Games and Reality
When video games first started out, no one tried to make them realistic. The technology simply wasn't there. Games had bad graphics and were mostly limited to a 2 dimensional space. They were so abstract from anything real that "real" wasn't thought of as anything that had to do with gaming.
But as game systems have been getting more advanced for the past decade or so, a major goal and criterion games are judged on are how "realistic" they are. Historical like Call of Duty try to emulate real-life situations. New games like HL2 have sophisticated physics engines that try to make the game world act just like the real one. Whenever we look at a new game, the first thing we notice and look for is how good the graphics are (in comparison with real life).
What I wonder, why should realism even be a goal? I mean, isn't one of the reasons why we play games because they aren't real? They are different dimensions where we can do things we couldn't and wouldn't normally do. Why should we impose these arbirtrary restrictions on ourselves just because it would be more realistic? If you want realism, why don't you put down the controller and go do something in your real life?
For example, I just got Quake 4 (I know, I'm on the tail end of that curve). I was optimistic because it is the sequel to my favorite game of all time, Quake 3. While I am impressed with it and I do think it is a pretty good FPS, something didn't feel right.
When I thought about it a little more, it dawned upon me - it's too realistic. When you run around, it's a little slower. When you try to jump around, you feel sorta tied down to the ground. The rockets fly slower. And the models, well, they look pretty real.
"But Jon!" you might say, "that's GOOD! That's how games should be!"
That's not how I think games should be. IMHO, Quake 3 is the purest FPS ever made. There isn't any story. All there is is you, your enemy, and the arena. That's it. There's no real physics to ruin the fun either - you can get a nice chain of jumps going like nothing. You can shoot a rocket at the floor and have it blast you halfway across the level. The models make no attempt to be realistic. You can be a fat lady, a dude riding a hoverboard, a skeleton, or even a walking eyeball. And it runs fast - you are encumbered. The only limit to what you can do is pretty much your own ability.
And when you put the shackles of "reality" on the purity that is Quake 3, you get games like Quake 4 and HL2. Yes they look good, yes they are advanced. But as games get more realistic, we lose a lot of the fun that comes out of playing in an unrealistic world.
But as game systems have been getting more advanced for the past decade or so, a major goal and criterion games are judged on are how "realistic" they are. Historical like Call of Duty try to emulate real-life situations. New games like HL2 have sophisticated physics engines that try to make the game world act just like the real one. Whenever we look at a new game, the first thing we notice and look for is how good the graphics are (in comparison with real life).
What I wonder, why should realism even be a goal? I mean, isn't one of the reasons why we play games because they aren't real? They are different dimensions where we can do things we couldn't and wouldn't normally do. Why should we impose these arbirtrary restrictions on ourselves just because it would be more realistic? If you want realism, why don't you put down the controller and go do something in your real life?
For example, I just got Quake 4 (I know, I'm on the tail end of that curve). I was optimistic because it is the sequel to my favorite game of all time, Quake 3. While I am impressed with it and I do think it is a pretty good FPS, something didn't feel right.
When I thought about it a little more, it dawned upon me - it's too realistic. When you run around, it's a little slower. When you try to jump around, you feel sorta tied down to the ground. The rockets fly slower. And the models, well, they look pretty real.
"But Jon!" you might say, "that's GOOD! That's how games should be!"
That's not how I think games should be. IMHO, Quake 3 is the purest FPS ever made. There isn't any story. All there is is you, your enemy, and the arena. That's it. There's no real physics to ruin the fun either - you can get a nice chain of jumps going like nothing. You can shoot a rocket at the floor and have it blast you halfway across the level. The models make no attempt to be realistic. You can be a fat lady, a dude riding a hoverboard, a skeleton, or even a walking eyeball. And it runs fast - you are encumbered. The only limit to what you can do is pretty much your own ability.
And when you put the shackles of "reality" on the purity that is Quake 3, you get games like Quake 4 and HL2. Yes they look good, yes they are advanced. But as games get more realistic, we lose a lot of the fun that comes out of playing in an unrealistic world.
posted by jon at 1:34 AM
2 Comments:
At last, someone who thinks like I do!
I agree, games focus way too much on being realistic. Reality has become a bore for us, where we are constantly faced with the horrible facts and actions of the world. We have art because it provides escapism into a world where, though such things may exist, they're controllable. Games are attempting to model the real world, though, which also means getting rid of such escapism.
And also, I'd add Doom right next to Quake 3 in terms of pure FPS combat. Doom actually moves faster than Quake 3 (I'd say 200% faster) in modern source ports dedicated to multiplayer, such as Skulltag. But then again, I'm a Doom addict.
Your description of Quake3 also reminds me of a very important, fun game from the old arcades called Robotron: 2084. It lacked realism on a degree that we can barely dream about today. Its premise was also simple: two joysticks against the world. While on easier difficulties it isn't much of a challenge, putting it on 10 (on the arcade cabnets) was indescribable.
I haven't really played Doom multiplayer that much, but I think it fits what I'm talking about.
Although I never played the original, I actually remember playing the Nintendo 64 version of Robotron a long ass time ago when it first came out. It was pretty simple yet fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home