The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Saw a post today by Meka about games that have a level of realism not yet attainable.
I made some dodgy joke (as is my usual method) but it started me thinking, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here so allow me some leeway before y’all jump on my head….
Will there come a point when games are perfect reproductions of environments, graphically, aurally etc and is this a good thing?
The reason I say this is this:
I play most games because they offer something different, an escape from reality and the chance to pull off outrageous skateboard tricks/shooting matches etc that are plain impossible to do in real life.
But, with the advent of perfect graphics and AI, will the temptation be to recreate real-life situations just for the sake of it?
Like with GT3, yes it’s good but at the end of the day it’s just driving. I drive every day, to and from work and don’t really fancy the idea of a game where I drive.
Same with The Sims, I like it but went off it rapidly because I thought
“The Sims, almost real life!
A game where you create a home!
Get a job!
Get a girlfriend!
Make friends!
Get married!
Have kids!”
And then thought, hang on, I do this anyway why do I want to play a game of the past 27yrs in fast forward?
MGS2, different altogether. There aren’t that many of us that get to infiltrate ships, stuff baddies in lockers and hang from railings (well, a couple of my mates but I shall talk no more of this).
Airport Inc – Run an airport! …er….I could do that for real if I wanted to, may take some time but I can do that.
Unreal Tournament – Run about with HUGE weapons and blow people to little iddy biddy chunks of meat.
Football Games – Again, if I wanted to I could go out and play football tonight. Ok maybe not at international level, but the same game. Just more shouting and beer. And fag breaks.
My point is this:
When we are able to create lifelike scenarios, will we be swayed by games that offer us the chance to do real-life things but “oooh, it looks so lifelike”, or do we yearn for something that is just a little different and offers something that we can’t all go out and do tonight?
I made some dodgy joke (as is my usual method) but it started me thinking, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here so allow me some leeway before y’all jump on my head….
Will there come a point when games are perfect reproductions of environments, graphically, aurally etc and is this a good thing?
The reason I say this is this:
I play most games because they offer something different, an escape from reality and the chance to pull off outrageous skateboard tricks/shooting matches etc that are plain impossible to do in real life.
But, with the advent of perfect graphics and AI, will the temptation be to recreate real-life situations just for the sake of it?
Like with GT3, yes it’s good but at the end of the day it’s just driving. I drive every day, to and from work and don’t really fancy the idea of a game where I drive.
Same with The Sims, I like it but went off it rapidly because I thought
“The Sims, almost real life!
A game where you create a home!
Get a job!
Get a girlfriend!
Make friends!
Get married!
Have kids!”
And then thought, hang on, I do this anyway why do I want to play a game of the past 27yrs in fast forward?
MGS2, different altogether. There aren’t that many of us that get to infiltrate ships, stuff baddies in lockers and hang from railings (well, a couple of my mates but I shall talk no more of this).
Airport Inc – Run an airport! …er….I could do that for real if I wanted to, may take some time but I can do that.
Unreal Tournament – Run about with HUGE weapons and blow people to little iddy biddy chunks of meat.
Football Games – Again, if I wanted to I could go out and play football tonight. Ok maybe not at international level, but the same game. Just more shouting and beer. And fag breaks.
My point is this:
When we are able to create lifelike scenarios, will we be swayed by games that offer us the chance to do real-life things but “oooh, it looks so lifelike”, or do we yearn for something that is just a little different and offers something that we can’t all go out and do tonight?
Page:
I SAID THAT!!
almost...
almost...
Writing "APOC STYLE!!!" at the bottom of your post really wasn't a good idea.
And then dening it, is probably a worse idea, because now we know you were trying to win again.
And then dening it, is probably a worse idea, because now we know you were trying to win again.
virtual viking wrote:
> Reality and fantasy are totally different things e.g. Zelda or the
> Sims. But which are more addictive? It’s hard to explain but I think
> fantasy games are slightly more playable and addictive. Games like
> shenmue and the Sims are wicked because its life and as
> realitymeister said you can relate to in a weird way. On the other
> hand it is also amazingly fun to play games that have nothing to do
> with real life and no one can relate to because isn’t gaming all
> about escaping from your hectic life and playing on something that
> doesn’t have squat to do with life’ problems etc.
Reality
> games
These are usually 3-d adventures/ shoot’em’up’s that are
> based in a city or sabotaging an enemies base etc, like perfect dark
> + shenmue. These are always good fun to play as they usually have
> some cool lifelike weapons e.g. machete or machine gun. These are
> mostly made in levels and not a 3-d environment /world like most
> fantasy games on the shelves at the moment but sometimes alot of
> levels are better than one world that you are endlessly wondering
> around in.
Pros:
Usually packed with awesome guns.
· Has
> quite a few levels too blast or punch your way
> through
· Very lifelike and detailed graphics especially on
> the peoples faces
· Usually decent multiplayer, take golden
> eye for instance.
· The sound is mint on some
> shooters.
Cons:
· Not always big or a lot of levels to
> explore.
· Usually no funny graphics like the Zelda
> titles.
Fantasy games
I love these games and if you love em too
> then get an n64 now and if you have one buy: Zelda’s 1 + 2, banjo
> kazooie and tooie. These games are usually fun but slightly meant
> for kids at the same time. This could have been where the Nintendo
> 64 went wrong as the games (apart from conker!) were not always
> pleasing to the older gamers. The final fantasy series offer a very
> complicated plot to them with lots of little towns and a world map
> to wonder around. But the ff series is an action/rpg and but still a
> fantasy game, hence the name, but most of you will know why it is
> called that anyway. But what is the difference between the Zelda
> titles and the ff’s? And which is more addictive? But they are still
> fun to play and are never short of mini games and puzzles to go on
> top of the fun packed world already there. On the down side not many
> if any fantasy games have a multiplayer and that could be where the
> realistic games pull ahead as a good gory blaster with a vs. mode is
> pretty cool, and I have to say the realistic games are my favs but
> only by a bit.
Pros:
· Mostly come in big environments
>
· Packed with extras
· Usually a lot to
> explore
Cons:
· Sound isn’t always up to
> scratch
· Not usually a multiplayer
Anyway I still cant
> decide which is better but soon the fantasy games will be replaced
> as the shoot’em’up’s and reality games are getting a boost as the
> graphics are enhancing and they are just in more demand. So what
> would you choose if you were on a desert island a cool Zelda game or
> a realistic game like shenmue to keep you busy it’s a hard decision
> but everyone has there tastes.
So you decide what is better,
> both are good and fun for everyone.
APOC STYLE!!!
The sig. kind of gave it away there, apoc.
> Reality and fantasy are totally different things e.g. Zelda or the
> Sims. But which are more addictive? It’s hard to explain but I think
> fantasy games are slightly more playable and addictive. Games like
> shenmue and the Sims are wicked because its life and as
> realitymeister said you can relate to in a weird way. On the other
> hand it is also amazingly fun to play games that have nothing to do
> with real life and no one can relate to because isn’t gaming all
> about escaping from your hectic life and playing on something that
> doesn’t have squat to do with life’ problems etc.
Reality
> games
These are usually 3-d adventures/ shoot’em’up’s that are
> based in a city or sabotaging an enemies base etc, like perfect dark
> + shenmue. These are always good fun to play as they usually have
> some cool lifelike weapons e.g. machete or machine gun. These are
> mostly made in levels and not a 3-d environment /world like most
> fantasy games on the shelves at the moment but sometimes alot of
> levels are better than one world that you are endlessly wondering
> around in.
Pros:
Usually packed with awesome guns.
· Has
> quite a few levels too blast or punch your way
> through
· Very lifelike and detailed graphics especially on
> the peoples faces
· Usually decent multiplayer, take golden
> eye for instance.
· The sound is mint on some
> shooters.
Cons:
· Not always big or a lot of levels to
> explore.
· Usually no funny graphics like the Zelda
> titles.
Fantasy games
I love these games and if you love em too
> then get an n64 now and if you have one buy: Zelda’s 1 + 2, banjo
> kazooie and tooie. These games are usually fun but slightly meant
> for kids at the same time. This could have been where the Nintendo
> 64 went wrong as the games (apart from conker!) were not always
> pleasing to the older gamers. The final fantasy series offer a very
> complicated plot to them with lots of little towns and a world map
> to wonder around. But the ff series is an action/rpg and but still a
> fantasy game, hence the name, but most of you will know why it is
> called that anyway. But what is the difference between the Zelda
> titles and the ff’s? And which is more addictive? But they are still
> fun to play and are never short of mini games and puzzles to go on
> top of the fun packed world already there. On the down side not many
> if any fantasy games have a multiplayer and that could be where the
> realistic games pull ahead as a good gory blaster with a vs. mode is
> pretty cool, and I have to say the realistic games are my favs but
> only by a bit.
Pros:
· Mostly come in big environments
>
· Packed with extras
· Usually a lot to
> explore
Cons:
· Sound isn’t always up to
> scratch
· Not usually a multiplayer
Anyway I still cant
> decide which is better but soon the fantasy games will be replaced
> as the shoot’em’up’s and reality games are getting a boost as the
> graphics are enhancing and they are just in more demand. So what
> would you choose if you were on a desert island a cool Zelda game or
> a realistic game like shenmue to keep you busy it’s a hard decision
> but everyone has there tastes.
So you decide what is better,
> both are good and fun for everyone.
APOC STYLE!!!
The sig. kind of gave it away there, apoc.
don't try and hide it.
Your not a newbie you are apoc.
I do...
Do you want a game taken away, AND you to be kicked off?
I would shut up if I were you. And Sniper, you have nothing to say on this subject.
I would shut up if I were you. And Sniper, you have nothing to say on this subject.
Page: