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."
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Britney Pic [nytimes.com]
Because I know it's the only part of the article most people will care about...
Sure looks like Britney to me. Fake tits and a constructed image, yep they got it just right.
.haeger
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
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