That was a MUCH better post than most AP''s, at least he contributed and didn''t go on an off-topic rant, I actually found his post on par with everyone elses so far, so please don''t mock an AP that actually gives as good input as anyone else has.
And uh, what makes you think I am mocking him? It is also equally possible I was rendering praise and you *chose* to interpret it as mocking. Indeed and in fact, I was in support of his opinion. It is true what he said about better immersion is better gameplay. I agree with what he said also about some kinds of gameplay can be improved by realism.
Sheesh, check you cynicism at the door next time.
Always without desire we must be found, If its deep mystery we would sound; But if desire always within us be, Its outer fringe is all that we shall see. - The Tao
face it fools, this is where the industry is heading. i''ve seen enough science fiction movies with reality simulators to realize that there is an incredible market waiting to be exploited. ever seen minority report, where the guy wants to get in the booth and simulate killing his boss? eventually the technology will get to the point where that becomes possible. and when that happens you can be sure that everything else truly will be a "game", with all of the negative connotations that the word carries.
quote:Original post by hplus0603 "Games" is one form of "Entertainment." Just because some more life-like-looking pumped-up combat simulators are on the "games" shelf at Target doesn''t mean they necessarily have more to do with "Checkers" than with, say, "Saving Private Ryan."
Huh? Theres a huge difference between computer games and movies. A movie is static, it''s the same every time you watch it, you don''t influence. A game is something you play, you compete in it, you change things. "Call of Duty" and "checkers" has vastly more in common with each other then "Call of Duty" and "Saving Private Ryan". In cod and checkers you are both playing against something, competing and interacting. Saving Private Ryan you just watch.
Anyways, my original point was more that people play games by assuming their ruleset and then playing with in it, it''s not neccessary to adjust the ruleset to some abstract notion of reality.
quote:Original post by liquiddark The ratio of people saying "OMG I want to play chess" these days is very small, if you haven''t noticed already.
ld
Really. I''d seriously bet that theres more people playing chess then playing counterstrike. Maybe not all at one instant, but that depends on a number of factors.
Okay, we''re making games, not reality simulators. Games are supposed to be amusing, challenging, and/or thought-provoking, as can be demonstrated with Lemmings, Chess, Majong, MGS2, Deus Ex (both), and Quake. You can have something comedic on par with your sitcoms, or you can construct a twisting story that people discuss for hours on end and come to new conclusions on how society works.
So how much reality is needed? If you take Chess, as above, the polish on the graphics is an aspect of reality, seeing as how we have real chess sets of varying craft and quality, from the plastic to the ornate glass. Try Lemmings, where we see a humorous take on a rodent (that''s real) as they brave heights & gravity (physics), lava (real), spining choppers (blenders), and diabolical explosive clicks from the player (not so real, but fun). Deus Ex 2 has realtime shadows (real enough), gravity, collisons, bullets, bouncing objects, a ragdoll system (which acts funny sometimes), sound propagation, etc. A great deal of reality is simulated in this, but we don''t deny its status as a game. There are arguements throughout on liberty, freedom, and morality in context of what the player does and in society. Does this make it less of a game, or a different kind of game? "Immersion" is another point that we like. An immersive game generally requires enough of the game world and its behavior to be believable enough to drag the players in and keep them there -- which is part reality sim & part polish.
Reality simulation is encouraged, to a point - we want the players to be able to relate to the world being constructed. If we''re building another FPS out of Blade Runner, we''re going to want good lighting, physics, agent occlusion checks, and all sorts of complicated stuff. If we''re making checkers, we want the players to immediately identify it as checkers. It depends on the kind of game being made, or the polish applied to it -- so don''t rail on it without coherant reasons.
quote:Original post by adventuredesign And uh, what makes you think I am mocking him?
I also thought, without hesitation, that it was mocking. It's rare to see such blatant sarcasm that isn't (?) sarcasm.. Heck, I can't read it as non-mockery even now that you claimed it wasn't!
[edited by - civguy on December 29, 2003 4:10:51 AM]
quote:Original post by Ready4Dis ...there was a fun chess game I used to play that had the chess pieces actually kill each other (animated), was pretty cool to watch, even though it wasn''t realistic.
Ahhh... Good old Battle Chess, what a times
"The Gods Made Heavy Metal And They Saw That It Was Good They Said To Play It Louder Than Hell We Promised That We Would When Losers Say Its Over With You Know That It’s A Lie The Gods Made Heavy Metal And It’s Never Gonna Die"
THE GODS MADE HEAVY METAL/by ManOwaR
"The Gods Made Heavy Metal And They Saw That It Was Good They Said To Play It Louder Than Hell We Promised That We WouldWhen Losers Say Its Over With You Know That It's A Lie The Gods Made Heavy Metal And It's Never Gonna Die"THE GODS MADE HEAVY METAL/by ManOwaR
quote:Original post by syn_apse looks like someone is living in the past...
face it fools, this is where the industry is heading. i've seen enough science fiction movies with reality simulators to realize that there is an incredible market waiting to be exploited. ever seen minority report, where the guy wants to get in the booth and simulate killing his boss? eventually the technology will get to the point where that becomes possible. and when that happens you can be sure that everything else truly will be a "game", with all of the negative connotations that the word carries.
You're talking about a different industry than the one I want to be a part of. We're talking about games, not reality simulators. The point of a game is to provide entertainment. The point of a reality simulator is to simulate reality. Whether or not you enjoy that simulation is beside the point.
That said, I agree that some games do benefit from realism, but that depends on the type of game.
EDIT: Oh, and I really don't care about exploiting any markets. I want to make fun games.
[edited by - Naaga on December 29, 2003 10:22:57 AM]
__________________________________________________________America seems to like crap because its what we make popular. - Goober King
quote: No one ever says "OMG i wont play chess the knight doesn''t look realistic at all!".
People would say "OMG I won''t play chess, the knight moves like a king."
So you would be simulating the chess world. It just so happens that the "graphics" only need to be cutting edge enough to represent the pieces. That said, if all else was equal (AI, interface, etc), I would choose the chess game with the pretty 3d graphics over a crappy crayon like 2d graphics.
I must say that I am not hard-core chess player but, I did try a chess game quite a few years ago where the graphics sucked. While the processing time for the computer to make a move was the real reason I stopped playing the game, I would have been more willing to over look this if the graphics has been better or (dare I say it) more like Battle Chess.
KarsQ: What do you get if you cross a tsetse fly with a mountain climber?A: Nothing. You can't cross a vector with a scalar.
