> Yeah, but we drink Pepsi, right? Shouldn't it be generation Nex(t)us?
I personally like to think of this as the Quake generation. Incidentally, id Software, Quake's creators, kicked up a huge fuss when they announced that Quake 3 is going to be a strictly online phenomenon, there would be no single-player component to the thing. Sacrilege to diehard Quakers, many of whom will tell you that single-player maps are much, much harder to produce and far more aesthetically pleasing than multiple-player scenarios. Id's President promptly stated that "of *course* there's going to be Single-Player Quake 3", so maybe there's hope.
What's happening is a segmentation of the game market, where id and other firms are writing the graphics engines, and other firms are providing the maps, character-sets, and custom innovations, an interesting division of labor. Also, many of the newer 3D games are turning into genuinely interactive scenarios, where you walk around and use things, talk to other characters, etc. There's already loose talk that graphics engines will undergo the same development curve as Linux, i.e. that the thing will free itself from the clutches of corporations and mutate into open source, public software. Id, to its credit, has not been shy about making its source code public, and has really been a class act to other developers, designers, level-builders, etc. Interestingly, Microsoft, by contrast, seems to be pissing off more and more game designers, for its sloth, arrogance, and attempt to push proprietary graphics standards down people's throats; John Carmack, id's brilliant lead programmer, is particularly critical of Mister Softie, and he's not someone who usually takes sides in *any* kind of corporation vs. corporation debate.
Incidentally, anyone got the buzz on Half-life? I believed the hype on Unreal and got burned real bad. Great graphics, but poorly-designed gameplay, not even close to Quakervana. But the gamesters are saying 1/2 Life is the platinum tip. Is this true?
-- Dennis