🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Poll: Reality vs Science Fiction
Author
The question is very simple... What do you prefer? A real story line where almost everything is believable or a storyline with a lot of science-fiction elements? Let''s take as example two "similar" games:
-> Syphon-Filter: The terrorist has a programable virus that can kill just one kind of population. Our heros (the player) go across a lot of different places trying to destroy the computer, to get the vacune, to save scientifics, etc... The "boss enemies" are helicopters, experienced shotters or guys with special armors or something like that.
-> Metal Gear Solid: The terrorist has a biped nuclear huge robot (?). Our hero go into the enemy''s fortress trying to deactivate the nuclear robot. The "boss enemies" are, by example, a mentalist (!?), a guy that uses a revolver (???), a ninja that dissappear (!!!), etc... Many of the characters of the game are the result of genetic experiments (?) and the story is very confusing if you have played the older games ("Metal Gear" and "Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake"), because some people that died in those adventures weren''t really dead (or were brought back to life to appear in this adventure).
Personally, I find more interesting and involvent the first ones. I liked (a lot) the "Metal Gear" story, but the "Metal Gear Solid" story line has been a deception.
Thanks in advance for your answers and time.
And sorry (as always) for the poor english.
theNestruo
Syntax error in 2410
Ok
As long as the story is consistant, I can take realistic or science fiction. The key is for the universe to be consistent within its self.
Well, as always, the perfect mix makes the difference.
"Credible" sci-fi a lá Deus Ex is the way to go.
"Credible" sci-fi a lá Deus Ex is the way to go.
Reality. But I truely belive it is impossible (at least currently) to emulate reality in a game. Well, for one thing, the world "emulate" throws the whole concept of reality off.
I for one am less interested in the feasibility of the universe, and more connected with the quality of the characters, particularly the character who serves as the player''s avatar in the game. I feel pride in achievement, am mildly embarrassed when I totally botch an easy jump or shot, and get excited when a new weapon/item/power is discovered.
I love the character of Solid Snake. He doesn''t have too much corny dialogue, he''s tough, but not arrogant, and he''s an easy character to get into. The lack of overpowering personality lets me slide into the character and infuse it with my own decisions and ideas. Really, any quiet, competent hero (Link, Samus Aran, Simon Belmont, Mjolnir Mk. IV, and any one of a thousand faceless spaceship pilots) is a good vessel in which to travel to a virtual world.
A more personality-laden character turns me off. Excessive grunting and straining, one-liners, signature moves, too many chatty cutscenes and corny lines annoy me, and I tend to become disenchanted with the character. I lose my immersion in the game, and I start looking around, and wondering what I''ll do when the cutscene ends or slapping buttons while I wait for a particularly long conversation to end. I have no invested interest and thus no fun.
So, in conclusion, I don''t care about realism. I like realistic games, sometimes, but I''d rather see realistic principles implemented than realistic worlds. If I can use real room-clearing tactics to kill zombies and mozambique a skeleton (two to the rib cage, one to the skull?) then I''m happy. Realism is a niche feature in video games. That''s why sports games tend to suck.
I love the character of Solid Snake. He doesn''t have too much corny dialogue, he''s tough, but not arrogant, and he''s an easy character to get into. The lack of overpowering personality lets me slide into the character and infuse it with my own decisions and ideas. Really, any quiet, competent hero (Link, Samus Aran, Simon Belmont, Mjolnir Mk. IV, and any one of a thousand faceless spaceship pilots) is a good vessel in which to travel to a virtual world.
A more personality-laden character turns me off. Excessive grunting and straining, one-liners, signature moves, too many chatty cutscenes and corny lines annoy me, and I tend to become disenchanted with the character. I lose my immersion in the game, and I start looking around, and wondering what I''ll do when the cutscene ends or slapping buttons while I wait for a particularly long conversation to end. I have no invested interest and thus no fun.
So, in conclusion, I don''t care about realism. I like realistic games, sometimes, but I''d rather see realistic principles implemented than realistic worlds. If I can use real room-clearing tactics to kill zombies and mozambique a skeleton (two to the rib cage, one to the skull?) then I''m happy. Realism is a niche feature in video games. That''s why sports games tend to suck.
I would honestly have to say that i like Sci-Fi with at least some basis in reality, along the lines of metal gear, or possible a little more realistic. Then again, i also like stories that are completely unbeleiveable, so long as there is a good plot and the characters don''t make me want to gouge out my eyes with a nail.
Author
Thank you for your answers!!!
Another question (a little bit off-topic): Do you like when a game talk about the game itself (or other games)? Two examples:
->Monkey Island: in this game I can remember two "strange" situations. The first is at Scumm bar, where you can talk with a pirate about Loom, also from LucasFilm. The second one is near the end, when Guybrush says "Never pay more than 15$ to buy a videogame" (Note: I played the spanish version, so I''m not sure if it was translated ok).
->Metal Gear Solid (again): when the mentalist talk about how often you save the game, about other Konami''s games found in the memory card, etc...
Personally, I found the Monkey Island''s jokes very funny, because all the game was like a comedy; but I didn''t like them at all when playing Metal Gear Solid.
What do you think?
theNestruo
Syntax error in 2410
Ok
Another question (a little bit off-topic): Do you like when a game talk about the game itself (or other games)? Two examples:
->Monkey Island: in this game I can remember two "strange" situations. The first is at Scumm bar, where you can talk with a pirate about Loom, also from LucasFilm. The second one is near the end, when Guybrush says "Never pay more than 15$ to buy a videogame" (Note: I played the spanish version, so I''m not sure if it was translated ok).
->Metal Gear Solid (again): when the mentalist talk about how often you save the game, about other Konami''s games found in the memory card, etc...
Personally, I found the Monkey Island''s jokes very funny, because all the game was like a comedy; but I didn''t like them at all when playing Metal Gear Solid.
What do you think?
theNestruo
Syntax error in 2410
Ok
Funny games, it''s okay. "Serious" games, not so good. If I''m actually getting into a game, a straight-up out-of-character line can really screw the mood. Of course, it''s a little embarrassing to realize that you were really getting into a video game, but there you have it.
I prefer sci-fi in general, feasible or not. So long as it''s done well enough that there aren''t major, completely obvious, gaps in the believe ability of the story. I totally despise ultra "realistic" games. Whats the point of playing a video game, when can''t escape from reality? Albiet ultra-realism doesn''t mean BAD game, or even POINTLESS, but in general, my preference is sci-fi.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
