There are many differing reasons that people play games. I will be generic here – as the reasons why women play games and the reasons men play games differ in many ways. There are on going studies and research being conducted to determine these reasons and differences but I think it boils down to escapism. The type of game, that a person chooses to play in their effort to escape their daily life, is probably a reflection of their personality but it is escapism just the same.

Many games that are simulations, The Sims for example, still allow the player enough of a change or departure from their day to day life that it is an escape. Chess for many people, is a chance to focus their mind on a single problem for a given period of time.

I grew up in the 8-bit days. In fact, my Pop brought home an Atari 2600 with Pong when I was about 12. Looking at that game these days it’s very difficult to get my kids interested in it – even though the game is fun and they will admit that it is – the graphics do not say, "This is fun!" Which is sad really. I’m playing games that are over 10 years old and having fun; Frontier Elite II, Empire and Transportation Tycoon, why? Well, because they allow me to escape.

So, I do agree that games do not have to be realistic, nor do they need to be exact simulations, to be fun. They just need to be enough of a change from the day to day grind that we are compelled to set aside large or small chunks of our day to indulge – or escape.


Dave Dak Lozar Loeser
The WM_NULL message performs no operation. An application sends the WM_NULL message if it wants to post a message that the recipient window will ignore. - MSDN

Although a game doesn''t have to be completely realistic, making it completely abstract would make it harder to follow.

Standard chess pieces might not look exactly like their real life counterparts, but their shape does give a good enough representation for most people to make the connection. The pieces also differ from each other to aid recognition.

When creating a computer version of chess, you could use almost any symbols to represent the pieces, but most people would prefer that they at least slightly resemble the conventional representations.

The same applies to the board.

One aspect where realism is of major importance is when the computer acts as an opponent, and personally, I''d prefer that more effort was put into this side of modern games than in the graphical finery.

quote:

---

Original post by Naaga
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.

---

this is all semantics. most of these reality simulations, as i see them, simulate a reality that is somehow different than the one in which we exist. i highly doubt that anyone is going to want to simulate their daily lives. they are going to want to simulate situations that they cannot experience in real life. certainly some of these simulations would be regarded as "games", and some will not.

for instance, what if i wanted to simulate a prison break? in such a situation there would be clearly defined goals, and obstacles to overcome in order to achieve them. could this not be considered a game?

quote:

---

Oh, and I really don''t care about exploiting any markets. I want to make fun games.

---

i''m not interested in exploiting the market either. i just said that because it''s true, and regardless of my intentions, someone will try to exploit it. and those in the best position to do so will be people who have worked in computer gaming. i don''t think that these two industries are as mutally exclusive as you make them out to be.

It''s very simple. What I want in games is not reality, but immersion . There''s a fine line between the two, but there is a definite separation. Immersing a player in a game may be facilitated by making certain elements feel more realistic, but that doesn''t mean we''re trying to simulate reality. For instance, in designing a First Person Shooter, I might choose to incorporate one-hit kills and location-based injuries. But in such a case, the decision would be made on an educated assumption that the player''s emotional experience would be intensified. On the other hand, I would not incorporate, say, one-hit fatal injuries -- meaning a player who is critically wounded lies helpless on the ground waiting indefinitely for medical aid. That would be realistic, but would not very fun for a player who''s character has been heavily wounded.

I say, by all means, endeavor to immerse the player in your game, and heighten the emotional experience in any way you can. But DON''T put your focus on realism unless you''re specifically building a simulator.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

How about a reality simulation that has a simulated computer game or board game inside it? Games within games within games

quote:

---

Original post by irbrian
I would not incorporate, say, one-hit fatal injuries -- meaning a player who is critically wounded lies helpless on the ground waiting indefinitely for medical aid. That would be realistic, but would not very fun for a player who''s character has been heavily wounded.

---

well the format should always be taken into account. there is only so much realism that can be infused into certain games. in a first-person shooter, no, this situation would not be fun. but in an rpg or an rts it could add both to the reality and the immersion of the game. in my own ideal game design, for these genres, critical injuries would become just another risk factor, and one that could be overcome with the proper preparation and use of strategy.

i do not agree that there is necessarily a separation between immersion and reality. a change in the level of one would almost certainly affect the level of the other.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
How about a reality simulation that has a simulated computer game or board game inside it? Games within games within games

---

i had an idea like this, for another idealized game that will probably never come to pass. it was for a Sims-like game that allowed players to participate in activities and competitions that normally would be contained within their own game; sports, racing, shooting, etc. the player-controlled character could, for instance, join a basketball team (or hockey, football, soccer, etc.), and compete against other players (in an mmo setting), or against the ai, as in any existing sports title.

In Day of the Tentacle, you can play Maniac Mansion on a computer within the game. In Final Fantasy 8, you have an addictive card game. And there are numerous console RPGs with racing minigames, though I''ve yet to see a realistically simulated sports game within a game.

Want reality? Open your front door and go outside, there''s a whole world out there .

Graphics matter whether people want to believe it or not. Sure they don''t make the game more fun, but bad graphics can ruin any game. You don''t want to stare at a model of a human made of 50 triangles and textures with a resolution of one texel per meter for 10-20 hours a week, do you?

regarding the anonymous poster''s post and the replies by ready4dis and adventuredesign:

I think it was the best post by an AP I have ever seen.
Grammitacally correct, very good and valid points, and no arguing.
Just facts straight out, simple and polite.

Probably the first time I have ever read an AP post and not sworn back at them.


Anyway, regarding the reality thing, there are many types of games. some are realistic (hence why they are called simulators) and others arent (hence the name arcade). Lots in between.