For the next-generation of games... I say screw graphics... there are more important aspects. One thing I never thought of before was how realistic a game can be. That makes it pretty enjoyable. For instance...
I was playing Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader (I got it the day it came out with my Gamecube and I've been playing it on and off since (2 and 1/2 years), replay value is high)... and I noticed things I haven't noticed before. In the Razor Rendezvous mission (where you take down a Star Destroyer), I gunned down three cannons on one side of the ship... After you destroy it, it crashes and the next mission deals with the crashed ship. So as I am playing I was thinking of how those destroyed cannons will be back again (because it's a seperate mission, even though it's the same ship), but to my surprise those three cannons where still destroyed!
That was amazing to me, because it added some realism to it. And it made the game that much more fun.
If more games carried over past events to play a part in future points in the game we would have impressive games. This is a point to look at for game developers.
That Razor Randesvous mission is so fun!
I agree though...graphics are as good as they need to be nowadays. Just make awesome games that are long.
Continuity (I think that this is the aspect of realism that you appreciated) certainly does go a long way into making a game more realistic.
It's funny that such little things can impress us and make a difference to how much we enjoy a game. It's perhaps one of the fews aspects of realism that I truly appreciate and want to see more of in games.
Quote:Originally posted by Prophet Hero
It's funny that such little things can impress us and make a difference to how much we enjoy a game. It's perhaps one of the fews aspects of realism that I truly appreciate and want to see more of in games.
Exactly. It would defiently be awesome to see that more and more.. Nintendo's tried it. Zelda: Wind Waker was supposed to rely on realistic aspects (even though graphics were not), but nothing really stuck out in my mind that was (say) more realistic than other Zelda's.
Hopefully, that's what we'll see (realism), that will seperate clones/re-hashes/sequels for better more enjoyable games. It's the little things though that should have a say too... in gaming.
I think realism, in MANY cases, can destroy a game. For instance, Rallisport Challenge is hella-Fun, but not really realistic at all, however, when it comes to Gran Turismo, they try so hard to make the game as realistic as possible, that it just doesn't play at all well, ESPECIALLY with a controller. If I wanted a realistic drive, I'd hop into my car and drive for a half hour or something. When it comes to a video game, I'd rather something that is fake enough to work well with the controls at hand, considering a steering wheel and a D Pad are both VERY different, especially when it comes to the velocity at which you turn (really sharp compared to moving the wheel slightly).
Realism can be fun, but then again, semi-realism is that much more entertaining. In splinter Cell, imagine if the bad guys were decently smart and would actualy hunt you out if they heard or saw you. If they heard a gun shot, do you think they would just give up after 30 or 40 seconds of searching? On top of that, do you think their sight is so poor that they can't see you 3 or 4 feet away in low light? I know I could.
As for star wars, I think we all know just about how fake any space sequence in that game is.
But to put it bluntly, I think all games should be unrealistic to a degree in order to make them fun. When you have games like Counter-Strike trying to be realistic in how guns fire to such a degree that you can't fire straight, even with super discilined soldiers of the highest-caliber with an M4, and so much so that the game isn't fun anymore, then there has to be something to say for realism.
I think realism plus the amount of buttons to use in a game are both detriments to how a game plays in many respects. Fun factor should be first and foremost. That, and I want to see more 2D sprite games. I'm tired of polygons.
Fun Factor = Arcade Thrills and spills!
too bad they are dying out, but their expense does blow!
I wouldn't want to imagine games as being really realistic, because well first of all I normally play games that include magic & swordplay, of which isn't all to real, & jumpping out in a game like Devil May Cry would just suck if you were killed in one hit.
I know yall are talking about different games than those that I play, but I'm more or less saying if they were to make the ones I play realistic they would probably suck.
as long as the games like DDR and time crisis still come out for the systems bringing the arcade experince home i will be happy.
i got bored of my gamecube since there werent many RPG's coming out for so i had to sell it to get me a PS2 again..
i am glad i did that...
How about GT3..... the realism of getting licenses then getting paid beans for winning a race that took 15 mins to complete.
Or how about Manhunt? The realism of having to try your hardest to stay alive and the fact that people could hear you from a distance.
This is what I define as reality being good or bad. To me if realism can help then put it in else keep it out.
Quote:Originally posted by kakomu
I think realism, in MANY cases, can destroy a game. For instance, Rallisport Challenge is hella-Fun, but not really realistic at all, however, when it comes to Gran Turismo, they try so hard to make the game as realistic as possible, that it just doesn't play at all well, ESPECIALLY with a controller. If I wanted a realistic drive, I'd hop into my car and drive for a half hour or something. When it comes to a video game, I'd rather something that is fake enough to work well with the controls at hand, considering a steering wheel and a D Pad are both VERY different, especially when it comes to the velocity at which you turn (really sharp compared to moving the wheel slightly).
Realism can be fun, but then again, semi-realism is that much more entertaining. In splinter Cell, imagine if the bad guys were decently smart and would actualy hunt you out if they heard or saw you. If they heard a gun shot, do you think they would just give up after 30 or 40 seconds of searching? On top of that, do you think their sight is so poor that they can't see you 3 or 4 feet away in low light? I know I could.
As for star wars, I think we all know just about how fake any space sequence in that game is.
But to put it bluntly, I think all games should be unrealistic to a degree in order to make them fun. When you have games like Counter-Strike trying to be realistic in how guns fire to such a degree that you can't fire straight, even with super discilined soldiers of the highest-caliber with an M4, and so much so that the game isn't fun anymore, then there has to be something to say for realism.
I think realism plus the amount of buttons to use in a game are both detriments to how a game plays in many respects. Fun factor should be first and foremost. That, and I want to see more 2D sprite games. I'm tired of polygons.
Sorry, that's not what I meant by realism...
I aggree, I wouldn't want to play something that's so real it's boring. Rather, elements. That's all I was saying, for instance past influencing future and other stuff like advanced desicion making...