Realism or Fantasy in gaming
- Thread starter Zera
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In my combat/squad based shooters/actioners a.k.a. games set in the real world (i.e. "GRAW2") I want as much realism as possible.
In my pick up and play for recreation I look for fun, quirky, original, challenging, and often disturbingly cute (i.e. "Eetz").
As far as RPGs go I am kind of beatdown with almost everything in the genre - the archetypes, the storylines, the enemies, the level grinding, etc., etc. . I still pick up RPGs and play them but the magic just isn't there for me. I do enjoy the RPG infused action/platform game like "Psychonauts" or "Kingdom Hearts" but those are few and far between.
In my pick up and play for recreation I look for fun, quirky, original, challenging, and often disturbingly cute (i.e. "Eetz").
As far as RPGs go I am kind of beatdown with almost everything in the genre - the archetypes, the storylines, the enemies, the level grinding, etc., etc. . I still pick up RPGs and play them but the magic just isn't there for me. I do enjoy the RPG infused action/platform game like "Psychonauts" or "Kingdom Hearts" but those are few and far between.
I'd say that I don't have a particular prefence for games in general to be realistic or fantastical. It really depends upon the type of game it is: if it is an RPG, then the genre tends towards the fantastical, albiet doesn't have to be; if it is a shooter, then I'd expect it to be realistic (you can't take a million hits to the head before you die), unless it was some sort of fantasy shooter wherein it is more like a non-leveling version of Kingdom Hearts; if it was a sports game I'd turn off the machine.
But in general I do prefer the fantasy-styled games because I do get realism right up my ass every day, so I like to have a sort of different experience before my eyes. But then again my favorite games are caught up in the Nippon Ichi franchise, so I guess I'm a little to patient to be bothered by much, and obviously am easily amused by comically huge explosions and such. =D
But in general I do prefer the fantasy-styled games because I do get realism right up my ass every day, so I like to have a sort of different experience before my eyes. But then again my favorite games are caught up in the Nippon Ichi franchise, so I guess I'm a little to patient to be bothered by much, and obviously am easily amused by comically huge explosions and such. =D
I hate "realism" its a excuse to nerf and make odd weapon balances, now that dose not mean a "realistic" game can not be fun, its all in how they ignore the fun/frustration ratios...
Stupid que have you tried FF12 or DQ8 these are the last of the "great" RPGs so far, I have found ones a grind whore because they wouldn't put in more equipment/skills the other is well..pretty much the same only faster battles and a broken skill system, I love my older RPGs but this new shit seems to be based on grind/time eating, than fun/unique charatcers, even FF10 is dry FF9 is great plenty of euqipt and skills to have fun with, FF8 not so much FF7 is ok its balanced between generic and fun, FF4,FF6,Chrono trigger,Lunar(not the puked on PSX remakes) and a few other classic series are so much mroe fun with the stuff you can do.hooliganyouth said:
I am not fond of frustration or bordom in my gaming and that seems to be what most games are made of now.
I kind of like realism as a theme; people sounding like they would in the army and such. Unfortunately, they all sound the same now...
I DO NOT LIKE realism as a full-on game goal. Real life is not fun. Thus, we escape real life to play video games. WE DO NOT WANT MORE REAL LIFE.
You ever hear about those toy dolls that looked almost completely lifelike? People were DISGUSTED by them. And yet you see these toy dogs that look very metallic and have LEDs for lights, and people love them. Point is: People like an escape from reality. I don't think it can be called escapism until it's addicting.
I DO NOT LIKE realism as a full-on game goal. Real life is not fun. Thus, we escape real life to play video games. WE DO NOT WANT MORE REAL LIFE.
You ever hear about those toy dolls that looked almost completely lifelike? People were DISGUSTED by them. And yet you see these toy dogs that look very metallic and have LEDs for lights, and people love them. Point is: People like an escape from reality. I don't think it can be called escapism until it's addicting.
I was just thinking about this today, going over a mini-debate I had with my roommate when arguing how horribly the vehicles in Half-Life 2 controlled (at least, compared to a Warthog from Halo...and I feel saying anything from Halo worked better than in HL2 is likely to get me lynched on this forum :/ ), and his argument was they controlled realistically. Airboat controlled like shit because it was a piece of shit, and the car runs like a race car would.
However, just because something is too realistic doesn't mean it is fun. So I figured there needs to be a way to separate the fun from the not fun.
Realism is when a game tries to mimic life when it works, such as in the Call of Duty games or Full Spectrum Warrior. However, if you keep up with the development history of Full Spectrum Warrior, you'll note that the game was greatly simplified and changed for use outside of the military. This is because realism is fun, but being realistic is not.
Realistic is when something is completely as it should be in real life. The problem with this is that it isn't imitating life to be fun, it's imitating life to imitate life. So, while I'm sure plenty of military guys enjoyed Full Spectrum Warrior's original version, it would be too complicated and way too hard for any of us non-military types to enjoy simply because it's way too realistic.
I'm a fan of realism, but if you're making airboat control like shit just because it should, then you're honestly ruining part of my game experience.
As for Realism vs. Fantasy, well, what am I playing? Also, what's the ratio? I find the look of Team Fortress 2 to be a very welcome change of style from the constant appearance of games trying to look as realistic as possible. I also like the look they're using for the new Bionic Commando (http://www.wii60.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bionic_commando.png), as it isn't realistic, but you can't call it cartoony either. It's colorful and it possesses an art style. I think some people have forgotten the idea of having art styles in 3-D games.
Note that even the realistic look can have an art style. Look at Gears of War. It certainly has a lot of realistic looking things, but you can also spot the exaggeration, too. It has an art style of its own.
I guess the best way to put it is: I like art styles, even if your style is realistic. As for play style, I prefer realism.
However, just because something is too realistic doesn't mean it is fun. So I figured there needs to be a way to separate the fun from the not fun.
Realism is when a game tries to mimic life when it works, such as in the Call of Duty games or Full Spectrum Warrior. However, if you keep up with the development history of Full Spectrum Warrior, you'll note that the game was greatly simplified and changed for use outside of the military. This is because realism is fun, but being realistic is not.
Realistic is when something is completely as it should be in real life. The problem with this is that it isn't imitating life to be fun, it's imitating life to imitate life. So, while I'm sure plenty of military guys enjoyed Full Spectrum Warrior's original version, it would be too complicated and way too hard for any of us non-military types to enjoy simply because it's way too realistic.
I'm a fan of realism, but if you're making airboat control like shit just because it should, then you're honestly ruining part of my game experience.
As for Realism vs. Fantasy, well, what am I playing? Also, what's the ratio? I find the look of Team Fortress 2 to be a very welcome change of style from the constant appearance of games trying to look as realistic as possible. I also like the look they're using for the new Bionic Commando (http://www.wii60.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bionic_commando.png), as it isn't realistic, but you can't call it cartoony either. It's colorful and it possesses an art style. I think some people have forgotten the idea of having art styles in 3-D games.
Note that even the realistic look can have an art style. Look at Gears of War. It certainly has a lot of realistic looking things, but you can also spot the exaggeration, too. It has an art style of its own.
I guess the best way to put it is: I like art styles, even if your style is realistic. As for play style, I prefer realism.
Okay, one- personal attacks aren't cool.ZippyDSMlee said:
Two- can't say I've played FF12, but I have played DQ8 and it most certainly isn't what I'd call a 'great' RPG, or most certainly the last of the great RPG's. It was basically the same as any other 'classic' RPG, except with a different storyline. It had a serious lack of feasible variety in the gameplay (attack, attack, heal, buff/attack each and every turn), unless you were willing to go back and mess with the little 'level-up a certain area as you please' feature, which was very confusing and rather poorly thought out. Now I play lots of SRPG's that require a great deal of attention to particular minute details and a great deal of grinding (which is mitigated by the fact that it isn't the exact same thing over and over again, it changes each time, you are only doing the same basic thing), but everything is laid out in a logical sense, not 'level up whatever you feel like and we'll maybe give you a surprise.' DQ8 was a blandly mediocre grind-fest, the only reason I kept going was because I liked the story enough to waste time with it, if I was less patient I would have put it in a potato gun and launched it back to Hollywood Video after a few hours of gameplay. If I had had any sense I would have just kept playing Phantom Brave over Christmas Break instead.
The idea of the "uncanny valley" is becoming more prevalent in the industry now, (obviously) because of improving technology. While i like realism in games, especially in characters, etc., it ends up being easier to create more "human" characters, with more believable personalities, in a fantasy or cartoonish setting.Redfeather said:
Thus far the closest games have come in realistic characters is (as many, i'm sure, agree,) Valve's source engine. Though my favorite in-game characters, or at least the most unique, belong to (forgive me) Conker.
Maybe I'm missing the exact nature of the question, but I like my fantasy games to be "realistic." What I mean is that, despite all the fantastic events in the game (magic, flying ships, ancient civilizations, techno-wonders, etc.) I like it to be grounded in a strong context of realism. For instance, if magic exists in a world, I want to see people react and use it as though it is a viable force - everyday sort of things. If there are half-elves, it needs to be explained why a human and an elf would see fit to mate, the races views on the subject, and it needs to carry into the atmosphere of the game. This is some of the reason I'm kind of fed up with many JRPGs. There's never any context. Sure, you can call a meteor down on an enemy's head (doing less than enough damage to kill it, often enough), but people just scurry about like such things are everyday events, even when no one else exhibits the ability. Or everyone can do it, and no one uses stuff constructively.
Elder Scrolls games sort of do this, but even then it's kind of weird. There are usually societies built around the instruction and practical use of magic, which makes sense, but it seldom seems to get used beyond combat and potion-making. Morrowind had something I thought was brilliant: mages guilds charging to teleport you around. If I could teleport things, damn right I'd make money off it.
Roaming beasts and weapons are other problems I have with games. Why does one area have drastically more powerful stuff than another area, yet exist in some sort of power balance? If your town has been fending off level 75 dragon-things, shouldn't you be able to dominate that scenic little village with level 5 rabbits running around and causing havoc for the populous? If there's one thing I like about MMORPGs (really, there's not much more than this one), it's that cities tend to be cleared of powerful creatures, having only minor nuisances around - which makes sense. Who wants to live around deadly-powerful bringers-of-destruction?
Frankly, I think levelling in RPGs is a concept that's well passed its day, too, but that's more of an RPG rant and less a fantasy/realism thing.
So, as I've now sort of illustrated in a fairly confusing fashion, I like games in a fantasy setting where the fantasy elements are worked realistically into the game. What would people really do and be like with such powers around them? That's the question I want designers to ask.
Elder Scrolls games sort of do this, but even then it's kind of weird. There are usually societies built around the instruction and practical use of magic, which makes sense, but it seldom seems to get used beyond combat and potion-making. Morrowind had something I thought was brilliant: mages guilds charging to teleport you around. If I could teleport things, damn right I'd make money off it.
Roaming beasts and weapons are other problems I have with games. Why does one area have drastically more powerful stuff than another area, yet exist in some sort of power balance? If your town has been fending off level 75 dragon-things, shouldn't you be able to dominate that scenic little village with level 5 rabbits running around and causing havoc for the populous? If there's one thing I like about MMORPGs (really, there's not much more than this one), it's that cities tend to be cleared of powerful creatures, having only minor nuisances around - which makes sense. Who wants to live around deadly-powerful bringers-of-destruction?
Frankly, I think levelling in RPGs is a concept that's well passed its day, too, but that's more of an RPG rant and less a fantasy/realism thing.
So, as I've now sort of illustrated in a fairly confusing fashion, I like games in a fantasy setting where the fantasy elements are worked realistically into the game. What would people really do and be like with such powers around them? That's the question I want designers to ask.
While you make a good point about the whole RPG linearly increasing powered monsters, for the sake of the game it isn't at all practical to have enemies of godly proportions (and the fact that few people would be living near monsters who are deadly-powerful-bringers-of-destruction because they would be killed, which is supported by the fact that nine times out of eight and a half, people living there have some sort of defensive setup, like huge walls the monsters wouldn't care to scale, or maybe that they are so small they are barely noticeable) at the start of a game, and if it was like that, or even like a MMORPG, then you would be staying in the same place for quite a long time, rather than actually getting to go anywhere and continue the story. In terms of MMORPG's though, they lack in any linearity at all, being a bunch of not funny non-sequiters, or totally lacking in any story you can immerse yourself into but occasionally, and is just about going out of the village/city and 'killing specific amounts of x, why, and zetta' for the sake of getting more powerful, and only that, no specific reason why you want to be more powerful, other than it's like a benching contest to see who can get the biggest muscles in the least amount of time.
Well, regarding the important part of your post (i.e.- the first part), in terms of realism, considering that the societies have would have evolved differently from ours because of differing circumstances (like nasty monsters that can hardly be killed without a great deal of training or a freaking army, aforementioned magic, and the fact that most people can't go all genocide on the native fauna of certain areas). And in terms of 'absolute realism' where RPG's become more like slow-paced shooters in that depending upon a particular hit (like that meteor comment) and enemy will instantly be killed, that would then make the whole point of the world being filled with a challenge pointless. I mean, without the leveling system and strong enemies, it might as well become a sword-and-sorcery based platformer/action-adventure/shooter/fighter depending upon the specific gameplay elements.
And most of the time, things like what people would do with those powers isn't explained because it isn't relavent to the story (in RPG's), or it is side-explained in some sidequest.
Well, regarding the important part of your post (i.e.- the first part), in terms of realism, considering that the societies have would have evolved differently from ours because of differing circumstances (like nasty monsters that can hardly be killed without a great deal of training or a freaking army, aforementioned magic, and the fact that most people can't go all genocide on the native fauna of certain areas). And in terms of 'absolute realism' where RPG's become more like slow-paced shooters in that depending upon a particular hit (like that meteor comment) and enemy will instantly be killed, that would then make the whole point of the world being filled with a challenge pointless. I mean, without the leveling system and strong enemies, it might as well become a sword-and-sorcery based platformer/action-adventure/shooter/fighter depending upon the specific gameplay elements.
And most of the time, things like what people would do with those powers isn't explained because it isn't relavent to the story (in RPG's), or it is side-explained in some sidequest.
I think something that really needs to be clarified is what aspect of realism is being discussed? There's realism in graphics (Cell-shaded versus photo realistic for example), realism in characters (personality more so than their appearance), realism in game play mechanics and physics (weapon accuracy, damage, difficulty, etc.), and much more.
In my own opinion realism in graphics really doesn't matter because its only superficial. A game can be cell-shaded (Wind Waker) or have all the snazzy new lighting effects known to man (HL 2) and my enjoyment of the game will not be changed much either way. Characters being real is immensely important as more and more today games have the ability to take on a great depth of story (though most do not). Using established archetypes (the fool, the white knight, the reluctant hero, the endearing villain, etc.)are good, but those characters should have believable reasons for their actions and motivations and they should be immensely thought out.
Lastly as for realism in game play I believe both realism and fantasy styles of game play can have their place not only in the market at large but within my own personal gaming world. RPGs are a prime example of fantastical style of game play, but it works because fantasy and science fiction settings are meant to be transcendental and in the process expose truths of character and the nature of the world. On the opposite end of the spectrum for me would be an FPS. An FPS already has a death grip on realism because Im in a realistic perspective when I interact with the gaming world and if that FPS has anything to do with the military or police I damn well want the full experience, I want to have to control my movements, think tactically at all times, and which weapon I choose to effect not only my in game abilities but my own strategy as well (see the HL mod Hostile Intent as a shining example of this done very well). Still in the end its my opinion and some people like highly unrealistic shooters for the power-rush it can give when you frag a ridiculous amount of people and haven't died once because your shield regenerates or you've picked up med-packs out the wazoo and I even enjoy them myself once in awhile. Just chiming in.
In my own opinion realism in graphics really doesn't matter because its only superficial. A game can be cell-shaded (Wind Waker) or have all the snazzy new lighting effects known to man (HL 2) and my enjoyment of the game will not be changed much either way. Characters being real is immensely important as more and more today games have the ability to take on a great depth of story (though most do not). Using established archetypes (the fool, the white knight, the reluctant hero, the endearing villain, etc.)are good, but those characters should have believable reasons for their actions and motivations and they should be immensely thought out.
Lastly as for realism in game play I believe both realism and fantasy styles of game play can have their place not only in the market at large but within my own personal gaming world. RPGs are a prime example of fantastical style of game play, but it works because fantasy and science fiction settings are meant to be transcendental and in the process expose truths of character and the nature of the world. On the opposite end of the spectrum for me would be an FPS. An FPS already has a death grip on realism because Im in a realistic perspective when I interact with the gaming world and if that FPS has anything to do with the military or police I damn well want the full experience, I want to have to control my movements, think tactically at all times, and which weapon I choose to effect not only my in game abilities but my own strategy as well (see the HL mod Hostile Intent as a shining example of this done very well). Still in the end its my opinion and some people like highly unrealistic shooters for the power-rush it can give when you frag a ridiculous amount of people and haven't died once because your shield regenerates or you've picked up med-packs out the wazoo and I even enjoy them myself once in awhile. Just chiming in.
Depends on the game, sometimes I want to do realistic, albeit illegal, things in a realistic setting (GTA, Postal, etc.) and other times I want to be a superhero with super powers. Overall I prefer fantasy because I like good stories over simulators.