The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When developers focus on making a game more realistic, does this necessarily make the game more enjoyable?
A lot of the PS2 games currently in development, and already released, are focused on how realistic they are. I have to say, I think MGS2 must be the most realistic I've played so far on the PS2, allowing you to do most of the things you would do in real life, if you was on a sneaking mission like Raiden is in the game. There is also a particular feel to it, which makes it feel like a film or maybe even real life, the way guards can hear you, the way the camera gets steamed up when you burst open a fire extinguisher or come into a nice warm room after being outside, popping guards' heads off in the cold rain. And even then, your character sneezes occasionally. Another realistic thing I've noticed about MGS2 is the white robot that tries to call reinforcements when it sees you. It's called a Cypher. At first, I thought it was just a fiction robot, specifically designed as an enemy to make your mission slightly harder in the game. I was proved wrong when I read through some back issues of Real Robots. Anyone who is building Cybot will know what I am on about. In issue 2, top of page 17, they showed a picture of a Cypher, and a quick description of it:
"Cypher is Sikorsky's multipurpose Security and Surveillance Mission Platform"
And one last thing which I must mention about this game is the amount of research the team did to make this game so realistic, taking pictures of places and mapping them into a game, acting out how they thought guards would really act in certain situations, as demonstrated on the DVD which comes with the game. A fantastic achievement, it is.
Then there's good ol' Perfect Dark on the N64. It is realistic in its own little ways, but fails to reach the standard of MGS2. With guards that can hear you as you empty their mates of their lives, and once you have, they go rushing to their mate and ask them if they are all right, with some funny remarks sometimes, like, "Ah, I never liked him anyway." How many games have you played where the guards do that, eh? Sure, there are plenty where they react to a dead body, usually by searching for you, but reacting in a way to help their mate, how many times have you seen that in a game. PD was the first, and has been the only game, where I have seen that happen.
Also on the N64, is CBFD. I have to mention this one with some experience of some of the things in the game. The ways the characters move, speak and everything they do is tuned to perfection. Lip-synching, movement, and speech, all exactly right. Their lips move correctly, expressing their thoughts and moving precisely to the words they speak, just like a real person talking. Then Rare show off the research they did to help create the game, in the War multiplayer game, the Total War version, there is a little cut-scene to introduce your objective. Movements are perfect. At the start, where the Sergeant says, "Okay guys, Atten......tion!" It is perfectly matched to the real world. Being a cadet in the ATC, I would know. The way the squirrels stand at ease to begin with, then put their hands by their sides and feet together under the command of "Attention" is exactly right. Except that they don't say "attention" anymore, it's a different command.
But some critics may think that games are better when they aren't realistic, when they are cartoony or in some way, visibly not real. Games like the Pokémon series, Rayman, Sonic and several others. Everyone has their own opinions.
So does a better game come out of a long effort of making it realistic? I find that you can argue it. Depending on your tastes, you might like non-realistic games, or realistic ones, or both. I personally prefer both. I'm not bothered if a game is realistic, as long as it plays good with not many glitches and a descent story line.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
A lot of the PS2 games currently in development, and already released, are focused on how realistic they are. I have to say, I think MGS2 must be the most realistic I've played so far on the PS2, allowing you to do most of the things you would do in real life, if you was on a sneaking mission like Raiden is in the game. There is also a particular feel to it, which makes it feel like a film or maybe even real life, the way guards can hear you, the way the camera gets steamed up when you burst open a fire extinguisher or come into a nice warm room after being outside, popping guards' heads off in the cold rain. And even then, your character sneezes occasionally. Another realistic thing I've noticed about MGS2 is the white robot that tries to call reinforcements when it sees you. It's called a Cypher. At first, I thought it was just a fiction robot, specifically designed as an enemy to make your mission slightly harder in the game. I was proved wrong when I read through some back issues of Real Robots. Anyone who is building Cybot will know what I am on about. In issue 2, top of page 17, they showed a picture of a Cypher, and a quick description of it:
"Cypher is Sikorsky's multipurpose Security and Surveillance Mission Platform"
And one last thing which I must mention about this game is the amount of research the team did to make this game so realistic, taking pictures of places and mapping them into a game, acting out how they thought guards would really act in certain situations, as demonstrated on the DVD which comes with the game. A fantastic achievement, it is.
Then there's good ol' Perfect Dark on the N64. It is realistic in its own little ways, but fails to reach the standard of MGS2. With guards that can hear you as you empty their mates of their lives, and once you have, they go rushing to their mate and ask them if they are all right, with some funny remarks sometimes, like, "Ah, I never liked him anyway." How many games have you played where the guards do that, eh? Sure, there are plenty where they react to a dead body, usually by searching for you, but reacting in a way to help their mate, how many times have you seen that in a game. PD was the first, and has been the only game, where I have seen that happen.
Also on the N64, is CBFD. I have to mention this one with some experience of some of the things in the game. The ways the characters move, speak and everything they do is tuned to perfection. Lip-synching, movement, and speech, all exactly right. Their lips move correctly, expressing their thoughts and moving precisely to the words they speak, just like a real person talking. Then Rare show off the research they did to help create the game, in the War multiplayer game, the Total War version, there is a little cut-scene to introduce your objective. Movements are perfect. At the start, where the Sergeant says, "Okay guys, Atten......tion!" It is perfectly matched to the real world. Being a cadet in the ATC, I would know. The way the squirrels stand at ease to begin with, then put their hands by their sides and feet together under the command of "Attention" is exactly right. Except that they don't say "attention" anymore, it's a different command.
But some critics may think that games are better when they aren't realistic, when they are cartoony or in some way, visibly not real. Games like the Pokémon series, Rayman, Sonic and several others. Everyone has their own opinions.
So does a better game come out of a long effort of making it realistic? I find that you can argue it. Depending on your tastes, you might like non-realistic games, or realistic ones, or both. I personally prefer both. I'm not bothered if a game is realistic, as long as it plays good with not many glitches and a descent story line.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
We "see" songs?
Game sounds are an interesting point- in olden times they were little more than a load of beeping, annoyingly repetative tunes. Yet we now see songs like Zombie Nation using these tunes as their basis- retro games are back in fashion!
Sonic
Sonic
Ronaldinho_da_2nd wrote:
> Now, the situation with graphics being more important than gameplay. I
> personally believe that Gameplay is the most important. As an example,
> take Dues Ex. It doesn't look like a hollywood sci-fi film with all
> the latest lighting effects and camera tricks being used. The graphics
> are actually kinda shabby but the FMV's and AWESOME gameplay MORE than
> make up for that.
-----
I also think that gameplay is more important, but graphics are of great significance. I mean, a game without graphics is basicly a blank screen. Graphics are the detail;s which the game displays. Without them, you have nothing, a blank screen. But then, gameplay. I think this is also important because, to put it quickly and simply, what's a game with brilliant graphics if you lose interest in it after 3 minutes?
-----
> Now, sound. Twain said he didnt think it really mattered. Can you
> remember in MGS2, when you entered a different area of the ship, there
> was a low flute-like sound with a few clicks? or the great suspense
> when you were on 'Red Alert'.
-----
Sound doesn't really matter as much as gameplay. Can you remember the old games we used to play? They had either no sound at all, or very basic sounds like beeps and buzzes, and still, terrific games like Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country and Cosmic Spacehead were created on the "vintage" consoles, which kept you playing and interested all the way through, even with sounds like that. This is why I think sounds aren't that important. Obviously, if the sound is truely terrible, like the sound a someone scratching a black board all through the game, then I won't like it. But no-one is so bad to make a game with sounds like that, are they?
> Now, the situation with graphics being more important than gameplay. I
> personally believe that Gameplay is the most important. As an example,
> take Dues Ex. It doesn't look like a hollywood sci-fi film with all
> the latest lighting effects and camera tricks being used. The graphics
> are actually kinda shabby but the FMV's and AWESOME gameplay MORE than
> make up for that.
-----
I also think that gameplay is more important, but graphics are of great significance. I mean, a game without graphics is basicly a blank screen. Graphics are the detail;s which the game displays. Without them, you have nothing, a blank screen. But then, gameplay. I think this is also important because, to put it quickly and simply, what's a game with brilliant graphics if you lose interest in it after 3 minutes?
-----
> Now, sound. Twain said he didnt think it really mattered. Can you
> remember in MGS2, when you entered a different area of the ship, there
> was a low flute-like sound with a few clicks? or the great suspense
> when you were on 'Red Alert'.
-----
Sound doesn't really matter as much as gameplay. Can you remember the old games we used to play? They had either no sound at all, or very basic sounds like beeps and buzzes, and still, terrific games like Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country and Cosmic Spacehead were created on the "vintage" consoles, which kept you playing and interested all the way through, even with sounds like that. This is why I think sounds aren't that important. Obviously, if the sound is truely terrible, like the sound a someone scratching a black board all through the game, then I won't like it. But no-one is so bad to make a game with sounds like that, are they?
Both Twain and SONICRAV have brought up interesting points in their replies.
Now, the situation with graphics being more important than gameplay. I personally believe that Gameplay is the most important. As an example, take Dues Ex. It doesn't look like a hollywood sci-fi film with all the latest lighting effects and camera tricks being used. The graphics are actually kinda shabby but the FMV's and AWESOME gameplay MORE than make up for that.
Now, sound. Twain said he didnt think it really mattered. Can you remember in MGS2, when you entered a different area of the ship, there was a low flute-like sound with a few clicks? or the great suspense when you were on 'Red Alert'.
Another game were sound is personified is Medal of Honour: Allied Assault. The sound in this game is incredible. Taken from the actual time and adapted to suit the gameplay, it brought home the drama and seriousness of war. At times it left you feeling emotional.
But then there are games that take all of these options and drive them into the ground and come up with a crappy game. Then the criticism starts all over again....
Now, the situation with graphics being more important than gameplay. I personally believe that Gameplay is the most important. As an example, take Dues Ex. It doesn't look like a hollywood sci-fi film with all the latest lighting effects and camera tricks being used. The graphics are actually kinda shabby but the FMV's and AWESOME gameplay MORE than make up for that.
Now, sound. Twain said he didnt think it really mattered. Can you remember in MGS2, when you entered a different area of the ship, there was a low flute-like sound with a few clicks? or the great suspense when you were on 'Red Alert'.
Another game were sound is personified is Medal of Honour: Allied Assault. The sound in this game is incredible. Taken from the actual time and adapted to suit the gameplay, it brought home the drama and seriousness of war. At times it left you feeling emotional.
But then there are games that take all of these options and drive them into the ground and come up with a crappy game. Then the criticism starts all over again....
Yes, I do really hate game which are realistic, but crap to play. MGS2 was fun while it lastest, and very realistic doing so, but oooooh it was short, which is a real shame. I'm not too bothered about the graphical side of a game, as long as it plays well, and I'm not too bothered if it is realistic, as long as I can follow the storyline without thinking "WTF has this got to do with it?".
There is also sound. I prefer it when there is music in the background, as most games have, but it doesn't really add to the realism.
There is also sound. I prefer it when there is music in the background, as most games have, but it doesn't really add to the realism.
Not a very original topic, but well written none-the-less.
Personally, I can't wait until games reach photorealism. NOT because I prefer graphics over gameplay, but with all games equally good graphically then perhaps casual gamers will buy games on the merits of their gameplay!
Atually I wrote a topic of how games have changed (form an emphasis on gameplay to one on graphics) in my topic: Digital Dreams- the Art of Game Making. It's a few posts down, it's well written, and it got one reply!
But back to the point. Graphics can be important in some games- esp simulations. They can increase atmosphere and realism. However, they are not the be all and end all of gaming. Gameplay, story and control are more important.
Sonic
Personally, I can't wait until games reach photorealism. NOT because I prefer graphics over gameplay, but with all games equally good graphically then perhaps casual gamers will buy games on the merits of their gameplay!
Atually I wrote a topic of how games have changed (form an emphasis on gameplay to one on graphics) in my topic: Digital Dreams- the Art of Game Making. It's a few posts down, it's well written, and it got one reply!
But back to the point. Graphics can be important in some games- esp simulations. They can increase atmosphere and realism. However, they are not the be all and end all of gaming. Gameplay, story and control are more important.
Sonic
When developers focus on making a game more realistic, does this necessarily make the game more enjoyable?
A lot of the PS2 games currently in development, and already released, are focused on how realistic they are. I have to say, I think MGS2 must be the most realistic I've played so far on the PS2, allowing you to do most of the things you would do in real life, if you was on a sneaking mission like Raiden is in the game. There is also a particular feel to it, which makes it feel like a film or maybe even real life, the way guards can hear you, the way the camera gets steamed up when you burst open a fire extinguisher or come into a nice warm room after being outside, popping guards' heads off in the cold rain. And even then, your character sneezes occasionally. Another realistic thing I've noticed about MGS2 is the white robot that tries to call reinforcements when it sees you. It's called a Cypher. At first, I thought it was just a fiction robot, specifically designed as an enemy to make your mission slightly harder in the game. I was proved wrong when I read through some back issues of Real Robots. Anyone who is building Cybot will know what I am on about. In issue 2, top of page 17, they showed a picture of a Cypher, and a quick description of it:
"Cypher is Sikorsky's multipurpose Security and Surveillance Mission Platform"
And one last thing which I must mention about this game is the amount of research the team did to make this game so realistic, taking pictures of places and mapping them into a game, acting out how they thought guards would really act in certain situations, as demonstrated on the DVD which comes with the game. A fantastic achievement, it is.
Then there's good ol' Perfect Dark on the N64. It is realistic in its own little ways, but fails to reach the standard of MGS2. With guards that can hear you as you empty their mates of their lives, and once you have, they go rushing to their mate and ask them if they are all right, with some funny remarks sometimes, like, "Ah, I never liked him anyway." How many games have you played where the guards do that, eh? Sure, there are plenty where they react to a dead body, usually by searching for you, but reacting in a way to help their mate, how many times have you seen that in a game. PD was the first, and has been the only game, where I have seen that happen.
Also on the N64, is CBFD. I have to mention this one with some experience of some of the things in the game. The ways the characters move, speak and everything they do is tuned to perfection. Lip-synching, movement, and speech, all exactly right. Their lips move correctly, expressing their thoughts and moving precisely to the words they speak, just like a real person talking. Then Rare show off the research they did to help create the game, in the War multiplayer game, the Total War version, there is a little cut-scene to introduce your objective. Movements are perfect. At the start, where the Sergeant says, "Okay guys, Atten......tion!" It is perfectly matched to the real world. Being a cadet in the ATC, I would know. The way the squirrels stand at ease to begin with, then put their hands by their sides and feet together under the command of "Attention" is exactly right. Except that they don't say "attention" anymore, it's a different command.
But some critics may think that games are better when they aren't realistic, when they are cartoony or in some way, visibly not real. Games like the Pokémon series, Rayman, Sonic and several others. Everyone has their own opinions.
So does a better game come out of a long effort of making it realistic? I find that you can argue it. Depending on your tastes, you might like non-realistic games, or realistic ones, or both. I personally prefer both. I'm not bothered if a game is realistic, as long as it plays good with not many glitches and a descent story line.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
A lot of the PS2 games currently in development, and already released, are focused on how realistic they are. I have to say, I think MGS2 must be the most realistic I've played so far on the PS2, allowing you to do most of the things you would do in real life, if you was on a sneaking mission like Raiden is in the game. There is also a particular feel to it, which makes it feel like a film or maybe even real life, the way guards can hear you, the way the camera gets steamed up when you burst open a fire extinguisher or come into a nice warm room after being outside, popping guards' heads off in the cold rain. And even then, your character sneezes occasionally. Another realistic thing I've noticed about MGS2 is the white robot that tries to call reinforcements when it sees you. It's called a Cypher. At first, I thought it was just a fiction robot, specifically designed as an enemy to make your mission slightly harder in the game. I was proved wrong when I read through some back issues of Real Robots. Anyone who is building Cybot will know what I am on about. In issue 2, top of page 17, they showed a picture of a Cypher, and a quick description of it:
"Cypher is Sikorsky's multipurpose Security and Surveillance Mission Platform"
And one last thing which I must mention about this game is the amount of research the team did to make this game so realistic, taking pictures of places and mapping them into a game, acting out how they thought guards would really act in certain situations, as demonstrated on the DVD which comes with the game. A fantastic achievement, it is.
Then there's good ol' Perfect Dark on the N64. It is realistic in its own little ways, but fails to reach the standard of MGS2. With guards that can hear you as you empty their mates of their lives, and once you have, they go rushing to their mate and ask them if they are all right, with some funny remarks sometimes, like, "Ah, I never liked him anyway." How many games have you played where the guards do that, eh? Sure, there are plenty where they react to a dead body, usually by searching for you, but reacting in a way to help their mate, how many times have you seen that in a game. PD was the first, and has been the only game, where I have seen that happen.
Also on the N64, is CBFD. I have to mention this one with some experience of some of the things in the game. The ways the characters move, speak and everything they do is tuned to perfection. Lip-synching, movement, and speech, all exactly right. Their lips move correctly, expressing their thoughts and moving precisely to the words they speak, just like a real person talking. Then Rare show off the research they did to help create the game, in the War multiplayer game, the Total War version, there is a little cut-scene to introduce your objective. Movements are perfect. At the start, where the Sergeant says, "Okay guys, Atten......tion!" It is perfectly matched to the real world. Being a cadet in the ATC, I would know. The way the squirrels stand at ease to begin with, then put their hands by their sides and feet together under the command of "Attention" is exactly right. Except that they don't say "attention" anymore, it's a different command.
But some critics may think that games are better when they aren't realistic, when they are cartoony or in some way, visibly not real. Games like the Pokémon series, Rayman, Sonic and several others. Everyone has their own opinions.
So does a better game come out of a long effort of making it realistic? I find that you can argue it. Depending on your tastes, you might like non-realistic games, or realistic ones, or both. I personally prefer both. I'm not bothered if a game is realistic, as long as it plays good with not many glitches and a descent story line.
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain