Okay, so I've heard a lot of people complaining about realism in mainstream videogames. Games are too restrictive, graphics are ugly because of it, and nothing's fun anymore. But a lot of these same people seem to have a problem with games in the Call of Duty series. It's become the least realistic depiction of warfare I've ever seen. Yet, it still gets called out as silly and unrealistic. Halo, Homefront, etc. get the same treatment. I just don't understand.
Realism in games (and Call of Duty)
- Thread starter numbersix1979
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yeah i understand this, i just feel that the games themselves are just focusing on the wrong areas of realism. look out into the world and there are plenty of colourful attractive locations that are mesmorising, but they focus on dreary drab, areas with little features in them. but hey, if we wanted real we'd go out there into the army i suppose.
ho hum
ho hum
I am a strong opposition to realizm in games, but even I know that Call of Duty is not realistic.
Just look at this camp BLEEDING trailer:
This is realism? HA!
Just look at this camp BLEEDING trailer:
This is realism? HA!
Keep in mind, that when people say "realism", they don't mean simulation. The military shooters are realistic in the sense that they don't take place in outer space against laser-toting aliens. "Realism" is very much a term that is used on a sliding scale, with something like Battlestar Galactica being "realistic" in a way that Star Trek wasn't.
I think a whole lot of the problem is that too many developers are actively trying to make their games more like Call Of Duty. Fighting Nazis in space, make it look and play as close to CoD as possible. Western franchise not burning up the sales charts, let's bring it to the modern day. And on and on.
I think Homefront is the game that really fell victim to the CoD fallacy. They've pretty much admitted that they put most of their resources into the MP side of the game, which is why the single player campaign is so short. This is yet another sad case of people not paying attention to history. You don't get to be a major player in the MP market unless you're company has proven that they can deliver the goods. How do you prove that... by delivering a damn good single player game.
Instead of trying to out-CoD the single player campaign of CoD4, they tried to out-CoD the MP... and, not surprisingly, most people didn't give a shit.
I think a whole lot of the problem is that too many developers are actively trying to make their games more like Call Of Duty. Fighting Nazis in space, make it look and play as close to CoD as possible. Western franchise not burning up the sales charts, let's bring it to the modern day. And on and on.
I think Homefront is the game that really fell victim to the CoD fallacy. They've pretty much admitted that they put most of their resources into the MP side of the game, which is why the single player campaign is so short. This is yet another sad case of people not paying attention to history. You don't get to be a major player in the MP market unless you're company has proven that they can deliver the goods. How do you prove that... by delivering a damn good single player game.
Instead of trying to out-CoD the single player campaign of CoD4, they tried to out-CoD the MP... and, not surprisingly, most people didn't give a shit.
You're kind of talking about two different issues. I think it more just annoys people that some CoD fans say it's one of the realistic games on the market, because it's clearly unrealistic in a lot of ways. Complaining about how realistic games are is much more a complaint about the art style of a game being brown and boring. Call of Duty is a pretty big offender on that front.
The demand is for realism flavored games. Every one is Sgt. This or Major That, all the guns are real and every third word is tango without Fred Astaire in sight. But, actual realism is boring, frustrating, and difficult to pull off. So they go for realistic looking, like if someone adapted Commando to be about counter-insurgency in the post 9/11 world.
The only thing real about CoD is the lag you get right before you die in multiplayer online.
Some kids are actually joining the army thinking it will be EXACTLY like CoD... sorry kids, you don't respawn after you watch your own killcam and lagging won't save your sorry ass.
^ This.cardinalwiggles said:
Some kids are actually joining the army thinking it will be EXACTLY like CoD... sorry kids, you don't respawn after you watch your own killcam and lagging won't save your sorry ass.
Realism is bad. That's why we play videogames. IMO the large majority of video games would be exhausted just by carrying one of the firearms in a COD game.
What people think they're talking about when they complain about realism is realistic physics. Realistic physics are important to me, but I'm never foolish enough to think that it's about true realism.
What people think they're talking about when they complain about realism is realistic physics. Realistic physics are important to me, but I'm never foolish enough to think that it's about true realism.
Games don't always need realism, somtimes it even ruins the fun.
I still remember Brothers in Arms: road to hill 30. If your health was low when you passed a checkpoint but died over and over again, respawning with low health the game said: "War isn't always fair, but a game should be. Your health has been replenished". That's a great way of keeping a game realistic but fun in the same time.
I still remember Brothers in Arms: road to hill 30. If your health was low when you passed a checkpoint but died over and over again, respawning with low health the game said: "War isn't always fair, but a game should be. Your health has been replenished". That's a great way of keeping a game realistic but fun in the same time.