Poll: Are games becoming too real?
- Thread starter [V.2]
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Do you mean realistic or life like?
Realistic would be playing Sims 4 on the Wii and shaking the Wiimote to do laundry, sweep the floor, and feed the baby, then get in the car and drive to your job where if you don't perform adequately, you get demerits and counseling until you eventually screw up badly enough that you get fired.
Life like is simply having the headsplosions fully rendered in 3D with accurate physics and blood spatter. Zero Punctuation made the point that once gaming gets to a certain graphical level, graphics will no longer be able to appreciably improve and will take a backseat to storytelling and gameplay once again.
Realistic would be playing Sims 4 on the Wii and shaking the Wiimote to do laundry, sweep the floor, and feed the baby, then get in the car and drive to your job where if you don't perform adequately, you get demerits and counseling until you eventually screw up badly enough that you get fired.
Life like is simply having the headsplosions fully rendered in 3D with accurate physics and blood spatter. Zero Punctuation made the point that once gaming gets to a certain graphical level, graphics will no longer be able to appreciably improve and will take a backseat to storytelling and gameplay once again.
To expand this idea. We should diferentiate the concept of realism from real life.dbltrouble89 said:
Realism in a game, IMO, is good. Having great graphics, emotions, physics, reactions, consequences, lightning, etc are for a better experience. I think the theme or setting of the game would'nt affect our way of perceiving the realism.
But a game about real life would'nt always work. Having a game about police paperowrk would suck. Nobody would ever play Office Work 3 for fun, that would be used for training and evaluation purpose. This kind of game would strive for the best realism.
Real life factors like, eating, fatigue, memory, emotions should have to be very thought out for them to fit in the gameplay.
I think realism can be a good thing when it's used as a embellishment, as in having realistic characters and graphics. However, it seems that some games take this too far and try to use realism as a major selling point. I think this is the main problem with games like Grand Theft Auto and all the WWII/Gulf War shooting games, all of which you could never convince to play. But to answer the question, yes I do think games are becoming too real. After all, this website is called "The Escapist," and I think that sums up why realism can be a bad thing. Not to mention the fact that always striving to make the graphics so realistic can rob other areas of the game of their quality, like gameplay or length.
Well as long as i can still get shot infinite amounts of times and shake them off as if someone is flinging rocks at me then no i dont think so =P
![[V.2]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/55/55687.jpg?1620502771){kind=avatar}
Personally I prefer somehting unrealistic to something realistic. I want Zombies, Space Marines and Mushroom Men riding around in go-karts in my games. I think that some games are starting to gear more towards realism but not too many.
When I play video games, I do wish to escape reality, but at the same time it's also an intention to have fun while doing it. I happen to be one of those people that might buy a game to check out the newest graphics and effects that have been programmed into it. With that said, when I play a first-person shooter, I look for the quality of the explosions, the environmental feel of combat as well as the overall combat system. I can honestly say however that when you get into a game with too realistic movements and action, it can get a bit strenuous and repetitive. I also happen to enjoy emptying a pistol clip into an opponents chest and watching their body shake as they fall backwards onto the ground. Now, in real life, one shot from a pistol to the chest and you'd be possibly dead, but with a high chance of being rendered useless. In the direction that I'm seeing developers take, it's not going to be long before it truly is a "one-shot-kill" system in which we won't have any health regeneration and when you get hit you're pretty much a crawling pile of gore until someone finally takes the liberty to put you out once and for all. That's the point where I kind of draw the line. Now, from my previous statement about me looking at all aspects of the game, rather than just initial game play, I would find it fascinating to see a game that could actually apply those features into a working system. While it may not be fun to the mass population, it would sure as hell be an awesome accomplishment to incorporate such a high level of realism.
Now, to a second point. As we all know, there's a very broad range of game genres out there. Realism in first-person-shooters seems to be the most controversial. Certain genres actually would benefit from realism though. Among these would be RPGs, horror games, maybe RTS depending on the combat system, and simulator games. For me, when RPGs incorporate realism through facial expressions, dialogue, story, and other great features, it can become a massive world that you can become immersed in. It makes the feel for the game; the drama and story involved, overall more real and in the process a lot more entertaining. I mean, when a game has such great dialogue and storyline that you can view the emotions of the characters in-game and understand their actions and reasoning, while also being involved and feel aggressive towards the antagonist in the story, the game developers have done a good job in the genre. After all, the genre of "roll-playing games" deserves to have a more in-depth feel than other genres of gaming might have. To me, when developers have done good jobs, when I finish an RPG or any single player campaign of a game, I hope to feel as if I'd just finished watching an action-packed movie or reading a good book. Games for me in the single-player aspect work like movies or books, except when I'm playing a video game I'm actually involved first-handed, rather than being a spectator. In recent games released I've enjoyed the increase of quality in story, that make the game entertaining to play and watch as the storyline unfolds. I guess the main point there would be that there comes a point when a games not a game anymore. When you lose the fictional story and jump into real scenarios with real conflicts and increasing violence and combat, you're not really playing a game anymore.
On the note about Call of Duty, I'm a hardcore junky unfortunately. I think the franchise hasn't crossed the line yet. I mean you regenerate health (which I wouldn't mind being removed from the game), can still bunny hop, pray and spray, and a plethora of other unrealistic aspects. The main factor of hardcore that I enjoy is that while it doesn't necessarily take one shot to kill a player, it sure as hell doesn't take a full clip. Unfortunately, I think developers may be heading in the "one-shot-kill gore pile" scenario with passing time. But, I could be wrong. We'll all just have to wait and see. I for one prefer them to be realistic in story, but keep those bunny-hopping-like elements we're so familiar with.
Regards, [-MSO-] Eragon
Now, to a second point. As we all know, there's a very broad range of game genres out there. Realism in first-person-shooters seems to be the most controversial. Certain genres actually would benefit from realism though. Among these would be RPGs, horror games, maybe RTS depending on the combat system, and simulator games. For me, when RPGs incorporate realism through facial expressions, dialogue, story, and other great features, it can become a massive world that you can become immersed in. It makes the feel for the game; the drama and story involved, overall more real and in the process a lot more entertaining. I mean, when a game has such great dialogue and storyline that you can view the emotions of the characters in-game and understand their actions and reasoning, while also being involved and feel aggressive towards the antagonist in the story, the game developers have done a good job in the genre. After all, the genre of "roll-playing games" deserves to have a more in-depth feel than other genres of gaming might have. To me, when developers have done good jobs, when I finish an RPG or any single player campaign of a game, I hope to feel as if I'd just finished watching an action-packed movie or reading a good book. Games for me in the single-player aspect work like movies or books, except when I'm playing a video game I'm actually involved first-handed, rather than being a spectator. In recent games released I've enjoyed the increase of quality in story, that make the game entertaining to play and watch as the storyline unfolds. I guess the main point there would be that there comes a point when a games not a game anymore. When you lose the fictional story and jump into real scenarios with real conflicts and increasing violence and combat, you're not really playing a game anymore.
On the note about Call of Duty, I'm a hardcore junky unfortunately. I think the franchise hasn't crossed the line yet. I mean you regenerate health (which I wouldn't mind being removed from the game), can still bunny hop, pray and spray, and a plethora of other unrealistic aspects. The main factor of hardcore that I enjoy is that while it doesn't necessarily take one shot to kill a player, it sure as hell doesn't take a full clip. Unfortunately, I think developers may be heading in the "one-shot-kill gore pile" scenario with passing time. But, I could be wrong. We'll all just have to wait and see. I for one prefer them to be realistic in story, but keep those bunny-hopping-like elements we're so familiar with.
Regards, [-MSO-] Eragon
It would be difficult to make a judgment on a wide enough scale, considering all game releases over a relevant period of time, and be objective in answering your question. I don't see the point in looking at personal experience for that either; the opinions you will receive will have less value than a grain of salt.
However, I think games today can sometimes suffer from the wrong focus. Like others have already argued, there can be an emphasis on graphics and physics rather than the progression, rules, feel, and plot of a game. If a game looks great in the terms of environmental effects, realistic water and character abilities, sure it adds to immersion. That immersion, however, can only deepen an experience if it's already there. Unless the game is made specifically with the purpose of providing a world of neat graphics (and they seldom are), the immersion is lost on a purposeless world.
A world that looks good (or has good physics) and is meaningless is not a game - the limits and ideas that work to get it defined as a "game" rather than a "fictional world" are not at work if there is no purpose or motivation for the player to continue, or set of goals to achieve. That is not to say that, like in G-mod or other highly moddable open worlds, you cannot create your own fun by adding your own rules.
I would argue that, while the open world might provide the potential for people to create their own fun, that aspect does not appeal to the majority of the gaming market, so you really have to provide your own rules. That means some linearity is essential for purpose and meaning, ergo realism (i.e. making a world heavily based on our own) is not strong from a design standpoint as the only focus point in developing.
Meanwhile, a world that is meaningful and looks like crap can be tolerable but usually is not much fun, at least not in the view of the majority of gamers, if you look at what is popular in gaming.
The problem of the overemphasis on realism is so prevalent for a few reasons. The motivation for developers is to make a game look good so a person who's sold on looks alone (once again, the majority of the market, or an unfortunate hardcore gamer's parent) will buy it and not get their money back when it turns out to be preachy, trite or meaningless. The other reasons are time restraint and the common result of that - bad management, and badly divided attention in development. If the programming team gets caught up on doing the graphics or physics, they're missing the point. If the writers are commissioned late into the process, then the game will lack poise and attention stamina.
Games might well be "becoming too real", but that's not really a problem (presuming such realities are given meaning); the results, of imbalanced design and poor lastability, are. We could say that realism (or too much love for graphical and in-game environmental results) is an ideological cause of such symptoms.
However, I think games today can sometimes suffer from the wrong focus. Like others have already argued, there can be an emphasis on graphics and physics rather than the progression, rules, feel, and plot of a game. If a game looks great in the terms of environmental effects, realistic water and character abilities, sure it adds to immersion. That immersion, however, can only deepen an experience if it's already there. Unless the game is made specifically with the purpose of providing a world of neat graphics (and they seldom are), the immersion is lost on a purposeless world.
A world that looks good (or has good physics) and is meaningless is not a game - the limits and ideas that work to get it defined as a "game" rather than a "fictional world" are not at work if there is no purpose or motivation for the player to continue, or set of goals to achieve. That is not to say that, like in G-mod or other highly moddable open worlds, you cannot create your own fun by adding your own rules.
I would argue that, while the open world might provide the potential for people to create their own fun, that aspect does not appeal to the majority of the gaming market, so you really have to provide your own rules. That means some linearity is essential for purpose and meaning, ergo realism (i.e. making a world heavily based on our own) is not strong from a design standpoint as the only focus point in developing.
Meanwhile, a world that is meaningful and looks like crap can be tolerable but usually is not much fun, at least not in the view of the majority of gamers, if you look at what is popular in gaming.
The problem of the overemphasis on realism is so prevalent for a few reasons. The motivation for developers is to make a game look good so a person who's sold on looks alone (once again, the majority of the market, or an unfortunate hardcore gamer's parent) will buy it and not get their money back when it turns out to be preachy, trite or meaningless. The other reasons are time restraint and the common result of that - bad management, and badly divided attention in development. If the programming team gets caught up on doing the graphics or physics, they're missing the point. If the writers are commissioned late into the process, then the game will lack poise and attention stamina.
Games might well be "becoming too real", but that's not really a problem (presuming such realities are given meaning); the results, of imbalanced design and poor lastability, are. We could say that realism (or too much love for graphical and in-game environmental results) is an ideological cause of such symptoms.
Yes and No. Some games like GTA are. Some games like Heavy Rain are not. If a game is meant to be real like Heavy Rain then no. If a game or game series is not meant to be real then Yes.
I prefer unrealistic games but when it comes to racing games, war games, or any one based on something I potentially could do but won't is when I want to be imersed in a game, and realism helps.
Games are ment to be fun, not to escape reality.
Wii bowling is fun, but its a realistic game.
Games can get a realistic as they want aslong as it doesnt imped on the acutll game play.
In fact I demand the my ultra jiggly breasted women sweat when ever she gets the crap beat out of her.
Wii bowling is fun, but its a realistic game.
Games can get a realistic as they want aslong as it doesnt imped on the acutll game play.
In fact I demand the my ultra jiggly breasted women sweat when ever she gets the crap beat out of her.
If you believe people when they're looking for a person to blame because they killed someone, you're naive. People were killing people before movies and games were made, if some kid tells his dog to attack someone or their dog, does that mean it was a crime influenced by Pokemon? I know Pokemon isn't realistic, but it's the principle.0p3rati0n said:
Like so many other things, the realism is playing to a particular audience. Fantasy games don't bother trying while some shooters go out of their way to emulate what a real gunfight would be. It comes down to what the developers are trying to attract because there's such a huge variety in the people playing games so variety needs to be present in the games available or they lose revenue.
Too real? No, not so long as there's an audience for it. It's when realism becomes the only thing that people are doing when it becomes a problem, and I don't see that happening much.
Too real? No, not so long as there's an audience for it. It's when realism becomes the only thing that people are doing when it becomes a problem, and I don't see that happening much.