spender

Got to thinking - or not thinking properly as has previously been the accusation!

I remember playing PSOne games with tiny little men shooting tiny little bullets at other tiny little (computer operated) men and making tiny little red blotches that immediately vanished and think it was cutting edge video console technology (yes, I am THAT old)!

Cut to 2010 and we have MW2, and yes it is flawed, but in comparison it is as lifelike as I could have imagined a game could be "back in the day".

So here's the thought. What could MW be like in 2020? What would make you look back to 2010 and think - jeez, that was SO unrealistic! (Haters, yes we know, No/less power to Killstreaks yada yada!).

In my vision, I saw Augmented Reality. Real terrain, real kit - but all HUD, guns and bullets, explosions etc in AR so you see them like on the game.

I couldnt decide if killing 12 year old boosters would feel AS good as they would actually look like 12 year olds (thinks: still yes), and of course the couch potatoes amongst you all might not be so keen anymore as running would involve.....well, actual running.

Imagine that need-to-change-weapon-quickly feeling when actually face to face and doing the do-I-melee-lunge-or-keep-trying-to get-my-feckin-weapon-out dance for real, for real. LOL surely.

So? Apart from the obvious trolling suggestions, how good could MW be in 2020?

Thoughts on a postcard

CampNGun

They already have series in that game. Halo CE, 2,3, Reach.....Too futuristic?

Nah IMO there is no new amazing concept they will develop. It will always be more refinment for better or for worse.

abc

Firstly I have to point out that COD might not make it to 2020. How many gaming series have made it 17 years. Mario? Final Fantasy? Metal Gear Solid? 007 games? Only the gaming elite and as of yet, the COD franchise has "only" had 2 massive successes (COD 1 & 2 were also massive successes but the PC market is/was so small it's on a completely different prefix when it comes to sales figures) BUT I APPRECIATE THIS IS NOT YOUR POINT, HENCE I WILL ANSWER PROPERLY

I think that's interesting, there have been many attempts to put "you" in the game. The most successful of which probably being the Wii characters & uploading a picture of your face in Tony Hawk's Underground 1. I wouldn't call either of those a massive success. I think it has the potential to work in those sorts of games, but YOUR FACE / body in an FPS, even a very arcady & un-serious one like MW2, just would not work at all. You're soldiers in a warzone. For the sake of retaining small amounts of plausability in the game's story line, I don't want to be shooting 12 to 18 year old faces.

"Active" gaming is a neat idea. At the moment the affordable tech (Wii etc) isn't developed enough, whilst the really cutting edge stuff (the game being projected onto all 4 fours and your ceiling, whilst you stand on what is effectively a 2D treadmill so you have to run and aim etc yourself) is massively expensive, massively impractical and a long way out of reach of even the very serious gamers.

Graphics, as you say, have improved massively recently but the rise of console gaming stunts this growth and it comes in bursts - PCs get better every 6 months but console gaming (thus all the PC ports) stay the same for 5 years then get updated, then stay the same for the next 5 years, repeat. The issue with this is graphics developments are constrained by having to develop for different platforms and for old tech. The PS3's GFX hardware is 4 years out of date for christ sake.

There are an infinite amounts of "the next big thing"s when it comes to graphics, currently the next big thing is ray tracing & tessalation. However the majority of "next big things" don't turn out. Look at Gran Turismo 4's Grand Canyon stage. The graphics are not "photo realistic" in the modern sense. They are physically photos and therefore look more lifelike than any CGI ever can be. This however didn't work out because the hardware at the time was too slow, so it got ignored and buzz moved onto the next big thing. Hardware usually chases software, which means only the biggest spenders (and that's gaming PCs, not consoles sadly) can regularly get the latest visual techniques. And even if you do have 3 $1000 GFX cards it's a catch 22, the software doesn't exist or isn't developed very well because there's no point because not many have the hardware! Hardware/software never advances as quickly as predicted. Case in point, we don't live on the moon or any of the hundreds of things we were supposed to have done by the year 2000 or whatever.

3D? Who knows. Maybe it'll just be a fad, maybe it'll come and be great and then fade away. Maybe everything will be in 3d from now on.

Maybe gaming won't even be popular in 10 years...

---

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

Voodoo

doubtful. E-Sports are gaining more and more attention, sponsors etc.

__________________

My YouTube Channel

OzballO

If there is McDonalds there will be gamers...

OT I would love to see an active gaming experience. Finally us athletes could possibly take on the great nerds of the world lolololol!

Carlos

If Vince Zampilia and his partner wins the rights to the Modern Warfare brand, then its brand will be its own. Therefore, I see the brand expand beyond just COD4/MW2.

BUT, if Activision wins, and wins the brand name; they will no doubt take the Call of Duty name to an entirely new level with the Modern Warfare tagline.

They aim to do it with Black Ops. And not a damn thing you can do about it.

__________________

Megika

Very unlikely in my opinion; if they win it, I rather suspect MW3 compared to MW2 will be similar to comparing MW2 to MW1.

Okay, that's not a well-constructed sentence but you get my point.

Olaf Vikingsson

You two are fools. They just want more royalties.

__________________

Yukimaru

If there is a Modern Warfare in 2020 it will be the pretty much the same game with new weapons perks and maps. Oh wait... I just described Black Ops.

__________________

Platy

The CoD/Modern Warfare brand probably has 5/6 more years until its drained completely. Same with MoH in the past.

Gaming (on console) will (possibly) have moved away from FPS and onto something new, which Activision will attempt to build a game for and drain as much from as possible with their yearly releases. This is assuming Kotick hasn't been stabbed in the face by then.

__________________

Three Guys Play COD

Maybe not by 2020, but hopefully sometime in the next 20 years we'll have some virtual reality (or at least a helmet-like device to replace the TV and some motion sensors) so that we can get the HUD directly in front of our eyes and turning your head or flinching would actually affect your gameplay.

Carlos

That COULD happen, but companies re-brand an old franchise if they see an opportunity. MoH is pure example of just that. I don't think they expect that MoH to surpass MW2 right away, rather, they want to re-build that brand to compete directly against MW2 (or another brand from acticrap) and make it the best selling game of all time. Fact is, Modern Warfare is the one that pushed the COD name to its peak before Activision saw opportunity to exploit that brand. Then the rest is history you see today: MW2.
I don't think so, the entire point of motion controls/3D is being conceived right now is because of the FPS genre. So I don't see it dying until 2030. There's nothing new and exciting about FPS right now, so they want to change things up, and for the greater good, improve the motion control technology to help the military overseas. Kinect is just a taste of things to come because, if Microsoft or any technology company designs a really good technology that is good enough for soldiers to use in combat operations, they will buy the technology and use it on robots. Think Metal Gear Solid 4.

Its not the same thing, but you get the point.

__________________

jamesmsv

On a more optimistic note, hopefully in the next 10-20 years there will be some invention or breakthough that we find even hard to fathom at this point in time, something as revolutionary as the microchip that will mean gaming makes the same sort of advances as we've seen from this


in the past 20 years. Back then very few people would have seen the potential of something like that, now look at us.

Unfortunately one aspect of gaming that will hold it back from advancing out of the living room and into real life is convenience, you don't need to leave your sofa and you don't need to expend any energy, you stay safe and lazy and that's some of the attraction for a lot of people.

Once you take it outside it's going to take a hell of a lot for a game to be more exciting than some real-life things it might replace such as paintballing or go-kart racing which wouldn't be as fun if they didn't have the risk/pain factor.

Skuh

Love it when the young think they are old cos they remember something over 10 years old.

OT. Technology is already in advance of computer games in this field. The American Military have state of the art 'games' to train new troops. The 4th infantry (reputed to be the most technically advanced infantry unit in the world) have advanced trainers that have over 180 arc of screens for their trainers.

I think advances now are largely limited by space (living room is where most people play), cost-playstation only started to make a profit this year on their consoles and time- Consoles last longer now so the technology won't advance as fast.
I take Pc out of the equation just because PC gaming doesnt drive the market forward (anymore) like console and there is an argument for consoles stunting Pc gaming (think abc wrote something similar).