realism, whats the bloody point
- Thread starter micky
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One thing I do get annoyed with, is how people consider unrealistic games inferior for just being unrealistic. If every game had to be realistic then this hobby would be very bland.
I strongly disagree with this.micky said:such lazybonesDeadlyFred said:I agree, I don't think realism equates immersion by a long-shot.micky said:
Making games realistic puts less stress on the developers to be creative... why think up some new and interesting premise when you can just make another WW2 game?
Modern Warfare strayed from the usual WWII premise and sold millions. /Example.
A little change now and then does wonders for developers bank accounts.
On the other hand...
Pokemon.
Oh my god.
Pokemon.
Exactly. Exactly exactly exactly.Furburt said:
Let me say this also, most games that are "realistic" are about as far from realistic as all the others, they just pretend to be realistic because ... ******* if I know why.
BC2 - not in the least realistic, despite what ZP says.
FC2 - ? Don't even get me started.
Dirt2 - For some reason people seem to think it's realistic ...
The great thing about realistic games (PROPER ones) is that they immerse you, you feel attached to your character and you're incredibly tense. ArmA2 + ACEmod and a whole bunch of human players (even fighting against AI) and you'll know what I mean. Your whole body is tense as you scan the woods for movement, then bam, you just got sniped from 1.3km away through the window of a technical by a sniper laying in a bush with only the camo-rifle sticking out because you decided you'd risk running across that open ground. Bam, you're dead. You don't get that kind of immersion in arcade games like MW2 or BC2, sure you get immersed but there's always this aura of "fun" (realistic games are fun too, but I mean fun in a playful childish kind of way) hanging over everything, you do stupid things with no consequences and don't really feel attached to your character.
Another thing I like about [PROPER] realistic games is that you have to play them like you would in real life, in ArmA2 you use real-world military tactics not because the game screams at you to do so or gives you points if you do, or achievements, you use them because they work, because the game-world is REALISTIC, so the things that work in the real world work there too, for the same reasons.
DCS Black Shark - read up on that or Tube it and then reconsider what you think is "realistic" - because all those games you used to think were realistic just got a boot in the teeth and kicked down a few levels.
Edit: ONE more thing, and I have to RAGE about this so bear with me, there IS such a thing as AUTHENTICITY people! Realism and authenticity are two different things!
REALISM - the speed of a vehicle, concussive effects of standind next to a tank while it's being fired, the top speed of a vehicle, the damage a gun does, how much a soldier can carry, etc.
AUTHENTICITY - Uniforms, having to wait 10 minutes in a bush for the enemy patrol, tollbooths, engine startup sequences, and a whole host of other boring crap that people describe as "realism", it's not, short and simple that is just WRONG.
You can have a realistic game about pandas fighting in WW2 where the main tactic is doing drive-by's in pimped up import cars, it won't bear any resemblance to the actual war and as such won't be AUTHENTIC, but it can still be realistic.
/rant.
Ok fair enough if you were using it as an example but that game is a far from being realistic or fun(in my opinion).micky said:
Realistic shooters are terribly dumb in my opinion. You have no options about how to maneuver, and whoever wins or loses is only determined by who gets the drop on somebody first. I'd rather play Quake, a game that rewards skillful playing, than those sorts of things.
Really? Because from my experience realistic shooters are ALL about maneuvering.The Buck Stops Here said:
I think what we have here is a misunderstanding among our definitions of certain words. The connotative definition of the word 'realistic' in the context of video games is very different between individuals. To some people it means hyper-advanced graphics, to others it means it tries to emulate situations and complexities experienced in real life. Just like the word maneuver or skill... someone who plays halo, Unreal Tournament, or Quake has an extremely different definition for those words then somebody who plays ARMA, OFP, or project reality.
I think we need to better define and describe realism in games before we can argue the relevance it plays in them.
The guns in that game jam far more often than any competently constructed gun.micky said:
OT: I like some realism in fantasy games like jrpgs because they still present colorful fantastic locations, sights, and creatures. I don't like the realism of fps games, that show "the real world" because I find them boring and not aesthetically pleasing.
I do not understand this concept that people call immersion. Do these people not have peripheral vision? When we get to virtual reality maybe then we can start on the immersion, but I have never seen TV with high enough definition to convince me that I'm doing something other than sitting on my ass playing video games.