Poll: Realism VS. Fantasy

[octafish]

Just about every game I play is fantasy. BF3, FIFA, Need For Speed Shift, COD 4, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six...all fantasy. The only games I have ever played that have no element of fantasy are flight sims and even then no one is really going to let me pilot an A-10 Warthog with no training are they? Pure fantasy, each and every one.

 

[EvilMaggot]

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?

the world is actually not that boring mate.. try and look out of the window once in a while or flip on the tv alot of shit is going on xD

I like Both

for instance i like my racing games as unrealistic as possible.. or very arcady.. its just more fun for me like that.

for my shooters.. now thats a whole other thing ^^

 

[The Critic]

As many have said before, it really depends. There's nothing wrong with one game having a more realistic (or, perhaps, "authentic", as was said earlier, is a better word) bend, and others having a more fantastic bend. There's also nothing wrong with a mixture of the two. Both the universes of The Lord of the Rings and The Elder Scrolls are fantasy settings, but they have consistant logic and various elements that enhance the willing suspension of disbelief by straying closer to the realm of reality. Likewise, a game with a very realistic bend (in terms of setting and story) like Red Dead Redemption benefits from it's grounding in realism, but it also benefits from "arcade-y" gameplay to allow for easy fun in moment-to-moment gameplay.

I could keep listing examples, but the point would remain the same: what's better between realism and fantasy really depends on the game, personal tastes, and various other factors. And, often, the best place is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

 

[Sande45]

I prefer a balanced mixture of both, with an emphasis on realism.

For example, Demon's Souls was the first hack'n'slash type of game I enjoyed because the combat had even a resemblance of realism with weapons and armor actually having weight and enemies and players dying with relatively few swings etc. But some fantasy was obviously required in order to have bosses and not to bleed out from one stab and so on. I would have preferred more realism in the setting and regular enemies though. I prefer fighting humanoid creatures over supernatural slugs, bugs and what have you. And I wouldn't have minded if the humanoids had been actual human beings instead of some undead ghouls and skeletons. Also, the not so far-fetched bosses like Penetrator and Tower knight were way better than weird goo piles like the cow pat (Phalanx) and Leechmonger.

So I guess I quite heavily prefer realism but realize that some unrealistic aspects are usually required to make the mechanics reasonable.

 

[TrevHead]

Apart from sims most games even in a real world setting are fantasy because the player is doing things that would never happen IRL.

Imo the OP mentioned with the fact that some folk (inc me) have a problem with the whole realism debate. imo much of what ppl suggest damages the gameplay or probably can't be implemented into current games due to the limitations on how games are programmed and how computers work in general.

Eg the AI characters in FPS' that could headshots like a player which sounds great in premise but most devs would implement it as just some lame DD random dice roll.

EDIT I think the main divide with players is that those who are oblivious to game mechanics or don't care might enjoy AI headshots, gamers who try to understand what makes a game tick so they can play better would hate it and speaking for myself would make the game less realistic and immersive because the I would be annoyed with the AI rather than enjoying the game.

As for what settings I like I would say fantasy, sci-fi including near future or historic, because the world can be a little different from the usual bland cityscapes that most games us in modern settings. Anything thats out of the ordinary will do. That latest Spec Ops game is a good example of a modern setting with a twist. Shame that most AAAs seem to follow trends ie WW2, modern, post apocalyptic and now its the near future / cyberpunk era.

 

[A Weakgeek]

Some people seem to have this misconception that liking ?realistic? games means you think realism > fun rather than actually liking the realistic settings and stories or finding playing with those mechanics fun.

This, for the love of god this. I ,as you can probably tell from the OP, have no hostility towards realism. I've been gaming for a long time, and I just want different kinds of experiences and thats why, (ironically enough) I want more devs to experiement with different realistic settings and mechanics, because you just don't see that very often. I don't view realism to be a must in itself. That said, I really would love to see more games that would give an authenic and engrossing experience.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Define realism. Do you mean realism as in logic e.g. character got burn but use water to get rid of fire but the character now got some burn marks that will stay there forever (unless get it treated) or do you mean just real or realism as in real worl settings?

Either way I guess I would lend toward more fantasy but not competely outright get rid of realism since there are time when I do question the logic in a fantasy game.

 

[War Penguin]

From a setting standpoint, I prefer fantasy. But I do enjoy adding some realism into the mix, like in the clothing or architecture, etc. I just don't really like it when it's only realism, like Call of Duty, or Battlefield, or Madden, or Forza. I play for escapism.

That said, I don't think realism and fantasy are mutually exclusive, at least in setting. I think you can have both in a sense. The entirety of the science fiction genre pretty much does this. It doesn't go all out and wacky with it's world and imagery [small](or at least, it's not supposed to |)[/small]. It explains everything from a logical standpoint.

Take the original Mass Effect as an example. All of the designs for the aliens, the ships, the clothes, the armor, etc, are realistically designed. Sure, you're not really going to see them in reality, but it does look like something that would be developed or seen in the future. They're designed to make sense. Hell, the codex is another great example. It goes and explains all of the science and history of the world it provides.

Now, from a gameplay perspective? Well... I don't think you'll ever get "realism" in a game. Sure, you could die from a few bullets, require to eat, drink, and sleep, like Fallout New Vegas's Hardcore Mode, and aim a gun through "iron sights." But no matter what, you're never gonna be "realistic." You'll always be an avatar in a made up world. You'll never actually be running into the battlefield, actually looking down the sights of a rifle. Until the do some virtual reality crap, then you can never be realistic.

 

[ElPatron]

"As realistic as possible, even at the cost of functionality."

Realism does not imply lack of functionality. Realism doesn't imply "difficulty" in understanding/learning.

This argument is silly and will lead to nowhere. There is as much need to realism as there is to fantasy.

If you want to make a 007 movie, you have the unrealistic part of an agent having a license to kill during times of peace and the silly car upgrades. That doesn't mean 007 should have Star Trek technology.

If you want to make a RPG like Skyrim you add realistic details to make the world feel believable. But you don't remove dragons, vampires and elves "because they don't exist".

 

[Da Orky Man]

I can enjoy both. But I think I even want my Fantasy to be realistic. LOTR might seem like fantasy, but a lot of work is put into both the books and the movies to make them 'realistic'. (All houses in Minas Tirith have a function, the languages make sense, all 'cultures' are based on real life cultures)

Real life knows enough drama and action. I like games that primarily focus on that.

The one thing I have against the LotR is that technology appears to have advanced buggerall in several thousand years. Hell, if you pit our growth in technology against LotR, then the War of the Ring ought to have been fought with tanks and planes, not sword and shield. Even if I forgive them this, how is Narsil/Auduril still in any way effective? Has armour advanced at all in thousands of years?

Anyway, that's just me moaning. I just wish authors would stop throwing big numbers around to sound impressive, when they could easily make do with much smaller figures that actually make sense. Sacrifice realism where necessary, sure, just don't hunt it down and slaughter it wherever you can.