"I've watched the evolution of games and the games industry for the last 25 years; I've always had a front-row seat," said Inafune. "In many modern action games, it's about how realistic you can make the experience, how sensational the action is. But the creators of the best games today have realized that they need to do something more than becoming more realistic, more sensational - it's probably already hit the ceiling. [Developers] thinking about creating something new by including that emotional aspect. In thinking globally, in order to compete with the top game creators today, I've also had to think about including that emotional aspect. The games I work on will all include that as a big theme." - Keiji Inafune
I think that anyone can make a game look realistic. You just have to have a group of artists that are proficient in the programs being used. On the flip-side, I don't think anyone can interject true emotion into a game. That's why we see so many games with realistic graphics, but hardly any that grab us emotionally.
Link
I think that anyone can make a game look realistic. You just have to have a group of artists that are proficient in the programs being used. On the flip-side, I don't think anyone can interject true emotion into a game. That's why we see so many games with realistic graphics, but hardly any that grab us emotionally.
Link
RSS Feeds:
Yeah...so where is that penguin game?
The problem with realism is that it's fused with the word epic. If anyone that is everyone have ever played games like gears of war, they don't go well.
Don't forget fun gameplay.
I've had my share of games that grabbed me emotionally. It's all in writing. Generally they don't hire writers for that purpose though.
As for "make the best games"? No. They (emotions) make the most MEMORABLE games, but the best games are from gameplay and design.
@LegendofSantiago
That's the publisher's problem, which isn't Inafune/Comcept. He said earlier this year that he wanted to show it off a while ago but he wasn't able to due to the publisher.
But I don't see what that has to do with this though.
Quest frankly, I'm rather tired/bored of so-called "realism" in 90% of modern retail games these days. I don't know about you, but I like some color, some imagination, god forbid, some creativity in my game design. I'd rather play something that looks like the fuckin' Care Bears, than something that looks like Call of duty, simply because it would be more interesting to look at.
@MoldyClay it's an inafune game that hasn't been seen for a while and it's not realistic
I agree with him. The ultra realism style never looks realistic as technology progresses and doesn't age well. Furthermore, it really doesn't do much to add to the experience.
I do have to agree on Keiji Inafune on this. I have no problem seeing "realism" once and a while in video games, but the problem with "realism" is that video game developers tend to use "realism" excessively in their video games which makes me quickly get bored of "realism."
No, gameplay is the only thing that makes a good game.
I don't really care for realism, and actually prefer the opposite anyway, and never cared about trifles like "emotion" ...people need to stop treating video games like they're major motion pictures.
I believe emotion makes a game more engrossing than graphics. One of the many reasons that I love Cave Story.
But yeah, it doesn't necessarily make for a good game.
"Emotion" is a trick word with multiple definitions, and dozens of things we could apply it to (in creating video games).
"Emotion" in a story for most games would always be a great thing. This especially true multiple emotions with complex characters with hundreds of emotions like real human beings. While that doesn't mean a game great, it does help (in most cases). Characters, situations, and groups we can relate to or "feel as they feel" in games definitely moves stories forward, and makes us care a lot more.
However, if by "emotion" Inafune meant "putting your emotions into a game" (which could mean putting your all and love of games into a game), in most cases, he would be right. When a lot of (now big) companies started off, they were small fries, struggling to survive. One such case of where a company put all their emotion into a game was "Final Fantasy" (in which Square Soft thought would be their final game). That emotion leaked through the game and through the franchise. Their hard work put into that game was undeniable and very evident.
So yeah, Inafune needs to explain what he means by "big words" like "emotion" more. That or Inafune needs to be more precise with his language. Because quite frankly, his quotes are open to a trillion different interpretations. However, it is possible some of what he meant was lost in translation (from Japanese to English). If that is the case, disregard the rest of this paragraph! XD
As usual, IMO, it's all about 'balance' when it comes to developing good games depending on 'how' a developer uses these elements (emotion, realism, etc.) in their games.
Someone clearly needs to play Mother 3
I think realism is like a template or starting point to create something both epic and creative. However it doesn't guarantee to make trascendence. In games I tend to go away realism since it start to become more simulation of reality than an interactive experience. And also adding I think it doesn't bring iconic characters.
Realism doesn't always mean having amazing graphics. (Call of Duty)
Realism being the focus of your art direction doesn't equal always having an ugly or boring game. Not all games are purely going for realism, either, nor can you simply go *poof* and make the next Assassin's Creed bright and pink and it be what fits that specific game.
Having awesome graphics isn't a bad thing. Arkham City on the PC with super sampling (beyond 1080p and AA), all effects and details on their highest - including Directx 11 features like tesselation -- well, the game looks damned amazing on top of having the same awesome gameplay as the console version.
Name something with 'realistic' graphics that isn't a bland, bad shooter, and the odds of it being a good game go up dramatically.
tl;dr Anyone can make good graphics per se, but only certain people can put that extra pop into the art style, realistic-ish or not. Same goes for making a game versus making a good one.
Realistic graphics aren't the problem. It's BAD realistic graphics and BAD gameplay or copypaste FPS #343.
RPGs are a bit of a different case, though in most cases, the story is ALL it has going for them.
I'm not much of an RPG fan due to the focus on story and the very boring slow paced gameplay.
I won't deny MOTHER 3 has a great story, and has the best gameplay in the series, what withe the dash function, and the music based combo system.
Still, the Mario RPGs are the only games I find truly entertaining due to the platforming, and highly interactive battles.
You're right. "Realistic" graphics aren't the problem, and a game trying to have that look doesn't automatically make it bad. But the problem that DOES exist, is that FAR TOO MANY developers these days, just go for the "boring, bland, quasi-realistic" look, especially because so many use the Unreal Engine, and it makes it so that so many games that come out, regardless of the developer, STILL look the same. And that is boring, unimaginative, and bland.
A game doesn't have to necessarily go to the other extreme and be SUPER colorful and cartoony either, though in many cases I would personally prefer that. But what a game SHOULD strive for, is having it's OWN, individual look. One game by one developer should not have the same basic look to it's characters and world as another game by a completely different team. That, to me, is just lazy. It's as if the graphics department of these development houses aren't even trying anymore. I've said it before, but it bares saying again, back in the 8 and 16 bit era, by necessity pretty much ALL games were "cartoony", because of the pixel based graphics. However, developers usually seemed to find a way to give their games a graphical identity. You could tell a Sega game, or a Nintendo game, or Capcom game, etc., by the graphics usually, before you even knew what it was. Now adays, that's not always the case.
In face Nintendo and Sega are two of the only developers left who do still bother to MAKE games that have their own unique look (Capcom's recent "ink effect" fighters notwithstanding).
View the full discussion!