Look, Driverman2006. Asking for cities that will be 100% accurate is being a little too hard on a developer. I'll tell you now that this would take a long while to make possible and that it'd be almost impossible to allow for the rest of the game's experience to feel any better than good. Sure we'd need most of the city to be accurate (maybe at around 60% or even 75%), but asking for any more than that, at this point, especially when the Driver series needs more of a new direction than to focus on what it already has going, would be a wrong choice for Reflections. Also, thinking back to DPL, it had a lot of accuracy and yet it wasn't so fun of a city. A city needs to be mostly accurate, but it also needs to offer a lot of fun. What would be the fun if we just drove through a city that had no ramps and no fictional areas or objects in the game? It seems almost, if not impossible, to implement every object and place in the city for a game to have, so don't ask for too much as this.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Driverman2006:
Accurate cities not fun?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I could never resist 100% accuracy. I see a 100% accurate city as an Edward Hopper painting (meaning it looks very realistic and makes sense). I see an innaccurate city as a Picaso painting (meaning it doesn't look realistic and doesn't have a point).
Here's what they should do. They should make the cities 100% accurate, but include a $#!+ load of jobs/side jobs (or career spawn points) in the city. Driv3r's cities were very map accurate, but the dumb front-end menu f**ked things up and made it not fun to play, same with Driver 2. 100% map accuracy means more roads!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif More alternate routes to take!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And more fun!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's the way I see it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I remember you made this post some days ago. You described an innaccurate city as a Picaso painting and claimed that it has no meaning. If you haven't already realized, every form of art, realistic or even unrealistic, has a meaning. No offense to you, Driverman2006, but you care about realism too much. You have never seemed to be imaginative. It's like you'd wish that imagination was never part of anything. It's perhaps why you've never been able to go further than games from the racing and from the free-roam sub-genre (part of the Action-Adventure genre). You always rely on expecting fun from the games that seem the most realistic. Well, then you'll find you're theory in that video games being the most realistic as possible can be wrong. For instance, D3 tried to be very realistic, in its graphics, explosions, and other aspects, but it failed since it was rushed. Sometimes developers try to come up with something entirely new and beyond anyone else's work. This is what Picaso did. He is regarded as one of the best artists and painters of all time, maybe even more than Leonardo Da Vinci, another very good artist & painter, so don't say that he was terrible.
Realism is important, to some of an extent, in a video game, but what you must realize is that game consoles and the PC are both limited in their scope of how far they can push gaming. It all depends on the amount of storage (that of the hard drive and disc), the types of graphic cards, and any other form of technology that is existent. Do you know why, sometimes, developers go off to a completely different direction? It's because they want to get the most out of their work, by not focusing entirely on realism, which, if you were to play a toy (games are about playing just as toys are about it too.), you wouldn't care if it had none or all of the realism in the world. You'd just make sure that you could imagine something and let it take you into a new world, a world where you can pretend for anything to happen. This is what a video game is about. Anything fictional is not realistic. Whether it's stories or characters, or anything else, the form of media will, no matter if it includes real elements or not, be considered not real. We just can't match the reality of our world and place that into a video game. We can't do it with any form of media (books, movies, music, etc.) It's impossible. Therefore, just because a city may not be completely accurate or even isn't a real one, it doesn't mean that it'll turn out bad. By saying that you want a 100% accurate city, you're also limiting the scope that Reflections can do with the game's city. The more realistic it is, the more limits it'll need to have. Keep that in mind.