The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There has been a recent spate of people complaining that games simply aren't "real enough". The release of Perfect Dark saw a mixed response from gamers around the world - some complain that the weapons aren't true enough to real life, some praise the game for the inclusion of blood, some say that the surroundings are too unlikely, and so on.
But do we need realism in our games? Is it completely necessary to make every single aspect of the game in question as true to life as possible? Granted, realism can add a lot to a game – taking Goldeneye as an example, and the way that the guards react to where your bullets hit them, the enjoyment value was undoubtedly ramped up via this realistic portrayal of an in-game event.
But there is also the imminent danger that we losing sight of what games are all about in our quest for the ultimate realism within a virtual world. Indeed, as technology increases in its power and capabilities, people are constantly pondering how realistic the environments will look, and how fantastic the in-game physics will be. The GameCube is a prime example: I challenge anyone to say, without any doubt, that the majority of gamers aren't excited about how 'real' the GameCubes games will look. It is undeniable that everyone who has even considered the GameCubes power has at some point thought "God, the games are going to look more lifelike than anything before".
It is a natural response for people to want a realistic game - people wish to play games in which they can do things that simply aren't possible in real life. Things such as speeding down a high-street, police chasing, pedestrians flying left, right and centre in a desperate bid to escape your marauding car. Things such as infiltrating a secret base, stealing plans essential to national security and eliminating anyone in your way with a silenced and efficient head shot. These are just a couple of examples of some of the reasons we all love to play games.
However, games don't have to be based around real-life situations in order to be fun. Most, of course, are not - look at possibly the finest game on the N64: Zelda Majoras Mask. Majoras Mask is widely hailed as a classic, a masterpiece, the Mona Lisa of the gaming world, and yet none of it could really be said to be true to life. Instead, Zelda creates it's own world, a warped and twisted vision of a magical land where temples are inhabited by mystical monsters, and cruel rulers are fought by heroic teenagers wanting to retrieve what the enemy has stolen. The Mario universe is the same, as are the Metroid,
Lylat Wars and Pokemon counterparts. All of these are hailed as golden moments in gaming history – and none of them bear any resemblance to real life.
Shigeru Miyamoto, the Great God of All That Is Good and Beautiful, claims himself to be a storyteller. He is a man with stories to relay, fantastical and magical tales that could never, ever be as essentially boring as real life. Think about it - Nintendo is the last barrier against an industry that wants to make games lifelike. Nintendo alone insists that games don't need to be realistic to be fun, nor do they need any basis in the laws of physics. If something would make a game fun, but would make no sense in the real world, Miyamoto doesn't refuse to implement it. Look at the winged cap in Mario – is
this realistic? Would this be possible in the real world? Is there any semblance at all between this event, and any phenomenon AT ALL in the life we all lead? No. Is it damn good fun? Hell, yeah.
If Nintendo were to stop this defiance against those who claim games need to be realistic, then the entire industry would be in trouble. Everyone - with the possible exception of Rare, and perhaps a few others - would have nothing to justify a departure from what the producers want. Only Nintendo, with their multi-million selling Marios and Zeldas, can prevent the gaming world from falling into the trap that realistic titles bring. Sure, they can be fun. But a game with it's own laws of physics, and it's jurisdiction of what's possible and what's not, can often be 10 times as fun as a game adhering to the
rules that real life brings.
But do we need realism in our games? Is it completely necessary to make every single aspect of the game in question as true to life as possible? Granted, realism can add a lot to a game – taking Goldeneye as an example, and the way that the guards react to where your bullets hit them, the enjoyment value was undoubtedly ramped up via this realistic portrayal of an in-game event.
But there is also the imminent danger that we losing sight of what games are all about in our quest for the ultimate realism within a virtual world. Indeed, as technology increases in its power and capabilities, people are constantly pondering how realistic the environments will look, and how fantastic the in-game physics will be. The GameCube is a prime example: I challenge anyone to say, without any doubt, that the majority of gamers aren't excited about how 'real' the GameCubes games will look. It is undeniable that everyone who has even considered the GameCubes power has at some point thought "God, the games are going to look more lifelike than anything before".
It is a natural response for people to want a realistic game - people wish to play games in which they can do things that simply aren't possible in real life. Things such as speeding down a high-street, police chasing, pedestrians flying left, right and centre in a desperate bid to escape your marauding car. Things such as infiltrating a secret base, stealing plans essential to national security and eliminating anyone in your way with a silenced and efficient head shot. These are just a couple of examples of some of the reasons we all love to play games.
However, games don't have to be based around real-life situations in order to be fun. Most, of course, are not - look at possibly the finest game on the N64: Zelda Majoras Mask. Majoras Mask is widely hailed as a classic, a masterpiece, the Mona Lisa of the gaming world, and yet none of it could really be said to be true to life. Instead, Zelda creates it's own world, a warped and twisted vision of a magical land where temples are inhabited by mystical monsters, and cruel rulers are fought by heroic teenagers wanting to retrieve what the enemy has stolen. The Mario universe is the same, as are the Metroid,
Lylat Wars and Pokemon counterparts. All of these are hailed as golden moments in gaming history – and none of them bear any resemblance to real life.
Shigeru Miyamoto, the Great God of All That Is Good and Beautiful, claims himself to be a storyteller. He is a man with stories to relay, fantastical and magical tales that could never, ever be as essentially boring as real life. Think about it - Nintendo is the last barrier against an industry that wants to make games lifelike. Nintendo alone insists that games don't need to be realistic to be fun, nor do they need any basis in the laws of physics. If something would make a game fun, but would make no sense in the real world, Miyamoto doesn't refuse to implement it. Look at the winged cap in Mario – is
this realistic? Would this be possible in the real world? Is there any semblance at all between this event, and any phenomenon AT ALL in the life we all lead? No. Is it damn good fun? Hell, yeah.
If Nintendo were to stop this defiance against those who claim games need to be realistic, then the entire industry would be in trouble. Everyone - with the possible exception of Rare, and perhaps a few others - would have nothing to justify a departure from what the producers want. Only Nintendo, with their multi-million selling Marios and Zeldas, can prevent the gaming world from falling into the trap that realistic titles bring. Sure, they can be fun. But a game with it's own laws of physics, and it's jurisdiction of what's possible and what's not, can often be 10 times as fun as a game adhering to the
rules that real life brings.
Page:
Go to the doctors!
:-)
:-)
Don't worry about me and my monkey.
He's ok, a bit sore and purple,but that's just superficial bruising.
He's ok, a bit sore and purple,but that's just superficial bruising.
Goatboy, wasnt it you and MWA that were talking about monkey spanking?
I worry about some people on here, i really do........
I worry about some people on here, i really do........
Didn't me and Meka have this discussion last week?
It degenerated into Monkey-Spank posts, but it's always nice to see someone taking an existing thread and disguising it in an attempt to win something.
Not that this is the case here, obviously.
It degenerated into Monkey-Spank posts, but it's always nice to see someone taking an existing thread and disguising it in an attempt to win something.
Not that this is the case here, obviously.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Speaking of which, where IS Meka?
Nice to know you guys were thinking of me. Still no newborn yet though, had connection difficulties over the weekend, + Battle For Naboo arrived!
Anyway, back to gaming realism.
I don't want to play games that let me take on realistic situations I could do any day, but I wouldn't mind driving through the streets of London (without traffic) at ridiculously high speeds.
I think when it comes to reality and gaming, you've only got to take the certain points and bring them to the gaming world.
I think a few nice environmental changes would be great, such as changing weather, rain that made things wet, wind that swayed trees. It doesn't add to the playablility of the game, but makes the experience that little bit more jaw-dropping.
Some realistic physics would be nice, but again, not all. I like being able to jump high and long, but don't like falling through the edges of platforms that I'm clearly standing on!
It's not so much a problem these days, but did you ever wonder why a bat could fly into you and do as much damage as getting shot? 8-bit games suffered badly from this, and it just seemed daft.
As much as I want things that could look real, I still want to guide cute bears around colourful lands, and fly spaceships over swamps, taking out enemies. I want my swamp to look like a swamp though, and when I shoot the water, I expect a splash. I don't expect my bear to just do bear stuff, I want it to be able to jump, collect stuff, and interact with other strange animals. And my bear should be able to drive too!
> Speaking of which, where IS Meka?
Nice to know you guys were thinking of me. Still no newborn yet though, had connection difficulties over the weekend, + Battle For Naboo arrived!
Anyway, back to gaming realism.
I don't want to play games that let me take on realistic situations I could do any day, but I wouldn't mind driving through the streets of London (without traffic) at ridiculously high speeds.
I think when it comes to reality and gaming, you've only got to take the certain points and bring them to the gaming world.
I think a few nice environmental changes would be great, such as changing weather, rain that made things wet, wind that swayed trees. It doesn't add to the playablility of the game, but makes the experience that little bit more jaw-dropping.
Some realistic physics would be nice, but again, not all. I like being able to jump high and long, but don't like falling through the edges of platforms that I'm clearly standing on!
It's not so much a problem these days, but did you ever wonder why a bat could fly into you and do as much damage as getting shot? 8-bit games suffered badly from this, and it just seemed daft.
As much as I want things that could look real, I still want to guide cute bears around colourful lands, and fly spaceships over swamps, taking out enemies. I want my swamp to look like a swamp though, and when I shoot the water, I expect a splash. I don't expect my bear to just do bear stuff, I want it to be able to jump, collect stuff, and interact with other strange animals. And my bear should be able to drive too!
Ich konnte das nicht! Auch im Ruhestand noch immer osterreichspitze. Er ist auch menschlich ein toller Freund und spielt genauso gern wie ich. Bleib so und schick mir ein Foto von deiner Freundin ... HeHe.
Jeder mit seinem Deck von seinem Tisch - ROFL!
German humour at it's finest, surely?
Jeder mit seinem Deck von seinem Tisch - ROFL!
German humour at it's finest, surely?
Oh yeah! I hope everything is ok...
In the meantime, I just did a search for "fantasymeister". And some surprising results came up...
First thing up, was you winning something on some competition page.
Next, your Diablo 2 review in SR.
And then it starts getting strange.
You've appeared in quite a lot of porn movies. And I'm talking main parts here.
And then there was this website... completely German, expect for your name.
http://www.austrian- magic.at/columns /smu000601.htm
I'm sure you can spot the spaces in the web address.
In the meantime, I just did a search for "fantasymeister". And some surprising results came up...
First thing up, was you winning something on some competition page.
Next, your Diablo 2 review in SR.
And then it starts getting strange.
You've appeared in quite a lot of porn movies. And I'm talking main parts here.
And then there was this website... completely German, expect for your name.
http://www.austrian- magic.at/columns /smu000601.htm
I'm sure you can spot the spaces in the web address.
I don't know, people here just kept asking me if I was posting the same stuff on another site, because they were reading it there too, but I never found out what site it was.
What was being copied?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Speaking of which, where IS Meka?
Probably pacing up and down with a cigar in his mouth awaiting the arrival of a baby Meka, about 7 days to go now, but you know what dragons are like, never punctual...
> Speaking of which, where IS Meka?
Probably pacing up and down with a cigar in his mouth awaiting the arrival of a baby Meka, about 7 days to go now, but you know what dragons are like, never punctual...
Page: