The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I don't like realistic games, it's given. I play games to get away from reality, to enjoy massive swords and monsters the size of small houses. Replicating life isn't one of my most favourite pastimes, but the fact is that the gaming industry is embracing realism as it's new God, so I've got to tag along anyway. Or just go and play Commander Keen, which I'd much rather do.
The problem with computers is that they'll always follow a set routine - start up, open word, go blue screen. They follow programs, they can't think for themselves, they can't act for themselves. Which brings us to a problem - to replicate real life, we have to have every single aspect digitally rendered. Which can be everything from uncleaned toilets going scummy, to a car rusting during an icy winter. It would involve reading the biggest dictionary in the world and animating every verb, noun and adjective inside. It would be an impossible task, requiring hundreds of programmers working for many years.
Which is where my idea of un-realistic realism comes in. Since it IS impossible to replicate life, games designers cut corners. Whether this be trees who's leaves aren't 3D, or tiny little bushes sticking out of the ground which won't break down if you were to steam roll them. Developers cut corners, they save time so that they can focus on other things. I've only ever played the Sims once, around my friends house. They were having a party, and we built what we thought was a Jacuzzi outside. Turns out it was a massive bath, and for some reason, about 5 or 6 women stripped and got in. That's not realistic, because for some reason the computer got it wrong. A mistake I'd love to happen in real life, but which makes me laugh - not with, but at the game.
Even so, you still have to admire some developers efforts. Cross breeding real with fantasy is a hard task, but in games such as Halo I think it is done very well. Well modelled, realistic looking humans, realistic Human weapons, vehicles and buildings fused together with fantasy aliens who, surprisingly, speak fluent English and generally are afraid of you. But Halo wouldn't be good if it got other things wrong. The physics are well balanced, making your character run and act realistically. The health is also reminiscent of real life - when the shield is down, a few hits would kill you. This is what would happen in real life.
So I'm going to mock realism. I loathe it anyway. I played Morrowind this morning. I went mushroom picking. I ate about 20 mushrooms, went and bought a big meal, ate all the food in my inventory then went swimming. If that were me, I'd be sick all over my shoes. But it isn't - it's just a game. It's a game which strives for freedom, but is constrained by realism. I want to build a shop, but the fact is, medieval banks didn't exist. Now, since this is a game, why not? I could take out a loan then make magical goods. Now this is working in two ways - I want to do something realistic (start a business) in a world which is restricting itself for the sake of realism.
My point is this - realism shouldn't be a law, it should be like a religion. Some people will follow it blindly, constantly straining to fulfill what is decreed - restraining themselves because of it, and their creativity. Some people follow it, but lead a life of their own, allowing themselves to fulfill their own potential yet being moulded by the religion. And then there are others, who ignore it totally, they do what they will, they create a masterpiece. I'm not trying to be blasphemous here, I'm trying to point out that making a game within a set of boundaries will only create a game which will make the player frustrated by what the game won't allow. If realism is an unachievable goal, then no game can fully complete it's goal of being realistic, and we'll be left with a second grade clone of real life, which won't allow you to stroke the cupboards.
If realism does prevail, and future releases are neither fun nor unique, I will be sad. Sad for the developers, who can't use their imaginations to develop something truly spectacular. Sad for the gamers, who have to put up with the virtual reconstruction of their own world. And I'll feel sad for myself, whose favourite pastime will be lost to an army of life like-clones, and I'll go back to playing good old Commander Keen.
The problem with computers is that they'll always follow a set routine - start up, open word, go blue screen. They follow programs, they can't think for themselves, they can't act for themselves. Which brings us to a problem - to replicate real life, we have to have every single aspect digitally rendered. Which can be everything from uncleaned toilets going scummy, to a car rusting during an icy winter. It would involve reading the biggest dictionary in the world and animating every verb, noun and adjective inside. It would be an impossible task, requiring hundreds of programmers working for many years.
Which is where my idea of un-realistic realism comes in. Since it IS impossible to replicate life, games designers cut corners. Whether this be trees who's leaves aren't 3D, or tiny little bushes sticking out of the ground which won't break down if you were to steam roll them. Developers cut corners, they save time so that they can focus on other things. I've only ever played the Sims once, around my friends house. They were having a party, and we built what we thought was a Jacuzzi outside. Turns out it was a massive bath, and for some reason, about 5 or 6 women stripped and got in. That's not realistic, because for some reason the computer got it wrong. A mistake I'd love to happen in real life, but which makes me laugh - not with, but at the game.
Even so, you still have to admire some developers efforts. Cross breeding real with fantasy is a hard task, but in games such as Halo I think it is done very well. Well modelled, realistic looking humans, realistic Human weapons, vehicles and buildings fused together with fantasy aliens who, surprisingly, speak fluent English and generally are afraid of you. But Halo wouldn't be good if it got other things wrong. The physics are well balanced, making your character run and act realistically. The health is also reminiscent of real life - when the shield is down, a few hits would kill you. This is what would happen in real life.
So I'm going to mock realism. I loathe it anyway. I played Morrowind this morning. I went mushroom picking. I ate about 20 mushrooms, went and bought a big meal, ate all the food in my inventory then went swimming. If that were me, I'd be sick all over my shoes. But it isn't - it's just a game. It's a game which strives for freedom, but is constrained by realism. I want to build a shop, but the fact is, medieval banks didn't exist. Now, since this is a game, why not? I could take out a loan then make magical goods. Now this is working in two ways - I want to do something realistic (start a business) in a world which is restricting itself for the sake of realism.
My point is this - realism shouldn't be a law, it should be like a religion. Some people will follow it blindly, constantly straining to fulfill what is decreed - restraining themselves because of it, and their creativity. Some people follow it, but lead a life of their own, allowing themselves to fulfill their own potential yet being moulded by the religion. And then there are others, who ignore it totally, they do what they will, they create a masterpiece. I'm not trying to be blasphemous here, I'm trying to point out that making a game within a set of boundaries will only create a game which will make the player frustrated by what the game won't allow. If realism is an unachievable goal, then no game can fully complete it's goal of being realistic, and we'll be left with a second grade clone of real life, which won't allow you to stroke the cupboards.
If realism does prevail, and future releases are neither fun nor unique, I will be sad. Sad for the developers, who can't use their imaginations to develop something truly spectacular. Sad for the gamers, who have to put up with the virtual reconstruction of their own world. And I'll feel sad for myself, whose favourite pastime will be lost to an army of life like-clones, and I'll go back to playing good old Commander Keen.
Like you say, realism can improve the gaming experience, but when gameplay is restricted by realism - that's just plain stupid.
Flamboyant, over-the-top gameplay is where the fun is - it's what makes games enjoyable.
I want the gameplay equivalent of George Best, not some third division hard-working midfield water-carrier.
Graphics can be whatever they want to be - realistic or otherwise, but 99% of the time, gameplay should be as spectacular as possible.
The current state of affairs isn't too bad, but I would like to see developers go further and just take the way games 'play' to outlandish levels.
Games looking real: fair enough.
Games playing real: that's like a drunken demon banging on your front door in the dead of night.... surely no one wants that.
Good post by the way.
Flamboyant, over-the-top gameplay is where the fun is - it's what makes games enjoyable.
I want the gameplay equivalent of George Best, not some third division hard-working midfield water-carrier.
Graphics can be whatever they want to be - realistic or otherwise, but 99% of the time, gameplay should be as spectacular as possible.
The current state of affairs isn't too bad, but I would like to see developers go further and just take the way games 'play' to outlandish levels.
Games looking real: fair enough.
Games playing real: that's like a drunken demon banging on your front door in the dead of night.... surely no one wants that.
Good post by the way.
I don't like realistic games, it's given. I play games to get away from reality, to enjoy massive swords and monsters the size of small houses. Replicating life isn't one of my most favourite pastimes, but the fact is that the gaming industry is embracing realism as it's new God, so I've got to tag along anyway. Or just go and play Commander Keen, which I'd much rather do.
The problem with computers is that they'll always follow a set routine - start up, open word, go blue screen. They follow programs, they can't think for themselves, they can't act for themselves. Which brings us to a problem - to replicate real life, we have to have every single aspect digitally rendered. Which can be everything from uncleaned toilets going scummy, to a car rusting during an icy winter. It would involve reading the biggest dictionary in the world and animating every verb, noun and adjective inside. It would be an impossible task, requiring hundreds of programmers working for many years.
Which is where my idea of un-realistic realism comes in. Since it IS impossible to replicate life, games designers cut corners. Whether this be trees who's leaves aren't 3D, or tiny little bushes sticking out of the ground which won't break down if you were to steam roll them. Developers cut corners, they save time so that they can focus on other things. I've only ever played the Sims once, around my friends house. They were having a party, and we built what we thought was a Jacuzzi outside. Turns out it was a massive bath, and for some reason, about 5 or 6 women stripped and got in. That's not realistic, because for some reason the computer got it wrong. A mistake I'd love to happen in real life, but which makes me laugh - not with, but at the game.
Even so, you still have to admire some developers efforts. Cross breeding real with fantasy is a hard task, but in games such as Halo I think it is done very well. Well modelled, realistic looking humans, realistic Human weapons, vehicles and buildings fused together with fantasy aliens who, surprisingly, speak fluent English and generally are afraid of you. But Halo wouldn't be good if it got other things wrong. The physics are well balanced, making your character run and act realistically. The health is also reminiscent of real life - when the shield is down, a few hits would kill you. This is what would happen in real life.
So I'm going to mock realism. I loathe it anyway. I played Morrowind this morning. I went mushroom picking. I ate about 20 mushrooms, went and bought a big meal, ate all the food in my inventory then went swimming. If that were me, I'd be sick all over my shoes. But it isn't - it's just a game. It's a game which strives for freedom, but is constrained by realism. I want to build a shop, but the fact is, medieval banks didn't exist. Now, since this is a game, why not? I could take out a loan then make magical goods. Now this is working in two ways - I want to do something realistic (start a business) in a world which is restricting itself for the sake of realism.
My point is this - realism shouldn't be a law, it should be like a religion. Some people will follow it blindly, constantly straining to fulfill what is decreed - restraining themselves because of it, and their creativity. Some people follow it, but lead a life of their own, allowing themselves to fulfill their own potential yet being moulded by the religion. And then there are others, who ignore it totally, they do what they will, they create a masterpiece. I'm not trying to be blasphemous here, I'm trying to point out that making a game within a set of boundaries will only create a game which will make the player frustrated by what the game won't allow. If realism is an unachievable goal, then no game can fully complete it's goal of being realistic, and we'll be left with a second grade clone of real life, which won't allow you to stroke the cupboards.
If realism does prevail, and future releases are neither fun nor unique, I will be sad. Sad for the developers, who can't use their imaginations to develop something truly spectacular. Sad for the gamers, who have to put up with the virtual reconstruction of their own world. And I'll feel sad for myself, whose favourite pastime will be lost to an army of life like-clones, and I'll go back to playing good old Commander Keen.
The problem with computers is that they'll always follow a set routine - start up, open word, go blue screen. They follow programs, they can't think for themselves, they can't act for themselves. Which brings us to a problem - to replicate real life, we have to have every single aspect digitally rendered. Which can be everything from uncleaned toilets going scummy, to a car rusting during an icy winter. It would involve reading the biggest dictionary in the world and animating every verb, noun and adjective inside. It would be an impossible task, requiring hundreds of programmers working for many years.
Which is where my idea of un-realistic realism comes in. Since it IS impossible to replicate life, games designers cut corners. Whether this be trees who's leaves aren't 3D, or tiny little bushes sticking out of the ground which won't break down if you were to steam roll them. Developers cut corners, they save time so that they can focus on other things. I've only ever played the Sims once, around my friends house. They were having a party, and we built what we thought was a Jacuzzi outside. Turns out it was a massive bath, and for some reason, about 5 or 6 women stripped and got in. That's not realistic, because for some reason the computer got it wrong. A mistake I'd love to happen in real life, but which makes me laugh - not with, but at the game.
Even so, you still have to admire some developers efforts. Cross breeding real with fantasy is a hard task, but in games such as Halo I think it is done very well. Well modelled, realistic looking humans, realistic Human weapons, vehicles and buildings fused together with fantasy aliens who, surprisingly, speak fluent English and generally are afraid of you. But Halo wouldn't be good if it got other things wrong. The physics are well balanced, making your character run and act realistically. The health is also reminiscent of real life - when the shield is down, a few hits would kill you. This is what would happen in real life.
So I'm going to mock realism. I loathe it anyway. I played Morrowind this morning. I went mushroom picking. I ate about 20 mushrooms, went and bought a big meal, ate all the food in my inventory then went swimming. If that were me, I'd be sick all over my shoes. But it isn't - it's just a game. It's a game which strives for freedom, but is constrained by realism. I want to build a shop, but the fact is, medieval banks didn't exist. Now, since this is a game, why not? I could take out a loan then make magical goods. Now this is working in two ways - I want to do something realistic (start a business) in a world which is restricting itself for the sake of realism.
My point is this - realism shouldn't be a law, it should be like a religion. Some people will follow it blindly, constantly straining to fulfill what is decreed - restraining themselves because of it, and their creativity. Some people follow it, but lead a life of their own, allowing themselves to fulfill their own potential yet being moulded by the religion. And then there are others, who ignore it totally, they do what they will, they create a masterpiece. I'm not trying to be blasphemous here, I'm trying to point out that making a game within a set of boundaries will only create a game which will make the player frustrated by what the game won't allow. If realism is an unachievable goal, then no game can fully complete it's goal of being realistic, and we'll be left with a second grade clone of real life, which won't allow you to stroke the cupboards.
If realism does prevail, and future releases are neither fun nor unique, I will be sad. Sad for the developers, who can't use their imaginations to develop something truly spectacular. Sad for the gamers, who have to put up with the virtual reconstruction of their own world. And I'll feel sad for myself, whose favourite pastime will be lost to an army of life like-clones, and I'll go back to playing good old Commander Keen.