The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Most games need a touch of realism or they will just be completely crazy.
I did something like this, but I wrote do we want our future games to become more realistic or should it depend on the genre.
Lots of people said that Fantasy RPG;s should get more realistic or stay the way they are and improve and curvier and clearer graphics and I replyed that they shouldn't get much more fantasy like but keep to a good story line and good Ideas but things like the way props and backgrounds look and move could change too.
And Things like racing F1 and Fighting games could get more realistic if they did or just improve graphics and collision detection etc.
Lots of people said that Fantasy RPG;s should get more realistic or stay the way they are and improve and curvier and clearer graphics and I replyed that they shouldn't get much more fantasy like but keep to a good story line and good Ideas but things like the way props and backgrounds look and move could change too.
And Things like racing F1 and Fighting games could get more realistic if they did or just improve graphics and collision detection etc.
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: