I Want A Bigger Sandbox To Play In.
I never pictured myself, as an adult (although, some would argue to the contrary), that I would want to spend time playing in a sandbox, but that is what I want. Sandbox is the latest inhouse buzzword for an "open ended" playing world. Sandbox technology is popping up in more and more games and, hopefully, this is the way of the future for gaming technology. Probably the best example of Sandbox technology would be the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Even as a two dimensional shoot and steal game it was still an open world for the player to roam around and enjoy. As the hardware improves so do the playing areas. San Andreas being one of the larger gaming environments for a gamer to explore (other notables would be: Boiling Point, Gun, Morrowind, X3: The Reunion to name a few). It would seem that the days of level loading will one day be gone and games will be complete environments for the player to explore and pursue at their own pace. The sooner this happens the better.
I look forward to the days when level loading are a thing of the past. Games should be seamless environments. Players should be allowed to be intelligent beings in the worlds created by software companies and not mindless drones that run and gun past an enemy to get to an end of level boss. To me, the idea of level loading, is indicative of old technology, old constraints, and a mindset that should evolve from gaming development. I would hope that those games that I have played this year such as FEAR, Quake IV, Call of Duty 2 are the end of the oldest school of thought in video gaming. It's not that I don't enjoy these games, I just think they could be better. I would prefer the freedom to make the choices for myself to advance my way through a game rather than have that choice dictated to by a narrow corridor of gameplay. Recently, I took home Half Life 2 on the Xbox to have a look at. I wanted to see how well they translated this "Game of the Year (cough, cough)" to a console that has three year old technology. Graphically I think they did a good job. However, it wasn't until I got bored of looking around and decided to run through to get to the good bits that I became frustrated. I may have travelled forty or fifty seconds before getting a new load. This went on and on. A minute of gameplay and a load. This may have been acceptable when Half Life was released, but it is not acceptable now. I wouldn't consider this world to be seamless. It is static and linear. The player has no real choices to make except which order to shoot their enemies in. This gets me to my next point, which is the notion of replayability in games. Linear, level loading games don't offer the amount of gameplay choices of those games which are utilizing sandbox technology. Even with AI as good as it is in FEAR, there is still limited replayability for singleplayer in these games. There is nothing new left to explore. Once you have conquered the world there is no reason for you to go back there. If I am spending $90 on a game and it takes me less than 10 hours to finish then I would want a reason to play it again. The other factor which drives software companies to create these games is multiplayer. However, I would say that the multiplayer gamers are a fickle bunch. If it is not good, it won't last. You only have a few online multiplayer games which stand the test of time. If you wanted to go back and play Tron 2.0 multiplayer you would be lucky to find any one on a server, if there are still servers hosted.
There are probably people who want linear games with level loads. Just like there are still people who think that the Atari 2600 was the best console ever (I owned one, and I own the Atari Anthology on the Xbox. It has no River Raid, which blows). However, games are evolutionary and not revolutionary. There should be constant development which brings the industry and the products they create forward. Games should not be developed by the marketing departments of large software developers to appeal to a particular market segment. The industry should continue to be driven by those creative types who provide the edge needed to drive the technology and the software forward. It seems that names of the game creators are not the driving force behind the bohemoths at EA and Ubisoft. Yet, John Carmack, Chris Sawyer, Sid Meier and a few others are still striving to create those games which have an edge, even as their companies get bigger.
I've never been happier to say that I'm playing in the sandbox. Hopefully, this will be the trend for gaming and not the exception. As large scale, free roaming environments become the norm I would like to think that level loading games are recognised as the dinosaurs which they have become.
I never pictured myself, as an adult (although, some would argue to the contrary), that I would want to spend time playing in a sandbox, but that is what I want. Sandbox is the latest inhouse buzzword for an "open ended" playing world. Sandbox technology is popping up in more and more games and, hopefully, this is the way of the future for gaming technology. Probably the best example of Sandbox technology would be the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Even as a two dimensional shoot and steal game it was still an open world for the player to roam around and enjoy. As the hardware improves so do the playing areas. San Andreas being one of the larger gaming environments for a gamer to explore (other notables would be: Boiling Point, Gun, Morrowind, X3: The Reunion to name a few). It would seem that the days of level loading will one day be gone and games will be complete environments for the player to explore and pursue at their own pace. The sooner this happens the better.
I look forward to the days when level loading are a thing of the past. Games should be seamless environments. Players should be allowed to be intelligent beings in the worlds created by software companies and not mindless drones that run and gun past an enemy to get to an end of level boss. To me, the idea of level loading, is indicative of old technology, old constraints, and a mindset that should evolve from gaming development. I would hope that those games that I have played this year such as FEAR, Quake IV, Call of Duty 2 are the end of the oldest school of thought in video gaming. It's not that I don't enjoy these games, I just think they could be better. I would prefer the freedom to make the choices for myself to advance my way through a game rather than have that choice dictated to by a narrow corridor of gameplay. Recently, I took home Half Life 2 on the Xbox to have a look at. I wanted to see how well they translated this "Game of the Year (cough, cough)" to a console that has three year old technology. Graphically I think they did a good job. However, it wasn't until I got bored of looking around and decided to run through to get to the good bits that I became frustrated. I may have travelled forty or fifty seconds before getting a new load. This went on and on. A minute of gameplay and a load. This may have been acceptable when Half Life was released, but it is not acceptable now. I wouldn't consider this world to be seamless. It is static and linear. The player has no real choices to make except which order to shoot their enemies in. This gets me to my next point, which is the notion of replayability in games. Linear, level loading games don't offer the amount of gameplay choices of those games which are utilizing sandbox technology. Even with AI as good as it is in FEAR, there is still limited replayability for singleplayer in these games. There is nothing new left to explore. Once you have conquered the world there is no reason for you to go back there. If I am spending $90 on a game and it takes me less than 10 hours to finish then I would want a reason to play it again. The other factor which drives software companies to create these games is multiplayer. However, I would say that the multiplayer gamers are a fickle bunch. If it is not good, it won't last. You only have a few online multiplayer games which stand the test of time. If you wanted to go back and play Tron 2.0 multiplayer you would be lucky to find any one on a server, if there are still servers hosted.
There are probably people who want linear games with level loads. Just like there are still people who think that the Atari 2600 was the best console ever (I owned one, and I own the Atari Anthology on the Xbox. It has no River Raid, which blows). However, games are evolutionary and not revolutionary. There should be constant development which brings the industry and the products they create forward. Games should not be developed by the marketing departments of large software developers to appeal to a particular market segment. The industry should continue to be driven by those creative types who provide the edge needed to drive the technology and the software forward. It seems that names of the game creators are not the driving force behind the bohemoths at EA and Ubisoft. Yet, John Carmack, Chris Sawyer, Sid Meier and a few others are still striving to create those games which have an edge, even as their companies get bigger.
I've never been happier to say that I'm playing in the sandbox. Hopefully, this will be the trend for gaming and not the exception. As large scale, free roaming environments become the norm I would like to think that level loading games are recognised as the dinosaurs which they have become.
posted by thecynicalgamer @ 4:59 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home