Article: "The Future of Gaming"

This is my first article I've written to post on the Internet. In fact, I wrote it in about 3 hours. (this will be several posts long)


What makes the ultimate game? Some might say it’s some fighting game where everything is blown to bits with lasers, or a racing game with hundreds of levels and shear realism. However, games like this have one serious flaw that is the demise of 95% of all games after 5-10 years. Replay factor. While a game may have stunning graphics, metal robots that blast each other into a million parts, or fighting games where characters lose more pints of blood than a blood-bank in a single round, they often get monotonous after awhile. There’s only so many times you can race through the same course, and fight the same bad guys before the game becomes a case of “going through the motions”, or even a mathematical algorithm. What type of game then, would make for the ultimate game? In my opinion, the genre of such a game would be a Simulation-RPG, or more specifically, a Sim-MMORPG. However, this wouldn’t be just any old simulation like “The Sims”, or “SimCity”, but a complete customizable world -- no, universe!

Technically speaking, there’s already a universe in every game you play. These universes are limited to the imagination of the game designer. Some games manage to extend the game-play universe into the imagination of the gamer. This, along with a multiplayer environment, is on the right track to creating the “ultimate game”. Granted, not all games have to have a multiplayer element to be a great game. Before I go any further, let’s take a look at the history of gaming, and where it’s going. Below is a sampling of genres of games:

Platform Games - These are games like Mario Brothers and Mega Man where you move through a level defeating enemies, and collecting items to increase your abilities. These types of games are essentially side-scrollers. Unless you had a real classic on your hands, the replay factor was often low. After beating the game a few times, the player would generally know the ins and outs of the game. These are the types of games that could be played in one sitting (about 2-3 hours). With the birth of 3D gaming systems, this genre is starting to fall to the wayside, as one of the challenges of a 2D game was that you didn’t know what was over the next ledge. In a 3D world, you can view 360 degrees, and clearly see what’s coming.

Action Games - Either a side-scroller, or overhead view, these games also involve moving through a level, and defeating enemies. Unlike platform games, these games had more of a storyline. These games tended to be more like shooters, fighting and military games. These have evolved greatly in 3D gaming systems, mainly in military games. Action games have virtually merged with shooters.

Strategy Games - There are two types -- Real Time Strategy, and Turn Based Strategy. These games definitely relied on the creativity and imagination of the game designers. A good strategy game would allow for a myriad of playing possibilities. If played on a map that was always randomly generated, the possibilities were almost endless in terms of strategy, and game-play. The downfall of most strategy games, however, is the AI, followed by game design. The AI, along with game designs (attributes of the player/team, starting units, game strategy, etc.), can mean the difference between an actual game, and a game with bucket loads of cheesy exploits. Fortunately for these games, game-play can last for hundreds of hours, and will be played for years, even decades. The most famous of these are the Civilization and Age of Empires series. Each caters to a specific crowd -- single player and multiplayer, as well as the player’s creativity in creating scenarios. Still, these games can be played either way. One downside of these types of games is the micromanagement, and/or allowing players to create a mathematical equation out of the game (i.e., moving units around in a RTS within a certain amount of time per unit -- also known as a “click-fest”, or seeing how many points you can get in a certain amount of turns.).


Simulations - There are plenty of simulations out there. The most common are transportation (flight, automobile, etc.) simulations, city simulations, and a host of other types of simulations. The shining glory of these games involves the physics, interaction, and/or economics of the game. Simulations are essentially “art imitating life”. The best known simulations are the SimCity and The Sims series. Like strategy games, simulations also have huge replay value by capturing the player’s interest in creating their specific world and watching it as it grows. Like strategy games, the micromanagement can still be there, but the player doesn’t always have to worry about it. In a way, some simulation games do involve a little bit of strategy.

RPGs - There are two types - Japanese console RPGs, and American RPGs. What’s the difference? American RPGs have a system of classes, and Tolkien-esque races (orcs, elves, hobbits, etc.). Japanese console RPGs are more focused on storylines. Some Japanese RPGs do contain classes, but function more as “jobs”, or different types of fighters (archer, knight, ninja, mage, etc.). These games typically last 20-30 hours (always half the advertised playtime once the player knows the ins and outs of the game), but may or may not have more than one way to play them. Some RPGs are linear, forcing the player to move from one area to the next. MMORPGs follow the American style RPGs with classes and races. Games like Everquest and Morrowind are very popular, especially for their replay value (sometimes considered too long). Japanese console RPGs tend to be left to the single player community, but there are a few exceptions. RPGs also have a few aces up their sleeves to keep the player’s interest a few times over. First, there might be many side-games to play. Usually, these involve casino, card games, and puzzles. The main purpose of these is to acquire rare items, or increase stats. The second is side quests, which might contain optional secrets to discover. The rewards may be an alternate ending, or a secret character.

MMORPG - More of an offshoot of an RPG, this involves going out along, or with a team and completing quests. These games can be much longer than typical RPG games. The problem is the player usually needs to pay to play on the server, and requires constant playing to make the money worth it. Another downfall is if a player wanted to play the game 10-15 years from now, and there was no server to connect to.

Shooters - This is a genre that has changed from a 2D game with a light-gun, to 3D games where players run through a maze or building shooting almost anything that moves. Personally, I haven’t played any shooters -- aside from Duck Hunt -- to really say how this genre is going, but it seems to have merged with action games in terms of the military-style games out there. Some could say the military shooter-type games is an off-shoot (no pun intended) of the shooter genre. Arcade-type shooters though (Galaga, Centipede, “shoot the space aliens”-type games), are a dying breed. Shooters that use light-guns have gone the way of the do-do bird.

Puzzles - The most famous is Tetris, but there have been many other puzzle games, in all shapes and forms. Many games on the Internet (sites like yahoo, funnygames.nl, etc.) have puzzles. The vast majority of games now are Tetris-like clones. The replay value of these games can vary, depending on if the puzzles change each time the game is played, or if it’s the same puzzle (or sets of puzzles) over and over. Contrary to what some might say, these are still popular games.

Competition Games - These games continue to do well, as it’s more competitive in nature, albeit it’s two or more players pressing keys in a certain order, or maneuvering in a certain way. I’ve combined several games into this category, as it can be rather broad. The subcategories are Fighters, Sports, and Racing. Of the three, fighting games seem to be the most popular. Sporting games have pretty much saturated the gaming market. These games do well for a few months, or years at best, then players start losing interest in them, and move on to the “next and better” competition game.

Games Genres of the Past
Adventure Games - These are probably as close to an RPG as one can get without being officially called an RPG. Some of the most well known adventure games were King’s Quest and Loom. You didn’t always fight monsters or level up, but you had to solve puzzles and obstacles. These games also had a story line. Adventure games now have all but blended into online RPGs, where one can create their own adventure if they wanted.

Educational - These are still around (and very rare), but not really in the mainstream gaming arena. The most classic of these was the Oregon Trail, where the player could learn the history of the Old West and pioneer days while playing the game. The replay is whatever the kid can take. Kids have short attention spans, and the games are generally stuck in the lower grade levels, making it less likely to be played after a few months. The idea of educating the player is now relegated to an “optional” feature in some games where the player can find out more about a particular topic the game chose.

Virtual Reality - This was one of those neat things that never really made it. I think of this as something that came well before its time. Maybe in a few decades (when huge, bulky helmets and gloves are reduced to the size of sunglasses, and technology is fast enough for a huge 3D world with many people), this technology might make a comeback.

Labyrinths - This genre either died out or evolved the moment 90s came around. Games like Wolfenstein and Doom broke the 2D mold, and 3D-like games were born. Maze-like games in itself are no longer around, but in a way, have found their way into First Person Shooters (i.e., exploring a cave or a maze-like building).

Text-based Adventure - These were “Graphic Adventure” games before the graphics. The only surviving form in the 90s was MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons), a sort of primitive MMORPG game.

-- Part 2

So, which genres succeeded and failed in turns of getting the users long-term interest? Obviously, platform and action games can only be played so long until it’s finished, and even then, it’s the same game over and over. Puzzles can be addictive in themselves, and there’s plenty of free puzzle games on the Internet. Shooters, mainly First Person Shooters (in all its variations) have been a trend for the past decade, but seem to be approaching a peak, as there’s only so much blood and gore a bad guy (or good guy) can inflict and splatter. Sports games will always be popular, as long as the games are updated. The “Big Three”, Strategy, Simulation, and RPGs, have the staying power amongst gamers. Not only can the game constantly change, the games can provide many little side-games, combination of characters, and allow the user to customize the game the way they want. Why are these so popular and have a long playing value? Perhaps it’s because the games start to imitate real life.

Now you might be thinking, “What does this have to do with creating the ultimate game?” Well, we’ve just taken a brief look at past genres, and see the pros and cons of each. Let’s list some elements from each genre that can go into the “Ultimate Game”. For now, let’s assume that the “Ultimate Game” will be a form of MMORPG.

Simulation - A simulation is nothing more than a model. Most games contain physics and economic models. In an MMORPG, an economic model won’t be needed, as players can determine how to barter, trade, buy, sell, etc. Players would be able to create their own dynamic models. Physics is actually the most important model a simulation can have. It’s not natural for a player to walk 10 feet above the ground… on their head. It is possible, though, that a player (or players), could slightly alter the physics in their “universe”.

Strategy - This would be left to the player’s imagination. The player could invent strategy games inside of a simulation. In fact, the simulation could even be a strategy game at one stage of the game.

RPG - This could easily be done within a simulation. In fact, most MMORPGs are already simulations of sorts.

Shooters - MMORPGs are half-way there with “player-killers”, where you can attack another player if you want. In the “Ultimate Game” however, players could design a level within the game (i.e., a paintball game), where a shooter game can be played.

Action - Along with shooters, there are a few MMORPGs that act as a battle simulation. The players could micromanage and take the part of 1 fighter in the ranks, or command a small force.

Adventure - A MMORPG essentially is an adventure in itself, if given enough side-quests. Player-to-player interaction can give rise to adventures not actually in the game.

Platform - This could still be done in a simulation environment as a player-created side game. However, being that the “Ultimate Game” will most likely be a 3D game, it tends to slide into the Action/Adventure category.

Competitive - These would be easy, and one of the most fun for gamers to design in an “Ultimate Game” simulation. Want a racing game? Build an arena, and gather whatever you want to race with - be it cars, animals, or some made up animal in that particular game world. Want to play chess? That’s fine too, just create a chess game. In fact, it should also be option to show“2D”-like displays for gamers who enjoy the old 2D style of play. Think of it as players getting absorbed into the game of chess, ignoring the world around them.

The key to this “Ultimate Game” would be all aspects of the above genres interacting with each other. Imagine the chess players, perhaps playing in 2D mode. They’re happily playing, and all of the sudden, the side of the board flashes, “Outside warning!!” They look up, and they see this army of players invading the city (strategy gamers). Before they can move, one player chops the chess board (now 3D) in half, sending the pieces flying. Now, someone with a world-wide view (i.e., like the game Civilization, or Risk) would see the armies represented by units if they chose to play the game as a 2D world. Any orders, such as moving units north) would manifest themselves in the simulation as a scout arriving to the players (in the 3D world) and delivering the message. Meanwhile, there could be players on different worlds, some with more technology to visit other worlds, and so on.

So, when will a game like this be made? Probably within the next 10-20 years. In fact, there’s a game being made right now that’s on the right track. It’s called SPORES, and it’s being made by Maxis. The game starts off much like SimEarth and E.V.O. (SNES game), where the player starts off with little “spores”, or amoeba. The creature evolves into fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc. In fact, it’s possible to create new types of animals, even with extra limbs. Eventually, these develop intelligence and form a civilization. This progresses past where SimEarth would end (cities lifting off the planet, leaving being robots). The player then gets to explore the solar system, then the universe.

What’s the point of this? Well, here’s where the “Ultimate Game” would get really interesting. Each player would have the opportunity to play in a pre-established world, someone else’s world that has evolved (maybe it’s a race of 3-legged Minotaurs), or even start a world from scratch. In a “SPORE”-like world, where the goal is to develop civilization, players can take the part of either being, or controlling creatures, developing them, and compositing to make their creature the dominate creature. In fact, it would be possible to create elves, orcs, humans and hobbits if players so desired. The universe itself could be selected to be open, allowing players from other universes to ‘invade’ at any time, or from a specific time (i.e., when civilization develops - think “The Monolith” in 2001), or it could be closed to any other players until the player, or world creator decides to open it. The world creator could even be mean and close the universe (citing some strange phenomenon) and trap the intruders. There could even be a world outside the universe that shows multiple universes. The physics involved might be floating orbs with strings going from each universe indicating a link between each universe.

What about the physics? Physics could be changed, but within limits. It could be possible to have a universe with more gravitational forces than a normal universe, or even a world where the creatures breathe Argon instead of Oxygen (i.e., maybe plants release argon instead of oxygen in that world).

Now, let’s get back down to earth. What if someone didn’t want to play any of these ‘games’, and wanted something different. They could just live the daily life of a member of that world. For example, they could have a virtual family, or they could create a business in a town. What if the world/universe is evolving too fast? The player could then play a single player version, with the computer taking over the other players.

So, what would we have? We’d have a virtual world that fully mimics the real world, allowing players to fully customize and create gaming experiences. Rather than having the game itself dictate what the player can do, the game dynamically evolves along with the player, or players. It would not be limited to a specific timeframe, although players could easily create that, but it would go from the beginning of a universe, to the end of one. A universe could even be created, grow, and level off at a certain age, giving the players maximum gaming time.

What’s the next step? Remember the technology that was ahead of its’ time? Virtual Reality? It could quite possibly make a comeback. No, it won’t be huge bulky helmet and gloves, but sunglasses, or even a small screen on a pair of glasses that can connect remotely to a handheld device (palm pilot, cell phone, etc.), or a laptop/computer. Once technology is developed enough, maybe it can even connect to the server itself. It probably won’t be around for another 20 years (the games have to be developed that push the technology first), but it’s a step towards another branch of technology -- connecting oneself to a server across the Internet. The Internet itself would also be a huge resource (this in fact, is being done in some forms already, and if not, it is being developed), rather, one huge supercomputer. A subset of that would be a gaming super-server. Perhaps within 50 years, one could connect to a device which sends and receives signals from an “entertainment system”, but not an entertainment system as we know it. Currently, there is a small device that someone can wear on their finger to control movement in a game. It’s also been shown that one can control a computer by thought. Imagine the possibilities (and consequences) of being in a game-world any time of day, or night -- quite possibly even when sleeping. There is technology now that allows people to control electronics in a room just by ‘thinking’ to the computer. It’s been recently done on a quadriplegic, who was able to turn on and off lights in his room by thinking about it.

In conclusion, the future of gaming, and gaming technology is this: Possibly within 50 years, gamers will be able to immerse themselves into virtual, realistic worlds that they can mold, and can do so anywhere and anytime. All that’s needed is virtual-reality type equipment, such as glasses (sound can be vibrated from the sides of the arm. Sound travels just as well through bone as it does through the ear), and some device which allows the player to ‘connect’ to the game they wish to play. Perhaps it might even be possible that the same ‘sunglasses’ can pick up brain signals. Maybe within 50-75 years, those sunglasses won’t even be need, and all entertainment can be received and transmitted by an implanted chip. (Barring conspiracy theories, which isn’t the point of this article) Again, the player would even be able to play in their sleep. How would this affect sleep patterns? It probably wouldn’t be known until it’s actually done.

It wouldn't be a game anymore. It'd be virtual reality.

That sounds identical to my imagined perfect game.

blackheart said:

It wouldn't be a game anymore. It'd be virtual reality.

Click to expand...

Techincally, any game is a virtual reality... Kind of like the demogame.

Just one question: Where would Dance Dance Revolution fit in your genres?

So, basically, you're talking about a game that's a simulation of everything with whatever we want? Sure.

Tomoyo said:

Just one question: Where would Dance Dance Revolution fit in your genres?

Click to expand...

One site put it as a puzzle... I'd probably put it as a competition (if it's a dancing competition game...).

Chieftess said:

One site put it as a puzzle... I'd probably put it as a competition (if it's a dancing competition game...).

Click to expand...

Well, that it pretty odd... I suppose a competition game would fit, but...

Chieftess said:

-- Part 2
What’s the next step? Remember the technology that was ahead of its’ time? Virtual Reality? It could quite possibly make a comeback. No, it won’t be huge bulky helmet and gloves, but sunglasses, or even a small screen on a pair of glasses that can connect remotely to a handheld device (palm pilot, cell phone, etc.), or a laptop/computer.

Click to expand...

Or a combination of small screen, large screen, stereo glasses and active seats. And for good measure how about 25 to 150 people in the same room immersed in an accurate model of solar system through which they can fly their own craft any place, any time.

Chieftess said:

In conclusion, the future of gaming, and gaming technology is this: Possibly within 50 years, gamers will be able to immerse themselves into virtual, realistic worlds that they can mold, and can do so anywhere and anytime. All that’s needed is virtual-reality type equipment, such as glasses (sound can be vibrated from the sides of the arm. Sound travels just as well through bone as it does through the ear), and some device which allows the player to ‘connect’ to the game they wish to play.

Click to expand...

This software is available now. I've seen it in operation. Really.

I think the ultimate game for now would be that Spore game that Will Wright, the maker of the Sim series, talked about at that game conference. Oh man what he described was essentially builting a galactic civilization from the basic building blocks and I mean BASIC to the point of a single celled organism surviving in the primordeal ooze eating other animals! Then you can edit your creatures as they go about and edit them continuously. I think Will Wright was right (so to speak) that people want to make the game theirs and make their own content and make their own story. This is at least in my case as I do like games that let me create my own custom content. The Sims 2, SimCity 4, Civilization 3. I personally find the games that I keep playing do allow me to have custom content. Even World of Warcraft has a level of customability in dressing your character in special clothes to make them either look good or get a tactical advantage or both. Games like Mafia, Counter Strike and Superpowers 2 were really awesome games for a while but for me I grew tired of them because I had to go by a pre-planned route etc etc and end up playing them less and less. I've even grown tired of Half Life 2 as I've already played through the game twice. The only possible reason I'd want to replay Half Life 2 again is to test out whether the future mass upgrade I put through my computer works or not. Speaking of which, I suddenly have the strong desire to play the Sims 2.

I think the next big thing in games is something similar to what you have described already. Something like Battlefield 1942 2K15 where instead of being just a 1st person shooter and 64 players you can actually recreate the battle of Stalingrad or whatever and each player is an individual soldier so you can have 100000+ players at once. You've already described a sim games SPORES and I suppose MMORPG won't be to far behind. Everquest on steroids.

great article! I always thought of something like that since I saw the Holodeck in the Star Trek series.

The ultimate game would be a fully immersable virtual reality. You know force feed-back joysticks? How about a force feed-back body? It would be a kind of shell, an exoskelleton wrapped around the body which would send everything from heat, cold to physical inputs. And to fully mimick inertia have that thing in orbit.

Another aproach is mentioned in the article, but not explicitated. A kind of device that can fully interact with the human brain. This could be "low level" which would only handle physical sensations, "mid level" for emotions or "high level" which would interact directly with the intelect. Naturally, there would be loads of ethical problems as we go higher on the scale and indeed philosophical issues.

D&D. 'Nuff said. Tell me one other game where your character can get hurt by, for example, a jellyfish sting.

It's too easy to assume that adventure games are basically stripped-down RPGs. There are plenty of games out there like Myst and Syberia that are more focused on artistic vision and story than typical D&D stuff. The idea is not "to have your own adventure", but to experience a cinematic storyline.

SanPellegrino said:

great article! I always thought of something like that since I saw the Holodeck in the Star Trek series.

Click to expand...

This is WAY better than the holodeck. In the holodeck, you have to actually move around make yourself sweat. This is all by fingers and mental. I can hardly wait.

One could say, MMORPGs come closest to this sort of "virtual reality" that is seen as the holy grail of gaming in the article.

I am waiting for the concept to give MMORPGs the depth of strategy gaming without the need to invest a lot of time into them. Who ever played MMORPG's knows that most really punish you if you stop playing for a longer time and your friends rush ahead of you in terms of character development.

BTW, the latest development in the near-dead adventure genre: KOTOR2, Knights of the Old Republic II.

It has something that most online MMORPG's are lacking: A storyline that is based on more than just 4 different types of quest, get X, bringt it to Y, kill Z and so on that most MMORPG's offer, including the rather new ones, World of Warcraft and Everquest II.

Longasc said:

I am waiting for the concept to give MMORPGs the depth of strategy gaming without the need to invest a lot of time into them. Who ever played MMORPG's knows that most really punish you if you stop playing for a longer time and your friends rush ahead of you in terms of character development.

Click to expand...

That's the major problem I have with MMORPGs. It seems like you have to play atleast 8 hours a day to keep up with those who, well... don't have a life. A game is supposed to be enjoyable, not work.

Here's a list of problems I have with online games (in this order):

1 - Very involved. Like I said above, it almost has to be your second job if you want to do well. This isn't something I'd want in a game. I'd rather play at my own pace, and not be forced to keep up by either the game pushing me along, or having to compete with 200,000-5,000,000 other players.

2 - The cost. Everquest is between $13-$40 a month. That's $156-$480 PER YEAR!!! Sure, if you can even play for atleast 8 dollars an hour, it might be worth it, but a game that essentially costs as much as a dialup to cable connection (and only 1 game at that!) just isn't worth it. Imagine having 10 online games that cost that much. They'll cost that much whether you play them or not.

3 - Availability. Ok, say you have 10 games (and a really, REALLY huge hard drive!). Just how many times will the company let you cancel and renew? Also, what if the company goes belly up? You have no way of connecting to the server to play. Here's another scenario. 10-15 years from now, you want to relive your old games. Happens to all of us. You have long since cancelled your subscription, so you try to find the company. (If they're belly up, or changed their phone number, or don't even support the game anymore, then you're out of luck). Supposing you can still be activated, you go into the game, and what do you find? A very, very empty world. Quests that took maybe a dozen people to complete (don't know if there are any like that), would now become just about impossible since you can't find the players to play the game.

4 - Player Leagues (more for "normal sized" online games). I don't know if MMORPGs have these (where players would team up), but I really hate this concept. You have players who don't even care about tournaments wanting to team up, or join a game, only to be kicked out (immediately too) by players saying, "You're not a tourny player!", or, "You don't have enough points". This kind of interface creates a very elitest athmosphere that hinders gameplay for a segment of the gaming audience. Yahoogames does have a slight fix for this by providing a "guest" room (i.e., in their pool game). I find a lot of players in these leagues (most it seems) only want to play for points, and don't want to play in a game where it's not a tourny. I've seen non-tourny games (rooms), for example, in PTW/C3C that aren't filled because the host is not a tourny player.

Whoa. Too much for me to read

I dissagree about the opening statements. Some of the most succesful games ever made were excessively repetitive; Blocks (or whatever it was called), Motorhead, Quake, &c.

You are looking at them in the wrong way. They aren't about repeating the same action over and over again, they are about improving those actions over and over again. Ultimate playability comes from the gamer seeking continuous improvement, seeing a difference, beating their friends, and if they stick with it long enough... becoming the online world champion!

It's like lifting weights. Sure it's monotonous, but when you see improvements it becomes addictive.

Well i find the FF series endlessly replayable, for instance FF VII 6 times over taking aorund 70-100 hours each time, and it doesn't get boring!!! Something to go with Stormbind, my friend got to level 60 on disc one of FF VII, killing the same enemies hnfreds of times- if you've played the game you'll know how long that will have taken him, some people are only lvl 60-70 by the end of disc three (and the exp from fights increases further into the game). he did that just so he could improve and beat everything!