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."
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)
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.
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
They ARENT real, they clearly as fake, they are more fun ... because they are innovative and imaginative, with very good play mechanics.
Exactly! Video games are don't have to be realistic to be fun. How realistic is Tetris?
Normal games aren't realistic either. Would a complicated set of zoning rules and a system for tracking changing property values make Monopoly more fun? I don't think so.
Realism is fine for simulations and can make games more immersive, but gameplay is what counts. If realism gets in the way of gameplay, drop it.
t'nera semordnilap
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.
I find the realism of Castle Wolfenstein far surpasses, surplants and outstrips the cheezy 3d rendered polygons of 'Wolfenstein 3d', 'Doom' and even 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein'.
How so?
First, nothing begins if not opening
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
"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."
Exactly.
Nintendo have shown with the N64 that they are quite happy to be number two while raking in the money.
And quite honestly, I'm quite happy with that. I keep buying their consoles, they keep putting out great first party games, I keep buying their great first party games. I'm happy. Nintendo's happy.
You don't need a stranglehold to profit. Just ask Apple.
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!
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?