Slashdot Mirror
Is Realism Destroying Video Games?
zdburke writes "An interesting article at the NYTimes looks at two poles in video game development: the quest for the real (think flight simulators and things like a boxing game's "facial damage engine") vs. the quest for the unreal, "elaborate world with its own regulations and peculiarities". The included PlayStation screenshot of Britney Spears may alone tip the balance in favor of the fantasy folks. It also mentions that RIT has a master's program in video game development."
... to britney's face?
Life sucks.
I find the realism of the games like return to castle wolfenstein and medal of honor much more engaging than doom and the orginal wolf 3d. If i looks good i find it more engaging than the story line but if it has a good story line to go with it im just hooked until i beat it. I think the realism is a good thing.
"The included PlayStation screenshot of Britney Spears may alone tip the balance in favor of the fantasy folks." Doesn't this sound like the PS2 could in the future include "adult games?" Hmmmm....
Vital Idea
Thats all I wanted to say... I HATE NY Times... i never want to have to register. Does anyone want to post a link to that BS pic though? :-P
Until you can go up to the corpse and cut it's head off, or start taking off limbs... (Using your first victims leg as a club weapon is great!) and other super gruesome things it's all just agame...
I have always found that the newest, supposedly best 3D games often leave me feeling like something is missing. They don't have the magic and the hook that a Super Mario Bros. or a Sonic the Hedgehog or used to have.
I'm sure if game developers could capture that feeling again, they'd make themselves very rich.
Is NYTimes (free registration required) killing slashdot? I know I never bother...
Let's take a flight simulator for example. I play Flight Simulator 2000 as an escape from writing drivers all day and dealing with life. (I love to travel, so pretending to be on a cross-country trip really appeals to me.)
Anyway, I appreciate the realism of all of the necessary movements, adjustments, and number of steps involved to get the hulking 777 off the ground, and that's one of the game's strong points--the flight dynamics and actions required to achieve flight are incredibly accurate. However, I don't have the four or five real-time hours every night to devote to flying LGA-LAX. That's where the non-realism, the fantasy if you will, comes into play. With FS2000, I can set the simulation speed to 8x real-time, so my flight takes less than an hour. When I approach the airport, I turn the time back to normal. That way, I have got the best of both worlds--the realism of getting to taxi, takeoff and land a 777, and the fantasy that is being able to travel cross-country between getting home from work and making dinner, and that's what I think makes a most compelling argument for the enjoyment. In other words, getting a good mix of both, I think, is critical to the success of any game.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Technology allows you to create more _convincing_ worlds, not more _realistic_ worlds (though the certainly can do that if they want to). The goal isn't to design a system that can do a perfect simulation of our reality, the goal is to design a system that doesn't have "cracks at the seams" - little oddities that don't work the way they ought to and thus make the world less internally consistent.
The last true game companies are Sega and Nintendo.
Sega was bullied out of business by the richer and more powerful Sony
Nintendo is the only system left which still makes games and not graphical shows/interactive movies.
If i buy any system it will be a gamecube, but i dont think i'll buy it for a few years, maybe i'll buy it for Zelda.
Xbox and PS2 however are just generic systems to me, they are PCish, and battle to see which one has the best graphics and looks more real.
For now, I'll stick with the PC and games like diablo2.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Of course, that world is simplified in a lot of the same ways that an "abstract" game is. I don't know how realistic we'd want any game, even a FPS, to get. I mean, realism would entail all the economic and social, biological and physical burdens that we use games to take a break from. Who would want to work at a desk job and save up enough to be able to afford a BFG or tactical nuke, after all?
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
In the britney screenshot, the body looks real and the face looks fake... :D
Realism is great. Realism is neat. I'd like to see a really realistic game. I'd still rather play Super Mario Brothers. It may not be realistic, but it is fun. I worry that if game developers spend too much time aiming for realistic 3d games, they may be wasting man-hours better spent on designing really fun, engaging games.
t'nera semordnilap
They ARENT real, they clearly as fake, they are more fun than say shenmue, because they are innovative and imaginative, with very good play mechanics.
Thats more important than graphics.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Am I supposed to subscribe just to read an article?
Why is NYTimes different from any other place on the net, or should I eventually subscribe to hundreads of
websites? Well, I refuse.
Realism has its place in video games. It all depends on what you are going for. If your game involves a simulated world of any kind (FPS, Role Playing, Simulations, etc) then you want enough realism to keep the player in tune with the game. At the same time you want to keep the game fun. Deciding how much realism to include in a video game is a design decision. You want the appropriate amount for the game you are making and the audience you are targetting. The question, "Is Realism Destroying Video Games," is like asking, "Is Salt Destroying Dinner" or "Is Little Debbie Killing People". With all things there is an appropriate amount.
vs.
Real Life
(links from NTK )
im a big fan of flightsims, ive been playing them since the dawn of ATP. Ive been very impressed by the amount of realism they are developing, graphics and otherwise.
One thing ive noticed is missing however is an UNrealistic flightsim. ever since the beginning of time man has wanted to fly like the birds, it seems odd now that we have such sophisticated flight simulation technology that we use it only to simulate the kinds of flight that man already does on a daily basis.
would it be all that difficult to adapt that technology into making a bird flight simulator? the scenery would have to be detailed at a much smaller scale, and adjustments would have to be made on the timescale as well (no human could react as fast as a hummingbird does)
anyway its an intriguing idea ive been toying with for quite some time, theres more to it & i can expound if anyones interested
...check out a game called Primal Image. Of course, it wasn't released in the US, but I'm sure you can find stuff on it.
;)
The whole objective of the game is to take pictures of scantily-clad models in suggestive positions. That's it. If that's not the pefect game to sell to the horny 15-25 year old demographic, I don't know what is.
Because I know it's the only part of the article most people will care about...
Some people have commented that the SMB games were more fun even though they were less real, or even because the added R&D that goes into making a more "real" game shortchanges the effort put into making the game actually fun.
I would go even further. The games of the SMB era worked with their limitations rather than trying to exceed them. I'm thinking of the mushroom princess storylines with huge surreal hills with eyes in the backgrounds--this was the stuff they could do, so they did it. Moreover, since they knew they wouldn't be able to make an awe-inspiringly verisimilitudinous world, they opted to make it awe-inspiringly weird. And the games were better off for it.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
For those of us who don't want to register with the Times, it would be nice if someone could copy the text in here. And no, I'm not being stubborn, I'm being indignant.
Anyone looking forward to The Sims: Wage Slaves expansion, apparently.
Flight sims, yeah, there's some realism there. And it's only a good thing.
But FPS? Oh please. As long as "first person shooter" gaming means sitting on your ass twiddling a joystick and some little buttons, any concerns about "realism" are grossly exaggerated.
Or the XBox snowboarding game - hella fun, but... front-flip to back-flip with the flick of a stick? Or kung fu games where the key is to twiddle a few tiny buttons really really fast... what's realistic about this? Oh, the PICTURES. Riiiight.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
I think there's room in the market for both. I mean Gran Turismo 3 and Flight Sim 2000 are both great games, while no one can forget the great games like the Super Mario and Mega Man series. I don't see why this has to be a cut and dried "paper or plastic" question. Yes, you too can play both Counter Strike and Maximo. :)
Keep Austin Weird!
April 6, 2002
Realism May Be Taking the Fun Out of Games
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
n games, reality can seem beside the point. Carved boards, decorated cards, dotted cubes and colored pebbles become instruments of war. The fate of a bouncing spheroid determines one's fortunes. The more artificial an object is, the more arbitrary the restrictions are on its movements, the simpler the rules governing the play, the more powerful a game seems to become. A game establishes its own world.
Yet over the last two decades, the evolution of video games has involved a quest for the opposite. One of the major goals of video game systems has been to simulate the real, to create images so lifelike, and movements so natural that there is no sense of artifice. There really is a haunted house being explored, a football team arrayed on a field, a car racing at 150 miles an hour through a city street. In the early years of arcade games, invaders from space were squiggly white doodles arranged in rows, threatening a player with oblivion. Now they can speak, gush green blood and wield advanced weaponry.
During the last year or so technological realism has claimed its greatest triumph yet, as three major game systems made their debuts. Lives there an 8 to 18-year-old -- or an adult guiltily aspiring to that state of mind -- who has not yet heard about the technological accomplishments of Sony's PlayStation 2, Microsoft's Xbox and Nintendo's GameCube? Elaborate textures and sounds make earlier games seem like playthings. The humble controller that once maneuvered a diminutive and plump plumber named Mario across a television screen, allowing him to jump, bop and run, has now been pumped up like Lara Croft's bodice; the bloated Xbox controller has eight buttons, two triggers, three toggling switches and untapped possibilities. And the promise and threat of these systems caused sales of video game systems and games to jump 42 percent last year to $9.4 billion.
Now, as if sensing the power boost, the Rochester Institute of Technology has started the first master's program in computer game design. Carnegie Mellon University has an Entertainment Technology Center teaching game development techniques. Histories of the video game have also been accumulating, mixing serious analysis with fans' passions.
Yet something odd has taken place along with technological progress. Technology is not altogether welcomed by the games themselves. One of the new games for Xbox, "Dead or Alive 3" is a martial arts game in which processors give sheen to muscles and flesh and simulate icicles or marble, but the world itself is premodern and the combat hand to hand. In "Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee," also for Xbox, an endangered species is being rescued and medieval machines abound; power is won through communal chant.
One of Nintendo's major offerings, "Pikmin," actually discards technology from the start: a spaceship crashes. It can be rebuilt only with the help of pixyish creatures known as Pikmin; the crucial technology in "Luigi's Mansion" is a vacuum cleaner strapped to Luigi's back that can suck up ghosts in a haunted house. The ante- and anti-technological content of these games provides a peculiar counterpoint to the boasts of technological advancement made by the game systems.
There are, of course, games in which technology is required and complexity is part of the point. The daunting model is still Microsoft's "Flight Simulator 2002" for the PC, in which the challenge of learning to fly a plane may be matched by the challenge of learning to control a plane using a computer keyboard. But in many video games, the technology is put in service to creating a world that could do very well without it and doesn't exactly welcome technology to begin with.
This sentiment is often accompanied by nostalgia and affection for more "primitive," earlier-generation games. "The Ultimate History of Video Games," by Steven L. Kent (Prima Publishing, 2001) lovingly chronicles the pioneers and corporate battles behind the classics. And last year M.I.T. Press published a lavishly illustrated coffee-table tribute to arcade video, "Supercade," by Van Burnham and Ralph H. Baer. One of Nintendo's latest games, "Super Smash Brothers Melee," even gathers Nintendo's classic game characters, ranging from Mario and Pikachu to Zelda and Donkey Kong, for a reunion; in a meta-Nintendo joke, they all slug it out for the championship.
There may be, in fact, a tension in the video game universe: technological powers are courted for their possibilities and resisted for their fetishistic demands. Technology's greatest achievement may be in the improvements in racing games, shooting games and fighting games. There, the simulation of realism is most important because the very point of the games is to create a physical sensation, an anxiety, punctuated by shocks and cries. An advertisement for a game called "Mike Tyson Heavyweight Boxing" boasted about the game's sophisticated "facial damage engine," calling it "brutal beyond belief."
This is what arcade culture was about. The dark booth-stuffed arcade was, by tradition, a forbidding, seductive place. It was a world in which carnival-barker voices might boom from cubicles, while from others, surrounded by teenage voyeurs, would come screeching tires or grunts. Quick death at the console, fast quarters in the slots, territorial claims on booths -- the arcade was a dream world of preadult fantasy.
Originally, home video systems couldn't satisfy the technological demands of these games, let alone simulate an arcade atmosphere. Now their increasing muscular power may make the atmosphere unnecessary. But the real foundation of the home video game came from another sort of arcade game whose images spurred less angst and spurted less blood, games like Pac-Man or Donkey Kong, with their pleasing blurps, amusing images and teasing difficulties.
Indeed, the great achievement of Nintendo's game designer, Shigeru Miyamoto, was to create an entirely new genre based on his "Mario" games in which the thrill of the arcade was domesticated. The ambition of realism was put aside; instead the intention was to create an elaborate world with its own regulations and peculiarities that the player would probe, gradually discovering its secrets. These fantastical worlds of labyrinths, puzzles and confrontations tapped into the classic strength of games as abstract worlds of arbitrary rules.
These are the two poles of the video game, still evident in the latest systems. But however different in character, the games share important preoccupations. The classic board game or card game begins with the rules; then comes the play. In video games the play begins and only gradually do the rules emerge. Finding the rules is part of the game.
What powers do they provide and what do they forbid? Can those rules be violated at all? And is everything revealed or can something be found by testing those limits? The spirit of violation is built into the video game; so is a demand for submission.
In this struggle, technology is an emblem of both the game's limits and its promises; it helps determine what can and cannot be done. And game designers -- like game players -- keep exploring those boundaries. But through every gaming generation, no matter what the technology, the player is still the classic adolescent: at once uncertain and arrogant, proud and disgusted, resenting the demands being made and, finally, cherishing the ability to master them.
The NYTimes article completely misses the point. Realism in games isn't supposed to mimic the CONTENT of the real world, but the PHYSICS of the real world. When you race around a corner at 100 miles an hour you feel a pull, it's not where in the world the corner is or if the corner exists, it's the accurate mimicry of the PULL. Realism takes place even if it's a 1st century BC game or if its a 31st century AD game. If it LOOKS real, then its realism, doesn't matter if there is technology in the CONTENT of the game. Also, with the nostalgia, it's not 'man that game was awesome', (even if it was a great game) its more of a "good ole days" sentiment. Granted the video game market is stagnating, but that doesn't mean the games are worse, there are simply more of them and that means more crappy games. This article completely misfires on what "realism" in games is.
Praseodymn
Sometimes, you can, you go to hell for the rest of your life! That's a true thing.
The spirit of violation is built into the video game; so is a demand for submission.
That should have been the caption for the Britney Spears screencap.
Think about it. At heart, games are escapist entertainments. They offer us experiences that are markedly different from our own (or those of most other people). Exaggeration is one of the keys in making that break between our world and that of the game. Character design, laws of physics, color palette -- whatever. To borrow a line from Verant -- hey, I'm entitled to something for that extra $3 per month -- "You're in our world now." Even games that claim to be ultra-realistic revel in these small, deviant details. (Think Max Payne: high polys and crisp textures move it closer to realism, but things like bullet time move it firmly back into the realm of gaming.)
Trust me -- total realism will never eclipse escapist fun; the extremes of the two are mutually exclusive. Or to put it another way for you film geeks out there: When was the last time you saw a big-budget Dogma 95 action flick?
However, the realism games are headed towards a different end, I believe. While the fantasy games may be more fun now, down the road it will be the ancestors of today's realism games that give us virtual reality. As designers come up with new subtlety to the environments and character interactions in their games, they get closer to the day when everyone can have their own personal holodeck. When that day comes, an engaging plot won't be nearly as important to consumers as an immersive and completely flexible virtual world in which they can explore and interact. Think of how many people play the practically plotless Ultima Online simply because they enjoy "existing" in that world. How much more would people want to buy a place in a realistic fantasy world that was almost indistinguishable from reality? I admit, the concept is a little scary, and I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's something to consider.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Yet again, another issue which everyone thinks has to be resolved one way or another.
Why can't I have a mix of realism and fantasy? Carmageddon - cartoonish environment but realistic physics; not necessarily the physics of real-life - but deterministic behaviour that felt right. Or ID games, realistic environment (and getting more realistic with each revision) but a fantastic game - Return to Castle Wolfenstein had zombies and stuff
0xB
There are distinct styles of gaming, which come into vogue at different times depending on whether any GOOD games of that type are out.
Loosely, consider them "Simulation", "Narrative", and "Gamist". Simulations are things like Flight Sims and Racing Games-- the accuracy is as important as the gameplay. Narrative are our old favorite, adventure games, things like Myst, etc. Gamist are what people usually think of when they think "video game", i.e. tetris, most FPS, arcade-style racing games, etc.
The better games tend to be those which fit more than one category. Metal Gear Solid was touted for being a good game (Gamist) while also having a great story (Narrative) and wonderful realism in the graphics (touching into the simulationist camp). Half Life was a good game with, again, a great story. [Insert your favorite game here] also did that sort of thing.
And, of course, once a good game is popular, that particular school of gaming tends to become popular because everyone comes out with their entry into that genre. And thus the cycles change.
A.
One of my favorite games "Strike Commander" (Everyone bow to Chris Roberts) Was the first flight simulator/combat game to have very realistic terrain, this made it a pleasure to play and still amazes me today because it was all done on a 486; however, although the graphics were what made it palitable it was the plot that kept me playing for hours on end, and still brings me back to play from time to time. (Any game that causes me to use a boot disk that took a day to perfect is a good game) The key to it's plot is, it was both outragious and believable. It created a perfect fantasy world which was different enough for you to know it was all fantasy, but realistic enough to say "that figures" whenever something happened in the plot. A good example is that in the game the IRS is the world larges terrorist orginization giving an audit a whole new meaning. What I'm saying is this: If we continue to focus on getting games more photo realistic and otherwise realistic, while giving up on Original (pun intended) plots, the only games that will come out will be works of art that please the eyes but leave the mind and soul empty and thus get played a couple times and then forgoten. I would rather a game with a plot that keeps you playing and sucky gameplay than a game that has all the bells and whistles yet fails to play a tune.
I like replies better than Karma, even if they are flames, because that tells me I got someone thinking.
...on the category of game.
On WWII tactical games, for instance, if you want to market it as "historical" and "realistic", it would be rather unwise to represent tank armor merely as large piles o' hit points, and let standard infantry rifle rounds regularly do significant damage, oh, Panzer Vs -- you don't have to be a grognard to realize how silly that is, compared to having models of armor slope and thickness, plus armor penetration tables.
And yes, a historically detailed game can be damn fun. It certainly raises tension when you realize there's a PzVI on a well-chosen hill 800m away, and that mindlessly selecting a bunch of units and clicking on the PzVI won't save you -- that you'll have to study the terrain and use real tactics to block or avoid its LOS.
But if you're aiming towards the C&C/*craft/AoE fans who don't truly care if it's really accurate in the nitty-gritty, hey, go ahead. And you'll probably have a larger market with that approach, too.
Playing fast and loose with reality would also help certain strategic-level situations. It's been argued, for instance, that the Confederacy was pretty much doomed to fail, given the far greater industrial production and manpower of the northerners, and the unwillingness of the European powers to intervene on the CSA's behalf. Perfectly modelling the US Civil War might result in a rather depressing game from the CSA's point of view, so adding "what if" options might not be such a bad idea... Ditto for, say, a WWII Eastern Front strategic game, post-Uranus; without pretty serious "what if"'s, it would be difficult to change the end result...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Come on... be honest!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I think there is room for both in this matter. Some people care to play the realistic kind of games and some just wanna play the MarioKart kinda of games (I like a little of both personally).
I have heard though that there are some problems games being a little too real to where gameplay is actually not as fun as it could be. The review was on msn.com and the subject was something like the worst games to play this year kinda thing. It talked about a skiboat fighting game made for PS2 or XBox that was so realistic that it totally reacted to the waves in the water and made you easily lose control of the boat and therefore get creamed by the AI players. So in cases as this that sucks, games are meant to be fun and entertaining, not frustrating!
So in conclusion, sure we can live with both kinds of games but we must always keep in mind that games MUST be fun, otherwise they are not games they are work.
"Entertain the Brutes"
if its not already blatantly obvious, RIT's website is www.rit.edu but I couldnt find any reference to RIT's video game development if they DO in fact have it or not..
RIT does not have a Master's Program in Video Game Programming. There is, however, a Master's level class in Video Game Programming. There's a bit of a distinction there. It is part of the Information Technology department.
He's also very into creating virtual terrains and raytraced scenes using Macromedia Director - talented fellow, both artistically and in the programming sense.
Was that out loud?
Why? Is her severed head on a stick?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Real, live, breathing, human girls prove to be more 'realistic' than their virtual counterparts. Story at 11.
Jesus Christ, I needed a NYTimes (free reg) article to tell me this? Please. This is like saying "real girls prove to offer more love than your curled fist." No shit. People will continue to play video games forever, but nothing will replace a walk ouside in the fresh air.
yahoo has a nytimes mirror that contains all the stories with NO REGISTRATION.
t / 0020406/tc_nyt/realism_may_be_taking_the_fun_out_o f_games
Here's the link with no registration required a la Yahoo!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ny
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
The difference between a good game and a piece of dung isn't graphics. It isn't music. It isn't the story, the setting, the realistic physics engine.
It's the gameplay. That, in the end, is the only thing that matters.
Any game can be graphically beautiful, any game can be ugly as hell, but as long as the gameplay functions well, people will play it.
Look at a game like MechWarrior 4. Surely, this blurs the lines between reality and fantasy. I don't see any battlemechs striding down the interstate, sending freebirth to their maker. Yet, look at the graphics.. They certainly are the most 'realistic' looking hulking monstrosities devised so far. That isn't why people still play quite often online and offline. The gameplay is.
Look at Half-Life and its mods. Still so popular, after all these years. The graphics are actually a bit under par compared to what's been released recently. But people still play it.. Because of the gameplay.
Hell, I know quite a few people who still play Master of Orion with regular frequency. The graphics there certainly don't give a sense of realism. Nor, really, does the engine. The gameplay keeps people coming back for more galactic conquest.
Frankly, there's room enough for MS Flight Simulator, and there's also room enough for a game featuring little talking not-quite-animals that shock the living crap out of each other for the greater glory of their masters.
Graphics? Realism? Fantasy?
Feh.
It's all about the gameplay.
This is why I enjoyed Black & White so much--the graphics were realistic but the gameplay was decidedly fantasy.
Until the engine inflicts actual damage on the player, I'd be hard pressed to call any game brutal or realistic, no matter how good the graphics are.
Maybe I can add that creating realistic worlds can be a "test" for the game engine. If you can do a realistic Earth environment, then probably you can do a convincing alien world. So if I were shopping for a game engine, I'd *ask* for realism, but *use* the engine for fantasy.
I'm still trying to figure out what people are up in arms about.
Realism helps a lot for some types of game, and doesn't help for others. A wise team will use realism when and only when it's useful.
Where's the problem?
Marketing will try to pitch crap based on its technical merits, but this has been true for longer than most of us have been born. "realism" is just the latest buzzword. How is this "realism"'s fault?
Play what you find fun. The market will follow.
Take, for example, realistic death. At first, deaths were pretty unrealistic, you pulled the trigger and the enemy fell down and stopped moving. Then there was blood. Then there was persistent blood that stayed on walls. Then there were detailed damage models. Soldier of Fortune had one of the most complex damage models yet; the problem was that that was the only part of the game anyone ever mentioned. It's as is the entire rest of the game had been neglected in favor of having the characters twitch and bleed in different ways depending on where you shot them. The more effort that is put into the realism, the less is put into imaginative gameplay and original content. The more realistic a game is, the more it is similar to all the other realistic games, and eventually they will be indistinguishable.
The pinnacle of realistic death, and the other reason realism should only go so far, was Postal. Your targets wouldn't just die, they would act like real gunshot victims. They might fall to the ground moaning and holding whatever part of them you shot. They might try to slowly and painfully crawl away from you with their last strength, or curl up into a ball while gasping and whimpering, often for several minutes. Only a pyschotic could enjoy that game.
No.
Games will continue to sell as always.
And it's hard to prove they are destroying fun - it is a relative thing.
I've been playing computer games since the mid 80's and I find that my definition of fun is changing.
In the 80's it was fun to shoot alien spaceships on a 2d screen.
Now the multiplayer games are much more fun, real opponents are more realistic (you cannot argue that), and they add to the game, not destroy it.
Thanks for that.
Roadkill is yummy.
The included PlayStation screenshot of Britney Spears may alone tip the balance in favor of the fantasy folks.
...bigger boobs ceased being magical when silicon implants became possible
Wrong kind of fantasy there...
that's realistic, not magical.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
If you mean the "last true game companies" that make first-party games for their systems with recognizable mascots to sell them, then yes, except Sega isn't making hardware anymore. Otherwise, I'd like to know how you define a "true game company," and I'm sure Konami, Namco, Capcom, Square, Sony, Rockstar, UbiSoft, Naughty Dog, THQ, LucasArts, Midway, and hundreds of others would like to know (were they not busy making triple-A titles).
OK, this just sounds like fanboyism. Sega is out of the market because their marketting was full of crap, and their products were sub-par. (I'm sure there are slashdot readers here who would be happy to comment on how many defective units they've seen returned.) I'm not talking about games here; DreamCast, Genesis, Master System, even the Master Gear had some triple-A titles, but think of those systems: Sega has a really, really poor track record with promotion. (These are the people that brought us the Saturn, I mean, geez, look what they did with that.)
Nintendo fanboy now? Or just rabid anti-Sony/MS/Square? Now, one might consider some Square games to be "interactive movies" (although generally the people who say this are the ones who play about 5 hours of FFX and never really get into the game), but I've got a few PS2 games that are more than interactive movies:
The ones that I hilighted are probably the more recognizable titles of the system. None of these are "interactive movies," and they're all great games.
Now, I'm not anti-Nintendo by any means; I'm going to get a GCN sometime this summer most likely. They make great games; I want the latest Mario and Zelda, too. But remember they're not the only ones who make games for their system. Take the Gameboy Advance. Would you consider Golden Sun, Advance Wars, and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon "real" games? These weren't made by Nintendo (or at least not solely). What about the latest GBC Zeldas (Oracle of Ages and Seasons)? Dual Nintendo/Capcom branding. Nintendo is good, but they're not it.
Well, there are a lot of good titles lined up for the GameCube, so it's a good choice if you can only get one system. Fortunately Nintendo is going to make sure there are a decent lineup of RPGs for this system, too, after the N64.
To you, perhaps. Perhaps because they don't have recognizable mascots, they're "generic", but (at least with the PS2) there is, as I demonstrated above, a long list of games that makes the system worth purchasing. (I'm not an XBOX fan. I don't like MS. I couldn't name any games that are real system-sellers, either, nor am I going to pick my brain for any, either ;-).) The PS2 architecturally is about as far-removed from the PC as you can get, but you seem to mean branding and mascots. Actually this is an interesting point, because Sony seems to be the first company to have an enormously successful, market-leading system without such marketting necessities. This should imply to you that there's something else there that must be selling the system. (The games, perhaps?)
That's your call. You're the one playing the games. If you don't find any interesting on a platform, then you shouldn't buy it, because it's a waste of your money. If you need validation for your purchasing decisions, you'd better look elsewhere, though. I'm very happy with my "generic" PS2 and its "interactive movies", thank you. ;-)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Maybe, then try LGA-WTC instead, its a shorter trip... After all, you still need some fuel at the destination.
Oh, I forgot, the game producers are so afraid of realism that they removed the possibility to crash into buildings, once that was done IRL.
I believe they are failing to realize that the realism movement in games today is not necessarily real in out terms of reality, reality can simply mean making that alien look more alive, giving it more expression, more intelligent AI, and when we kill it it doesn't just flop over dead but reacts, such as if we shoot it in the leg/tentacle/etc it will react differently then if we shot it in the head... realism in video games is the idea of making the enviornment the programmer creates more believeable
Robert Abbot's piece Video Games Are Incredibly Stupid! touches many of the same themes, and was making the rounds a month or two ago. You can see my studied (and illustrated) response back, and he's also posted many of the replies he has received.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
One game that veers way too far into the realism category is Grand Turismo 3. I was at a friend's house and I just wanted to race around the Seattle course like a madman. The game wouldn't let me. I had to pass a bunch of tests before it would unlock the course. That struck me as going too far.
Recently, the latest Day of Defeat version came out, and I took a look at it - even considered running a server for it. Everyone was raving about how realistic it was and how much more fun than CS it was. So I played it for a while, and found that indeed, it was realistic. Storming the beach, for example; spawn, walk two feet, headshot from sniper rifle, dead, spawn, walk two feet, headshot from sniper rifle, dead, etc..
Highly realistic, I'm sure. My history isn't as strong as it probably should be, but if you believe the beginning of Saving Private Ryan to be fairly indicative of events, it's reasonable to assume that the allies were cut down in their thousands before moving more than a few feet.
Is it fun to play? Er, let's see.. NO. Realism in a game is all well and good, but if it's done at the expense of the playability, what's the point? I play games to escape. To unwind after a hard days work. The last thing I want is to be frustrated that the game is too realistic. I'm sure there are DoD players out there who will tell me I'm a n00b who doesn't know how to play the game properly. Maybe so, but I'm not going to make the effort to improve at a game that appears to make no effort to be fun to play.
Having said that, I'm sure there are circumstances where realism is a good thing, but then it comes down to what sort of product you're dealing with: Is it a game? Or is it a simulator? There's a distinct difference there, and my expectations go right along with how the product is projected.
Certain games need a level of "realism" in order to be fun, but how much realism is actually required is subjective.
Take SMB, the only realism in most of the games is the concept of gravity and mass (falling onto solid platforms, not through them.) Mario 64 added some more environmental realism (lighting, fog, water) but the game was still fun, because the realism didn't get in the way.
RPG games are one of the areas where there is never enough realism. You can have a game like Ultima, which let's you do practically everything to Final Fantasy which you can't do anything but follow the story.
I prefer more realism in RPG's, though sometimes it just get's in the way (how is leveling up realistic?) Like in MMORPG's the concept of dieing is non-realistic. Oops, I died, I'll just come back and try attacking that thing again. If the player had to start from scratch everytime he/she died, it wouldn't be very fun.
On the other end of things, graphical realism. Sure something may look real enough, but our 3D hardware in PC's have only now just got to the point where radiosity might be possible. Untill low-end hardware can do radiosity and ultra-high-poly models(or maybe just flat out directly render nurbs or something better) most 3D games hardly look realistic. A lot of imagination is required to make a sims model look realistic, same with anything that appears in a FPS game. Sure, the person being torn into by your weapon of choice may look like a bloody pulp, but I don't think you'll be seeing gorefest's anytime soon. Many players prefer a higher framerate and turn off the visual realism for more framerate.
Overall, some games benefit greatly from higher realism in game mechanics (open box, dump junk out from box, look through junk and find pouch of money, take pouch of money, have owner of pouch of money beat the tar out of you because you STOLE it.) Others just focus too much on eye candy and gameplay just takes a backseat or is non-existant (and you are watching a realtime-rendered or pre-rendered movie for most of the game.)
What's rather nasty IMO is when a game doesn't focus on the gameplay, but makes more of the game's "playtime" just sitting there watching the game, and yet that isn't even interesting.
Now stepping away from games for a minute...
Anyone see those useless "talking, crying, and peeing" type of dolls on television? Seriously, these one-purpose dolls are useless. The companies attempt to add realism to it, and ultimately fail when the parents will not buy any more because THEY are sick of hearing the things, or the child is sick of hearing it. The ones that don't do anything are far better, leaves more to the imagination, plus they don't make any noise.
With games, it's like having having an annoying "voice-over" for every character and not giving them the choice to turn it off. Or the person who is doing the speech can't sync up with the character talking. After a while, you would have preferred that there was no voices, just because they are too annoying.(A common complaint about some "english dubbed" games.) Some people would be more content with subtitles on the original language if it sounded better than to have a couple of bad voices spoil the game.
Today, you can't return used games to the store, so if you buy something and the gameplay is terrible, you can't return it. So you have to either play it and suffer through it, or sell it to someone else at a loss.
The thing about early video games that made them so interesting was that the focus was on the game itself, not some graphical representation of the game. With few exceptions, today the focus is is on getting the graphics better and better. Game design hasn't stagnated but it has slowed quite a bit. It is sad to see how game designers today just pick a standard game model - mid-90s was 1-on-1 fighting game, now first person shooter - and think "Hey, we'll sell a lot because we'll have more types of guns and better graphics." They cut out the creative process that comes before game creation, the part where you try to do something *different*. Ah, I'm a crotchety old 24 year old but I still prefer the days of Robotron, Time Pilot, Missile Command, Spy Hunter, etcetera, etcetera.
or was that article a little to Katzian?
:)
Maybe someday, Katzin will be used to described all vague, tech oriented writed which takes itself, and its topic, too seriously.
Katz, the next Lynch
I find it ironic a Counterstriker is complaining about realism in a game. Of course, I'm into Quake 3. I don't enjoy 2 second combats followed by a minute-long wait for the round to end. Unfortunately the majority of players seem to. www.gamespy.com/stats shows tens of thousands of people playing your game. I'm actually bitter about that. Realism isn't fun, but it's taken over online gaming. (Counterstrike / Urban Terror / Tactical Ops / Navy Seals / Day of Defeat / Soldier of Fortune / etc)
In games and in movies, we often like to see things exaggerated to match our imaginations. E.g. when you kick someone they go flying across the room and smash into the opposite wall. Were the acrobatics and fight scenes in The Matrix realistic? No, but they depicted a kind of idealized/stylistic imagine that many people imagine, when they picture a super-skilled warrior fighting. Another example would be the Chinese wu xia novels, one of which Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was based on (or various other Hong Kong martial-arts movies).
When I play Grand Theft Auto 3, I'm impressed by the "realism" in the way cars skid and bounce around, but on the other hand I know that if the physics in the game were truly realistic, I wouldn't have as much fun skidding and bouncing around (and then still being able to drive away afterwards). If I want more realism, I'll play Gran Turismo.
Mario Kart 64 is still one of my absolute favorite games, and it's set in a cartoon universe. There is an entire spectrum between the two poles the NYT article mentions; sometimes it's fun to play in a completely cartoon-like universe, sometimes it's fun to play in a reasonably accurate simulation of the real universe, and most of the time, it's fun to play in a world which is a mixture of the two, as long as the designers did a good job in designing the laws of physics in that world.
Because I'm going to say what I'm going to say anyway.
Reality in video games can only be a good thing, whether you are talking about the content (subject matter) or the physics. In fact, the ultimate game engine would be completely physics-based, using a skeleton/skin system. A sufficiently advanced system would be able to model anything you were interested in, though of course the more general you make your physics model, the more CPU time is required.
Also, in order to really get good physics you need to at least do some CFD pre-processing for most objects to determine aerodynamic drag at least; Cars will need lift and downforce, airplanes need more, a skateboarder can work by approximations due to the low speed. So basically, the processing power just isn't there right now, but we're getting closer all the time.
But the fact of the matter is that we want realistic games. Then again, we also want unrealistic games. Personally, I want a massively multiplayer physics-based system that allows me to have hovercraft, cars, tanks, airplanes, and pedestrians all operating in the same environment. Different interfaces would let you control different objects.
As to the issue of how real is too real - Some people are unhinged. While a violent videogame could be the thing that pushes them over the edge, the wrong unkind word at the wrong moment could do it just as easily. It's not like we do a psych eval before we let people buy a handgun, and if we were going to control what people bought, we would be far better off controlling guns more and video games less. Mind you, I am against most forms of gun control, and don't want to start a flamewar thereof. Suffice to say that video games are not the problem (research backs this up quite adequately) and that's not the issue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm not a fanboy of Sega, I'm just anti Sony.
Sony is like Microsoft, they use their money and hype to sell stuff, They bribe magazines to enhance their hype, Remember the 60 million polygons per second, hell magazines were saying DC was dead ever since PS2 was announced, you act like money cant bribe people and buy marketing?
Sega had less money, Sega got bullied out of the market, sorta like how Microsoft is trying to bully apple and redhat out of the market with their money.
Face it, Sega could have had the best system in the world (actually they did with dreamcast) and the best games (they DID have the best games), and good marketing (Their marketing wasnt that bad)
Theres absolutely no way in hell they are going to be able to out spend Sony, Sony can just buy more ads on more stations, even with shitty ads, they'll still be well known, Sony can afford to bribe third parties and gain support from the whole industry, Sony can afford to bribe magazines and get articles printed on how Sega is dead, dying, articles about 32x, Saturn printed,
thats what I call bullying, using your money to beat out a much smaller company, Sega was just out of their league with 2 billion going against 20 billion Sony, 10 billion Nintendo, 40 billion Microsoft.
Xbox has good games, lets list some, ok you are right i cant really list any "good" games, but theres some decent games
Sony has maybe a few good games, but mostly decent games.
Neither system has great games.
Sony didnt need a mascot or first parties to be successful because Sony has the money to bribe third parties and gain support.
Do you think all the third parties supporting PS2 and ditching Dreamcast was by accident? Do you think they ditched dreamcast because their games werent selling? (Soul Calibur from namco sold over a million copies!) Obviously thats not the reason.
The reason everyone ditched Sega is because Sega was a 2 billion dollar company, with no real business plan or even business sense, they were losing money on EVERY consolee they were selling, and they were in debt at the same time, Everyone KNEW Sega would be forced to pull out because Sega could not afford to SELL dreamcast period, in fact quotes from interviews with Sega's president who is now deceased has said Dreamcast launching was a complete accident, that Sega never had the money to launch it because they were in debt when they launched, this guy had to use his OWN money to pay for the launch, and his own money to keep selling DC, he was determined to make DC a success even if it took his last dime, This man however died and a month later DC died with him.
Sega is now a software company, their fanbase is mostly DC owners, who are now pissed off and wont buy their products, lets see 10 million DC owners, if half of them get a PS2, the other half a game cube, Sega's sales will be less because their market is segmented.
I think Segas biggest mistake now, and biggest mistake with the Dreamcast, too much innovation.
They should have released Sonic Adventure 1,2,3, Night, Virtua Fighter 4, and games they know will sell 1 million, Sega made the mistake of releasing too many new games (more games than people can buy)
having too many third parties (100 games made a year) spending $80 million dollars to make shenmue, spending hundreds of millions making games no ones ever heard of.
Segas a good company, but they have absolutely no business sense.
Nintendo I have more faith in, they create a few high quality games a year each which sell by the millions, they have a few GREAT first party teams and they make games for a specific purpose, to make as much money as possible.
Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, all of these games took the dying N64 and made it a profitable system.
Hopefully Microsoft and Sony dont push Nintendo out off the market, if Nintendo keeps with their routine, they have nothing to worry about even if their system were to come in 3rd they would still make a fortune.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Funny, I had the same problem getting into Counter-Strike. Even worse is the lurking period between rounds (lengthened by the fact that Id get killed so early). I found CS so damn frustrating that I almost gave up on it several times. It was only after I finally killed someone, much, much later.. that I got hooked. That a frag for me was a real challenge and thus a real reward coupled with consequences for dying (having to wait out the end of the round) made the game truly rewarding to me.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Dude... run out and get a copy of Dungeon Siege. (In stores as of yesterday)
THIS is the game Diablo II should have been. I haven't been this instantly addicted to a game in years.
The graphics are phenomenal, and the game is by Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation guy) so the mechanics and interface are just perfect.
Some gameplay features:
OK enough gushing. Back to the game...
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Trying to compare a fullblown flight simulator into the category of games as a whole is rather silly. Simulations like that are meant to calculate this sort of thing to insane detail, and may as well have their own category of games.
The real issue, with normal games, is twofold. The first, and the most important, is -internal consistency-. You want a game to feel like what you do is consistent with the game world, and there are no holes. Those who scream for 'realistic' games often prefer consistent, or more thorough content, games IMO. This excludes sim buffs, as they're a whole other category by themselves.
The second is simplicity of interface. Too often games require you to know many, many different things in the _interface_ just to play them. Part of the allure of the old, old, old NES games is that there are only a few buttons so the game has no choice but to be incredibly simple, and from that point onwards everything is based on skill.
Many games these days have access to lots of controls, and also do not have a clear design focus, so they tend to bloat things up beyond enjoyment. Where you spend so long just learning how to play that you don't have the time to actually get good at things in the duration of play.
There are not many games that evade this too well, although "oldschool" platformers/shooters do well. Even those have lots of problems; a constant barrage of new things to do and new things that are available work against the playability, because you are constantly readjusting your play style, rather than breaking past a certain point and going for skill/mastery.
That's not to say the experience is unnecessary, but 'hardcore'(read: plays anything, and has played a lot) gamers often prefer something that takes real skill to get good at. (Something like, say, Rez does a good job of being stylistic yet still getting the hardcore folks)
And I think I've rambled enough for now.
What is destroying Video Games:
High Prices - $50 a game is just crazy
Poor Game Play - Excellent game play is the core of any good game
Steep Learning Curves - I may just be old but some games are near impossible
People Like Me Complaining About Them - Word of mouth
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Im not sure that realism is such a bad thing. I personaly enjoy have a highly interactive and realistic environment, as in GTA 3 and more so in Opp. Flash., but the other side has its benifits as well. RPG's should have a certian degree of realism though, its totaly useless to have a party of super characters who are totaly invincable. i think that this, as in many things, balance is the most important factor.
"My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
But Carnegie Mellon (also mentioned in the article) does: Entertainment Technology Center
The Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) at Carnegie Mellon University offers a two-year Masters of Entertainment Technology degree, jointly conferred by Carnegie Mellon University's College of Fine Arts and School of Computer Science. Carnegie Mellon is relatively unique among U.S. Universities in being able to offer this kind of degree, as we have both top-quality fine arts and top-quality technology programs.
The ETC also has an undergraduate course called Building Virtual Worlds - check out the class's final project.
If you ask me, I like realistic games in non-realistic settings.
Lemme rephrase that. I like games that, for all intents and purposes LOOK, SOUND, and FEEL real, but are in a universe completely different from my own.
One example is Everquest. Though I don't own an account, I've had ample time to play at it (or rather, watch a friend of mine play at it). What makes it fun, in some reguards, is that you have REAL people in semi-REAListic 3D environments in a completely FANTASY world.
Or, my personal favorite example is the Final Fantasy series. For years, Square has been pushing towards making the most realistic feeling game that they can, facial animations and all. I don't care what you think of the latest installment, Final Fantasy X, all you need to notice is that they're TRYING to make things look real with facial animations, rendering hairs, etc.
Does that mean that it's realistic to cast Ultima or to summon Bahamut? Not in the least. But I'll be darned if it doesn't feel like you're actually witnessing it, as though it WERE real. In a few years, I would love to see what spell casting and summoning will look like.
If you want to look back in time, there were books. Books. They pushed the envelope for realism for some time. Writers wrote in characters and events that were close to real. And your mind acted as the GPU in this case. Does this mean that these characters existed or that these events happened? No; that's what makes it fun.
So you can't say that realism is a detriment to gameplay. Just remember that gameplay is determined by what HAPPENS in it. How it looks only adds to the fun; the more realistic, the better.
It's not just a game, it's a simulation. We're here to learn what it might have been like to fly a WWII russian plane (Il-2 Sturmovik), or drive an F-1 race car, or fight squad combat. It lets us be a hero without worrying about getting ourselves killed. Pardon me for not wanting to cater to your inability to cope.
You want a game? Fine, go pick up Serious Sam or Crimson Skies or the latest Mario Brothers racing game. Leave the simulations to those of us that like mastering something that's difficult enough in real life, let alone inside a computer.
And just stop whining about it.
AMCGLTD.COM. Where cats, science fictio
Dear Ask Slashdot,
I am running a Jedi Knight 2 server on my "lunix boxen" in the office, and I want to keep all these asshole windows useres off my server. How can I set up my boxens so that only my home PC is the only windows client and everyone else has to be using linus? Thanks,
-Mr. Samuel Bruchey, Newsday
I'm not a spammer, honest, it just happens that DigiPen is located just a few blocks from my house.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
I classify them as "realistic setting" as opposed to "realism". And some realism factors come into play (fall too far, you die) but as you say, TRUE realism is sacrificed for fun, which is good.
As for DoD, I'd suggest you give it another try, but avoid that beach map. I feel it is HOPELESSLY unbalanced. Maybe I've just never played on a server that had a GOOD Allies team, but the Axis kick their ass every time. There are only two ways up from the beach. Put two MG guys at each point and they can hold back an infinite number of attackers. Maybe they designed the map this way (true to what actually happened at Omaha) but I don't find it fun. Even playing as Axis, where half your team can just screw around doing nothing and you'll still have no trouble holding back the Allies. Not fun.
However, some of the other maps ARE really fun. The inner-city maps (I think Cannes is my favorite) are really fantastic. Part of the fun might be that these maps are very complicated, and it can take a long time to learn all the little secrets. Unlike most CS maps where you can learn the patterns and strategic points pretty quickly. (Note: I was, and still am, a CS addict.) But they have put a HELL of a lot of work in DoD, and I'm impressed. The atmosphere of the game (background sounds, explosions, bullets whizzing throught the air, etc) is about the best I've ever seen.
I strongly agree. You can't compare the fantasy games and the ones that emulate the real world.
But I've seen the trend shift in a new direction. Realism isn't just about the graphics, it's about freedom. I guess that the freedom to play a game the way they feel is much more appealing than linear gameplay, and not just for replay value either. Freedom gives the player a chance to be creative. This IMHO is the reason why The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3 are so popular among the gaming community.
Sigs are for losers
The original Half-Life death match rocked.
A lot.
(still does for that matter)
Fractional of a second response times, dodging rockets, long jumping, flying off that cliff, launching a contact grenade at the exit that your opponet was trying to follow you out of. Doing a 180 turn in mid air and lining up an SOB in your sights and pulling the trigger before he even realizes what is happening to him, landing on the way down right outside the ledge of a doorway (what you thought I was going to fall down to the bottom of the cliff and die?) blasting two contact grenades in either direction down the hallway and running in there as you watch your kill count rise up.
Yanking out your shotgun and side stepping into the hallway to the main battle room, long jumping into the middle of the fray, *BAM**BAM**BAM* sweeping the room clear of all opponets, quickly leaping between bodies to gather your booty, fragging a late comer to the fray who realizes right before he dies that he shouldn't have taken that last left turn.
Remembering to breath.
Realizing you just got 7 frags in the last past 9 seconds.
Kick. Ass.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I used to work in games, and I've always disliked the rush toward (imagination and style-free) realism and ever more gory violence.
Anyway I've noticed that there are some new and very good games that have stylized artwork. Check out Jet Grind Radio, Mad Dash and Cell Damage on the XBox (Cell Damage may be too hard, but I like the Warner Bros. look).
There's also lots of fantacy games that don't fall into the mindless violence game classes. I've played Ico on the PS2 and Shadow of Destiny on the Dream Cast and there are untold more.
Fewer Japanese games fall into the style-free category I whined about than American ones, but that's probably just a sign of overall quality.
The article didn't actually have much direction, but anyway...
There's a sort of esthetic that allows games to be games instead of insisting that they have to be representations of reality, and I've always prefered that esthetic. Besides there are moral issues involved in war, for instance, but no moral problems with playing go or chess, so I far prefer my strategy problems to NOT be disguised as murder.
Anyway I think part of the lack of style was just caused by the lack of sophistication that comes with new tools and technology.
Rocky J Squirrel
I am a student at RIT. We kick ass. yeah, mod me down whatever. I'm a cs major, maybe I'll go for the game developement master. WHo knows. ph33r.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I spend most of my gaming time playing classic games that are by no means realistic. But they are FUN . Those old Atari arcade games are a blast, and platformers like Sonic, etc. really rock my world. If I want realism, I'll go outside and look up at the marvelously rendered clouds in the sky. I play my games to have fun, period.
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
Multiplayer has some issues with what is saved and what isn't, it will take some getting used to after Bnet. But if you have the time to finish one little quest at a time (I've been averaging about 45 miniutes) you'll feel like you're making progress through their multiplyer world. Although they want you playing on the Zone, they aren't pulling a Blizzard and trying to tell you where you can and can't play, their internet games work just fine.
The forthcoming tools look like they'll be awesome. I'm even thinking of ressurecting some long dead ideas and doing something with them.
Bleh!
i just bought an original NES because the old games were better. it was from back in the day when a game had to rely on a good plot, or at least good gameplay rather than using graphics as a crutch for a bad game.
-"Hey, Baby. It's not a rash, it's textured love."
I think we should differenciate a little.
Clearly, Simulations (like FS, F1GP (etc)) only profit from more realism. After all, that's the idea.
Then, in the opposite corner, there are arcade games like DONKEY KONG or the beloved GIANA SISTERS. They are meant to be surreal. Again, that's the idea!
And then, there are all sorts in between. Like the first part of COMANCHE which was a chopter arcade game, rather than yet another simulation (like GUNSHIP) by MicroProse. OK, i forgot the cool LHX which came long before COMANCHE, but you are getting my point.
Wolfenstein3D was the first sign of 3D-FPS becaming feasible. DOOM was a revolution and the first night after playing DOOM, I had bad dreams! And I loved it!!! And DARK FORCES, a DOOM with vectors and within the StarWars universe...!
But somewhere there, the software companies fogot that there is a need for simplier games, too.
Nowadays it seems that everything has to be 3D and superealistic in order to be a big seller. Man, I loved the LucasArts Adventures a lot (MANIAC MANSION 1+2, ZAK MC KRACKEN, LOOM, INDY3+4, MONKEY ISLAND1+2+3, SAM & MAX just to name some)... but then, MONKEY ISLAND 4 had to be 3D...!! Why, oh Good Lord (I mean, George)??? They ruined the perfect Point & Click environment. In my mind, that was one of the points that made the LucasFilm/LucasArts games superior to Sierra's...
Talking about SIERRA/DYNAMICS: Anybody remembering THE INCREDIBLE MACHINE? This was a great game, totally unrealistic but great! No, sorry, it was great _because_ it was unrealistic.
Sorry for this long posting, I guess nobody will ever read it anyway. But my point is that software companies and developer teams are just so obsessed with the graphics and sound, that they forget the very essence of a great game. Sure, it is hard to identify exactly what it is that makes lifts a game to cult status, but it ain't nice gfx and sfx alone (proved by ACTIVISION and OCEAN with tons of horrible games based on licensed movie characters/plots)
Counter example: DEUS EX. But, is it _really_ a counter example? I loved it for the incredible dense plot and the paranoid athmosphere... Something, QUAKE never had.
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
This inspired me. I wanted to make a game of my own, and was delighted to discover a kit that allowed players to create their own games, but disheartened to learn it was only availible in Japan. This however was what got me into computers, learning programming and eventually techniques for making games. It was much easier than I thought! Basic concepts of computing simply applied to graphics, double buffering was just a few extra memory moves, man this was great! I would be able to make any kind of game. And then 3D came along.
For those who don't know (which I would think would be few of you, but let me state my point), 3D is a WHOLE other ballpark. It's complex, it takes alot of skill and a TON of math and programming. To the point where creating most games in 3D is fruitless, all the development time is spent on making the game look good and work as a 3D game, not on the story, or most importantly, the gameplay. The graphics, that's all. Game companies can barely afford to spend time in other areas because "it has to look better than the others." Roving cameras, pinpoint detail, cutscenes, it's all become such bloatware. Many developers have forgotten: I play games to do exactly that. Play them. If you gameplay sucks you are NOT doing your job.
Some games have taken steps in the right direction, such as The Legend of Zelda series. It may not be your favorate type of game but if you've played it you know that's innovative gameplay. The assignable buttons, the Z-Targeting system is especially nice, and the ease of which different activities can be performed with the A buton, depending on your current situation. Few games take time for this.
Another thing is that no one takes the time to be creative. Reality may be the most difficult thing to simulate, but why does it need to be simulated every time? You have before you a blank page where imagination is the limit, but the imagination seems to only conjour the same thing over and over, a push back to reality.
Now, some games are realistic and that's good. The Gran Turismo series, for example, absolutely beautiful. But is that all you've got? 3D worlds that look like outside my window? (no, there are no cars going 150mph out there but you get what I mean. ) I agree with a pervious poster who claimed Nintendo and Sega where last of the real gaming companies.
SO enough rant, here's where it stands: Any platform that has a few realistic (looks and gameplay) titles, a few cartoony action games which are fun to play, a few well thought out and crafted puzzle games and some adventure games thrown in for good measure is where I'll stay. If I want interactive movies I'll watch pr0n.
"One GameCube, please."
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
They ARENT real, they [are] clearly as fake, they are more fun...
Are we still talking about Britney? If so, I agree, completely.
Can realism destroy the amount of "fun" in game?
That *completely* depends on the game!
If I want to play a simulation, I want as much realism as possible.
i.e.
Flight Sim, Driving Game, etc.
i.e
If I hit a stationary object at high speed, my car should roll, tumble, and be smashed to pieces.
For other games, I want as much "fun" as possible *at the expense* of realism.
i.e.
Diablo and Dungeon Siege don't have encumbrance. Why? Because it's tedious, and slows down the gameplay.
Fun and Realism are orthogonal concepts in games.
A game can be:
1) Fun and unrealistic,
2) Fun and realistic
3) Unfun and Realistic
4) Unfun and unrealistic.
Confusing the two, shows a lack of understanding game design.
The hard part is trying to nail down how much realism a game needs.
I have always been adamant that realism belongs in games so long as it does not interfere with the player's ability to enjoy the game.
For different people, this means different things. For some, having an impossible challenge is what it takes to enjoy the game, and in some cases, realism provides this, since in real life, some things are nearly impossible!
However, for some losers like myself, I don't want to feel like I'm in real life while playing a game. I don't have 20 hours a day 7 days a week to hone my skills for each and every game that comes along.
In fact, when a new game is released, I often will try it at a friend's house first.
As soon as it puts me up against a situation where I have to spend hours on one menial task (jumping across a bridge a certain way, or killing a "boss" that can and does kill you instantly while it takes you 40,000 hits to kill it, etc), I put the game down FOREVER.
My reason? Sure... coming up to that challenge might be rewarding for some... However, the challenge of real life is rewarding enough for me, and the games, well, they're an escape from real life. As soon as you make a game as challenging as real life, or moreso, I feel that at that point it is time for me to choose the challenge that gives me the most reward: Real Life.
So, keep realism for Real Life, and keep Games for play.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
Half-assed realism where a strong effort was made to achieve realism only to be dumbed-down for mass-appeal is extremly repugnant and annoys the hell out of me. When you have something that strives to be true to life, only to be peppered with a number of regulation "goofy" or cartoon-ish elements you destroy the value of even caring about realism and working to acheive it.
You end up with a game that is neither likely to please the realism freaks or those who are looking for a little lighthearted fun.
Sure, it might sell, and to many people that is all that matters, but to others, it is just a waste of time.
Furthermore, I don't see any problem with realism itself. People often tell me, if you want realism, go outside. But that completely defeats the purpose of fantasy. Which is not always to introduce radically new worlds and situations - in essence an entire universe's worth of new rules - but to offer the chance for the player to entertain some of their personal fantasies, whatever they might be. A lot of people I've talked to seem convinced that if you aren't offering a Dungeons and Dragons or Toliken-type world then you are just wasting your time.
I'm sorry, but most of my fantasies don't involve Orcs, Hobbits or Elves but being able to take a different path in life, one that I can see in front of me every day, but would never get to experience. That is my kind of fantasy. And it is not intended as a replacement for real life, but to offer a window on life that someone would not otherwise have.
And I would like those precious glimpses onto alternate paths to be true to life as possible. To give me a feeling of what it would be like to follow them without actually having to.
I don't consider it mindless escapism, though there is certainly a strong element of escapism in every game imaginable, but rather the ability to become more well-rounded as a person, to experience life in new, and different ways that are far different from what I ever could. And give me a perspective on the world I would not have otherwise had.
Realism gives us the chance to be anyone, to go anywhere and to step into anyone's shoes. It's not about replacing your day to day life, but about giving you the chance to see how someone else's is. Those who oppose it most likely don't understand this very important fact, or perhaps have different tastes or, perhaps are just unwilling to attempt to go to the trouble to implement it in their works, and perhaps fear the day where it would be expected of them.
For it is far easier to write your own rules, and to create your own bounderies than to take your concept, your dreams and to mold them into the realities of our world.
Just like the music and film industries, the game companies keep churning out the same thing:
80% puppet manipulation
10% vehicle manipulation
Then again, that's a lot like real life.
regardless, this is much like if I wrote an article commenting on 'is chocolate flavor destorying the ice cream industry'
depending on what the 'genre' is, that will be the deciding factor for how real something must be. Also, it is not a linear scale. In a true RPG, you would be able to have a lasting impact on the 'world', be able to fully customize your character and in the end be able to assume the character as if it is a shirt. However, most would agree that things like pooping, sleeping, etc have no place in a game, at least a real time game (persistent world). The SIMS on the other hand, are more about the little things and the eating, peeing, excercising and social time are factored in as part of the challenge (much like real life, how to correctly time manage all the activities you would 'like' to do)
As an example of how to NOT do it take this. Let us say you are playing an online RPG (massive, persistent, yadda yadda yadda) Now, if you are an RPG and not an action/adventure game, then you will not have levels, nor will you have the ability to ID people you never saw or met because of an odd etherial floaty name thing above their head. But most self labled RPG's are anything but. Rather they are fantasy action/adventure games. Not to say they are not fun, quite the contrary... but let us call them like it is in order to better focus on the elements we can add/augment without getting to much into that odd territory of marketing to the masses, where in the long run, the game pulls in less money because it has no special appeal to anyone. It is fun as a 'new thing' to all, but does not last because it has no niche.
Remember the context... in a FPS, it is all about the twitchy ability of the player. Most character advancements outside of stabalizing aim and such, will be useless. While NPC's can justify charismatic and linguistic 'upgrades', this is useless against people. The game is not about immersion, it is about stomping the life out of another person, who is very very unrealistically 'spawned' back into life later, so that you can hopefully stomp his guts out again before someone does it to you.
In an RPG however, it is not about twitching skills. Your character is what is the deciding factor. however this does not mean that (and should not, IMHO) tactical and even large scale strategic elements brought forth by the player(s) can not be used. The problem is when the game creates such an artificial (not to be confused with virtual) reality, that it limits your ability to choose and act. Many online RPG's suffer from this, through design they do not allow strategic thinking on any level. (choice of weapon is not strategy) The cookie cutter mentality is the worst way to do it. That basically takes the limitations of an FPS and places it in the RPG, but the RPG does not benefit from the openness of the FPS. So you have pretty graphics and sound, with NPC's of elves, dwarves and magic but no real content or actual rewarding gameplay experience.
oh well, just my thoughts and hopes for future games. I love many types of games, and often enjoy those that combine 'genre elements' however I believe in doing those parts well, not sacrificing quality for quantity of these elements. Then it sucks all around and appeals by no measure. that is something EA does not yet comprehend, Sierra didn't but may be figuring it out, and not Interplay is competing with EA for the 'shortsighted we let the marketers make business plan decision' award of stupidity. THAT is why I took my money out of them... when the boat goes down, I don't want to be trapped within.
"...the bloated Xbox controller has eight buttons, two triggers, three toggling switches and untapped possibilities." Wha?? No one has yet to untap the potential of the Xbox controller?!? Somebody get to work! Free those possibilities! Perhaps I can only dream...
To tell the truth, one of the things that I like about CS over DoD, is the waiting period for the round to end.
It's nice to have a break (although annoying that you got killed) that allows you to watch other players and pick up tips, or laugh at noobs. Also having the chance to chat with other players/friends is fun, and allows strategies to be set up.
If you are going to buy property, then I would look for "Location,Location,Location". If I'm buying a game, I'm looking for "Gameplay,Gameplay,Gameplay" (if I ever start a games company, I'm going to gall it G3 for that very reason).
Does realism destroy games? Yes and No. It can if you end up with software of the quality that early games on CD had (remember the Amiga CD32 anyone). But would I go back from the games we have today, and hark for the nostalgia of yester year - NO! (well, apart from Elite on the BBC B). What matters is the style of play. Pretty graphics go a long way to creating atmosphere (System Shock 2 scared my girlfriend sensless), but in the end it is the mechanics that drag you in. Doom had the predicable masses, with the satisfaction of gunning down 200 enemies before breakfast. Unreal had the challenge of a few nimble and 'intelligent' enemies. The satisfaction is not in the absolute reality, but in the difference between expectation and what we receive. But this is an exercise of comparing apples with oranges.
In the end, the OPTION of extra realism is a tool, and a welcome one. It can be used to create beatiful games on top of superb mechanics, or to create some brochure wear that will be rejected by all but the suckers who judge a game by the cover art.
(BTW, what was the turkey of a game released on the CD32 back in 91/92)
You obviously never tried it in multiplayer. One of the sort of good things with Diablo II is the central storing of characters, this is NOT done in Dungeon Siege, easily allowing outrageous cheating. Altho, I still find Dungeon Siege interesting, but with single-player cheats already out (and yes, you can "import" single player chars) it will be impossible to play online. I dont want to run into 100 chars with all stats at 150, with unlimited money, etc etc. Great idea with the game, but they have ruined the multiplayer part which could have been awsome.
English is not my first language, so cut me some slack -: Om du kan lasa det har sa kan du Svenska
Personally I like my games with less realism. I play them to avoid reality at times and let out pent up frustrations. I just think too much realism is wrong for games. There may come a time when certain people won't be able to tell VR from RL.
To clarify my references to realism it's not the phyiscs or fact that people have actual hair. My concerns would be simulating real life events in a game. If there are people like this in the world. Then there's definatly a need to take a step back and say are we doing too much to get realism if people act like this over fantasy games? Personally I'm a fan of games like Quake and Doom. Realism isn't what makes a game fun for me. It's the ability to make me come back to it again and again and not many game companies can do that like iD has.
Realism is good, but there may be some things that need looked out for in order to have it for games because of the less then stable members of society.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Yeah, seriously. I'm drifting offtopic here, but after RTCW and MOHAA, I decided to do a bit of reading up on Omaha beach. For every company that made it off the beach and captured Axis strongpoints, three were shattered and ineffective. There were entire landing sectors where the only survivors were those that walked along the bottom of the ocean, keeping their noses above the water, moving forward with the tide. Entire boatloads of men lost literally every single man aboard with to concentrated fire from two machine guns.
Part of the problem seems to have been that the planners didn't fully appreciate the difficulty of seizing the BEACH. They thought securing the initial position would be easy, but the hard part would be preventing the troops from being thrown back into the sea. Therefore, the focus of the initial landings was on clearing paths for tanks and landing boats, to enable swift troop buildup. Unfortunately, this was an impossible task with machine guns beating down on the engineers, and so only 4 paths were cleared through the obstacles, of which only one could be marked (making the rest useless).
The other big problem was weather. Simply put, Eisenhower didn't want to miss this landing window, so he gambled on the weather, and lost. As a result, the bombers were unable to bomb the beach for fear of hitting the landing boats. Instead, they bombed inland, depriving the infantry of the bomb craters they'd been expecting to use as cover. Also, the poor visibilty meant that many boats didn't know that they'd drifted off course until they were almost upon the beach, at which point they realized they had no idea where they were.
Again, sorry, totally off topic. I agree, any truly realistic simulation of D-Day would not be any fun to play.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Now, one might consider some Square games to be "interactive movies" (although generally the people who say this are the ones who play about 5 hours of FFX and never really get into the game) ... Finish the game, then we'll talk.
Finish the game? On a rental? One of the purposes of rental is to promote the game so that players will buy it. The "learning curve" theory of psychology shows that the first impression sticks strongly in the player's mind. In fact, Mr. Miyamoto (a prominent producer at Nintendo) helped re-design the first two levels of Star Fox 64 at the last minute to improve the critical first hour. If the first hour of a Square game isn't fun, it won't sell, and sucks to be Square.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I have no idea if Realism is destroying Video Games.
But I do know that ever since I bought Civilization III, Video Games have been destroying my Reality.
;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I believe you are missing the point.
but there's no linux port!
LOL, I feel the same way.
CS players... bah... They play CS because they can't handle a real shooter like the Quake series. After talking with many people who play CS I can honestly say that is the reason why 90% of people play CS. "It's slower, I can sneak around and shoot my rifle, etc." versus the high-speed (more fun) action of Quake. They just can't handle it.
I got modded troll because I like DC, you got modded funny lol they think DC games are a joke,
its a shame everyone is hating on DC
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I know it says the author is Edward Rothstein, but such hyperbole and implicit bias is unmistakeable. Must be a pen name.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
A host has to allow single-player importing. Here's an idea, Einstein, don't join hosts that allow it.
Thats why Sega failed, IF Sega were Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft or anyone else they would have dominated.
Every DC sold, Sega would lose $100. Tell me how you can be in debt, and be losing $100 on every system sold, to top that all off you have the most successful launch in history, and you sell 10 million systems in 2 years, also you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on games like shenmue;
It was Segas lack of a business plan, the same reason dot coms failed.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Anyway, since chars are stored locally, it's prone to cheating. 'nuff said Mr A Coward!
English is not my first language, so cut me some slack -: Om du kan lasa det har sa kan du Svenska
The WWII Online folks started out on the fanatical simulation side and still maintain, such that a tank round checks penetration due to range, speed, inertial power, armor, etc. and then bounces around inside differently with each shot. Unlike virtually every other game it is also going to go into logistical supply, so for instance cities will be targets much more for their railroads then anything else. Very very whack and important to us WWII freaks.
But it won't sell to the Quake crowd because war is realistically lots of boredom punctured by a few seconds or minutes of stark terror and probable death. So they are going to have to make concessions to the quakers and allow faster return into battle so everyone gets their jollies.
So for the sim freaks for online systems compromise will be the name of the game to keep the player numbers up.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
The author also seems to be misinformed about some things - he calls the setting of Dead or Alive 3 "premodern," as if it took place in medieval times or something, even though the storyline (such as it is) of the series is basically sci-fi, including genetic modification, cloning, etc.
His other examples don't hold water either, and his statement "the ante- and anti-technological content of these games provides a peculiar counterpoint to the boasts of technological advancement made by the game systems" makes no sense in light of the fact that plenty of earlier games had an anti-technological element to them as well (Sonic the Hedgehog, for one example). He also doesn't realize that Nintendo's "Super Smash Brothers Melee" isn't a new game, it's the sequel to the older N64 "Super Smash Brothers," and that the game isn't about nostalgia as much as it promotes Nintendo's other current games with those same characters.
He ends the article without having given the reader a single example of how improved graphical power has taken the "fun" out of games. The only thing he's right about is the Xbox controller being bloated.
Coulda fooled me.
As someone who works on making that happen, I can report that it's not necessarily what you want.
Driving games with good physics are commercially available. But the physics is often deliberately distorted for playability. It's common to put the simulated car's center of gravity well below the ground, making it impossibly stable. Otherwise, only people who can drive real cars at 200MPH would be able to drive game cars at 200MPH. Besides, driving a real car fast with a game pad does not work; the control isn't subtle enough.
It's also common to tweak the physics so that when a car rolls over, there's no damping while the car is upside down. This results in almost all rollovers ending up with the car upright, without it being too obvious that the simulator is cheating to help the player.
For cars, the user interface problem is understood. Controlling characters is much tougher. Trying to control a human body directly with a gamepad is hopeless; you have to operate at some higher level of abstraction. This tends to lead to a third-person type of game where the character has some modest level of intelligence built in. In Tomb Raider, for example, Lara won't walk off a cliff, but will run off one if commanded to do so. Players will need more low-level reflex help like that.
Progress is being made. We're seeing the end of those lame fighting games where a sword can go right through a character without being detected. That problem, at least, is well understood. But even there, players complain when some dangling object snags on a doorframe. Again, the player needs a little help from the game system.
Hell yes!
When Regis asks me if I want to go to $1,000,000 it's actually like I'm really there! I do the lifeline thing and do the other thing if I have it, but it is so cool. I always get it wrong but I could get there. If I could get past the third question! This game is a simulation! All for 10 bux!!111111111
I think they should put a HRM on the computer so you couldn't dis Regis and just guess! They should make the chamber for you home that you could answer how many states there are in 10 seconds or less wheil having your balls slowly cut off. That would be like the a complicated flight sim like WIN98 but much better!
The dreamcast has nice hardware. It's a shame that the BBA costs $100+. Uploading test programs at 3K/s is quite the exercise in patience.
realism? cmon you know those are fake, no one has breasts that big on that body size
the only fact is that everything is an opinion
That rendering of britney will not tip the scales for realism because she looks hideous.
But lets ponder another question, when technology finally allows us to render britney in her real life hotness (judging from the nytimes photo that tech is 50 years away at least) would there be video games where the player has sex with brittney?
Would she license it ?(well i know the answer to that - yes)
Would that ruin sex with normal people?
Dsicuss
Would that ruin sex with normal people?
Nah. It'd just remind us how much better sex with real people is - give me the flabby bodies, stretch marks, zits and bad morning hair of the real world over the bland, generic perfection of a digital Realdoll any day.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Looks great, but for what it's woth, it's just more money in Microsofts war chest.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I think they used more polygons to model her cleavage than they did for her face...
I'm a 2000 man.
There are 2 ways to approach video game development, in my 20-years-of-viedo-game-playing opinion... 1: Go for ultra-realism (Probably feasable now, but not cost-effective) 2: Go for entertainment value (Has been feasable for the entire length of video game history) One of the most realistic video game experiences I've encountered in my 30 year life is the Day of Defeat mod for Half-Life. It is a great, great game, but when I'm playing it I don't feel as if I *actually am* storming the fronts or defendning Deutchland's interests in WW2, but I do have to admit I feel the nostalgic "sense" of the time and battles. I believe from experience that as technology continues to follow Moore's Law that the arena of video games will continually offer more and more realistic experiences, but until I truly believe that I am actually driving a tank or shooting down Nazi swine or whatever, I would say that the best games will be because they are fun to play and not because they offer "ultra-realism".
My blog can kick your blog's ass
there is currently a trend in the computer game industry where graphical realism is considered a suitable substitute for creativity. Most people posting on this board seem to be too young to even be aware of what games actually used to be like, so they don't really understand it, but basically with the games of the 80's and early 90's the developers were essentially "forced" to be very creative in devising interesting, abstract gameplay strategies, simply because realism wasn't an option.
I think you underestimate the memories and/or age of most of the people here.
I further think that you're just *remembering* only the good games. Garbage games have been around for as long as there have been platforms to write them for. Read up on Seanbaby's "20 worst atari games" feature for an example.
Crap games certainly exist. See my original post. Before garbage could be marketed based on polycount, it was marketed based on which movie they'd bought the rights to. Programmers and (especially) gaming companies have never been "forced" to write good games, no matter how restrictive a platform they've been developing for.
In summary, I don't buy the "old games were better" argument.
...is to type in "slash2001" as both the username
and password.
"The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
I would beg to differ on all counts.
Innovation? Shenmue was incredibly innovative... I know that games like The Sims go very in-depth about what your "Sims" are doing, including eating and...uh...ablutions, but Shenmue has the perfect balance of basically becoming someone else (Ryo) without becoming a bore-fest.
20 minutes of exploring usually equals one day, which is about right. You have until April 15th 1987 in game time to complete the game, (The game starts in November, 1986...don't exactly know why Suzuki Yu chose that time, but that was his decision and his prerogative) so it is infinitely more satisfying to savor the game and play through it at a relaxed pace.
Time actually speeds up in a very harrowing way in the QTE fighting sequences, where you have to push the same button as the flashing icon on the screen as fast as you can. Luckily you can usually "do over" QTE sequences until you get them right. They are a real adrenaline pumper.
And of course...the fights. If you know Virtua Fighter you already know the interface, pretty much. Remember, Suzuki Yu designed that game too.
Also there are two "classic" video games in their entirety on the first Shenmue: Hang On and Space Harriers. Again, another two SEGA classics created by Suzuki-san.
Don't tell me the combination of the three isn't innovative! It is, big time. Also it pushes the Dreamcast to its limit as far as gorgeous eye-candy goes. The cutscenes are so impressive looking they were all edited together as the Japanese OAV "Shenmue: The Movie."
One thing the animation in Shenmue has over just about any CGI animation I have seen, including some theatrical stuff, is that characters all seem to be influenced realistically by gravity. In "Shrek", all the characters seemed to be moonwalking through the film. They walked unrealistically. Physics were funny. This was the behavior of helium-filled balloons, not creatures with weight. I understand they used a lot of motion capture with Shenmue, and in this case it really works.
Flaws: hands in Shenmue look strange. For all the discussion of using mo-cap for realistic hand motions and live studies for modeling, the hands still moved like doll hands. And the animals, including that damn kitten (those who have played the game know what I'm talking about) kind of look like stuffed animals. Fur is also wrong, but what do you expect from a system which only has 16MB of system RAM??? "Monsters Inc."? I don't think so.
Shenmue is amazing. I look forward to finally finishing it...I am halfway through and haven't had time to play it much. Shenmue II is way too expensive at this point...either you have to get it as an import and use a boot disk to kick it over on Dreamcast or wait until it comes out on XBox, pony up the money for the BillyBox and then the game.
There has been a Resident Evil movie and a Final Fantasy movie. State of Emergency and Grand Theft Auto have both been optioned for movies. However, Shenmue, with its cinematic scope and rich story, should be made into a real movie. Give Suzuki Yu a translator and a really good screenwriter and a Pixar or Blue Sky-level CGI animation studio and you'd have something amazing.
Or just do it live-action and film in the actual places that inspired the games...little Japanese harbor towns (do towns like that still exist? Sugoi!) and Hong Kong. Maybe even get John Woo or the guy who did "Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon" to direct. It would rule.
I doubt anything great will come of a State of Emergency movie. But this could be amazing. Shenmue is way more than the sum of its graphics.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
ANY POST FOLLOWING THIS TEMPLATE SHOULD BE MODDED +5 INSIGHTFUL
Unfortunately the DC had a lot of strikes against it, and SEGA had a lot of downright BAD LUCK during the period when they were trying to sell it.
However, there is one bright spot...the DC seems to be the most developer-friendly console ever made, and there are scores of people looking to make sure that there are new games...Open Source games using Kallisti!OS and Linux.
The platform is self limiting, alas...the console has been out of production since early 2001 and when a DC dies, in all practicality IT'S DEAD. Repairing it is going to be an exercise in futility a few years down the road.
My heart wants to cheer on the grassroots DC developers. But my mind says that maybe that energy should be better spent making Linux games better. In all likelihood the x86 architecture or something better but backwardly compatible will be with us for a long, long time.
The Nvidia Nforce chipset is the first totally-integrated mobo that is usable right out of the box, and could be the key to an Indrema-like Linux-based console game/convergence box that would beat the XBox at its own game. Heh, rumor has it MS is looking to use it for the next gen XBox.
Poor Dreamcast. Too fast to live, too young to die.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Yes, I'll take the karma hit for a post that is off-topic from the original subject; I think there is a valid point to be made about where dark humor may not be completely appropriate, and I believe it strongly enough to not post as an AC as I first intended.
The majority of international opinion asserts that Israel's current actions seem to be reaching across the line from defense into some degree of unjust persecution, and without saying that the following comparison itself is accurate, a significant and growing minority of observers have compared the most recent Israeli actions to Nazi treatment of German Jews in the immediate pre-war period, with organized military killing of civilians in their homes (other than the organizations specifically responsible for the the suicide bombings, ie. who provide the explosives). A joke based on the bodies shown massacred in early WW2, 60 years ago, made while the events were taking place, would be considered today to have been in very bad taste -- and, more to the point of this discussion, decidely unfunny -- by anyone who has the advantage of knowing that it was, in fact, as bad as the worst rumors suggested. I do appreciate dark humor in many situations, but this is not one in which I believe the attempted joke helps anyone to cope, except for people who do have enough doubt about the justice here to be bothered by their conscience, and would prefer to laugh it off. US citizens support Israel's military through massive aid derived from their income tax; it's appropriate to have real concern when you're partially responsible for something as open to doubt as the actions going on now.
Compared to most people I know, I don't "pretend" to know which versions of events being reported are accurate--I certainly think there is potentially as much reason supporting Israel's actions as condemning them--but I do care enough to not make jokes like this at the expense of people being killed in what may turn out to be war crimes, as some have alleged, or about any terrorism (I haven't heard a single WTC joke yet). I would certainly not feel comfortable joking about the technically superb carnage in a scene of the hotel suicide bombing from late last month.
I think the joke was simply rash, not intentionally offensive (although I felt extremely uncomfortable about the 'joke' after reading the photo's caption--in fact it's the first time I've felt actually sickened by anything to do with the events going on in the mideast); I was satisfied with the "-1 Decidedly Unfunny" pseudo-mod someone left, but as long as others are going to post that such humor is always appropriate and can't be criticized, I must explain why I disagree. I understand some people honestly don't care; I respect their right to speech, but hope that some consideration is given to using that right thoughtfully. When I was younger, I had a friend who would have fun re-enacting the misfiring pistol execution scene from Schindler's List; I thought he was funny as hell and didn't understand why other people, who didn't have any personal involvement with those events, could be so upset by his joking. I do now; it's part of growing up to realize that your tacit acceptance of situations like this can often play a huge role in their perpetuation.
Now, they only have to inclued the so called "facial damage engine" and I will buy the game
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Sega does not make MONEY for selling the DC, so Sega saying poor DC sales is their cause for failure sounds better to stockholders than Sega saying lack of a business plan is their cause for failure.
10 million DCs in 2 years? Come on, thats better than N64, better than PSX, better than Saturn, better than Genesis, better than SNES and better than NES sales, basically no system ever sold faster than DC at that point in time
The poor sales would have HELPED keep Sega alive due to Sega not losing so much money on system sales.
Tell me how Sega could lose more money by selling LESS than they would be selling more,
Its their lack of game sales which caused them to lose money. Their DCs sold great the first year, and good the second, they had around 8-9 million systems, more than all 4 years of saturn sales, more than 3 years of PSX sales and more than 3 years of N64 sales, Sega did this in 2 years.
This is good, at this rate they would have sold 20 million systems by now. Sega however couldnt afford to make 20 million systems.
Money is the key issue,
\\Mostly it is an unstructured series of vague or untrue claims ("When Sega launched DC they DIDNT have a business plan"). But there is a shadow of an argument in it. First you claim its failure was all Sony's fault. Then you point out that Sega has poor business sense. But then you blame its demise on the loss of Okawa, even though all he was doing was throwing good money after bad by largely continuing the pattern of mistakes, i.e., showing poor busienss sense. These three reasons can't all be true at the same time. Also, it doesn't help your arguments any that you can't seem to find the period key.//
Okawa was head of CSK, Okawa was dying of cancer, you cant blame him for poor business plan, he didnt even launch the DC. Okawa took over after he saw how much money Sega was losing, Okawa was also head of CSK Segas parent company and main shareholder.
Lack of business sense, Sony Monopoly and Hype, Lack of money after Okawa died.
Yes all 3 reasons, the DC shouldnt have even been launched, Sega was in debt when they launched it and had no way of even paying for the launch, Okawa stepped in because Sega was in debt and because of his pride, he saved Sega from going out of business when the DC first launched.
//Yes, much (most) of the PS2's early hype was terribly unjustified, and this had some role in hurting Dreamcast sales - but most of the blame rests squarely on Sega's shoulders. Their marketing was poor and they spent massive - even unprecedented - amounts of money on games that didn't sell very well. And they did exactly what so many gamers were betting they'd do: they abandoned their loyal customers yet again, just like they did with the 32X and the Saturn.\\
Exactly, Lack of business sense on Segas part, you dont make new innovative expensive games when you want massive sales, you do this after you are out of debt. Sega made games which didnt have proven track records, great games but unproven games.
Their marketing was great, they sold 10 million systems in 2 years, thats better than any system before it, and you claim DC had bad marketing?
Sega abandoning their customers is due to Segas lack of business sense.
You do not launch a product without a plan on how to make money on it.
Imagine Apple launching the imac series and then spending 2 billion dollars on OSX and selling OSX seperately.
Imagine Microsoft selling Windows in a store instead of packing it in.
Sega screwed up because Sega didnt know how to run a console business, I dont know who they fired after the success of the genesis, or perhaps that success was a complete fluke, but Sega was a very STUPID company in terms of business
You dont spend billions of dollars when you are in debt launching a system, Sega shouldnt have launched DC at all, they should have gotten themselves out of debt first. Imagine if you were chairman of Sega, you just stepped down after the success of the Genesis, and you allow a new guy to run the company, he launches 32x and Saturn and your company loses a billion dollars and your company goes into debt,
Now imagine this same guy decides to launch the DC while your company is STILL in debt and loses a billion more dollars. You are a billionare and you bail your company out, you fire the guy, but what can you do to save the company now? You can keep paying from out of your pocket until the company is making a profit as option number 1, option number 2, accept another half billion dollar loss and pull out entirely.
Oh and dont forget you need to launch Seganet.
Face it, Sega was fucked from before they launched DC, launching DC was Sega goingg out of business, but Sega was bailed out more than once by Okawa, Okawa eventually became too sick and died, the guy who destroyed Sega with the Saturn, 32x, and poor business practices took control again.
Why do i think Sega will go out of business now? not because their games suck, or even because their games are bad, but because the guys running Sega now that okawa is gone, have no business sense at all.
Okawa brought business sense back to Sega before he died, he broke up the third parties and made them all seperate companies so Sega itself couldnt go down because AM2 spent a billion dollars on Shenmue 3 which wont sell.
And Okawa had the idea to make a Sega PC graphics card, a PDA chip, and games for cellphones,
When Okawa died, all of Segas hardware plans died with him because it was HIS money that kept Sega alive on the hardware side of things.
Its really simple, businesses which dont make money fail no matter how good the product is, or how well it sells, Apple could sell a billion imacs, if they sell it at a loss, they lose money, its that simple.
Also lack of third party royalties kept Sega from making money on third party game sales, dont forget about that
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
...is when the USA TV reporters got Arafat on the phone, as he was pinned in his building by Israeli tanks, soldiers, etc... Israelis were killing Pals left and right... and the USA TV reporter asked him why he won't stop the violence. ... ... Uhhh, if that alone doesn't show you the USA media bias against Arafat and the Palestinians, then I don't know what will.
Also, since when was killing police officers NOT considered terrorism? Oh, the second Israelis did it? Is that it?
When Israel does it, its a military acting in self defense, but when Palestinians do it, its terrorism. Duhhhh, I thunk I saw a putty tat.
Tit for tat makes about as much sense as "war for peace". Also, you know that Nazis would use similar excuses for the execution of Jews? "Big deal, for all you know those Jews are responsible for the murder of dozens of Aryan children.
Israel is the modern day Nazi Germany. Go read a good book called "The Scarlet Letter", to see an example of how this kind of thing happens.
Over 5 billion dollars a year is given to Israel from the USA. This doesn't take into consideration the millions of dollars donated by tax deductable charities in the USA.
Anyway, next time we (the USA) are attacked, and our leaders say "its nothing to do with our foreign policy"... think for a moment. You might just be getting lied to, and yes history tells us that our government lies to us... I am not trying to evoke some conspiracy theories or anything. Sometimes the lies are lies by ommission, commission, white lies, small lies, biases... anyway, its all to socially condition us to buy into what the professional politicians want us to think.
Take Iraq for example... we are and have been under a light subtle conditioning for the past few months. We are being conditioned to think that another war is justified. Innocent people will be killed, and our government wants us to know that we aren't terrorists... we just kill allot of people for peace's sake. For those who don't know:
"killing people" is not equal to "peace"
or in C:
killing != peace
...it's Arafats fault. Why won't he stop the violence? They are all terrorists. What? No weapons? Don't worry about that, uhhh, we, uhhh yeah, they were throwing rocks at us. Anyway, nothing to see here, don't look, don't listen, don't think, just accept what you have been told.
If you want fast, high-intensity deathmatch, then Quakeworld (Quake1 Internet Client) is your best bet. It's open source, and even after being released way back in 1996, it is still actively played today (updates, mods, levels, and skins are still being made for it too). Team Fortress made its debute with Quakeworld, as did CTF, Rocket Arena, and many other great mods.
Typically, on free for all servers, the frag limit is set at 50, and the matches last for 2 minutes because the top player ends up getting 50 frags within that 2 minutes. That works out to a constant sustained frag rate of about 1 frag every 2 seconds for the top player. I know that in other deathmatch games, there are small bursts of high-intensity fighting, but only in Quakeworld does the fighting stay at that fast pace for the entire match!
Half-Life, Quake2, and Quake3 are a day in the park compared to QuakeWorld deathmatch. You really have to get in a zone to come out on top of free for alls like that. I totally agree with you that realism is of no concern. Give us fun play. Stories, realism, graphics, etc... those are all second place to fun fast play.
Of course, when I want something slow, I play Starcraft or something like that.
"Elite 2".
'nuff said?
agreed ... the bottom line is that this ends up becoming a another "vs" argument, instead that this time instead of graphics vs playability its realism vs playability, and as before, playability comes out on top.
... screw up the driving) is always gonna be required, but if it becomes too much real life, its just gonna plain suck.
it can look as good as you like, and it can simulate the precision driving of a car or the passage of a bullet thru the human body down to the last millimetre, but if its not fun to play, it will maybe have a small following in the simulation fans, and the rest of us that wanna play games cause they are "unreal", and fun, are gonna ignore it.
a bit of basic realism (ie, things fall in an arc when thrown, cars roll when you
does this mean that now instead of just clicking on her picture really fast to get her going, im gonna have to stick my willy in the disk drive???
man, if its gonna get that realistic, thats not gonna be any fun, and if its not gonna be any fun anymore, i might as well just get a real girlfriend!!!
I played Adventure, Hack and Zork (et al) fanatically.
Those just seemed to be better games.
in my 20s Pirates! ruined my 4.0 GPA
Nothing has really held my interest since.
Nascar Racing online has been fun and Warcraft to some extent but the reality I created in Zork, & to a lesser extent Pirates! was far better than the blood splats of Quake & the like.
So I vote Yes
This
that people who are abused as children tend to abuse their children later on. (Not guaranteed, but it increases the chances). They think that's how life is and that's how you should behave.
in the palistian military is a terrorist (they've already arrested 1200, which they think of as just a start). By that logic, since every israeli is in the military (apart from a few conscientious objectors), every israeli is a terrorist. I don't agree with that logic.
because they think stealing other people's land and then killing them is the way you form a country - it's what the USA was based on after all! Afterwards you can create lots of propaganda movies (Westerns) to show yourself in a better light.
Of course, I am on shaky ground here myself since the Taranaki land confiscation was a blatent breach of the treaty of Waitangi (and dumb to boot, treating rebel tribes and loyalists alike) but at least the govt. is trying to sort that out...
Ico is a platform puzzle game. A platform game with a slightly different style than most games. To call it an 'interactive movie' is insulting.
Moreover, FFX *is* an interactive movie, as you say. And yes, it takes a lot to finish. But if you don't want to buy a game with 60+ hours of gameplay in it (120+ h to solve) then *don't*. I love that game, it took me *weeks* to beat. Do you know how long its been since I got that much value out of a game? Since Baldurs Gate II.
Hooray for Square!
It's Moon Buggy ^-^
--00-- ---000---
----------------
^-^
It's a classic ^-^
Have you thought about what you're looking at today?
I find various new games fun and many old games fun, but there is something different about the new games .. theres just a vague feeling that something is "missing", or rather, that the old games just had something that the new games don't. Its subtle and I can't quite put my finger on what it is that the old games had
:).
This sounds like nostalgia to me
I felt this way once, and dusted off my old copy of Populous. And was appalled at how horrid and difficult to use the interface was, among other things. The game was still ok, but hardly the playground of infinite fun that I'd remembered.
Ditto when I dusted off the TRS-80 I programmed on as a kid.
Ditto when I tried playing Warcraft I again.
I don't believe that new games are fundamentally worse than old games. I get that "spark of wonder" feeling thinking about some of my older game escapades... but then I think back a year later and get the same feeling about the games that I was considering mundane when I was first waxing nostalgic. This "good old days" feeling seems to be something that my mind adds after the fact.
Thus, I am doubly doubtful of the "old games just *felt* better" argument, as I've been seduced by it myself.
This doesn't mean old games aren't fun; I still play Civ. It just means they weren't any more magical than current games.
<sarcasm>uh huh. thats right. square games don't sell.</sarcasm>
How many of those 4 million FF8 discs were sold to people who had already played FF7 (and possibly 6, and 4, and 1)? Franchise titles such as sequels and movie licenses have different laws of economics than original titles; some players will buy just on the brand name, no matter how sh*tty the game play is. (Not that I'm saying FF is sh*tty or anything; I'm specifically referring to sickeningly linear Di$ney-themed games such as Capcom's Aladdin and Virgin's Pinocchio.) Sales != fun.
For somebody new to the FF series and not used to its conventions, or for a reviewer who has only one day to spend playing a game, ten hours of interactive movie plus 70 hours of game does not equal fun. Heck, most feature films are under 2.5 hours.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Nah, I won't tell you that you're a n00d. I'll tell you that you've got your games backwards. CS was good but take a look at what DoD has to offer. No bunny hopping, no insta-kills from sniper shots zooming in, no run-by accurate shots from hell. The new shot system is awesome, it rewards those who plan and work as a team over those who can twitch. There is a lot of balance in the game as well. Sure an MGer can hold a lot of territory but all it takes is one grenade to ruin his day. Why? Grenade goes off in 3-5 seconds, MGer takes that long to pull up his bipod and stand.
Ohama is not the best map to start off on. If you have a sucky allied team you'll get hosed. A decent team can at least keep the beach clear. Try Caen2 which is the classic map from DoD 1.x redone for 2.x.
Finally let me point out that your description of DoD maps perfectly with my first experience with CS back in the Beta 4 days. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk, wait for end of turn. Run forward, sniper hits me, plunk. wait for end of turn. Guess what happened? I learned the game, learned the maps and ended up having a blast from B4 all the way up to the 1.x series before decided to go to DoD. If you're getting nailed by something repeatedly check your assuptions and alter them.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
IMO, MUDs such as Dragonrealms can be just as realistic as any other excellently graphical games, it's all about imagination.