Poll: Realism VS. Fantasy

[A Weakgeek]

Ok, since I joined this forum, I've encountered alot of hostility towards realistic game mechanics/settings/designs etc. in several threads. Usually these people do not give any explanation as to why, only state that realism should go to hell, and the medium should "return" to "escapism".

So I decided to make a poll. Do you want realism in your games? If you do, how much? This includes game mechanics (Attempting to simulate the task at hand), settings (Real world locations, factions etc.) and overall desingn of the game (The visuals, like the architecture, clothing, weapons, people...).

Since this might be a bit hard to stuff into a poll, leave a response where you specify in which aspects you want or do not want realism.

 

[FalloutJack]

I can enjoy both.

This is my answer right here. The realism is as the fantasy to me: Features and flavors. One is not intrinsically better. It CAN be interesting, though.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[dimensional]

Well both have their place but almost all games have non realistic things in them as it just makes things easier and more interesting. However some games demand a high level of realism a proper flight sim for instance would be useless if it had fantasy elements well technically it could feature all the realism needed to teach you to fly a plane and add fantasy elements without interfering with that but I dont think the market would appreciate that on the whole.

Personally I play games for entertainment most of the time so if realism gets in the way of that I would rather they get rid of it, if it adds to it keep it.

 

[Khazoth]

We play games to escape reality.
Why bring reality into games?

Same reason I never read any books beside fantasy or sci-fi (or steampunk, or... you get my point).
The real world is extremely boring. Fascinating, but boring.
Now, if you were to add Pokémon, everything would be fan-fucking-tastic now wouldn't it?

...I think I love this person. I don't think I can add much more to the discussion then this. Games are supposed to be for the makink of da happy fun times for enjoyment makink.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Khazoth]

...I think I love this person.

the makink of da happy fun times for enjoyment makink.

Also, what?

It's the russian voice that I always hear narrating any sentence I say about 'fun.'


This video is partially at fault.

http://blip.tv/the-spoony-experiment/let-s-play-swat-4-mission-10-from-russia-with-guns-2257763

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Cabisco]

I love both and I have equal time for both flamegrilling dragons with my bow of burning and training for world war 3. I think the problem is realistic games take up a huge amount of the games market (at least, AAA games with real money and skill put behind them) and so might only get one or two fantasy games a year with the potential to be anything other than mediocre.

Saying this, I feel recently with the absolute domination of the 'realistic' market being taken up by call of duty and Battlefield that more games seem to be more fantastical in nature recently, or perhaps its just i'm drawn to them more having already got Battlefield.

 

[Blazing Steel]

Where's the option saying, 'it depends'?

Depends on the game is trying to achieve. I expect my Battlefields and CoDs to a be grounded in realism, (not the same as real life because there still needs to be a game it there) guns fire where I point them, with recoil etc. However I like my TES to be as far from realism as possible. I can enjoy both depending on what suits the game.

 

[Khazoth]

It's the russian voice that I always hear narrating any sentence I say about 'fun.'


This video is partially at fault.

http://blip.tv/the-spoony-experiment/let-s-play-swat-4-mission-10-from-russia-with-guns-2257763

[small]Ah, TheSpoonyOne, we meet again[/small]

Still don't really understand what "makink" means.

Make - ink, sound it out, in a russian voice. "Making"

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[Mikejames]

Depends on the particular style of the story.

 

[Childe]

I really hate realistic games.... can't stand COD and battlefield because their shooters and realistic... i stick with skyrim and games like that. The farther away the better

 

[Lunar Templar]

not gonna say realism has no place in my games, cause certain 'realistic' aspects are nice, but they have no place as the sole 'core mechanic' of any game i play

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Depends on the context. If you set your game on earth then i want realistic game mechanics that i can relate to otherwise i just think 'that wouldn't happen, thats bollocks, humans can't do that' etc. Set it on a planet that looks like earth but isn't and all is well.

No matter how realistic a game is, if it involves killing something or someone then it still remains escapism for me...maybe once i've started killing people in real life this will change

 

[Squilookle]

I can't vote, because I like both when used correctly. I love Timesplitters and Goldeneye to death, but I love me some Operation Flashpoint too.

Overall, I think there is too much realism in games lately. Battlefield was better before it started pretending to be real, and realism absolutely massacred GTA IV.

That said, there is too arcadey as well. Heroes over Europe and Blazing Angels aren't really even trying, and most cheap games don't put any subtlety into their physics at all.

In general I like a bit of middle ground- controls complex enough to present that 'easy to learn, hard to master' sweet spot, but never, EVER realistic enough to start affecting fun, unless they're going full blown sim, like ARMA or all those Chopper games.

Things like Crimson Skies (PC) and Driver- the controls in those games feel just right.