What if you could take the real world and make it fun?

I'm not talking about realism in terms of real life. I'm not talking about getting rid of all the little unrealistic elements that make games more fun than real life. That is a big reason we play video games. To escape.

I'm not talking about 1 shot kills and no respawns.

Even in the Holodeck in Star Trek they would turn on the safety protocols and give themselves beatable enemies. (of course they were usually disabled by some phenomonon or some AI that became self aware. DAMN YOU DATA!!!)

What I am talking about is the ability of computer similations(games) to allow us to live out our dreams in an environment that is realistic. Realistic Physics. Realistic AI. Realistic Graphics. Realistic everything except the things we want to change.

What if you could take the real world and only change the rules that you don't like. Give yourself the ability to fly like superman. That is where we are headed. That is what technology will eventually allow even the lowest budget indie developer to create(many many years from now). Why not utilize that? Even in surrealistic games you want textures to be crisp. You want physics to be complex. You want the AI to be intelligent.

AN APPLIED EXAMPLE - OR GOING OFF TOPIC - I'M NOT SURE

Is a 2D universe as good as a 3D universe? I don't know. I myself certainly prefer to spend time in a 3D game. To really answer this question you have to take into account cost and resources. 2D games are (of course)not objectively better or worse than 3D games. But why limit yourself to 2 dimensions when you can have 3? What if it was just as expensive and time consuming to create 2D environments as it was to create 3D environments. Would developers go through all that effort to create the 2D? I don't know for sure, but I don't think they would.

The popularity of 2D games in the indie community is related to the expensive costs to create the same amount of content in a 3D game. But what if 3D was cheaper?

Take Braid for example. It could have never accomplished the amount of gameplay it did without taking a lot of "indie" shortcuts as I have come to call them. The main one being the use of 2d graphics. What he lacked in budget and technology though, he made up for with gameplay, story and character. So I am not saying that a 3D game is necessarily better than a 2D game. But we live in a 3D universe not a 2D one. Why would you be less realistic if you don't have to be? (currently, for budgetary reasons, many developers have to be)

And in truth, it should be mentioned that all 3D games require 2D art in the form of textures.

So I guess I'm just complaining about math.

8X8 = 64 (easier)

8X8X8 = 512 (alot more content)



So in conclusion, people often use the concept of "elite" art to dodge questions about the quality of their art. Don't stare at black squares all day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art