The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What is the point of trying top achieve photo-realism in games? By very definition photo-realism sahould mean that games are totally realistic. In art photo-realism would mean simply drawing something so precisly that it looks as though it was taken by a camera. This does not hold true for games. Photo-realism must mean more than simply looking just like real life.
Allow me to propose an example. Shenmue- possibly the best looking game around- and pretty close to photo-realism. Let us imagine that the games WAS completely photo-realistic. Every expression looked real, every kung-fu kick just like a real man's. Would this game be satisfying? I think not.
Within the game you are surrounded by everyday objects. Lamps, phones, motorcycles. You can turn a lamp on. You can use a phone. You can ride a motorcycle when the games creator allows you to. You cannot, however, pick up the lamp and move it into another room, make prank phone calls or steal a motorcycle. Unless the Godlike game designers has allowed you to. Otherwise the game will just not respond to you, instead completely destroying the fasade of a real world and reminding you that it is just a game, and you can only do what has been pre-written.
In order for photo-realism to be of any use, the very game dynamics must change. The gameplay must be realistic and allow you to do anything. Anything. A horribel concept to a game designer. Did it ever occur to you that the whole role of a game designer is to limit what you can do, and hinder your progress. MSR does not allow you to break through a barrier and take a short cut. Even more pathetically, Resident Evil games require you to run around looking for a gold medalion that will fit ionto a slot and open up a secret bunker. Is this realistic? Do secret associations leave guns in wooden crates around bases? So they leave keys lying about?
It should be clear by now that games creators should focus on making realistic games- not just realistic graphics. How often do you play games that could be done just as well in 2d... a lot. So,. I say to you Mr. Miyamoto, will I be allowed to simply walk out fo Luigi's Masion and leave Mario to fend for himself?
Allow me to propose an example. Shenmue- possibly the best looking game around- and pretty close to photo-realism. Let us imagine that the games WAS completely photo-realistic. Every expression looked real, every kung-fu kick just like a real man's. Would this game be satisfying? I think not.
Within the game you are surrounded by everyday objects. Lamps, phones, motorcycles. You can turn a lamp on. You can use a phone. You can ride a motorcycle when the games creator allows you to. You cannot, however, pick up the lamp and move it into another room, make prank phone calls or steal a motorcycle. Unless the Godlike game designers has allowed you to. Otherwise the game will just not respond to you, instead completely destroying the fasade of a real world and reminding you that it is just a game, and you can only do what has been pre-written.
In order for photo-realism to be of any use, the very game dynamics must change. The gameplay must be realistic and allow you to do anything. Anything. A horribel concept to a game designer. Did it ever occur to you that the whole role of a game designer is to limit what you can do, and hinder your progress. MSR does not allow you to break through a barrier and take a short cut. Even more pathetically, Resident Evil games require you to run around looking for a gold medalion that will fit ionto a slot and open up a secret bunker. Is this realistic? Do secret associations leave guns in wooden crates around bases? So they leave keys lying about?
It should be clear by now that games creators should focus on making realistic games- not just realistic graphics. How often do you play games that could be done just as well in 2d... a lot. So,. I say to you Mr. Miyamoto, will I be allowed to simply walk out fo Luigi's Masion and leave Mario to fend for himself?
What is the point of trying top achieve photo-realism in games? By very definition photo-realism sahould mean that games are totally realistic. In art photo-realism would mean simply drawing something so precisly that it looks as though it was taken by a camera. This does not hold true for games. Photo-realism must mean more than simply looking just like real life.
Allow me to propose an example. Shenmue- possibly the best looking game around- and pretty close to photo-realism. Let us imagine that the games WAS completely photo-realistic. Every expression looked real, every kung-fu kick just like a real man's. Would this game be satisfying? I think not.
Within the game you are surrounded by everyday objects. Lamps, phones, motorcycles. You can turn a lamp on. You can use a phone. You can ride a motorcycle when the games creator allows you to. You cannot, however, pick up the lamp and move it into another room, make prank phone calls or steal a motorcycle. Unless the Godlike game designers has allowed you to. Otherwise the game will just not respond to you, instead completely destroying the fasade of a real world and reminding you that it is just a game, and you can only do what has been pre-written.
In order for photo-realism to be of any use, the very game dynamics must change. The gameplay must be realistic and allow you to do anything. Anything. A horribel concept to a game designer. Did it ever occur to you that the whole role of a game designer is to limit what you can do, and hinder your progress. MSR does not allow you to break through a barrier and take a short cut. Even more pathetically, Resident Evil games require you to run around looking for a gold medalion that will fit ionto a slot and open up a secret bunker. Is this realistic? Do secret associations leave guns in wooden crates around bases? So they leave keys lying about?
It should be clear by now that games creators should focus on making realistic games- not just realistic graphics. How often do you play games that could be done just as well in 2d... a lot. So,. I say to you Mr. Miyamoto, will I be allowed to simply walk out fo Luigi's Masion and leave Mario to fend for himself?
Allow me to propose an example. Shenmue- possibly the best looking game around- and pretty close to photo-realism. Let us imagine that the games WAS completely photo-realistic. Every expression looked real, every kung-fu kick just like a real man's. Would this game be satisfying? I think not.
Within the game you are surrounded by everyday objects. Lamps, phones, motorcycles. You can turn a lamp on. You can use a phone. You can ride a motorcycle when the games creator allows you to. You cannot, however, pick up the lamp and move it into another room, make prank phone calls or steal a motorcycle. Unless the Godlike game designers has allowed you to. Otherwise the game will just not respond to you, instead completely destroying the fasade of a real world and reminding you that it is just a game, and you can only do what has been pre-written.
In order for photo-realism to be of any use, the very game dynamics must change. The gameplay must be realistic and allow you to do anything. Anything. A horribel concept to a game designer. Did it ever occur to you that the whole role of a game designer is to limit what you can do, and hinder your progress. MSR does not allow you to break through a barrier and take a short cut. Even more pathetically, Resident Evil games require you to run around looking for a gold medalion that will fit ionto a slot and open up a secret bunker. Is this realistic? Do secret associations leave guns in wooden crates around bases? So they leave keys lying about?
It should be clear by now that games creators should focus on making realistic games- not just realistic graphics. How often do you play games that could be done just as well in 2d... a lot. So,. I say to you Mr. Miyamoto, will I be allowed to simply walk out fo Luigi's Masion and leave Mario to fend for himself?
Not bad for a JAT
Is this what we call a gameaday attempt?! ;)
Is this what we call a gameaday attempt?! ;)
Good post. I must say that I agree there. I head that there's a game coming out where you are a terrorist and you can do a hell of a lot, basically whatever you want. Steal the car down the road, blow up buildings and loads of other stuff. Everything is interactive.
Good stuff. I strongly agree. I had a moan about racing games a while ago, having realistic graphics, yet being rather unrealistic.
On the other hand, how much exploration do you want to do?
If every game becomes an interactive world I fear certain options will fade from being novelties, to annoyances, or completely ignored featues.
Is it worth the programmers time to add all these things? Would you be willing to wait an extra 2 months for an almost identical game?
On the other hand, how much exploration do you want to do?
If every game becomes an interactive world I fear certain options will fade from being novelties, to annoyances, or completely ignored featues.
Is it worth the programmers time to add all these things? Would you be willing to wait an extra 2 months for an almost identical game?
Do we want these options? Good question, and one to ponder.
However, if developers are so intent on delivering realistic graphics, then what is the point in including so many useless little features that you never use? Far better to have less objects, and have a less realistic game, but with a stronger story and theme. What does everyone else think?
However, if developers are so intent on delivering realistic graphics, then what is the point in including so many useless little features that you never use? Far better to have less objects, and have a less realistic game, but with a stronger story and theme. What does everyone else think?
To add to my first post, I'd like to ask you- Have you ever truely been completely immersed in a game? Further more, have you forgot it was a game? Most people can answer yes to the first question. But not the second. All to often you are immersed in a game to beat the programmer- not to beat the bad guy. I am currently replaying Shenmue. I am not Ryo. I am an outide influence trying to get the idiot who is unable to speak coherantly, to acheive the next objective. I am often immersed in this. But never do I want to avenge my father's death. Just trying to outwit the programmer.
Your views?
Your views?
yeah me too , sometimes when i play zelda , i go to bed that night and still think that i am playing the game , as if the whole game is real , then i look up at the sky , and i think of the sky when it gets dark in zelda . so yeah , i do think that i get very immursed in games , but is that really that bad , looking at the stars in games , then looking at the stars in the sky , and i think ... i want to be an astronaut, and i really do want to be one, so getting immursed in games must broaden your outlook on life and make you go further and do more things. (well done on your first few topics logan , all realy good !!)
Indian-DudeY2K wrote:
> yeah me too , sometimes when i play zelda , i go to bed that night
> and still think that i am playing the game , as if the whole game is
> real , then i look up at the sky , and i think of the sky when it
> gets dark in zelda . so yeah , i do think that i get very immursed
> in games , but is that really that bad , looking at the stars in
> games , then looking at the stars in the sky , and i think ... i
> want to be an astronaut, and i really do want to be one, so getting
> immursed in games must broaden your outlook on life and make you go
> further and do more things. (well done on your first few topics
> logan , all realy good !!)
many thanks all...
things are not as they appear
the stars are aligning ;)
> yeah me too , sometimes when i play zelda , i go to bed that night
> and still think that i am playing the game , as if the whole game is
> real , then i look up at the sky , and i think of the sky when it
> gets dark in zelda . so yeah , i do think that i get very immursed
> in games , but is that really that bad , looking at the stars in
> games , then looking at the stars in the sky , and i think ... i
> want to be an astronaut, and i really do want to be one, so getting
> immursed in games must broaden your outlook on life and make you go
> further and do more things. (well done on your first few topics
> logan , all realy good !!)
many thanks all...
things are not as they appear
the stars are aligning ;)