Originally Posted by Melllvar
Sir, I disagree.
The more advanced technology and realism allows games to not just be about gameplay, but story and atmosphere too. Now you can either have a game that is great because it tells a great story (e.g. Metal Gear Solid 4) or creates a wonderful atmosphere (e.g. Bioshock), or is great because it has great gameplay (Left 4 Dead). I think the really best games combine both (Uncharted, Mass Effect). Maybe those aren't the best examples, since Bioshock and MGS4 still have pretty good gameplay, but look at Final Fantasy 13. The gameplay is pretty out of date, and not really that much fun by today's standards, IMO. But it still wins because of the story and atmosphere. Alan Wake's another example: the gameplay is fairly mediocre, but the story keeps you going. Personally I think a lot of modern video games have stories that rival or surpass the majority of movies that come out now.
As for old-school games, I still play Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, and Super Metroid on the emulator sometimes, and Breakout clones on my cell phone.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant, then.
I don't disagree that story is a big part of games. I assumed an inclusion of "story" within my use of "fun", as good story, illustrated well, can only add to the fun. And some games need good, realistic physics in order for it to be a believable game. However, it's not necessary to all games. If you take a gander through oldskool games, you see a cast of anthropomorphic animals and objects, body fluid as weapons, conjured fireballs, inexplicably humanoid suits on animals with no limbs, etc. Magic, dragons, alchemy, hollow worlds, airships and a host of other obviously fictional/mythical things.
As long as the gameworld does not contradict itself, it can have any sort of physics or mechanics imaginable. But the game is good
because the controls aren't difficult to learn, the mechanics of the world make sense within the game itself, the story is involved, good, and played out smoothly, etc. How real it appears when compared to the real world really isn't important, though. It's a game, not the real world.
And that's not to say I don't value graphics, either. They're low on my list of priorities, but I do like the game to look nice, smooth, and I like to know what the things I'm interacting with are supposed to actually be
. I don't care how realistic the 3D models are compared to real life, I care that I can distinguish what it is and it's role within the game.
For example, one of my friends refuses to play World of Warcraft because it's too cartoony. Sure, the graphics are undeniably outdated, and they're certainly cartoony, but that simply doesn't bother me, and I can't empathize with the annoyance. This same friend doesn't want to play a human when he plays fictional, fantastic games, either, because he's one in real life. So I dunno what kid of realistic/not realistic dynamic he looks for, since in real life he can't throw magical fireballs at giant devil pigs, but whatever.