OK, I think it's time we had a healthy discussion here.
Would you rather have "cool" effects, graphics, animations, physics, etc etc or more realistic ones?
I tend to prefer a certain amount of realism, and after that 'coolness' prevails. I love huge explosions, exaggerated muzzle flashes, etc etc.
What do you guys think?
Realism vs. 'Coolness'
-
darksmaster923
- Posts: 1857
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Huntington Beach, California, USA
-
MakerOfGames
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:27 am
- Location: PA, USA
Realism vs 'Coolness' is a question bound to arise out of every game design team or designer. Should the game be ultra realistic or more fantasy? Or what combination of both?
Personally I prefer exaggerated reality for most games. What I mean is that I like to have enough realism there to make me think that ok, this could be possible to a certain degree. An example of this would be any science fiction game such as Halo or Half-Life. They retain enough of the real world things to make it believable but mix in enough fantasy to make the game entrancing and interesting.
I would hate to play a "simulation" game in the form of something like an FPS. The game would lose all fun because you would be too concerned about the non-existent hud, ammo counts that you have to memorize and that as little as one shot can kill you and end the game.
Actually, my game project is based on my ideas on this. I am making a sci-fi FPS which all the details remain classified at the moment. Anyhow, the game is grounded in reality, but has enough sci-fi and tweaked reality to make the game fun and will give you a truly unique experience. Yes their will be laser guns and aliens, but their will also be real world forces, realistic destructible environments and other features grounded in the real world.
The balance between the two forces of fantasy and reality is one that will always vary by game and developers. It are these forces that create the core gameplay, atmosphere and personality of the game. How people will balance them is what helps makes each game different from the next.
Of course I do love the Mario and Legend of Zelda franchises because they have enough reality to make their fantasy world traversable and enjoyable. Confusing? A little, but it is still true none the less.
Really it comes down to what the game is trying to get across as its world that determines how much of realism and coolness I expect. Honestly I prefer a game with more changes to reality over more straightforward depiction because it makes things more interesting. I have played the Call of Duty 4 demo on my pc a few times but played Half-Life Uplink(Half Life demo) much more. I like to escape reality when I play games.
Personally I prefer exaggerated reality for most games. What I mean is that I like to have enough realism there to make me think that ok, this could be possible to a certain degree. An example of this would be any science fiction game such as Halo or Half-Life. They retain enough of the real world things to make it believable but mix in enough fantasy to make the game entrancing and interesting.
I would hate to play a "simulation" game in the form of something like an FPS. The game would lose all fun because you would be too concerned about the non-existent hud, ammo counts that you have to memorize and that as little as one shot can kill you and end the game.
Actually, my game project is based on my ideas on this. I am making a sci-fi FPS which all the details remain classified at the moment. Anyhow, the game is grounded in reality, but has enough sci-fi and tweaked reality to make the game fun and will give you a truly unique experience. Yes their will be laser guns and aliens, but their will also be real world forces, realistic destructible environments and other features grounded in the real world.
The balance between the two forces of fantasy and reality is one that will always vary by game and developers. It are these forces that create the core gameplay, atmosphere and personality of the game. How people will balance them is what helps makes each game different from the next.
Of course I do love the Mario and Legend of Zelda franchises because they have enough reality to make their fantasy world traversable and enjoyable. Confusing? A little, but it is still true none the less.
Really it comes down to what the game is trying to get across as its world that determines how much of realism and coolness I expect. Honestly I prefer a game with more changes to reality over more straightforward depiction because it makes things more interesting. I have played the Call of Duty 4 demo on my pc a few times but played Half-Life Uplink(Half Life demo) much more. I like to escape reality when I play games.
Think outside the box.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
-
vrageprogrammer
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:59 pm
- Location: On top of a tree
- Contact:
Yes. You're exactly right... nobody would want to play a "realistic" FPS... imagine a game with no HUD detailing (radar, health, ammo, etc) and no crosshair. If you fall more than 8 feet you break your leg, your gun isn't very accurate, and one shot deaths. ICK.MakerOfGames wrote:I would hate to play a "simulation" game in the form of something like an FPS. The game would lose all fun because you would be too concerned about the non-existent hud, ammo counts that you have to memorize and that as little as one shot can kill you and end the game.
I don't wanna play that game. and I'm guessing that most people who play popular shooters like HL2 and Call of Duty don't either.
-
MakerOfGames
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:27 am
- Location: PA, USA
Yes that was a huge exaggeration and its an idea that has almost never seen the light of day. If I remember correctly, the Xbox360 game Condemned when it first showed itself at E3 was flaunting how it had no hud and was supposed to be an ultra realistic game. Of course that game changed a lot before release and it got its HUD back and skewed reality slightly.
Anyhow, it was just to make a point
.
The point is that I would hate to play a game that would have any of those ultra realistic features. Meaning I need a hud, I can take more damage than real life, and I am an accurate shot most of the time.
I do enjoy in game realism in the form of recoil from weapon fire and am still waiting for the day when games show the full weapon switch and reload animation. Sure it keeps the action up, but to play multiplayer and see weapons just *pop* now its a rocket launcher, *pop* now its a shotgun. That just breaks the immersion.
Basically, I like realism to make me think this is something that could happen, but I want the damage system and other things to be skewed enough so I don't have to practice to be good, or have to worry about my characters life so much I crawl through the world it puts me in.
Anyhow, it was just to make a point
.The point is that I would hate to play a game that would have any of those ultra realistic features. Meaning I need a hud, I can take more damage than real life, and I am an accurate shot most of the time.
I do enjoy in game realism in the form of recoil from weapon fire and am still waiting for the day when games show the full weapon switch and reload animation. Sure it keeps the action up, but to play multiplayer and see weapons just *pop* now its a rocket launcher, *pop* now its a shotgun. That just breaks the immersion.
Basically, I like realism to make me think this is something that could happen, but I want the damage system and other things to be skewed enough so I don't have to practice to be good, or have to worry about my characters life so much I crawl through the world it puts me in.
Think outside the box.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
a good balance tending to coolness i'd say, but another question that will get more and more important in future games is:
Imagination or Realism? Really, after playing some old-school rpgs like final fantasy IV, V and Golden Sun I/II (for consoles in 2d) i begin to realize that what makes a game 'fascinating' is the balance between the thinghs that are 'said', and the thinghs that are 'not said'. Realize how those great games always leave open ends for your imagination to dwell on? How, whenever thinghs are revealed, new questions arise?
I mean, is it REALLY necessesary that you have the greatest graphics so that the player can not like 'interpretate' like in cartonn/fantasy style games? (well this depends on your style type i guess)
Is it REALLY neccessary to create storys that huge and leave no open ends?
Must the story be told in Cutscenes? (I personnally love the parts where the story is told when you talk with NPCs you will meet again later)
With new-times graphics abilities, we are beginning to cross borders from game (uses imagination that the player is a hero) to film (uses special effects to tell the story of some characters in a more or less exiting way)...
Also, what's the difference between a book and a film? A book gives you questions, a film gives you answers. A game must balance between these two forms of entertainment while also bringing in the 'search for the answers' quest.
Imagination or Realism? Really, after playing some old-school rpgs like final fantasy IV, V and Golden Sun I/II (for consoles in 2d) i begin to realize that what makes a game 'fascinating' is the balance between the thinghs that are 'said', and the thinghs that are 'not said'. Realize how those great games always leave open ends for your imagination to dwell on? How, whenever thinghs are revealed, new questions arise?
I mean, is it REALLY necessesary that you have the greatest graphics so that the player can not like 'interpretate' like in cartonn/fantasy style games? (well this depends on your style type i guess)
Is it REALLY neccessary to create storys that huge and leave no open ends?
Must the story be told in Cutscenes? (I personnally love the parts where the story is told when you talk with NPCs you will meet again later)
With new-times graphics abilities, we are beginning to cross borders from game (uses imagination that the player is a hero) to film (uses special effects to tell the story of some characters in a more or less exiting way)...
Also, what's the difference between a book and a film? A book gives you questions, a film gives you answers. A game must balance between these two forms of entertainment while also bringing in the 'search for the answers' quest.
Everyone can see the difficult, but only the wise can see the simple.
-----
-----
-
MakerOfGames
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:27 am
- Location: PA, USA
Ah! You have brought up a point I had forgotten to speak about! The story and graphics. I was too wrapped up about gameplay.
Graphics is a tough question to handle. Anymore, a game can't wow anyone with its realism because it is now the normal playing field. I think that the game art is a defining piece of the game. It tells the player what kind of attitude and personality it has. I love Team Fortress 2 and its 1940's American art style. I need to make a decision on my games graphics, I can make them however I want and by attempting realism, if I can't pull it off, my game will be condemned by the masses because I couldn't make it like Half-Life 2, Call of Duty, or Crysis. I think I will try for a new art style that will let the user realize that it is a fictional happening but that it is based in the real world. I don't need to have you see the veins in the characters arms or things like that.
Now about game storylines. I have found that too many games are completely linear. I have gotten 10 hours into Half-Life 2 in the past month since I first got it(in the Orange Box) and I get frustrated at how linear it is. Just when I think I am taking a new path, I backtrack to the other "open path" to find it was nothing more than a long empty hallway with an empty room at the end. Sure their are filler objects in the hallway and room but I want to go on a path I choose. Half-Life 2 seems to be like an amusement park ride where you stay on the little path and interact with whats there and nothing more.
I think games need to break this habit. I play games because I like to control the character and thus what they do and where they go. Give me structure but don't hold my hand and shove me along the path that you feel is the right way. This makes the game feel like a movie, which is what I don't want. I want to make choices.
This again is reflected in my game project(yep, its info is still under lock and key) but I can tell you this. I am making a game that has a beginning and an end, but everything up until the very very end is all going to be up to the user to define. Sure there will be moments where I will throw some things at the player, but the player can choose what battles to fight, how they fight, whether run and gun or use stealth and tactics, and where they want to go next. I set up the world for them to explore and they will have to go through to find out all about the world they are in all the while having one of the best FPS experiences that I could think of.
Graphics is a tough question to handle. Anymore, a game can't wow anyone with its realism because it is now the normal playing field. I think that the game art is a defining piece of the game. It tells the player what kind of attitude and personality it has. I love Team Fortress 2 and its 1940's American art style. I need to make a decision on my games graphics, I can make them however I want and by attempting realism, if I can't pull it off, my game will be condemned by the masses because I couldn't make it like Half-Life 2, Call of Duty, or Crysis. I think I will try for a new art style that will let the user realize that it is a fictional happening but that it is based in the real world. I don't need to have you see the veins in the characters arms or things like that.
Now about game storylines. I have found that too many games are completely linear. I have gotten 10 hours into Half-Life 2 in the past month since I first got it(in the Orange Box) and I get frustrated at how linear it is. Just when I think I am taking a new path, I backtrack to the other "open path" to find it was nothing more than a long empty hallway with an empty room at the end. Sure their are filler objects in the hallway and room but I want to go on a path I choose. Half-Life 2 seems to be like an amusement park ride where you stay on the little path and interact with whats there and nothing more.
I think games need to break this habit. I play games because I like to control the character and thus what they do and where they go. Give me structure but don't hold my hand and shove me along the path that you feel is the right way. This makes the game feel like a movie, which is what I don't want. I want to make choices.
This again is reflected in my game project(yep, its info is still under lock and key) but I can tell you this. I am making a game that has a beginning and an end, but everything up until the very very end is all going to be up to the user to define. Sure there will be moments where I will throw some things at the player, but the player can choose what battles to fight, how they fight, whether run and gun or use stealth and tactics, and where they want to go next. I set up the world for them to explore and they will have to go through to find out all about the world they are in all the while having one of the best FPS experiences that I could think of.
Think outside the box.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
To go on an adventure, one must discard the comforts and safety of the known and trusted.
-
Agentarrow
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- Contact:
... hmmm ... I like a certain amount of realism, like when a car blows a tire, it can do a little bounce, but not be a Hollywood explosion and fly fifty feet (fifteen meters) into the air and explode. Exaggerated muzzleflashes are nice but too exaggerated and people will put it down saying that it's too unrealistic. I also don't like to have too realistic, because that takes away from the flash of the game. It's really a fine balance for reality and coolness.
As for realism in gameplay, I hate the games where you die in one hit or get shot and die shortly later. Games where there are no health packs. Real soldiers are trained not to take hits and how to seek cover. This is far harder in a game. Also, in real war you kill one or two guys typically, however in games it's a lot cooler to kill thirty or forty, but this also runs the risk of getting hit.
Driving games should damage, but not too much, it's no fun if you total the first time you hit a wall. Cars that roll at 150 should not be recognizable as cars, but a flaming heap of scrap. or just a heap of scrap. Roll cages should protect you to some extent but not indefinitely. Gunshots should not blow a car to pieces, only grenades, bombs and rockets should do that.
Guns should have the shells or clips actually eject. The recoil should be fairly realistic. (However Barette 50 cals would blow your arm off, so that's where your realism ends) Muzzleflashes, as I said can be exaggerated, but not too much. Ammo counters are unrealistic, but optional. It doesn't really matter either way.
People should look fairly real or cartoony, you shouldn't have a mix of both, this makes a game seem unappealing to the player.
As for realism in gameplay, I hate the games where you die in one hit or get shot and die shortly later. Games where there are no health packs. Real soldiers are trained not to take hits and how to seek cover. This is far harder in a game. Also, in real war you kill one or two guys typically, however in games it's a lot cooler to kill thirty or forty, but this also runs the risk of getting hit.
Driving games should damage, but not too much, it's no fun if you total the first time you hit a wall. Cars that roll at 150 should not be recognizable as cars, but a flaming heap of scrap. or just a heap of scrap. Roll cages should protect you to some extent but not indefinitely. Gunshots should not blow a car to pieces, only grenades, bombs and rockets should do that.
Guns should have the shells or clips actually eject. The recoil should be fairly realistic. (However Barette 50 cals would blow your arm off, so that's where your realism ends) Muzzleflashes, as I said can be exaggerated, but not too much. Ammo counters are unrealistic, but optional. It doesn't really matter either way.
People should look fairly real or cartoony, you shouldn't have a mix of both, this makes a game seem unappealing to the player.
AgentArrow Home
The greater good is but a point of view...
The greater good is but a point of view...
-
darksmaster923
- Posts: 1857
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Huntington Beach, California, USA
op flashpoint was kinda like that. for example 1 shot would take you out or seriously injure you so you couldnt stand. but there were many unrealistic parts such as if your still, your gun has no spread, only recoil.and you had a minimual hudMakerOfGames wrote:Realism vs 'Coolness' is a question bound to arise out of every game design team or designer. Should the game be ultra realistic or more fantasy? Or what combination of both?
Personally I prefer exaggerated reality for most games. What I mean is that I like to have enough realism there to make me think that ok, this could be possible to a certain degree. An example of this would be any science fiction game such as Halo or Half-Life. They retain enough of the real world things to make it believable but mix in enough fantasy to make the game entrancing and interesting.
I would hate to play a "simulation" game in the form of something like an FPS. The game would lose all fun because you would be too concerned about the non-existent hud, ammo counts that you have to memorize and that as little as one shot can kill you and end the game.
Actually, my game project is based on my ideas on this. I am making a sci-fi FPS which all the details remain classified at the moment. Anyhow, the game is grounded in reality, but has enough sci-fi and tweaked reality to make the game fun and will give you a truly unique experience. Yes their will be laser guns and aliens, but their will also be real world forces, realistic destructible environments and other features grounded in the real world.
The balance between the two forces of fantasy and reality is one that will always vary by game and developers. It are these forces that create the core gameplay, atmosphere and personality of the game. How people will balance them is what helps makes each game different from the next.
Of course I do love the Mario and Legend of Zelda franchises because they have enough reality to make their fantasy world traversable and enjoyable. Confusing? A little, but it is still true none the less.
Really it comes down to what the game is trying to get across as its world that determines how much of realism and coolness I expect. Honestly I prefer a game with more changes to reality over more straightforward depiction because it makes things more interesting. I have played the Call of Duty 4 demo on my pc a few times but played Half-Life Uplink(Half Life demo) much more. I like to escape reality when I play games.
Herp derp.