Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tabletopreloaded" data-source="post: 8971720" data-attributes="member: 7040229">Agreed wholeheartedly! Games should embrace their fictional side instead of shying away from it. I think this is why many classic games have endured in ways that the newer titles struggle with. In the past, there were many limits to game technology and complexity, so you had to come to grips with restrictions on the gameplay early on during development. Nowadays, as consumer electronics have astounding computing power and input versatility, developers haven't felt the same pressures, so they've come to forget that less limitations != a better game.Both of your experiments are simply alternative restrictions on player movement. Of course, we're not limited to orthogonal grids, ortho-diagonal lines, or any other arbitrary movement scheme in the real world. At the same tme, however, no game system can presently capture the full range of movement in physical space.. This is readily apparent even in AAA titles, where turning your player still means spinning on an axis without moving a limb.Even if games could replicate the elaborate feature set of real life, I don't think that would be desirable. Games are defined by a few key features: an objective, obstacles and goodies that disrupt or support the objective, and of course, a rule system. Without rules, you really don't have a game. Those mechanics unique to a game are the same mechanics that make it special. After all, isn't the point of a game to experience alternative, often simpler realities? I think writing rules that differ from what we see in the real world is a developer's best way to introduce that creativity that makes games entertaining.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tabletopreloaded, post: 8971720, member: 7040229"] Agreed wholeheartedly! Games should embrace their fictional side instead of shying away from it. I think this is why many classic games have endured in ways that the newer titles struggle with. In the past, there were many limits to game technology and complexity, so you had to come to grips with restrictions on the gameplay early on during development. Nowadays, as consumer electronics have astounding computing power and input versatility, developers haven't felt the same pressures, so they've come to forget that less limitations != a better game. Both of your experiments are simply alternative restrictions on player movement. Of course, we're not limited to orthogonal grids, ortho-diagonal lines, or any other arbitrary movement scheme in the real world. At the same tme, however, no game system can presently capture the full range of movement in physical space.. This is readily apparent even in AAA titles, where turning your player still means spinning on an axis without moving a limb. Even if games could replicate the elaborate feature set of real life, I don't think that would be desirable. Games are defined by a few key features: an objective, obstacles and goodies that disrupt or support the objective, and of course, a rule system. Without rules, you really don't have a game. Those mechanics unique to a game are the same mechanics that make it special. After all, isn't the point of a game to experience alternative, often simpler realities? I think writing rules that differ from what we see in the real world is a developer's best way to introduce that creativity that makes games entertaining. [/QUOTE]

Verification