What would it take for a new video game to be revolutionary?

[RedDagger]

Or, more specifically, what would a game have to do to evoke an impressive and reaching reaction among a majority of gamers - or even the masses.

 

I was thinking of this because I've seen lots of people saying that there hasn't been any game release in the past several years that matched older games. For example, Doom, Pokemon red/yellow Mario 64, Half-Life, GTA: SA, CoD4, Halo 3; all games that broke records, revolutionised gaming, or both - maybe it was easier with older games, where introducing 3D, physics, open-world, good realistic graphics, or new mechanics was easier since they had to be made by someone. Whereas now, great increases in game engines make everything just more realistic, instead of adding falling boxes.

 

But people describe the release of games like the ones mentioned above as magical, blowing their mind, completely revolutionary...you get the idea. Whereas now, studios are settling with their tried and tested IPs, and thus rarely making something totally new and exciting.

 

There may be games like Minecraft, but that gained traction over time instead of at a single release, and currently is mostly played by younger people - certainly not having a far-reaching effect as the ones mentioned above, even if it did popularise the voxel genre.

 

So the question is, what would a game released in the near future have to do to be completely revolutionary on release?

Edited June 30, 2017 by RedDagger

[Dottie]

For a racing simulator, this

[Maxxeine]

Something we've never seen before. Something that really stands out, and truly captures everyone's outlook on gaming. We see it all today - rarely do we see a game that actually introduces something completely brand new and unbelievable. What are we mostly fed up with? The games are most of the time the same. Look at each triple a title that is released. It's all in a series, and we don't really see new IP's from these companies.

 

And, while I might get flack for saying this, I think Watch Dogs is the closest we've gotten to a completely brand new experience. It's a brand new IP, from Ubisoft, who we haven't seen a new IP from in years. The game mechanics in Watch Dogs, the hacking, while some might find it unoriginal, I personally think that it is a somewhat breath of fresh air. A revolutionary game? No, but partly.

 

I think it's just that we're running out of ideas, Third Party companies are just making new games in their established franchises, and that's the problem. When you saw Halo, first released, it was unbelievable. When you saw Assassin's Creed, it was something that made us actually become engrossed in that time period. When you saw Half Life, you saw something that revolutionized game design as we see it today, with physics, and remarkable graphics, even over a decade later.

 

When you saw Grand Theft Auto III, for the first time, you really, truly, fell in love with the open world. That's what we need today. Something that nobody has ever tried, because third party companies claim it's "too risky" or "a niche market" and they just want to keep milking their main franchises. But when we see a new IP, something we've never seen before, or could ever imagine, that's when we appreciate gaming.

[dice]

We just need to wait for Gabe to count to 3

[Trillest]

An open world game with every building enterable would be definitely revolutionary.

[Durden]

You're asking a very subjective question, since what's revolutionary for a particular person/group is dull to another. Maybe a few most people think CoD is dull, while many people 12-year-olds perceive every annual iteration to be a gaming revolution. It is essentially impossible to evoke a mutual sense of revolution for all demographics.

 

Having said that, there's a few things video games could do to really stand out and seem revolutionary for the majority of people (or at least gamers):

 

Photorealism:

Obvious enough. Once a game truly reaches this level of graphics, it will mark a turning point in the gaming industry. Sure, photorealism will initially garner great amounts of hype, but as more games shift towards photorealism, the novelty will wear off and gamers will no longer be impressed by this type of visuals. Once this is achieved, marketing efforts will be focused on showing off other technical aspects, like AI or map size, since that's what gamers will care about.

 

Larger-than-Life Maps:

We've seen some pretty ginormous maps, sure; Just Cause 2, FUEL, Minecraft, etc... But games like No Man's Sky uses advanced algorithms to create a procedurally generating universe that is, in essence, unending. As more games begin using such technology, map size will become another non-issue just like graphics. Maybe some games won't be capable of being procedurally generated - worlds like GTA perhaps - but there will eventually be such revolutionary technology that allows a map like GTAV's to be constructed within mere days/weeks. When this happens, it will be up to the game designers to decide what size map would work best for their game. Linear games will always exist to provide a cinematic experience, and there will still be finite open-world games like GTA that strive to incorporate dynamic events/activities throughout the map. Infinite maps will no longer be an ambitious goal, but merely a design choice.

 

Virtual Reality/Body capture:

Just like the media portrays it - literally being the character as you control their actions and experience a level of immersion never seen before. This will be one of the largest gaming revolutions as it redefines genres such as horror and action-adventure.

 

Simulation of Life:

There are currently simulators out there for specific things - vehicle driving, animal raising, etc. But eventually there'll be full-blown simulation where you make every decision as you define your life/storyline from birth to death. This would be quite controversial as many would argue against it since, for some gamers, it would act as a substitute for real life. This is especially true if this revolution is combines with the VR revolution.

 

Human AI:

Evidently, AI is still pretty horrible and limited. Eventually, AI will be self-realizing, self-aware, and consequently self-teaching. They will learn from their mistakes, and illustrate emotions/dialogue just as humans would. This AI would be simultaneously perfect and imperfect since it is bound by the imperfection of human creators, and would carry heavy implications with it with regards to controversy and difficulty. The AI could scale to your difficulty as it learns your strategies and playstyle. Controversy would be brewed since AI will be as self-aware as humans are, with the only distinguishable difference being that we know they have been programmed to act in such a way.

 

 

Don't feel like continuing or going more in-depth, but you get the idea.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Durden

[The Lonesome Drifter]

An open world game with every building enterable would be definitely revolutionary.

Look up True Crime: New York City

[Django Fett]

For roleplaying game we want something that allows you to tell your own story and have your own reputation throughout the game. The world would be huge and their would be kingdoms where you could join their armies. Participate in wars and climb the ladder to different ranks like captain, admiral, and general. Also you could not have to fight but their would be different jobs in the kingdoms that you could make money from and use to buy houses anywhere in the city or even out in the countryside. Also you could have a special system where you can have kids and once you die from old age you can play as one of your children to continue their story. You could have also join different guilds assassins or mercenaries and make new guild houses across the land to recruit more people. Also you could burn down villages with your followers like bandits or buy ships to travel across the ocean to different kingdoms. You could find teachers that can train you on different weapons styles to use your weapon or even create your own to teach to your children so they can become powerful. You could also become a king and rule your kingdoms by controlling the economy, If you're a corrupt king your citizens may start a revolution where if they win they kill you and your family. You can also start wars against other kingdoms and even participate in them. You could do peace treaties and even have a council to discuss certain decisions.

[Daz]

It would have to depend on the peripherals and hardware.

 

Oculus Rift has the right idea but it is too stuck in the past.

 

What I would like, would be having curved screens/monitors, either a slight or serious 90 degree angle that allows you to see with your peripheral vision what is to the left and right of your character at any given time, opening up that field of view to feel natural.

 

That combined with a new and better form of control system, motion tracking is the complete opposite of what we need. Either neural sensors or subtle hand/finger gestures controling the whole game, or some other new device that combines the accuracy of a mouse with the ease of use of a gamepad. I refuse to believe the best control for gaming is devices not intended for it's use. Some sort of mouse/pad combo would be a start.

 

 

As for the games themselves, you mention that you don't think Minecraft is as revolutionary as people think, however I think it is, as an idea.

 

I think it's slow start was just due to those types of early access games were not as well known as they are today. Early access took a while to become understood and become more the norm for new indy games. I hadn't even heard of it until it came out on 360, so I am sure if I had been shown it sooner, I would have liked it upon it's first version. It also is a game that is really hard to describe the premise to someone who has no idea what it is. Especially how detailed it can be. Unlike other games which it may be much easier to gain a desire to play it without knowing what it is. Any shooter with some sh*t blowing up on the cover makes you want to play it even if you don't know anything about the game. It is hard to do that with minecraft and convey the accurate meaning of the game in a still image.

 

 

I think the most revolutionary products will be like minecraft in a sense. Something that you can totally create yourself with little effort.

 

Imagine having a game like GTAV but 100% control of everything with ease. Easy to obtain and install user created content (on consoles) that are only small files that can easily change your game into something completely different.

 

Just look at what people have done with maps on Trials Evolution, if they can do that with those in-game modding tools, imagine what could be done if a game was centered around making creation super simple and easy to design. On a grander scale you could effectively make your own legitimate game within a game and sell the code to play it.

 

 

Also if there was a way to add or remove game engines from your game to switch out the desired feel. This as well as if some of the major game engines became an industry standard. RAGE, Source, Unreal etc. Imagine something like that, but was open source and free for any dev to create with easily. We could have the exact game we have always wanted so quickly. If we just knew that the engine could handle it and worked perfectly for what we were trying to do. I see so many terrible driving games with the same physics, if only I could pick and choose what type of engine to apply to a game, it would turn the worst game ever into the best game ever. I would love to take the RAGE engine IV + V driving physics into a game with the Unreal engine R6 Vegas shooting mechanics and ragdoll.

 

 

 

 

I know it is kind of a ramble but in short, I just want the control given back to the gamers to play games how they want to play them, and play it because it is fun, and not because it exploits your OCD or punishes you if you don't play it every single day and treat it like a second job.

 

Just a thought.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Daz

[Niobium]

i don't know, but i do know that companies don't want to take any risks so, rehash the same crap every year (COD, AC) or have a lot of pay-to-win crap (Battlefield has this as far as I know, and even GTA Online is guilty of this), because they make profit. companies aren't interested in revolutionary things, only money.

Edited December 15, 2014 by nobum62

[Th3MaN1]

I think developers depend too much on the hardware. They should depend on their abilities as game developers more, and come up with ideas. Risks are also something that they need to take once in a while. Big or small, I don't care.

 

Nowadays, too many games are marketed as being technical powerhouses or graphical achievements.

[GTA Master 007]

This would revolutionise gaming:

 

This map:

 

This foliage:

 

This open world detail:

 

This character physics:

 

This vehicle damage:

 

This vehicle detail and physics

 

This gameplay difficulty/style

 

This open world diversity:

 

 

 

This music:

 

This multiplayer experience/ weapon physics:

 

This story:

 

Personalities like this:

All put together

[nath22]

^

A great game isn't revolutionary.

 

I think the days of a particular game being revolutionary is over, now it's more a case of smaller changes trying to come together to be something bigger. Games like Golden Eye, GTA 3, Halo, even Assassins Creed were inevitably going to be made it was just a matter of technology rather than ideas.

 

I'd love to see a game like Mass Effect become something like No Man's Sky (In the exploration and open world sense but keeping the narrative/story) but we're probably decades away from that sort of thing.