I''ve got to agree. Sure it isn''t realistic to jump of a 50-ft cliff, take 20 bullets in my face, land, then shoot the ground with my rockets to go up 2 stories then change direction in midair and grab one of my 20 100 pound weapons to blow of my opponents head.

But it is still fun.

Not that I''m saying realism is bad, but I also like to become superman once in a while and forget the fact that rocket launchers can''t hold that many rockets, or that I can''t actually sprint from 0 to 60 in 1 second, or that I shouldn''t have the stamina to run constantly for hours. Or even that I''m constantly comming back to life over and over.

And I''m certianly not a low-brow neanderthal either, as he seemed to imply. A lot of people (I think) play unrealistic games as a sorta of temporarily escape from reality.

My two cents.

-Blackstream

Will you, won''t you, will you, won''t you, won''t you take my virus?

-The Mad Hacker

Blackstream''s Webpage

I say a game doesn''t have to be all that realistic at all. It''s a game like Monopoly or Chess. Many people forget that and have it in their heads that a video game is a simulation of the real world with rules to follow, but where the player can really do whatever he wants without really hurting anyone (albeit, it can have powerful affects on his mental state, but many people forget that too).


((><))

Who is this?

(hint: he''s on an adult cartoon show; he''s really poor; and Cartman hates him.)

Hey, remember that time he died?

quote: Original post by Some Guy
Many people forget that and have it in their heads that a video game is a simulation of the real world with rules to follow, but where the player can really do whatever he wants without really hurting anyone.

A game CAN be realistic, just as it can be totally fabricated, and fun-filled. There is no be-all, and end-all, both are games, and both have their pros and cons.

Some of us make a bee-line for the "simulation" idea (albeit stearing as wide as possible of the "real world"), other people opt for the simple fun approach.

quote: Original post by Some Guy
a game doesn''t have to be all that realistic at all. It''s a game like Monopoly or Chess.

Personally, I wouldn''t put the two games in the same catagory. Chess is, after all, a battlefield simulation. In its day, it was as much a "real world simulation" as today''s realism-orientated games are. It requires careful thought and concentration, much like today''s simulations.

Monopoly is more light-hearted, less intense game. Its simple, clean, family fun. You don''t have to be a genius to play it.

That aside, your point, I think, is that video games don''t need to concentrate on realism, they should follow the board-game approach. Am I right?

If this is what you meant, then sortof I agree. They SHOULD follow the board-game approach (counters, symbols, tokens, abstract concepts) if they wish to appeal to those out seeking some simple fun and relaxation.

Those who want something more in-depth, challenging, stimulating, social (A board game can never be more social than a chat-room), then the other side of the game coin awaits them. Simulated real worlds, populated with believable characters, and realistic settings. Something to slip into, and forget all the stresses and problems of the outside world.

Both game types have their place, and neither should be discarded over the other.

Realism comes from AI anyhow imo not graphics or physics etc. The most realist game i''ve played would be games where you play against other people. Simple as that.

If everythings possible then it becomes impossible to have the impossible so not everything can be possible right? Or if everythings possible then the impossible no longer exists. Is that possible?

Ive played 100s of games and it took me a day to beat the new games on hard, back in the day it took a month or more on the good ones like metroid or megaman what companies should do is make the games harder so it takes a while to beat them.

Hehee... I´m glad I dug out that article...
"..corrupt the unstable and susceptible minds of the consumers..." hehee, as if we were all lobotomized cabbage...

Realism can be fun sometime. It´s just that his examples suck. Elite Frontier was a horrible game from the viewpoint of how much fun it is (and I´m not talking about the bugs). The only way to make money was trading, and that was infernally repetetive. And the hard-ass space action? Well, close in on your target (autopilot adjusting speed and heading)... flight vectors matched *very* precisely... and then the moment of truth: 0.45 seconds in weapons range.. and then the flyby is complete, the next run will commence in 68.4 hours.... thank you for flying elite.

Is he even clear on his point? He loves Qake, but hates antimatter rifles? Make fun games that are scientifically correct?

I personally like a good dash of realism in a game. But not by far as much as in a film. I consider myself to be pretty critical in matters of "realism", but I guess the point that really counts is wether a game claims realism or not.
If I buy some MSflightsim i want realism and get it, if I buy a "realistic space exploration simulation" and find out that my starships are made of wrought iron i will probably be a bit annoyed. But if it´s fun, I´ll still play it. And I´ve never really worried about the odd antimatter rifle or the slow-flying laser blast. Why? Cause they´re fun. Realism - Good, just as long as it doesn´t have a negative effect on fun. Unrealistic stuff - ok, as long as it´s fun.

He´s right about one thing: there should be more realistic and fun games, but to achieve that by making realistic games playable is not quite the road to go. I think the trick is rather to infuse a fun game with a dash of realism, to make the whole thing a bit more "credible" (willing suspension of disbelief, right?), to help construct an internally consistent set of rules...

But, all in all, who needs realistic games anyway? If I want 100% realism I can always open the door of my apartment, step out on the pavement and walk into the next tree at my leisure. GO CHECK OUT THOSE PHYSICS! Those excellent bump-maps on the tree, the texture of the bark, the beautifully crafted skybox... the ultrarealistic flow-control algorithms of the blood that´s dripping from my nose...

enough of that... you really should let this guy write more stuff for you... it´s fun and it gets you thinking....

Realisim in games is important, depending on the type of game. If CStrike was more unrealistic few people would play. If, on the other hand, it was so realistic that you could spend 3 hours dieing from a stomache wound, lieing in the gutter... I don''t know that I''d ever bother playing. Or for that matter if someone with a cheap pistol could kill you in one shot, from 50 paces, because they got lucky and hit you in the heart or brain. If real gun fights were fun, we''d have more wars.

Even "real" games like CStrike aside, it is good to have a few completely unrealistic games. I want to be able to rocket jump off from my friends heads. I want to fall 20 stories with barely a grunt. I want to fall in the lava, but be basically OK because I got out a second later. I want to ge able to use grenades as a legitimate form of transport.

Stupidly inane games have thier place right along side the realistic versions. You can''t take either too far, but both are fun in thier place.

Goran Lalic seems to have a problem that afflicts far too many people these days. Qualitative judgements, based on personal preference. I don''t like racing games unless you get guns and/or power-ups, but you''ll not hear (or read) me saying that racing games suck. Not my cup of tea, but I''m sure someone must like them. Mr Lalic needs to step out of his head occasionally and realise that he is not the world.

--------------------------------------
Why run? You''''ll only die tired.
--------------------------------------

Would one of you guys kindly point me to this article of which you speak so commendably? I haven''t had the pleasure of reading it, and I couldn''t find it in the archives. (Maybe Rhino got rid of it? Surely somebody has a copy, it sounds like a keeper to me.)

Whoops, forgot to add my BEGIN_CYNICISM tag up there. Sorry.