Poll: Do you care about realism??

[Woodsey]

It depends on the game, obviously.

 

[Sacman]

Only if it gets in the way of the fun which is usually the case...

 

[ClassicJokester]

Not really. But I don't care about it in the same way I don't care about goofy shit in games. If it works for the game, it's all gravy.

I like my physics to react in predictable ways, but they don't necessarily have to be realistic to do that. Halo, for example. They modeled the physics really well, but the interaction with the actual game sandbox can have some "unrealistic" effects.

Or Just Cause 2. You can drive a car over to a base with well done collision and driving physics, but then you can SURF THE TOP OF A PLANE, jump off from 2,000 feet up, and HOOKSHOT INTO THE GROUND.

Or you can have something as unrealistic as Kingdom Hearts, where your combo attacks will bring you into the air after you've just double jumped up a 10 foot wall. But it works with the game worlds, so I don't mind it.

 

[the-kitchen-slayer]

I care about "realism" in "realistic" games. Aka, it's a game. Even if it's "based in our era" doesn't really mean it's literally happening. Games are about exploring possibilities, and well, having fun. Look at the games in the 90's. And compare them to today.

See? Not so "realistic", but just as much, if not more, fun. A game doesn't have to take itself seriously or be "realistic" to be fun, and so i'll happily take my fluffy bunny gun and go kill some space marines with it, and then ram a tank through the side of a building to have it blow up in my face when an army of ticks climbs onto it armed with miniaturized C4 bricks

You want realism? Do it outside of a game, there's your realism.

 

[Enigmers]

A game should be realistic enough to be immersive, though often realism isn't much of a requirement. I found Dragon Age to be immersive but it's hardly realitsic (elves, dorfs, magic, the inability to jump, glowing treasure chests, etc.). So really, I don't care about realism at all. Especially since most people interpret "realism" as "gritty dirty brown modern-day thing that thinks Warhammer 40,000 is really cool"

 

[Imp Poster]

I don't really care much about the game itself being real but the mechanics/physics should be somewhat real. Like FPS, I want some recoil feel, if I don't let go of trigger, I should be shooting the sky at some point. Infamous, Cole should have limitations based on electricity that effects him. You know, things like that.

So your idea of realism is a hardened soldier or whatever with rubber arms who has no idea how to compensate for recoil?

You see how nitpicky realism is?

Yeah, if I got a M16, why shouldn't it feel like a M16 or an Uzi feel like a Uzi? Unless you got concrete/robotic arms, recoil should effect you no matter how strong you are. But hey, if it is a Covenant laser rifle, who cares? According to my flashlight, shooting light has no recoil.

 

[TheHecatomb]

Well realism is a bit of a slippery thing I think. I definitely think games need a certain amount of realism in order to be able to be immersive at all. Realism is a lot more than just the whole 1-shot-1-kill and an unforgiving physics engine thing.

Realism can also be the animation of how your fantasy character walks when wearing a massive iron piece of armor. Or when swinging that gigantic claymore around. Even the weirdest kind of fantasy stuff needs to be presented in a convincing manner, and hinting to things we know/understand and that we know are realistically possible is in my opinion the best way to achieve that.

 

[himemiya1650]

I do not care too much, I play videogames to get away from real life and realism.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Sorta yes, sorta no. I mean if they were real life Why don't I just go and do it. It I know some people got bored with Heavy Rain because it got 'bogged' down with the real life aspects. But games like MW2 demand that level of realism in them. Thing that want to be a moderen shooter should try and strive to be somewhat realistic. Halo can get away with it since it's so far in the future. On that note, I like Halo. I like it a lot. I like how things work in it and I never have to say "Damn you could never do that in real life" because it doesn't pride itself to be real.

 

[Flamma Man]

Doesn't matter to me really. If the realism is there to add more immersion into the game, then I'm fine with that, but it's like an "ultra-realistic" kind of game, then I would imagine that not being very fun.

 

[superbatranger]

Realism or a lack thereof in my games don't bother me. If I find it fun, I'll play it.

Woah..just had a deja vu moment.

 

[Aux]

There are certain aspects of game that I like being unrealistic, such as inventory systems. However I am a big fan of being able to grab onto ledges and have my character move as if he or she was a real person.

 

[Custard_Angel]

I didn't grow up with realism in games and I grew up fine.

I grew up playing Duck Tales using Scrooge McDucks cane as a pogo stick to jump 5x above your own head while on the surface of the moon.

These days all you do is play some souless wanker crouching alot firing at who cares across cover.

Games have forgotten how to be fun. Statement of fact.

Only when you choose to look at the games you consider to be "unfun"
There are plenty of fun games, you just have to try them.
If you really want that old school fun with something you haven't played before, try some downloadable games. They look stupid but to be fair so do a lot of those older games at first glance. You can find a few gems in there.

EDIT:BTW I think being able to shoot an enemy that's hiding behind a wall or launch an airstrike on a group and then pick off the stragglers is pretty damn fun, what your saying isn't a statement of fact but your personal opinion. Fun still exists in gaming, it's just hard to find when your wrapped up in the "popular" games.

Firstly, if I need to actively search for a fun game to play a fun game, there is a huge glaring issue I feel. Why aren't the fun games the popular ones? I haven't wholely enjoyed a new game since Portal.

Secondly, I would agree that blowing people up can be great fun, but very few games do it well these days. Call of Duty's Predator Missle thingy is probably the best example of an airstrike being fun to use in any modern game, but it pales in comparison to the Worms games where an airstrike could consist of anything from rockets to moles to carpets to a concrete donkey.

Thirdly, in an attempt to bring some neutrality to my case, I am fully aware that there have always been crap games at every stage of gaming. I argue that because of there being unlimited graphical and gameplay potential for gaming (at least in comparison to past games), crap games these days are worse than crap games previously. In a world where computers are billions of times more powerful than previously, the world is still capable of making games like Too Human.

Side note: I realise I'm adding points that weren't present in my original post, I'm ok with this.

 

[clipped crow]

I just don't like games that advertise realism but are even more unrealistic than the games that don't try and push it.

For example: MW2. Hold for gravity working, there is not a single "realness" to it... Hell, even Halo isn't that unrealistic.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I'm sorry, I have nothing against realism, though I do prefer non-realism, but I just couldn't resist going the anti-realist vote of fluffy bunny. Personally though, I'd rather have my quack-o-matic (or whatever it was called) from Ratchet and Clank 3, man I loved that gun.

EDIT:

Realism or a lack thereof in my games don't bother me. If I find it fun, I'll play it.

Woah..just had a deja vu moment.

You think you have it bad? I've been having deja vu all morning and most of yesterday afternoon. And it's worse than that, I've noticed something, come back to it later, ad had a deja vu moment completely unrelated to looking at it 30 minutes ago, despite the fact that I didn't get deja vu the first time I saw it.

 

[Talshere]

The more the game is based in real life the more important realism becomes.

In halo for example you can get away with alot because the protagonist clearly isnt human (or rather is more than human) and uses highly advanced technology's.

In Splinter Cell (Conviction) the use of the goggles which let you see though walls is somewhat believable in the way its presented and the super fantasy world of secret agents. It is also assisted by the fragility of your character making it kinda necessary.

In CoD4:2 the heartbeat monitor is more than I can stand. It breaks all logical laws in that it ONLY hears heartbeats, its is miles beyond the sort of thing these actual people in this very year posses, and tbh is unnecessary to the game play.

 

[agnosticOCD]

I don't give much care to realism in games, but I think it depends on the game I play if I should care about realism or not. If it claims to be realistic it should at least be truthful to its word, and if it's not then whatever, if I enjoy it, then I do, if not, then it'll probably end up in the bin. If it tells a nice story, if it does that story well with gameplay, then sure, care I not for realism. If the point of the game is shooting randomly without a clear plot or no plot, then fine, it doesn't have to be realistic. Besides... why play a game if it only tries to follow what the real world already does way better?

 

[DustyDrB]

So...let's all join in on the obvious answer.
THERES A TIME FOR EVERYTHING

Did Ecclesiastes not teach you anything...
if not that, then did the Byrds not teach you?

Spoiler: Hmmm?

 

[Proctorninja]

i think a game should be all realistic or non-realisitic when they get into the middle ground it tend to suck

 

[Kimarous]

I don't care so much about "realism" so much as "believability within context/setting". I'm not against realism as a whole, but I don't want everything to be realistic.