Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Best Games of 2020

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the congrats-duke-nukem-forever dept.

Games 136

Gamasutra held a contest this year to describe what hit video games in the year 2020 would be like. Over 150 detailed entries were sent in, and they've posted the top 20. One persistent theme is the ever-present connectedness to the outside world, both in reality-based games and with multiplayer modes that are part of typical daily interactions. Quoting: "It's just an average day at your job. Noon swings around and it's time to amble out of the cubicle farm and venture outside into the city to find some lunch. You put on your slick steel framed Hunters Glasses, place your Hunters earpiece, and with black and white Hunters Gloves on, step out of the building and onto the street. After a block suddenly your dark tinted shades switch to a red tint. A silky female voice echoes in your ear, 'Players within range. Good Hunting.' The glasses are acting as a WiFi enabled computer screen. You swivel your head to scope the scene and find someone standing out within the red crowd as a white outline. The man with the white outline is scouting the area as well, trying to find who else is in the game right now. You get within range, pack a virtual snow ball with your gloves, approach slowly, wind up and throw with all your might the virtual snow ball at the man with the white outline. 'Player Eliminated,' says the female voice, 'Uploading Statistics.'"

cancel ×

136 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

duh (5, Funny)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223047)

Duke Nukem Forever

Re:duh (5, Funny)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223097)

That's pretty optimistic of you.

Re:duh (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223333)

That's pretty optimistic of you.

Well the second preview video that they released in late 2017 really looked good (although it was a bit short to really see what the game was going to look like).

But now that they've confirmed that DNF is going to be released "real soon now", I really don't see any other game having a chance. GTA XV is getting a bit old, Doom IX is too dark (I mean even in 3D, black is still black). No, it's DNF all the way.

Re:duh (1)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223447)

You jest, but DNF was announced twelve years ago next month. It's not so much of a stretch to imagine it still being "in development" in twelve more years.

Re:duh (2, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223769)

GTA XV is getting a bit old, Doom IX is too dark (I mean even in 3D, black is still black).

I played Doom9 a few times. But DVD Fab turned out to be a better tool than most of what hey had to offer.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224329)

Pretty optimistic that it will be released by 2020 or that it will be any good?

Re:duh (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223589)

My Calculations have it more toward 2022-2038.

Using Mores Law on Ray Tracing Speed for a complex images and a 30 FPS minimum.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27225967)

It could happen, I'm playing Darkfall right now!

..hey.. wait a minute (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223099)

..weren't we promised that in the far off distance of the year 2000?

Re:..hey.. wait a minute (2, Interesting)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224281)

You mean back when articles were on ONE PAGE [gamasutra.com] ?

Obviously (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223109)

The Best Game of 2020 will *not* be Duke Nukem Forever, due to a slight delay in the release schedule.

Re:Obviously (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223141)

Please, quality takes time!

It will be done when it is done but I can tell you that we are still working on it.

disgruntled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223139)

don't you all have jobs to attend to?

this is why the economy is in the drain...

former-employee of computer games company

Game/Reality Merge (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223145)

So when I'm fucking my woman I can be fucking my ingame girl at the same time. Epic win.

Re:Game/Reality Merge (1)

JoeDuncan (874519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223213)

Your woman? You can't be a slashdot regular...

You have got to be joking (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223149)

21 pages??? For the love of god...

Re:You have got to be joking (1)

acon1modm (1009947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223297)

...and the second page literally begins "So let me tell you about my day."

Re:You have got to be joking (2, Funny)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224259)

In 2020 articles are sold by the sentence.

2020 and Duke Nuken is YOUR choice?! (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223171)

What?! You want a shoot'em up game?! By 2020, I expect full virtual reality game play and MY choice will be "Party and Orgy at the Playboy Mansion".

Geeze guys! You are geeks!

Re:2020 and Duke Nuken is YOUR choice?! (3, Funny)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223507)

MY choice will be "Party and Orgy at the Playboy Mansion".

Oh no, not another boring party/mini-game collection. Doesn't the Wii 9 have enough bad orgy games already?

(and we all laughed when Nintendo chucked the name 'Revolution'...)

Re:2020 and Duke Nuken is YOUR choice?! (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227877)

DAMN IT, why did I spend my last mod point on that other article? MOD PARENT FUNNY!

Looking at those entries ... (5, Funny)

TFer_Atvar (857303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223189)

reminded me of a saying I once heard. "Humanity's last invention will be the holodeck."

Re:Looking at those entries ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223929)

reminded me of a saying I once heard. "Humanity's last invention will be the holodeck."

Where did you hear that? Star Trek convention?

Pff... NERD!

Re:Looking at those entries ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224365)

Nope, Scott Adams. The man had a point, too. The rest of the paragraph went something like "It will be hard to convince me to shut off the holodeck, leaving Carmen Electra and her identical twin behind."

AC b/c I'm at work.

Re:Looking at those entries ... (4, Insightful)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224917)

Right. It was Scott Adams. And he had a point.

If you could live in an all-encompassing virtual reality world, why would you ever want to leave? You would only want to work just enough to give yourself food and pay the power bill on your holodeck. The world economy would crumble and cease to exist as we know it.

And why would you want to get married to a real wife and have real kids? They'd whine, misbehave, spend your money, and drool all over you. (And don't get me started about the kids.) You could have your very own holofamily instead.

Yes, the invention of the holodecks would spell the demise of humanity.

Re:Looking at those entries ... (2, Insightful)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225187)

Don't date robots!

Re:Looking at those entries ... (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226105)

Sufficiently-realistic robot "partners" may drive us to the brink of extinction well before we reach the holodeck stage.

Re:Looking at those entries ... (2, Funny)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227913)

Naw, they'll just cause the Butlerian Jihad.

Re:Looking at those entries ... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225855)

Scott Adams, I think, in The Dilbert Future.

Re:Looking at those entries ... (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27229195)

I could swear I was really playing virtual skeeball!

That different? (2, Insightful)

mathgeek13 (1287912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223191)

I don't really think that video games will be so ridiculously advanced as many of these predictions paint them. 2020 is only 11 years away; 11 years ago, we had the N64 and Playstation. Since then graphics technology has greatly improved and online multiplayer has appeared, but the consoles are really quite similar (at least, not nearly as different as they are painted in these articles). I also don't see the huge paradigm shift to real-life games. For the most part, games are still something you play in your home, which has not really changed since the first home consoles appeared. I think we might see these changes by 2050, but certainly not by 2020.

Re:That different? (3, Interesting)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223357)

I don't think you realize just how much technology has changed since the days of Goldeneye 64 and Pokemon Red and Blue.

Back then multiplayer was you bringing your controller to your friend's house or connecting your Game Boy to your buddy's via link cable. The only time you'd ever play with someone that you didn't know was when you played Street Fighter at the arcade in the mall or movie theater. Handheld consoles had tiny screens that weren't backlit, which made playing in anything but ideal conditions nigh impossible, or they had bright color screens that were still small, but gave you about fifteen minutes of play time on eight AA batteries. Think about cell phones back then. There was no text messaging. There was no internet. Even an address book was a luxury that few had, and at the same time the phones were the same size as your cordless handset at home with barely more battery life than a Game Gear.

Now days every console has online play with people on the other side of the globe that you've never met. Every console has tons of additional content that can be downloaded. All of the consoles have wifi capability and wireless controllers. Even the DS and PSP have wifi built in. I can trade pokemon with some stranger clear on the other side of the country just as easily as I can battle a buddy in Iraq. Even then, the DS and PSP are several years old. Cell phone technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since they were brought to the market. The new Nintendo DSi has much more wifi functionality than the DS and DS Lite, two cameras, and onboard storage. Wireless connectivity between handheld consoles has been around since the GameBoy Color in the form of an IR port and actual wireless in the GameBoy Advance and DS.

Now to be fair, I only read the GEO story, but considering how far we've come in the past eleven years, everything the first scenario is easily achievable within five years, let alone eleven.

ROFL. Put down the crack pipe. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223527)

ROFL!
11 years ago (i.e., 1998) I was happily playing DF2: Jedi Knight multiplayer against 4-8 people (iirc, it supported up to 16 players).
The game was released in 1997, and wasn't the first game to allow multiplayer.

The Gameboy color, which was released in 1998 ran for roughly 15 hours on two AA batteries. The gameboy did 9 on 4.

As for text messaging?
You're obviously American, as I was happily SMSing back in '95 here in good ol' Europe.
All cellphones I've had came with an address book, btw.

In other words, PUT THE FUCKING CRACK PIPE DOWN.

Re:ROFL. Put down the crack pipe. (1)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226441)

I see your1998 Jedi Knight, and raise you a 1993 Netrek. 8 players
per team, different classes of ships (no, destroyers do not suck),
persistent player ratings, tournament ladders for both coasts, etc...

No, gaming had not gone that far in the last 11 years.

Re:That different? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223535)

There was no internet.

The internet was very well alive back then, its after all where I got most of my N64 infos from. There also was Quake. Online on console wasn't yet practical, but a few exotic devices existed for SNES and Genesis that made use of one form of online or another (Satellaview, Sega Meganet). On the Amiga you had modem support in a few games.

which made playing in anything but ideal conditions nigh impossible

Well, back then you had the choice, either go GameGear or Lynx and get color and backlight or go GameBoy and get a decent battery life.

When it comes to games not much has really changed, sure graphics got prettier and the whole multiplayer stuff, but that are more of incremental improvements then completly new concepts. Even the whole 'user created content' thing isn't all that new, I used to build levels for Boulder Dash on the C64 and then later for Doom.

As impressive the progress in hardware is, the progress in software is much slower and is mostly just a slow refinement of existing concepts instep of something truly new.

Re:That different? (1)

FnordX (115944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223675)

I believe he was saying there was no internet on cell phones, which is true. I was kinda confused by that part as well, but I saw he was talking about it in the same section as his points about cell phones, and, yes, I assumed.

Because no one here would argue that there was no internet a scant 12 years ago, right?

Re:That different? (2, Funny)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223623)

Back then multiplayer was you bringing your controller to your friend's house or connecting your Game Boy to your buddy's via link cable. The only time you'd ever play with someone that you didn't know was when you played Street Fighter at the arcade in the mall or movie theater.

While this may be true for you, most of us have been playing multiplayer games since 1993 or so. Yeah, they had this bad ass console called a "Computer" and it had a James Bond clone called DOOM that had internet multiplayer. Crazy, I know. =)

Re:That different? (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223751)

Your comment holds true only for consoles and ignores years of PC based gaming that had all that.

PCs were doing online gaming well before Goldeneye 64 came out and with the arrival of software like Gamespy, or formerly, Quakespy, we had software that could find games.

Even in Quake 1 people were developing clan skins for their characters and were able to share them so that their clan's players had their own skins. Modding and sharing content goes back even further with games like Doom having support (Alien Doom etc. anyone?).

The article talks about 11 years time, 11 years ago in 1998 we had Quake 2, and later that year we had Half-Life. Not long after I had a mobile phone with games, WAP support, a calendar, address book, calculator and so on.

Things haven't changed as much as you think in this time, they've just gotten more polish which wasn't in in the first place simply because computer hardware hand't shrunk enough to handle it. There's certainly been very little innovation in gaming in this time, merely doing the same, better. This is almost certainly because few companies want to take risks to try and do things different- they just want to stick with the tried and tested and do it better because it's safe money.

Re:That different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224447)

I don't know about you, but I was playing multiplayer games on the internet before Goldeneye 64 and Pokemon were even released. I'm talking about games like Doom 1+2 and Warcraft 1+2, not to mention muds.

In a historical sense, yes, technology is moving ridiculously mind-blowingly fast. But if I look 10 years ago and 10 years ahead, it really doesn't seem all that different. It only looks that different when you look 20 or 30 years back.

Why should they be so different? (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223193)

Quake 1 came out 13 years ago, most of what has come out since then isn't all that different. Better graphics sure, but the recipe is the same, the worlds are still 3D, multiplayer support has actually gotten worse - we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 being the average in a lot of games nowadays.

That's not to say there haven't been innovations, the Wii is a good example, but it's still only shifted around 40mill units and around 150mill games, which is great, but not enough to suggest it's killed off the classic style of games (the PS3 + 360 + PC have still shifted a lot more games than the Wii in the same period). I think if anything the Wii has just added a new style of gaming that'll sit alongside the existing style, it's certainly earned it's place, but it's also unlikely to be a killer. But even then, particularly in the case of games like duck hunt are the Wii shooters really even an innovation even if the likes of Wii sports is?

But even moving away from that and moving away from FPS, 12 years ago we had Ultima Online, nowadays we have WoW and Warhmmer and I'm not convinced they're relatively any better. Graphics are of course but certainly the time I spent playing UO I enjoyed much more than the time I spent in both WoW and Warhammer, it simply had less of the boring grind/level crap you have today and more about actually enjoying the game and having fun.

So if not much has changed in the last 12/13 years other than the obvious changes we get with more horse-power such as better graphics or in the case of duckhunt to Wii shooters, the ability to move around and shoot has much really changed to suggest that games in 2020 will necessarily be anything different again? Particularly as somethings haven't move on in the last decade- again, multiplayer player limits in FPS haven't increased.

We were always promised bigger worlds, bigger battles and so on but all the horsepower goes into better graphics, better collision detection than stuff that particularly effects gameplay. This coupled with the fact that internet connection speed improvements are pretty lacklustre in most of the world means we haven't seen what we might have envisaged a decade ago.

Don't get me wrong, I love many of the games that are out today, but I'm not getting my hopes up that games in 11 years will be anything more than to games now that games now are to what they were 11 years ago. I'd rather the next decade was spent on gameplay rather than graphics personally, but gameplay doesn't sell hardware upgrades I guess. If we start to see graphics and story telling like that in Gears of War 2 coupled with the control styles of the Wii it'd be a good start, but for this to happen either MS/Sony need to adapt to Nintendo's control style or Nintendo needs to start catering to the hardcore. I think this is more important than many realise too- I think if Nintendo's control method isn't taken to the hardcore it runs the risk of eventually being just another fad, rather than an integral part of gaming. Hell, even the joystick died out to the mouse and keyboard, which back in the joystick's prime, people would've laughed at the idea of.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223531)

Quake 1 came out 13 years ago, most of what has come out since then isn't all that different. Better graphics sure, but the recipe is the same, the worlds are still 3D, multiplayer support has actually gotten worse - we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 being the average in a lot of games nowadays.

I generally agree with your post, but more players doesn't necessarily make for better gameplay. I recall plenty of times playing Quake, 10 years ago, that the map was over saturated with players and you'd essentially get fragged as soon as you spawned. It was basically a giant cluster-f**k when the player count got too high. In my opinion, it is more fun to have to hunt a little for somebody to kill rather than having players everywhere you look.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223807)

I understand where you're coming from and agree to an extent. My point is not so much that more is better, but that more offers greater potential. As you say you can't just stick 32 players in a 16 player map and expect it be more fun but I do believe a map designed specifically for 32 or perhaps even 100 players with 32 or 100 players in it generally has greater potential to be more fun than a 16 player map with 16 players.

Implementation matters more than anything, but greater player numbers I believe opens the door for greater potential fun. I think Planetside was a good example of this, it's only downfall is they did nothing with it like most MMOs and it just became stagnant and dated. Had they kept producing new content for it and been more active in supporting it throughout I do believe it would've done much better than it did.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224081)

That's not entirely accurate. They did plenty to Planetside. They killed it with a complete lack of marketing, an utter refusal to fix some glaring balance issues, and an absolutely terrible strategy of trying to balance things by breaking everything but the one thing that needed to be fixed in the first place. From the bullshit that was the Jackhammer, especially when combined with surge, to the constant juggling and nerfing of the TR MAXs and the way they made the Stryker useless while making the Prowler the biggest, slowest target with only mediocre armor and firepower, the game was doomed from the start. When they ham fisted mechs into the game it was beyond saving.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224443)

To put it into context I was playing Dark Age of Camelot and Planetside at the same time, I know some new stuff went in but compared to the likes of DAoC the amount of new content that went into Planetside truly was negligible.

It's the amount of new content I took issue with, it wasn't enough to keep the game fresh. Primarily though it was as you say, largely just changing numbers to change balance without any real actual content.

They should've developed it more like an MMO rather than just an FPS with more players but less detailed physics etc. so that the servers could handle the load. I don't mean roleplay style quests and all that, but maybe allow for better personalised vehicles that could be stored per player as a reward for x kills or whatever. Even some quests though would be doable- giving simple quests such as helping to take and hold a certain base for 24hrs and getting rewarded with uniquely styled weapons or something. Making it so you could blow up bridges and that sort of thing also.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224451)

I dunno that I agree. I mean, what's really the difference between a map that's "1 unit big" with 16 players and a map that's "2 units big" with 32 players? The density of players on the map is about the same. Yeah, there's potentially a bigger variety of players, but how much does that really add? I guess playing on a larger map is nice, and you do need more players to be sure that you don't spend most of your time just looking for somebody to shoot at, but are there any other benefits? After all, we are talking about a shooter. You don't do much but shoot at things that move and shoot back at you.

Re:Why should they be so different? (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224655)

I think it's because with more players you usually end up with a better variety of tactics and aren't stuck fighting over the same bridge/building/whatever for the whole map as well as having more different players to fight. Effectively you end up with much more variation and it becomes harder for 7 players to just camp one building.

I guess basically, some people like to snipe, some people hate snipers, some people like fast paced close quarter combat, some like to camp a room in a building, some just like a mix of all of it. With a big map and lots of players chances are you can have it all whereas in a standard game with 16 players there's nearly always a map you just hate and don't want to play because you're forced into a certain playstyle you don't enjoy.

Also, more players often means more balance, because whilst awesome players (or even cheaters for that matter) can still stand out in their kill count, they can't single handedly sway the game each and every time because they're still onlyand I've been on both sides of that. I've played games where I've been on a team that just gets repeatedly slaughtered and I've been on a team and repeatedly slaughtered, both, to me, are quite boring, I'd rather have a close battle which is challenging and hence much more rewarding.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223697)

Quake 1 came out 13 years ago, most of what has come out since then isn't all that different.

I really don't believe so. There are whole genres of games around today that pretty much didn't exist 10 years ago. Rhythm action, for example, and that's not counting the recent phenomenon of instrument peripherals. There have been dramatic strides in how the traditional RPG should operate, in part due to cross-pollination from online RPGs where character automation for grinding becomes inevitable rather than simply desirable. Storytelling, from the sublime elegance of System Shock 2's logbooks to MGS4's split-screen-cut-scene absurdities, has advanced tremendously, to the point that using Gears of War II as its pinnicle sounds like a joke. The idea of "free roaming" or "role playing" as universal game features, rather than genres in themselves, has led to some fascinating experiments. Developers are starting to realise, once again, that even plot-driven games don't need to have ending conditions.

And that's just the games themselves. When you begin to consider gaming as a phenomenon, there have been unprecidented shifts, from the EVE developers flying in a 6-person gamer-elected council to organisational trivialities like Xbox Live and Steam.

Not to be mean, but from the examples you give there, I think that you've failed to really taste the last decade of gaming. GoW2 and WoW are not representative of what modern game design is capable of. They're certainly the pinnacle of their particular genre, in much the way that Quake was in its day, but they're not games that necessitate new review terminology or that people get into arguments over. They're "safe". Now, Nobi Nobi Boy, that's a game that will keep you bickering into the night.

Re:Why should they be so different? (2, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224691)

I really don't believe so. There are whole genres of games around today that pretty much didn't exist 10 years ago. Rhythm action, for example

You've never played with a Simon [wikipedia.org] have you? Oh, I guess you're right. That was nearly 20 years ago. 10 years ago we only had Parappa the Rappa [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224065)

We were always promised bigger worlds, bigger battles and so on but all the horsepower goes into better graphics, better collision detection than stuff that particularly effects gameplay.

You should try Space Rangers 2: Reboot.

Re:Why should they be so different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224471)

This coupled with the fact that internet connection speed improvements are pretty lacklustre in most of the world means we haven't seen what we might have envisaged a decade ago.

If by "most of the world" you mean the United States then I agree. Even 3rd world countries have better/cheaper connectivity than most people can get in the US.

I agree with everything else though. 11 years from now things will be pretty much the same. You were talking about Quake 1 but really Quake 2 was the big item 11 years ago. Running on 3DFX it really wasn't all that different than what we have nowadays. More fun though.

Hell, most software hasn't changed much in the last 11 years. I'm running pretty much the same stuff I was then. Same old, same old. Now picking the best games of 2030 would be quite a challenge.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226199)

Well I live in the UK and unless you live in central London then you'll get shit broadband here too sadly.

Really though even in the countries that really lead the world on broadband such as Sweden, the 100mbps connections are only available around Stockholm and such so very few countries really do have decent broadband. I'd say 20mbps should be minimum nowadays to really open the door for much more innovative online gameplay and I'm pretty sure only small amounts of the world do actually have that kind of speed in place for the majority of citizens.

I get around 1.8mbps average, it's not terrible, I can't complain too much because I think it's still far better than what I remember - dialup, but it's not enough to allow for much by way of innovation, you can't for example stream high definition content on that.

Re:Why should they be so different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27225531)

multiplayer support has actually gotten worse - we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 being the average in a lot of games nowadays.

Agreed. Actually, here's an example:

Diablo II's multiplayer supported up to 8 players.
Diablo III's multiplayer will support up to 4.

That's barely even multiplayer.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225771)

You'd think they were trying to kill the game. What's next? No LAN play?

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226191)

Ever play tabletop D&D? 8 character parties are unwieldy. 6 is best from having tactical options but 4 is better from a "keeping the game running quickly" perspective. With an 8 character party it's very easy to spend a lot of the session just debating on what to do and who does it rather than actually doing things. With 8 players there's more bathroom breaks and whatnot and in an online game people will be going in and out of the menu's all the time. "Hold up, I need to go back to Grizwold, and pick up that +Resist bow now that we're facing Lightning tossers"

They've also gone 3D and they might not want to have 8 highly detailed player characters on screen since that would limit the number of monsters or how detailed the environments are.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

mrjimorg (557309) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226333)

I'd rather the next decade was spent on gameplay rather than graphics personally, but gameplay doesn't sell hardware upgrades I guess

The same is true for movies. As the graphics get better, the plots are getting weaker - and this has been going on for 30 years at least.

Already the budgets of games have expanded to the size of big-budget movies, and I expect that in the future games will expand to take over broader audiences, while at the same time younger generations will be more accustomed to games and less accustomed to movies. Eventually, games will become a sub-genre of games - They'll be know as input limited games.

Re:Why should they be so different? (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27229169)

we've gone from 24 to 32 players being fine in Quake/QW CTF down to 8 - 16 ...

then back up to 11 million.

Come on!!! (1)

JoeDuncan (874519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223203)

This whole article is obviously one big Duke Nukem troll!

Wild Gunman (3, Funny)

rarel (697734) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223355)

Of course, this means you have to use your hands, so it's actually more kinda like a baby's toy.

Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (3, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223421)

You know what really killed VR's prospects as a game interface? You look like a total tosser wearing any kind of VR goggles. The worst possible off-in-his-own-world nerd stereotype brought to horrible life. The example quoted in the summary seems to think that not being enough of a tosser was the reason for failure. And let's not forget how you're inevitably going to get tased when you walk down the street "scouting out targets". Jesus.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223879)

Yeah, just wait though until the VR goggles make every girl you see look totally hot. Every guy in the world would want them then. It could do subtle things, like trim that unibrow on that one girl at D&D night. Or it could just make them all naked if you want to get straight to the point, but that'd probably be a hack.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224499)

If you were the VR goggles in private, say, in your living room, then what's the problem?

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224981)

The problem is that would be considered anti social. Gaming has only been truly popular when it's a social experience.

Look at the Wii's success and the success of MMO's.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225829)

Popularity is relative. I'd even argue that MMOs are not about social experiences but about competitiveness with millions of people and being able to escape reality's social experiences. If popular gaming is social, arcades would be thriving today.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226289)

Sorry, that's just your stupid stereotype. People should spend less time judging how others spend their free time and just relax. Some people aren't extroverts. That doesn't mean anything is wrong with them.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27226375)

The problem is that would be considered anti social. Gaming has only been truly popular when it's a social experience.

Look at the Wii's success and the success of MMO's.

Funny I can't seem to recall any time when playing WoW was seen as a social experience to the extent that any socialization occurs offline.

Forget about MMO's though, at what time was playing Super Mario Bros. or Doom a social experience? More recently, when was Oblivion, Fallout 3, or Assassin's Creed?

If online socialization is your only concern, it's certainly possible with VR just as has been done with the Xbox 360 and no one's going to see your "dorky goggles"(personally, I think most gaming controllers are dorky anyways). Socialization or not, it hasn't stopped plenty of games from becoming extremely popular. These contrived problems are entirely your own, and they should cease being used against VR.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227543)

#1 selling PC game of all time: The Sims [wikipedia.org]

The Sims: Not MMO, not multiplayer, and not something you do with your friends.

Please do some research before you make blanket statements like that.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225477)

You know what really killed VR's prospects as a game interface? You look like a total tosser wearing any kind of VR goggles.

No. I think the fact that VR goggles hurts your eyes and your neck after an hour of gameplay.

That and the cost.

That said, I've heard good things about EMagin's [wikipedia.org] goggles, but you still have to pony up $1000 some for it and your eyes still hurt.

Re:Sorry, guys, but that's stupid. (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225803)

I'd suggest the price of the arcade versions didn't help. I'd see a VR game somewhere, look at the $10 a turn cost, and walk away. And I was someone really interested in trying it.

World of Warcraft Expansion #7 (2, Funny)

Loopy1492 (1308571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223609)

New level cap: Level 130!
Paladins are still busted!
New Archmage heroic class - start at level 120!
All your life are belong to us!

Re:World of Warcraft Expansion #7 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223827)

Also, people are seeing problems of their HP rolling over into the negatives when they get more than about 2.14 billion.

Re:World of Warcraft Expansion #7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27229235)

In 2020 War was beginning...

More likely than you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223671)

I'd agree that some of the entries are pretty far out there. It seems unlikely that there will be a resurrection in "virtual reality", but the one entry involved what amounted to an iPhone with a camera and an electronic compass, which is extremely practical and does seem like a logical step for mobile gaming, blurring the line between reality and fiction to make the game more immersive without making the player look silly. It seemed like Nintendo could easily make a Pokemon game out of this idea, assuming one wasn't already in production (and with Miyamoto, who really knows?).

Oh, what a load of rubbish. (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223883)

First, classic mistake of picking a year SO close to us that there's almost no time to even guess what will happen before it comes around. It's like back in the 60's when everyone was discussing silver-jumpsuit-clad superhumans who live off food-tablets and have computers as their best friends on Neptune in artificial gravity... too much exaggeration in too short a time... all the "incidentals" that aren't mentioned (i.e. minor technical innovations that are mentioned in passing, or just assumed to be present) occur along the way but nobody ever noticed them. Come on, we still haven't properly managed videophones yet, although Skype comes damn close (it's just not "simple" enough that everyone wants to go out and buy a Skype-phone that doesn't need a computer switched on 24/7).

All we've done in the last ten years in gaming is go from Quake to Quake IV... it's all graphics. The *real* innovation in the last ten years has been in things like the Wii (specifically the controller), but STILL nobody wants to look like an idiot by *wearing* anything computer-related... the closest thing we have is fashionable mobile phones that you carry, but you STILL look a pillock with a Bluetooth headset - it's a simple fact.

Games in 2020 will be like games today... they will use the computer's facilities. This will undoubtedly include more speed, more CPU's, more realistic graphics (although "more" sound probably isn't achievable without spending a fortune on specialist hardware), smaller hardware, more touch-interfaces and more networking. The controllers may well change, but they will still be controllers (you can't beat a keyboard/mouse combo for FPS, a D-pad for platformers, a touch-screen for certain simple games, but there may well be "new" genres to take account of new-style controllers too)... you won't want to carry *anything* that you're not going to use throughout the day, certainly not a game controller. They may well integrate (so your phone is just as good a controller for your console as a Wiimote), but commercial "enterprise" will ensure that nothing works together without a hell of a lot of messing about.

We've been *technically* able to have the sorts of games that people are discussing here for DECADES. I've even suggested it myself in the past - combine paintball/lasertag with a real-time 3D game, stick a silly head-display on them and let some nutters run around in an enclosed virtual environment and shoot the crap out of each other (virtually). In an enclosed environment, location of each of the players quickly is almost trivial (especially if they are wearing your hardware), matching a plain warehouse modelled on the in-game map with some actual plain green boxes to clamber over is easy. That same plain-green background can be video processed by the most basic of PC's to overlay player's *actual* position/image into a virtual game perfectly - so you're running around a warehouse with your mates, but in your display, you and your mates are running around a map in Counterstrike. Targetting, aim, distance, recoil etc. is available through a conventional toy-gun accessory. It doesn't matter what it looks like in real life in this case (which is a big plus, because you do look a pillock running around an all-green warehouse firing a cap gun at virtual enemies), so it's easy, cheap and doesn't need a ton of technical expertise. You might only find them in theme parks, or specialist places at first, but we haven't even got *that* yet.

Instead, paintball has died. Lasertag died years ago. The companies that used to do it could *easily* have switched on to new media but didn't, because people *LIKE* the game-reality border, even if it blurs, they still need to know that they (and other, possibly more unstable people) are in a game and not killing real people. Plus, I don't *want* to play the games in real life... I play them to relax, not run around scared that someone will run faster than me, catch up with me and kill me in the game I'm paying to play.

Now, "all-digital downloads", that could be a reality in 2020. Tiny PC's capable of running complex games, that could. Real-time physics and realistic graphics, that could. Displays that could be made as a sheet and laid onto things like advertising hoardings (and then be stolen, scratched, etc.), *could* happen in that time (I doubt it). But the fact of the matter is that even back in the early sci-fi era's we "imagined" all this technology. Along the way we have picked up the components, technology and expertise to make 99.9% of the ideas happen, but we haven't bothered with an awful lot of them. The things that did make it are tiny and incidental, and things that were totally unpredictable (people PAYING MONEY to use a ubiquitous global network to send a twenty-letter message to their friend who lives opposite).

The problem with a technology prediction isn't the technology (for the most part)... that's easy... we know what's possible now and just extrapolate by a few million pounds and several years and add a bit of fanciful stuff. We'll be wrong a lot of the time, but we'll also be right occasionally. The hard part of the prediction is what will *people* find popular? If you knew that, you'd be rich by now. Who would have thought that my mother now owns a game console that lets her smash a virtual person's face in with a semi-realistic boxing action, and that some MILLIONS of non-gaming people would want the same? I don't think even Nintendo knew what a hit the Wii would be. Who would have thought that a simplified guitar connected to a child's dance game would sell millions? Who would have thought that pillocks liked having loud conversations with invisible people while walking down the street with what looks like a deaf-aid stuck to their head? Or that a million people would want to accumulate random "friends" on a website just to show off? And in between those, a *billion* inventions died a death without coming to light (I'm currently taking odds on Microsoft's Surface dying a quiet death within the next five years).

We *still* haven't managed even basic virtual reality on a large scale. We seem to have gone from 3D environments made out of 10 polygons at half a frame per second that you can navigate around using a silly hat, to full-on realistic 3D graphics on a home PC without managing to logically join the two in a popular technology. Why? Because people don't want to look pillocks, buy lots of hardware, or clutter up their house/lives with stuff to play games. Most people's games console are tucked neatly under the telly out of the way and only come out when a game needs playing - it's the game/reality border again. Now, technology is getting smaller and smaller (even the Wiimote is quite small for what it contains), and eventually such technology will become ubiquitous (a gaming "ring", rather than a controller in your hand or something equally as fanciful). Will it happen in ten years? Probably not, because the hardware manufacturers want their money first. Will people buy it even if it's "perfect"? Not necessarily.

To be honest, I've found much more joy in games I've played recently through things like statistics being collected on how much I play each type of character, or how much I play each game, or what silly "targets" I have achieved and still have left to aim for. I didn't see that coming at all, but it's actually quite fun. A seven-year-old is still equally as happy with the silly puzzle game I bought for £3 as I was, and got just as much entertainment out of it as a top-price Wii game. Games are more *prevelant* but not necessarily any more advanced that ten years ago, considering the technology available then and now. Most people on the train have *some* gadget on them that plays *some* kind of game, but they don't all use them on the train (or at all), and those that do it's for brief snippets of entertainment, not serious gaming. You have to consider the dedication required to play some types of games... for a lot of them, the required dedication makes them "hardcore-gamer-only" titles. Try jumping on a CS 1.6 server as a newbie that's not played that type of game before and see how long you last. Similarly for World of Warcraft (which *everyone* assumes I must play all the time because I am a computer-nut, but which the only people I know who play it are non-technical people who have never played games seriously before - actually I've never even *seen* it being played).

My prediction would be something along the lines of: Games will be more ubiquitous, but still clearly seperated from reality (even if that means "arcades" make a comeback in the form for virtual landscapes to play games in which you visit and then leave when you are finished). Casual games (like console/handheld games, etc.) will still be the most prevelant. They won't necessarily be played for any particular length of time, but the chances are that player-minutes will increase dramatically. The games will still be constrained by the hardware in the average PC which will expand to include facilities for real-time decent physics and very impressive graphics in everything but will probably still come with a keyboard (even if it's a "virtual" one on a flat, multi-touch, touch-screen surface and even *that* is being too fanciful for my liking) and mouse. Remember, even that OLED keyboard with a display on each key that everyone thinks is so wonderful and futuristic has little practical application and has yet to ship a real unit in a real shop. Interaction will change slightly - multitouch, accelerometers, maybe even a good force-feedback or resisitive-force to provide texture to a flat screen (extremely fanciful for that sort of time period), but the games will still work on the principle of up-down-left-right-fire for the majority. Multiplayer will probably stay quite static - the increase of players will be spread onto too many multiplayer games/companies/systems and thus stay relatively stable per game. You'll find that rankings will be more prevelant giving the increased networking - "you completed the single-player game in 1h 17m, that places you 39,000,279th in the world, 8,127,498th in your country, 7,471st in your county, 45th in your town and 1st in your street".

For the Nostradamus-y bit: There will be a new type of game, that uses something never seen before (some new kind of control, or some new type of display / interaction technology). But probably only one recognisable "trend-setter", and it will have myriad identical clones within the next 10 years. That'll be it.

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224687)

I agree with your post and was going to mod you up, but I really had to stop reading - please use asterisks sparingly, otherwise your post becomes unreadable and cloying.

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (2, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224995)

ledow said:
> you can't beat a keyboard/mouse combo for FPS

?!?

Let me introduce you to the Wii Zapper.

Wii Zapper, please meet Nyko Perfect Shot Pistol.

Nyko Perfect Shot Pistol, please meet:

  - Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles (unfortunately v4 Wii edition doesn't work w/ a normal Zapper)
  - Quantum of Solace
  - House of the Dead Chop Til You Drop
  - Call of Duty World at War
  - Medal of Honor Heroes 2
  - Call of Duty 3
  - Wiiware: Onslaught

Even Link's Crossbow Training has some quite good ``Ranger'' level where one moves about in a 3D terrain to shoot enemies.

William
(whose first project after getting a Wii was to make a Zapper out of Legos, then, since that was too expensive crafted a couple at his basement workbench out of wood to give away w/ used copies of _Link's Crossbow Training_ at work --- really do need to draw up the plans for those...)

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226033)

So when you spin your body around 180 degrees to take shots at the guy behind you launching rockets at your head... how do you see the TV?

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226155)

I've actually tried to do that --- but if one controls one's reactions the control system will rotate one in place.

William

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (2, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226513)

I didn't say you can't USE other systems. I said you can't BEAT mouse/keyboard.

- Tiny flick of the wrist and tap of a key = 180 turn (or slightly more, or slightly less, depending on your needs - 3D sound and good knowledge of the terrain make this especially useful), crouch, compensate for height difference (perfectly if you know how), straight into a headshot. You can't do that with anything except a mouse/keyboard (or extremely realistic virtual reality) setup.

- Precision movement of one pixel up and to the left while aiming at distant targets with a non-zoomed, non-autoaimed weapon.

- Finish taking out one target and move onto another without auto-aim turned on (auto-aim is an EXTRA control system) and without losing more than a single bullet in between the targets.

- Not running in straight lines towards key points (yuck!) - with mouse-precision you can actually take optimal routes, walk around obstacles etc.

You just cannot do some of the above AT ALL without a mouse. The ones you can do on a joystick or other control system are hideously limited, slower, less accurate, or all three compared to using even a £5 optical mouse. You can compensate, and when you play against someone who uses similar/same control systems, you'll do fine. But play against an experienced mouse user and you will be at a severe disadvantage. Lightguns are fine for some shooters that don't require a lot of actual movement of the player, but so was the zapper for Duck Hunt... load it up on an emulator and play with a mouse and I guarantee you will get better scores. Even some of the "classic" shooters like Operation Wolf/Thunderbolt are unrecognisable when you play them in an emulator using a mouse for the cursor - it literally goes from a frantic, difficult game, to an easy point-and-click. And when you need to MOVE and shoot, then things become a different matter entirely... you need your weakest hand to move (not your gun hand and certainly not any other gesture, e.g. leaning or using accelerometers etc., because it will be much slower than the fast-twitch muscles in your trained-typist's fingers) and with a lightgun, you are moving a large portion of your body to make it work, thus affecting fine control on your weak hand (try playing with mini-joystick and lightgun, it's quite difficult compared to the rest). A mouse means much less movement. A keyboard, although you don't think it's ideal, actually works much better than even a joystick or D-pad because you can switch from forward to backwards in a flash and have at least five or six easily accessible action buttons within close reach without needing to logically connect "A" with "reload" (the keyboard, if mapped properly to WASD etc., is an incredibly easy and incredibly OLD style of control that's been around for years for a reason).

Don't even get me started on rapidity of buying weapons in CS manually if you're a fast typer versus auto-buy scripts. They just aren't as easy or quickly customisable as doing it yourself.

I'm not a great CS player, but there's no way I can even get close to my keyboard/mouse scores on any other control system and I'm not alone.

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27229713)

My metric for games isn't whether I win or lose, but how much fun I have and how it's played.

I push a mouse around quite enough at work, and I've zero interest in sitting and playing a game by pushing a mouse around --- that's the big win on the Wii --- it makes new forms of gaming possible.

It would be interesting to see how players using different control systems would do in competitive play though.

William

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226537)

Meh. You speak of facts but I don't think you know what that means. Just because you think someone is a "pillock" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't mean that everyone views them that way. If everyone felt that way about headsets, no one would wear them. So it isn't a fact, like you claim. It is your opinion.

You say people don't like clutter, but then you have all these people with various guitars, microphones, and drums laying around all so they can play one genre of game.

I don't disagree with everything in your post, I more object to your inability to get out of your own mind. You state your opinions as facts. But you are not everyone, so saying what will be popular and what won't based on whether or not it makes you feel like a pillock is irrelevant. 10 years ago millions of people thought playing games was something purely for anti-social losers. Now these people own Wii's. In 10 more years, it might be in fashion to wear technology. Just like 10 years ago people french rolled their jeans and other retarded things. You are too blinded by the now to see what could be. Just look at the past to see this. It may not have come to pass now, but that doesn't mean sentiment will change in the future. Hell, how many people 10 years ago would thing the U.S. could have a black president?

Re:Oh, what a load of rubbish. (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226907)

"You can't beat a keyboard/mouse combo for FPS, a D-pad for platformers"

Wow, I can't believe I'm replying to such a passing statement, but I can't help myself. I'm a nerd, after all.

I just thought I'd point out that the anolog sticks on a console controller work far better than the D-pad for platformers. However, some people would argue the D-pad works better for fighting games and side-scrollers (but even that's arguable).

Dennou Coil. (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223975)

There's a Japanese Anime/Light Novel called 'Dennou Coil' or 'Cyber Coil'. It's about kids that have grown up with glasses that are their link to the network. It lets them buy virtual items of all sorts, including pets and toys. They virtual items obviously can't interact with real objects, but they can react with other players (especially the glasses of the other players) and virtual objects. And they can make phone calls using the glasses by just making a phone shape with their hand, or call up a virtual keyboard and monitor for direct input/programming.

Yes, you'll still look a little silly to anyone not wearing the glasses. But once there are enough people doing it, it ceases to look funny. Bluetooth headsets are proof of this. 15 years ago, you'd look like you were talking to yourself. Now, everyone assumes they can't see your earpiece.

Also, having phone capabilities in the glasses will speed adaption greatly, even for those who don't normally wear glasses.

Re:Dennou Coil. (3, Informative)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27228089)

No, no, wearing a Bluetooth headset outside of your car still makes you look like a douchebag.

Gaming News (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224049)

April 1, 2020: Square-Enix announces that Final Fantasy XIII has been delayed again.

The future is D-R-M (5, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224307)

I see the "future" of gaming in digital restriction management. Sports Game 2019 will automatically stop working when Sports Game 2020 is released. Moreover, maybe Sports League will convince Console Company to lock players out of the game when actual sports games are being played so as to conserve their audience.

Also, to shut down the used game market, games will become tied to the first console they're played on and won't work on others.

The rise of the big game financiers will push all games stories towards a generic formula that involves space marines. People won't like it, but what are you going to do, read a book! Muhahahaha!

Oh, sorry. Continuing, Rock Band 2020 will innovate significantly, featuring not only toy guitars drums and a microphone, but also a virtual hotel room that you wreck after the show for bonus points and a USB whiskey bottle.

It'll be a bright future!

Re:The future is D-R-M (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227099)

Funny? I wish. This is more +1, Sadly Prophetic. Especially the part about sports games not working when a real game is on.

Huh?!?! (1)

Kristy Selvaggi (1500033) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224689)

So the only game I have to look forward to is a VR snowball fight? This is the best they could come up with? Looks like everyone will be renewing their WoW subscriptions and grinding to level 200

Re:Huh?!?! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225961)

I read through them and thought the same. I personally hope to have some massive virtual worlds with seamless transitions, weather, deformation... hell, I just want my Dwarf Fortress worlds to be persistent and explorable in 3D with fortresses and kingdoms that compete for population and trades while fending off goblins, dragons, and demons. Oh, and add to that the need to protect their trade routes...

Wait a minute... (3, Insightful)

Faulkner39 (955290) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224955)

Could you imagine the snowball scenario described in the example happening in real life? You would randomly see adults acting like idiots in the middle of the street. They'd be running in front of cars, diving across hoods, running into people, ducking behind old ladies, and pretty much just be acting like a-holes. You basically would just succumb to never being able to get laid again. I could imagine the scenario, "Well, he's good-looking, dresses well, and has 12-pack abs, but he play's SnoFight (tm)". Maybe the same argument can be made about MMORPGs, but at least you can hide that from the rest of the world. Then what would happen when RockStar games licenses the technology and makes GTA 10. "Your honor, I was just playing a game. I needed to get my money back from that girl so I could buy more ammo. She's supposed to respawn like every 5 minutes."

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226003)

I can't wait for the legislation making public gaming illegal. You know, to protect the kids from themselves.

It was good.... (1)

tw1nk (409746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226251)

Until the snowball...

Who would want to throw a snowball?

The game I am most looking forward to: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27226475)

I can't wait to play "DRM malware: Return of the Rootkit!". :)

Reality Check (4, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226929)

"It's just an average day at your job. Noon swings around and it's time to amble out of the cubicle farm and venture outside into the city to find some lunch. You put on your slick steel framed Hunters Glasses, place your Hunters earpiece, and with black and white Hunters Gloves on, step out of the building and onto the street. After a block suddenly your dark tinted shades switch to a red tint. A silky female voice echoes in your ear, 'Players within range. Good Hunting.' The glasses are acting as a WiFi enabled computer screen. You swivel your head to scope the scene and find someone standing out within the red crowd as a white outline. The man with the white outline is scouting the area as well, trying to find who else is in the game right now. You get within range, pack a virtual snow ball with your gloves, approach slowly, wind up and

you are struck by a car.

'Player Eliminated,' says the female voice, 'Uploading Statistics.'"

Re:Reality Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27229383)

Deathrace 2000!

Sims V: the Urban Experience (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227451)

Think of Sims: The Urbz, add in the usability of Sims 3, with a bug-free Wii3 experience and this 2160p HDTV2 experience will rock your socks off!

Plus, it has ponies. And unicorns.

Duke Nukem Forever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27227773)

Quite simply, Duke Nukem Forever is the most anticipated game of 2020.

They forsee my Snowball Fight iPhone game... (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27227831)

...version 27. How cool!

Best Game For slashdotters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27228079)

Virtual Natalie Portman III: Naked, petrified, and with Hot Grits
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>