Viewing Thread:
"do you think gamecube is the best console"

Personally im a fan of ps2 and gamecube but which has the better games and which has the best value. i mean i think cube has better £20 games than ps2 but ps2 has san ansreas, smackdown vs raw and mutitap for additional players. so which is the better console???????

So surely you're saying there, that games like Gran Turismo will ultimately lead to boring simulations of real life that you wouldn't actually want to play and which would, in the end, be pointless, whereas fantasy games such as those Nintendo produce which are fun to play would become defunct.

And that's a good thing... BECAUSE?

gerrid wrote:
> So surely you're saying there, that games like Gran Turismo will
> ultimately lead to boring simulations of real life that you wouldn't
> actually want to play and which would, in the end, be pointless,
> whereas fantasy games such as those Nintendo produce which are fun to
> play would become defunct.
>
> And that's a good thing... BECAUSE?

I never said you had to like the idea - indeed I dont want games that are identical to real life with all the cr@p bits of life in it. But people who make games and Sony and others appear to want to push in that direction.

Right. So the uber realistic style of games is bad. Glad we could agree on that.

I'm also glad that we agree that Sony and Microsoft may be pushing games in the wrong direction.

gerrid wrote:
> I'm also glad that we agree that Sony and Microsoft may be pushing
> games in the wrong direction.

Would you agree that Nintendo are pushing in the right direction then ?

I wouldn't say Nintendo exclusively. Their mantra appears to be more accessible, fun games that everyone can enjoy, rather than "let's get amazing graphics and games which simulate real life"

Depends on how close to real life things get, and the nature of the game. I would have to say here, I am thinking 30 years or more into the future.

Here we go then...

(dont laugh), but we certainly dont want to catch a cold in a game and feel the effect of it for real. Nor do we want to break a leg if we get run over by a car in the game, etc.

On the other hand, certain things would be very nice if they were identical to real life. And if you were to add in "networking" with other people all around the world, you could "visit" you relatives in the USA, without even getting on a plane! You could also make "tour guides" - places you could vist in the game which would look, feel, and smell just like the real life location.

Taking the above technology, you could turn a game like The Getaway into a much more lifelike experience. But its a game, so you could play in virtual "made up" towns, City's, etc, or recreations of real locations. You really could "drive" the car with the money in the boot, and take a run at London bridge with the bridge open. You would also do dealings with virtual people, and the story would change depending on what you said and did.

So in the first instance, games wouldn't actually be games at all, just CGI manifestations of telephone conversations, or pictures or videos. Basically interactive tours of places you've never been. Sounds wonderful, but it's not really gaming, is it?

As for the second part, what you've described is basically the ne type of game that you could get with ultra-realism - life simulations. Where you can go anywhere do anything, but everything is constrained by real world physics etc. The most fun aspect of this game would be in doing things that you can't actually do in real life, rather than simulating things that you can do, like driving a car. Non-realism, fantasy allows much more scope, where you can fly, where you can be Mario and collect coins and platform, where you can roll monkeys around in balls, where you can fight aliens on distant planets.

The problem with ultra realism is, like you said, it limits choice - you get one type of free roaming adventure that is just life without consequences.

I remember a while back when someone from Nintendo said something along the lines of "We arnt concentrating on just more power" or something, bascially meant that :-P.

Everyone took it as "We arnt gonna bother with high end specs" when how i took it was "anybody can throw money at it and give you a high spec machine, but we should be developing other ways to make games fun".

Sooner or later we are gonna have it where the only way to play games is to shell out loads of money as all the useless extras will be added to it. Then your playing on a PC to play console games as the only way to make better consoles atm seem to be "lets add more processor power" or "omg lets add a bookholder to the back of it". We pay a PC price, a year later we realise computers have advanced and we cant upgrade that "out of date" console sitting in the corner of our rooms.

I want to see things that will actually add to the experice of games, that added functionality of that "ultra cool always gonna be useful MegaDVDBLUERAYx500" the company was boasting about isnt going to improve my gaming experience. The added power etc will get to the stage where we are playing the same old games in the same old way only this times in 500 more polygons OMG OMG OMG!.

Touchscreen on the DS is a start, changes the whole way you play the games and also gives developers more chances to come up with new ideas.

Is it me or is it that as every day goes by Macintosh makes even *less* sense, if that's possible.