Poll: Is realism killing video games?

[thejoblot]

I think it's harmless.

 

[werepossum]

That's like asking if the invention of sound killed movies.

Er, no its not. Though the advent of "talkies" did utterly destroy the careers of many great actors simply because their voices were not very good. You could call it a similar situation but I don't think its utterly the same. "Realism" may have been a gradual evolution in gaming but its also a consciously-applied mechanic; you can still make unrealistic games and have them be acceptable and good. Heck, you can still make silent films and some people adore them.

Er, yes it is. I'm aware that the invention of sound destroyed the career's of many people in the film industry because they could not adapt to the change, but that does not mean that film itself was destroyed. Realism isn't killing games, it's just phasing out more classical abstract styles of gaming, just like how we no longer have many silent or black and white films today. Video game's are evolving, not dying, but despite that fact there are still many old style games coming out from things like homebrew developers, indie game makers and XBL Arcade with games like Schizoid.

In COD4 it was pretty much everything

how is CoD4 even remotely realistic? Spoilers: IT ISNT.

Knock it off, COD is one of the most realistic shooters out today. When people talk about realism in first person shooters they mean moving at human speed, noticeable recoil, 1-2 shot deaths. You can pick any game apart to death pointing out aspects that aren't 'realistic' and I defy you to point me to an online shooter that is significantly more realistic than COD4.

Operation Flashpoint.

I think Mistah Kurtz had a good point. I also think Operation Flashpoint's single player campaign was horribly unrealistic, with barely a squad of soldiers running over hills without any appreciable cover. Couple that with foliage that the enemy could see through but you can't and I found it to be a horrible game. I do agree about the running and firing or jumping and firing - no one can hit anything like that. But the converse - the Brothers In Arms games come to mind, where you move like a member of 110th Walker Brigade and aim like a palsied epileptic who's on fire, where you must maneuver your short-bus commandos to flank the enemy but can't cross a knee-high wall, is even worse. I love games that seem realistic, but there's a reason they say "War is hell" and not "War is fun and challenging".

And I agree with the general disdain for today's art directors. Yes, battlefields become shades of gray and brown, but not as soon as someone carries an assault rifle near them. GRAW had soldiers moving through Mexico City suburbs, one of the most colorful places in the world, and Ubisoft rendered as if they were moving through Denise Richards' colon.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Anyway, that one option in the polls just makes all the other obselete, i.e. 'I don't care as long as they're fun'. A game could argue that Hitler was the greatest man alive and it could insult every racial minority on the planet so much that it brings a tear to your eye, but as long as it's fun, that's really the primary intention of the game. Cue random know-it-all to tell me I'm wrong.

Well, if you take it to extreme measures like THAT then yeah the option is absolete. But that option would be for games that are/arn't realistic, I don't care wether a game is realistic or not as long as it's fun for me to play.

But who would find a game that shows Hitler was right and was the greatest man find that fun?

...I shouldn't be saying things like that, this is the internet afterall.

You've misunderstood me...I argued that that one option rendered the OTHER options obselete, not that the option itself was obselete.

 

[frontier psychiatrist]

I didn't think any games were realistic anyway. For example I was playing GTA 4 today, and I stole a car with a cop close to the car. He does the usual "Stop thief!" thing and closes in on the car. I get spray about ten rounds out of my Uzi from the drivers seat and hit him in the shoulder, and he doesn't even flinch, the next second I'm busted and lose all my weapons.

Now even if he had been (in the real world) wearing body armour, he would at least have been knocked back. I generally don't like games where bullets have no visible effect on a person (or an alien like the brutes in halo 3 when you have broken their shields).

Actually he wouldn't have been knocked back. You don't get knocked back by bullet hits.

A bit of realism is good, but add too much and the game becomes mundane and boring. There's a reason we're playing a game - and it isn't so that we can act out our dull lives.

So if you were playing an obsessively realistic WW2 submarine simulator, it would just be your normal, dull every day life?

 

[tobyornottoby]

So if you were playing an obsessively realistic WW2 submarine simulator, it would just be your normal, dull every day life?

I think it would be pretty dull, as I would need to pee, sleep, eat, clean... maybe get some action after 4 real-life days of nothing but fail and sink after an hour... game over

 

[jad4400]

Realism in games varies from one game to another and what kind of realism you want. Some games just want realistic graphics (althought I think that some of the graphics are too dark) and others want to simulate real life(realistic damage, realistic weapons). I think that realism depends on the context you want it in.