RThurmont wrote:My point was that DX10 is ultimately, from my perspective, a worthless technology, because it is highly unlikely that anyone will come out with any really interesting and innovative games that use it, that could not just as easily use simpler graphics. I think that once you cross a certain line in game development you start to focus more on photorealistic visuals than actual gameplay.
Because as we all know, having technology that enables artists to work faster, create better looking things is SO worthless? Cel shading, look up the game XIII(I think thats the amount of Is), pretty cel shaded game, fully 3D, fully impossible before.
By the way Ace, the fact of the matter is that gaming should logically be a more segmented market now than it was in the 1990s. In the 1990s, far fewer people were playing games, and the industry was (of neccessity) innovative, but now that you have a large market, most studios seem content to follow the precedent set in prior decades as opposed to creating geniunely new and interesting titles with which to tap all the new potential the hardware represents. However, the market, by virtue of its larger size, can support much more specialization in terms of titles, but the problem is, everyone is locked into this model where games cost progressively more and more money to develop, and so the incentive for taking risks is not there.
DEFCON, Uplink, Darwinia, the entire BinaryZoo catalogue. I can keep digging up games all day, you just have to find them.
At the risk of sounding terribly bleak, I'm of the opinion that gaming, as an area of creative innovation, is, for the time being, largely dead. The growth of the indie gaming market is encouraging, but I see it being a few years before there exists any sizable traction there, and in the mean time, the increasing cost and complexity involved in creating mainstream games will make it harder and harder for independent developers to attain anything remotely approaching mainstream games in terms of production values. This situation is depressing, but economically inevitable.
Wii, I await you trying it out then talking, or the DS. Wheres Praxis to kick your ass.
Ultimately though, for me, the golden era of gaming, when one could enthusiastically go into a major electronics retailer and expect to see really new and interesting ideas on the shelf in front of them, is history. Thus, DX10 is worthless, as it represents merely another extension of technology which is already more than powerful enough to be convincing.
Uh...*walks onto google* *Finds a dozen neat interesting games* You wanted something?
DX9 is no where near realistic, creating anything approaching photorealism in it is quite impossible and we're still far away from it. If you think current games are convincing enough, please check your prescription glasses.
Your entire attitude is "I want only innovative games, I want everything to be like the 90s." I'll compare to the movie model. Yes, if you only look at the big movie theaters, you'll only see the latest whiz bang movies, filled with corny acting, good special effects and shit scripts.
Then you can go down the street to your indiehouse theater showing forign movies, small indie movies. And you get what you want.
