The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You heard me.
Now you want me to explain myself? Very well...
As you may or may not have noticed, I've been in France for the last couple of weeks or so.
Ofcourse, this involved sitting in the back of my families car for the 6 hours drive between Calais and the camp we were staying at. And during this time, something caught my eye. The road.
Some times it looked like it had water on it and then suddenly would be dry up close.
Other times it just looked black (not as in black coloured road, black as in nothing-there/blank-void black) and see the road slowly appear as we got closer.
I know what I was seeing - it's a light phenemon called a Mirage:
****** Brief Explanation of how a Mirage works *******
Well basically, anyone who's studied Quantum physics will know that light doesn't REALLY travel in a straight line. It just seems to be because light has a higher probability of following straight lines because they're the shortest path.
Now light travels faster in warm air, so on a hot day when the ground is warm, the shortest path (shortest in time, not distance) isn't straight and curves out of the sky towards your eyes, making it look like it's come from the ground. Because of this, a mirage usually looks like water because it looks like water is reflecting the sky in your eyes. It's only when you get closer the the effect stops.
****** If you want to skip it then do so ******
But, from the way it looked, the words that popped into my head were "Glitch" and "Pop up".
Sometimes it looked so unrealistic then if I'd seen it on a TV or game, I'd have though that it was a bug/glitch or a camera/film defect.
If I'd seen it in Gran Tourismo 3 I'd probably written a huge post about how Sony's supposedly ultra realistic masterpiece had sloppy glitches and pop up.
But seeing is it DOESN'T feature these mirages, I'm just going to have call it unrealistic, because it's not like real life! :-P
(Turbonutter, you KNOW that you'd slate Nintendo in a similar way if you got half the chance! :-D)
I'm not writing this post just to dig GT3 (I've never been a fan of any realistic racers, GT3 just happens to be the "best" one, according to reviews and popular opinion, so it's the obvious target of the genre...), but there's plenty of other ways that realistic racers haven't got realism. Most have constant weather - ALL sunny or ALL rainy etc...
You never get passing clouds (although I never noticed passing clouds until I started trying to sunbath! :-D), or changes in brightness or downpour.
Even then, to do it in a random realistic way would probably be pretty complex.
I know that moaning about the weathering effects is a serious case of nit-picking, but I am going somewhere with this if you bare with me. Besides, if they want to make the game realistic, that's the way forward.
It's not just weather that realistic games often fail to do right, it's simulation of any sort.
It was about a year ago when I was reading a Digitiser article ranting about some interview in a Playstation magazine.
Apparently, the interview was about a manager game and the designer said something about that if a tester managed to win the Premiership as Bristol within 15 years then something was wrong and the code needed tweaking.
The Digitiser columnist then went on to point out that at one point, his favourite team Aberdeen had been third division nobodys.
Within 15 years they were immortal champions under a certain Alex Ferguson. Another 15 years later they were a bunch of nobodies again.
This game designer was trying to make this game so realistic that it just wasn't like real life anymore.
Just like a Mirage. A game that included this would look glitched and unrealistic, but would be more like real life.
So what are games designers to do?
Make games that are "like" real life, follow the ubsurd laws of nature and seem unrealistic as a result or make realistic games that follow conventional physics but are not life real life because of it?
One thing they COULD do would be to code the laws of nature - quantum physics et al - into the game engine to ensure that it's perfectly like real life.
But for the same processing power, you could generate 2 huge armies of independantly thinking soldiers to create a huge interesting and detailed war to set a game in. Now what would you say is a better use of the power?
I think devellopers should give up the chase for "ultra realism" - it's fruitless, boring and uneccessary.
Instead they should try to be more imaginative and creative with their game design, try to make it exciting and interesting rather than simply "technically" impressive.
(Please, no lectures on how simulation should not be given up because it has billions of uses other than games blah, blah, blah. (Someone was going to! :-D) You know I was only making a Imagination Vs Realism point.)
Now you want me to explain myself? Very well...
As you may or may not have noticed, I've been in France for the last couple of weeks or so.
Ofcourse, this involved sitting in the back of my families car for the 6 hours drive between Calais and the camp we were staying at. And during this time, something caught my eye. The road.
Some times it looked like it had water on it and then suddenly would be dry up close.
Other times it just looked black (not as in black coloured road, black as in nothing-there/blank-void black) and see the road slowly appear as we got closer.
I know what I was seeing - it's a light phenemon called a Mirage:
****** Brief Explanation of how a Mirage works *******
Well basically, anyone who's studied Quantum physics will know that light doesn't REALLY travel in a straight line. It just seems to be because light has a higher probability of following straight lines because they're the shortest path.
Now light travels faster in warm air, so on a hot day when the ground is warm, the shortest path (shortest in time, not distance) isn't straight and curves out of the sky towards your eyes, making it look like it's come from the ground. Because of this, a mirage usually looks like water because it looks like water is reflecting the sky in your eyes. It's only when you get closer the the effect stops.
****** If you want to skip it then do so ******
But, from the way it looked, the words that popped into my head were "Glitch" and "Pop up".
Sometimes it looked so unrealistic then if I'd seen it on a TV or game, I'd have though that it was a bug/glitch or a camera/film defect.
If I'd seen it in Gran Tourismo 3 I'd probably written a huge post about how Sony's supposedly ultra realistic masterpiece had sloppy glitches and pop up.
But seeing is it DOESN'T feature these mirages, I'm just going to have call it unrealistic, because it's not like real life! :-P
(Turbonutter, you KNOW that you'd slate Nintendo in a similar way if you got half the chance! :-D)
I'm not writing this post just to dig GT3 (I've never been a fan of any realistic racers, GT3 just happens to be the "best" one, according to reviews and popular opinion, so it's the obvious target of the genre...), but there's plenty of other ways that realistic racers haven't got realism. Most have constant weather - ALL sunny or ALL rainy etc...
You never get passing clouds (although I never noticed passing clouds until I started trying to sunbath! :-D), or changes in brightness or downpour.
Even then, to do it in a random realistic way would probably be pretty complex.
I know that moaning about the weathering effects is a serious case of nit-picking, but I am going somewhere with this if you bare with me. Besides, if they want to make the game realistic, that's the way forward.
It's not just weather that realistic games often fail to do right, it's simulation of any sort.
It was about a year ago when I was reading a Digitiser article ranting about some interview in a Playstation magazine.
Apparently, the interview was about a manager game and the designer said something about that if a tester managed to win the Premiership as Bristol within 15 years then something was wrong and the code needed tweaking.
The Digitiser columnist then went on to point out that at one point, his favourite team Aberdeen had been third division nobodys.
Within 15 years they were immortal champions under a certain Alex Ferguson. Another 15 years later they were a bunch of nobodies again.
This game designer was trying to make this game so realistic that it just wasn't like real life anymore.
Just like a Mirage. A game that included this would look glitched and unrealistic, but would be more like real life.
So what are games designers to do?
Make games that are "like" real life, follow the ubsurd laws of nature and seem unrealistic as a result or make realistic games that follow conventional physics but are not life real life because of it?
One thing they COULD do would be to code the laws of nature - quantum physics et al - into the game engine to ensure that it's perfectly like real life.
But for the same processing power, you could generate 2 huge armies of independantly thinking soldiers to create a huge interesting and detailed war to set a game in. Now what would you say is a better use of the power?
I think devellopers should give up the chase for "ultra realism" - it's fruitless, boring and uneccessary.
Instead they should try to be more imaginative and creative with their game design, try to make it exciting and interesting rather than simply "technically" impressive.
(Please, no lectures on how simulation should not be given up because it has billions of uses other than games blah, blah, blah. (Someone was going to! :-D) You know I was only making a Imagination Vs Realism point.)
Imagination can now be successfully fulfilled with today's technology.
Which is why Nintendo want to keep the GC up and running for a lot longer than any other console, so they can focus on the quality of software.
*Cough* My post in Nintendo forum is about it *Cough*
Which is why Nintendo want to keep the GC up and running for a lot longer than any other console, so they can focus on the quality of software.
*Cough* My post in Nintendo forum is about it *Cough*
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Some games already feature heat the distortion effects of which you
> speak, and the capacity for them is increasing.
*
Funnily enough, the two games I've seen this "heat distortion" effect on are both fantasy games - Jet Set Radio Future & Gun Valkyrie.
-
Imagination Vs Realism.... I go imagination every time.
Realistic graphics are fine - I just don't like it when gameplay is confined by (so-called) realism.
> Some games already feature heat the distortion effects of which you
> speak, and the capacity for them is increasing.
*
Funnily enough, the two games I've seen this "heat distortion" effect on are both fantasy games - Jet Set Radio Future & Gun Valkyrie.
-
Imagination Vs Realism.... I go imagination every time.
Realistic graphics are fine - I just don't like it when gameplay is confined by (so-called) realism.
Looks like devlpoers such as Sega Nintendo are already thinking like that, Strafex.
The "Short but sweet" policy concnentrates more on the fun of game design, and less on that realistic approach that Microsoft are following.
The "Short but sweet" policy concnentrates more on the fun of game design, and less on that realistic approach that Microsoft are following.
Some games already feature heat the distortion effects of which you speak, and the capacity for them is increasing.
And to state for the record; if it's so realistic it doesn't look real then it doesn't look realistic.
And to state for the record; if it's so realistic it doesn't look real then it doesn't look realistic.
Nice post Strafex.
IF games started to get effects like this, things may become too real. Limitations are usually there for a reason, if we could get the perfectly real looking video, someday we may never be able to destinguise games and reality.
Good luck for GAD, even though you don't need it.
IF games started to get effects like this, things may become too real. Limitations are usually there for a reason, if we could get the perfectly real looking video, someday we may never be able to destinguise games and reality.
Good luck for GAD, even though you don't need it.
You heard me.
Now you want me to explain myself? Very well...
As you may or may not have noticed, I've been in France for the last couple of weeks or so.
Ofcourse, this involved sitting in the back of my families car for the 6 hours drive between Calais and the camp we were staying at. And during this time, something caught my eye. The road.
Some times it looked like it had water on it and then suddenly would be dry up close.
Other times it just looked black (not as in black coloured road, black as in nothing-there/blank-void black) and see the road slowly appear as we got closer.
I know what I was seeing - it's a light phenemon called a Mirage:
****** Brief Explanation of how a Mirage works *******
Well basically, anyone who's studied Quantum physics will know that light doesn't REALLY travel in a straight line. It just seems to be because light has a higher probability of following straight lines because they're the shortest path.
Now light travels faster in warm air, so on a hot day when the ground is warm, the shortest path (shortest in time, not distance) isn't straight and curves out of the sky towards your eyes, making it look like it's come from the ground. Because of this, a mirage usually looks like water because it looks like water is reflecting the sky in your eyes. It's only when you get closer the the effect stops.
****** If you want to skip it then do so ******
But, from the way it looked, the words that popped into my head were "Glitch" and "Pop up".
Sometimes it looked so unrealistic then if I'd seen it on a TV or game, I'd have though that it was a bug/glitch or a camera/film defect.
If I'd seen it in Gran Tourismo 3 I'd probably written a huge post about how Sony's supposedly ultra realistic masterpiece had sloppy glitches and pop up.
But seeing is it DOESN'T feature these mirages, I'm just going to have call it unrealistic, because it's not like real life! :-P
(Turbonutter, you KNOW that you'd slate Nintendo in a similar way if you got half the chance! :-D)
I'm not writing this post just to dig GT3 (I've never been a fan of any realistic racers, GT3 just happens to be the "best" one, according to reviews and popular opinion, so it's the obvious target of the genre...), but there's plenty of other ways that realistic racers haven't got realism. Most have constant weather - ALL sunny or ALL rainy etc...
You never get passing clouds (although I never noticed passing clouds until I started trying to sunbath! :-D), or changes in brightness or downpour.
Even then, to do it in a random realistic way would probably be pretty complex.
I know that moaning about the weathering effects is a serious case of nit-picking, but I am going somewhere with this if you bare with me. Besides, if they want to make the game realistic, that's the way forward.
It's not just weather that realistic games often fail to do right, it's simulation of any sort.
It was about a year ago when I was reading a Digitiser article ranting about some interview in a Playstation magazine.
Apparently, the interview was about a manager game and the designer said something about that if a tester managed to win the Premiership as Bristol within 15 years then something was wrong and the code needed tweaking.
The Digitiser columnist then went on to point out that at one point, his favourite team Aberdeen had been third division nobodys.
Within 15 years they were immortal champions under a certain Alex Ferguson. Another 15 years later they were a bunch of nobodies again.
This game designer was trying to make this game so realistic that it just wasn't like real life anymore.
Just like a Mirage. A game that included this would look glitched and unrealistic, but would be more like real life.
So what are games designers to do?
Make games that are "like" real life, follow the ubsurd laws of nature and seem unrealistic as a result or make realistic games that follow conventional physics but are not life real life because of it?
One thing they COULD do would be to code the laws of nature - quantum physics et al - into the game engine to ensure that it's perfectly like real life.
But for the same processing power, you could generate 2 huge armies of independantly thinking soldiers to create a huge interesting and detailed war to set a game in. Now what would you say is a better use of the power?
I think devellopers should give up the chase for "ultra realism" - it's fruitless, boring and uneccessary.
Instead they should try to be more imaginative and creative with their game design, try to make it exciting and interesting rather than simply "technically" impressive.
(Please, no lectures on how simulation should not be given up because it has billions of uses other than games blah, blah, blah. (Someone was going to! :-D) You know I was only making a Imagination Vs Realism point.)
Now you want me to explain myself? Very well...
As you may or may not have noticed, I've been in France for the last couple of weeks or so.
Ofcourse, this involved sitting in the back of my families car for the 6 hours drive between Calais and the camp we were staying at. And during this time, something caught my eye. The road.
Some times it looked like it had water on it and then suddenly would be dry up close.
Other times it just looked black (not as in black coloured road, black as in nothing-there/blank-void black) and see the road slowly appear as we got closer.
I know what I was seeing - it's a light phenemon called a Mirage:
****** Brief Explanation of how a Mirage works *******
Well basically, anyone who's studied Quantum physics will know that light doesn't REALLY travel in a straight line. It just seems to be because light has a higher probability of following straight lines because they're the shortest path.
Now light travels faster in warm air, so on a hot day when the ground is warm, the shortest path (shortest in time, not distance) isn't straight and curves out of the sky towards your eyes, making it look like it's come from the ground. Because of this, a mirage usually looks like water because it looks like water is reflecting the sky in your eyes. It's only when you get closer the the effect stops.
****** If you want to skip it then do so ******
But, from the way it looked, the words that popped into my head were "Glitch" and "Pop up".
Sometimes it looked so unrealistic then if I'd seen it on a TV or game, I'd have though that it was a bug/glitch or a camera/film defect.
If I'd seen it in Gran Tourismo 3 I'd probably written a huge post about how Sony's supposedly ultra realistic masterpiece had sloppy glitches and pop up.
But seeing is it DOESN'T feature these mirages, I'm just going to have call it unrealistic, because it's not like real life! :-P
(Turbonutter, you KNOW that you'd slate Nintendo in a similar way if you got half the chance! :-D)
I'm not writing this post just to dig GT3 (I've never been a fan of any realistic racers, GT3 just happens to be the "best" one, according to reviews and popular opinion, so it's the obvious target of the genre...), but there's plenty of other ways that realistic racers haven't got realism. Most have constant weather - ALL sunny or ALL rainy etc...
You never get passing clouds (although I never noticed passing clouds until I started trying to sunbath! :-D), or changes in brightness or downpour.
Even then, to do it in a random realistic way would probably be pretty complex.
I know that moaning about the weathering effects is a serious case of nit-picking, but I am going somewhere with this if you bare with me. Besides, if they want to make the game realistic, that's the way forward.
It's not just weather that realistic games often fail to do right, it's simulation of any sort.
It was about a year ago when I was reading a Digitiser article ranting about some interview in a Playstation magazine.
Apparently, the interview was about a manager game and the designer said something about that if a tester managed to win the Premiership as Bristol within 15 years then something was wrong and the code needed tweaking.
The Digitiser columnist then went on to point out that at one point, his favourite team Aberdeen had been third division nobodys.
Within 15 years they were immortal champions under a certain Alex Ferguson. Another 15 years later they were a bunch of nobodies again.
This game designer was trying to make this game so realistic that it just wasn't like real life anymore.
Just like a Mirage. A game that included this would look glitched and unrealistic, but would be more like real life.
So what are games designers to do?
Make games that are "like" real life, follow the ubsurd laws of nature and seem unrealistic as a result or make realistic games that follow conventional physics but are not life real life because of it?
One thing they COULD do would be to code the laws of nature - quantum physics et al - into the game engine to ensure that it's perfectly like real life.
But for the same processing power, you could generate 2 huge armies of independantly thinking soldiers to create a huge interesting and detailed war to set a game in. Now what would you say is a better use of the power?
I think devellopers should give up the chase for "ultra realism" - it's fruitless, boring and uneccessary.
Instead they should try to be more imaginative and creative with their game design, try to make it exciting and interesting rather than simply "technically" impressive.
(Please, no lectures on how simulation should not be given up because it has billions of uses other than games blah, blah, blah. (Someone was going to! :-D) You know I was only making a Imagination Vs Realism point.)