The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Realism, does it make a game good or bad? The answer to that question will be answered for you in the next few minutes of reading. So, for you again, does realism make a game what it is?
I'll start off by looking at the FIFA series. Now if a football game can get more realistic than FIFA, then I'd like to know about it. FIFA has all that a game wanting to be realistic can have. The players look very like their real life conterparts, the stadiums (even though there aren't many of them) look the biz, and it has 2 of the best commentators in the game of football. BUT, does this make the gameplay any good? Well, it can be enjoyable to hear John Moston and Andy Gray say many-a-line, which they do say, and it does feel good to play in the Nou Camp with a real life looking Barcelona squad, but the game is not actually improved in the way of gameplay, and because there is so much attention to detail, some features that it would have been nice to have in gameplay have been missed out. The controls are a tad sloppy, there isn't too much 'original' action in it. That meaning, seasons and creating players get repetitive. Not one of the good examples that realism sets then. Not good enough gameplay to sum it all up.
Now, another thing that boasts realism, is the X-Box. No, not any particular X-Box game, but all the actual X-Box games in general. "We can push so much power into our machine, and all our games look as realistic as you'll ever see." Ah, but does the general power of it and all the games stop the console having good gameplay. Well, this bit can't really be blamed on the console itself, so it was wrong to include the X-Box really, but, the games developers should be blamed, because if they made full use of what the X-Box is capable for, then they could have, not only a game that looks good, but one that plays good too. This doesn't apply to aaallll X-Box games, but it does to most of them. Well, the ones I've heard about anyway. This is more of a case of developers not being bothered to make games good in anywhere except the realism department, when the console has the capability of greatness in all departments.
GT3 was a game that made good use of realism. Sony showed what they could do with the console and this game, and they did it, in the form of the greatest racing game ever. Gran Turismo 3 was brilliant in all deparments. It looked great, it had great music from popular bands such as Feeder and Ash, it had many, many cars to choose from, all real, and it was great fun to play, and very addictive too. Sounds good, it even had a multiplayer too. The Gran Turismo series has always been top on all of these, and the PS2 version is no different there. Gran Turismo holds the record for best racer on PS2 undoutebly, but how long can it hold on to that for? There haven't been any decent racers out or ever announced since it, which means it could keep the best racer on PS2 title for a while to come. A good example of realism doing good things.
We've already looked at FIFA games, but now on to their developers, EA. EA are usually a company to go for realism over gameplay. I mean, there are some games that break the rules, such as NBA Street, which is a highly fun basketball game, but then there is the opposite of that. NBA Live 2002, which is based around realism totally. The courts look so real, as do the players, as does even the ball. And then there is the corwd, which couldn't looks better for a PS2 game really. Is the game actually any good? You can decide if you buy it, but personally I don't like it. EA have Ice Hockey games too that are based on Realism, such as NHL 2002, which I admit, can be quite fun, but again, based too much around realism so it isn't as good as it could be. There are many other EA games that try to do well by using realistic features, but they just don't seem to come off that well.
Well, that's my 'survey' over, and it looks like Realism in gaming can only be good if the developers take time to add realism after they have done as much as they can with the actual game and it's gameplay, a la Gran Turismo 3, which would also be the best realistic game out... in my opinion anyway, but most people seem to like it as well. I think gaming should be based around the gameplay, and have realism added at the end, for more of a special effect. Realism still can be cool in ways. GT3 shows you that...
Thanks for reading, Afro.
I'll start off by looking at the FIFA series. Now if a football game can get more realistic than FIFA, then I'd like to know about it. FIFA has all that a game wanting to be realistic can have. The players look very like their real life conterparts, the stadiums (even though there aren't many of them) look the biz, and it has 2 of the best commentators in the game of football. BUT, does this make the gameplay any good? Well, it can be enjoyable to hear John Moston and Andy Gray say many-a-line, which they do say, and it does feel good to play in the Nou Camp with a real life looking Barcelona squad, but the game is not actually improved in the way of gameplay, and because there is so much attention to detail, some features that it would have been nice to have in gameplay have been missed out. The controls are a tad sloppy, there isn't too much 'original' action in it. That meaning, seasons and creating players get repetitive. Not one of the good examples that realism sets then. Not good enough gameplay to sum it all up.
Now, another thing that boasts realism, is the X-Box. No, not any particular X-Box game, but all the actual X-Box games in general. "We can push so much power into our machine, and all our games look as realistic as you'll ever see." Ah, but does the general power of it and all the games stop the console having good gameplay. Well, this bit can't really be blamed on the console itself, so it was wrong to include the X-Box really, but, the games developers should be blamed, because if they made full use of what the X-Box is capable for, then they could have, not only a game that looks good, but one that plays good too. This doesn't apply to aaallll X-Box games, but it does to most of them. Well, the ones I've heard about anyway. This is more of a case of developers not being bothered to make games good in anywhere except the realism department, when the console has the capability of greatness in all departments.
GT3 was a game that made good use of realism. Sony showed what they could do with the console and this game, and they did it, in the form of the greatest racing game ever. Gran Turismo 3 was brilliant in all deparments. It looked great, it had great music from popular bands such as Feeder and Ash, it had many, many cars to choose from, all real, and it was great fun to play, and very addictive too. Sounds good, it even had a multiplayer too. The Gran Turismo series has always been top on all of these, and the PS2 version is no different there. Gran Turismo holds the record for best racer on PS2 undoutebly, but how long can it hold on to that for? There haven't been any decent racers out or ever announced since it, which means it could keep the best racer on PS2 title for a while to come. A good example of realism doing good things.
We've already looked at FIFA games, but now on to their developers, EA. EA are usually a company to go for realism over gameplay. I mean, there are some games that break the rules, such as NBA Street, which is a highly fun basketball game, but then there is the opposite of that. NBA Live 2002, which is based around realism totally. The courts look so real, as do the players, as does even the ball. And then there is the corwd, which couldn't looks better for a PS2 game really. Is the game actually any good? You can decide if you buy it, but personally I don't like it. EA have Ice Hockey games too that are based on Realism, such as NHL 2002, which I admit, can be quite fun, but again, based too much around realism so it isn't as good as it could be. There are many other EA games that try to do well by using realistic features, but they just don't seem to come off that well.
Well, that's my 'survey' over, and it looks like Realism in gaming can only be good if the developers take time to add realism after they have done as much as they can with the actual game and it's gameplay, a la Gran Turismo 3, which would also be the best realistic game out... in my opinion anyway, but most people seem to like it as well. I think gaming should be based around the gameplay, and have realism added at the end, for more of a special effect. Realism still can be cool in ways. GT3 shows you that...
Thanks for reading, Afro.
I was pointing out FIFA to be a real graphically as I would have to admit, the gameplay isn't as real as it could be. As you said, you can run all the way from your own penalty area and score in FIFA, where as, you can't do that in Pro Evolution. But, FIFA is getting more and more realistic gameplay-wise every year. It is becoming harder to score, and passing has been made harder too.
FIFA and Pro Evo will probably continue to look real and get even more and more realistic in both graphics and gamepaly in the future versions of them.
My point above was, I think FIFA is just too realistc graphic wise, and that has halted the gameplay a little. It could have been better than it was.
FIFA and Pro Evo will probably continue to look real and get even more and more realistic in both graphics and gamepaly in the future versions of them.
My point above was, I think FIFA is just too realistc graphic wise, and that has halted the gameplay a little. It could have been better than it was.
It's interesting that you chose FIFA as an example of a realistic game. I'd agree that graphically it looks as real as you can get with current technology but I don't consider the game itself to be realistic. I'd say that realism comes from the gameplay mechanics not the visuals, and FIFA does a very poor job of simulating football. I haven't played any version since FIFA 2001 on PC but that game was nothing like real football: the easiest way to score, after all, was with an overhead kick from a cross - even if you were playing as Dundee!
Pro Evolution Soccer might have misspelt names and bad commentary but the recreation of the feel of football is spot on - it's probably the first game where dribbling from your own penalty area to score just isn't an option. The ebb and flow of the game (eg the importance of accurate passing, the need to keep possession) are much more important to realism than adding a few thousand polygons and buying a big license.
Like beauty, realism is more than just skin deep.
Pro Evolution Soccer might have misspelt names and bad commentary but the recreation of the feel of football is spot on - it's probably the first game where dribbling from your own penalty area to score just isn't an option. The ebb and flow of the game (eg the importance of accurate passing, the need to keep possession) are much more important to realism than adding a few thousand polygons and buying a big license.
Like beauty, realism is more than just skin deep.
but if you could make an ultra realistiv game (like a very realistic version of GTA) then people would enjoy it, because they could see how good they'd be at something (in the GTA example, at stealing cars and being a gangster) that they couldn't try in normal life (well, without getting busted anyways). But this by no means should be the only way developers go. Unrealistic games are probably more often more fun than realistic games, but realistic stuff like simulators, etc. can be fun too.
But is realism where something stops being a game, and becomes a simulator?
But is realism where something stops being a game, and becomes a simulator?
Well, I have to say this is the first time I've had 4 replies from newbies in a topic on Prime... come to think about it, I think it's the first time that I've had any replies on Prime from newbies.
Still, they were good replies.
V.V.V.V.V made a good point, games are meant to be fantasy and unreal, but games developers comtinue to make both gameplay and graphics real.
Nice one!
:-)
Still, they were good replies.
V.V.V.V.V made a good point, games are meant to be fantasy and unreal, but games developers comtinue to make both gameplay and graphics real.
Nice one!
:-)
There's nothing wrong with 'realistic' graphics. What I don't like is when developers attempt to make the gameplay realistic - that is just plain silly.
Games are all about fantasy and escapicism whether the graphics are realistic or not.
Games are all about fantasy and escapicism whether the graphics are realistic or not.
Of course you don't want it too real. I like a bit os escapism.
I'm personally dreading the day when they bring out a game where I control me, going to Uni and sitting there all day, trying to learn...but thats a bit over the top.
The one thing I will say for realsim is that it helps to set the right atmosphere, which I feel is important in games. But I agree, giving us beautiful graphics (better resolution than real life...) with no gameplay is not a game - its something akin to art. Nice to look at, but how to you play a painting?
Nice post by the way.
I'm personally dreading the day when they bring out a game where I control me, going to Uni and sitting there all day, trying to learn...but thats a bit over the top.
The one thing I will say for realsim is that it helps to set the right atmosphere, which I feel is important in games. But I agree, giving us beautiful graphics (better resolution than real life...) with no gameplay is not a game - its something akin to art. Nice to look at, but how to you play a painting?
Nice post by the way.
Nice post Afro.
I agree with you about games not being good enough because they try to be too realistic, and all those games that you were talking about were the games that really are too 'real'. We need better gameplay rather than good graphics and looks.
Great post!
:-)
I agree with you about games not being good enough because they try to be too realistic, and all those games that you were talking about were the games that really are too 'real'. We need better gameplay rather than good graphics and looks.
Great post!
:-)
Nice post Afro, shame about the unoriginality, PS2 sidedness
and the Xbox rubbishing but it was quite a good post nonetheless.
and the Xbox rubbishing but it was quite a good post nonetheless.
Realism, does it make a game good or bad? The answer to that question will be answered for you in the next few minutes of reading. So, for you again, does realism make a game what it is?
I'll start off by looking at the FIFA series. Now if a football game can get more realistic than FIFA, then I'd like to know about it. FIFA has all that a game wanting to be realistic can have. The players look very like their real life conterparts, the stadiums (even though there aren't many of them) look the biz, and it has 2 of the best commentators in the game of football. BUT, does this make the gameplay any good? Well, it can be enjoyable to hear John Moston and Andy Gray say many-a-line, which they do say, and it does feel good to play in the Nou Camp with a real life looking Barcelona squad, but the game is not actually improved in the way of gameplay, and because there is so much attention to detail, some features that it would have been nice to have in gameplay have been missed out. The controls are a tad sloppy, there isn't too much 'original' action in it. That meaning, seasons and creating players get repetitive. Not one of the good examples that realism sets then. Not good enough gameplay to sum it all up.
Now, another thing that boasts realism, is the X-Box. No, not any particular X-Box game, but all the actual X-Box games in general. "We can push so much power into our machine, and all our games look as realistic as you'll ever see." Ah, but does the general power of it and all the games stop the console having good gameplay. Well, this bit can't really be blamed on the console itself, so it was wrong to include the X-Box really, but, the games developers should be blamed, because if they made full use of what the X-Box is capable for, then they could have, not only a game that looks good, but one that plays good too. This doesn't apply to aaallll X-Box games, but it does to most of them. Well, the ones I've heard about anyway. This is more of a case of developers not being bothered to make games good in anywhere except the realism department, when the console has the capability of greatness in all departments.
GT3 was a game that made good use of realism. Sony showed what they could do with the console and this game, and they did it, in the form of the greatest racing game ever. Gran Turismo 3 was brilliant in all deparments. It looked great, it had great music from popular bands such as Feeder and Ash, it had many, many cars to choose from, all real, and it was great fun to play, and very addictive too. Sounds good, it even had a multiplayer too. The Gran Turismo series has always been top on all of these, and the PS2 version is no different there. Gran Turismo holds the record for best racer on PS2 undoutebly, but how long can it hold on to that for? There haven't been any decent racers out or ever announced since it, which means it could keep the best racer on PS2 title for a while to come. A good example of realism doing good things.
We've already looked at FIFA games, but now on to their developers, EA. EA are usually a company to go for realism over gameplay. I mean, there are some games that break the rules, such as NBA Street, which is a highly fun basketball game, but then there is the opposite of that. NBA Live 2002, which is based around realism totally. The courts look so real, as do the players, as does even the ball. And then there is the corwd, which couldn't looks better for a PS2 game really. Is the game actually any good? You can decide if you buy it, but personally I don't like it. EA have Ice Hockey games too that are based on Realism, such as NHL 2002, which I admit, can be quite fun, but again, based too much around realism so it isn't as good as it could be. There are many other EA games that try to do well by using realistic features, but they just don't seem to come off that well.
Well, that's my 'survey' over, and it looks like Realism in gaming can only be good if the developers take time to add realism after they have done as much as they can with the actual game and it's gameplay, a la Gran Turismo 3, which would also be the best realistic game out... in my opinion anyway, but most people seem to like it as well. I think gaming should be based around the gameplay, and have realism added at the end, for more of a special effect. Realism still can be cool in ways. GT3 shows you that...
Thanks for reading, Afro.
I'll start off by looking at the FIFA series. Now if a football game can get more realistic than FIFA, then I'd like to know about it. FIFA has all that a game wanting to be realistic can have. The players look very like their real life conterparts, the stadiums (even though there aren't many of them) look the biz, and it has 2 of the best commentators in the game of football. BUT, does this make the gameplay any good? Well, it can be enjoyable to hear John Moston and Andy Gray say many-a-line, which they do say, and it does feel good to play in the Nou Camp with a real life looking Barcelona squad, but the game is not actually improved in the way of gameplay, and because there is so much attention to detail, some features that it would have been nice to have in gameplay have been missed out. The controls are a tad sloppy, there isn't too much 'original' action in it. That meaning, seasons and creating players get repetitive. Not one of the good examples that realism sets then. Not good enough gameplay to sum it all up.
Now, another thing that boasts realism, is the X-Box. No, not any particular X-Box game, but all the actual X-Box games in general. "We can push so much power into our machine, and all our games look as realistic as you'll ever see." Ah, but does the general power of it and all the games stop the console having good gameplay. Well, this bit can't really be blamed on the console itself, so it was wrong to include the X-Box really, but, the games developers should be blamed, because if they made full use of what the X-Box is capable for, then they could have, not only a game that looks good, but one that plays good too. This doesn't apply to aaallll X-Box games, but it does to most of them. Well, the ones I've heard about anyway. This is more of a case of developers not being bothered to make games good in anywhere except the realism department, when the console has the capability of greatness in all departments.
GT3 was a game that made good use of realism. Sony showed what they could do with the console and this game, and they did it, in the form of the greatest racing game ever. Gran Turismo 3 was brilliant in all deparments. It looked great, it had great music from popular bands such as Feeder and Ash, it had many, many cars to choose from, all real, and it was great fun to play, and very addictive too. Sounds good, it even had a multiplayer too. The Gran Turismo series has always been top on all of these, and the PS2 version is no different there. Gran Turismo holds the record for best racer on PS2 undoutebly, but how long can it hold on to that for? There haven't been any decent racers out or ever announced since it, which means it could keep the best racer on PS2 title for a while to come. A good example of realism doing good things.
We've already looked at FIFA games, but now on to their developers, EA. EA are usually a company to go for realism over gameplay. I mean, there are some games that break the rules, such as NBA Street, which is a highly fun basketball game, but then there is the opposite of that. NBA Live 2002, which is based around realism totally. The courts look so real, as do the players, as does even the ball. And then there is the corwd, which couldn't looks better for a PS2 game really. Is the game actually any good? You can decide if you buy it, but personally I don't like it. EA have Ice Hockey games too that are based on Realism, such as NHL 2002, which I admit, can be quite fun, but again, based too much around realism so it isn't as good as it could be. There are many other EA games that try to do well by using realistic features, but they just don't seem to come off that well.
Well, that's my 'survey' over, and it looks like Realism in gaming can only be good if the developers take time to add realism after they have done as much as they can with the actual game and it's gameplay, a la Gran Turismo 3, which would also be the best realistic game out... in my opinion anyway, but most people seem to like it as well. I think gaming should be based around the gameplay, and have realism added at the end, for more of a special effect. Realism still can be cool in ways. GT3 shows you that...
Thanks for reading, Afro.