The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What can we do to make games more realistic? When you're stuck into a good 1st person adventure or quake style game, you don't really believe at any time that it's actually real (well, I don't anyway) You've got so much to contend with before you even start to make a game realistic.
Firstly there's the screen. Now, most people have anything from a 14" monitor or TV to a 32" one (or if they're really lucky, then a wall mounted projection screen) Even with the largest of these you'll get glare or you will notice that there is a massive piece of glass separating you from the pixels that make up the graphics. This is made worse, rather than better, with VR headsets, that are so close to your eyes that you get a headache after a few minutes play.
Then there's the graphics themselves. Even with the current level of next-gen gaming there is a distinct lack of definition to faces and high quality detail. The next-gen consoles haven't really come on much in graphical terms over the last couple of years and it would take a lot more processor power and effort to build something that at least resembles the detail of real life.
Smell is never going to be possible to program into a game (although a small amount of pre-scented smells have been used with a trigger during tv trials - this didn't work very well!). This might be a good thing in certain games, but again adds to the realism of the experience.
Finally there is the control system. Joypads (and in the PC's case, keys), even steering wheels are still no match for limbs and there is no sense of touch to the objects you are using.
Realism could be a bad things in certain respects, you might argue that more people would be affected by the violence or adult content of some games and rating would have to be strictly adhered to, but for the most part I believe that many programmers are striving for the most realistic environments and gamesplayers would certainly like to play these games.
Firstly there's the screen. Now, most people have anything from a 14" monitor or TV to a 32" one (or if they're really lucky, then a wall mounted projection screen) Even with the largest of these you'll get glare or you will notice that there is a massive piece of glass separating you from the pixels that make up the graphics. This is made worse, rather than better, with VR headsets, that are so close to your eyes that you get a headache after a few minutes play.
Then there's the graphics themselves. Even with the current level of next-gen gaming there is a distinct lack of definition to faces and high quality detail. The next-gen consoles haven't really come on much in graphical terms over the last couple of years and it would take a lot more processor power and effort to build something that at least resembles the detail of real life.
Smell is never going to be possible to program into a game (although a small amount of pre-scented smells have been used with a trigger during tv trials - this didn't work very well!). This might be a good thing in certain games, but again adds to the realism of the experience.
Finally there is the control system. Joypads (and in the PC's case, keys), even steering wheels are still no match for limbs and there is no sense of touch to the objects you are using.
Realism could be a bad things in certain respects, you might argue that more people would be affected by the violence or adult content of some games and rating would have to be strictly adhered to, but for the most part I believe that many programmers are striving for the most realistic environments and gamesplayers would certainly like to play these games.
Page:
pb...
Early this morning, I went to GameDev and, for the first time, entered its chatroom. When I got there, all these aspiring game designers where there and what were they talking about? Graphics. That's fine; it didn't bother me too badly. So I started talking with some of them about graphics, and the moderator of the room said, more or less, that he wanted graphics to become utterly realistic; that he wanted figures in games to look and behave realistically because, in his mind, that's what games are: They're meant to simulate real life.
Well, I disagreed with him on that. I asked, for instance, how Tetris simulates real life. He ignored the question, though he threw out one of his own: "Look at Monopoly and Life; those are based on reality, aren't they?" I said, "Sure, but they're not realistic, are they? Otherwise, they'd be boring." They started talking about FPSs and how they were going to bring graphics into a totally real level. Truly this frightened me. I thought to myself, "Am I the only one here who actually minds shooting someone in a game and having them behave realistically?" After a bit, he kicked me out of the room and banned me, despite my being polite the entire time. I truly just wanted to have a friendly debate on the subject, but he didn't what his Holiness to be questioned.
Look, I'm not a complete wuss. I've been hunting before; I've seen people shot; I've even been left in the aftermath of the worst tornado ever to touch down on the planet. But when I play a game, I've no interest in whether reality, or any level of realism, ever touches it. To me, a game is a system (or process) with its own set of rules that are established early on in your exploration of it; if it's a good game, it follows through with these rules from beginning to end, with no variation or inconsistencies. I've no problem with broadening gaming's horizons, as long as people realize that there is a fundamental difference between a game and a violence simulator. In games like Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Counter-Strike, the death of the characters doesn't bother me, because they're obviously fake, not to mention the effects of the violence are so overexaggerated that it's almost cartoonish.
In short...I don't WANT games to be realistic. I want freedom to explore them, I admit, but I don't WANT to kill beings that seem totally real. I don't care if you put them in a Nazi uniform; it's not for me.
[Honestly, what occurred earlier really got to me. The fact that aspiring game designers out there consider graphics to be so paramount over everything else is disturbing, especially when they consider a game a simulation of real life. If this were to come to pass, I'd give up gaming entirely. No joke. Games should NEVER simulate real life, not in the detail these people were talking about.]
Early this morning, I went to GameDev and, for the first time, entered its chatroom. When I got there, all these aspiring game designers where there and what were they talking about? Graphics. That's fine; it didn't bother me too badly. So I started talking with some of them about graphics, and the moderator of the room said, more or less, that he wanted graphics to become utterly realistic; that he wanted figures in games to look and behave realistically because, in his mind, that's what games are: They're meant to simulate real life.
Well, I disagreed with him on that. I asked, for instance, how Tetris simulates real life. He ignored the question, though he threw out one of his own: "Look at Monopoly and Life; those are based on reality, aren't they?" I said, "Sure, but they're not realistic, are they? Otherwise, they'd be boring." They started talking about FPSs and how they were going to bring graphics into a totally real level. Truly this frightened me. I thought to myself, "Am I the only one here who actually minds shooting someone in a game and having them behave realistically?" After a bit, he kicked me out of the room and banned me, despite my being polite the entire time. I truly just wanted to have a friendly debate on the subject, but he didn't what his Holiness to be questioned.
Look, I'm not a complete wuss. I've been hunting before; I've seen people shot; I've even been left in the aftermath of the worst tornado ever to touch down on the planet. But when I play a game, I've no interest in whether reality, or any level of realism, ever touches it. To me, a game is a system (or process) with its own set of rules that are established early on in your exploration of it; if it's a good game, it follows through with these rules from beginning to end, with no variation or inconsistencies. I've no problem with broadening gaming's horizons, as long as people realize that there is a fundamental difference between a game and a violence simulator. In games like Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Counter-Strike, the death of the characters doesn't bother me, because they're obviously fake, not to mention the effects of the violence are so overexaggerated that it's almost cartoonish.
In short...I don't WANT games to be realistic. I want freedom to explore them, I admit, but I don't WANT to kill beings that seem totally real. I don't care if you put them in a Nazi uniform; it's not for me.
[Honestly, what occurred earlier really got to me. The fact that aspiring game designers out there consider graphics to be so paramount over everything else is disturbing, especially when they consider a game a simulation of real life. If this were to come to pass, I'd give up gaming entirely. No joke. Games should NEVER simulate real life, not in the detail these people were talking about.]
You want to see a future console with games as if they were real?
I did a topic a while back about a future console where although you wouldn't actuall feel like you're there, you'll see lots of little people who you mistake as real...
I'll bring the topic to the top and perhaps this time someone might actually read it!
The topic is called:
"Consoles will evolve. Look to the future to see what games you'll be playing with your kids..."
Read it if you care...
I did a topic a while back about a future console where although you wouldn't actuall feel like you're there, you'll see lots of little people who you mistake as real...
I'll bring the topic to the top and perhaps this time someone might actually read it!
The topic is called:
"Consoles will evolve. Look to the future to see what games you'll be playing with your kids..."
Read it if you care...
its one of the few games i would call an actual classic. I think its possibly the best multiplayer game ever. The SNES version i mean, with 4 players.
That is good news, im looking forward to it already!
Your Honour wrote:
> If bomberman is to be re-released on DC (does anyone from
SR know anything about this?) then an online cooperative mode would be a hit. <
The latest issue of EGM reports that there is a Bomberman Online game coming out at some point in the future from Sega. They don't state whether the game mechanics will be the same or not, just that it's in the works.
> If bomberman is to be re-released on DC (does anyone from
SR know anything about this?) then an online cooperative mode would be a hit. <
The latest issue of EGM reports that there is a Bomberman Online game coming out at some point in the future from Sega. They don't state whether the game mechanics will be the same or not, just that it's in the works.
's true!
I think what it is is that we are talking about two different things. There is a type of 'immersion' where you can lose yourself in a game without realizing that 3 hours have gone by, even though the game might not be 'realistic' as such and then there's the reality side of immersion where you don't really have to use your imagination as much to 'feel' that you are in a realistic environment.
A game doesn't have to 'act' real to be realistic (which, in itself sounds like a contradiction, so I hope I'm going somewhere with this..) just look realistic and maybe 'feel' realistic (where the type of controller used is concerned) even though the player is actually flying through the sky like Superman or finds themselves in an amazon jungle (presumably with lots of amazons....hm...)
Perhaps this should be limited to certain types of game? But I do find a lot of games, especially adventure and RPG stuff, limiting in where you can go and what you can do, and especially in the graphics. Shenmue is probably the only one to come close, and even that was far off the mark.
I agree that simple games often play better and are more addictive. Jet Set Radio, although containing lovely graphics, is a simple game at heart and even with a different graphics engine it would be fun. But I'd like to see these realistic games side by side with the other types of game, not to the detriment of them.
A game doesn't have to 'act' real to be realistic (which, in itself sounds like a contradiction, so I hope I'm going somewhere with this..) just look realistic and maybe 'feel' realistic (where the type of controller used is concerned) even though the player is actually flying through the sky like Superman or finds themselves in an amazon jungle (presumably with lots of amazons....hm...)
Perhaps this should be limited to certain types of game? But I do find a lot of games, especially adventure and RPG stuff, limiting in where you can go and what you can do, and especially in the graphics. Shenmue is probably the only one to come close, and even that was far off the mark.
I agree that simple games often play better and are more addictive. Jet Set Radio, although containing lovely graphics, is a simple game at heart and even with a different graphics engine it would be fun. But I'd like to see these realistic games side by side with the other types of game, not to the detriment of them.
I agree with The Tarrant on this, simplicty is the key to a succesful game. The main thing that needs to be simple is the controls. If bomberman is to be re-released on DC (does anyone from SR know anything about this?) then an online cooperative mode would be a hit. But i would only buy the game if it had what made the original so popular, the 4 round a TV frantic balsting action. That is what made the game so popular in the beginning and that aspect of it will need to be recreated in any remake.
pb wrote:
> Graphics designers are striving for better graphics in their games all the time and I'm sure they'd be all to willing to create realistic environments if the hardware existed to make this possible. <
You know what though? I wouldn't want the game to look too realistic or behave that way. I mean, we've commented many times on several threads that there's a definite difference between shooting someone in a game and shooting someone in real life. I agree to that, though I think there are complications. But imagine if you had a FPS where, after you shot an enemy, they looked and behaved just like someone would after being shot. They stumble around slightly, gasping in pain and screaming, clutching whatever part of them now has a hole in it. No thanks; I'd really rather not. At that point, it'd just feel like it wasn't a 'game' anymore.
> Likewise, games players in general enthuse about how good the graphics are in games, even though, as we've discussed before, they are not the most important aspect of the game itself. <
Frankly I think graphics are way down the scale when it comes to player immersion, at least as I experience it. Hell, I can seriously get into the most simplistic games imaginable because there's just something about how they work that fascinates me. I don't worry about graphics.
> Graphics designers are striving for better graphics in their games all the time and I'm sure they'd be all to willing to create realistic environments if the hardware existed to make this possible. <
You know what though? I wouldn't want the game to look too realistic or behave that way. I mean, we've commented many times on several threads that there's a definite difference between shooting someone in a game and shooting someone in real life. I agree to that, though I think there are complications. But imagine if you had a FPS where, after you shot an enemy, they looked and behaved just like someone would after being shot. They stumble around slightly, gasping in pain and screaming, clutching whatever part of them now has a hole in it. No thanks; I'd really rather not. At that point, it'd just feel like it wasn't a 'game' anymore.
> Likewise, games players in general enthuse about how good the graphics are in games, even though, as we've discussed before, they are not the most important aspect of the game itself. <
Frankly I think graphics are way down the scale when it comes to player immersion, at least as I experience it. Hell, I can seriously get into the most simplistic games imaginable because there's just something about how they work that fascinates me. I don't worry about graphics.
Page: