Realism?

I've realized (not just now, not that stupid) that game developers are obsessed with realism, like they think its the only thing they can do in a game to make it sell. They seem to forget, we play video games TO ESCAPE LIFE not TO BE PUT BACK IN IT! Some games make realism fun, but then again, some games could be more fun if they fucked the realism and did something that would grab and hold your attention for more than half a nanosecond.

Thoughts?

Another thing is that color is part of real life so realistic games should have more color.

I agree Gauz.

That's why when I hear people complain about a games realism and it's lack of it. I just think, realism went straight out the window when you realize this is a video game.

[Relevant to topic]I like games that are fun to play, so I would buy a game if its fun.

Fun, well fun is different to everyone I guess; however, I get the feeling that a lot of people mix 'fun' with 'whatever the majority is playing'...
[/relevant to topic]

An example of what I thought was fun, Saints Row 2. I liked this game, a lot, bought it infact. Why? Its a sandbox game, like GTA except MUCH better. You can customize the shit out of your person. Special? Why yes, as you can make your person a 'ghetto G' or you could run around in a pirate-ninja costume, or you can drive by as a clown in a dress.

Driving was fun, because it wasn't realistic, like in GTA. The story was nice i'd say, but the best part was the sandbox style and minigames. You could pretend to be a cop and use chainsaws, flamethrowers, and RPG's to enfore the law. All for media purposes however
Another one was to get in a truck and drive around town shooting shit on private and public property for cash.

Two things I didn't like
1) Multiplayer.... didn't really improve, still are near 0 games becasue no one plays.
2) Respect.... to do missions you need a certain amount of respect. Apparently you lose it after doing missions and destroying gangs, but gain it after painting a suburban home with feces?

Fun game

Realism=Restrictions

I love TF2 as it had practically no regard for realism, and it turned out awesome. Valve made the game how they wanted the game to be made, they weren't restricted, or bound to the ground.

The only significant advantage of realism if the fact that it heighten the atmosphere.

Health meters.


Why are they gone? For a reason I dont know game developers would much rather throw shit on your screen then kill you at a random moment when they put more shit on the screen.

Health bars aren't realistic, but then again neither is a story about robots in space killing aliens over a giant ring only to find out the real enemy was A ZOMBIE.

It all depends on the game. Team Fortress 2 is a purely multi-player game. Valve does not claim that the game is realistic, and has no reason to.

Call of Duty, on the other hand, was almost purely single-player. Realism has been very successful in the past for telling stories, because it is easier to relate to a story that is realistic than one that is unrealistic.

You see, when unrealism is employed in a story, it is because the story writer is too lazy to use realism. Unrealism in a story is usually the result of lazy writers.

I'd also like to point out that Health Meters are realistic, in the sense that there is only so much blood you can lose before you are going to die, and if you get shot and then hide in a corner for a few minutes, you won't just magically regain that blood, and you likely won't even be able to staunch the bleeding by sitting in a corner.

That's the fun part of OFP2, you'll bleed to death if you don't do anything after you're shot.

Realism can be done well and can make a fun game, but I usually prefer a mix of realism and non realistic elements, or the other way around. Stalker is fun, it has unrealistic things like mutant creatures and anomalies (unrealistic anomalies), but you can starve if you don't eat, you'll bleed out if you've been hit even once and you don't use a medpack or bandages, and you can only carry around 50kg before being greatly slowed down (at around 60kg you can't move anymore).

One of my favorite games was Cel Damage. Nothing to do with realism, because they tried to make it as cartoony as possible (You had portable bottomless holes that you can throw around. If anyone drove over them, they died!)

However, some games started out with a semblance of realism (Halo, CoD, CoH) and I'd like them to stick to it.

"It's a game! It doesn't need realism!"
Well, tough, I like realism in some of my games.

I liked the Realism Mode for L4D2. No glowy objects, blue aura around your survivor allys, no bright red lines when your jumped by a special infected. It made me that much angrier when a Jockey jumped me and my friend just stared at me as I was led into a horde of zombies

Now, what I like is at least realistic physics in a game.

I'm fine with mutants, robots, and mutant zombie robots as long as all of the physics, health system (like Flashpoint 2), and bullet damage is correct.

Has anyone here ever played Whacked! on the xbox? Dear god that was fun, or at least it was fun when I played it. Not the slightest attempt at making anything realistic, it worked well. It was a party game, pick shit up and kill others with it.

Realism only matters when it comes to physics other than that it limits story.

Death no more wrote:Realism only matters when it comes to physics other than that it limits story.

It depends.
If you're fudging gun damage and how fast a Spartan can run, and how much recoil you get from a Gauss cannon, then yes, it helps.

If you're introducing psychic orks, PWNZER Mechs, and heroes that can wade through entire armies without a scratch, then you can go take a hike.

Actually realism is what makes stories, sort of.

Shadowrun is a good example, it has NO story line or single player AT ALL. It is a shooter with trolls, dwarves, elves, and humans. There is a combination of magic and technology and is MP only.

Good game, totally unrealistic, super fun.

I think that games should be mechanically grounded in realism... as in a soldier can't take a half ton of ammo into his stomach and walk away happy...


graphically I wigh games would stop headed twoards realism.... or at least the "realism" they they seem to this is real... meaning the color brown thrown on top of everything


games like halo and crisis do it right graphically... colorful and styleized, but still "real" looking...

the day that videogames are 100% realistic looking is the day video games are no longer any fun

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Death no more wrote:Realism only matters when it comes to physics other than that it limits story.

It depends.
If you're fudging gun damage and how fast a Spartan can run, and how much recoil you get from a Gauss cannon, then yes, it helps.

If you're introducing psychic orks, PWNZER Mechs, and heroes that can wade through entire armies without a scratch, then you can go take a hike.

Well depends on what type of genre the game claims to be, if it claims to be sci-fi then maybe Mechs are just fine in it. If it claims to be fantasy then kick ass heroes and psychic orks are right in place.

VG cats FTW.

lol MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Death no more wrote:Well depends on what type of genre the game claims to be, if it claims to be sci-fi then maybe Mechs are just fine in it.

Except mechs require a good deal of fantasy to be implemented before they fit in.

Death no more wrote:If it claims to be fantasy then kick ass heroes and psychic orks are right in place.

My point is, you can't make a grand, sweeping generalization about "Realism".
The original CoD games were somewhat realistic, and were pretty fun.

StarCraft veers away from realism, and is one of the best RTSs of all time.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Death no more wrote:Well depends on what type of genre the game claims to be, if it claims to be sci-fi then maybe Mechs are just fine in it.

Except mechs require a good deal of fantasy to be implemented before they fit in.

Death no more wrote:If it claims to be fantasy then kick ass heroes and psychic orks are right in place.

My point is, you can't make a grand, sweeping generalization about "Realism".
The original CoD games were somewhat realistic, and were pretty fun.

StarCraft veers away from realism, and is one of the best RTSs of all time.

Eh ya, realism is good but sometimes it can hinder a game's potential, that's what I dislike about it.

Anyways I got into a argument with my friend today (Funny I didn't even bring it up till he did.) about realism, totally smashed all his arguments Though he isn't very smart

I think the problem is that "realism" means a lot of different things. StarCraft veers away from realism in the sense that it is a fight between humans and two alien races, but it stays right there with realism in the sense that things make sense within its universe. The same could be said of Halo. It is unrealistic that there are aliens and all that whatnot, but within the universe, everything used to make sense. Nylund even scientifically explained why some of the stuff was possible.

Well, the Haloverse is distinctly more ''real", in the fact that it uses modern day conventions, science we can relate to,and very little 'mystic'. Generally, it follows it's own rules.

StarCraft has psionic aliens, hyperevolutionary aliens, and phlebotanium for every application you can think of, but it all makes sence within the rules set for that universe. Even the mining/harvesting of gas and minerals.