The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As we approach the era of online gaming, today’s top titles are becoming all the more lifelike. But why? Aren’t games designed to be a brief detachment from reality? Perhaps, in the eyes of today’s gamer, not. This obsession for realism can now be found in many, if not all, of the best selling games in the charts at this moment – be it pinpoint game physics, superb graphics and sound or real life difficulty settings, they’re all in there somewhere. But is this necessarily a good thing? When do we get to the point when things are too real?
Graphics are advancing at an alarming rate, and with stunning visuals from games such as ‘Resident Evil’, ‘Gran Turismo 3’ and ‘Onimusha 2’, gamers can enjoy an experience so atmospheric that it feels like they’re actually in the game. In fact, this ‘In The Game’ experience may not be too far off, as virtual reality entertainment research steadily progresses. We may soon have a whole, living, breathing world around us, just by putting a head set on. But are graphics now becoming a priority? Is the gaming world’s motto now ‘style over substance’?
Moving onto physics then, which are actually rather important. Even the basic stuff like gravity and light could ruin a game when not done correctly. But then again, it could ruin it by going to far too. It’s nice to have a bit of gravity to secure you, and some decent light and sound to aid the experience, but when too much is concentrated on making things just like the real world – that’s when games start becoming the opposites of their intentions. Let’s take two top racing titles as an example then, ‘Gran Turismo 3’ and ‘Burnout 2’:
Gran Turismo 3
This game has what many driving simulators now copy – ultra realism. The physics, the graphics, the cars, the leagues, the gears, the speed, the cornering – it’s all modelled and designed to perfection. However, there’s one major flaw in this game – fun. Because it’s so detailed and correct, it’s more of a substitute for real life than a game. I bought this game when I first got my PS2 and took it back within a week, as I was severely damaging my controller through pure frustration after crashing into a barrier for the umpteenth time whilst attempting a corner at speed. Sorry, but that’s not what I play or pay for.
Burnout 2:
This game has nice graphics, but it’s lacking the cars, leagues and attention to detail that ‘Gran Turismo 3’ has. But it has something more important, something it’s competitors can barely come close to touching – fun. Just clean, quick, high-octane fun. Why? Because in real life you can’t go bombing around ninety-degree corners at 150 m/ph, and people WANT to. The speed, the thrill, the chase – it has that something that most driving games don’t – it’s the ability to engage the player in what is sometimes left last on the checklist – fantastic gameplay.
And that’s why I rate ‘Burnout 2’ a superior game to ‘Gran Turismo 3’. You see, realism, in most cases, will lead to a mind numbingly boring difficulty level – which is to say hard.. very hard. That, unfortunately, is the case with the highly acclaimed ‘Gran Turismo 3’. It’s a nice idea, but because of it’s ‘real life’ challenge, the fun factor is replaced with sheer aggravation.
So to draw this to a final point then, I’m not complaining about realism – far from it. I’m just saying that there is a point when it becomes too much, and in some games such as ‘Gran Turismo 3’, that point has been well and truly crossed. I’d like to see developers taking reality in games to different levels, just as long as they keep great gameplay fixed firmly in their minds, for if they cross that line, it is no longer a game at all.
Graphics are advancing at an alarming rate, and with stunning visuals from games such as ‘Resident Evil’, ‘Gran Turismo 3’ and ‘Onimusha 2’, gamers can enjoy an experience so atmospheric that it feels like they’re actually in the game. In fact, this ‘In The Game’ experience may not be too far off, as virtual reality entertainment research steadily progresses. We may soon have a whole, living, breathing world around us, just by putting a head set on. But are graphics now becoming a priority? Is the gaming world’s motto now ‘style over substance’?
Moving onto physics then, which are actually rather important. Even the basic stuff like gravity and light could ruin a game when not done correctly. But then again, it could ruin it by going to far too. It’s nice to have a bit of gravity to secure you, and some decent light and sound to aid the experience, but when too much is concentrated on making things just like the real world – that’s when games start becoming the opposites of their intentions. Let’s take two top racing titles as an example then, ‘Gran Turismo 3’ and ‘Burnout 2’:
Gran Turismo 3
This game has what many driving simulators now copy – ultra realism. The physics, the graphics, the cars, the leagues, the gears, the speed, the cornering – it’s all modelled and designed to perfection. However, there’s one major flaw in this game – fun. Because it’s so detailed and correct, it’s more of a substitute for real life than a game. I bought this game when I first got my PS2 and took it back within a week, as I was severely damaging my controller through pure frustration after crashing into a barrier for the umpteenth time whilst attempting a corner at speed. Sorry, but that’s not what I play or pay for.
Burnout 2:
This game has nice graphics, but it’s lacking the cars, leagues and attention to detail that ‘Gran Turismo 3’ has. But it has something more important, something it’s competitors can barely come close to touching – fun. Just clean, quick, high-octane fun. Why? Because in real life you can’t go bombing around ninety-degree corners at 150 m/ph, and people WANT to. The speed, the thrill, the chase – it has that something that most driving games don’t – it’s the ability to engage the player in what is sometimes left last on the checklist – fantastic gameplay.
And that’s why I rate ‘Burnout 2’ a superior game to ‘Gran Turismo 3’. You see, realism, in most cases, will lead to a mind numbingly boring difficulty level – which is to say hard.. very hard. That, unfortunately, is the case with the highly acclaimed ‘Gran Turismo 3’. It’s a nice idea, but because of it’s ‘real life’ challenge, the fun factor is replaced with sheer aggravation.
So to draw this to a final point then, I’m not complaining about realism – far from it. I’m just saying that there is a point when it becomes too much, and in some games such as ‘Gran Turismo 3’, that point has been well and truly crossed. I’d like to see developers taking reality in games to different levels, just as long as they keep great gameplay fixed firmly in their minds, for if they cross that line, it is no longer a game at all.
Page:
i think the barrier for realistic games should be along the lines of a bit more realistic then the getaway...any more and it would be annoying
cjh wrote:
> You can't deny it though, when a game comes out with graphics that are
> as realistic as you through possible, then it makes the game more like
> it was intended. Like someone said before, about how if the bond game
> looked just like the film, or as close as you could get it. It would
> certainly be better than just some blocky-faced person and enemies?
> Wouldn't you say???
That is true. Without the amazing graphics and sound that Resident Evil has, it wouldn't be such a great game. I think you'll agree though, that if you compare a GBA game such as Super Mario Advance 3 to a PSOne game, with far superior graphics, like Bubsy 3D, then Mario's the better game. It's not always the case, but it can happen.
> So, basically, I don't think in terms of looks, a game can be too
> realistic.
Neither do I, really. I just hope that looks isn't all the coders think about.
> Imagine if they had taking the realism in this game a step further. If
> the police bribes weren't in the game, if the police never got of your
> tail, there was always a search for you, or if you stole a car, the
> owner reported it and the number plate was noted, and your
> fingerprints looked over when you dumped the car, or even little
> things like going through a red light, going over the lines on the
> road, or even speeding would get the cops on you .... now, wouldn't
> you agree that this would take the fun out of the game??? I know it
> would for me.
That's what I'm getting at. If a game's that realistic, why not just go outside? Though if police checked fingerprints in GTA that would be quite cool - but no doubt it would get tedious after a while.
> Good post Maverick42, it certainly got me thinking :o).
That's the plan :D.
> You can't deny it though, when a game comes out with graphics that are
> as realistic as you through possible, then it makes the game more like
> it was intended. Like someone said before, about how if the bond game
> looked just like the film, or as close as you could get it. It would
> certainly be better than just some blocky-faced person and enemies?
> Wouldn't you say???
That is true. Without the amazing graphics and sound that Resident Evil has, it wouldn't be such a great game. I think you'll agree though, that if you compare a GBA game such as Super Mario Advance 3 to a PSOne game, with far superior graphics, like Bubsy 3D, then Mario's the better game. It's not always the case, but it can happen.
> So, basically, I don't think in terms of looks, a game can be too
> realistic.
Neither do I, really. I just hope that looks isn't all the coders think about.
> Imagine if they had taking the realism in this game a step further. If
> the police bribes weren't in the game, if the police never got of your
> tail, there was always a search for you, or if you stole a car, the
> owner reported it and the number plate was noted, and your
> fingerprints looked over when you dumped the car, or even little
> things like going through a red light, going over the lines on the
> road, or even speeding would get the cops on you .... now, wouldn't
> you agree that this would take the fun out of the game??? I know it
> would for me.
That's what I'm getting at. If a game's that realistic, why not just go outside? Though if police checked fingerprints in GTA that would be quite cool - but no doubt it would get tedious after a while.
> Good post Maverick42, it certainly got me thinking :o).
That's the plan :D.
Good post. I'm not sure the pursuit of virtual reality is what everyone desires (haven't we been talking about virtual reality as the "future" for about 10 years now??), as many of the games I enjoy aren't bounded by the walls of reality. Gasmask's post (I urge you to check it out) spells it out - why try and make everything more real when its already there?
I also agree with El Blokey's point that there is a choice - people can decide whether they want to go flying in a Microsoft Flight Simulator or a Pilotwings. Games are becoming more realistic, but whether that's a bad thing or a good thing depends on the desire of the gamer.
I also agree with El Blokey's point that there is a choice - people can decide whether they want to go flying in a Microsoft Flight Simulator or a Pilotwings. Games are becoming more realistic, but whether that's a bad thing or a good thing depends on the desire of the gamer.
El Blokey wrote:
> Well written, but I have a problem with the argument. There's a big
> market for sims such as PES2 and GT3, people who enjoy the 'real life'
> feel. Championship Manager is phenomenally popular, and it's always
> striving to be more realistic.
I'll agree that in games such as 'Pro Evolution Soccer 2', and 'Championship Manager', the realism works very well - and they're great fun. However, I haven't come across many people having a good time with 'Gran Turismo 3', not for long anyway.
There is a market for realism, but not for boredom.
> However, as you say, stuff like Burnout is available. For every NBA
> Live there's an NBA Jam. There's a hardcore, and an arcade. For most
> genres like racing and sports, you can be realistic or crazy, and
> really, games aren't becoming 'too realistic'. We won't need to worry
> until our Playstations are starting to steal our CDs.
That is a great thing about games today - the variety. For those people that want realism, they can get it, and for those people that want fun, they can also get it. I was pointing out that if variety is somewhat phased out, with realism taking top priority, then I might just go outside one day - instead of gaming :D.
> I've said many times before, an ADVANTAGE of technology is that we can
> recreate real life more believably. Wouldn't it be great to have a
> Bond game where it actually all looked like the film?
Of course. In certain areas it works, in some areas it doesn't. Developers must test thoroughly to find the correct balance and recipie.
> Well written, but I have a problem with the argument. There's a big
> market for sims such as PES2 and GT3, people who enjoy the 'real life'
> feel. Championship Manager is phenomenally popular, and it's always
> striving to be more realistic.
I'll agree that in games such as 'Pro Evolution Soccer 2', and 'Championship Manager', the realism works very well - and they're great fun. However, I haven't come across many people having a good time with 'Gran Turismo 3', not for long anyway.
There is a market for realism, but not for boredom.
> However, as you say, stuff like Burnout is available. For every NBA
> Live there's an NBA Jam. There's a hardcore, and an arcade. For most
> genres like racing and sports, you can be realistic or crazy, and
> really, games aren't becoming 'too realistic'. We won't need to worry
> until our Playstations are starting to steal our CDs.
That is a great thing about games today - the variety. For those people that want realism, they can get it, and for those people that want fun, they can also get it. I was pointing out that if variety is somewhat phased out, with realism taking top priority, then I might just go outside one day - instead of gaming :D.
> I've said many times before, an ADVANTAGE of technology is that we can
> recreate real life more believably. Wouldn't it be great to have a
> Bond game where it actually all looked like the film?
Of course. In certain areas it works, in some areas it doesn't. Developers must test thoroughly to find the correct balance and recipie.
AfroJoe wrote:
> Games that are too realistic can be really annoying after a while. In
> a FPS you can take a large number of bullets, while the enemies just
> go down in one, perhaps too. If things like this happened on a
> regular basis in all games then the games just wouldn't be fun at all.
> You'd get frustrated very easily, and the game would be pretty
> rubbish overall. Too much realism makes for a bad game, in my
> opinion.
Yep. First Person Shooters, when it's a 'one shot kill' can drain the fun out of the game, and really get the player quite angry. When enemies will keel over on just a scratch, and you can keep going with fifty shots to the chest and head - that's a lot more fun :D.
> Top post! :-)
Thanks :D.
> Games that are too realistic can be really annoying after a while. In
> a FPS you can take a large number of bullets, while the enemies just
> go down in one, perhaps too. If things like this happened on a
> regular basis in all games then the games just wouldn't be fun at all.
> You'd get frustrated very easily, and the game would be pretty
> rubbish overall. Too much realism makes for a bad game, in my
> opinion.
Yep. First Person Shooters, when it's a 'one shot kill' can drain the fun out of the game, and really get the player quite angry. When enemies will keel over on just a scratch, and you can keep going with fifty shots to the chest and head - that's a lot more fun :D.
> Top post! :-)
Thanks :D.
Interesting post :o).
I think that there are two different types of realism in games today.
1. How the game looks.
2. How the game plays.
A lot of the time, from what I've seen and heard anyway, when people talk about realism in games, they only appear to refer to how realistic it looks. How good the characters look, and how good the surroundings look.
The better the graphics are, generally makes a better game. Well, this isn't always true, but in today's world of gaming, graphics seem to be the number one subject when it comes to how good a game it. If you had a new game now, and the graphics weren't exactly outstanding, you'd probably feel less likely to enjoy the game, no matter how good the actually game is, playability wise.
You can't deny it though, when a game comes out with graphics that are as realistic as you through possible, then it makes the game more like it was intended. Like someone said before, about how if the bond game looked just like the film, or as close as you could get it. It would certainly be better than just some blocky-faced person and enemies? Wouldn't you say???
So, basically, I don't think in terms of looks, a game can be too realistic.
But, what some people seem to fail to think about is how a game would play if it was made as realistic as possible. Personally, I feel if it's too realistic, its just boring.
Lets take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for example, now as it stands this is pretty realistic, as in if you shoot someone or run them down, your going to be chased by the cops, which is cool, as it's considered a 'fun and interesting' game.
Imagine if they had taking the realism in this game a step further. If the police bribes weren't in the game, if the police never got of your tail, there was always a search for you, or if you stole a car, the owner reported it and the number plate was noted, and your fingerprints looked over when you dumped the car, or even little things like going through a red light, going over the lines on the road, or even speeding would get the cops on you .... now, wouldn't you agree that this would take the fun out of the game??? I know it would for me.
Also, think about real life and this game, if you got shot, you wouldn't just run away as easily as you can in Vice City, at the very least you'd be stunned, depending on where you were shot, and by what type of bullet. But again, if that sort of realism was in the game, sure it would be a challenge, but ultimately it would cause the 'fun' factor to fall, as on shot and your gone would be almost impossible in the GTA: Vice City game
Of course, that was just an example of what a game could be like it taken to the extreme with realism, it would kill the fun, and that is what games are all about, 'fun'. I hope developers never forget that.
Basically, when it comes to how a game plays, it 'IS' possible to be to realistic.
So, in short, games can look as realistic as possible without affecting the game in a negative way and I think in fact have positive impact on a lot, but when it comes to how it plays, there is such as thing as being 'too realistic'.
Of course, this is just my opinion on the matter, some may completely disagree, and I encourage you to put your views across if you do so :o).
Good post Maverick42, it certainly got me thinking :o).
I think that there are two different types of realism in games today.
1. How the game looks.
2. How the game plays.
A lot of the time, from what I've seen and heard anyway, when people talk about realism in games, they only appear to refer to how realistic it looks. How good the characters look, and how good the surroundings look.
The better the graphics are, generally makes a better game. Well, this isn't always true, but in today's world of gaming, graphics seem to be the number one subject when it comes to how good a game it. If you had a new game now, and the graphics weren't exactly outstanding, you'd probably feel less likely to enjoy the game, no matter how good the actually game is, playability wise.
You can't deny it though, when a game comes out with graphics that are as realistic as you through possible, then it makes the game more like it was intended. Like someone said before, about how if the bond game looked just like the film, or as close as you could get it. It would certainly be better than just some blocky-faced person and enemies? Wouldn't you say???
So, basically, I don't think in terms of looks, a game can be too realistic.
But, what some people seem to fail to think about is how a game would play if it was made as realistic as possible. Personally, I feel if it's too realistic, its just boring.
Lets take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for example, now as it stands this is pretty realistic, as in if you shoot someone or run them down, your going to be chased by the cops, which is cool, as it's considered a 'fun and interesting' game.
Imagine if they had taking the realism in this game a step further. If the police bribes weren't in the game, if the police never got of your tail, there was always a search for you, or if you stole a car, the owner reported it and the number plate was noted, and your fingerprints looked over when you dumped the car, or even little things like going through a red light, going over the lines on the road, or even speeding would get the cops on you .... now, wouldn't you agree that this would take the fun out of the game??? I know it would for me.
Also, think about real life and this game, if you got shot, you wouldn't just run away as easily as you can in Vice City, at the very least you'd be stunned, depending on where you were shot, and by what type of bullet. But again, if that sort of realism was in the game, sure it would be a challenge, but ultimately it would cause the 'fun' factor to fall, as on shot and your gone would be almost impossible in the GTA: Vice City game
Of course, that was just an example of what a game could be like it taken to the extreme with realism, it would kill the fun, and that is what games are all about, 'fun'. I hope developers never forget that.
Basically, when it comes to how a game plays, it 'IS' possible to be to realistic.
So, in short, games can look as realistic as possible without affecting the game in a negative way and I think in fact have positive impact on a lot, but when it comes to how it plays, there is such as thing as being 'too realistic'.
Of course, this is just my opinion on the matter, some may completely disagree, and I encourage you to put your views across if you do so :o).
Good post Maverick42, it certainly got me thinking :o).
Parr wrote:
> You make a valid point. The thing with games is, if they are too real
> people will not play them becuase they are too hard to do. A good
> example of this is Die Hard Vendetta.
Yeah, Die Hard: Vendetta is supposed to be a breeze with auto-aim on, but impossible with manual. Crazy, eh? I'm hoping it's good though, as I've heard promising things about it.
> But do people like a challenge?
A challenge is always good - but there's a difference between an interesting challenge, and a boring one. I find that a game like Super Mario Sunshine has an interesting challenge to it, whereas GT3 is fairly repetitive and boring.
> Anyway, good post!
Thanks :D.
> You make a valid point. The thing with games is, if they are too real
> people will not play them becuase they are too hard to do. A good
> example of this is Die Hard Vendetta.
Yeah, Die Hard: Vendetta is supposed to be a breeze with auto-aim on, but impossible with manual. Crazy, eh? I'm hoping it's good though, as I've heard promising things about it.
> But do people like a challenge?
A challenge is always good - but there's a difference between an interesting challenge, and a boring one. I find that a game like Super Mario Sunshine has an interesting challenge to it, whereas GT3 is fairly repetitive and boring.
> Anyway, good post!
Thanks :D.
Microchips wrote:
> nice post. If games were to realistic, and when Virtual reality
> arrives, will it be that hard to distinguish whether gaming is reality
> or vice versa?
It will be interesting to see how virtual reality is received when/if it is introduced to society. Perhaps people could use it to trick people?
Hmm.. :D
> nice post. If games were to realistic, and when Virtual reality
> arrives, will it be that hard to distinguish whether gaming is reality
> or vice versa?
It will be interesting to see how virtual reality is received when/if it is introduced to society. Perhaps people could use it to trick people?
Hmm.. :D
Well written, but I have a problem with the argument. There's a big market for sims such as PES2 and GT3, people who enjoy the 'real life' feel. Championship Manager is phenomenally popular, and it's always striving to be more realistic.
However, as you say, stuff like Burnout is available. For every NBA Live there's an NBA Jam. There's a hardcore, and an arcade. For most genres like racing and sports, you can be realistic or crazy, and really, games aren't becoming 'too realistic'. We won't need to worry until our Playstations are starting to steal our CDs.
I've said many times before, an ADVANTAGE of technology is that we can recreate real life more believably. Wouldn't it be great to have a Bond game where it actually all looked like the film?
However, as you say, stuff like Burnout is available. For every NBA Live there's an NBA Jam. There's a hardcore, and an arcade. For most genres like racing and sports, you can be realistic or crazy, and really, games aren't becoming 'too realistic'. We won't need to worry until our Playstations are starting to steal our CDs.
I've said many times before, an ADVANTAGE of technology is that we can recreate real life more believably. Wouldn't it be great to have a Bond game where it actually all looked like the film?
Games that are too realistic can be really annoying after a while. In a FPS you can take a large number of bullets, while the enemies just go down in one, perhaps too. If things like this happened on a regular basis in all games then the games just wouldn't be fun at all. You'd get frustrated very easily, and the game would be pretty rubbish overall. Too much realism makes for a bad game, in my opinion.
Top post! :-)
Top post! :-)
Page: