The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The thing at the moment is realism. It was massive early on in the PS2's life with GT3 and Metal Gear, and everyone was stunned at the accuracy of the models, the lushness of the trees, the sublime particle effects in the water, and generally how realistic the game looked. After a brief fling with cell shading, the world has gone back to oohing and aahing with realism again as The Getaway finally makes it into the world.
The thing about realism in a game though, is where you draw the line? You can make a game photo-realistic but as soon as the main character dies and you suddenly appear 50 metres back down the road fit as a butchers dog, all that ultra-realism goes out the window. Now I'm not saying that characters should actually die, and you can never play the game again, as it would take the trial and error out of the game and more importantly, the fun. You spend £40 on a game, you accidently drop fag ash on the pad causing you to look away for a minute, and the next thing you're down the shops spending another £40 to try again.
So. In the ultra-realistic game, immortality is accepted. It's a big slap in the face of realism, but it significantly adds to the game, so we let it go. But there are loads of other examples of where bending the rules of the realism makes the game better...
1. Immortality.
2. Auto transmission.
I'll hazard a guess that noone here has driven a formula car. But I bet there are a few of you that have driven some rather nice cars. I've certainly had my hands on a few beasts in my time, but not one of them had an automatic gearbox. In fact, I've never driven an automatic before (not including mopeds), yet even the most realistic F1 games offer the auto gears as an option. To appeal to the kids who can't drive? to let the gamer focus more on the track rather than the car? Don't care. I use the auto gears on games, and feel the game is more enjoyable for it.
3. Auto aim.
This is the thing that bugged me the most about the playable demo of The Getaway - the character diddn't auto aim. In real life, would you would raise a gun and be pretty close to where you want the bullet to go? No. You'd raise the gun pointint to a target 3 feet away from the guy shooting you, then wave your straight arm from side to side blatting ammo at the wall either side of the guy that was filling your guts with bullets. Now I've never got closer to a real gun than having a BB gun, but I believe that I could hit something as big as a person in the chest from 20 foot without 10 seconds of aiming, and I expect my games to do the same.
4. Sport Billy bag pockets.
How many times in a game have you been able to carry more than physically possible? 50 different guns including rocket launchers with ammo for all of them, 30 health potions, and 200,000 gold coins? A true realistic game couldnt let you do that, but having all the fire power is the part of the game that many gamers like most. I don't want to be restricted to carrying 2 guns, and have the rest in a bag, I want them all, now.
5. Limb loss.
In the real world, if someone took a sword or an axe to you, you would be a little worse for wear. You could easily lose an arm with a well placed swing, making it tricky for you to fight back. Any one on one fighting game though, will let you carry on at full agression as if nothing has happened until your life bar is truely up, in which you instantly die. Now I know these arent the most realistic games from the start, but the rule still applies. Being shot isn't going to heal with a bandage or a potion. Standing on a landmine isn't going to make you swear, and then fight harder. But then, if it wernt for this, the game would get too hard, too fast. Try taking on Sub Zero when you don't have any arms.
A massive percentage of the gaming community wants games to be more and more realistic. Stuff that! I want games to look good, yes, but I don't want the limited range of attributes that the real world offers in my games, because I want my games to offer me the things I cannot do in real life, and not just 'drive a F1 car' either.
Cheers
Slave
The thing about realism in a game though, is where you draw the line? You can make a game photo-realistic but as soon as the main character dies and you suddenly appear 50 metres back down the road fit as a butchers dog, all that ultra-realism goes out the window. Now I'm not saying that characters should actually die, and you can never play the game again, as it would take the trial and error out of the game and more importantly, the fun. You spend £40 on a game, you accidently drop fag ash on the pad causing you to look away for a minute, and the next thing you're down the shops spending another £40 to try again.
So. In the ultra-realistic game, immortality is accepted. It's a big slap in the face of realism, but it significantly adds to the game, so we let it go. But there are loads of other examples of where bending the rules of the realism makes the game better...
1. Immortality.
2. Auto transmission.
I'll hazard a guess that noone here has driven a formula car. But I bet there are a few of you that have driven some rather nice cars. I've certainly had my hands on a few beasts in my time, but not one of them had an automatic gearbox. In fact, I've never driven an automatic before (not including mopeds), yet even the most realistic F1 games offer the auto gears as an option. To appeal to the kids who can't drive? to let the gamer focus more on the track rather than the car? Don't care. I use the auto gears on games, and feel the game is more enjoyable for it.
3. Auto aim.
This is the thing that bugged me the most about the playable demo of The Getaway - the character diddn't auto aim. In real life, would you would raise a gun and be pretty close to where you want the bullet to go? No. You'd raise the gun pointint to a target 3 feet away from the guy shooting you, then wave your straight arm from side to side blatting ammo at the wall either side of the guy that was filling your guts with bullets. Now I've never got closer to a real gun than having a BB gun, but I believe that I could hit something as big as a person in the chest from 20 foot without 10 seconds of aiming, and I expect my games to do the same.
4. Sport Billy bag pockets.
How many times in a game have you been able to carry more than physically possible? 50 different guns including rocket launchers with ammo for all of them, 30 health potions, and 200,000 gold coins? A true realistic game couldnt let you do that, but having all the fire power is the part of the game that many gamers like most. I don't want to be restricted to carrying 2 guns, and have the rest in a bag, I want them all, now.
5. Limb loss.
In the real world, if someone took a sword or an axe to you, you would be a little worse for wear. You could easily lose an arm with a well placed swing, making it tricky for you to fight back. Any one on one fighting game though, will let you carry on at full agression as if nothing has happened until your life bar is truely up, in which you instantly die. Now I know these arent the most realistic games from the start, but the rule still applies. Being shot isn't going to heal with a bandage or a potion. Standing on a landmine isn't going to make you swear, and then fight harder. But then, if it wernt for this, the game would get too hard, too fast. Try taking on Sub Zero when you don't have any arms.
A massive percentage of the gaming community wants games to be more and more realistic. Stuff that! I want games to look good, yes, but I don't want the limited range of attributes that the real world offers in my games, because I want my games to offer me the things I cannot do in real life, and not just 'drive a F1 car' either.
Cheers
Slave
You didnt write anything about immortality...
The thing at the moment is realism. It was massive early on in the PS2's life with GT3 and Metal Gear, and everyone was stunned at the accuracy of the models, the lushness of the trees, the sublime particle effects in the water, and generally how realistic the game looked. After a brief fling with cell shading, the world has gone back to oohing and aahing with realism again as The Getaway finally makes it into the world.
The thing about realism in a game though, is where you draw the line? You can make a game photo-realistic but as soon as the main character dies and you suddenly appear 50 metres back down the road fit as a butchers dog, all that ultra-realism goes out the window. Now I'm not saying that characters should actually die, and you can never play the game again, as it would take the trial and error out of the game and more importantly, the fun. You spend £40 on a game, you accidently drop fag ash on the pad causing you to look away for a minute, and the next thing you're down the shops spending another £40 to try again.
So. In the ultra-realistic game, immortality is accepted. It's a big slap in the face of realism, but it significantly adds to the game, so we let it go. But there are loads of other examples of where bending the rules of the realism makes the game better...
1. Immortality.
2. Auto transmission.
I'll hazard a guess that noone here has driven a formula car. But I bet there are a few of you that have driven some rather nice cars. I've certainly had my hands on a few beasts in my time, but not one of them had an automatic gearbox. In fact, I've never driven an automatic before (not including mopeds), yet even the most realistic F1 games offer the auto gears as an option. To appeal to the kids who can't drive? to let the gamer focus more on the track rather than the car? Don't care. I use the auto gears on games, and feel the game is more enjoyable for it.
3. Auto aim.
This is the thing that bugged me the most about the playable demo of The Getaway - the character diddn't auto aim. In real life, would you would raise a gun and be pretty close to where you want the bullet to go? No. You'd raise the gun pointint to a target 3 feet away from the guy shooting you, then wave your straight arm from side to side blatting ammo at the wall either side of the guy that was filling your guts with bullets. Now I've never got closer to a real gun than having a BB gun, but I believe that I could hit something as big as a person in the chest from 20 foot without 10 seconds of aiming, and I expect my games to do the same.
4. Sport Billy bag pockets.
How many times in a game have you been able to carry more than physically possible? 50 different guns including rocket launchers with ammo for all of them, 30 health potions, and 200,000 gold coins? A true realistic game couldnt let you do that, but having all the fire power is the part of the game that many gamers like most. I don't want to be restricted to carrying 2 guns, and have the rest in a bag, I want them all, now.
5. Limb loss.
In the real world, if someone took a sword or an axe to you, you would be a little worse for wear. You could easily lose an arm with a well placed swing, making it tricky for you to fight back. Any one on one fighting game though, will let you carry on at full agression as if nothing has happened until your life bar is truely up, in which you instantly die. Now I know these arent the most realistic games from the start, but the rule still applies. Being shot isn't going to heal with a bandage or a potion. Standing on a landmine isn't going to make you swear, and then fight harder. But then, if it wernt for this, the game would get too hard, too fast. Try taking on Sub Zero when you don't have any arms.
A massive percentage of the gaming community wants games to be more and more realistic. Stuff that! I want games to look good, yes, but I don't want the limited range of attributes that the real world offers in my games, because I want my games to offer me the things I cannot do in real life, and not just 'drive a F1 car' either.
Cheers
Slave
The thing about realism in a game though, is where you draw the line? You can make a game photo-realistic but as soon as the main character dies and you suddenly appear 50 metres back down the road fit as a butchers dog, all that ultra-realism goes out the window. Now I'm not saying that characters should actually die, and you can never play the game again, as it would take the trial and error out of the game and more importantly, the fun. You spend £40 on a game, you accidently drop fag ash on the pad causing you to look away for a minute, and the next thing you're down the shops spending another £40 to try again.
So. In the ultra-realistic game, immortality is accepted. It's a big slap in the face of realism, but it significantly adds to the game, so we let it go. But there are loads of other examples of where bending the rules of the realism makes the game better...
1. Immortality.
2. Auto transmission.
I'll hazard a guess that noone here has driven a formula car. But I bet there are a few of you that have driven some rather nice cars. I've certainly had my hands on a few beasts in my time, but not one of them had an automatic gearbox. In fact, I've never driven an automatic before (not including mopeds), yet even the most realistic F1 games offer the auto gears as an option. To appeal to the kids who can't drive? to let the gamer focus more on the track rather than the car? Don't care. I use the auto gears on games, and feel the game is more enjoyable for it.
3. Auto aim.
This is the thing that bugged me the most about the playable demo of The Getaway - the character diddn't auto aim. In real life, would you would raise a gun and be pretty close to where you want the bullet to go? No. You'd raise the gun pointint to a target 3 feet away from the guy shooting you, then wave your straight arm from side to side blatting ammo at the wall either side of the guy that was filling your guts with bullets. Now I've never got closer to a real gun than having a BB gun, but I believe that I could hit something as big as a person in the chest from 20 foot without 10 seconds of aiming, and I expect my games to do the same.
4. Sport Billy bag pockets.
How many times in a game have you been able to carry more than physically possible? 50 different guns including rocket launchers with ammo for all of them, 30 health potions, and 200,000 gold coins? A true realistic game couldnt let you do that, but having all the fire power is the part of the game that many gamers like most. I don't want to be restricted to carrying 2 guns, and have the rest in a bag, I want them all, now.
5. Limb loss.
In the real world, if someone took a sword or an axe to you, you would be a little worse for wear. You could easily lose an arm with a well placed swing, making it tricky for you to fight back. Any one on one fighting game though, will let you carry on at full agression as if nothing has happened until your life bar is truely up, in which you instantly die. Now I know these arent the most realistic games from the start, but the rule still applies. Being shot isn't going to heal with a bandage or a potion. Standing on a landmine isn't going to make you swear, and then fight harder. But then, if it wernt for this, the game would get too hard, too fast. Try taking on Sub Zero when you don't have any arms.
A massive percentage of the gaming community wants games to be more and more realistic. Stuff that! I want games to look good, yes, but I don't want the limited range of attributes that the real world offers in my games, because I want my games to offer me the things I cannot do in real life, and not just 'drive a F1 car' either.
Cheers
Slave