Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: "Games are games, made for fun and relaxation, not to imitate reality."

  1. Originally posted by Frogacuda
    Life ain't a game.

  2. Originally posted by Andy
    Well whatever you want to call 'not real' games Anyway, sure, realism may seem like a detourant, but games like Counter-Strike, Gran Turismo, Splinter Cell, etc offer a ton of depth in their gameplay, and imo, can often be much more engaging than most 'not real' games.
    Not quite... I would not venture to say that CS is realistic (not enough at least) nor is it more fun or more challangeing than Quake 3. If you don't see it you probably haven't played enough good players. the strategy is diffrent - logical still but not nessisarily something that would ever come up in a match of CS or most any other game. There's your common run around in a circle and shoot stuff common finding in Quake, but then there's a rail match where the rythem and timing of your opponents shot and routes affects how you move. It's hard to explain but I digress.

    Realistic games have merit and often it can be great. I can imagine myself as a Hedgehog but I can envision myself as a Black Ops agent trying against the challange of "mundane" real life to accomplish realistic objectives. The you can have realistic elements in a complete fanatasy.. like Morrowind (moreso like the way Morrowind could have been if some key thimgs were improved and/or enhanced).

    Having all of one and not the other is like having all 2D games and no 3D. I'm not discussing that at all right now. Basically - it's your call - but niether one or the other is right.
    o_O

  3. Miyamoto said it well, so i'll paraphrase him:
    Reality isn't a style.

    Games can't come close at all to simulating real-life activities, so why bother? Why be limited by reality when fantasy is limitless? I get enough reality in life, so keep it the fuck out of my videogames.

  4. I agree with Tracer, both genre's have their place in gaming. I normally prefer fantasy anyday over realism, but I buy a game like Gran Turismo for it's realism. If I want some arcade play then I pop in Daytona USA online. I believe is takes as much creativity and vision to make a sim like GT as it does for a game like Rez.
    currently playing - GTA 3 d(-_^)

  5. Tracer, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the best of both worlds too. I can rail with the best of em in Q3A, but CS is more engaging an experience to me (and Q3A is one of my favorite games). And you can call it unrealistic all you want, but until I'm a Navy Seal, it's realistic enough for me
    Buy Yakuza and Oblivion. Help yourself, help TNL.

  6. #16
    The problem is how one defines realism. Super Mario Bros. is realistic in the sense that Mario can be injured and is subject to the effect of gravity.

  7. The only time I can think of realism hurting a game would be Halo's "You can only carry one weapon" combat system.

    Me: Having only one weapon in a FPS sucks.
    Halo Fan: But it adds realism and strategy!
    Me: I think realism went out the window the moment an alien first appeared on screen.

  8. The problem is how one defines realism. Super Mario Bros. is realistic in the sense that Mario can be injured and is subject to the effect of gravity.
    Very true.

    And Regus, Halo's single weapon system actually does add a lot more strategy to the game.
    Buy Yakuza and Oblivion. Help yourself, help TNL.

  9. The only time I can think of realism hurting a game would be Halo's "You can only carry one weapon" combat system.

    Me: Having only one weapon in a FPS sucks.
    Halo Fan: But it adds realism and strategy!
    Me: I think realism went out the window the moment an alien first appeared on screen.
    It is a realistic portrayal, just of something extraordinary.

    Limiting how many weapons you can hold is definitely a good thing. It does add strategy and it works for a console; who wants to cycle through a dozen weapons? Bungie has the right idea and all they need know is someone who knows how to consistently design a decent map.

  10. Veering off topic-

    I think a dozen weapons in a console (repeat, Console) FPS is a bad idea. Works great on PC, where the number keys each get a weapon or two, but crap on a controller where you have to press the cycle weapon button 5-6 times to get the right weapon you want. As long as I can deal damage, I'm fine with the Halo one-weapon method. Put that game on PC (this coming summer) and I'll be all over it.

    Halo isn't a realistic game. You're fighting aliens, on a mini-ringworld, using all the sci-fi toys you can find. Sign me up when it's on my preferred platform.

    It's stuff like Splinter Cell, where I have to worry about where I dump the bodies, that turn me away. Lugging a body from point A to point B isn't fun, it's tedious. Moving a bit farther afield, fighting humans is ok but why don't I have a 12 foot tall alien with laser fingers? Or dogs, or bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees?

    Thing is, I don't feel like pretending to be a Green Beret, or a member of a black-ops team. I've tried to like the stealth play games that are popular right now and I've come to the conclusion they just aren't for me. I can recognize that Splinter Cell is very well done, I just won't be having any fun if I play it.

    I also don't feel like pretending to be an entire football/basketball/hockey/baseball team, but that's another story entirely.

    James

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo