The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do we really want realistic games?
-------------- --------------------
You might think I'm about to spend a year talking about graphics, yet again, but in this instance, I'm not.
Think about most game's gameplay. Generally speaking, it is not completely, if at all, accurate. When we play a racing game, we know that, in real life, if a car goes that far away from the road, or is damaged too much, it will be fixed or retired.
Yet, in most games, we are allowed to continue, until the car generally explodes in the middle of the track.
In the Final Fantasy series, often acclaimed for it's "realistic" pre-rendered backdrops, when a battle comes along, the enemy very politely says, "I'm here. Come and fight me. But don't worry, I'll let you pause the game for as long as you like, and I won't do anything while you're killing me. I'll wait my turn, and I won't try to stop you doing whatever you like to me. Isn't this realistic?" ;-)
Again, I have played several adventure games where you are unable to do something at present. For example, it is raining, so you cannot use the boat. Or something is broken. Or the city has been destroyed by a madman with a rather vicious pet, conviniently called something verocious and scary sounding.
Despite the fact that, in my world at least, it does stop raining (I know, it's hard to believe), broken things do get fixed eventually (but not if I have anything to do with fixing them ;-) ), and cities slowly get rebuilt, if Tony Blair is feeling very generous.
However, in these games, despite the many people standing around and hitting the building with a hammer, there isn't any progress made. (I'm surprised they don't just do more damage)
In Monkey Island 4, very near to the end of the game, you have to climb a ladder and flick a switch, before the pirating world is destroyed by a rather odd looking thing, called an "Ultimate Insult".
Yet again, you can wait as long as you like before doing this, and it has no adverse effect on the game.
So why do games developers make such obvious and, surely detrimental "mistakes" when writing a game?
The answer, of course, is that, if it was realistic, it would be the most boring game in the world.
Can you imagine what it would be like if, in order to do something new in the game, you had to merely wait, and wait, and wait, for something to happen? Answer : It would be boring, and you'd go off and play something else.
RTS games, despite being dubbed "Real-time", aren't playing in "real-real-time" at all. We don't wait six months for a bunch of guys with mallets to build a factory.
In racing games, the reason cars are allowed to keep going, is because it's fun. Generally speaking, the thing that makes the sport interesting for competitors, is the thrill of actually being there, and going around a track at ridiculously high speeds.
Since that can't happen in games, the game has to be interesting in another way, and so an unrealistic engine is the way to do this.
Some games HAVE tried to be "realistic". And guess what? They (generally), end up being the most boring and uninspiring games around. They are also often far too hard.
It seems as though any attempt at real, real realism, is just going to lose any fun that exists in a game.
-------------------------- ---------------------------------
I was recently in a local games store, and a pair of adults nearby, while letting their (presumably) son buy something, picked up a copy of "Black and White".
I was nearby, and I heard the phrase, "That's not very realistic, is it?"
Since I thought that B&W had some of the best graphics around, I wondered what they were talking about, and moved closer.
"In REAL life, you wouldn't be a god, would you?"
I almost felt like smacking him. That's the WHOLE POINT. What would be the point in a game that you can do in real life.
Have you ever seen a successful supermarket simulation? Of course not. (Have you ever seen any supermaket simulation?)
The whole point of games is to be unrealistic. If it was properly realistic, we could all do it in real life, and so there would be no need to play the game!
And so, next time you hear people complaining about violence, extravagance, and pure craziness in games, tell them,
"That's the whole point".
And that's the truth.
---------------------------- -----------------------------
Having said all this, do we REALLY want realistic games?
My answer to that question is, quite simply, NO!
---------------------------- ----------------------------
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
-------------- --------------------
You might think I'm about to spend a year talking about graphics, yet again, but in this instance, I'm not.
Think about most game's gameplay. Generally speaking, it is not completely, if at all, accurate. When we play a racing game, we know that, in real life, if a car goes that far away from the road, or is damaged too much, it will be fixed or retired.
Yet, in most games, we are allowed to continue, until the car generally explodes in the middle of the track.
In the Final Fantasy series, often acclaimed for it's "realistic" pre-rendered backdrops, when a battle comes along, the enemy very politely says, "I'm here. Come and fight me. But don't worry, I'll let you pause the game for as long as you like, and I won't do anything while you're killing me. I'll wait my turn, and I won't try to stop you doing whatever you like to me. Isn't this realistic?" ;-)
Again, I have played several adventure games where you are unable to do something at present. For example, it is raining, so you cannot use the boat. Or something is broken. Or the city has been destroyed by a madman with a rather vicious pet, conviniently called something verocious and scary sounding.
Despite the fact that, in my world at least, it does stop raining (I know, it's hard to believe), broken things do get fixed eventually (but not if I have anything to do with fixing them ;-) ), and cities slowly get rebuilt, if Tony Blair is feeling very generous.
However, in these games, despite the many people standing around and hitting the building with a hammer, there isn't any progress made. (I'm surprised they don't just do more damage)
In Monkey Island 4, very near to the end of the game, you have to climb a ladder and flick a switch, before the pirating world is destroyed by a rather odd looking thing, called an "Ultimate Insult".
Yet again, you can wait as long as you like before doing this, and it has no adverse effect on the game.
So why do games developers make such obvious and, surely detrimental "mistakes" when writing a game?
The answer, of course, is that, if it was realistic, it would be the most boring game in the world.
Can you imagine what it would be like if, in order to do something new in the game, you had to merely wait, and wait, and wait, for something to happen? Answer : It would be boring, and you'd go off and play something else.
RTS games, despite being dubbed "Real-time", aren't playing in "real-real-time" at all. We don't wait six months for a bunch of guys with mallets to build a factory.
In racing games, the reason cars are allowed to keep going, is because it's fun. Generally speaking, the thing that makes the sport interesting for competitors, is the thrill of actually being there, and going around a track at ridiculously high speeds.
Since that can't happen in games, the game has to be interesting in another way, and so an unrealistic engine is the way to do this.
Some games HAVE tried to be "realistic". And guess what? They (generally), end up being the most boring and uninspiring games around. They are also often far too hard.
It seems as though any attempt at real, real realism, is just going to lose any fun that exists in a game.
-------------------------- ---------------------------------
I was recently in a local games store, and a pair of adults nearby, while letting their (presumably) son buy something, picked up a copy of "Black and White".
I was nearby, and I heard the phrase, "That's not very realistic, is it?"
Since I thought that B&W had some of the best graphics around, I wondered what they were talking about, and moved closer.
"In REAL life, you wouldn't be a god, would you?"
I almost felt like smacking him. That's the WHOLE POINT. What would be the point in a game that you can do in real life.
Have you ever seen a successful supermarket simulation? Of course not. (Have you ever seen any supermaket simulation?)
The whole point of games is to be unrealistic. If it was properly realistic, we could all do it in real life, and so there would be no need to play the game!
And so, next time you hear people complaining about violence, extravagance, and pure craziness in games, tell them,
"That's the whole point".
And that's the truth.
---------------------------- -----------------------------
Having said all this, do we REALLY want realistic games?
My answer to that question is, quite simply, NO!
---------------------------- ----------------------------
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
Page:
The most realistic game I have ever played, is "Rainbow 6 - Rogue Spear". One shot and your dead, but it depends where your shot if you get shot in the leg you survive but can only walk.
I also has the wright amount of time when reloading your gun, so if your in the middle of a battle it's better to use your pistol when you run out of bullets with your main weapon.
I also has the wright amount of time when reloading your gun, so if your in the middle of a battle it's better to use your pistol when you run out of bullets with your main weapon.
Now that would be an interesting game.
Some teenage kid goes around terrorising people with a weapon (non projectile ofcourse, say a crowbar or knife) and you, as a cop, have to disarm him.
The hardest part?
If you harm him then the brat sues and you lose money, or possibly your job.
It'll take real skill to pull it off perfectly and disarm him without getting hurt, without hurting the kid and stopping innocent bystanders from it too.
Some teenage kid goes around terrorising people with a weapon (non projectile ofcourse, say a crowbar or knife) and you, as a cop, have to disarm him.
The hardest part?
If you harm him then the brat sues and you lose money, or possibly your job.
It'll take real skill to pull it off perfectly and disarm him without getting hurt, without hurting the kid and stopping innocent bystanders from it too.
Some people prefer realism in games rather than having weapons illogically placed in the middle of the street in games.
Can you imagine if some kid picked up a weapon in the street that was just lying around?
Actually that would make a great part of a game! You've got to disarm the kid without hurting him before he kills someone.
Can you imagine if some kid picked up a weapon in the street that was just lying around?
Actually that would make a great part of a game! You've got to disarm the kid without hurting him before he kills someone.
ByEeeee!
PinkPig wrote:
> So they do...
See Ya
PinkPig
C ya!
> So they do...
See Ya
PinkPig
C ya!
So they do...
See Ya
PinkPig
See Ya
PinkPig
PinkPig wrote:
> Exactly. But if you were asked - which is more realistic, GT3 or
> Micro Machines, most people would say the former!
See
> Ya
PinkPig
Micro Machines rule!
> Exactly. But if you were asked - which is more realistic, GT3 or
> Micro Machines, most people would say the former!
See
> Ya
PinkPig
Micro Machines rule!
Which games have real cities?
I am yet to see a game with a real city, merely a track with the backdrop of a city, or selected streets in a city.
Most popular games do let you find weapons lying around for no reason. While some have tried to battle this problem, many very popular games (e.g. Half-Life), have included boxes lying around with ammo in them.
Fine, realism is sometimes around in games, but generally speaking, the best games are the unrealistic ones!
See Ya
PinkPig
I am yet to see a game with a real city, merely a track with the backdrop of a city, or selected streets in a city.
Most popular games do let you find weapons lying around for no reason. While some have tried to battle this problem, many very popular games (e.g. Half-Life), have included boxes lying around with ammo in them.
Fine, realism is sometimes around in games, but generally speaking, the best games are the unrealistic ones!
See Ya
PinkPig
I disagree, realism should be part of games if it is required.
For example, I would much rather play in MGS2 with real weapons, and believable scenarios. I don't want wooden boxes lying about with weapons in them! I want to only be able to get new guns from enemies or from ammo dumps.
In racing games, simulation games should be as realistic as possible. For example, in MSR you want to ride in REAL cities, with REAL cars, which have REALISTIC handling.
Clearly not all games hould be realistic. Jet Set Radio and my fav game ever, NiGHTS!, are clear examples of that.
I believe that there should always be a mix of fantasy and realistic games to chose from. At the moment everyone seems to be going for realism.Although this will satisfy some people it does not open the market up with new original games.
Only time will tell if this trend continues.
NiGHTS!
For example, I would much rather play in MGS2 with real weapons, and believable scenarios. I don't want wooden boxes lying about with weapons in them! I want to only be able to get new guns from enemies or from ammo dumps.
In racing games, simulation games should be as realistic as possible. For example, in MSR you want to ride in REAL cities, with REAL cars, which have REALISTIC handling.
Clearly not all games hould be realistic. Jet Set Radio and my fav game ever, NiGHTS!, are clear examples of that.
I believe that there should always be a mix of fantasy and realistic games to chose from. At the moment everyone seems to be going for realism.Although this will satisfy some people it does not open the market up with new original games.
Only time will tell if this trend continues.
NiGHTS!
Exactly. But if you were asked - which is more realistic, GT3 or Micro Machines, most people would say the former!
See Ya
PinkPig
See Ya
PinkPig
Page: