I''ve just read the feature article on the main GameDev section, and although I''m not usually one to resort to name-calling... this Goran Lalic is clearly a total muppet. Goran, next time you want to waste web space with your personal rant - please do it somewhere else. Didn''t your mother ever explain to you that just because you don''t like something, doesn''t mean it''s "low-brow" or only for dumb people. Your snobbish attitude belittles any actual points you may have made. BTW If I was a fan of Star Wars, I might point out that on this virtually uninhabited swamp planet lives an 800 year old Jedi who is extremely strong with the Force. Luke was bound to land where [subconciously] he felt the Force was strongest.

I wasn''t too impressed either. I think the whole area is rather subjective and Lalic didn''t seem to appreciate this.
-DeVore

I was going to close this thread because I thought it consisted of a personal attack, but I''m afraid I''ll have to agree after reading the article.

It''s open, for now, as long as it stays restricted to INTELLIGENT discussion of the matter in the article, and why the author is wrong.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

Supply and demand...

The writer even agrees that 95% of the market probably doesn''t even want ''realism''. So basically, he''s asking for programmers to make games for the 5%. Talking about realism, how ''real'' is it to tell a company to create games for the smallest of markets? "Forget about the 95% portion, just focus on the 5%."

Me? I''m actually one of those that might belong in the 5% part. But, the fun factor would have to be retained in these ''real'' games that the writer wants. And I think that that might be just a tad to hard. Realism is fun for me, but I sure don''t want realism to become boring (which in real life it sometimes is, so why wouldn''t it be boring in a game?)

I think the example of Star Wars was a bad choice. He even gave the answer himself (the force was Luke''s guide). Sarcasm doesn''t change ''reality''.

Realism in games IS a very subjective topic. But, give me persistency over realism any day. Because as far as I know games not always claim to be set in a real universe. And who knows... for all we know in different galaxies different rules of physics might apply. If you can''t prove that it isn''t so, you can''t claim otherwise. And nobody will ever convince me that games aren''t meant to be FUN first. If we want to simulate real life... why aren''t we living real life?

I actually didn''t think the article was too bad an expression of personal thought... Hope my ranting makes at least as much sense.

How realistic was PacMan? MegaMan? Metroid? But they were all fun, weren't they?


You can tell I didn't read the posts until just now.

Edited by - Some Guy on April 10, 2001 2:36:59 PM

It''s all a matter of preference. I think games need to strike a balance between realism and fun. That probably explains why I enjoy counter strike much more than quake. Games are all about fantasy. Expecting them to be 100% realistic might diminish the fun factor. Not to mention, no game can ever be 100% realistic. Just my two cents.

Okay, I give in. I posted the article without having read it closely (my time for the site has been very limited lately). I''m solely responsible for reviewing and posting new articles, and that''s just one of my many duties at GDNet. Since I have to post about 3-5 a week to keep up with the submission rate (and I''m about 2 months behind at the moment), I don''t always have the time to read them all as closely as I''d like. In fact, if someone wanted to volunteer to help with the screening process, I could use the help.

In any case, although the article will remain in our reference archive, it''s been pulled as a featured article.

I''m all for realism in games. Take Flight Sims for instance, You never know when I''m gonna have to jump in a F-14 and take down some bogies...hmm, maybe realism isn''t as important as the fun factor. Its always been my view that if the game takes more than 20 minutes to learn to play, you are going to lose alot of people to frustration. In my experiance the more realistic the game, the more time it takes to learn it.

A very cool option in a few games I have played give you the option of turning on and off alot of the realistic play. Take Apache, its a helicopter sim, you have two play modes, Arcade and Realistic simulation. I picked up and played Arcade in well under 10 minutes, but the Realistic section took much longer to learn to play. But after I put in the time, almost all I play is realistic. Mostly because I like the extra control over the helicopter. So when people ask for more realism, are they really asking for more control over the game? or maybe stricter rules?

Another big question is the player going to find the minual tasks that realism gives you soon to get repetative? If the player begins to feel that he has to preform too many tasks before he finally gets to the ''fun part'' will he even begin to play?

In short, add realism until the learning curves breaks the time that your average player is willing to commit to learning the game.

Glandalf

Just a thought

There are a lot of people playing games. Developers have their choice on what sort of game to create, and how realistic it should be. Included in this choice is which market to aim for.

Maybe developers should be encouraged to produce more realistic games? Fine. Great. But they should never be *discouraged* from producing good quality fun games just because they''re not steeped in realism.

That''s where I had a problem with the article.

If the video games industry is going to continue to become a wider part of everyday life - and appeal to a more general audience - then realism may play a large part in enticing new people to gaming. But unless something radical happens, the main reason for playing games will always be for fun. Realism doesn''t necessarily kill off the fun factor, but to an extent it reduces the creativity allowed to developers/authors/movie producers etc. and hence, may make for a less original and less fun title.

To use Goran''s own examples - 2001 and Star Wars - they''re both fine films if you ask me, for very different reasons. I think we would all be worse off if only one of them had been made. Especially if the one that got dropped was something as entertaining as Star Wars.

E

heh, I wrote my own little response, it sits up in the Lounge.

-Ryan "Run_The_Shadows"
-Run_The_Shadows@excite.com
"Doubt Everything. Find your own light." -Dying words of Gautama