Imagination beats everything

The fact that you have to explain "because they were just text on a screen" makes me feel old.... Nethack 4eva!

This is a (crackpot?) theory I've had, about why games seem less engaging now then they did 20 years ago.

We didn't have photorealistic graphics 20 years ago. We had square blobs on a screen. Our minds filled in everything else. This interaction of the imagination made games more engrossing and more interactive.

My theory is that photorealistic graphics can (but not always) detract from the game and gameplay presented but allowing the mind to do less work.

"My theory is that photorealistic graphics can (but not always) detract from the game and gameplay presented but allowing the mind to do less work."

It's not that new of an idea; it's the same reason why simply-drawn cartoons like Peanuts are easier for people to identify with than hyper-realistic art like that of Todd McFarlane. Read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics for more on the matter.

--R.J.

It's also why black and white silent movies are more engrossing than HDTV movies with surround sound which have no hope of sucking the audience in...


waitaminute, maybe you're just getting old.

/for the record, Angband is open in another window

Hey, don't dis the Black/White movies. I heard that some games are going back to black/white.. :p

(sure, for artistic reasons, but that's not the point)

I always thought imagination was a clear bright piercing color, like light, but not white. Graphics and cool sounds have definitely started to ruin games that require thought and skill. There is a lot of HD crap out there.

A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember FMV? There WERE photorealistic games around the time of Sega CD, and they SUCKED. I know, the resolution was limited, but that is essentially what we would have if games had unlimited resources. Games are fun because they are not real, they are fantasy. Realism is filling out tax forms and replacing light bulbs. I'll take a cartoon plumber stomping on pixelated turtles over that any day.

Games that push the graphics envelope (Doom3, Unreal, Quake 3, Far Cry) usually have nothing new to offer in terms of gameplay. The eye candy is fun for the first 10 minutes you play, but once you get used to it, you're left with the gameplay.

I've been seeing these posters on the net for years now. Does this sudden choosing of a winner mean we'll never see on again?

I sure hope so...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/Kamizar/motivator5902167.jpg

One for Joystiq...

Joystiq has often referenced this when they've talked about the "Uncanny Valley." This is the theory that in order for games to look better, they first need to look worse.

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/14/do-gamers-really-want-photorealistic-graphics/
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/18/heavy-rain-in-the-uncanny-valley/

In real life we can look at many trees and if they are the same classification of a tree, they will all look similar. But because we are human, we have the ability to distinguish peoples faces more than anything else. It may be a little harder for people of a different race, but if you moved to China, you'd be better at being able to distinguish the difference between the Chinese.

That's why something like Elder Srolls IV looks great. It's such a huge world, that if you looked at the trees they'd look like trees. But in something like Fight Night Round 3 (which takes place inside a ring), although it looks amazing at first, their faces look very goofy once you are healing your boxer between rounds.

When you are playing Super Mario Bros. it looks so basic, that you fill in the blanks. But once they add more, and tell you that this is Mario's accent, it eliminates any other possibility of what he could sound like.

How could people think that a book is better than its film adaptation? Well, in a book, your imagination fills in the blanks as to what the places look like, and what the characters sound like. Even though I knew Harry Potter took place in England, in my mind they had American accents. Fiction can be a great starting point for a person's own imagination, but if you give the person too much, they lose that feeling of being an involved member of the story, and become an objective person in the real world just sitting till the end of the story.

And that brings me to Zork. Perhaps the first RPG was Dungeons + Dragons, and considering many people who play D+D are gamers, developers have been trying for decades to convert that style to video games. A game like WoW includes all the sterotypical RPG characters (Hunters, Warriors, Priests), and sets gamers up to fight up against tons of magical creatures. And although the games world is similar to that of D+D and Lord of the Rings, it doesn't capture the spirit of playing the game. I myself have only played D+D twice , but I realize that the appeal of the game is based on the imagination. In that sense Zork is most like D+D.

You do need a general idea for a story. And when you make a decision, the game needs to give you the effects. But the fun in both of those games is the putting of the story in the gamers hands, something that modern games could greatly benefit from.

You know, the Interactive Fiction scene didn't die with Infocom. It's still very much alive with new authors and yearly competitions. Also the tools have evolved (even though Z-Machine code is still the standard). I'm currently playing Anchorhead, which is a wonderful high-quality lovecraftian horror IF story. (http://baf.wurb.com/if/game/17)

Some URLs to check out:

Inform, the ultimate IF writing tool:
http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7/About%20IF.html

Baf's guide to the IF Archive. Check out the comps/awards:
http://www.wurb.com/if/intro

You didn't throw away all your books after getting that plasma TV, did you? Interactive Fiction hasn't lost any of its magic either, so go ahead and check out all the new stuff! (Or the old :-)

I'm not slamming black and white movies by any stretch, I am a big movie buff and watch plenty of really old films. My point was that the sophistication of the medium does not necessarily dictate that games will become less enganging as posters are claiming. Painters that work with a very limited palette are not de-facto able to bring about more moving works of art. Game designers working in HD or in 8-bit are the same way.

We may not see next-gen games using the increased palette of power available to designers to deliver gamers more powerful works, but that should not be taken as evidence of a weakness in the tools. Yes, abstraction can be a useful device. Stunning realism can be as well. My favorite movies are ones which really get across the idea "these characters are human and not only is their situation possible, it is inevitable". The essay posted up on Demonoid today about games as art pointed out how the designer coaxed the player into morally ponderous situations and such, and it was completely unrelated to the technology behind the game or the number of pixels being twiddled.

An Ico in any other resolution would play the same.

And if you're desperate for a game like Zork NOW, there's always http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Game:Zork

(but please, if you want to add/edit stuff, make sure it's good. Quality Control is an eternal problem in those parts.)

@10:
6lb is weight, which includes gravity (9.8 m/s^2). Sorry to nitpick.

Way to show your ass, ConstyXIV.

I believe a great game is a game that allows the players imagination to run wild.

Why do people remember Zork so fondly? Not because of the graphics, or lack of graphics, but because of the freedom you felt when playing it. You felt like you could attempt to do just about anything. We all know that you could actually do very little in Zork as the command interpreter only processor so many words, but the programmers masked this limitation to allow the player to feel like they could perform any stunt they desired, and then they would image the possible outcome of this action. It made for great fun.

This is not completly lost in today’s games. The best games are the ones that allow the player to follow their own paths, perform their own actions and feel like they are in charge of this huge world.

I am currently playing Enchanted Arms. The game is great, but I feel too much like cattle being herded towards the slaughter house. There is no sense of discovery, more of just fighting and then rewarded by some animation, then more fighting (reminds me so much of Final Fantasy).

When I rave about Oblivion to others, it is not the graphics that instantly come to mind, but the freedom you have in this vast world. The world of Oblivion adapts to the player and not the player to the world Oblivion. There is nothing like the feeling of having stumbled upon some ancient shrine or at discovering a new secret area, while not being corralled to this location. I can only imagine what other great adventure are waiting for me in the land of Tamriel.

Today’s games must allow the users that level of freedom. Freedom and not graphics (or lack thereof) fuel imagination.

yeah, seriously ConstyXIV, Your green is showing.

LMAO @ 10.

ConstyXIV, google the phrase "it weighs 6 pounds plus gravity"...

Great discussion!

Robert Jung FTW: "Understanding Comics" is all over the concept of abstraction and identification with a character. In the case of the Infocom games, you tend to learn hardly anything about your own character, which enables you to immerse yourself in the story easily and "color in" the details that are not explicitly conveyed to you. Plus, the games required multiple levels of translation: from text to mental images, then creating new mental images (e.g. solving a puzzle) and back translating them to text to enter a command for the character to perform. That's more effort than a lot of young gamers expect from games nowadays, but it can be a very rewarding experience.

There are so many genres in gaming now that no one single characteristic MUST make a game great. Does Tetris have/need great graphics? Does Madden have complete freedom for the player? Does Metal Gear Solid leave anything to the imagination? But for many of us, the transcendent action-adventure games rely ultimately on great storytelling. The key difference as mentioned above is the video game must convey to the player that s/he could do whatever s/he wants to within the "rules" of the gaming world. The Half Life series has the sweet engine and awesome multiplayer, but the single player storylines have been so immersive and are told almost implicitly with visual cues. I love the Metroid Prime games so much because of the way the story unfolds, through scanning of devices and piecing together a puzzle.

I'd say Madden is great as a simulation where all the details of an activity are accurately recreated and you can "live" as a quarterback, receiver, etc. Tetris engages the intellect on a fundamental level, with simple "rules" that are tweaked as the game progresses (speed, different pieces, other players dropping crap on your side of the field etc). Metal Gear Solid is sort of an interactive action movie.

Fable promised not only a world that adapted to the player, but an in-game character that evolved to the player's decisions. I think it's generally agreed that Molyneux's game didn't fully deliver on that promise. But it's a great thing to strive for. Oblivion is obviously less of an action game but truly delivers an an enormous world that responds to the player. Rockstar's repertoire is aiming for this kind of immersion and storytelling as well. The themes haven't really interested me personally, but I think this is great for gaming.

The Wii is going to take gaming in a totally different direction with respect to interactivity. Part of my intense interest in it is the potential of the new controller - I can't wait to see what developers are stimulated to come up with.

I always liked Enix games (Dragon Quest III, Earthbound come to mind immediately) more than Square games because of the whole "sense of exploration". While the saving grace of Square games is their story and character development, they lose out in the gameplay aspect, IMO, because the worlds tend to be made out of "paths", instead of... say... "sections" that Enix games were famous for. Of course, the Enix model led to lots of frustration since it was easier to get stuck (anyone else fondly remember not knowing what the hell to do next once you got the ship in DQII and eventually giving up?), but I suppose a proper "balance" has to be struck between complete linearity and complete sandbox. Zork did this, that's why we remember it so fondly. However, with advancing technology, the balance will be harder pull off. Mario 64 and the GTA games would be considered modern successes, I suppose, haha.

Guys, don't be too hard on him. Just look at this. http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/17/ladies-and-gents-we-present-the-worst-top-10-ever
Even though this was written on the Associated Press website, Joystiq sorted of popularized the phrase "6 pounds plus gravity". I think it would be cool if this phrase got even more common. Apparently, Joystiq coined the term "DS Phat."

I love screwing around with these, here's another non-joystiq related...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/Kamizar/motivator5858528.jpg

Here are a couple I made a little while ago for my Dynamis linkshell (guild). Enjoy.

http://nekomi.us/gallery2/f/wipe

http://nekomi.us/gallery2/f/raise

(the game is FFXI. they're a little bit in-jokey, but should have enough general appeal)

I remember one night, some time ago, when I was online fighting w/ some friends on one of the newer quests when I should have been up studying. It was a cast from a typical RPG party: a mage, a thief, etc. (I guess I could have been called a Tripster). But it was a sweet thing to actually be campaigning. I then remember asking everyone, "wouldn't this be insane if it were *graphical*? Ahh, memories. Does anyone else miss MUDDing? Glad I left when I did, else Everquest and then WoW would be ruling my bank account.

to #25 kev

But technically, Everquest and WoW still can't replace the human gM, not can graphics replace the sheer detail the GM can provide.

If you want a real RP experience (and not the pseudo-RPG experience consoles/PC advertise), try and hit up with an online D&D group, the advantages of online D&D (human GM version) is a lot:

Compared to offline D&D:
a) No more paper-passing with truely private discussion
b) Ability to handle more tedius stuff like item ID and city-sightseeing during offtimes by forums/journals
c) Keeping track of stats and inventory with notepad or specialised programs without pencil/paper, and etc

Compared to MMORPGs:
a) You can do anything you want within realism limits. You actually get to take that sword of uberness the enemy drops.
b) Adventures are generally balanced and tuned to your capabilities.
c) Quests are generally epic and unique. There's no such thing as spoilers.
d) There's no grinding. The adventure is always more important than your level.

Huh. They got the text slightly wrong. Isn't it "with a boarded front door?" That's what the screen capture on Wikipedia says.