The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You know what? I think the person who wrote this actually has a really good point! What do you lot think?
Copied from a gaming website
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: