The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yeah, with Dale Winton at the checkout, and all those smiling till ladies!
Er. Perhaps not.............!
;-)
Er. Perhaps not.............!
;-)
I think that a supermarket sim would be quite good, if you had competition, whicb would make it unrealistic.
Grrrrrrrrrrr...
Grrrrrrrrrrr...
How come drivers in racing games never sustain any injury or die when they crash?
if games were completly realistic they probably wouldn't be any fun would they now.
The Sims is QUITE realistic.
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: