Fantasy Over Reality
Todd
Over the years, many of us have been measuring the power of a machine and
the quality of graphics by the realism in games. It is easy to see how that
mistake can be made when you consider the change in game graphics from
4-pixel crude drawings to photo-realistic characters and environments, it is
more realistic, so therefore the graphics are better. Right? Not always. And
this assumption that more realism is better is hindering creative
development and making games less interesting in the long run.
To put it bluntly, realism is boring. I don`t know about you, but I play
games to escape reality, to enter new and exciting worlds that aren`t like
anything I`ve seen or experienced before. Okay, maybe you`ll want to
experience rally-driving, plane-flying, or one of many sports. But surely
you only need one really good game to experience it. For example, why do we
need Rally Driver [insert year], Rally Championship, V-Rally and countless
other generic rallying titles that offer little new to the last one? I find
it dissapointing that the talent, creativity and imagination of many
developers is being squandered on merely recreating real-life situations.
And the fact that it is real-life that is being recreated sucks all the fun
out of a game. Take two case examples, the Shenmue and Gran Turismo series.
Now I realise that the realism and consequently, detail, found in these
games is to be applauded, not every developer could`ve pulled such realism
off. But realism isn`t fun. Shenmue wasn`t fun. Gran Turismo wasn`t fun.
Where is the fun in walking about a photorealistic city with photorealistic
constraints. I mean, come on, you had to get a job to get money. Now
spending time at my job is bad enough, I don`t want to have to work in a
game, a medium I use to escape the daily pressures and tedium of life
sometimes. Who cares if you could interact with everything in your
environment if all the reactions were just the same as the ones in the real
life. You could play every tape. You could talk to everyone. You could
examine the city that was detailed down to the last inch. But so what? Gran
Turismo is the same. Sure, the realism on offer was staggering, but after
the inital amazement at it, what was there? Just driving painfully real-life
cars around ordinary tracks, with heavy concentration required. I really did
not like that.
I would rather have a game like Mario Kart than Gran Turismo and all its
kin. At least in Mario Kart you can do things you wouldn`t have been able to
do in real life, and have fun with your mates while you`re doing it. Which
of these is more fun? Using a lightning to shrink your opposition, and
boosting your way through the course and past your tiny rivals only to be
squashed by a Thwomp at the past minute, allowing your brother to sail past
laughing his head off, or judging your taps and movement on your control
stick to perfection so you beat your brother in an uneventful, almost
scripted, race? I dare you to name a moment in GT that had you smiling and
laughing more than MK.
Thankfully, as far as I can see it, obsession with realism is soon drawing
to a close. I feel that this generation will see realistic graphics pretty
much reach their highest point. Yes, graphics can always get more realistic
(console abilities can always be raised) but I think that
post-Xbox/Gamecube/PS2, the advances in realism won`t be enough to get
people excited about them, or warrant spending more money. Look at the stuff
XBox is producing in its infancy, just imagine how realistic its games (and
indeed, Gamecubes and PS2s) will be when this generation of consoles rolls
to a close, developers won`t need to focus on making games more realistic.
And this will benefit gamers everywhere, because that means that developers
will have to do one (or both) of two things:
a) Work on making a better game beneath the pretty graphics (something a lot
of Xbox developers haven`t caught onto yet)
b) Work on developing more unique and expressive graphical styles (Capcom
and Nintendo are doing this, more on it later)
So we`re eventually going to have more good games behind uber-graphics and
more experimenting with other graphical techniques. It all depends on how
computer games are seen though. Publishers may see them as juts a form of
profit and so will discourage or outright stop their developers from
branching out into graphical styles that their mainstream audience won`t
accept, lowering profits. However, I like to think of games as an expressive
medium. As ever, it comes down to the subject of mainstream gamers slowly
ruining the games industry, but I`ll save that rant for another column.
Nintendo and Capcom can afford to experiment with graphics that could put
off some people (remember the 'Celda' uproar? Hell, my mates still hate the
new look) because a slight dip in sales isn`t going to worry them. But small
publishers and developers mightn`t be willing to take such a risk and
possibly alienate a big slice of their audience. But hopefully with
companies like Nintendo, Capcom, Sega, Ubi Soft, Vivendi and others
experimenting with different types of cel-shading smaller comapnies with
follow suit.
Because cel-shading and its different variants do produce lovely graphics.
Just watching games like Zelda: Wind Waker and Viewtiful Joe (one of my
personal bets for surprise hit of 2003) in motion gives me hope for creative
development in the future. Playing the Gran Turismo and Shenmue series does
not, because they are so ordinary, so contemporary, so rooted in real life.
I don`t want those games, I want games that amaze me with new and exciting
worlds, where I can do anythinng, without barriers and restrictions. I want
fun games. And unfortunately, the greater part of realism does not offer
that.
By Conor
The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Gamecube
Europe or any of its affliates.
Shinobi
news:CmMN9.7723$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> http://www.cube-europe.com/news.php?nid=3289
>
<Snip pretentious over-zealous rubbish>
This whole article can be summed up thusly:
"Publishers may see them as juts a form of profit and so will discourage or
outright stop their developers from branching out into graphical styles that
their mainstream audience won`t accept, lowering profits."
If the audience doesn't want it, don't do it. If I want a ribeye, I won't be
happy with tofu just because some peon thinks it will be a "neat" artistic
statement.
Dancefloor Deluxe
<snip>
Fantasy: Your endless anti-Xbox rhetoric hurts sales
Reality: Trolling is a non-paying job
Fantasy: Grand Theft Yoshi sells over 10 million copies in a year
Reality: "Megaton" was a gag started on Gaming Age's forums
Fantasy: You're a bright, prosperous, well-adjusted human being
Reality: You wipe peanut butter on your balls and let dingoes lick
it off
redsniper7000
"Dancefloor Deluxe" <b...@foo.nu> wrote in message
news:231220021919407236%b...@foo.nu...
That's classic! From Road Trip right? :-)
Dancefloor Deluxe
> That's classic! From Road Trip right?
what, the pb-on-the-balls comment? i didn't see that movie.
Web
WEB
"Todd" <tjon...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CmMN9.7723$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
figgle
you have proven yourself to be a nerd in the highest regard..
"Todd" <tjon...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CmMN9.7723$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
DavidGX
"Todd" <tjon...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CmMN9.7723$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Over the years, many of us have been measuring the power of a machine and
> the quality of graphics by the realism in games. It is easy to see how
that
> mistake can be made when you consider the change in game graphics from
> 4-pixel crude drawings to photo-realistic characters and environments, it
is
> more realistic, so therefore the graphics are better. Right? Not always.
What? That doesn't make sense. Your saying that if the xbox can generate
more realistic graphics that it's not more powerful than the ps1?
Oooook.....