RawDec 26th, 2007 - 11:59:59

Quote: According to the professor, a marked increase in the power of gaming chips will usher in the launch of a 'whole new generation of computer games.'

You don't say! ...a bit of a pointless article. As a games developer myself, we are not being held back by the current line of processors, we are held back by the constant changing of hardware and immature development tools.

Report this comment

XXXMonkeyDec 26th, 2007 - 12:04:07

'silicon processors'

Report this comment

eepsterDec 26th, 2007 - 13:07:02

it would be cool for some games to be more realistic, but some games are known to be popular for their unrealistic qualities. how boring would a game be if we had to catch our breath after tackling a particularly long flight of stairs? or be blinded by a low setting sun in a driving game?

i think the realism that most gamers crave are graphical realism, and AI for bad guys. would it necessarily be a good thing? now we can blow people away in a nice realistic setting? make like a john woo charater as we shoot someone in the face, sending an eyeball flying across the screen? maybe it's cooler now cos we've got nice detailed wallpaper in the background, and chairs that fall over realistically. maybe each bad guy comes with complete internal organs, which we can model. the halls would be filled with bits of colon, lungs, speens.

AI can be improved drastically. bad guys can use cover, work in teams. of course, they can already do that. but wouldn't it be more satisfyig if we can slash their throat while they're having a cigarette, on the loo, or checking if they've stepped in dog poo? will they beg, or take it like a man?

maybe their reactions will be so realistic, you may wander over, have a chat, make him a friend. but we all know you'll be heading over to the blonde, wondering if they programmed her with any 'moves'.

the recent controversy involving the manhunt game raised questions which have been debated for years now. back then, graphics and immersion were not been particularly exciting. but now, it is heading now towards photorealism, and seems closer than ever. i think it is time for gamers to consider their impact, just like film makers consider their impact. just like it is not a nice thing to have a game that is racist or homophobic in tone, we would have to consider if these same values should translate into games. games will need more consideration, as they often lack the narrative, or moral suggestions that films have which often covert uncomfortable films into statements. games provide you with the environment, and a choice of tools, but it is your own emotions which drive the action. films encourage you to empathise, but games encourage you to act.

the end.

Report this comment

Mat BettinsonDec 26th, 2007 - 13:56:00

It's all very well saying it's technology that's holding games back but if you actually talk to anyone in the games industry they'll tell you the reality of the situation. That is that it's actually our ability to generate the large amounts of detailed content for high-definition computer games.

Sure the current crop of consoles could use some more storage, memory and a bit of graphics fill rate. But the real difference between one title and another comes down to software.

I'm not surprised an electronics spod doesn't get it. From his perspective the thing that's missing is the ability to render light 100% correctly and so on. However that's not really the problem. It's having the man-power, or more accurately being able to utilise the man power you have - such as people working in parallel - to be able to define the values of those ultra realistic graphics. Game developers are having significant trouble with this alone.

Report this comment

RorkimaruDec 26th, 2007 - 16:03:02

the only way to have the imersive realisim that thease scientists want is in VR situations. i still dont think the market is ready for that. in 10 years i think home VR consoles will be on sale and services like second life and sony's Home will be more common ways of social interaction.

games are still getting more interactive, realistic and imersive. people are often saying that they expected games to be like real life by now because of where they were 5 years ago. modern improvements in games highlight how much further off real life we were back then. in the future games like uncharted: drakes fortune and assassin's creed will look like the triangular breasts of the first tomb raider game

Report this comment

internationaltechyDec 26th, 2007 - 16:34:32

God, what a silly article.

If you had a console with a 3GHz quad core and SLI graphics, 4GB+ of fast memory and raptor based hard drive - you wouldn't see many 'limited' games. The fact is, there is only so many man hours + resources you can put into a game. While most PC's don't have that kind of power and consoles don't even come close, you aren't going to see games developers take advantage of that kind of power.

Adding to that, the more power you have, the easier it is to program sloppy games. To do it right and fully take advantage of 4 cores and 2 graphics cards (or more) is just incredibly difficult. I think that it is more the software development world that needs to catch up with hardware advances (along with a higher saturation of the latest and greatest tech to make it worth their while).

Even then, go play a Wii and suddenly the latest and greatest graphics suddenly don't matter much (to me at least). There is far more to gaming than just raw power of the technology that runs it.

Report this comment

David MakinDec 26th, 2007 - 17:00:23

Just to add my agreement to the argument regarding it being the software support that's holding things back.
Then to add that, as someone else briefly mentioned, to a degree an increase in processing power would partially overcome that problem since it would mean that less able or lazier programmers (who can't optimise properly, or can't be bothered) would be able to produce better games than they do at the moment :D

Report this comment

Gabriel ScindianDec 27th, 2007 - 03:21:01

The purpose of the article was not only to say silicon based chips have reached there cap, but to also inform everyone that other measures are being taken to create something to supersede what is available today. Be it a super chip or a quantum based chip, it is still good information to know.

Crysis the game in all its glory still can not run with all the settings turned up on these computers even with nvidias new triple sli. We still have a ways to go people.

Report this comment

AMFYDec 27th, 2007 - 19:02:52

We who have been here from the start and have not been sucked into the fads. We who have tried alternatives to the normal and popular, predict the next true generation will be based on an optical core with independant sub-processing units for the interfaces (drives, screens, audio etc) such sub-processors will have their own command set (hardware or software) and memory (expandable) which will be faster because the main CPU is only calling functions. We predict the core software will be based on a micro kernal which loads only required commands for the game or program to function (not trying to do a hundred non-related things in the background). Optimizing the hardware useage time is the way forward not trying to accomodate an out of date methodology just because it is popular.
Speed comes when you think outside the restrictions of the mind-set of those who would make a profit from old technology and sustain the unsustainable. I think for us gamers the gameplay is more important than the realism I often pull out an old machine and have a few hours on an old favorite just because it plays well (even text based adventures sometimes!) I have been on many current machines and most of them try too hard to please all the people all the time. I will wait and see, just like you all. Have fun :-)

Report this comment

bertyDec 27th, 2007 - 19:05:17

Battery life sucks on everything. 3 hours on a laptop, that was the same 7 years ago

Report this comment