It seems to me that much of gaming has achieved its peak. Graphics, controls, content, gameplay, have all seemed to reach a peak, which none of us can really perceive the next step. Would this mean that gaming ends up as the seventh generation being its last?

You're forgetting the corporate world's ability to order the endless rehashing of games, and the public's ability to lap it up.

I don't think that gaming has reached its peak at all.

We're at a stage now that developers can do pretty much whatever they want in terms of technology and so with any luck, they'll start looking more closely at innovation and storyline.

There was a time when most scientists said that everything worth discovering had been discovered. That was in the 19th century. That was before the computer, before the video game. Before the online discussion forum.

Now the gamers say that everything worth playing has been played. The key here is that the only thing that can prove any of you wrong right here and now is something brand new. But how about we review this question in the 23rd century, and see what our answers are then?

There are always new possibilities. But you can't argue this point until they've been discovered. It's only when people start believing there is no 'next step' that that next step draws further and further away.

'Where can gaming go from here?' Anywhere. So long as the gamers believe that it can.

Things that come to mind:

Build bigger worlds - Now that Games have the ability to fill the Screen with NPCs, they could start building really big worlds without making graphical sacrifices (GTA San Andreas, Flight Simulator). My dream of a game with only one level that would take 5-10 hours just to RUN THROUGH has not yet been fulfilled.

Give the players control - The beginning of it is already made (Second Life, Little Big Planet). Still, how great would it be if every Gamer could create his very own games from within the greater Game Framework. Or have a Game Master create new challenges on the fly while the others are still playing?

Improve Storytelling - There is enough technology available to make lifelike Characters and every Set/Backdrop/Level anyone could think of. Still, too many games fail in comparsion to movies when it comes to storytelling.

Multiplayer - You dominate 15 other players? How about 100 other players?

nilcypher:
I don't think that gaming has reached its peak at all.

We're at a stage now that developers can do pretty much whatever they want in terms of technology and so with any luck, they'll start looking more closely at innovation and storyline.

i certainly hope so. i dont want another crysis where system requirements are pushed so far they become inaccessible. i hope devs start focusing on innovation instead of flashy colours.

i.e.
quality over quantity

For the VR thing, I doubt any of us would actually do that. Everyone knows that inventing that will wipe out the human race, since no-one will be watching the real world.

This isn't a peak; this is a general re-hashing of everything done in the last several years.

We won't have a gaming peak until we get some new designers and companies.

Apologies for crapping all over your idea.

Virtual Reality is already the way forward. A company has recently released a device which will allow you to play games based on intentions in your brain, Haptx have created their Haptics system to allow real "feeling" of weight etc in games, there is so much that can be done with it.

The_Logician19:
This isn't a peak; this is a general re-hashing of everything done in the last several years.

We won't have a gaming peak until we get some new designers and companies.

Apologies for crapping all over your idea.

Completely agree,
Games today continually utilize better technology, but otherwise the companies are regurgitating the same old tired stuff. The games I played when I was younger, and recently reopened introducing them to friends, are of a far greater standard than many products today.
The industry underwent a rebirth, started at square one, and is just now starting to mature.

I think games are just starting to get good, definately not at its peak with the advent of the VR headset which will be coming in the latter half of this generation or the beginning of the next one. A whole new word of immersion will become possible. Imagine a game in 3d that fills your entire field of vision, it will be awesome.
Everyone says old games are better than games made today, but if you look back at all the old games you will find that there was an ocean of crap with very few truly good titles just as it is today. People seem to only remember the good games.

This is a lull, not a peak. At the moment, the industry is focusing on the shareholders, which means lots of rehashed stuff for us gamers. These things are cyclical: A period of stagnation eventually gives way to a period of innovation and experimentation, which itself eventually gives way to another period of stagnation, and so on and so forth. It happens in music, in films, and it's happening in games. One day soon, developers and publishers will realise there's more to gaming than the money they recieve from it, and will really start to mix things around.

I predict this will be the same day that EA HQ is burnt to the ground.

Where can gaming go from here? Anywhere it wants. Immersive storytelling is something that games are only now re-discovering, and even then only a few games have been succesful at this. There's still the possibilty that a video-gaming David Lynch, Alan Moore or Guillermo Del Toro will come along and revolutionise the idea of games as art.

And we don't have any idea what sort of game mechanics developers may come up with in the future. Or genres, come to think of it. The future of gaming really is an open-book.

companies are moving in two main directions.
one: virtual reality. graphics are going downhill for it, but there'll be a full body suit for control should be out in a couple of years

two: alpha wave recognition. graphics are better than they are now and the characters are controlled by alpha wave thought. we've got the device, but we haven't been able fully co-ordinate the response mechanics. should be out in a few (5-8) years

... and that's just the hardware,

mwhite67:
Everyone says old games are better than games made today, but if you look back at all the old games you will find that there was an ocean of crap with very few truly good titles just as it is today. People seem to only remember the good games.

Oh I remember the crap, believe me,
but it wasn't marketed to me like the second coming.
The STANDARD for judging games has declined, the ratio of bad~good is an entirely different story.

But then again I want my games to excel beyond any other medium in the storytelling department. So I suppose I have a bit of a bias.

Dude - we don't even have effective 3D yet. There's plenty of tech stuff that can still happen with video games. The whole backwards Wii perspective experiment thing showed us how much we can still do, all of which isn't to mention the algorithmic science in artificial intelligence still to come.

I am liking the efforts of the modding community lately. Let the developers spend their time on creating the engine and let the modders have at it.

Simply put:
-We can easily accept that computer developers will always find technology and other reasons to come out with a new model every few months, so what's so difficult about accepting that console developers can come out with good reasons for a new model every few years?

It seems like people are going to have to accept a pretty massive overhauling of their conventional values with video games. Since, as you say, gameplay or graphics are reaching a peak, the logical thing to do is start hacking away at options rather than keep adding new ones. Maybe have a game use crappy controls intentionally or have 8-bit graphics to act a symbol for something in the story. Whatever it takes to innovate and do something different with the ultimate experience.

Fun might not be the ultimate purpose of a game, it might be to learn or experience an 'Ender's Game' lesson in knowing when to quit. Our current "Video games should be about fun & accomplishment" values will probably become as laughable as the Enlightenment belief that poetry & writing should only "instruct & delight". You can do a lot of stuff with games and I think people are ready to explore that.

While the VR possibility sounds enticing, I think, unless the technology is flawless, it will ultimately fail. It's too gimmicky. For my part, I consider new levels of mental, rather than physical, immersion the most promising route. I'm sure many of you have heard of Peter Jackson's new project Halo Chronicles which for all intents and purposes is a movie/ game hybrid. I think this idea, where players have the ability to not only change but create story lines, is the future. Think Ender's Game.

I'd like VR to make a comeback. They tried that back in the 90's and it failed...sadly because VR tv programs like 'Knightmare' (old english program - absolutely quality.) were pretty good. It was limited in its application though and thats why it never took off.

I've payed 'Descent' with a VR headset and it was cool but unless you had a neural interface then FPS are really the only games you could realistically play.

A lot of people seem to think the future of games lies in hardware (VR, etc). I truly think its in software- creating games with innovative concepts, that think outside the box. VR is all well and good, but if its just used to shoot alien grunts, you can't really call that a forward step.

Frybird:
Things that come to mind:

Build bigger worlds - Now that Games have the ability to fill the Screen with NPCs, they could start building really big worlds without making graphical sacrifices (GTA San Andreas, Flight Simulator). My dream of a game with only one level that would take 5-10 hours just to RUN THROUGH has not yet been fulfilled.

Imma side with this one as a technological(?) advance I'd like to see. Obviously, not many games could pull it off without a brilliant storyline attached and some really good game design, but bigger worlds with more continuity (and fewer load screens/hang-ups while the computer tries to load the next area) would certainly interest me.

The other obvious elements which can always use improvement are story and AI realism (and combinations of the two - imagine a Total War-type game where your AI opponents (the commanders, obviously, not every single soldier) could have emotional responses to your actions which affected their strategies; coming after one of your units for petty revenge or out of fear, simply based on the commands you'd given that unit during the course of your playing the game. It wouldn't be too hard (hell, for all I know, it's already been done, though I imagine not on a terribly big scale yet), and it really would add depth.

I'm a firm believer that gaming, and technology in general, will always be able to achieve new heights. Just because I'm an avid gamer doesn't make me a video game visionary.

If I had to take a stab at it, I would say the next step (or just another step) is to continue with the motion sensor interface. While it's still pretty gimmicky ("Fl0w" on PS3 or pretty much anything on the Wii), I think allowing new ways for players to control their character offers a whole new realm of possibilities for gaming.

I dream that one day a Dev will produce the world's first fully reactive gameworld.

You would be able to talk to any NPC gamer using a mic and actually have a proper conversation with them using your every day normal English.

You would be able to manipulate every single object and have them react in a realistic way using proper physics engines.

NPCs would react realistically to all the ingame situations and not ignore the character who is running around at full pelt with a bazooka on his shoulder.

And most importantly, no part of the game world will be blocked to the player as long as they have the means to enter (for example, house doors and windows should never be indestructable if the character has a shotgun).

As I said, it is just a dream but hopefully it will be achieved one day.

Anyone who's done game development of his/her own would say that there are still HUGE technological limitations getting in the way of expression, even as far as graphics go. We've come a long way, yeah, but there is still room to expand.

The best thing that could happen to gaming right now is the costs of development going down. Right now an A title costs 30 million dollars or more on an average, and that means no risk taking.

Oh, and if game companies stopped making god-awful narratives, this one escapist would die happy, because even game stories that get praised still suck, when looked at objectively, and the few game stories that don't suck usually make fun of those that do.

Seriously, developers, this escapist knows good writers are a pain to work with, but please, please, please hire them anyway and do not force them to write in commities, because otherwise your audience will catch up to how bad your stories are before you do.

how long until we get technology similar to what we say in the Matrix?

YeOldeMunger:
You're forgetting the corporate world's ability to order the endless rehashing of games, and the public's ability to lap it up.

And you know what always happens? Someone comes out with something innovative that not even the public itself knew it wanted, and gets filthy rich and famous for it.

Nintendo Wii.
Portal.
<< insert next big thing here >>

These things usually start small and grow exponentially. And no one will suspect it. No one gave a fuck about Narbacular Drop.

ingsoc:
I am liking the efforts of the modding community lately. Let the developers spend their time on creating the engine and let the modders have at it.

That is a very interesting idea. You gotta wonder how many copies of Quake and Half-Life were sold just cuz people wanted to play mods on them (especially Half Life).

Little Big Planet is going for something like that. Spore also has that kinda spirit of user-generated content.

I wonder if an MMO could be done like this. Second-Life is like that, but an MMO focused on fantasy RPG-stuff, where basically some players act as DMs.

By the end of this gen we'll see some truly amazing stuff.

One aspect of gaming that isn't immediately obvious is the importance of storage media.

When Oblivion was released, it was widely regarded as being an evolutionary step on from Morrowind. Except it was a smaller game world, which seemed more like a devolutionary step. Why? Because a more sophisticated game engine, and much higher detail textures (and so on) required a far bigger installation size. It wasn't feasible (or cost effective) to make Oblivion the same size as or bigger than Morrowind. I'm sure that wasn't the first (or last) time that a more sophisticated sequel has turned out to be smaller than the original game, but in an alleged 'open world' that could really be seen as a backwards step.

Now apply this principle to, say, Frybird's dream of a 'true open world', combined with unheard of levels of interaction and responsiveness. We're gonna need a bigger hard drive.
I think we're going to need (and more than likely will get in the coming years) storage media with a whole new magnitude of capacity. Optical discs (or their equivalent) that can hold terabytes of information, hard drives that can hold hundreds and thousands of whatever is bigger than a terabyte (?).

Then of course you need hardware that can handle the enormous amounts of data, and do it fast. And maybe you need some new way of coding the new generation of game behemoths, if you want to get the game out the door in less than a century. Will we start seeing computer games that are coded by other computers, with some guy at the top just feeding in his concept?

Or did I simply not get enough sleep last night?

Indigo_Dingo:
It seems to me that much of gaming has achieved its peak. Graphics, controls, content, gameplay, have all seemed to reach a peak, which none of us can really perceive the next step. Would this mean that gaming ends up as the seventh generation being its last?

If you're talking about consoles... Well PC's are still better at a number of genres (RTS, non JRPG, management games, turn based games). SO consoles could start to move out into new areas.

Not sure i agree that those things HAVE reached a peak but assuming they have htere is still ALOT of room for improvement in:

Storytelling (character development, dialogue, realistic body language etc etc)

Interaction with the environment. How may games can think of where you can see an opponent entering a kitchen where you are hiding, open a draw pull out a knife and then use it. How about picking up a pan of boiling water and throwing it at him? How about actually being able to pick up books and read them? Or write notes for people to find? Or search the house for the keys to a car in the garage? Sure these things can be coded in as set pieces but it would be great to just have them present all the time.

How about offering games where you can make meaningful CHOCIES? Not just be forced into a certain path but you can actually affect things. Games liek Masc (google it) have started to do this but i would like to see a game with modern graphics offer half or even a quarter as much as that game did.

Meaninful chocies sounds excellent, a game where they give you free chocolate? Sure!

Oh, meaningful choices. Well, that sounds like a good idea too. Linearity is a good thing in terms of order and organisation, but you're right, it gets boring.

A game you can play five times over in completely different ways sounds perfect, but heaps of game try to do this but fail horribly. You might think Oblivion is entirely non-linear, but when it all comes down to it you're still doing the same quests, just in different order.

The problem is that a good game with many interesting choices and several different endings would be a real pain to design, structure, put together without many glitches and also make sure that every possible combination fit in well and that every ending was satisfying to the player. The worst thing you could do is have half of the endings decent and the others all ridiculous.

So a game like that would be great, but no matter what happens, there'll be at least three big flaws that make the game average. Unless you spend seven years working on it. Now all we need is a developer with that level of commitment.

There's still an unlimited amount of potential left. How old would you say video games are, at least 30? By comparison, people have found new and exciting ways to make a movie for the past century since the invention of the moving camera. There's still a lot left to do for video games.

I have to say though, I think can't think of many games that I would really call "next-gen" or "revolutionary". Revolutionary doesn't just mean pretty graphics.

Lightbulb:

If you're talking about consoles... Well PC's are still better at a number of genres (RTS, non JRPG, management games, turn based games). SO consoles could start to move out into new areas.

Not sure i agree that those things HAVE reached a peak but assuming they have htere is still ALOT of room for improvement in:

Storytelling (character development, dialogue, realistic body language etc etc)

Interaction with the environment. How may games can think of where you can see an opponent entering a kitchen where you are hiding, open a draw pull out a knife and then use it. How about picking up a pan of boiling water and throwing it at him? How about actually being able to pick up books and read them? Or write notes for people to find? Or search the house for the keys to a car in the garage? Sure these things can be coded in as set pieces but it would be great to just have them present all the time.

How about offering games where you can make meaningful CHOCIES? Not just be forced into a certain path but you can actually affect things. Games liek Masc (google it) have started to do this but i would like to see a game with modern graphics offer half or even a quarter as much as that game did.

These are good examples of what "revolutionary" really means.