I didn't know how much better they could get, but I certainly never expected to have to austically research every fucking publisher and developer to see who supports my extinction.
I have a dream that someday there would be a fully AI-based procedurally generated open world RPG. From crafting a main quest down to "oh, shit, I didn't expect you to try to break into this rando's house, I guess I need to generate a floorplan map and residents and their personalities and their schedules and their jobs and life stories and friends and extended family and where those people might live in the world and and and and..."
Like playing, in real time, a tabletop RPG where the GM was literally making it all up on the fly.
I thought we would have far more dynamic worlds with complex systems of simulations being developed and carried over game to game. We got generally OK rigid body physics and that's about it. No large-scale finite element sims, not much dynamic simulations - everything is just scripted and shit out in a linear movie.
Also, I believed we would be solidly into the real-time raytracing realm by 2020.
Neural networks have come a long ways but game AI is still Lua scripts written by unpaid interns.
Mainstream gaming AI is one of the biggest disappointments. Not only have they not truly advanced in any significant way, but devs actually seem to be putting less effort into tweaking them to at least superficially look less pants-on-head retarded.
I remember the fake ad for the ps6, I think it was a sphere. And the guy put his fingers in it (heh) and presumably the entire game was within his own mind. Looked fun
Me, I thought things like VR would be much more prominent at this point.
I think for the most part what I thought could reasonably be accomplished with a video game system was accomplished with the PS2, so everything else since then has just been gravy. GTA San Andreas was basically what I expected video games of the future to be.
I had hoped loading times would be eliminated though, but that doesn't look like it's happening any time soon. Every time we make a faster storage medium it seems like developers find a way to make it slow as shit.
Honestly, they look pretty much exactly as I expected them to look. All you have to do see what videogames are gonna look like 10-20 years into the future is look at TV/Movie CG and it's gonna look something like that with some slightly different lighting calculations.
You can take moore's law, take the approximate specs of a render farm and the render time for CG movie, ask 'how many doublings in processing power do we need to do this in realtime?', and that's how many years into the future of videogame graphics you're looking.
I'm not sure I was thinking about what future video games would look like. I really can't think of anything more than thinking a year or two ahead to something that was already in the works. I remember friends talking about how many triangles the not-yet-released PS2 could render or something, but even that just didn't really matter to me. I guess I've always been more of a gameplay over technical specs nerd.
Well, a lot of us expected to be nuclear dust by 1985, and video games were just things you played for a little while and that was it .. and they were considered to be "for kids", which meant that they'd always kind of be junky, I guess. They were kind of dumb, they were something you couldn't "win", and they were just there to eat quarters and kill some time on a dull Saturday afternoon with your friends at the arcade.
If I could bring two pieces of media back in time to the 1980s (or better yet, the 1970s), just for to see that-time audience reaction to them, it'd be Skyrim and Happy!.
Yeah, but not everyone would have had access to those, and most people wouldn't have, at least until the C-64 started to become popular/affordable. Maybe if you were a university student with specific reason to access the school's mainframe, maybe you could play Mines of Moria, but the rest of us were lucky to have an Atari 2600 with 2 or three games.
And from what I can gather, the schools used to charge computer access per minute.
I didn't know how much better they could get, but I certainly never expected to have to austically research every fucking publisher and developer to see who supports my extinction.
Honestly, I was not thinking, just consuming.
I was hoping for the "giants drink" experience from Ender's Game where an AI adapted to your play to make the game different every time.
I have a dream that someday there would be a fully AI-based procedurally generated open world RPG. From crafting a main quest down to "oh, shit, I didn't expect you to try to break into this rando's house, I guess I need to generate a floorplan map and residents and their personalities and their schedules and their jobs and life stories and friends and extended family and where those people might live in the world and and and and..."
Like playing, in real time, a tabletop RPG where the GM was literally making it all up on the fly.
In the 80s I thought it would be cooler if Mario was in 3D. -I was wrong.
you don't like parkour god Mario? (M64)
I'm exaggerating a bit. 3D Mario is cool but not as cool as 2D Mario.
I'd say Mario is in fact one of the few, if not the only, platformer that successfully transitioned to 3D.
But I agree that it's still best suited for 2D.
Dang. My joke would have been much funnier if I'd said "Sonic."
I thought we would have far more dynamic worlds with complex systems of simulations being developed and carried over game to game. We got generally OK rigid body physics and that's about it. No large-scale finite element sims, not much dynamic simulations - everything is just scripted and shit out in a linear movie.
Also, I believed we would be solidly into the real-time raytracing realm by 2020.
Neural networks have come a long ways but game AI is still Lua scripts written by unpaid interns.
Mainstream gaming AI is one of the biggest disappointments. Not only have they not truly advanced in any significant way, but devs actually seem to be putting less effort into tweaking them to at least superficially look less pants-on-head retarded.
I remember the fake ad for the ps6, I think it was a sphere. And the guy put his fingers in it (heh) and presumably the entire game was within his own mind. Looked fun
Me, I thought things like VR would be much more prominent at this point.
I think for the most part what I thought could reasonably be accomplished with a video game system was accomplished with the PS2, so everything else since then has just been gravy. GTA San Andreas was basically what I expected video games of the future to be.
I had hoped loading times would be eliminated though, but that doesn't look like it's happening any time soon. Every time we make a faster storage medium it seems like developers find a way to make it slow as shit.
I was hoping for fully animated well made platformers.
Did you get them?
Cuphead sort of fits the bill, except the platforming is an afterthought.
I have better drawn but poorly animated games or games where the game part is secondary.
Sort of annoying. We have the tech, just not the desire.
Honestly, they look pretty much exactly as I expected them to look. All you have to do see what videogames are gonna look like 10-20 years into the future is look at TV/Movie CG and it's gonna look something like that with some slightly different lighting calculations.
You can take moore's law, take the approximate specs of a render farm and the render time for CG movie, ask 'how many doublings in processing power do we need to do this in realtime?', and that's how many years into the future of videogame graphics you're looking.
I'm not sure I was thinking about what future video games would look like. I really can't think of anything more than thinking a year or two ahead to something that was already in the works. I remember friends talking about how many triangles the not-yet-released PS2 could render or something, but even that just didn't really matter to me. I guess I've always been more of a gameplay over technical specs nerd.
Well, a lot of us expected to be nuclear dust by 1985, and video games were just things you played for a little while and that was it .. and they were considered to be "for kids", which meant that they'd always kind of be junky, I guess. They were kind of dumb, they were something you couldn't "win", and they were just there to eat quarters and kill some time on a dull Saturday afternoon with your friends at the arcade.
If I could bring two pieces of media back in time to the 1980s (or better yet, the 1970s), just for to see that-time audience reaction to them, it'd be Skyrim and Happy!.
There have been ("micro")computer proper games since the 1970s.
Yeah, but not everyone would have had access to those, and most people wouldn't have, at least until the C-64 started to become popular/affordable. Maybe if you were a university student with specific reason to access the school's mainframe, maybe you could play Mines of Moria, but the rest of us were lucky to have an Atari 2600 with 2 or three games.
And from what I can gather, the schools used to charge computer access per minute.
I mean, the "microcomputers". Ever since likes of the Apple I. The Atari 800 was launched already in 1979.
I was like, 4 or 5 so heck if I know 🤷♂️
spam bot removed