The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Your surrounded....what on earth do you do? Surrender or go in guns blazing and die a martyr? Well if this was a real life situation we all probably know what would be the best choice....however in the world of gaming this type of choice would get a completely different responce. It would definately be the latter as we all know that no one surrenders in a game. In a game we are in control, we can control what happens and exactly how, but we can also do things that slant what life doesn't allow. In real life an army is a huge force, however in a game an army is a mere obstacle that can be overcome by one "highly trained" individual.
Its you against the world! All alone in the field, rarely anyone to help. Why is this? WHy do games create a world where one person is an unstoppable war machine when this obviously isn't the case? Take any first person shooter for example......in this instance I will choose Goldeneye as I feel it shows what I am trying to explain wonderfully. You are placed in the role of James Bond, world famous super spy. DO you have help? Occasionally maybe, but for the greater part you are all alone. You alone.....you hear that? All alone. Its you against an evil doers army of grunts and for some reason our hero always ends up triumphant....as long as you are good enough that is :)
So, FPS give us a slant on what one person is capable of, RTS games however give us a better look at what battles really are about. I will not use a specific game as an example for this, it comes into play in them all. A RTS game involves you creating a mass of soldiers and artillery, you face off against an equally powerful army, but you do not always succeed. So tell me this....why can one person bring the deaths of thousands of people in a FPS, but an entire army can only just match this feat in an RTS?
Maybe its something to do with gamers wanting to have fun.....maybe its me wanting games to become more realistic, but whatever it is its a good point. One man war machine/equally balanced armies. Which appeals more to you and why?
Thanks for reading. MJ
Its you against the world! All alone in the field, rarely anyone to help. Why is this? WHy do games create a world where one person is an unstoppable war machine when this obviously isn't the case? Take any first person shooter for example......in this instance I will choose Goldeneye as I feel it shows what I am trying to explain wonderfully. You are placed in the role of James Bond, world famous super spy. DO you have help? Occasionally maybe, but for the greater part you are all alone. You alone.....you hear that? All alone. Its you against an evil doers army of grunts and for some reason our hero always ends up triumphant....as long as you are good enough that is :)
So, FPS give us a slant on what one person is capable of, RTS games however give us a better look at what battles really are about. I will not use a specific game as an example for this, it comes into play in them all. A RTS game involves you creating a mass of soldiers and artillery, you face off against an equally powerful army, but you do not always succeed. So tell me this....why can one person bring the deaths of thousands of people in a FPS, but an entire army can only just match this feat in an RTS?
Maybe its something to do with gamers wanting to have fun.....maybe its me wanting games to become more realistic, but whatever it is its a good point. One man war machine/equally balanced armies. Which appeals more to you and why?
Thanks for reading. MJ
The thing with games is that no matter how realistic the public want it to be, there is still something in there that makes us want these scenarios to be possible. We want the endless ability to be able to discintigrate those peoples skulls like they were dust, we want to be able to save the world and be home for tea and we want to be able to rid the fast cars with the lovely ladies riding beside you to keep you company.
The possibilities are endless and that creates something that we want. We want to be able to achieve something whilst entertaining ourselves no matter how exciting or boring it maybe. We all know that if there was 5 people all armed against you then you'd be dead before you blinked, the films and games designers know this, but still they use it.
This is to put us into a real world but a world where anything is possible, a world where no longer do you have to worry about the bully at school or your money troubles. But a world in which you never loose and have no trouble in doing it, but is this right? Is it right to give us this impression where we are invincible?
The games are getting better, and so is the graphics, but do we want games to get to that stage where they become life like with realism? I don't think that we want that, but we don't want a game in which you can just do as you please and nothing comes as a result.
You like this in the simple games such as beat'em ups or something along the lines, the 'getting shot and living options', 'the using rations and suddenly you're fine again' and the 'bring them back from the dead options' all are acceptable for the easier games that are possibly aimed at younger children. But you don't want that in something that gives us something new and refreshing.
Imagine Tomb Raider without the ability to heal, and the same goes for MGS. Then try to imagine Red Alert 2 if it took 10 missles to blow up a building. The games would become tiring but also annoying and frustrating. That's where we don't want realism to come into play otherwise we'd just be boring ourselves to death.
Nice post MJ and keep the ideas coming.
The possibilities are endless and that creates something that we want. We want to be able to achieve something whilst entertaining ourselves no matter how exciting or boring it maybe. We all know that if there was 5 people all armed against you then you'd be dead before you blinked, the films and games designers know this, but still they use it.
This is to put us into a real world but a world where anything is possible, a world where no longer do you have to worry about the bully at school or your money troubles. But a world in which you never loose and have no trouble in doing it, but is this right? Is it right to give us this impression where we are invincible?
The games are getting better, and so is the graphics, but do we want games to get to that stage where they become life like with realism? I don't think that we want that, but we don't want a game in which you can just do as you please and nothing comes as a result.
You like this in the simple games such as beat'em ups or something along the lines, the 'getting shot and living options', 'the using rations and suddenly you're fine again' and the 'bring them back from the dead options' all are acceptable for the easier games that are possibly aimed at younger children. But you don't want that in something that gives us something new and refreshing.
Imagine Tomb Raider without the ability to heal, and the same goes for MGS. Then try to imagine Red Alert 2 if it took 10 missles to blow up a building. The games would become tiring but also annoying and frustrating. That's where we don't want realism to come into play otherwise we'd just be boring ourselves to death.
Nice post MJ and keep the ideas coming.
Yeah, but we live our own lives... we have help, like Bond, from our parents, teachers and friends, but at the end of the day, we're on our own... you might say that the FPS games represented life's mission better than the RTS's...
You maybe right with regards to war... but in life, which is bigger than war, I think the other game is more appropriate a description...
You maybe right with regards to war... but in life, which is bigger than war, I think the other game is more appropriate a description...
Your surrounded....what on earth do you do? Surrender or go in guns blazing and die a martyr? Well if this was a real life situation we all probably know what would be the best choice....however in the world of gaming this type of choice would get a completely different responce. It would definately be the latter as we all know that no one surrenders in a game. In a game we are in control, we can control what happens and exactly how, but we can also do things that slant what life doesn't allow. In real life an army is a huge force, however in a game an army is a mere obstacle that can be overcome by one "highly trained" individual.
Its you against the world! All alone in the field, rarely anyone to help. Why is this? WHy do games create a world where one person is an unstoppable war machine when this obviously isn't the case? Take any first person shooter for example......in this instance I will choose Goldeneye as I feel it shows what I am trying to explain wonderfully. You are placed in the role of James Bond, world famous super spy. DO you have help? Occasionally maybe, but for the greater part you are all alone. You alone.....you hear that? All alone. Its you against an evil doers army of grunts and for some reason our hero always ends up triumphant....as long as you are good enough that is :)
So, FPS give us a slant on what one person is capable of, RTS games however give us a better look at what battles really are about. I will not use a specific game as an example for this, it comes into play in them all. A RTS game involves you creating a mass of soldiers and artillery, you face off against an equally powerful army, but you do not always succeed. So tell me this....why can one person bring the deaths of thousands of people in a FPS, but an entire army can only just match this feat in an RTS?
Maybe its something to do with gamers wanting to have fun.....maybe its me wanting games to become more realistic, but whatever it is its a good point. One man war machine/equally balanced armies. Which appeals more to you and why?
Thanks for reading. MJ
Its you against the world! All alone in the field, rarely anyone to help. Why is this? WHy do games create a world where one person is an unstoppable war machine when this obviously isn't the case? Take any first person shooter for example......in this instance I will choose Goldeneye as I feel it shows what I am trying to explain wonderfully. You are placed in the role of James Bond, world famous super spy. DO you have help? Occasionally maybe, but for the greater part you are all alone. You alone.....you hear that? All alone. Its you against an evil doers army of grunts and for some reason our hero always ends up triumphant....as long as you are good enough that is :)
So, FPS give us a slant on what one person is capable of, RTS games however give us a better look at what battles really are about. I will not use a specific game as an example for this, it comes into play in them all. A RTS game involves you creating a mass of soldiers and artillery, you face off against an equally powerful army, but you do not always succeed. So tell me this....why can one person bring the deaths of thousands of people in a FPS, but an entire army can only just match this feat in an RTS?
Maybe its something to do with gamers wanting to have fun.....maybe its me wanting games to become more realistic, but whatever it is its a good point. One man war machine/equally balanced armies. Which appeals more to you and why?
Thanks for reading. MJ