Poll: Do you care about realism??
- Thread starter Drazeric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, quasi-realistic physics are a must-have (with the exception of gravity and player-strength) However, that's all. The only time I'll praise a game for hyper-realism is when it's something that can be done appealingly in a realistic way in the first place-(see Gran Turismo) First-person-shooters are not, it's hard to glorify going through six months of training to leave your family and go get yourself some post traumatic stress syndrome. Platformers are not, I don't care much for hopping about half a foot off the ground-although once we go virtual reality this could be fun, but until then a lack of precise, natural-feeling control over the legs of a human is something I won't be able to get over, so I'll take the smooth feeling space-hop any day. Sidescrolling shoot-em-ups are not, it's not very fun being sprayed with bullets that will hit you before you see them and that don't leave any space between them and being shot down by missiles that /can't/ be shook off. RTS games are certainly not-having to wait six months to see if your results are having any positive or negative impact at all and being unable to retry isn't something most gamers would enjoy. Racing is the only genre that will ever achieve any level of true appeal from the fact that it really is hyperrealistic.
Depends. If a game says "Hey guy! I'm a realistic first person shooter! Look plastic shields that stop infinite bullets! Reloading is faster than light! You unlocked infinite run!"
Yeah, I'm looking at you MW2...
Other than a claim of realism, give me that bunny gun cause I'm ready to kick some ass.
Yeah, I'm looking at you MW2...
Other than a claim of realism, give me that bunny gun cause I'm ready to kick some ass.
Realism's overrated; if reality were so great, we'd have never bothered to make games.
Quite irked about people so obsessed with realism in games that they'll completely ignore a good story just because something clearly imaginary like a magic system doesn't behave exactly the way they want it to when it comes to key dramatic points in the story. Does good storytelling have to suffer just because of a combat system (which is only there because the designers couldn't think of a better way to show the characters becoming more competent in time for a boss fight) and if so, why don't they ever contemplate how the major villains haven't raked in near as high a kill count as the player by the end of the game.
I'd also be quite happy to see a lot less obsession over 'ultra-realistic' graphics. I've seen a lot of games I consider shovel-ware that have top end graphics but lacking game play or attrocious story (or worse, both). Fine, it looks nice, but it's an interactive experience, the budget should be spent on making the player's decisions and actions flow with the narrative not giving them something to stare at while remaining ineffectual to the world around them (not to mention the story that's dragging them along ignoring their decisions).
Even in games most focused on simulation, realism should be sparse. Oh look, your quarterback got injured, but even if you start a new season he's still going to be retired because of it. Even those first person shooters with a world war as a setting benefit from a lack of realism. Where's the gun jamming, the soldiers who'd rather receive dishonorable discharge rather than get shot, the emotional dilemma of knowing that you and your friends aren't just risking it all, they're killing people in the same bad position as you.
Point of it all: only a minimal amount of realism can be allowed in a game if it's going to remain fun. It's long past time developers and publishers got back to trying to make a good game and stopped focusing on the secondary elements of graphics and atmosphere.
Quite irked about people so obsessed with realism in games that they'll completely ignore a good story just because something clearly imaginary like a magic system doesn't behave exactly the way they want it to when it comes to key dramatic points in the story. Does good storytelling have to suffer just because of a combat system (which is only there because the designers couldn't think of a better way to show the characters becoming more competent in time for a boss fight) and if so, why don't they ever contemplate how the major villains haven't raked in near as high a kill count as the player by the end of the game.
I'd also be quite happy to see a lot less obsession over 'ultra-realistic' graphics. I've seen a lot of games I consider shovel-ware that have top end graphics but lacking game play or attrocious story (or worse, both). Fine, it looks nice, but it's an interactive experience, the budget should be spent on making the player's decisions and actions flow with the narrative not giving them something to stare at while remaining ineffectual to the world around them (not to mention the story that's dragging them along ignoring their decisions).
Even in games most focused on simulation, realism should be sparse. Oh look, your quarterback got injured, but even if you start a new season he's still going to be retired because of it. Even those first person shooters with a world war as a setting benefit from a lack of realism. Where's the gun jamming, the soldiers who'd rather receive dishonorable discharge rather than get shot, the emotional dilemma of knowing that you and your friends aren't just risking it all, they're killing people in the same bad position as you.
Point of it all: only a minimal amount of realism can be allowed in a game if it's going to remain fun. It's long past time developers and publishers got back to trying to make a good game and stopped focusing on the secondary elements of graphics and atmosphere.
Realism? Not so much unless they are going for some sort of historical accuracy, some real world event or setting. Other than that, it isn?t really needed, what is important is believability. Does everything that happens make sense in the context of the world they have created?
My theory is that when people say they want realism, what they actually want is what they see in the movies. A game is basically signing its death certificate if it completely aims for realism.
Realism is usually really boring. Very few games have managed to pull it off properly.
Its the reason why I loved the Call of Duty games (made by IW). They made some very impressive and cinematic events in each of them. They keep just enough realism in to keep me from becoming cynic.
To this day, Arma2 is the only game I can think of that actually pulled off realism, and from what I understand, that was only achieved through mods.
Realism is usually really boring. Very few games have managed to pull it off properly.
Its the reason why I loved the Call of Duty games (made by IW). They made some very impressive and cinematic events in each of them. They keep just enough realism in to keep me from becoming cynic.
To this day, Arma2 is the only game I can think of that actually pulled off realism, and from what I understand, that was only achieved through mods.
I don't really care but the dominance of pretty light guns (plasma rifles and such) of a few years ago really began to wear on me, nothing feels quite as awesome as an old school slug thrower.
Games are fun. Whatever makes them fun, I like. Realism is not required. Ever played Ratchet and Clank?
i rather want to play a game without realism (dead rising 2, serious Sam, team fortress 2, just cause 2) unless its of course a rpg game, then realism would be nice though i want other elements (magic stones, drows, elves, orcs, dwarfs, demon spawns, gigantic gloving robes of 50+ luck)
