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."

4 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. The perfect game is a mix of both by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)
  2. Double Take by caliban · · Score: 5, Interesting
  3. Re:why sonic and mario were/are so fun by nullard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. I want non-realistic games damnit! by Com2Kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.