Game Realism

[Dastardly]

Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost
admin: hey... the message can be read just upper, don't waste board resource with huge useless quoting

Well that was exactly my point...ALL games will one day be retro!
(You seem to be arguing with and reiterating my point at the same time there )

What I meant was there is crap from every era of gaming old and new. To say that all modern games are rubbish is a ridiculous generalisation. Just because you dont like the 3D or the flashy lighting efects doesnt make them rubbish. A pong fan could easily have said the same thing about the likes of any Amiga game. Instantly dismissing their new pointless flashy graphics.
The simple fact is a true gamer knows the difference between shallow graphical showpieces and genuine fun games. These great games are still being made, if you know what your looking for.

These great games are still being made, if you know what your looking for.

There were also many crap games, and there are many good games on modern computers. I agree with your idea.

Realism and 3d is another thing. I used to be a strict 2d gamer but I'm beginning to think the feel of realism through the use of 3d graphics can be cool if made in the right way. For example, a Role Playing game can be cool in first person view, like eye of the beholder series. Such a game can be improved if it's done in 3d. Morrowind, the upcoming daggerfall sequel will benefit from 3d greatly and it has the potential to become a classic!

On the other hand improper use of 3d and lack of gameplay on some modern games is a horrible fact. There are games which should not be made in 3d at all. Kick Off 2002 doesn't benefit from 3d at all but think about populous 1&2 on amiga, these games would be cool if they were in 3d, and they actually are, as Populous: The Beginning and Black & White on pc, developed by the same team.

[Dastardly]

I agree 100% Dont blame the technology for the incompetence of some developers. Done right, 3D can be great. Lets not forget that it was around in the Amiga days too, so its not that new.

[Djay]

Design is everything, if a game is badly designed but uses a shit-hot engine you end with a bad game....

.... one of my fav PC games was Half-Life, voted game of the year by many magazines and websites, it used a *old* quake 2 engine, but the design of the game was second to none.

this carries over to the Amiga, you got some real piles of shit on the Amiga, but you also got some TRUE classics....

.... with huge budgets, big teams and hardcore engines, you still get bad games, it shouldn't happen, but its's down to bad design!!!

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Dastardly
Well that was exactly my point...ALL games will one day be retro!
(You seem to be arguing with and reiterating my point at the same time there )

Not reiterating at all. I am stating that the fact that these games will one day be retro means nothing. Just because they will one day be retro is no reason to append any level of respect to them. It's like being around annoying, screaming little girls at a family gathering that are getting on your nerves and someone says "But it's okay...one day they'll be women!" It's just a meaningless statement that changes nothing. Shite is shite. Just because it's old doesn't make a Mr. Acker Bilk record cool.

Originally posted by Dastardly
What I meant was there is crap from every era of gaming old and new. To say that all modern games are rubbish is a ridiculous generalisation. Just because you dont like the 3D or the flashy lighting efects doesnt make them rubbish. A pong fan could easily have said the same thing about the likes of any Amiga game. Instantly dismissing their new pointless flashy graphics.
The simple fact is a true gamer knows the difference between shallow graphical showpieces and genuine fun games. These great games are still being made, if you know what your looking for.

You are really taking this to the extreme and out of context. The term modern games refers to this style of gaming (and it is a generalization, obviously) that assumes in order for a game to be released today, it must be 3D regardless of any variables. Of course every era has its crap, only this is the first era of gaming I know of that is dominated by crap. It took the PC to make that a reality. Now it's spread to the consoles. Not liking 3D or flashy lighting effects is irrelevant. Look at those screens! Surely you can't defend that as "flashy graphics". If that's flashy, then toilets are filled with gold every day.

As for Pong fans saying that about Amiga games, you are seriously off the track. Nobody is saying that more colors or more advanced machines make a game worse. Amiga games came out with not only superior graphics for their time, but good games and hardware that allowed wonderful possibilities in games. That hardly parallels with what we are seeing today. You're basing your opinions strictly on the spec and not the end product. And the Amiga was certainly not dominated by one graphic style and (mainly) one game genre beaten to death. Or the upgrade path to hell factor. The key word here is dominated. I know you can always find an outside example, so let's please not quibble over outside extremities.

Actually there was a time when similarly looking shoot em ups and platformers were released on Amiga platform as well but compared to today's gaming world things were still better in terms of gameplay.

Maybe there were better design teams back then but these people are still (probably) alive and in the business somehow, However overall loss of quality in the industry is visible.There is one obvious reason to this, the demand is changed so did the supply.

With the increasing popularity of internet, every passing day a lot of new people (idiots mostly, there is no need to be kind or modest about this for it's a fact.) become computer users, therefore game players! This effects the demand on computer industry in general and specifically, computer games.

[Amiga1992]

' ere we go again...


Point 1 is, I do NOT dislike all modern games. Read that I mentioned Sonic Adventure 2 and DC Crazy Taxi.. aren't those games modern? Besides, F-Zero Advance is a game of today, that is not retro at all my friend, and I love it

Second, I DO hate today's trend of making it all in 3D. Why? Because as Burseg says, it's only fine if DONE RIGHT. And this happens very seldom.

For the record, I preffer Outrun to Gran Turismo 3 as well
By the way, what do you guys mean with "Design"? You tell me design and I think the aesthetic feel of the package. I don't think this is key. If you mean gameplay design, well I agree. And IMO, the only people who can decently pull it off nowadays (and the ONLY,TRUE supporters of 2D gaming these days) are the japanese.

I preffer Outrun to Gran Turismo 3 as well

Me too.

[Dastardly]

Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost

Not reiterating at all. I am stating that the fact that these games will one day be retro means nothing. Just because they will one day be retro is no reason to append any level of respect to them. It's like being around annoying, screaming little girls at a family gathering that are getting on your nerves and someone says "But it's okay...one day they'll be women!" It's just a meaningless statement that changes nothing. Shite is shite. Just because it's old doesn't make a Mr. Acker Bilk record cool.

You are really taking this to the extreme and out of context. The term modern games refers to this style of gaming (and it is a generalization, obviously) that assumes in order for a game to be released today, it must be 3D regardless of any variables. Of course every era has its crap, only this is the first era of gaming I know of that is dominated by crap. It took the PC to make that a reality. Now it's spread to the consoles. Not liking 3D or flashy lighting effects is irrelevant. Look at those screens! Surely you can't defend that as "flashy graphics". If that's flashy, then toilets are filled with gold every day.

As for Pong fans saying that about Amiga games, you are seriously off the track. Nobody is saying that more colors or more advanced machines make a game worse. Amiga games came out with not only superior graphics for their time, but good games and hardware that allowed wonderful possibilities in games. That hardly parallels with what we are seeing today. You're basing your opinions strictly on the spec and not the end product. And the Amiga was certainly not dominated by one graphic style and (mainly) one game genre beaten to death. Or the upgrade path to hell factor. The key word here is dominated. I know you can always find an outside example, so let's please not quibble over outside extremities.

1. I never said that just because a game will be considered retro it deserves respect, it was merely a statement of fact. ALL games will be retro one day (good or bad) was the point I was originally making.

2. 3D is not a 'style' of gaming anymore than 2D is, it was the natural next step for graphics and like it or not, to make a game 2D these days would be a technological step backwards.

3. To say the scene is dominated by crap these days is rubbish.
Its obviously not to your liking, but then thats just YOUR opinion.
Of course there is crap around today, but no more than there ever was.

4. I do not defend those screens you have posted, but they are bad examples. You simply could not say the same thing about the 3D in GT3 or MGS2 to name but 2 modern games. The depth in these games is also superior to anything you could find in any retro game of the same genre. These are just 2 examples, I could list more.

5. your reference to one game genre being beaten to death is a PC thing. I am not a fan of PC gaming and never have been, simply because they are too user unfriendly.

Gaming has gone from strength to strength and I hope will continue to do so. With people buying more games than at any time before, I think this trend will continue. Your views are in the minority, and its the money of the majority that the developers are after.
Call me greedy but I want to enjoy games from ALL eras, and with great titles from both now and then, Ill be happy for a long time

[Amiga1992]

Originally posted by Dastardly
to make a game 2D these days would be a technological step backwards.

Alright, here I go berzerk...

Making a 2D game nowadays is a technological step backwards? WHAT on earth are you talking about? Just because it's 2D is technollogically poop? That's BOLLOCKS. Just because a game it's in 2D it doesn't mean it looks "16bit-ish"... I got tired of hearing this about all the great Saturn 2D games... I suppose now a 2D game is called "32bit-ish", as we used to call something like Llamatron "8bit-ish"... rubbish.

2D games HAVE improved, going slowly onto the high-res area. This is something that started to happen with the Dreamcast, 2D games going 640x480. And boy, do they look brilliant. Twice the detail (Guilty Gear X, to wit).

Besides, since most of the japanese softcos STILL develop 2D stuff today (even for consoles like the PS2, which are mainly 3d jobbies), it demonstrates that it's not a step backward. It's only a step backward in the mind of the eyecandy-blind western gamer.

Bollocks.

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Dastardly
1. I never said that just because a game will be considered retro it deserves respect, it was merely a statement of fact. ALL games will be retro one day (good or bad) was the point I was originally making.

I know you never said this, but it certainly seemed implicated, otherwise what was the point of the statement?

Originally posted by Dastardly
2. 3D is not a 'style' of gaming anymore than 2D is, it was the natural next step for graphics and like it or not, to make a game 2D these days would be a technological step backwards.

I completely disagree with this statement. Logically, it should be true, but in the real world, it is false. Just as color and black & white in movies. For example, once color emerged in films didn't mean that it was only a condition of new. Unless you consider films like "Schindler's List", "Eraserhead", and "Clerks" (to name but a few) to be technological steps backward.

Originally posted by Dastardly
3. To say the scene is dominated by crap these days is rubbish.
Its obviously not to your liking, but then thats just YOUR opinion.
Of course there is crap around today, but no more than there ever was.

Sure it's my opinion. Just as your viewpoint is your opinion. How can you say my viewpoint is rubbish and just my opinion, and then go on to state yours as if there's a distinction? I never claimed my views to be the letter of the law.

Originally posted by Dastardly
4. I do not defend those screens you have posted, but they are bad examples...[SNIP]

sigh...it was only a matter of time before someone said this. No matter how many screens I posted, no matter how popular the games, someone will always say this. On the screenshots page I chose these from (screenshots.com ?!?), I merely went to the Most Popular chart and chose the bad examples from it, rather than obscuring and hand-selecting something that showed the X-Box in a bad light. And as much as I hate that console, even I was surprised at how poor the results were. I didn't even go there with the intention of this thread; I was just bored and surfing.

Originally posted by Dastardly
5. your reference to one game genre being beaten to death is a PC thing. I am not a fan of PC gaming and never have been, simply because they are too user unfriendly.

And I stated that it was a PC thing. That has spread to the consoles.

Originally posted by Dastardly
Gaming has gone from strength to strength and I hope will continue to do so. With people buying more games than at any time before, I think this trend will continue. Your views are in the minority, and its the money of the majority that the developers are after.

Hehehe...I think that says it all. And I will translate it to the underlying truth: it's all about the money, it caters to the lowest common denominator, I am in the minority (ie, not the lowest common denominator, aka lemming). I refuse to accept shallow, listless product simply for the sake of enjoying games from then and now. I choose my games based on their quality, not because I need a quota of games from all eras or systems.

The majority will always rule because it makes corporate pigs more money. Those same corporate pigs are notorious in the entertainment industry for their 'anything for money' mentality that has been dumping garbage music, TV, films, and now games, on the general public. I never cared for the "most popular" from any of those mediums. Which is why I was an Amiga user when everybody else were slaves to their 386's and Mac SE's. And it's why I still love my Amiga today (and why I am here...)

[Djay]

By the way, what do you guys mean with "Design"?

okay, the overall feel or the game, level layout, gameplay, audio and visuals

F-Zero Advance is a game of today, that is not retro

f-zero advance is a near perfect copy of the snes version of f-zero (no bad thing), so how can it not be retro, as the original was released some time ago. the graphics/sound are retro, the gameplay is retro and the concept is retro.IMHO!!! the only thing that isn't retro about it, is that it is on a much smaller cart.

[Shatterhand]

Man, I didn't even noticed that Crazy Taxi game was actually the same DC Crazy Taxi ! The gfx in the DC version is MUUCHH beter, even with less polygons, Z Buffering, Alpha Blending or whatever the hell those 3D things use

Dastardly, look at some "Modern 2D games" , and be honest, don't they look a LOT better than those boring-looking 3D games? I must admit most of those 2D new games I know are Shoot'em ups (Because that's what I play the most) , but I bet Akira could give you more examples (As he already did).

Now I must admit I don't give a damn for GFX, all I want is to play a nice game, be it 2D or 3D. I played Max Payne once, and I wasn't gobsmacked by the gfx, although I found the game quite enjoyable (I only played the 1st level).

The major problem nowadays is that most developers can't seem to develop interesting games. All they do is stick with those 3D gfx (And they don't look half as good as 2D), and repeat the same game over and over and over.

I bet that if developers tried to do things different most often, those 'different' games would be sucessfull too. The problem is that those different games usually come and go with no notice, and no one never hear of them. If people had talked about, say , The Reap (www.shmups.com for more information), as much as they talked about Half-Life, that game would be a sucess too (After all, the buying people are idiots, they will buy whatever people tell them to buy, as they won't play the game that much anyway, they will just enable the cheat mode and "finish" it).

And like I said before, I really don't care about GFX, I think 3D can be really usefull sometimes (F1GP or Frontier , for example) , but nothing EVERYTHING needs to be in 3D. They both could live together in peace.

Oh, and just for record, Outrun is 300000 times funnier to play than GT3. And Clerks is a GREEEEAAATTT movie, even filmed in B/W , with lousy photography, and one or two bits of bad direction (after all, it was the director's 1st movie, and he had a budget of 30000 dollars )

okay, the overall feel or the game, level layout, gameplay, audio and visuals

Yes by using term "design" I'm not talking about graphics in the game like graphic design but how a game works like industrial design.

[Dastardly]

:SIGH:
I really cannot be arsed with this pointless discussion anymore.

I DO NOT hate 2D I love it. I also love 3D games if they are good enough, not because they are 3D but because they are good games of which I am a fan.
I stand by my statement that making 2D games is technologically a step backwards. I have no problem with 2D games, but personally wouldnt consider buying a modern game made in 2D because I have become used to 3D now and I prefer it. An example for me is playing STREETFIGHTER 2 or TEKKEN. Both are great games but the introduction of 3D into this genre has opened up new strategies and depth. 2D in this case just doesnt cut it anymore for me.
The 2D/Black&White comparison is poor. Making a film in B&W does not limit what can be done or shown on the screen, and in the case of Schindlers list for example. can enhance the atmosphere.
But certain games just cannot be done in 2 dimensions i.e flight sims or FPS (whether you like them or not).

I too choose my games based on their quality, but to me, quality didnt end at the dawn of 3D. I do not feel I need "a quota" of games from every era, but enjoy ALL games if they are good enough.

I do not intent (hopefully) to post on this subject again. If a point is made that I feel needs debating then I will, but I feel this discussion is becoming pointless.
Our opinions on this subject are very different and I respect your views, but I will never convince you that gaming is still alive and as vibrant as ever, just as you will never convince me that todays market is dominated by rubbish.

Please dont think I am anti 2D because I am not. I am a huge fan of the old games, and always will be.

[DPainter]

It is funny how most of us laugh at the primitive special effects of old Sci-Fi movies. The fact is, most "blockbuster" movies today contain as much or even more crappy dialogue and lame scripting than the classic B-movies of yesteryear. People are dazzled by the multi-million $$$ CGI and loud 5.1 surround sound explosions, when in fact they're just eating the same old crap from prettier plates.

Let your imagination perform the anti-aliasing!

[jmmijo]

Originally posted by DPainter
Let your imagination perform the anti-aliasing!

While this is good for all of us on EAB, I'd have a hard time believing that very many people out there have any imagination left My brother and I call it the stupid gene and we have a lot of proof, at least here in the states, that this is a known gene and is the cause of much sorrow

[Drake1009]

So you're saying that the stupid gene is the one which is evolving most in the human organism replacing the taste gene?

[jmmijo]

Originally posted by Drake1009
So you're saying that the stupid gene is the one which is evolving most in the human organism replacing the taste gene?

Pretty much, here's an example:

Here in the states we have plenty of lawyers, correct. Well why do you suppose? Mostly because we have so many laws and ordinances to pretect ourselves from ourselves and the fact that every advert now carries a disclaimer to absolve any stupid person from immitating said act or what have you they may have just witnessed in the said advert! Ah, so the lawyers now will try to litigate this stupidity even thow these so called literate people can read these disclaimers

So why can't we put more faith in Darwin then and let the stupid people get weeded out from the not so stupid people This should at least help the gene pool in the long run

[Drake1009]

The lawyers would probably sue Darwin if they were told to let the stupid try to think.