Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
How different is the gameplay in Unreal? Isn't it basically the same?
Isn't Team Fortress the Counterstrike mod just the same basic gameplay with some gameplay enhancements but mostly better graphics?
|
Pretty much, but when you compare
UT to something like
Fallout 3 (both top-rated games for their respective times), you see a host of gameplay differences. Even when you compare
Fallout (1997) to
Fallout 3, you see differences.
Fallout was about the same time period in gaming as
UT.
These are all games that are great for their time, but the difference in gaming experience is marked. I'm not just talking about control patterns, weapons, and whether they're in 3D. I'm also talking about the overall gaming experience: world immersion, how the world/characters respond to your inputs, the overall "feel" to the movement and controls. You can't say that the gameplay package in this respect hasn't changed much since the late nineties. Maybe we're reaching a plateau. Is that what you're suggesting? Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Maybe the next big innovators are working to spring the next big thing on us.
Quote:
|
I'm not so sold on the game play department changing all that much. Driving games are still driving games, with some tweaks and changes. You get something radical like Burnout that turns that on it's head, but it's still a driving game.
|
This is partly true. I remember playing the first ever
Test Drive (1987) and
Need for Speed (1994). Driving is driving, yes, but you can't say the original
Need for Speed is anything like
Need for Speed: Underground or any of the games thereafter. The biggest differences in those games are gameplay related (read: they're more immersive).
Quote:
|
The reason I believe that is that there is too much at stake. Games cost millions for development. No one wants to risk too much to make such a game changing paradigm.
|
Of course there is much at stake. But what makes more sense: innovating in an industry fuelled by innovation, or copying some other successful model where other copycats failed fairly miserably? It depends, doesn't it? Some companies don't mind reinventing the wheel and making money at it. However, others would prefer to take those risks and come up with the next big thing. It's only a matter of time.
Quote:
Also, WoW has so many different aspects of it as far as gameplay is concerned. As I looked over a list of MMOs, while LOTR is on the top, I found it boring to play.
There are so many different ways to play WoW. Some of the friends that I know like to play the quests. They make character after character and do the quest lines. Others like to PvP. Others like gather mats, make goods and, to play the auction house. Some like to play the end content, and others like to be the best of the best and race to be the first to complete the end content.
|
And this is why WoW has had so much lasting power. Much of this was enabled by changes in the technology and distribution of gaming. But I can't see how this will last forever.
Maybe we have hit a bit of a plateau in terms of gameplay, but I refuse to believe it will last for long. I've been gaming since the Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 (maybe you have too). I was there when the Sega Genesis "blew the doors off of" the NES with its 16-bit graphics. With each hardware innovation comes a new generation of games made possible by better hardware capabilities.
It can be said that even hardware improvements are plateauing. Maybe they are, but there is still some room to move. We're just now heading into quad-core mainstream acceptance (and the multiple cores will only become stacked: octo-core anyone?). This opens up new opportunities for game developers to make smarter games in ways that were virtually impossible before: high graphics, highly interactive world environments, and high artificial intelligence all at once.
This begs for the next generation of gameplay innovations.