"Realism" as a selling point should go die
- Thread starter LightOfDarkness
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree: that does sound like a true dedication to realism. But is it *fun*? I'm sure that depends on personal taste, which is fine. I think the complaint against realism, at least as I understand it, is that developers often seem to prioritize things like "photo-realistic" graphics, real-world weapons and locations, and historical accuracy over making the game enjoyable.hazabaza1 said:
My tendency would be to say that realism in games is much like anything else in games: it's perfectly fine so long as it results in a good game. Company of Heroes was realistic enough to be compelling and immersive, but if you took a conscious step back from it, there were a number of things about it that were patently ridiculous (the idea of "strategic points" granting resources, being able to turn any building in your territory into a barracks capable of calling up a potentially infinite number of G.I.s, etc.). Those things were done to make the game fun and playable, and were presented in such a way that it was easy to suspend disbelief (that is, ignore them).
Contrast that to something like the older Rainbow Six titles I played once upon a time: their graphics were pretty close to top-of-the-line, they emphasized realistic locational damage, had a sizable arsenal of real-world weapons, and encouraged the player to employ tactical planning that at least strove for believability (since I'm not an authority on the real-world operations of small, elite counter-terrorist strike teams, I can't say how well they succeeded). Yet I didn't like these games very much when I played them because they were so busy trying to be realistic that they forgot (according to my individual tastes) to be fun or engaging. In addition to which, the more realistic a game tries to be, the more obvious any element of it that fails to be realistic will become (like the enemy AI in the Rainbow Six example).
Personally, while I've definitely played great games that drew strength from their realism, I tend to enjoy more stylized games. I only have a problem with realism in that developers and publishers seem to see it as some sort of marketing magic, which means that promising, yet more fantastical or stylized titles sometimes seem to get pushed aside in favor of less exciting realistic titles.
It may just be me, but I'm always just interested to see what developers will come up with when they're only limited by what they can imagine, instead of being shackled to even the worthiest standards of realism.
I agree with you on one point - games like CoD or BF touting their "realism" is stupid. The only "real" things in it are the guns, and even THOSE tend to differ markedly from their real-life counterparts.
However, if "realism" isn't just used as a selling point, and is an actual goal of the game, then it's a different matter. I love Red Orchestra to death, precisely BECAUSE it's realistic. Yes, it makes some concessions for playability, but on the whole it's a very, very far cry from the supposed "realism" of Call of Duty.[footnote]For one, there's no crosshair. For two, one rifle round to the chest = death. For three, machine guns need to be deployed. Et cetera.[/footnote] I can recommend it to anyone really, it pulls both aspects - realism and playability - off very well, whereas most games tend not so much to swing the balance to playability but rather focus ONLY on playability, throwing realism almost completely out the window. Red Orchestra doesn't, and the result is a very well-made (though aging) game that is quite accessible[footnote]Provided you figure out the basic mechanics before jumping into online 40-player combined-arms battles.[/footnote] in addition to[footnote]I almost used the word "despite" instead of "in addition to", but that just felt wrong, given what I'm saying here.[/footnote] having a stated focus on realism.[footnote]I have played both the original Operation Flashpoint and Dragon Rising (the first one made before, the second one after both ArmA games, in the same style, with the original OFP and both ArmA games from the same developer), and tbh, I haven't gotten very far in either of them. Driving a tank is fun and works pretty well, but if I'm on foot I always get roflpwnt by enemy soldiers I can't even see. IMO, in these games, the focus on realism does detract from the playability, unlike in Red Orchestra. But that's the devs' decision, and I'm not gonna tell players who like the games what and what not to play.[/footnote]
So in short, "realism" as nothing more than a selling point should go bungee jumping with a noose, but a game that pulls it off well should be embraced, or at least tried and given a fair chance.
However, if "realism" isn't just used as a selling point, and is an actual goal of the game, then it's a different matter. I love Red Orchestra to death, precisely BECAUSE it's realistic. Yes, it makes some concessions for playability, but on the whole it's a very, very far cry from the supposed "realism" of Call of Duty.[footnote]For one, there's no crosshair. For two, one rifle round to the chest = death. For three, machine guns need to be deployed. Et cetera.[/footnote] I can recommend it to anyone really, it pulls both aspects - realism and playability - off very well, whereas most games tend not so much to swing the balance to playability but rather focus ONLY on playability, throwing realism almost completely out the window. Red Orchestra doesn't, and the result is a very well-made (though aging) game that is quite accessible[footnote]Provided you figure out the basic mechanics before jumping into online 40-player combined-arms battles.[/footnote] in addition to[footnote]I almost used the word "despite" instead of "in addition to", but that just felt wrong, given what I'm saying here.[/footnote] having a stated focus on realism.[footnote]I have played both the original Operation Flashpoint and Dragon Rising (the first one made before, the second one after both ArmA games, in the same style, with the original OFP and both ArmA games from the same developer), and tbh, I haven't gotten very far in either of them. Driving a tank is fun and works pretty well, but if I'm on foot I always get roflpwnt by enemy soldiers I can't even see. IMO, in these games, the focus on realism does detract from the playability, unlike in Red Orchestra. But that's the devs' decision, and I'm not gonna tell players who like the games what and what not to play.[/footnote]
So in short, "realism" as nothing more than a selling point should go bungee jumping with a noose, but a game that pulls it off well should be embraced, or at least tried and given a fair chance.
Also this.thiosk said:
Yeah, I remember playing it. Got shot by a sniper and died before I even engaged the enemy.therandombear said:
I say, to everyone their own. Some like arcade, some like hyperrealistic simulation. Of course, the simulation crowd is smaller and games more costly to develop, so they don't have much say in the long run.
If you complain about games marketed as "realistic" and not actually so, just think how much the fun would suffer if you really did implement proper realism in a game. It's obvious that the devs have to sacrifice a lot of it for the sake of fun.
There are a few good things that the "realistic" trend brought us, methinks. The cover system started by Gears of War and used in countless TPP games since is a good example.
While i'm of the mind that realism can create fun when done right, I do agree that it shouldn't be a selling point. Rather, realism works best in a support role, to make the game more believable even with some of the crazy s*** you do in some games.
Example: imagine Katamari Damacy where the ball bounces around like a gigantic basketball.
Also, I remember a take on Realism in my copy of Combat and Tactics (AD&D 2e) on the topic. Wherin "realism" resulted in a dwarf with no arms and hopping on one leg but still fighting. (paraphrased)
Example: imagine Katamari Damacy where the ball bounces around like a gigantic basketball.
Also, I remember a take on Realism in my copy of Combat and Tactics (AD&D 2e) on the topic. Wherin "realism" resulted in a dwarf with no arms and hopping on one leg but still fighting. (paraphrased)
How come realism only seems to be limited to shooters in this thread? Games like Forza and Gran Turismo pretty much build their entire reputation on being able to deliver a realistic driving experience. Saying you want something to be realistic doesn't necessarily mean you want to make it balls to the walls all the way realistic. Imagine a computer game where you go through boot camp and the first 240 hours of game time is spent doing nothing but going through your inventory item by item ("Hold up five pairs of socks!" "Now hold up five pairs of underwear!"), doing parade ground drills, walking in cohesion and listening to lectures about following orders. Fun? No.
Realism includes things like weapon handling, AI behaviour, bullet drop off, sound drop off, other physics and a whole plethora of other things that define the reality we live in. Realism is that you can't jump 2,5 stories in Call of Duty or that civilians run away if you point a gun at them in Grand Theft Auto. It is a very broad topic and one that can't be easily generalized. Besides, realistic compared to what? Compared to realism everything synthetic will be unrealistic.
Realism includes things like weapon handling, AI behaviour, bullet drop off, sound drop off, other physics and a whole plethora of other things that define the reality we live in. Realism is that you can't jump 2,5 stories in Call of Duty or that civilians run away if you point a gun at them in Grand Theft Auto. It is a very broad topic and one that can't be easily generalized. Besides, realistic compared to what? Compared to realism everything synthetic will be unrealistic.
It's alright as long as they don't go overboard with it. It can help add to immersion. Games like ARMA II can fuck off and die though.
Amnestic said:
[HEADING=1]AMNESTIC DECLARES WAR ON DANDRUFF
Head and Shoulders declares support, L'Oreal remains netural[/HEADING]
[small]Following a breakdown in both skin fragments in Amnestic's scalp and the peace talks between Head and Shoulders and the Democratic Union of Dandruff (DUD), a general state of WAR has emerged in the country of Amnestic-headistan. When pushed for comment, the Head and Shoulders CEO said "this war was started when the DUD illegally engaged in hosilities by entering territory owned by the country of Amnestic-headistan...such as the eyebrows, forehead and the base of the scalp". The DUD warlord, Fluffy McScratchyNoggin, was unavaliable for comment, as he is a small piece of dead skin, and cannot actually talk.[/small]Head and Shoulders declares support, L'Oreal remains netural[/HEADING]
...
I need to find more to do
OT: Ignore the word Realism, just like you would "Dark", "Gritty", "Tim Burton" and "Laugh-Out-Loud Comedy!!!"
Yes, you escape reality by immersing yourself in a convincingly real alternate reality... See where I'm going with that?Ando3242 said:
Because every other gamer that I know constantly says realism=better when I know they're confusing realism with good graphics, and I constantly point out if a game was realistic a 9mm could kill you in a few shots and shots to the arm and leg are no laughing matter [http://www.cracked.com/article/18363_6-life-saving-techniques-from-movies-that-can-kill-you/].IamQ said:
Also, wasn't it Perfect Dark Zero that had the cover system first on the 360?
Realism is good, so long as it's in the right places.
Realistic sound, for example, is an excellent idea. Shooters benefit from this especially. It's a hell of a lot of fun to hear bullets whizzing overhead, and the distant rumble of artillery fire.
Rushed answer, but realism isn't always bad, or good.
Realistic sound, for example, is an excellent idea. Shooters benefit from this especially. It's a hell of a lot of fun to hear bullets whizzing overhead, and the distant rumble of artillery fire.
Rushed answer, but realism isn't always bad, or good.