http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3189537.stm
The commonplace that gaming graphics is one of the major drivers of computer hardware development is challenged in this article, which suggests that graphics have evolved sufficiently that by themselves, they will no longer sell a game.
I am somewhat of two minds about this [being an avid purchaser of games who never actually plays them]. I agree that a game has to have something more than graphics in order to be successful; I also think one of the major issues with most games is that they interpose difficulty for most computer users instead of enhancing the gaming experience. Many potential users might be drawn in by a game which, like The Sims, is less a form of puzzle-solving or reflex-driven competition than an immersive experience.
In that case, I hardly think that the level of realism offered by what I have seen of current games represents the graphic ultimate -- which to me will only happen when I play a game and have a visual experience equivalent to watching a movie on TV. The crucial point will have been reached when instead of thinking "My how realistic that water looks!", I think "There is a stream to my left, and it really looks cold and dangerous".
And I don't think we are "there" yet -- but we are getting close, and should be at that level in 3 - 5 years tops. Then what are we going to do for hardware excitement?
Posted by jho at September 4, 2003 10:48 AM