The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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, quite brilliant topic, was posted in chat and guess what... it got NO replies! People ask me why I post newbie stuff in here? Simply to stop topics like this being unread:
What made pre-32 bit games so much more original than games nowadays?
Simple: The power of processors was so feeble and pitiful that no game designer would ever dream to make a “realistic” game. Instead designers had to create completely new worlds in which to set their games- 2 dimension universes for their characters to play in. Mario’s massive Peach Kingdom and Sonic’s rolling Green Hill Zone being but two examples.
So, here we are- an age where processors are so powerful that designers need not think beyond the real world for inspiration. No more need for those fantasy unrealistic universes of old. Sonic’s green hills have been replaced by an urban metropolis and Mario’s kingdom with a castle.
The next evolution of games looks even worse- worlds so perfectly real that they be like a playable film. Even minute details like the pattern of knots in wood will be unique to every piece of wood in the game thanks to dynamic fractal algorithms. Great.
But is this really where gaming should be using the new-found power of processors?
I certainly think not. Rather games should be becoming more diverse than ever. While games like realistic survival-horror games and racers exploit the technologies available to produce ever more lifelike worlds, other games (the proverbial Marios and Sonics) should instead use technology to venture further and further into the fantasy zone.
Why don’t game designers produce whole self-contained worlds that have their own feel and rhythm. They could, like the 2D games of old, even have their own physics- your character can perform cartoonistic leaps into the air or walk on water.
Such simple game ideas were rife in the pre-32 bit era because they had to be- there was no other way for games to be. But now we’re near to losing such a great part of games all in the name of “advancement”.
Is it really advancement, or just a play-it-safe regime to guarantee sales?
What made pre-32 bit games so much more original than games nowadays?
Simple: The power of processors was so feeble and pitiful that no game designer would ever dream to make a “realistic” game. Instead designers had to create completely new worlds in which to set their games- 2 dimension universes for their characters to play in. Mario’s massive Peach Kingdom and Sonic’s rolling Green Hill Zone being but two examples.
So, here we are- an age where processors are so powerful that designers need not think beyond the real world for inspiration. No more need for those fantasy unrealistic universes of old. Sonic’s green hills have been replaced by an urban metropolis and Mario’s kingdom with a castle.
The next evolution of games looks even worse- worlds so perfectly real that they be like a playable film. Even minute details like the pattern of knots in wood will be unique to every piece of wood in the game thanks to dynamic fractal algorithms. Great.
But is this really where gaming should be using the new-found power of processors?
I certainly think not. Rather games should be becoming more diverse than ever. While games like realistic survival-horror games and racers exploit the technologies available to produce ever more lifelike worlds, other games (the proverbial Marios and Sonics) should instead use technology to venture further and further into the fantasy zone.
Why don’t game designers produce whole self-contained worlds that have their own feel and rhythm. They could, like the 2D games of old, even have their own physics- your character can perform cartoonistic leaps into the air or walk on water.
Such simple game ideas were rife in the pre-32 bit era because they had to be- there was no other way for games to be. But now we’re near to losing such a great part of games all in the name of “advancement”.
Is it really advancement, or just a play-it-safe regime to guarantee sales?
Page:
Unknown Kernel...
Isn't the topology of Pacman just the same as asteroids- a torus (donut)??? After all, the top of the screen links to the bottom and left to right.
As for the four dimensional Zelda OOT, simple. Simply take two 3D planes in the shape of Hyrule, and place them parallel each other in the 4th dimension. Both would have to be moving through the 4th dimension at constant speed too- ie. time is progressing at the same pace in both worlds.
Sonic
Isn't the topology of Pacman just the same as asteroids- a torus (donut)??? After all, the top of the screen links to the bottom and left to right.
As for the four dimensional Zelda OOT, simple. Simply take two 3D planes in the shape of Hyrule, and place them parallel each other in the 4th dimension. Both would have to be moving through the 4th dimension at constant speed too- ie. time is progressing at the same pace in both worlds.
Sonic
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I don't know - re-posting your own topics - what's the forum coming to?!
---
ShadowRav's his friend.... aparently.
> I don't know - re-posting your own topics - what's the forum coming to?!
---
ShadowRav's his friend.... aparently.
I don't know - re-posting your own topics - what's the forum coming to?!
Sonic they should come up with a new rank for you- all this posting other people's topics in here to get them read more! Maybe you should be the Topic checker... checks chat topics to see if they are worthy of a slot in prime time... (excuse the appalling pun)
Anyway Yup, again I agree that realism is not the way forwards. Although there should be realistic games (it is always fun to see the consequences of doing something in 'reality' that you normally couldn't do) realism is not the be all end all of gaming. I just got Paper Mario as a GAD, and although I can't say it is the best RPG I have played, it IS extremely fresh and a great game. It uses psuedo 3D worlds. It takes the best of 2D games and kind of converts it into a 3D RPG... it is hard to explain, but that is one very good game, with ideas that I like. Instead of going for ultra realistic graphics (a la Final Fantasy) it has gone the complete opposite, with graphics resembling those seen in Snes Mario titles- flat sprites that are unique, in that they flip over to look like paper cut outs.
This is the kind of new approach I would like to see, especially in terms of Gameplay- using a different graphical style CAN broaden the variety of gameplay that could be implemented into it...
Anyway, that's enough from me for now.
Anyway Yup, again I agree that realism is not the way forwards. Although there should be realistic games (it is always fun to see the consequences of doing something in 'reality' that you normally couldn't do) realism is not the be all end all of gaming. I just got Paper Mario as a GAD, and although I can't say it is the best RPG I have played, it IS extremely fresh and a great game. It uses psuedo 3D worlds. It takes the best of 2D games and kind of converts it into a 3D RPG... it is hard to explain, but that is one very good game, with ideas that I like. Instead of going for ultra realistic graphics (a la Final Fantasy) it has gone the complete opposite, with graphics resembling those seen in Snes Mario titles- flat sprites that are unique, in that they flip over to look like paper cut outs.
This is the kind of new approach I would like to see, especially in terms of Gameplay- using a different graphical style CAN broaden the variety of gameplay that could be implemented into it...
Anyway, that's enough from me for now.
I prefer realistic graphics - although I have nothing at all against graphics that have a unique style (like Rez) - but it's when gameplay is restricted by realism - I think this is foolish.
Graphics can be whatever they want to be, but gameplay should always be magical and unrealistic (expect when the game is attempting to be a sim obviously).
Graphics can be whatever they want to be, but gameplay should always be magical and unrealistic (expect when the game is attempting to be a sim obviously).
An interesting topic. I've posted some of my own (more optimistic) thoughts on this subject in V.V.V.V.V.'s topic 'super-fantastic'. I think that a lot of game designers are using the extra power of the new technology to create distinct gaming universes. More could be done the physics side, but visually games like Rez and many cell-shaded games are presenting an interpretation of reality rather than an exact mirror image of it.
On the Asteroids point, I've read this donut-shaped thing as well. It's pretty interesting to expand it to other well known titles as well. Pacman, for instance, is a very weird shape indeed. Try it! Of course the real question is, what 4-dimensional shape represents the toplogy of, ooh, Zelda: Ocarina of Time? Whoever solves THAT puzzle has some kind of award due to them. Geek of the year, perhaps.
On the Asteroids point, I've read this donut-shaped thing as well. It's pretty interesting to expand it to other well known titles as well. Pacman, for instance, is a very weird shape indeed. Try it! Of course the real question is, what 4-dimensional shape represents the toplogy of, ooh, Zelda: Ocarina of Time? Whoever solves THAT puzzle has some kind of award due to them. Geek of the year, perhaps.
Anyway, in response to the topic...
I was doing a bit of physics reading the other day, only to discover that asteroids is a perfectly self contained universe in the shape of.... a donut.
That's right. Take a sheet of paper. Connect the top to the bottom (because if you go off the top of the screen you end up at the bottom), and connect both sides together (same reason)... you get a donut!
Ok, so maybe the developers didn't quite design the game to be the manifestation of a 2d Universe in the shape of a donut, but hey!
Anyway, games are certainly losing originality in the development of new worlds. Maybe it's not such a bad thing: the market wants realistic games, so they get realistic ones. Games like Rez continue to sell poorly.
Of course, the odd Jak and Daxter or Zelda doesn't go amiss, but does it matter that much?
Sonic
I was doing a bit of physics reading the other day, only to discover that asteroids is a perfectly self contained universe in the shape of.... a donut.
That's right. Take a sheet of paper. Connect the top to the bottom (because if you go off the top of the screen you end up at the bottom), and connect both sides together (same reason)... you get a donut!
Ok, so maybe the developers didn't quite design the game to be the manifestation of a 2d Universe in the shape of a donut, but hey!
Anyway, games are certainly losing originality in the development of new worlds. Maybe it's not such a bad thing: the market wants realistic games, so they get realistic ones. Games like Rez continue to sell poorly.
Of course, the odd Jak and Daxter or Zelda doesn't go amiss, but does it matter that much?
Sonic
This, quite brilliant topic, was posted in chat and guess what... it got NO replies! People ask me why I post newbie stuff in here? Simply to stop topics like this being unread:
What made pre-32 bit games so much more original than games nowadays?
Simple: The power of processors was so feeble and pitiful that no game designer would ever dream to make a “realistic” game. Instead designers had to create completely new worlds in which to set their games- 2 dimension universes for their characters to play in. Mario’s massive Peach Kingdom and Sonic’s rolling Green Hill Zone being but two examples.
So, here we are- an age where processors are so powerful that designers need not think beyond the real world for inspiration. No more need for those fantasy unrealistic universes of old. Sonic’s green hills have been replaced by an urban metropolis and Mario’s kingdom with a castle.
The next evolution of games looks even worse- worlds so perfectly real that they be like a playable film. Even minute details like the pattern of knots in wood will be unique to every piece of wood in the game thanks to dynamic fractal algorithms. Great.
But is this really where gaming should be using the new-found power of processors?
I certainly think not. Rather games should be becoming more diverse than ever. While games like realistic survival-horror games and racers exploit the technologies available to produce ever more lifelike worlds, other games (the proverbial Marios and Sonics) should instead use technology to venture further and further into the fantasy zone.
Why don’t game designers produce whole self-contained worlds that have their own feel and rhythm. They could, like the 2D games of old, even have their own physics- your character can perform cartoonistic leaps into the air or walk on water.
Such simple game ideas were rife in the pre-32 bit era because they had to be- there was no other way for games to be. But now we’re near to losing such a great part of games all in the name of “advancement”.
Is it really advancement, or just a play-it-safe regime to guarantee sales?
What made pre-32 bit games so much more original than games nowadays?
Simple: The power of processors was so feeble and pitiful that no game designer would ever dream to make a “realistic” game. Instead designers had to create completely new worlds in which to set their games- 2 dimension universes for their characters to play in. Mario’s massive Peach Kingdom and Sonic’s rolling Green Hill Zone being but two examples.
So, here we are- an age where processors are so powerful that designers need not think beyond the real world for inspiration. No more need for those fantasy unrealistic universes of old. Sonic’s green hills have been replaced by an urban metropolis and Mario’s kingdom with a castle.
The next evolution of games looks even worse- worlds so perfectly real that they be like a playable film. Even minute details like the pattern of knots in wood will be unique to every piece of wood in the game thanks to dynamic fractal algorithms. Great.
But is this really where gaming should be using the new-found power of processors?
I certainly think not. Rather games should be becoming more diverse than ever. While games like realistic survival-horror games and racers exploit the technologies available to produce ever more lifelike worlds, other games (the proverbial Marios and Sonics) should instead use technology to venture further and further into the fantasy zone.
Why don’t game designers produce whole self-contained worlds that have their own feel and rhythm. They could, like the 2D games of old, even have their own physics- your character can perform cartoonistic leaps into the air or walk on water.
Such simple game ideas were rife in the pre-32 bit era because they had to be- there was no other way for games to be. But now we’re near to losing such a great part of games all in the name of “advancement”.
Is it really advancement, or just a play-it-safe regime to guarantee sales?
Page: