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
l/p: nologin/nologin
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.
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
vs.
Real Life
(links from NTK )
Because I know it's the only part of the article most people will care about...
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.
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.
...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.
I find it funny that a registered slashdot reader would say that.
(yes I realize the difference between required, and optional, it's just funny OK?)
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Come on... be honest!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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.
oh please.. when I posted it there were numerous "someone please post the text" topics and no one had done it yet.
Anyone who gives a damn about Karma is a fuckwit, I was trying to save people some aggravation.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I'm wondering how much of this is due to nostalgia, and how much is due to reality. I have a feeling that 3D games are just now coming into their own. They involve a whole different type of game play and they are starting to be more cinematic in scope. As developers get more experience with the limitations and possibilities of 3D the gameplay gets better, and as graphic power increases, the cinematic and design aspects of the game become more important.
air and light and time and space
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
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/
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
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.
That option is turned off by default in FS2002, but you can easily turn it back on.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
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 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!
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.
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.
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 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?
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
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.
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!"
I think they used more polygons to model her cleavage than they did for her face...
I'm a 2000 man.
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.
By the way, by reading this comment you agree to give me your first child.
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.
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.
But the FS2002 crashes don't look realistic anyway. It just freezes, with "BUILDING CRASH" in a message bar at the top of the screen.
Now if you had the damage engine of IL2 Sturmovik, that would be far more realistic.
"Information wants to be paid"
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
Well, you would hope that even though sins have been committed in the past, that we could try to compensate for these sins through humanitarian based charities AND by trying our best to not allow these sins to be committed again.
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.