>tfw when technology will just keep increasing at an even more rapid pace
>tfw games will grow along with it
>tfw pipe dreams will finally be realized and practical to implement
>tfw gigantic landscapes will with hundreads interesting locations
>tfw character that we may be able to ACTUALLY speak with, and have lifelike personality of their own
>tfw worlds will actually feel alive, as if you were looking through a window
>tfw photo-realistic graphics
>tfw millions of dudes on screen at once and NO slow down
>tfw it will become easier to create such things, which leaves more time for the creative side of it
Bros, can you imagine? This is it, we were born into the vidya age! We could have been born ANY other time, but we made it here. Fuck yes, man. i hope i dont die
and then it hits you
>the limitations of technology being raised doesn't mean the product makes itself
>devs still have to put the work into the product itself
>they will never be able to put forth the man-power required to make the prettiest looking product ever
>in fact they won't even try since there is no limitation and will solely rely on bloom and blur instead of painting textures
>everything will look like plastic
>implying we haven't hit a stagnant rate of discovery/moderately slow rate of development
>implying this technology will prevent people from further deviating into STEM areas, increasing the time you'll have to wait before you can achieve said tech
>implying you'll actually live to see it
>>tfw when technology will just keep increasing at an even more rapid pace
Stopped reading there.
How can people this retarded can exist in our current year?
>Consoles keep getting more powerful
>Games have fewer features and less content
All technology does is allow the publishers to find new ways to fuck us and deliver as little as possible.
20+ years of gaming here.
Videogames and technology are progressing slower than ever.
You were born at the wrong time kid.
Just look at this dumb goy.
I don't think future graphical improvements will have a significant effect on games. Photo-realistic graphics don't matter at all to me; most games can perfectly convey all the information they try to convey with PS2-tier graphics (or even worse). If anything it seems like games get more restricted by the amount of effort required to produce top-tier graphics, have tons of voice acting, etc.
However I am interested in seeing better AI.
sauce for those that want it
>However I am interested in seeing better AI.
I think that's pointless, the better AI becomes the more jarring it will be since the obvious flaws will become more noticeable when you compare them with real people.
I think we should be striving for more complex online multiplayer.
Not even talking about vidya tech. We're reaching increasingly diminishing returns on the momentum of the digital revolution. We may be kickstarted once again by emergent technologies, but the rate of digital improvement is going to slow and eventually halt without a breakthrough.
Naw its gonna suck since dev attitudes aint going to change and they will still keep om complaining about tech not being strong enough for them to do wjat they want to do to try to cover up how shit and lazy they are.
vr is coming soon and that will be cool
barrier to entry is getting lower all the time and while this puts a lot of junk out there, a lot of neat gems will be made and sometimes will make it big (reviews help sort through the clutter)
plus there's stuff like mario maker, which is pretty darn neat
>If anything it seems like games get more restricted by the amount of effort required to produce top-tier graphics, have tons of voice acting, etc
This, it costs too much and we get shitty, watered-down gameplay in an 8-hour game with no replay value as a result. Far too much emphasis is placed on presentation and narrative to make the games look and feel like movies so they'll appeal to a wider audience.
I'm thinking AI can be improved more in the sense of how it can interact with the environment independent of the player. The AI's social skills will suck for the foreseeable future, but at least it could do more than wander around.
vr is a pretty damn cool gimmick, but
>Reviews help sort through the clutter
FUCK NO, they don't, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you have to literally see gameplay of the game yourself to give a shit about it
>mario maker, which is pretty darn neat
how can someone be so disillusioned
I just want a robot maid that looks like my waifu and will give me free blowjobs whenever I want.
>he doesn't notice that there are lesser games being released each gen.
As graphics get more advanced, games get more expensive to make.
>vr is coming soon and that will be cool
I'm not getting the love for VR and the hate for motion controls. They're both working toward the same end and are both gimmicky. Is it just because of porn?
Videogames have already been stagnating for ten years you ignorant fuckface.
Nah I think there's a lot of potential for action-adventure games. Right now vidya physics don't really do anything because they depend so heavily on the player messing with objects, but what if NPCs could incorporate physics based gameplay as well?
>vr is coming soon and that will be cool
What is this meme? "vr" already exists in the form of occulus rift and all it does is give you better camera control for Elite: Dangerous.
dunno m8, i think it's fun. but then i've always been into mario and pokemon romhacks.
i don't dislike motion controls, i just don't really see the appeal yet i guess.
i meant it's getting more popular and may grow to a well-filled niche or even see widespread adoption in the coming decade
That sounds like procedural generation and it could be neat but it wouldn't really work with linear stories or even branching ones, which is where the action-adventure genre is going towards right now.
AAAAAAaaaaand people still complain about Virtual Big boobs
Western videogame bossfights types are STILL shit not matter how graphically awesome they look.
>Boss is a helicopter.
>Boss is only damaged by rockets scattered about the area.
>Boss is a QTE
Didn't Bulletstorm have some creative fights where you kicked shit into people? I remember liking the game.
VR + motion controls would be the most immersive experience. 3D as well when the technology gets better, all three used well together would be great.
I really think it's just because VR has potential for some great functionality with porn while motion controls don't. I just don't see how one could complain about having to play Zelda by moving their wrists but be enticed by strapping a several hundred dollar screen to their face unless you're doing it to jack off.
i have a dk2 and while porn is a draw, i haven't even used it for that yet. i think the greatest initial moment i had was just when i first set it up and set up virtual desktop (with the space background) and had some good music playing, it wasn't even anything complicated but it was still just so overwhelming. i've played a few games and had a lot of fun, but the eye strain gets to me pretty quickly. i'm waiting to see what will come out in the next year or two.
i can see that in time, combining motion controls with vr would be pretty sweet, but it's just not something i care about at this point.
No senpai, that shit was only true at the beginning of our technological revolution. Diminishing returns > Moore's law.
>"Moore's law" should be considered an observation or projection and obviously not a physical or natural law. Although the rate held steady from 1975 until around 2012, the rate was faster during the first decade. In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future. For example, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, predicted that growth would slow around 2013, and Gordon Moore in 2015 foresaw that the rate of progress would reach saturation: "I see Moore’s law dying here in the next decade or so."
>Intel confirmed in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm node around 2012, and continuing at 14 nm. Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced that "our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two.” This is scheduled to hold through the 10 nm node in late 2017. He cited Moore's 1975 revision as a precedent for the current deceleration, which results from technical challenges and is “a natural part of the history of Moore's law.”
>mfw game dev time is 8 years and consoles have about 16 total game releases a year
>its all super normie casual shit so they can recoup their huge investment
yeah good times. ill be playing the thousands of retro games that focus on actual gameplay rather than being le epic
You know I've been having this weird dream for the past week and a half where we all live in this society where technology has advanced to crazy levels.
In my dream, 8th gen is easily emulated 100% and you're able to switch over to just about any system you want with any game you desire. I also remember that indie development came so far that hundreds of people are either making fan sequels to games they love or they're making games that are on par with full console teams
Then I wake up and realize we're still fucked in the here and now
Good thing AI is the slowest developing technological field then, eh? Some scientists used millions of neural networks and they couldn't even re-create something resembling a rat brain. Skynet is a long way ahead.
Even if I skip your retarded claim that technology is in rapid growth, you are wrong. More complicated graphic (photo-realistic) takes more time to make so games with better graphic will be shorter and shorter or just boring copy-pasta shit(or just expensive).
>tfw when technology will just keep increasing at an even more rapid pace
Moore's law is dying, Anon.
HOWEVER many pipe dreams are possible with current technology if devs would put in the effort to optimise their shit or make compromises (for example sacrificing graphical quality to exponentially increase the number of objects on screen and map size.)
To be honest I hope we hit some kind of stagnation period in processing power. Adversity forces creativity.
I don't really care either, it's just perplexing to have seen so much disdain for motion controls but so much anticipation for VR and the only explanation I can think of is porn. VR isn't even affordable like motion controls are/were.
I think Google is the most likely to develop something that will change life as we know it. Every bit of data they acquire, sort out, classify, all the user search entries and everything else, will go into making a database on human thought processes & patterns, with which their self-programming AI will learn to understand humanity to better serve them. It will still undergo fucktons of tweaking of course.
> tfw when technology will just keep increasing at an even more rapid pace
> Practically standstill for the past 10 years
> social issues spoken more often than scientific or technological ones
I think this is as far as we get
>tfw you won't be alive for all these things you're saying
>tfw you'll probably die before gaming makes an ounce of actual progress
Unless VR somehow manages to shake everything up
>>tfw gigantic landscapes will with hundreads interesting locations
>>tfw worlds will actually feel alive, as if you were looking through a window
These are time restricted and not technology restricted.
Well it's good to be hopeful I guess.
Anon as I mentioned we don't even have a rat AI and you think that people google searching is enough to make a human AI?
Waifu bots is a nice dream, but it's easier to remember dead hope than to keep it alive.
Reminder that we will never get those things because console are holding back the market and console players are casual enough to let pubblishers and developers get away with everything.
And it's not just graphics, every additional level of technology adds exponentially more work to be done for a game attempting to use all that potential.
What does this mean? It means that it becomes less & less likely for a single or few dedicated devs to be able to create the whole game. Needing more people leads to decentralization & fragmentation, which results in glitchy, buggy messes that don't seem to sit well together. This applies to anything by the way, not just games.
That's why a sci-fi-level AI is the answer.
I think truth, as always, somewhere in the middle. Moore's law is dying for sure, technologies used in the computers now reaching their limit, but it does not mean that this is the end. Humanity just needs to make a breakthrough, try something completely new, then the progress will skyrocket again.
That's where your perception of how the future AI is going to work is misconceived, y'know? I mean, I don't know how it'll work exactly, but I don't believe that emulating the way a HUMAN brain works is the way to go. That's more for science experiments & maybe in the future for simulating peoples' minds for the sake of psychological assessment & treatment.
No, in my opinion, a future-AI will "think" a lot more like how we see COMPUTERS "think" today. It may resemble the way some people think with their brains in a way, but it will be clearly artificial, cloud & database-driven, with a combination of simple computer logic & MAYBE some new tech that handles the illogical way humans think (or don't think & act on instinct instead), allowing for the AI to make concessions to humanity when its decision conflicts with what knowledge it has of human nature.
Humans are the most complex AI and computer we know of right now so it's only logical that we try to recreate that.
AI is gonna take a very long time because it needs actual technology breakthroughs in processing power and breathroughs in Neural Networking for efficiency and complexity.
Technological breakthroughs would help for sure, but your human logic is flawed.
>Humans are the most complex AI and computer we know of right now so it's only logical that we try to recreate that
No, the logical step is to create something that suits the capabilities of a computer, a simpler intelligence than the human mind that also has more processing power (as it already does), that can take into account humanity's arbitrary & illogical rules & needs, working around them.
Another way to describe what I mean would be for a computer to brute-force human thinking. A different method with the same result, taking advantage of the extra processing power to make up for what complexity it lacks.
This is the vision I believe Google has.
You're looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles.
You can't brute force human thinking because human thinking is an emergent property of large neural network computations, we are at the core that basic computer thought process, but it's all done subconsciously and incredibly quickly that you just don't know it.
You're not thinking of the brain as a computer but as a person and their personality, that came about by what is quite frankly pure chance.
Adding to this further, why do you think AI networks are called Neural Networks? Because they simulate how neurons fire in the brain to select data and transmit signals. Why do you think no other type of AI network has been produced to compete with this type of networking? Two possible reasons, we don't know of it or it doesn't exist.
>you just don't know it
But I do know it. I think we're thinking of different AI's.
You sound like you're thinking of an AI built for the purpose of thinking & acting like a human, mimicking them & perhaps, from a philosophical point of view, becoming human.
I'm thinking of AI that is still very clearly artificial, built for the purpose of advancement in technology as well as all other fields humanity have developed to this point, while communicating with people. & possibly eventually able to mimic humans, but still clearly a logical machine that just takes into account the lack of logic a human mind can bear.
Have you read any Isaac Asimov? You'd know what I'm talking about if you did (not Asimov's fictional technology but rather the mannerisms of the AIs in his books).
And yes, I'm optimistic.