Poll: Realism vs. Flexibility?

[DiamondJim]

I've heard many different arguments for this. Some prefer the shocking level of detail and precision that a game reflects on real life (such as say, COD 4). Others might like the wanton chaos and absurd situations that a game provides, making the experience something much more unusual (i.e. GTA 4). I've seen whole reviews biased on one side or the other... and on rare occasions games can find a good balance between the two. But which game really provides the better entertainment value? (Not entirely sure if flexibility is the right word for the opposite of realism... didn't want to go with fantasy).

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I prefer a balance between the two. Keep it real, in the sense that the physics are real, the graphics are good and the features realistic (i.e. having to hotwire in GTAIV). But don't make it too realistic. Have a bit of artistic license - add some pinatas, blow things up. Make the game realistic, but not the expense of the enjoyment factor.

 

[Wicky_42]

Ishocking level of detail and precision that a game reflects on real life (such as say, COD 4).

COD4 realistic? eh, not really... not so much; regenerating hp, respawning, tame blood effects, tiny sniper range, no environmental interaction, very streamlined for a run and gun multiplayer approach. The single player is very cinematic, but everyone (hopefully) knows the difference between cinema and rl. True, player models and environments are highly detailed, but holding COD up as the epitome of realism in games makes me wonder - is that as realistic as fps games are?

OT, I personally love to run in guns blazing in Halo, TF2 and the like, but I can't really do that so well in games like COD and CS, so my vote is for 'flexibility'. That said, I also love the sense of achievement that you can get accomplishing something in a semi-realistic environ as opposed to a more arcade-y one, so imo both genres have merit.

 

[meatloaf231]

It really depends on the genre... I tend to enjoy realistic shooters, but everything else I prefer to be "flexible". It's more fun that way.

EDIT: Actually, I can't reinforce that. My favorite shooter happens to be TF2, so I guess "flexible" all around.

 

[Xvito]

I prefer a balance between the two. Keep it real, in the sense that the physics are real, the graphics are good and the features realistic (i.e. having to hotwire in GTAIV). But don't make it too realistic. Have a bit of artistic license - add some pinatas, blow things up. Make the game realistic, but not the expense of the enjoyment factor.

Amen brother.

 

[Milkatron]

Flexibility to me is end of story better. My expierences with realism so far have all been negative. Too much holding me back, I feel like something is missing from my time playing. Being able to defy physics and do the impossible is what keeps me going in games.

 

[Jazzyluv]

Realism is fucking boring...

 

[sammyfreak]

I like good games, if they do realism or pseudo-realism thats fine with me.

 

[Good morning blues]

I'm going to set it on the line and say that true realism is impossible to achieve in a game; the experience depends on which mechanics are included, emphasized, and omitted. Because you don't have the same type of situational awareness in a game that you do in real life, nothing's ever going to be convincingly realistic - for instance, pinning is almost impossible in a video game unless you implement a mechanic that pretty much forces players to pay attention to it, but if you do that, you also have to make cover protect the characters more than it does in real life - no shooting through the windows of the car; that guy's pinned, so you need to shoot him from somewhere else.

 

[TommyGun465]

It depends on the genre, as said before. But flexible games are more fun. Except if theyre an FPS. GTAIV didnt exactly match the hype I created because you couldnt fall off a really tall roof without dying. Thats why I am getting my hopes up for Saints 2.

 

[defcon 1]

It depends on the game I guess. Sometimes there is a call for realism such as Ninja Gaiden 2's exaggerated and fake as hell blood effects. Other times, having your Burnout car crash be able to hop from car to car and cause millions of dollars worth of damage is a lot more fun than a realistic crash. I chose flexibility only because I did like Ninja Gaiden 2 and several games with raw flexibility are enjoyable. Other games are real to the point where it just hurts game play and my patients.

 

[Sock Puppet]

I would agree that there should be a balance between the two, but if a game's story/gameplay is going to defy some sort of law, then the game developers should at least add something that will help make the change consistent with the story/setting. Just a few examples:

- Team Fortress 2's cartoon-ish setting
- Some protective armor, like the HEV suit in Half Life 2
- Bag of Holding (or S.A.C. if you played Beyond Good & Evil)

Though speaking of BG&E, there is something really wrong about getting hurt by rats in Beyond Good and Evil just by bumping into them... (every other animal in the game didn't hurt you when you collide into them, so what the heck?)

edit: Okay, so I'm more interested in realistic games than flexible ones. I am aware that some games can be too realistic, but there are many moments when I wish every single animal didn't attack you on sight (Oblivion) or when futuristic guns didn't break so easily (System Shock 2).

 

[ElegantSwordsman]

The most realistic game I think I've played was Gran Turismo 4 and I can honestly say it was mind-numbingly boring.

Realistic physics engines are great, but at some point you just have to suspend your disbelief and throw some pirates and ninjas in there... yes, even in racing games.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

Realism only works in FPS's and racing games, in anything else you need the freedom to enjoy your world...then blow it up.

 

[Shudmeyer]

I love a game that uses the fact that it's a game to its advantage to make a really cool experience. I mean, we play games to escape reality, not simulate it. But that said, I still like it when things react and behave realistically.

 

[The Iron Ninja]

Are we talking about purely visual aspects?
If so Realism is a pretty stupid idea, no matter how hard game designers try it's always going to look a little fake.
But if we're talking about gameplay I welcome realism with open arms.
Operation Flashpoint for example is a game which I have had many a fun time on.
Sure you can get killed in one hit, and your Assualt Rifle is going to do jack shit to an American tank (I was always the soviets)
But there is nothing quite like the feeling of beating the sorry bastards despite the odds and triumphantly sprinting off to the next objective (I had terrible luck with vehicles, Trees seemed to pop up infront of me, so I'd have to wheeze my way from place to place)

 

[Gotham Soul]

Realistic is nice to an extent I.E. blood splatters, ragdoll physics, and REASONABLE inventory space (Looking at you AotD4) if its a survival-horror game.

Otherwise, I'm all for aspects that help the player.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I like realism is some games, like splintercell(one shot your dead) but I really enjoy videogames that know they are just videogames(something to escape reality not mimic it, like timesplitters not a bit realistic but still loads of fun.

 

[ObnoxiousTwat]

I really can't get into too flexable of games. It greatly annoys me when in a game you shoot the other guy about 8 times and they still are alive.(And I don't mean using some little retarded gun to shoot the guy)