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.
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
vs.
Real Life
(links from NTK )
Because I know it's the only part of the article most people will care about...
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
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.
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.
Come on... be honest!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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.
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.
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
Just saw this story on CNN that talks about the program...
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.
While a highly realistic game is certainly great to look at, sometimes a company will concentrate so much on the appearance that gameplay will be sacraficed.
Or gameplay will be ignored in favor of a graphics engine. Take a look at EQ, arguably one of the biggest MMORPG's. Very popular, but now Verant is having problems because they had three features planned to 'update' the game. The first was a redesigned auction system. The second was a new, XML-based user interface. The third was an updated graphics engine.
The game was perfectly playable with the old graphics engine, but Verant decided to spend their time on that rather than the two in-game features that would make play more to users liking. Play sacrificed for eye-candy... *sigh*
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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
> I've yet to see an RPG in which characters need
... uh ... still working on the bowel module
> to, er, use the facilities, which would be even
> worse ('tho realistic!).
Well, while not an RPG, in Black & White, my ape has been crapping all over Eden.
There was some real bathroom fetishist working on that game. I can imagine:
Programmer #1: Okay, we need to finish the AI routine for the opposing deity
Programmer #2: Hang on-- I'm
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. Sometimes this:can be just as terrifying as seeing a picture of a beautifully-rendered 3d monster.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I think they used more polygons to model her cleavage than they did for her face...
I'm a 2000 man.
He is (and I am also) looking forward to the modernist awakening in videogame aesthetics, the breakthrough that occurs when pure realism becomes dull. This is all from the view of *visual aesthetics* - other issues like gameplay, the inclusion or exclusion of narratological elements, thematics and the like are separate questions (although narrative structure also has its own history - and videogame narrative is also in earlier stages of development than other arts are).
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.
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