Gaming trends through the years...

[Ace Overclocked]

http://en.wikipedia....s_to_late_1980s

Actually the exact thing I was going to reference.

still platformers and rpgs are as old if not older than fps and they were taken out too(rpgs are dying slowly unfortunately, my fave genre), so fps might have to fail the test of time

 

[Guild McCommunist]

still platformers and rpgs are as old if not older than fps and they were taken out too(rpgs are dying slowly unfortunately, my fave genre), so fps might have to fail the test of time

They're pretty much all the same age and my point is that, in the same time span, FPS games have done nothing but grow in popularity while platformers and RPGs have grown but now begin to decline. The FPS genre has also experienced some of the biggest innovations and changes throughout gaming.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Have to agree with Guild here. There's really no where left to go other than virtual/augmented reality. Motion controls are not going to create any new trends themselves... Gamers have been conditioned to be sedentary while gaming for the last 40 years (yes, standing at a cabinet still counts as sedentary...) so asking gamers to wave their arms about or karate chop at their TV will never be anything more than a gimmick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8BRbM52gpc

 

[AceWarhead]

You are forgetting one more game trend: Apps
While it's true they aren't really games, the popularity of those mini-game apps has increased a lot, making it a trend. People play them a lot, and I doubt this one will go away. Just look at stuff like Angry Birds.

 

[Zarcon]

The FPS genre will continue to grow since it can assimilate aspects from other genres so easily in ways that make sense.

You can add platforming, RPG, puzzles, exploration, and any number of other aspects from other genres to an FPS and it will still feel like and FPS. For that reason alone I can't really see the FPS genre fading for a long, long time.

 

[retKHAAAN]

You are forgetting one more game trend: Apps
While it's true they aren't really games, the popularity of those mini-game apps has increased a lot, making it a trend. People play them a lot, and I doubt this one will go away. Just look at stuff like Angry Birds.

I agree that apps really aren't going anywhere. However, it's wrong to say they aren't games. They are in fact games, they just happen to be games that for the most part are two or more generations behind. Angry Birds could have been a Tiger Electronics game...

 

[elenar]

Augmented Reality has already shown its ugly limitations though.

Any limitations that are present can be improved upon.

With what? A bigger marker?

Of course not. Maybe not in the REALLY near future, but in the near future, AR apps/games could start recognizing real-world objects.

But that could set off a plethora of bugs given that lighting conditions and camera quality are also a factor.

The cool thing is, these devices don't _require_ visual stimulus.

For example:

SSID broadcasts can be shown as waterfalls. Relatively easy to triangulate, especially if you can choose to broadcast specific location. We already use this in google maps mobile to find position.

RFID chips in dogs and cats can show a large 3d model of your pet, so it's easy to find them. Imagine instead of calling animal control when you lose Fluffy, you just hold your iPhone (or put on your google glasses?) and you see a waypoint indicator the direction he is in.

Billboards could broadcast RF signals to show large, AR advertisements when you're using AR tech. RF broadcasts could be embedded in sidewalks outside stores which could show you ads for what's on sale, when you're using your AR.

There's a long way we can go with AR. It's the direction things are likely to go, and I'm excited. When object recognition tech finally catches up to broadcastable ID (which is already feasible but largely unused), we can even have outlines around the things we're looking for. Automobile windshields can get information from other automobiles driving along and display information like relative speed and direction to other drivers, that car on a side road that's coming in hot to a stop-sign might be outlined red by your HUD.

It can be awesome, people just need to work towards it.

 

[Thesolcity]

Augmented Reality has already shown its ugly limitations though.

Any limitations that are present can be improved upon.

With what? A bigger marker?

Of course not. Maybe not in the REALLY near future, but in the near future, AR apps/games could start recognizing real-world objects.

But that could set off a plethora of bugs given that lighting conditions and camera quality are also a factor.

The cool thing is, these devices don't _require_ visual stimulus.

For example:

SSID broadcasts can be shown as waterfalls. Relatively easy to triangulate, especially if you can choose to broadcast specific location. We already use this in google maps mobile to find position.

RFID chips in dogs and cats can show a large 3d model of your pet, so it's easy to find them. Imagine instead of calling animal control when you lose Fluffy, you just hold your iPhone (or put on your google glasses?) and you see a waypoint indicator the direction he is in.

Billboards could broadcast RF signals to show large, AR advertisements when you're using AR tech. RF broadcasts could be embedded in sidewalks outside stores which could show you ads for what's on sale, when you're using your AR.

There's a long way we can go with AR. It's the direction things are likely to go, and I'm excited. When object recognition tech finally catches up to broadcastable ID (which is already feasible but largely unused), we can even have outlines around the things we're looking for. Automobile windshields can get information from other automobiles driving along and display information like relative speed and direction to other drivers, that car on a side road that's coming in hot to a stop-sign might be outlined red by your HUD.

It can be awesome, people just need to work towards it.

Everything sounds decent, minus the ads. SSID triangulation is only accurate to ~200 meters in a perfect situation as well, so SSID waterfalls as of now is impractical. I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

 

[Veho]

I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

Cell phones cause accidents because you have to take your eyes off of what you're doing to use them. Augmented reality would integrate the extra data into your surroundings so you would still keep your eyes on the road/street/where you're going and wouldn't bump into things or people or fall into manholes or hit lampposts or pedestrians etc. etc.

 

[elenar]

I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

Cell phones cause accidents because you have to take your eyes off of what you're doing to use them. Augmented reality would integrate the extra data into your surroundings so you would still keep your eyes on the road/street/where you're going and wouldn't bump into things or people or fall into manholes or hit lampposts or pedestrians etc. etc.

Additionally, with AR tech, it's not _always_ in your face. Real-life ads are always there, always flashing, always lit up. AR ads would only be there in so far as you have your AR tech enabled. Phone not in front of your face? No AR. Google glasses (or similar tech) not being worn? No AR. Don't press the button on your dashboard that enabled heads-up infographics? No AR.

So, there's no real problem. Cell phones already outlawed in cars, having one out to look at AR is outlawed by default. So, no AR while you're driving, unless you're doing something you're already not supposed to be doing. It would work great.

As far as SSID triangulation, etc, it's just an issue of making different broadcasting devices which have the option to broadcast a specific location. This wouldn't be hard to do in any way, someone just has to bother with it. With your home router, you wouldn't want to do it, but places like McDonalds that offer free wi-fi might want to have their hotspot show up on AR devices. Imagine a chip in the McDonalds that broadcasts its street address. Then your AR device would know where to put the image, just like it does with, for instance, Yelp on iOS.

It could be cool, and would always be totally optional. It's not like anyone's making you pull your phone out.

EDIT: Also, the average person could use the hell out of AR tech.

Examples:

Any restaurant could, cheaply, advertise their restaurant by having an AR locator installed and broadcasting a little. If you're anywhere near it, it shows up on Yelp.
Same with retail stores.
New stations could set up an app that will automatically download location info for news stories like "Adopt a puppy" or "A new exit is being built on highway 92" and integrate that into a location-finding AR system. Include ads in the app, pure profit.
Airports could have a broadcast that syncs with a phone app which will provide arrows on the carpet showing you the way to your terminal, and also flight schedule data on walls instead of on far more expensive to maintain electronic screens.
Sports games could show ads and scoreboards in AR as well as normally. Imagine the "first down line" you see on TV football games, but right there in the stadium.

The list could go on and on. You just have to approach the idea from the right angles.

 

[Ace Overclocked]

Have to agree with Guild here. There's really no where left to go other than virtual/augmented reality. Motion controls are not going to create any new trends themselves... Gamers have been conditioned to be sedentary while gaming for the last 40 years (yes, standing at a cabinet still counts as sedentary...) so asking gamers to wave their arms about or karate chop at their TV will never be anything more than a gimmick.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=l8BRbM52gpc

you can't see the future, new things are made and we didn't know they'd happen

 

[Wizerzak]

:facepalm: I don't think you got the point. Say, for example, you were living back when the NES was all the rage. I'm pretty sure many people would be saying the same thing as what you are saying now, about 'how we've reached a limit' or 'gaming will stay 2D forever' - and guess what? They turned out to be wrong. Technology is always going to change, it always has and it always will. I bet you everything I own that in 20 years time the way we play games / the games we play will be very different to now. For all you know, we might play games using some AR device and everyone will be playing the latest simulation / virtual reality games.

Okay, imagine how gaming will evolve in a way that has FPS games going the way of the platformer. What technological trend could possibly be introduced that would defeat the FPS?

You're missing the point again, just because you alone can't think of any new big-selling genres on the spot right now (neither can I, nor anyone else on this forum) it doesn't mean They won't happen in the future. As I have said twice before, I'm sure 40 years ago everyone thought FPS were crap and that they'd never kick off, they probably also thought that platformers would last forever and that there is nothing to replace it.

It's a genre almost as old as gaming, starting with your Dooms, Wolfensteins, whatever, and it's done nothing but grow more popular since. Unlike other genres which have risen then fallen or just continually fallen in popularity, FPS games have constantly been increasing.

No, it's more that all these genres were thought of and developed at the same time and they've taken their turns at being the latest big thing. Yet again, 20-30 years ago, platforms had 'done nothing but increasing', in fact the same with most genres so far; they start small, increase, then die off. Why not the same with FPS?

 

[Foxi4]

...I see that the argument is brewing nicely...

You guys do realize that FPP (First Person Perspective) games were made even as early as 1979? Way before what you claim was "the era of platformers"? The only problem was that the technology simply wasn't there yet to provide a proper first person experience. Now we have the technology, hence, we have more FPP games, and among them, shooters.

Perspective is a design choice, not a genre in itself. "Shooter" is a genre, and "First Person Shooter" is one of its various types. You have side-scrolling shooters, you have third person shooters and you have first person shooters. As long as there will be shooters, there will be first person shooters.

EDIT: I see that the early FPP games were in fact already referenced a page or two back. Well, it's always worth to mention them again, I suppose.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Have to agree with Guild here. There's really no where left to go other than virtual/augmented reality. Motion controls are not going to create any new trends themselves... Gamers have been conditioned to be sedentary while gaming for the last 40 years (yes, standing at a cabinet still counts as sedentary...) so asking gamers to wave their arms about or karate chop at their TV will never be anything more than a gimmick.

you can't see the future, new things are made and we didn't know they'd happen

ummm... I'm from the future, dude.

 

[Thesolcity]

I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

Cell phones cause accidents because you have to take your eyes off of what you're doing to use them. Augmented reality would integrate the extra data into your surroundings so you would still keep your eyes on the road/street/where you're going and wouldn't bump into things or people or fall into manholes or hit lampposts or pedestrians etc. etc.

-snip-

Ok, ok, maybe I was a bit too rash in my decision.
I just have a negative impression of people (at least around here) and new technology being introduced to them. Plus, things like Google glasses have only been advertised from social networking angles and this tech hasn't really been shown for anything other than...well, social networking. My final fear is the ads...displayed all the time or not, ads are without a doubt annoying. The implementation of the ads and how they will display is my final concern over technology such as this.

 

[elenar]

I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

Cell phones cause accidents because you have to take your eyes off of what you're doing to use them. Augmented reality would integrate the extra data into your surroundings so you would still keep your eyes on the road/street/where you're going and wouldn't bump into things or people or fall into manholes or hit lampposts or pedestrians etc. etc.

-snip-

Ok, ok, maybe I was a bit too rash in my decision.
I just have a negative impression of people (at least around here) and new technology being introduced to them. Plus, things like Google glasses have only been advertised from social networking angles and this tech hasn't really been shown for anything other than...well, social networking. My final fear is the ads...displayed all the time or not, ads are without a doubt annoying. The implementation of the ads and how they will display is my final concern over technology such as this.

Adblock for AROS, copyright 2014

 

[Thesolcity]

I'd argue that this new AR tech will do more harm than good, and needs only be used in limited circumstances. (i.e. AR passport, AR ID, AR Medical history for surgeons/doctors). Basically only for business and security purposes. Please excuse me for saying but I don't believe average citizens would make much use of tech like this, outside of social networking. Taking statistical data of accidents happening with just a cell phone (even with Bluetooth), I don't believe the outcome of this technology in the hands of the general public can be very good in terms of safety.

Cell phones cause accidents because you have to take your eyes off of what you're doing to use them. Augmented reality would integrate the extra data into your surroundings so you would still keep your eyes on the road/street/where you're going and wouldn't bump into things or people or fall into manholes or hit lampposts or pedestrians etc. etc.

-snip-

Ok, ok, maybe I was a bit too rash in my decision.
I just have a negative impression of people (at least around here) and new technology being introduced to them. Plus, things like Google glasses have only been advertised from social networking angles and this tech hasn't really been shown for anything other than...well, social networking. My final fear is the ads...displayed all the time or not, ads are without a doubt annoying. The implementation of the ads and how they will display is my final concern over technology such as this.

Adblock for AROS, copyright 2014

But if its anything like Android we'd need root first.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

So I guess i'm the only one who wants FPS to not be on top anymore and have other genres become more popular.

 

[AceWarhead]

So I guess i'm the only one who wants FPS to not be on top anymore and have other genres become more popular.

I don't get it when people don't like FPS's being "on top"
It's pretty satisfying to shoot something up with a gun, like it or not.
FPS have been in existence for a long time, and always will be.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

So I guess i'm the only one who wants FPS to not be on top anymore and have other genres become more popular.

I don't get it when people don't like FPS's being "on top"
It's pretty satisfying to shoot something up with a gun, like it or not.
FPS have been in existence for a long time, and always will be.

Theres a difference between shooting something and playing just another FPS. Like I said no one wants FPS to disappear but just let other genres have the top spot instead of hogging it.

Again I got no problem with shooting games like BRS the game and the 3rd Birthday but its just FPS that pisses me off since those FPS fanboys always think they're automatically better than eveyone else because all they play is FPS.