The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 is a topic which has probably been covered many times before but I am going to put a few of my personal views forward.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint i have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Theif both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What i think i am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what i am on about. If it were really me in the game, i would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if i was getting shot at, i may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here i am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game i dont want to have to think "ok hang on, how can i get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if i were this guy i'm playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (dont get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way i see it, it would make a huge difference to the gamplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
(I posted this before but got very little response, so I thought I would try again!)
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint i have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Theif both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What i think i am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what i am on about. If it were really me in the game, i would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if i was getting shot at, i may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here i am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game i dont want to have to think "ok hang on, how can i get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if i were this guy i'm playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (dont get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way i see it, it would make a huge difference to the gamplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
(I posted this before but got very little response, so I thought I would try again!)
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
This is a topic which has probably been covered many times before but I am going to put a few of my personal views forward.
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint i have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Theif both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What i think i am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what i am on about. If it were really me in the game, i would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if i was getting shot at, i may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here i am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game i dont want to have to think "ok hang on, how can i get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if i were this guy i'm playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (dont get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way i see it, it would make a huge difference to the gamplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
(I posted this before but got very little response, so I thought I would try again!)
I think that it is pretty safe to say that the most popular genre of game (for the PC at least) is currently the first person shooter (FPS). Gamers, as a group, are always looking forward to the next big FPS (recently RTCW and now probably Doom 3 or something). Each new game seems to claim to be more realistic than the last.
The complaint i have is what this realism refers to. More often than not, it means that the violence is even more life like or the graphics have been revamped to take advantage of more modern and powerful processors. Personally, I think that maybe they should be 'improving' in other areas. Some games have been very good for doing this. Rainbow six and Theif both added a highly strategic element to the game play. Deus Ex took away much of the linear feeling to the way the game was played. This is all very well but maybe there are other, possibly simpler, things which could be done to make games even more realistic.
What i think i am leading up to is improvisation. There are very few games which leave much room to find your own way out of a situation. For example, what happens if you run out of ammo? In most games it means pulling out your fists and thrashing around wildly. However, I was playing 'spiderman' the other week and was delighted to find that if you so desired, you could find objects such as tables and chairs to throw at your enemies. This is what i am on about. If it were really me in the game, i would grab a chair or plant pot before try to punch the enemy. Also, if i was getting shot at, i may want to push over a table or fridge to use for cover from the fire. Very few games allow this kind of innovation. Simple things like being able to lob a grenade round a corner without having to dive out into the open and effectively putting a flag on your head saying 'here i am, please shoot me'.
Plus, I am sure most of you agree that it is very frustrating when you come across an obstacle which you know should be possible to get past but can't. For example a gate or fence. I could jump it or at least shoot it off its hinges so why can't my highly trained commando? My commando has just taken an entire army's bullets and survived on 2 medipacks - why can't he get past this damn wire fence? It doesn't make sense.
Improving the graphics of a game is great. I'm all for it - its just maybe developers should concentrate on other areas too. I mean, so what if they have individually modelled every single eyelash on the guy's face, theres only so much that that can add to a game. It may look great but there are simpler things that can be improved. When playing a game i dont want to have to think "ok hang on, how can i get out of here given what the game lets me do". I want to think "how would I do it if i were this guy i'm playing as".
For example, I want to grab that plant pot, smash it over that guy's head, throw throw the chair through the window rather than having to shoot it, climb the ladder (dont get me started on ladders), and escape. Having said that, Jimmy in the corner may want to stab the guy, throw his body through the window to break it, climb halfway up the ladder, stop to shoot the guys chasing him (whilst not falling off the ladder), then escape. I want a game where things can be improvised rather done in a set way.
So sure its gonna cost money but hey, that IS the way to improve realism. Realism isn't about looking pretty or sounding better. Realism is about being able to do what you can do in real life. It would take a huge amount of programming to do. The modern processors we have mean that it shouldn't be too much of a problem on performance either. The way i see it, it would make a huge difference to the gamplay and I want more of it.
Cheers for reading.
GH
(I posted this before but got very little response, so I thought I would try again!)