Is Realism Destroying Video Games? 401
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."
Could we apply the facial damage engine ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could we apply the facial damage engine ... (Score:4, Funny)
Realism. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Realism. (Score:2)
For another example, needing food in otherwise heroic "high fantasy" swords-and-sorcery games come to mind. It doesn't add that much to gameplay to need to explicitly demand that characters eat every several hours or whatever, unless starvation is MEANT to be a real challenge (e.g. in crossing a long, barren wasteland)
Re:Realism. (Score:4, Funny)
> 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
Re:Realism. (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Realism. (Score:3, Insightful)
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*
Re:Realism. (Score:2)
Oh, my freakin' ghod - did I just remember the keypress with no hesitation to use on a game I haven't even seen in 17 years? And all this week I've been trying to remember the phone number a woman gave me. GAH!!!! Damn retrieval system!
--
Evan
Re:Realism. (Score:2)
Oh, and thanks for the link - I have never seen the game in color - I always used an Amdek amber montor, or a green and black monitor.
--
Evan
ya never know, video games turn to video porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ya never know, video games turn to video porn? (Score:2, Offtopic)
The perfect game is a mix of both (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
why sonic and mario were/are so fun (Score:2)
Thats more important than graphics.
Re:why sonic and mario were/are so fun (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:why sonic and mario were/are so fun (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Sometimes this:can be just as terrifying as seeing a picture of a beautifully-rendered 3d monster.
Wait. What are we talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Are we still talking about Britney? If so, I agree, completely.
Re:Realism? (Score:2, Informative)
That option is turned off by default in FS2002, but you can easily turn it back on.
Technology helps creates more convincing worlds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Technology helps creates more convincing worlds (Score:2)
"Fallout 2", however, weakened consistency by having many more pop-culture jokes, and also characters that are "aware" that they're merely characters in a computer game... in addition, one of the end "puzzles" (one based upon one in _Wasteland_, methinks) is blatantly absurd -- as not even a sadistic enemy warlord is likely to have a fortress where his own troops are forced to run around on an electrified floor, taking large amounts of damage, while following a completely arbitrary pattern of computer-controlled doors just to go from one level to another. It's another misfeature which screams "This is a game, not a logical world!".
So, for that matter, are "set-piece" battles in which enemies are on alert and in precisely chosen ambush positions 24/7... unless they're robots, of course.
Re:Technology helps creates more convincing worlds (Score:3, Insightful)
Good gameplay CREATES the immersive experience. "Immersion" does NOT create good gameplay.
My personal rant on the subject: http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/asylum/zdoomr.h
Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:2)
Killing the Dreamcast early might have been the smartest thing Sega ever did. Now they win no matter which platform succeeds.
Re:Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:2)
And it's a great game, to boot.
Re:Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:2)
Because its Virtua Fighter.
Sonic Sold well on Gamecube because its sonic.
All of Segas other games havent sold at all. Its easy to believe VF4 will sell a million copies in Japan, VF2 sold over a million copies in japan.
In the USA its a diffrent story, no one who owns PS2 likes or wants VF, they like tekken.
Its like trying to sell mortal kombat in japan, it wont work, its not the same market. On the Dreamcast, all the viruta fighter fans in the US purchased VF3, all 500,000 of them,
Lets assume 50 percent of DC owners now own a PS2, this means 250,000 copies of VF4 will sell in the USA.
Tne only other thing to assume, is that PS2 fans will somehow be overnight Sega fans, these same people who hated VF and refused to buy Saturn, and Dreamcast now rushing to the stores to buy VF4
I dont think so.
Fanboyism (Score:3, Troll)
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. ;-)
Not Quite (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re:Not Quite (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not Quite (Score:2)
Wrong.
Sony produces fairly high quality units, with a great array of games and a strategic and well targeted marketing campaign. Sega never did that. Ever. Sega is out of the market because Sega sucked as a marketing company, end of story. The dream cast was dead before the PS2 came out. I got my DC (before the PS2) and 4 games for $150 on clearance -- that is a dead console.
PS2 does have some great games to it, if you are just plain ass too stubborn to admit that it's your own loss. Sony won the market by making great consoles that had great games on it.
You are just a troll.
Re:Not Quite (Score:2)
Oh and some people believe Microsoft makes high quality software.
Thats not the point, the point is, they "Microsoft" and "Sony" dont make the BEST software.
Their software is never innovative, its never ground breaking, its always "me too" or "after you" software
Basically they wait until Sega makes something like Daytona, or Virtua Racing, then Sony comes along and makes their own racing game, Sonic clone, Mario Clone, Sony has never made an original game with exception of parapa the rappa.
As far as making hardware, Sonys hardware is ok, its never the best, and its always the most hyped.
The Saturn was more powerful than the PSX overall, PSX was easier to program for, so while PSX never had anything to compare to virtua fighter 2, dead or alive, or nights in the graphics catagory, PSX was easier, this was the excuse for it getting more support.
Lets not forget N64 was more powerful than PSX as well, PSX did have one ability above these 2 systems, it could render more flat shaded polygons on screen than both of these systems, but in terms of textured polygons on screen, PSX rendered the same amount of textured polygons as saturn, and SATURN had specialized CPUS allowing 2d/3d mixing along with Saturn having more ram and thus better textures.
N64 had more special effects, Sony told third parties that N64 was flawed because it was cart based, Nintendos own ego killed N64 while Saturn died due to Sega making it too complicated.
PS2 currently is the Saturn of the game industry right now, its powerful, but thats not what matters, no one can make use of this power but Sony, why is PS2 hard to use yet successful?
Because Sony has more money.
Dreamcast was dead before PS2 came out correct, DC died because the president of Sega died, the president of Sega was using his money to fund DC, Sega was in debt and didnt even have the money to launch DC, so even if DC was a success Sega could not afford to keep making them and selling them at a loss. 10 million sales in 2 years in my opinion is a success.
I'm a troll because I dont like PS2? I dont like Sonys games, Sony is not a game company, I dont lilke Microsofts games either. I dont have a right to like what I like and dislike what i dislike? Look if i want a PS2 i'd go buy one, i have the money, i dont WANT one.
Sony won the market by making great games and consoles? What games did "SONY" make?
Parapa the Rappa?
Gameday?
Please!
Re:Not Quite (Score:2)
Re:Not Quite (Score:2, Funny)
Mods here are sony fanboys lol (Score:2)
its a shame everyone is hating on DC
Re:Fanboyism (Score:2)
Now, the magical thing about third party games is that they don't 'belong' to one console, but may be ported to the competiton as well (besides software that is signed as exclusive).
Many of the games you've listed as "PS2 games" will appear on the GameCube, the Xbox, and the PC.
Yes, Sony have a lot of nice second parties, as you've shown rather well. But Nintendo and Microsoft have the same third parties as well. The special thing about Nintendo is that they make their own high-quality software too.
That is one of the things that the GameCube has going for it; a company that is all about making games supporting it, not a company that makes consumer electronics or operating systems.
Re:Fanboyism (Score:2)
This and the rest of your post is pretty much my point; it wasn't meant to be a pro-Sony or anti-Nintendo (or even anti-XBOX) post. The original poster asserted that "Nintendo and Sega are the only true game companies left," and I wished to demonstrate that, no, Nintendo and Sega were not the only "true game companies" left.
I think it's great we see cross-platform games; it means I have more of a chance of seeing a game on my platform of choice (whether that choice is because I like the manufacturer or just because I can only afford one platform is irrelevant). I don't have any great love for Sony. I like the PS2, but only because it has some great games. (Many of which are exclusive; in that list there are actually a decent number of first-party titles, like GT3, Ico, Frequency, and some others, plus Square is there, which is the reason I bought Sony.)
Anyway, this is just another "XYZ is dead!" proclamation, of which we've heard many and seen little actual change. That was my point.
Like I said, I want a GCN. Zelda looks cool, Metroid will hopefully be cool, it has great graphics, it looks cool, I've already got a GBA, and I'm hoping for a nice robust list of RPGs. When they start releasing a steady stream of good stuff (and my pocketbook can handle it), I'm there. :-)
Re:Fanboyism (Score:2)
Hmmmm, Sega seemed to have a lot of marketing at the launch of the Dreamcast, and for a while after. Mine never had hardware failures (still play Soul Caliber on it, I love that game). The Saturn seemed to have decent ads too, just no games that caught my eye.
I thought Sega lost out because they mis-timed it and brought out the Dreamcast on a half generation step. It was better then the existing machines (the newest game console normally is), but didn't have the money to design a new one in the same time frame the other three players would bring out their boxes, leaving Sega with a box with a bunch of OK games, but a half generation behind everyone.
Still, I haven't bought a new game console because I haven't seen a new kick-fu game I like. I hope there is a sequel to Soul Caliber (which I think is a sequel to Soul Edge on the PlayStation).
Lack of money (Score:2)
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.
Rental: the first hour of play is critical. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:2)
I don't know. I thought that Super Mario 64 was one of the best video games ever made. I played it endlessly on my Nintendo 64. A couple of months ago, full of high hopes, I tried the latest incarnation of Mario on a demo system at K-mart. For 5 or 10 minutes all I saw was boring speeches about a pointless plot. There was no action and I couldn't find anything interesting to do. Needless to say, I didn't plop down $hundreds to buy that machine.
Most of my "complex problem" brain cells are occupied learning things like new computer languages. I prefer video games to be a little more mindless and easy to get into.
Re:Thats why i dont play console games anymore (Score:2)
Diablo is dead. All hail Dungeon Siege (Score:3, Informative)
Dude... run out and get a copy of Dungeon Siege [dungeonsiege.com]. (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 [microsoft.com], 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...
Re:Diablo is dead. All hail Dungeon Siege (Score:2)
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.
Two kinds of escape (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Who would want to work at a desk job in a game? (Score:2)
Re:Who would want to work at a desk job in a game? (Score:2)
Now, I realize I don't have a clue what motivates people to play games anymore.
Waste of resources? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waste of resources? (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally agree. This is why I still like having a Nintendo system around. I keep my Playstation 2 for racing sims, which I want to be as realistic as possible, but in general, Nintendo tends to focus on making their games fun first, realistic second (if at all).
Most people tend to dismiss Nintendo's stuff as more kid-oriented (and thus not worth looking at) because of this, but I disagree. Just because kids like to watch cartoons doesn't mean all cartoony games are just for kids. I still have fun playing them.
Double Take (Score:5, Interesting)
vs.
Real Life [yahoo.com]
(links from NTK [ntk.net])
Re:Double Take (Score:4, Funny)
I'm in a misanthropic mood today, so....
Close, but no cigar. The Yahoo screenshot beats Rainbow Six hands-down.
- Better stun grenade damage rendering on the Yahoo screenshot. Observe area where smoke damage didn't adhere to wall.
- Way better gibs on Yahoo - dig the way the gibs follow the bullet traces and get embedded in the wall. Rainbow Six has bullet holes in the wall, but they're all identical, and contain no trace of gibs.
- Dig the floor texture on Yahoo. (Though that's probably the result of better hardware, not better software... The Yahoo player must have assloads of texture RAM on their video card. Check out the lighting effects from the flashbulb and all that floor debris! Wow!)
- Long as we're talking textures - love the way they rendered the metal at the back of the room in Yahoo. Very nicely-done. Makes me want to jump up and down just to watch the reflections render in real time, as well as the transparent chunk of gibs on the left-hand metal texture.
- Gravity, folks! What's up with that weapon sticking up in mid-air in Rainbow Six? (Rigor mortis doesn't set in that quickly!) C'mon, we know you can do better than that!
- More gravity - look at the way the pools of blood on the Yahoo screenshot follow the joints between the tiles on the floor texture. So it's not all from better hardware for the floor textures - the floor is actually a 3-D object, and the Yahoo software accurately models liquid flow, which has gotta be a first for an FPS.
- Facial/body textures - the dead guys in the Yahoo screenshot are really nicely rendered. Their uniforms look like they're made of cloth, not polygon/textures, and even things like their headgear and sunglasses are rendered separately - dig the way the foreground guy's k00l shadez have fallen off.
- Better armor modelling. Look around sunglass-guy's head. "Kevlar helmet good, turban bad."
Yeah, I had to do a double-take, too. The Yahoo engine's pretty good, but I think it's still gonna be a few years before we have enough CPU power (and hardware) to get it on the desktop.But there's the most important difference: According to rumors, unlike Rainbow Six, when you frag a terrorist in the Yahoo game, he stays fragged. We're not just talking about no-respawn, we're talking "Once fragged, he stays the fuck out of your LAN party!"
Now That, kids, is realism! *evil grin*
Re:Double Take (Score:2)
When dark humor may be a mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
How much USA citizens pay to Israel... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Britney pic (Score:5, Funny)
Because I know it's the only part of the article most people will care about...
Polygon Count (Score:3, Funny)
I think they used more polygons to model her cleavage than they did for her face...
Can Someone Copy The Article's Text? (Score:2)
Re:Can Someone Copy The Article's Text? (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Praseodymn
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
I was quite impressed with the gameplay of the game, thinking it to be quite a bit tighter, and more challenging, than many of the PlayStation games I'd experienced. Of course there isn't much room for realism. Especially considering that in space, you wouldn't be able to hear Sinistar talk!
In those days, it really WAS different: having challenging, engaging mechanics of gameplay was paramount, as that's what kept people feeding quarters into the machine. Those days are lost, as game publishers gained the ability to add checklist features like "smooth skin Lara Croft model with inverse nippomatics".
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
Nostalgia also tends to focus on the better video games, not the 300 Space Invaders clones, but Space Invaders and the best few clones. Not every black & white movie, but a handful of the best (or the best few 100 or so).
There were lots of great old games, but there were a lot of pretty lame ones too.
Line from the article... (Score:5, Funny)
That should have been the caption for the Britney Spears screencap.
Lars von Trier presents "Blade 3" (Score:2)
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?
Consider the Future (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Black and White. (Score:2, Funny)
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
Gamist, Simulationist, Narrative (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Er, surely it depends... (Score:2)
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...
Show of hands... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on... be honest!
Link to RIT (Score:2)
Re:Link to RIT (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Link to RIT (Score:2, Informative)
Thats our colleges little introduction to the program. It's part of the IT department currently (www.it.rit.edu) and they dont' have all that much explanation currently. Basically one or our professor's was big into game development and after starting it as a concentration in the IT program has branched it off into it's own degree
RIT (Score:2, Informative)
RIT degree (Score:4, Informative)
He's also very into creating virtual terrains and raytraced scenes using Macromedia Director - talented fellow, both artistically and in the programming sense.
Cast my vote for fantasy? (Score:4, Funny)
Why? Is her severed head on a stick?
we need to stop linking to nytimes directly (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the link with no registration required [yahoo.com] a la Yahoo!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ny
Graphics.. Realism.. Surrealism. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Black & White (Score:2)
Realism (Score:2)
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.
Realism should only go so far. (Score:2)
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.
To answer the title question. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Fantasy? (Score:2)
Wrong kind of fantasy there...
that's realistic, not magical.
Playthings (Score:4, Funny)
"video games are incredibly stupid!" (Score:2)
GT3 (Score:2)
Gameplay Realism (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently, the latest Day of Defeat [dayofdefeatmod.com] 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.
Re:Gameplay Realism (Score:2)
Messing with success (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
We like exaggerations (Score:2)
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.
I must admit I skipped the article (Score:2)
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.
NO (Score:2)
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
Realism == Good (Score:2, Interesting)
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 [il2sturmovik.com]), 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.
I want non-realistic games damnit! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You know what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Realism may already have killed gaming. (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Not the old "Realism" vs "Fun" argument again! (Score:2)
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.
Realism isn't destroying games, however........ (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I Don't Know (Score:2)
But I do know that ever since I bought Civilization III [civiii.com], Video Games have been destroying my Reality.
;-P
Who knew JonKatz wrote for the NYT? (Score:2)
Re:Oh how I hate NY Times (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh how I hate NY Times (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey, I got a good one (Score:2)
(yes I realize the difference between required, and optional, it's just funny OK?)
Re:So you don't have to register (Score:2)
Anyone who gives a damn about Karma is a fuckwit, I was trying to save people some aggravation.
Re:there might be something to this... (Score:2)