Realism or fantasy: which do you prefer?
- Thread starter Minic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think a realistic backdrop can set the stage for fantastic events that make for far better video games. MotoStorm, for example, takes a 'real life' approach to the graphics, somewhat to the physics, but instead of, I dunno, street racing? you're flying off cliffs and such. Same with SSX. You know we would have that as a real sport, if gravity was different.
So I guess... I mix? I prefer fiction and fantastic events, but not necessarily dragons and cliches like that... And realism should only be used to ground the gamer in something familiar (like physics, relatable characters or introductory situations), but should never limit gameplay.
So I guess... I mix? I prefer fiction and fantastic events, but not necessarily dragons and cliches like that... And realism should only be used to ground the gamer in something familiar (like physics, relatable characters or introductory situations), but should never limit gameplay.
Well, There's a conviently located franchaise that will answer this question from my point of view.
I typically prefer Final Fantasy eight's order of realism with a side of fantasy.
As for ff7, that sort of fiction should die. (Not meant to be trolling)
I also adore FF1's High-fantasy grand adventure with a heartwarming ending sequence.
As for realism, I think any virtual version should be a historical digital piece of art. You can't really make a game out of reality that would remain true to life.
I typically prefer Final Fantasy eight's order of realism with a side of fantasy.
As for ff7, that sort of fiction should die. (Not meant to be trolling)
I also adore FF1's High-fantasy grand adventure with a heartwarming ending sequence.
As for realism, I think any virtual version should be a historical digital piece of art. You can't really make a game out of reality that would remain true to life.
Depends on the game. You can debate whether some games are more enjoyable if they are realistic or fantasy based but its clear what games can benefit from taking things from the real world.
Rainbow Six for example is very realistic compared to other shooters and benefits from a gameplay standpoint as a result of that.
Games like Lost Odyssey clearly need to aim towards fantasy.
To a certain extent all games will take something from fantasy or reality but how much is something that depends on the game itself and what developers are aiming for.
Rainbow Six for example is very realistic compared to other shooters and benefits from a gameplay standpoint as a result of that.
Games like Lost Odyssey clearly need to aim towards fantasy.
To a certain extent all games will take something from fantasy or reality but how much is something that depends on the game itself and what developers are aiming for.
I have long regarded the outright devotion to detail that some games have trying to convince you that thier worlds are feasible is more wasted on realistic features (like high detail physics or perfect modelling or anything that you could justify as a reason for upgrading your PC so you can play Crysis...) than it ever can be on getting a fantasy world right.
Realistic games start to wear thin as soon as you do unrealistic things or spot unrealistic glitches - all that effort on a new physics engine is for naught if you're being killed by hyperaccelerated traffic cones.
In a fantasy world, that kind of thing goes unpunished because you've already accepted that you can headbutt blocks and mushrooms will emerge, or that the talking pig is a genius mechanic and so the invention of rocket boots by him is no suprise.
(Yes. There's a lot of one game references in my posts recently. Guess what I'm playing...)
A mix is good, but I prefer a focus on the unrealistic yet understandable. SSX is by no means realistic, but I love it anyway. Burnout is especially unrealistic, and is made all the better for it.
Realistic games start to wear thin as soon as you do unrealistic things or spot unrealistic glitches - all that effort on a new physics engine is for naught if you're being killed by hyperaccelerated traffic cones.
In a fantasy world, that kind of thing goes unpunished because you've already accepted that you can headbutt blocks and mushrooms will emerge, or that the talking pig is a genius mechanic and so the invention of rocket boots by him is no suprise.
(Yes. There's a lot of one game references in my posts recently. Guess what I'm playing...)
A mix is good, but I prefer a focus on the unrealistic yet understandable. SSX is by no means realistic, but I love it anyway. Burnout is especially unrealistic, and is made all the better for it.
One of the Mario games, and Beyond Good and Evil, for which you win a cookie.KaynSlamdyke said:
Edit: On-topic, I prefer fantasy with a side of realism (Mass Effect, FFVIII)
It really depends on what kind of game you are refering to. I personally prefer Fantastic games, the whole idea of immersing yourself in a surreal setting is the reason behind the existance of video games to begin with. I think that when games try to be too realistic they tend to be a bit tedious and to some extent boring (IMHO) as gamers are inclined to do over-the-top activities with their characters, when that kind of freedome is taken away from a game things become too mechanical and even methodical and not as organic as some would prefer. But again, that's just my view, some people see these characteristics as something positive on a game.
Personally, I like anything with a good plot. Example, Hitman was realistic, but had the most wonderful plot to it. Uncharted, relistic (in some ways) but with an excellent plot and hilarious gameplay.
Then theres the Metal Gear Solid games, you can't quite say it's either really, it has a lovely balance to it methinks.
Then, Zelda for it's beautiful fantasy, Bioshock for it's disturbing plots allong with Doom.
Remember Heretic and Heretic II, those were my favorite fantasy games.
Then theres the Metal Gear Solid games, you can't quite say it's either really, it has a lovely balance to it methinks.
Then, Zelda for it's beautiful fantasy, Bioshock for it's disturbing plots allong with Doom.
Remember Heretic and Heretic II, those were my favorite fantasy games.
Chalk up another vote for the fantastic. When I'm playing a game, I want to see and do things that I could NEVER do in the physical world. If I wanted to see normal things that could happen in our world, well, I'd probably be setting about doing them myself. Or at least watching some movie or TV show about it.
EDIT: Doom had a plot? I thought I was just supposed to kill everything that moved and then go to the next level...
EDIT: Doom had a plot? I thought I was just supposed to kill everything that moved and then go to the next level...
Definatly fantasy because it just shows how much imagination the creator has, so all these war games are unamaginative (If ur listening EA games im talking about u). Ok call of duty 4 is ok because its hasnt happened...yet
but for me stuff like zelda and halo are better
but for me stuff like zelda and halo are better
The third one did... somewhat.Necrohydra said:
The other two I remember playing them wit my dad when I was like 5 and screaming every time a "teddy bear" would throw a fire ball at you.
How skewed toward realism or fantasy a game is of no concern of mine, how good it is is another matter. A good game often immerses you into the experience, and it its a fantasy game you're immersed in it doesn't matter, because you feel like you're part of it, and if you're part of it then it can't be construed as fantasy (Ask Frodo what kind of fantasy world he's living in, he'll look at you funny and smack you upside the heat) because its.. well, realistic in those eyes.
Fantasy all the way. Realistic games have no imagination. The main reason why I stay away from Grand Theft Auto and The Sims.
Give me Psychonauts and Jet Set Radio anyday.
The pull hairs, it depends on the type of games, but most 'realistic' games just look so bland. And how much can you be wowed by a real looking New York, when we've seen it so many times in a game?
Give me Psychonauts and Jet Set Radio anyday.
The pull hairs, it depends on the type of games, but most 'realistic' games just look so bland. And how much can you be wowed by a real looking New York, when we've seen it so many times in a game?
I like my FPSs to be as realistic as possible while I like driving games that are mostly realistic but take some liberties to make it more enjoyable. What I truly hate is people that complain certain realistic games look to bland. This happened in a comments section for a MGS4 video. Some guy was complaining that it was too bland and not enough color. I told him he was stupid for complaining about color in a game that took place in the desert. A number of realistic games look bland because a lot of real world places are pretty bland.
I'm assuming by this that you mean games set in the "real world" as opposed to games set in some future/alternate universe. If the gameplay, story, and design are good, I really don't care. Either way, I want them to be realistic, which is to say, self-consistant within their own established rules, and consistant with some basic commonly held beliefs about human nature.
I can collect power-ups by destroying enemies in a certain way? Fine. People leave their valuable stuff in containers all over the place and I can just take them if I find them? OK. I can get up out of a hospital bed where I have been subject to Evil Experiments, stagger out into a hallway in my jammies and proceed to slap two armed guards to death? No! I am supposed to fear the guards! That's how the game works! Or the soldiers who are supposed to be my backup repeatedly throwing themselves under the treads of my tank as though they were protesting the suppression of Chinese democracy? No! Oh, but then the realism returns when you run the little f*ckers down in the name of applied Darwinism and the rest of your men decide to frag you. And, yes, I am looking at you, Halo AI.
I can collect power-ups by destroying enemies in a certain way? Fine. People leave their valuable stuff in containers all over the place and I can just take them if I find them? OK. I can get up out of a hospital bed where I have been subject to Evil Experiments, stagger out into a hallway in my jammies and proceed to slap two armed guards to death? No! I am supposed to fear the guards! That's how the game works! Or the soldiers who are supposed to be my backup repeatedly throwing themselves under the treads of my tank as though they were protesting the suppression of Chinese democracy? No! Oh, but then the realism returns when you run the little f*ckers down in the name of applied Darwinism and the rest of your men decide to frag you. And, yes, I am looking at you, Halo AI.
I prefer mostly realism, but it has to be tempered with fantasy. In real life a man who takes a bullet or shrapnel is most likely out for weeks or months, if not dead or crippled. There's a reason they say "war is hell" and not "war is challenging and fun." That being said, I HATE random power-ups, although I don't have a problem with med-kits (although I do prefer them to require a deliberate action and a bit of time.) Go figure.
I prefer a realistic world and character models, as opposed to anime or cartoon/cell shaded style, in all my games. Counterstrike I love; Team Fortress leaves me cold. And I prefer accuracy to reflect the real world, including trajectory. Within those constraints, I like near-future sci-fi like Crysis, or low fantasy; I generally dislike far-future sci-fi such as Halo (although I played the first one and it was decent) and high fantasy. But very far-future sci-fi or high fantasy can be fun as long as it is well done and internally consistent.
As mshcherbatskaya said, it's most important that a game be realistic within its own defined parameters. If I have a suit that provides armor and stealth and regenerates itself, fine; I can deal with that. If I have nanites that slowly repair any damage I take, whatever. If on the other hand I come to a two-rail fence I cannot cross, or a door I cannot pass through (exclusive of force fields and steel security doors and the like), now I'm pissed. And I too demand good AI to rate a game highly; I would much prefer fair graphics and good AI to great graphics and poor AI. And even a game with very little reality or internal consistency (say, Psychonauts) can be fun if it's well done, has believable characters with good AI, and presents a well thought out rationale for its lack of reality or internal consistency.
I prefer a realistic world and character models, as opposed to anime or cartoon/cell shaded style, in all my games. Counterstrike I love; Team Fortress leaves me cold. And I prefer accuracy to reflect the real world, including trajectory. Within those constraints, I like near-future sci-fi like Crysis, or low fantasy; I generally dislike far-future sci-fi such as Halo (although I played the first one and it was decent) and high fantasy. But very far-future sci-fi or high fantasy can be fun as long as it is well done and internally consistent.
As mshcherbatskaya said, it's most important that a game be realistic within its own defined parameters. If I have a suit that provides armor and stealth and regenerates itself, fine; I can deal with that. If I have nanites that slowly repair any damage I take, whatever. If on the other hand I come to a two-rail fence I cannot cross, or a door I cannot pass through (exclusive of force fields and steel security doors and the like), now I'm pissed. And I too demand good AI to rate a game highly; I would much prefer fair graphics and good AI to great graphics and poor AI. And even a game with very little reality or internal consistency (say, Psychonauts) can be fun if it's well done, has believable characters with good AI, and presents a well thought out rationale for its lack of reality or internal consistency.