I think the move to 3d somehow triggered everyone to try and be more realistic with their design; cause hey, if it LOOKS like the real world, it gotta FEEL like the real world, right? Wrong!
There is nothing even vaguely realistic at all about Super Metroid, Zelda III, FFIII, Chrono Trigger, Contra III, Do Don Pachi, any of the Mega man or Castlevania games or ANY succesful 16-bit game for that matter. Games are about:
1) Gameplay
2) Atmosphere
3) Storyline (if applicable)
Realism and historical correctness is only a requirement for SIMULATORS like WWII and Flight SImulators, SIMULATOR being the key word.
Peace
Madvillainy
Making Sense or Making Fun?
Quote:Original post by c-Row
Oh, those good old times... lost hours and hours of precious life span to Uprising, but every second was worth it.
Wicked game
Quote:Realism and historical correctness is only a requirement for SIMULATORS like WWII and Flight SImulators, SIMULATOR being the key word.
I couldnt agree more! I know so many people who say "Oh your learning to make games! I have an awesome game idea. How 'bout a game that when you play it you can do everything you can in real life! Like drive a car, and play every game from every system etc (you see where this is going.)
I then have to explain that besides being impossible people play games for FUN and to escape the monotony of everyday life.
Quote:Original post by Madvillainy
Games are about:
1) Gameplay
2) Atmosphere
3) Storyline (if applicable)
Realism and historical correctness is only a requirement for SIMULATORS like WWII and Flight SImulators, SIMULATOR being the key word.
If #2 is dark and grim, realism becomes extremely important for enhancing it. What happens to a frightening game when you put floating powerup icons into the scene, spinning and glowing, bleeping when they are touched? Deviation from realism in a realistic setting will jerk gamers out of their character's head and back into their gaming chair.
Quote:Original post by Madvillainy
There is nothing even vaguely realistic at all about Super Metroid, Zelda III, FFIII, Chrono Trigger, Contra III, Do Don Pachi, any of the Mega man or Castlevania games or ANY succesful 16-bit game for that matter.
So what?
There is plenty of realism about Crysis and every other popular FPS since Quake 3, Elder Scrolls series, Total War series, Football Manager series, Assassin's Creed, Sims, Eve Online and most successful modern-day games that I can't be bothered to count.
Contrary to the popular belief, gameplay is not opposed to "realism" (or consistency, as a better term that someone mentioned). Good gameplay in a realistic/consistent environment will always beat good gameplay in an abstract environment.
Fact of life is that people like immersion. They don't want to jump on bouncing balls or eat dots anymore.
Quote:Original post by Talin
Good gameplay in a realistic/consistent environment will always beat good gameplay in an abstract environment.
Fact of life is that people like immersion. They don't want to jump on bouncing balls or eat dots anymore.
I think this is purely subjective. Look at the popularity of the Wii, Xbox Live Arcade, the god game genre (Civilization), and the whole casual gamer market if you want an example of abstract games which have very strong demand.
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
Would you throw away a great game idea if you couldn't make parts or all of it make sense?
In so many of the games we play there are glaring incongruities between what's fun to do and the logic behind doing it. In RPGs, we fetch and carry and scrape to buy a single sword even though we're the chosen one; in RTS games, we research from scratch tech we just used to kick the aliens' butts on the last level-- never mind that we're playing a campaign. In empire games, we're immortal lord of all but have to handhold our units, play accountant, scientist and diplomat as the same person over hundreds of years.
With such a huge emphasis these days (especially with aspiring designers) on realism and actualizing everything, what would you vote for? If there are parts of a game that are fun, but don't make logical sense, would you toss them or keep them for the sake of audience expectations? Personal standards?
How important is it to you that the final product be unified and coherent in terms of both the world fiction you present and the game mechanics that allow the player into your world?
I would just like to remind people that this was not a question about realism but rather a question about how self consistent and coherent the world is. These are not the same at all.
Quote:Original post by JasRonq
I would just like to remind people that this was not a question about realism but rather a question about how self consistent and coherent the world is. These are not the same at all.
It was about the game events making sense. That is the type of realism that we apply to most games. It doesn't mean like-real-life. It means it fits within the borders of the game's reality. It's believable inside of the game's world. Of course, the game's world needs to seem reasonable beforehand for that to actually matter. No one cares about unbelievable events in Mario games, because the world wasn't grounded that well to begin with.
Lord of the Rings was highly realistic in this sense. An example of how it would have failed this would be if a hobbit started flying. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't realistically fit in that world, even though casting lightning bolts from a stick does. You could make it fit, though, by trying to come up with a reason for the hobbit gaining the ability to fly.
Losing all of your tech at the end of an RTS campaign mission is an example of something not making realistic sense in the confines of the RTS game world. This is one of the more common occurances of it, though, and I think most players look past it.
Quote:Original post by TalinAgreed, a game need not be abstract to have good gameplay, nor does it need to be realistic, either can work just fine depending on the game in question. I would say in response to your aside however that consistency is not the same thing as realism.
Contrary to the popular belief, gameplay is not opposed to "realism" (or consistency, as a better term that someone mentioned).
Quote:Good gameplay in a realistic/consistent environment will always beat good gameplay in an abstract environment.Strongly disagree - some excellent gameplay doesn't even have a realistic environment to take place in. I completely agree that in almost all cases a consistent environment is a good thing, but not that it need be realistic; can you think of a "realistic environment" for the gameplay of the extremely popular games Zuma or Bejewelled?
Quote:Fact of life is that people like immersion.Immersion does not neccesarily imply realism, it's entirely possible to be immersed in a consistent but abstract setting or game. Realism is simply one way to achieve immersion.
I think, firstly, that the main emphasis should, most certainly, be placed on making the game mechanics engaging and entertaining. This may come at the expense of small inconsistencies. If the inconsistencies are not central to the game I think people will tend to over-look it.
For example, ruling an empire for much longer than the average life-span is something people will accept simply because it is more fun that way. Glaring inconsistencies in a story-line, however, tend to draw attention. If characters, for example, pull off amazing moves of instantaneous death in a cut-scene but are unable to do so in-game, then people will often get a little irked.
It also depends on the mood/style of the game in question. If a game is intending to be a serious narrative-focused game or a realistic simulation or strategy then inconsistencies will be frowned upon greatly. If the game is light-hearted and humorous or 'arcadey', then glitches will generally be ignored with focus entirely on the novel gameplay.
For example, ruling an empire for much longer than the average life-span is something people will accept simply because it is more fun that way. Glaring inconsistencies in a story-line, however, tend to draw attention. If characters, for example, pull off amazing moves of instantaneous death in a cut-scene but are unable to do so in-game, then people will often get a little irked.
It also depends on the mood/style of the game in question. If a game is intending to be a serious narrative-focused game or a realistic simulation or strategy then inconsistencies will be frowned upon greatly. If the game is light-hearted and humorous or 'arcadey', then glitches will generally be ignored with focus entirely on the novel gameplay.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
