Poll: Is realism killing video games?

[jacobschndr]

I think as long as you keep realism to where it should be then it's fine in games. Take for instance the GTA series, to make the game fun in a fictional way you as the player can absorb tons of damage like getting hurled through a windshield at 110mph or getting shot more times than you can count and still be able to run to the nearest diner to grab a quick bite and amazingly that hot dog and coke will bring you back to full health. That much is fine in gaming because that's what makes it fun to play (not the eating part of course), but in real life we all know that hardly anyone has the skull thickness (except maybe George Bush) to be able to survive a head first dive through a windshield at those speeds much less do anything else after that.

Point is this realism is put into games to make them more challenging. But it comes to point to where it's put in too much, left out completely or just put in the wrong places. As long as developers know where it goes then fine. Like if your a genetically enhanced super-soldier with armor and shields from head-to-toe but if someone is able to inflict enough damage to you or just in the right place then you die (like getting hit with a rocket in the chest or bullet straight to the forehead). That's fine cause it gives you a sense of realism in a fictional world while making it fun and challenging. But say if your that same soldier and if you didn't eat or sleep or even go to the bathroom while playing the game then you die, well that just ruins it doesn't it?
Enough said.

 

[Limos]

I like realistic physics in a non realistic world. But I think the physics should be applicable. Like in Oblivion, yes it's very interesting to watch the bodies roll down the hill, but why can't I use telikinesis to whack that guy over the head with the warhammer sitting next to him, I can pick it up, and swing it around, but can't hit him with it.

Realistic looking characters are nice, realistic physics are nice. But the only realism we are really ever seeing is a color scheme consisting of only browns and grays, really dark areas, and poor driving.

 

[Jumplion]

I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of play a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

I probably shouldn't have used CoD4 as an example as it really isn't very realistic when you look closer to it.

But if you want something completely out of proportion and crazy then go by No More Heroes or something, but don't say "REALIZM IS BAAADDD!!" because your tastes are different. Some people like realistic games, I for one like them every now and again but there's obviously a limit to how much realism I want from a game *cough*GTAIV*cough*.

I think part of the reason why some people like realistic games is because that they feel like they are the ones actually doing all the pwnage. In CoD4- no, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (couldn't think of a better one) you're the person headshotting terrorists and saving Vegas, while in all those crazy over-the-top games it's the main character doing all the saving (unless it's an over the top FPS of which I can't think of any).

my opinion, i think realistic games are bad, they can still be fun, but they are still bad GAMES. I can take whatever stance i want, and i don't like it when people take these safe stances on things and not really adding anything to the discussion. The whole, "well it depends thing" is true, but we don't really get anywhere with the discussion. And it may be that i haven't really enjoyed a realistic game in the psat two years that i have been gaming.


And to the guy above me. Download Quakeworld at www.Nquake.com, and just go on any 1v1, ANY 1v1 server, you will get your ass handed to you so hard its not even funny. It happened to me, still a GREAT gane.

Ive played, CS 1.6, COD4, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, CSS, COD2, and TF2 all competively.... ive won hardware and money in Battlefield 2142, and my team NGA>>(now dead) took 1st place at the 8v8 season 2 TGL, and 2nd place at 6v6 infantry only. Realistic games are easier, i wont go as far as saying quakeworld is harder than real fighting, but i will go as far as saying that it is harder than any realistic game on the market, CSS, Americas army, they are all not as hard, and you just don't have to think as much.

(and yes i realize that winning a gaming tournament is pretty pathetic.....)

But "It depends on the game" is the exact thing that ends this type of discussion of "REALIZM SUKS! IT"S SO STOOPID!". We don't need to get anywhere in this type of debate because the god damn answer was shown in the 5th post of this thread.

It does depend on the game, end of story. I don't care if you think realistic games are bad, that's opinion and Realistic games are not ruining video games.

As for realistic games being easier and slower, I call bullshit on that. Play the whole CoD4 campaign including Mile High Club on Veteran and tell me it's easy. Play CoD4 online in an average sized map with regular spawns with grenades flying everywhere, enemies shooting everywhere, and guys running for cover and tell me it's slow. Play CoD4-no, play Metal Gear Online and tell me that you don't have to think and work together to overcome the opposing team.

And the difficulty factor depends wholly on your skill as the player both online and off in some cases. If you can snap headshots left and right, good for you, you're pretty much a god. But if you're average you could easily get your ass handed to you by anyone no matter who it is.

It may not seem like you think much, but you really are subconsciously (I think). Some people are natural at getting the hang of controls and doing things automatically but in reality you're really thinking about "Is there a person around the corner? I can't reload fast enough, I need to switch to my pistol. I'll clear the path for my friends." etcetera. This is basically why people who don't play FPSs or game where you have to shoot things in general find it very hard to get 10 feet away from the spawn point as they arn't making these thoughts in their head yet. It seems hard to them, but then then get better (usually) and then everything seems easy to them (unless there's one person pwning them)

Many of these discussions can be ended by "It depends on the game" because there's no need to go on with the discussion because it does depend on the game.

Are realistic graphics ruing games? Depends on the game, Cell-shaded? Water Pasteled? Gritty and dark?
Are controls too complicated nowadays? Depends on the game, can you rearange controls? Is it an FPS? RPG? RTS? Console-RTS?
Can games be art? Depends on the game, is it Shadow of the Collosus or Haze?

Like it or not, it does depend on the game. Just accept it and play your unrealistic games that you like, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Captain_Planet]

I personally don't think that a game like Call of Duty 4 is realistic. It is superlative with with a gritty paint job. Even games like Rainbow Six (the Vegas series anyway) still are pretty arcade like when you think about it. When I think of realism, I think Insurgency, I think Red Orchestra. Those are games attempting to mimic reality, where one shot kills and if you are not running for your life you are lying in wait or dead. Those games tend to have steep learning curves, hence why its a really small subgenre. And to answer the topicality of the thread, realistic games are not killing the industry. They are making it stronger.

While I know the fundamental point of a game is to allow you to escape from reality, that does not mean having to escape from realism, it just means taking you to another time and place. Realistic games like Red ORchestra, which accuratly depict combat as it was in World War II, broadens our connections to history and those who came before us. Medal of Honor and Call of Duty presented World War II as heroes tales of bravery and high adreniline. Those games depict an war movie. Red orchestra depicts war. Rainbow six depicts a Hollywood caricature of Counterterrorism, wheras SWAT 4 presents counterterrorism itself. Realistic games, even if many players don't like them, add a new direction to gaming because they depict another facet of reality. There will always be fantasy, but we connect the most to reality.

 

[Jazzyluv]

I personally don't think that a game like Call of Duty 4 is realistic. It is superlative with with a gritty paint job. Even games like Rainbow Six (the Vegas series anyway) still are pretty arcade like when you think about it. When I think of realism, I think Insurgency, I think Red Orchestra. Those are games attempting to mimic reality, where one shot kills and if you are not running for your life you are lying in wait or dead. Those games tend to have steep learning curves, hence why its a really small subgenre. And to answer the topicality of the thread, realistic games are not killing the industry. They are making it stronger.

While I know the fundamental point of a game is to allow you to escape from reality, that does not mean having to escape from realism, it just means taking you to another time and place. Realistic games like Red ORchestra, which accuratly depict combat as it was in World War II, broadens our connections to history and those who came before us. Medal of Honor and Call of Duty presented World War II as heroes tales of bravery and high adreniline. Those games depict an war movie. Red orchestra depicts war. Rainbow six depicts a Hollywood caricature of Counterterrorism, wheras SWAT 4 presents counterterrorism itself. Realistic games, even if many players don't like them, add a new direction to gaming because they depict another facet of reality. There will always be fantasy, but we connect the most to reality.

SWAT 4 is the only exception to this rule of mine..... Swat 4 was awesome fun, i loved it actually, but maybe it's because the AI was probably the hardest to predict out of any game ive played.Personally i think Red Orcestra is too easy, if you can get a sense of the exact timings it takes to get to certain outposts and camp spots then you have essentially mastered the game, most of game is decided beforehand, and is something i don't enjoy, it doesn't have the on the fly thinking i like.

 

[mbv-]

its killing its creativity thats for sure

 

[HeyZeus_Ezekiel_Jesus]

Realism can hurt some games. Like America's Army where if you get shot once you're out of the match until it ends. Doesn't even matter where you get shot either. I don't know if they fixed that or not but it made me hate the game.

 

[Keela]

With some games, realism would be a bad thing, ie: Burnout, Halo, any game with magic in it, Star Wars, etc. But with other games realism can be, would be or is a good thing, ie: Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, any game where "the odds are stacked highly against you", etc. It depends completely on the kind of game and other circumstances.

 

[john_alexander]

I am of the opinion that realism in games is fun, far more than a game that is not realistic. However, the problem comes when a game aims for realism, and misses. Then it becomes a slow, boring mess.

Another problem with realism is that, when something happens that is NOT realistic, it is a glaring mistake rather than a small quirk.

And realism is absolutely not easier! When you can take only a single bullet before collapsing (though perhaps not dead), you are suddenly in danger all the time! For a good example of this, try the game Red Orchestra; no HUD, no ammo count, no nifty little tags above ally and enemy telling you who is who, and one bullet to the chest is likely to kill you, and it is still the most intense FPS I have ever played, because you are always in danger.

Red Orchestra also gets points for having the single most effective way of telling who is new and who isn't: when you fire a bolt-action weapon, you must press the fire button again to reload (as opposed to automatically doing so as if some sort of irresistible force made reloading mandatory after firing a shot). This leads to some hilarious situation where you turn around a corner, have a rifle muzzle in your face and! He reloads. So you promptly shoot him in the face.

EDIT: Just in case you can't tell, I like Red Orchestra...

ALSO EDIT: This does not, however, mean that realism MUST be present in games. I like non-realistic games too, especially Burnout. However, I would like to argue the point Keela made above me, in saying that games with magic do not necessarily need to be unrealistic. Though I have not played a game with magic that IS realistic, I would love to see a world where magic has a set of hard-and-fast, easily observable rules like physics in the real world), that does not just 'make things happen'. Some rhyme and reason to a magic system in a game would make me a very happy man. Obviously this magic wouldn't be 'regular' magic that we, as gamers, have grown accustomed to, and might not even count and magic in the way we understand it, but it would still be cool.

 

[Jazzyluv]

Have you eve

I am of the opinion that realism in games is fun, far more than a game that is not realistic. However, the problem comes when a game aims for realism, and misses. Then it becomes a slow, boring mess.

Another problem with realism is that, when something happens that is NOT realistic, it is a glaring mistake rather than a small quirk.

And realism is absolutely not easier! When you can take only a single bullet before collapsing (though perhaps not dead), you are suddenly in danger all the time! For a good example of this, try the game Red Orchestra; no HUD, no ammo count, no nifty little tags above ally and enemy telling you who is who, and one bullet to the chest is likely to kill you, and it is still the most intense FPS I have ever played, because you are always in danger.

Red Orchestra also gets points for having the single most effective way of telling who is new and who isn't: when you fire a bolt-action weapon, you must press the fire button again to reload (as opposed to automatically doing so as if some sort of irresistible force made reloading mandatory after firing a shot). This leads to some hilarious situation where you turn around a corner, have a rifle muzzle in your face and! He reloads. So you promptly shoot him in the face.

EDIT: Just in case you can't tell, I like Red Orchestra...

ALSO EDIT: This does not, however, mean that realism MUST be present in games. I like non-realistic games too, especially Burnout. However, I would like to argue the point Keela made above me, in saying that games with magic do not necessarily need to be unrealistic. Though I have not played a game with magic that IS realistic, I would love to see a world where magic has a set of hard-and-fast, easily observable rules like physics in the real world), that does not just 'make things happen'. Some rhyme and reason to a magic system in a game would make me a very happy man. Obviously this magic wouldn't be 'regular' magic that we, as gamers, have grown accustomed to, and might not even count and magic in the way we understand it, but it would still be cool.

Id like to see you play quake.... you know who a new player is too, its those that can't figure out how to time armors, its those that cant strafe jump, its those that don't exactly where to go when they spawn... its those that try to attack with the shotgun rather than running away and grabbing some armor. games like Red orchestra are easier than games like quake, period. If you need proof, download Quakeworld at www.Nquake.com, and pop on this server ip 69.90.113.10:27500

 

[john_alexander]

In Quake you also have a HUD, ammo counter, health bar and, unless it's been changed in recent versions, a tag appearing when you aim at allies (and possibly enemies, though I don't remember it being so), so it's give and take.

Also, you sir are a cheat! I used one example, and you used many! I could give more examples, and I'm sure you could too, so let's just say it balances out, and leave it at that? Especially when you-

NO! Bad john_alexander! LEAVE IT AT THAT!

EDIT: Also, I used to play Quake a lot, back in high-school, and I was rather good at it. Out of my friends, anyway. There was only about 20 of us in the computer room at a time, so the pool of talent was not large.

 

[Jazzyluv]

In Quake you also have a HUD, ammo counter, health bar and, unless it's been changed in recent versions, a tag appearing when you aim at allies (and possibly enemies, though I don't remember it being so), so it's give and take.

Also, you sir are a cheat! I used one example, and you used many! I could give more examples, and I'm sure you could too, so let's just say it balances out, and leave it at that? Especially when you-

NO! Bad john_alexander! LEAVE IT AT THAT!

EDIT: Also, I used to play Quake a lot, back in high-school, and I was rather good at it. Out of my friends, anyway. There was only about 20 of us in the computer room at a time, so the pool of talent was not large.

You should play quake with me...... add me to xfire, lovenpeace, like how you at least defended your opinion : )

 

[God's Clown]

In my opinion, they are currently because a lot of companies rather have the "sexy" graphics that an actual point to the game. Gameplay and story are far more important, but often get left behind for "realistic graphics."

 

[sunami88]

Yes.

 

[john_alexander]

*peeks out from under his rock*

You mean you AREN'T gong to flame me? Am I on the internet?

Also, I only have the second (?) Quake game, and it is likely either in storage or at my old house (I recently moved to go to college this fall semester).

Or MAYBE I'm a total liar and really bad troll who is now backing out of an argument, having had his bluff called!

But then again, if I was a troll, I wouldn't draw attention to myself in this manner...

Or MAYBE!, I'm just saying this to divert your attention in the hopes you won't call my bluff (which I used to cover up my previous bluff).

Yeah, I have no idea what I'm talking about anymore.

EDIT (again): Hey, that was supposed to be a quote of Jazzyluv calling my bluff.

Er, you know, what MAY HAVE BEEN a bluff... so... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoYeah

 

[Jazzyluv]

Go to http://nquake.com/ to download it man. It was released under the GPL license, when Carmack released the Source code to the engine. Its like 2 MB, and that has the installer, it has updated graphics, even has bloom in it... not the prettiest game i will admit, but i play it with no textures, lol. : )

EDIT: when it asks for pak1.pak, just hit next

 

[Copter400]

Nothing is ruining video games. All right? Nothing. Why is there always one thing or another that's destroying the industry? Isn't it possible that we're getting along fine?