The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
When did games cease to be about fun and begin to be more about how realistic they were?
With all of those massive leaps in technology in the past 20 years, why are we still happiest when we are guiding monochrome snakes around a maze with the aid of just one thumb? Why attemp to makes games as realistic as possible when all we care about is falling colured blocks? And can those people that make out lovely games make things better?
I mean, come on. How can moving a little rubber stick with your thumb recreate that joyous feeling of powersliding a Nissan Skyline or an Audi TT at 100mph into a signpost? It can't, not realistically?
It never used to be like this. We never used to judge games just by how relistic they were. In those days, nobody cared how realistic a gmae was. All the matter was being kept busy on a rainy afternoon while you waited for your favourite program to begin.
Realism was something that was to be avoided for the first two decades of video game existence. Probably the main reason for this was just the plain fact that the technology was just not advanced enough to make a good job out of it. In those days, realism just wasn't as important as it is considered nowadays.
We were perfectly happy seeing a coloured oblong thing as the car and green circles as the trees (I know I was, I don't know about everybody else). What has changed?
Well, developers are now putting a lot more emphasis on making sure everything looks right and realistic, rather than playing nice.
And beside, everybody cheats anyway. I mean, you'd get arrested if you edged that car beside you into the barrier just to satisfy that need for winning.
Let's take Shemue for example. It was full of overpowering details of reality. To the gamers, Shenmue fell into two catagories: The best game ever (this is the catagory it fell into for me), and the most boring game ever.
It was a game where the gamers could get lost in this imaginative world. You could wake up when you wanted to, catch a bus, play darts at a bar, and even go to work. There was something for everyone to enjoy, well almost everyone. To those gamers who are more interested in the completion of the game, they don't want to get increasingly, yet realistically, bored in a game, do they?
There is a side effect of realism in a game. Boredom, something that games were made to destroy. What needs to be done? Start with an essentially real experience and add some of that gaming magic to end up with a tweaked version of reality (well that's what I think anyway).
So, which one is best? The more realistic game, or the simplist game. Well, only you have the answer to that one. It is the game that makes you smile and the game that you play the most, not the most realistic.
Thanks for reading (if you didn't get bored).
With all of those massive leaps in technology in the past 20 years, why are we still happiest when we are guiding monochrome snakes around a maze with the aid of just one thumb? Why attemp to makes games as realistic as possible when all we care about is falling colured blocks? And can those people that make out lovely games make things better?
I mean, come on. How can moving a little rubber stick with your thumb recreate that joyous feeling of powersliding a Nissan Skyline or an Audi TT at 100mph into a signpost? It can't, not realistically?
It never used to be like this. We never used to judge games just by how relistic they were. In those days, nobody cared how realistic a gmae was. All the matter was being kept busy on a rainy afternoon while you waited for your favourite program to begin.
Realism was something that was to be avoided for the first two decades of video game existence. Probably the main reason for this was just the plain fact that the technology was just not advanced enough to make a good job out of it. In those days, realism just wasn't as important as it is considered nowadays.
We were perfectly happy seeing a coloured oblong thing as the car and green circles as the trees (I know I was, I don't know about everybody else). What has changed?
Well, developers are now putting a lot more emphasis on making sure everything looks right and realistic, rather than playing nice.
And beside, everybody cheats anyway. I mean, you'd get arrested if you edged that car beside you into the barrier just to satisfy that need for winning.
Let's take Shemue for example. It was full of overpowering details of reality. To the gamers, Shenmue fell into two catagories: The best game ever (this is the catagory it fell into for me), and the most boring game ever.
It was a game where the gamers could get lost in this imaginative world. You could wake up when you wanted to, catch a bus, play darts at a bar, and even go to work. There was something for everyone to enjoy, well almost everyone. To those gamers who are more interested in the completion of the game, they don't want to get increasingly, yet realistically, bored in a game, do they?
There is a side effect of realism in a game. Boredom, something that games were made to destroy. What needs to be done? Start with an essentially real experience and add some of that gaming magic to end up with a tweaked version of reality (well that's what I think anyway).
So, which one is best? The more realistic game, or the simplist game. Well, only you have the answer to that one. It is the game that makes you smile and the game that you play the most, not the most realistic.
Thanks for reading (if you didn't get bored).
Page:
It's alright not my type o game though
PS R U on your lunch break1
PS R U on your lunch break1
ZZZZZZ!
Oh yeah borin!
Oh yeah borin!
Zelda is close but things like backgrounds that aren't accessable are blurry, people you talk to don't move to a different route or say anything different.
Like a builder just stands there and says he is busy building go away and he dosent move stuff like that could be changed.
CBFD the same problem in some places but very rare.
FF there are quite a few things that make it imperfect.
Nope there are no game sthat are perfect!
Like a builder just stands there and says he is busy building go away and he dosent move stuff like that could be changed.
CBFD the same problem in some places but very rare.
FF there are quite a few things that make it imperfect.
Nope there are no game sthat are perfect!
Realism is good if applied in the right places.
In sports games you need a little reality in the physics of the game, such as how the ball moves and the like.
What you don't want, however, is to have to take a trip to the A&E everytime you take a big knock, or make sure that your character is eating well in order to stay healthy.
I think there should be more realistic interaction with environments. Simple things like if you've been shot, you leave a trail of blood, that doesn't fade away. Grass should not just be a solid green that you walk on top of, but something that you walk through, and leave parts trodden down. You should leave footprints in mud, and get muddy boots too.
And how about when you walk through a room, but you can't pick up anything from tables, or open cupboards? Everything should be interactive. It needn't serve a purpose, it would just be something that could add to the game.
Just because a game is realistic, it doesn't mean you have to do realistic things. If there was a game out there, completely open ended (unlikely I know), in which you started off living in a house, and could do whatever you wanted, it would be a very sad man that tried to live a 'normal' life with their character. It would only be fun if you could do things that wouldn't be deemed socially acceptable. Attack people at random in the streets, go joyriding or rob a bank.
So yeah, realism is good, but only when applied to the correct areas of the gameplay.
In sports games you need a little reality in the physics of the game, such as how the ball moves and the like.
What you don't want, however, is to have to take a trip to the A&E everytime you take a big knock, or make sure that your character is eating well in order to stay healthy.
I think there should be more realistic interaction with environments. Simple things like if you've been shot, you leave a trail of blood, that doesn't fade away. Grass should not just be a solid green that you walk on top of, but something that you walk through, and leave parts trodden down. You should leave footprints in mud, and get muddy boots too.
And how about when you walk through a room, but you can't pick up anything from tables, or open cupboards? Everything should be interactive. It needn't serve a purpose, it would just be something that could add to the game.
Just because a game is realistic, it doesn't mean you have to do realistic things. If there was a game out there, completely open ended (unlikely I know), in which you started off living in a house, and could do whatever you wanted, it would be a very sad man that tried to live a 'normal' life with their character. It would only be fun if you could do things that wouldn't be deemed socially acceptable. Attack people at random in the streets, go joyriding or rob a bank.
So yeah, realism is good, but only when applied to the correct areas of the gameplay.
Yeah my point exactly give it some good and imaginative graphics, decent storyline, oriinal characters and a good control system, and you have the perfect game.
Games do need a touch of realism, but all I am saying that a game doesn't need to be realistic for it to be enjoyed.
Look at the Gameboy, the most successful console ever. Why was it the most successful? Because the games were fun and simple to play. The games couldn't be too realistic (if realistic at all) because of the limitations of the GB. People just loved to play the games, and still do. It will be the same for the GBA. The games won't be too realistic because of the limitations, just as it was in the days of the Megadrive and SNES. The games will be fun to play, and simple.
How many of you out there love to play Snakes?
Look at the Gameboy, the most successful console ever. Why was it the most successful? Because the games were fun and simple to play. The games couldn't be too realistic (if realistic at all) because of the limitations of the GB. People just loved to play the games, and still do. It will be the same for the GBA. The games won't be too realistic because of the limitations, just as it was in the days of the Megadrive and SNES. The games will be fun to play, and simple.
How many of you out there love to play Snakes?
Page: