The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is a topic which has probably been covered many times before but I am going to put a few of my personal views forward.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint I have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Thief both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What I think I am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'Spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what I am on about. If it were really me in the game, I would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if I was getting shot at, I may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here I am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game I don’t want to have to think "ok hang on, how can I get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if I were this guy I’m playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (don’t get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way I see it, it would make a huge difference to the gameplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint I have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Thief both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What I think I am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'Spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what I am on about. If it were really me in the game, I would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if I was getting shot at, I may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here I am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game I don’t want to have to think "ok hang on, how can I get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if I were this guy I’m playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (don’t get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way I see it, it would make a huge difference to the gameplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
Personally, the most realistic ( I imagine anyway, not having had personal experience of this kinda thing lol ) is Ghost Recon on PC. Now I'm not saying its THE most realistic game ever, just of its genre.
Why ? Well;
Ultra Realistic graphics and target damage based on where the target is hit.
You can give orders to your team in real time.
Mission maps give general area info but not exact enemy positions.
Missions revolve around real objectives - not "kill everyone".
Stealth, as opposed to firepower, can win.
Sound plays a vital role, especially on night missions where NVGs aren't like daylight.
Team members gain experience if they survive.
Equipment is limited and one character cannot carry massive amounts of weaponry.
Team members are affected by hte type of weaponry they carry.
Enemy AI - they take cover, flank, lay suppressive fire and work together, not like the suicidal last stans seen in Red Faction and James Bond AUF.
The only thing that would have really made it better would be more chances to tailor weaponry to missions, time limited missions and proper thermal/NVG scopes - not just green tint !
Why ? Well;
Ultra Realistic graphics and target damage based on where the target is hit.
You can give orders to your team in real time.
Mission maps give general area info but not exact enemy positions.
Missions revolve around real objectives - not "kill everyone".
Stealth, as opposed to firepower, can win.
Sound plays a vital role, especially on night missions where NVGs aren't like daylight.
Team members gain experience if they survive.
Equipment is limited and one character cannot carry massive amounts of weaponry.
Team members are affected by hte type of weaponry they carry.
Enemy AI - they take cover, flank, lay suppressive fire and work together, not like the suicidal last stans seen in Red Faction and James Bond AUF.
The only thing that would have really made it better would be more chances to tailor weaponry to missions, time limited missions and proper thermal/NVG scopes - not just green tint !
What really annoyed me was GT3.
It boasted realism from the graphics, the sun, the handling, the physics, all the techy details that meant jack to the actual gameplay, but managed to miss out every bit of realism that would've made the game exciting.
Why is high speed racing exciting?
It's because it's dangerous, and you know that you could do serious damage to both yourself and your expensive car.
What happens if you crash in GT3?
You bounce harmlessly off, unharmed but slowed down a bit.
And those PS2 owners said that Mario came from cute-harmless-happy land...
I won a game for a post about a few months ago.
The one about "lack of tension" if you can be bothered to search the winners list for it.
It boasted realism from the graphics, the sun, the handling, the physics, all the techy details that meant jack to the actual gameplay, but managed to miss out every bit of realism that would've made the game exciting.
Why is high speed racing exciting?
It's because it's dangerous, and you know that you could do serious damage to both yourself and your expensive car.
What happens if you crash in GT3?
You bounce harmlessly off, unharmed but slowed down a bit.
And those PS2 owners said that Mario came from cute-harmless-happy land...
I won a game for a post about a few months ago.
The one about "lack of tension" if you can be bothered to search the winners list for it.
Meka Dragon wrote:
Using tables as barriers in an FPS is a great example, I was
> thinking about realism in adventure games, and would liek to see you be able to
> open every drawer in a room, look under the bed, kick down locked doors etc. I
> mean what kind of obstacle is a locked door to a superhero?
Exactly! The depth of gameplay would increase so much just by making these simple things simple to do. I like your scrolling landscape idea too.
Using tables as barriers in an FPS is a great example, I was
> thinking about realism in adventure games, and would liek to see you be able to
> open every drawer in a room, look under the bed, kick down locked doors etc. I
> mean what kind of obstacle is a locked door to a superhero?
Exactly! The depth of gameplay would increase so much just by making these simple things simple to do. I like your scrolling landscape idea too.
Realism is one of those topics that I've written on for great lengths, and you've said pretty much what I feel on the subject.
Graphics are quite realistic enough now, and developers should really start thinking more about realistic environments, and higher levels of interaction with that environment.
Using tables as barriers in an FPS is a great example, I was thinking about realism in adventure games, and would liek to see you be able to open every drawer in a room, look under the bed, kick down locked doors etc. I mean what kind of obstacle is a locked door to a superhero?
All developers would have to do would be to allow you to walk off in the wrong direction, just loop the landscape, and you'd soon realise that you were heading the wrong way.
interaction with objects would not be too difficult to achieve either. If each object had just one thing you could do with it, by simply pressing an action button it would be a huge improvement. Simply walk up to an object and press the action button. If it's a vase, your character will reach inside, check it's contents, if it's a chest, he'll open it. Then you could develop on this strategy, by having a number of differnet functions you could perform with each object, by simply pressing the action button, and pushing the contol stick in a certain direction, so now you can chose to reach into the vase, or smash it open, or throw it against the wall.
Some games would make more use of it than others, obviously, but it would just help improve the feel of the game.
Graphics are quite realistic enough now, and developers should really start thinking more about realistic environments, and higher levels of interaction with that environment.
Using tables as barriers in an FPS is a great example, I was thinking about realism in adventure games, and would liek to see you be able to open every drawer in a room, look under the bed, kick down locked doors etc. I mean what kind of obstacle is a locked door to a superhero?
All developers would have to do would be to allow you to walk off in the wrong direction, just loop the landscape, and you'd soon realise that you were heading the wrong way.
interaction with objects would not be too difficult to achieve either. If each object had just one thing you could do with it, by simply pressing an action button it would be a huge improvement. Simply walk up to an object and press the action button. If it's a vase, your character will reach inside, check it's contents, if it's a chest, he'll open it. Then you could develop on this strategy, by having a number of differnet functions you could perform with each object, by simply pressing the action button, and pushing the contol stick in a certain direction, so now you can chose to reach into the vase, or smash it open, or throw it against the wall.
Some games would make more use of it than others, obviously, but it would just help improve the feel of the game.
"Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last."
Yes, and a lot of them are correct, but a lot more are wrong. There will be a time when they can no longer improve and there will be no difference between games and real life.
"More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors."
I think that it's good that graphics are enhanced, but I too would prefer gameplay enhancements etc.
"There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation."
This is leading up to interactivity - if games were more interactive, you could grab that light and smash it over the mad scientist's head.
Good post by the way GH.
Yes, and a lot of them are correct, but a lot more are wrong. There will be a time when they can no longer improve and there will be no difference between games and real life.
"More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors."
I think that it's good that graphics are enhanced, but I too would prefer gameplay enhancements etc.
"There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation."
This is leading up to interactivity - if games were more interactive, you could grab that light and smash it over the mad scientist's head.
Good post by the way GH.
> easy. Games aren't supposed to be realistic, they're supposed to be realistic with limitations.
i agree with that yeah - but ther are better ways to add these limitations. I mean, if somewhere is to be inaccessible in a game, ut something there which would be unpassable in real life. For example, rather than putting a small fence in thye way, put a building there.
What you said is true though - it could make games far too easy. However, if its thought out well enough and has some money put into research, i think it could a hell of a lot of good for gameplay.
Cheers for the reply
Hey rickoss! good 2 c u!
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
Good point GH.
But don't you think some games would be better without realism? Say you have a game like you have just described. You are able to do anything anyone could do. smash a table over whoevers head. Jump over gates. The game would be far too easy. There are some games that need limitations to stay at a steady difficulty level, Say there's a locked fecne and you have a gun, anyone of us would blow it off it's hinges but that would make the game far too easy. Games aren't supposed to be realistic, they're supposed to be realistic with limitations.
Say on Doom GBA, i could easily pick a barrel and throw it at a big red guy trying to rip my head off if i had no bullets left but that would mean, instead of testing your skills by seeing if you defeat him within the limitations of the game, it'd be like breaking the rules.
Good post GH, but i don't entirely agree
RiCkOsS
But don't you think some games would be better without realism? Say you have a game like you have just described. You are able to do anything anyone could do. smash a table over whoevers head. Jump over gates. The game would be far too easy. There are some games that need limitations to stay at a steady difficulty level, Say there's a locked fecne and you have a gun, anyone of us would blow it off it's hinges but that would make the game far too easy. Games aren't supposed to be realistic, they're supposed to be realistic with limitations.
Say on Doom GBA, i could easily pick a barrel and throw it at a big red guy trying to rip my head off if i had no bullets left but that would mean, instead of testing your skills by seeing if you defeat him within the limitations of the game, it'd be like breaking the rules.
Good post GH, but i don't entirely agree
RiCkOsS
This is a topic which has probably been covered many times before but I am going to put a few of my personal views forward.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint I have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Thief both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What I think I am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'Spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what I am on about. If it were really me in the game, I would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if I was getting shot at, I may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here I am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game I don’t want to have to think "ok hang on, how can I get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if I were this guy I’m playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (don’t get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way I see it, it would make a huge difference to the gameplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint I have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Thief both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What I think I am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'Spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what I am on about. If it were really me in the game, I would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if I was getting shot at, I may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here I am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game I don’t want to have to think "ok hang on, how can I get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if I were this guy I’m playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (don’t get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way I see it, it would make a huge difference to the gameplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH