Poll: Do you care about realism??

[Bravo 21]

it really depends, AA3 does realism really well, but Splinter Cell Conviction, and Bad Company 2 and MW2, the feel is just off, either being able to climb wall at a speed equivalent to a quick jog, or health that regenerates as soon as you stop being shot just makes me doubt the legitimacy of the game. However, if thy were to stop marketing these games on the basis of realism, i would have no real complaint.

 

[Sir Prize]

The genre of the game, as well as it's type really do matter.
Example, a sci-fi fps should have a certain amount of realism, unless it is a parady. However, I am sick and tired of the brown and grey gritty games.

To me, that's the illusion of realism. Life isn't brown. It's colorful, vibrant and pretty fun looking. Of course I haven't actually seen these "brown shooters" people talk about. I played MW2 and thought it was pretty colorful, maybe people are referring to the first one.

I would like to see a bit more realism in sci fi games, it would be pretty cool to have a MC suit that actually reacts to the world as if it was 2 tons (I believe that's what it was supposed to be) so you could actually flatten those little goomba guys by jumping on them or see an aliens face crack open when you give them a melee bash in the head.

Point taken, though maybe makes things less serious.

Yeah but halo was never too serious to begin with. Those little alien things were just trash talking goombas (genius) so part of me really wanted to flatten them like one.
A gritty mario should never be made, but it would be fun to try. Halo could have been that kind of game, gritty realism mixed with comic fun. Instead we got gritty realism mixed with cartoon worlds and aliens but a super serious atmosphere.

I'm not looking to Halo, but I think that game has tried to be a little more serious then needed. I suppose what I'm getting at is the all-round feel of a game, like you said a super serious atmosphere. I harp on about TimeSplitters allot, but the reason for that is because it was a good example of how to make a game funny and enjoyable.

Make a world that's colourful and well though out, but also nice to look at and easy to understand. Give the player weapons that vary from the real to the outright stupid, don't stick to what they except. Make theb characters stick out, give use vivid and lively things that don't look generic. These are what make TimeSplitters great, and could be appiled to othr games.

I loved the time splitter games too. Simple but fun, and not to sound like a broken record but I think the realism helped. It had a varied environment, real life isn't brown wall after brown wall, it's filled with colors and different textures.
Sure soldiers don't usually whip out a flare gun, but if that's the only weapon they have access too, wouldn't they use it? TS was a creative game, we need more of that with the FPS genre.

GTA IV was made with realism in mind and I don't want to see anymore of them, so you could say that I'm not a fan of realism.

No it wasn't It was made with interesting movie quality story and fun in mind. Realism was just the marketing and a way to make it more immersive.

Maybe it failed (for you anyways) at being fun or having a great story, but blaming it on the "realism" is silly and misguided. Your just going with the current flow. Look at things for what they are.
It wasn't a very realistic game compared to others, didn't have "more" realism anyways. Most of the people making this claim (that they traded fun for realism) haven't even tried the game.

Okay, maybe the issue isn't so much realism as seriousness?

Just noting that most of the issues stem from things that appeared cool and grown-up, maybe that's the problem. People use the word realism because that's the only that's what it is, but only applies with certain elements of realism.

Maybe, while having all the backgrounds and weapons, they could be an equal amount of laughing at ones self and being able to just sit back and play? Just ditch a tiny bit of the overall being serious and have the makers realise that they are making games, which are mainly used to have fun?

Like I said, give us characters that stick out somewhat and let the games be able to look in a mirror and laugh at themselves every so often. Also, less cover based combat and more use of health kits because that makes things more tense.

Exactly.
Probably quoted this guy before but why not. "If you can't find real conflict or drama in real life, you don't know a damn thing about life"
Realism is what will push gaming forward, fun is what's going to make it move faster. What people are calling realism is just seriousness. Not even adult really, most adult gamers i know (legally I'm an adult but I can't honestly give myself that title) prefer games like doom or duke nukem over call of duty.
It's not the "unrealistic" stuff that makes it fun, it's the creative design. The humor. The occasional drama or simulated survival situation. All things found in real life.

Imagine a future where you can play a game where you can rip somebody's head off and kick it at an enemy, or play a game where you have to survive on an island and find food and shelter to survive, but in a truly imersive way that doesn't involve a bunch of meters and menus that break the immersion.
That's realism IMO, immersion.

See, there's an issue with gamers and it's that sometimes we don't define things probably. I think the whole seriosuness thing mainly affects the atmosphere of a game. You can be playing a perfectly funcational game but still think that it doesn't feel right.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

If a game is going to be realistic, then fine, make it actually realistic. Otherwise, stop trying to sell something off as realistic and then turn right around and proceed to make something that only comes out of an action movie.

 

[Sir Prize]

The genre of the game, as well as it's type really do matter.
Example, a sci-fi fps should have a certain amount of realism, unless it is a parady. However, I am sick and tired of the brown and grey gritty games.

To me, that's the illusion of realism. Life isn't brown. It's colorful, vibrant and pretty fun looking. Of course I haven't actually seen these "brown shooters" people talk about. I played MW2 and thought it was pretty colorful, maybe people are referring to the first one.

I would like to see a bit more realism in sci fi games, it would be pretty cool to have a MC suit that actually reacts to the world as if it was 2 tons (I believe that's what it was supposed to be) so you could actually flatten those little goomba guys by jumping on them or see an aliens face crack open when you give them a melee bash in the head.

Point taken, though maybe makes things less serious.

Yeah but halo was never too serious to begin with. Those little alien things were just trash talking goombas (genius) so part of me really wanted to flatten them like one.
A gritty mario should never be made, but it would be fun to try. Halo could have been that kind of game, gritty realism mixed with comic fun. Instead we got gritty realism mixed with cartoon worlds and aliens but a super serious atmosphere.

I'm not looking to Halo, but I think that game has tried to be a little more serious then needed. I suppose what I'm getting at is the all-round feel of a game, like you said a super serious atmosphere. I harp on about TimeSplitters allot, but the reason for that is because it was a good example of how to make a game funny and enjoyable.

Make a world that's colourful and well though out, but also nice to look at and easy to understand. Give the player weapons that vary from the real to the outright stupid, don't stick to what they except. Make theb characters stick out, give use vivid and lively things that don't look generic. These are what make TimeSplitters great, and could be appiled to othr games.

I loved the time splitter games too. Simple but fun, and not to sound like a broken record but I think the realism helped. It had a varied environment, real life isn't brown wall after brown wall, it's filled with colors and different textures.
Sure soldiers don't usually whip out a flare gun, but if that's the only weapon they have access too, wouldn't they use it? TS was a creative game, we need more of that with the FPS genre.

GTA IV was made with realism in mind and I don't want to see anymore of them, so you could say that I'm not a fan of realism.

No it wasn't It was made with interesting movie quality story and fun in mind. Realism was just the marketing and a way to make it more immersive.

Maybe it failed (for you anyways) at being fun or having a great story, but blaming it on the "realism" is silly and misguided. Your just going with the current flow. Look at things for what they are.
It wasn't a very realistic game compared to others, didn't have "more" realism anyways. Most of the people making this claim (that they traded fun for realism) haven't even tried the game.

Okay, maybe the issue isn't so much realism as seriousness?

Just noting that most of the issues stem from things that appeared cool and grown-up, maybe that's the problem. People use the word realism because that's the only that's what it is, but only applies with certain elements of realism.

Maybe, while having all the backgrounds and weapons, they could be an equal amount of laughing at ones self and being able to just sit back and play? Just ditch a tiny bit of the overall being serious and have the makers realise that they are making games, which are mainly used to have fun?

Like I said, give us characters that stick out somewhat and let the games be able to look in a mirror and laugh at themselves every so often. Also, less cover based combat and more use of health kits because that makes things more tense.

Exactly.
Probably quoted this guy before but why not. "If you can't find real conflict or drama in real life, you don't know a damn thing about life"
Realism is what will push gaming forward, fun is what's going to make it move faster. What people are calling realism is just seriousness. Not even adult really, most adult gamers i know (legally I'm an adult but I can't honestly give myself that title) prefer games like doom or duke nukem over call of duty.
It's not the "unrealistic" stuff that makes it fun, it's the creative design. The humor. The occasional drama or simulated survival situation. All things found in real life.

Imagine a future where you can play a game where you can rip somebody's head off and kick it at an enemy, or play a game where you have to survive on an island and find food and shelter to survive, but in a truly imersive way that doesn't involve a bunch of meters and menus that break the immersion.
That's realism IMO, immersion.

See, there's an issue with gamers and it's that sometimes we don't define things probably. I think the whole seriosuness thing mainly affects the atmosphere of a game. You can be playing a perfectly funcational game but still think that it doesn't feel right.

Well the definitions are just labels that will always change. I think we need to look at it as a whole.
Yeah i've played a few games that "don't feel right" too but I find many of these are better as I get use to them while others that feel perfect at first just feel too repetitive after a few hours.

SOTC would be one of those that didn't feel right or very enjoyable at first (also any of the original MGS games) but after a few hours, it just felt perfect.

If a game like SOTC was released today, it would get ripped apart by gamers and called "overly realistic" because it wasn't filled with enemies to hack through. It's funny, but also a little sad.

True, probably the best explain I can think of from my experiences Fallout 3's intro, which felt a little forced, or Halo during my first playthroughs.

Halo is a funcational game and can be fun once you get into it, but when I was first playing it, I couldn't get into the groove of the game.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

I like both, just playing one kind gets boring really fast.
All hail Brittania variation.

 

[ApophisMP]

I want realism only in my FPS if there going for the whole realism area