley colours on the back of the disc. digi seeling..u cant do any of this!

:shock:

Well the good thing about steam is that you can still buy the physical media and just register it with steam so then you have both a digital back up and physical media on hand. If I can find a game on steam in the store I will buy it in the store and be happy because I dont need to worry about that damn Key after i register it the first time within steam. Plus my computer desk is not very big so I dont want media all over the place (the bills are bad enough)

Plus with the online distro method smaller games can get out there to the mass market without a publisher having to invest alot into the distobution only to find out it was not welcomed by the public.