Kwaad said:
What is more realistic? I dont feel the motion controls on the the Wii are 'realistic'. It seems childish, and playlike. (Kinda like motion controls on the PS3) It's fun, entertaining. Realistic? Not really. I blame the accelerometer for the most part. Example. Wii Bowling. what if I want to be a dork, and throw the ball over my shoulder? Or do like a dork, and swing it between my legs. That is 'realism'. Not. 'I swing my arm through the motions, and what little the game does, is realistic, everything else is not.'. Is not very realistic. It takes a single motion, and turns it into 'realistic' When it can capture all 'motions' it will be realstic. The motion controls on the Wii, and PS3, are nothing more than, amusing control inputs to me.
Graphics. I feel graphics are the corner stone of realism on a game. However, it dosent make the game feel more 'real'. If you want realism, get Duck hunt. The graphics are shit, but you hold a gun, point it, and shoot at birds. In real life, you would hold a gun, point it, and shoot at birds. Realism list. SNES > NES > PS3/Wii > everything else.
The Wii has advantage controls, the PS3 has advantange graphics. NES and SNES wins becuase of the 'guns'. For universal games, A complex game is more at home on the PS3, due to added buttons, makes performing more actions easier. A simpler game, The Wii is more at home, being easier to do the actions, with a little more 'personal' involvement. Overall, they are both 'sub par' when it comes to 'realism' |
No video game system today makes you completely feel like you're in the game. However, I don't see how something like Wii Bowling isn't THE realest version of a game in its genre, period. Sure, you can't go between your legs, but that's because you're not decked out in a full body suit that keeps track of not just the Wiimote, but you in your entirety. However, you can be sure that the Wii recognizes the exact motion that goes into throwing between the legs, and that that motion determines how the ball moves, even if the Mii isn't going between his legs. The value of being able to actually swing your arm and have the ball react accordingly is infinitely greater than the value of being able to see every skin line on your bowler's hand in terms of realism. I'm not saying every game is as great as Wii Bowling at getting you in the game, but you sure picked one heck of a poor example. That feel of being able to throw the ball with all your might and knocking down a strike is just so dang satisfying.
Overall, I think the answer to which is more important is clearly evident if we go back and look at how we played when we were younger. When you were young and pretending to fight a gigantic dragon or something, how did you do it, with a stick and a trash can lid in your backward attacking that dead tree with all your might, or in your room staring at the poster of a beautifully drawn dragon? When you were pretending to drive a car, were you in a cardboard box making totally excessive turns back and forth, or just sitting there staring at a poster of some Porsche or Corvette? I think we all (most of us, at least) were always doing something similar to the first choice in both cases. The point is that we actually value tactile feedback and movement more than visual images. We all have this amazing thing called an imagination and are very good at using it to either create or enhance images--tactile feedback, not so much. Just look at little kids play, and it's pretty clear which is fundamentally more important.
