|
|
Realism In Video Games | ||
Discussion by Goofy with 15 Replies.
Last Update: June 6, 2010, 5:00 am | |||
![]() |
|
|
This brings me to the graphics. Why do so many people want their games to look "realistic"? What does that offer us? If we ever do reach a point where our games become photorealistic, won't it just look boring? Where's the artistry in simply reproducing what our eyes already see? The medium is capable of so much more than this. Take the games from Clover Studio for example. "Viewtiful Joe" looks quite good to this day, yet it's far from being realistic. The upcoming "Okami" is even further removed from reality, but I can't help but be intoxicated by the visuals. And what discussion about video games as an art form is complete with the mention of "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus"? Ico's textures weren't all that detailed, and neither were the character models, yet it's breathtaking. I felt as though I was "in" the game even though it was clear that what I was looking at was not reality.
Discuss before I go nats >>
QUOTE (Goofy)
Why do people always strive to replicate reality within something as virtual as video games? Is it solely for the sake of immersion? That being asked, I feel that games do not need to mimic reality in order to be "immersive". Let's take the Metal Gear series for example. The kind of things that happen within the series is ridiculous. There are people contacting the dead, surviving falls from gigantic bipedal robots, controlling wasps, taking down tanks singlehandedly, using psychic powers, calculating ricochet physics precisely and instantaneously, etc. However, this series is simply compelling. You "believe" it can happen, even though common sense tells you "No f***ing way!". If this is possible, why is it that people complain about some games not being "real" enough? The entire game is artificial, yet people strive to make it as close to reality as they possibly can.This brings me to the graphics. Why do so many people want their games to look "realistic"? What does that offer us? If we ever do reach a point where our games become photorealistic, won't it just look boring? Where's the artistry in simply reproducing what our eyes already see? The medium is capable of so much more than this. Take the games from Clover Studio for example. "Viewtiful Joe" looks quite good to this day, yet it's far from being realistic. The upcoming "Okami" is even further removed from reality, but I can't help but be intoxicated by the visuals. And what discussion about video games as an art form is complete with the mention of "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus"? Ico's textures weren't all that detailed, and neither were the character models, yet it's breathtaking. I felt as though I was "in" the game even though it was clear that what I was looking at was not reality.
Discuss before I go nats >>
you pretty much nailed it in the coffin i mean graphics can only go as perfect as they can and i think making games look realisticly would be kind of dumb by you wanting games meaning you wanna play an arcade or simulated game i think xbox 360(the graphics) is the best it can get or at least that should be the best it can get i mean ps3 will try to top it but you can only go so far
Dungeon Siege is a brilliant example of this. The graphics aren't as real as they could be, but WOAH the scenery is amazing. True Art at its finest.
Also the cinematics in final fantasy 8... the people don't look entirely real, but the cinematics are still absolutely amazing. And the computer generated look of the whole thing is part of what makes it special. Makes it look like animation as opposed to photography.
Of course more abstract and wacky graphics and art has it's own charm, and to be honest, I do prefer that kind of thing in games. I do know a lot of people who would beg to differ though, and it's an opinion I respect and understand where they're coming from.
That is an example of what I've seen about realistic in videogame. For me, maybe cool graphics can make something so real, to think now with XBOX360 out, the model in the game almost as real as real person outside the videogame world. Yeah, I thought that's good...
Gamer as player in the game is what they had to be, I thought. We as gamers play in something different than normal world, the real world we live in. I myself play videogames only if it's something I cannot do in real life. Take example as Metal Gear Solid if you would. There's no possibility for me to go to do espionage if not in the game.
The next the more unrealistic game is one like 'free-roaming genre'. Some believes GTA 3 is the first who make this genre popular. See, the unrealistic make the game is so much famous. It's crazy if someone just go to the trafiic and hijack the cars as he wish, or get a gun and kill anyone he met then noone put him in the jail?
But there are also a field of videogame that I want to be real. You see, .hack// series made the new world (a game called THE WORLD) which can transfer a real human mind into the game? Is that a reallistic of a gaming? If it's yes, I really wish to see a time where I can go to the 'unreal' world, roaming within THE WORLD like in the game / anime.
From its ancestor, the game is not realistic. See how Mario Bros and the first Contra in NES? They are the pioneer of videogame (if you said Pong is the first game, then it is the pioneer). So, why must we put so much reallistic in videogame? To end my rants, I don't play Splinter Cell series because I thought it's just too reallistic.
For example, one recent game with almost realistic graphics like Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter allows us to fight with some advanced weaponry and technology that do not exist these days and will exist in the future.
In the real world, we would never start a war on purpose to experience how it feels. This way, we can experience the fight without the harm of hurting ourselves, thus making us feel secure, and actually enjoying the experience. This is why war and shooting games can be enjoyed, because if we could realy hurt ourselves, we would think everything except being fun.
Imagine a life simulation game so real as the own reality, where we were able to do all our daily activities like eating, working, sleeping, earning money, every aspect possible (of course I can't name them all but you get the point).
The main difference between the real life and the game is that we have fun with the game, doing things that if done in real life we would not have any fun at all (like commiting some sort of act that could result in arrest).
In the game, you could go in the street kicking people around and breaking everything on your way. That would be extremelly fun (and stress-relieving) in a realistic life-simulation game.
Now imagine yourself doing that in real life. It could even be more stress-relieving, oh yes, but you would spend the rest of your days in real prision, having no enjoyment at all.
So, realistic games are meant for having the fun of doing things we are not able to do in real life, either because it is impossible, or it is against the law, or it's extremely improbable.
QUOTE (Goofy)
Why do people always strive to replicate reality within something as virtual as video games? Is it solely for the sake of immersion? That being asked, I feel that games do not need to mimic reality in order to be "immersive". Let's take the Metal Gear series for example. The kind of things that happen within the series is ridiculous. There are people contacting the dead, surviving falls from gigantic bipedal robots, controlling wasps, taking down tanks singlehandedly, using psychic powers, calculating ricochet physics precisely and instantaneously, etc. However, this series is simply compelling. You "believe" it can happen, even though common sense tells you "No f***ing way!". If this is possible, why is it that people complain about some games not being "real" enough? The entire game is artificial, yet people strive to make it as close to reality as they possibly can.
This brings me to the graphics. Why do so many people want their games to look "realistic"? What does that offer us? If we ever do reach a point where our games become photorealistic, won't it just look boring? Where's the artistry in simply reproducing what our eyes already see? The medium is capable of so much more than this. Take the games from Clover Studio for example. "Viewtiful Joe" looks quite good to this day, yet it's far from being realistic. The upcoming "Okami" is even further removed from reality, but I can't help but be intoxicated by the visuals. And what discussion about video games as an art form is complete with the mention of "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus"? Ico's textures weren't all that detailed, and neither were the character models, yet it's breathtaking. I felt as though I was "in" the game even though it was clear that what I was looking at was not reality.
Discuss before I go nats >>
Link: view Post: 223861
I think that you are missing the whole point of games and gaming. Its supposed to be fun. If your going over every detail of the game then its becoming more then a game and ending up more like an obsession. If i'm giong to spend $50 on a game i want the game to be good and look good. I dont want to waste that much money on a game that looks like pong. And on the other hand i dont want to fret over every detail of the game either....who cares if the tree has 3 leafs instead of four. Who cares if the metal from the explosion isn't proportional. If i'm thinking that deep on the game then it has no fun value anymore.
Though immersion is achievable its impossible to recreate the universe in the exact same way , because every atom in the universe is unique, there can never be two identical objects in the space time continuum and that includes the alternate dimensions.
Which is why time actually flows. Since each particle that ever will exist is different.
Similar Topics:
Video Games Are A Complete Waste Of...
How Do Violent Video Games Affect C...
Things That Piss Me Off About Video...
Psp Or Console? Any opinions? (11)
|
(7) Heroes V Open Beta: launched today on fileplanet
|
Loading...
HOME 






