Why do people hate realism in shooters?

[Therumancer]

[

Let me get this straight - your theory on why many people are getting sick of realism in video games is that they don't actually have a problem with it, but that they're being convinced by people with political motivations that they do? That there isn't a genuine interest in an "old-school comeback" as you put it or that the oversaturation of gritty games with primarily grey-brown color palettes isn't wearing out it's welcome for many people, but that the "left wing" is trying to brainwash the entire industry into believing something it doesn't?

This is pretty much why I sometimes wonder why I bother.

Ignoring your tone, your close. It's just that in your efforts to oppose the political slant I put on some of it your tossing around terms like "brainwashing" and the like when it's nothing like that. It's more a matter of the gaming industry itself deciding to push things in a less realistic direction to avoid political confrontations. The manipulation involved is simply the use of advertising by the gaming industry to create the perception that what it wants to do on it's own is because this is what people want. The idea being that if people can be convinced that everyone else wants something a certain way, they will decide they want it that way out of a desire to fit in with the trends. It's a very old technique used by a lot of companies for a lot of things, and it continues because it works.

It's sort of like how a company making say a shoe might want to make changes to signature parts of their footwear in order to cut costs. They don't just say "we're doing this because it's cheaper" they tout the changes as new, revolutionary, and act like they are doing it due to popular demand so all of the teenage shoeheads will think that it's what everyone else into shoes wants (there is a whole subculture for this believe it or not). They will even go so far to do things like pay off peridicals, shoe critics, etc... to reinforce the illusion by claiming that these changes are actually things they really wanted and were looking forward to for years.... when something like this works a company can make radical changes in it's own best interests that might even wind up screwing the consumer, and get the
consumer base to love them for it.

You are probably just opposed to what I'm saying because I am pointing fingers at a specific part of the left wing that is getting increasing amounts of attention and power because of things like the "Sandy Hook Massacre".

Another critic (Jazzjack2) who I am also addressing here to some what to avoid writing more than one response on some levels reinforces my point even if it wasn't my intention. The height of anti-video game hysteria was years ago, during the 1990s with protests over games like "Night Trap" of course that was loud mostly because the games industry stood up for itself and won. That kind of fighting is expensive though, and later criticisms like the whole controversies over "Manhunt" and "Hot Coffee" lead to the video game industry capitulating and allowing precedents to be established rather than fighting, conceding to censor/further lock out things instead of defending things like the unlockable "sex scenes" in San Andreas as rating appropriate caused the industry to lose a lot of steam and stop pushing the envelope as much as they used to. The biggest recent battle being over the goverment's right to criminally enforce game ratings which saw a victory in the supreme court (and was arguably the most signifigant battle but it did little for the content itself). At any rate the desire to shy away from realism continues the policy of trying to avoid confrontation, the idea being that if the games become less realistic they present less of a target during a period of relative anti-gun hysteria in the USA. Not to mention international criticisms about the level of violence in games made for a US audience including the oft quoted zinger about how it's fine in a video game to have brutal mass murders rendered in loving detail, but show full frontal nudity and a sex scene and people freak out (and the irony of this). With some of the censorship coming from Germany, Australia, etc... and the non confrontational attitudes of the gaming industry nowadays when it comes to such things it's easier from a business perspective to develop with those kinds of sentiments in mind (reducing the realistic violence, not adding more sex) than to battle censors, or release multiple versions of the game with certain content adjusted by region (which of course causes other issues that can come back on the company when the uncensored versions inevitably get circulated globally).

Now do not get me wrong, there ARE others reasons for this, especially when it comes to MMOs. With MMOs the logic is a bit different, unlike games that are designed for a quick sequel grindmill or fast consumption followed by people buying another game, MMOs need to be able to survive for multiple years on end. "Realistic" graphics age quickly which is a problem when looking at a game intended for long term use as opposed to quick "of the moment" appeal. World Of Warcraft demonstrated how a highly stylized art style can allow a game to seem fairly decent even as it becomes increasingly antiquidated, mainly because by not trying to be realistic you can't put up another newer "realistic" game and show how it looks like refried turds now compared to the state of the art. MMOS thus increasingly aren't even trying to look realistic and are instead trying to come up with cartoony art styles that convey the material specifically so the game won't look as bad when it's hopefully still floating around in 5 years and trying to get people to spend money on it.

 

[Not Matt]

we don't HATE it, we are tierd of it. it is not you realism, it's me. i need some time for myself. i have forgot what sillyness is like and i am sorry but i think we need to take a break from each other and maybe meet some new features. i have been talking to Saints row IV and the arkham games and they think we should try to patch our relationship up bu after that spec ops afair i just can't look you in the eyes anymore.

okay. yeah, got a bit carried away there but that is basically the gist of it. we are getting sick of it

 

[AuronFtw]

Is there any particular reason people hate realism in shooters?

There has not been, to date, a single "realistic" shooter game ever made, and certainly not in any of the popular franchises. Fat space marines + chest-high-wallapalooza + regenerating health + brown levels = reality? How about one where you're driving along in a convoy, your truck gets hit with an IED, you see two friends bite the dust and you spend 10 months recovering in physical therapy after getting a prosthetic leg? That would be "realism in shooters."

What we currently have is a joke; CoD is no more or less realistic than Doom, and is quite a bit slower and less colorful. People might have a problem with samey boring coverglued "modern war" shooter games, but what they do not have a problem with is "realism in shooters," because there isn't any.

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

Because people use games as a means of escapism, and reality is hard and cold and brutal. No one wants to see what actually happens to body parts when they are hit with high velocity bullets, or to comprehend that the guy rushing from point A to point B and being a hero in a military scenario is actually going to be riddled with bullets.

That said, I don't know why people are so particularly antagonistic toward shooters that aim for such realism, when they applaud other games, like Dark Souls, for being extremely challenging, and complain about how gaming as a whole is being dumbed down. So maybe there is some kind of subconscious political angle to it, with sword and sorcery violence getting a pass, but gun violence being unacceptable and uncomfortable if it starts looking too real.

I think it's that players have more control over what goes on in a sword and sorcery type game versus a realistic shooter. In order to not get stabbed, I can use a bow and arrow, magic, sheild to block, parries and riposte, dodging, backstabs, strike with a longer weapon or just strike first. In order to not get shot, I have to avoid being seen, and to do that, I have to know where all the enemies are, and since I can't really do that all the time, there's an element of luck in play. Also, it seems that the realism has added systems and features in a game like Dark Souls, where it has taken away from shooters.

 

[glider4]

Nothing wrong with realistic shooters as a concept. Heck my favorite game is Half Life 2. The problem is it seems that Everything is now a modern "realistic" shooter with cover based shooting and plenty of set pieces that take control away from the player which defeat's the point in playing a video game in the first place.

 

[shootthebandit]

"Realistic" is such a loose term. Games like COD and battlefield are called realistic when they couldnt be further from the truth. The guns and weapons are real and its all based on a pseudo-present day so yeah its kinda realitic in the fact its a shooter based on real guns not space lasers etc

However we have games like flashpoint and Arma which gameplay wise are getting a lot closer to "realism". These games are still nowhere near reality because games are designed to be fun leisure activities. They are essentially toys/play-things. War is not fun in any sense of the word, sure servicemen/women are generally some of the most fun people to be around but war is still never fun and thats why a game by nature cannot be realistic

The reason fictional war makes great games is because its ideally the ultimate competition and tharmt is why competitive multiplayer shooters are great and popular

 

[Rad Party God]

If I cant shoot demons with a lightning gun that also shoots shurikens, shit my pants while exploring irradiated abandoned laboratories, kill nazis and their supernatural experiments with a bazuka, shoot aliens with needle guns (and teabag them), sneak behind a north korean in the jungle/squid alien in New York or trying to kill and evade a horde of biomechanical aliens, quadrupedal skelletons and alien bulls in ancient egipcian ruins, then I might find it pretty boring to just play a gritty, brown "realistic" shooter.

 

[optimusjamie]

I think part of the reason WW2 shooters like the original Medal of Honor, Battlefied 1942 and COD 1-3 became popular in the first place is that they (quite successfully, at that) emulated the PSEUDO-realism of films such as Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gates. As far as I can tell, Modern Warfare, Battlefield 3-4 and Warfighter (pahahaha) are simply translating this to a present-day setting.

As for the OP, I don't think that adding elements of realism is a bad thing in itself. Tacking on pseudo-realistic features such as cover-based shooting, iron sights and grey industrial complexes in an attempt to try and attract COD players is a bad thing. An early version of Doom 4 was basically Modern Warfare with terrorists swapped for demons. That, I think, would have justified the use of nuclear weapons. It's bloody DOOM. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you at all.

 

[ultrabiome]

'realistic' shooters (the ones that look like they are in real life, not necessarily the gameplay) are getting hate because they have saturated the market, with a release of multiple franchises every year, with marginal improvements with most of it going towards multiplayer.

also, its much easier to 'build' a 'realistic' world because everyone already knows what to expect. the rules are set, the setting is known and the world doesn't have to be thought out because we either know it or can look it up (buildings, forests, deserts, etc). you don't have to explain why there is a conflict (insert any world war/civil war), you don't have to design any new fancy weapons or armor or worlds, just use what already exists.

some people get joy from pretending to be a soldier with their friends and doing all of that tactics stuff (people i've known that have joined the military seem to really love these games because they know all of the equipment and whatnot and have been trained in tactics). others of us though, prefer to use games as escapism (i guess it can be escapism to want to be a soldier), to do things that can't be done normally, either due to ethics or physics, and to potentially go where you either don't want to or can't go. GTA is popular even though it is in a 'real-world' setting because most of us are adverse to being a criminal, but the rules of the game allow us to go all out and rob, steal and kill without consequences - and its fun!

realistic shooters feel more like simulations of real life than most other games. same with sports titles. i get that you're in control of something you might not ever do in real life, but at least personally, i'd prefer to have my escapism on all levels. if i'm going to shoot at something, i'm not interested in a simulation of hunting a deer in the woods or a soldier in some town in Afghanistan, i want to blast demons in hell with plasma guns or alien creatures on a distant planet with acid guns. and 'realistic shooters' aren't doing anything to make the gaming world filled with more unique experiences: their stories are dull, their characters have little to no importance, their worlds are ripped right from the dullness of reality, and nothing they do are things that can't be done yourself in the real world (go join the army or play paintball. go outside and play sports). to each his own i suppose.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

*Snip*

I apologize for the late response. Internet went out for a few days and couldn't respond. Now onwards to the topic at hand:

The primary issue with your arguments isn't that it hints at the possibility of marketing or even politics trying to take advantage of human nature, it's that your arguments are based primarily on unprovable assumptions that defy the very concept of Occam's Razor while simultaneously pulling a giant (and possibly unintentional) Red Herring argument.

To elaborate, your telling people who do actively criticize the overabundance of gritty or quasi-realistic games - contrary to what they themselves are actively saying - that they don't actually feel the way they do or believe in their own arguments. In other words, you're actively writing off people's criticisms of "realistic" as them lying about their own opinions, without any proof whatsoever that they don't actually believe in what they say. You're theory that not only do people not believe in their own criticisms, but that there is a political movement focused on making games less realistic and trying to manipulate people into believing something they don't is riddled with far more assumptions that simply assuming people are simply being honest about their opinions that they really are tired of the overemphasis on grittiness, grey-brown color palettes, and semi-realism.

This is where Occam's Razor comes into play - when adequate explanatory power cannot be obtained, it is best to go with the explanation with the least amount of assumptions. You're argument that people don't actually have a problem with realistic games contrary to what they themselves say doesn't have the proof desperately needed to make your argument valid, thus it is much better to go with the route of least assumptions - which in this case is most certainly that people are being honest when they say that they are sick of realism in video games.

As for the aforementioned Red Herring argument, you're entire spiel about businesses and the "left-wing" does not in any way affect the legitimacy of people's complaints and criticisms. Even if everything you said about there being a political movement that's constantly trying to convince people to turn away from realism in games is true, it doesn't automatically mean that most people are not being fully honest and genuine with their opinions / criticisms. To put it into metaphor form: Just because Person A, with ulterior motives and all, points out an issue to Person B that Person B agrees with doesn't mean that said issue isn't actually a legitimate problem or that Person B doesn't actually believe in their own opinion or is even unaware of Person A's ulterior motive.

The fact that your entire argument for why people's criticisms aren't genuine is based entirely on an issue that doesn't actually prove one-way or another that their opinion's are or aren't genuine, combined with the fact that you focus far more on arguing whether or not said issue (the political movement) exists rather than addressing the initial point that people are being dishonest about their own opinions and backing it up with solid, provable evidence is why it's a fallacious Red Herring argument.

Now going a bit off topic here, you also keep implying that the AAA gaming industry has been focusing on a lack of realism for the past 5 years, when the fact is that the AAA industry has been focusing far more on grittiness and at least a good degree of realism since at least the advent of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Yes, realistic depictions of sex and rape has been avoided like the plague in the industry as a whole (not just AAA) outside of full-on hentai games. However, sex and rape are the exceptions, not the rule. Increasingly realistic depictions of war (outside of rape in wartime scenarios), survival, murder, violence, racing, faces, and even foliage have skyrocketed during the last half-decade. It's to the point where even traditionally wacky or fantastical AAA games like Dead Rising and Tomb Raider[footnote] I admit, I haven't actually played the new TR, but everything I've seen and heard indicates that the whole "searching forgotten tombs for magical relics while solving ancient puzzles, platforming everywhere, and fighting mystical or supernatural beings and animals" theme was thrown entirely out the window for a bigger emphasis on telling a realistic origin story. It's the main reason why I don't actually want to play the new TR.[/footnote] (respectively) are now going the more gritty, realistic approach unlike previous entries in the series. The only place that completely unrealistic games has been on the rise is in the indie scene, where the cost of making games is low enough that something deliberately retro or non-realistic isn't considered a colossal risk. For you to say that when people are stating that they're tired of the over-saturation of gritty realism and grey-brown dominated aesthetics in games, that they aren't being honest with their opinions and that this fatigue couldn't possibly be, for many people at least, the root cause of the unrest / widespread criticism of realism in games flies straight in the face of what the evidence actually shows.

To sum it all up, all you provide in your arguments is assumptions and a fallacious dismissal of people's complaints based on an argument that doesn't actually invalidate people's complaints. You made an accusation that what people say is their opinion isn't actually their opinion, then not only failed to actually provide actual evidence or direct proof to back up that accusation but you also completely ignore both the facts at hand and the reasoning behind the counter-arguments that the critics themselves are providing based entirely on your belief that you know people's opinions on the subject better than they do themselves. Had you some indisputable proof that, with 100% certainty, the majority of the critics of realistic games do not feel the way they claim, then you'd have a point. However, you don't. All you presented were assumptions, and assumptions do not in any way make a valid argument. Until you prove beyond all doubt that people do not and could not possibly believe in their own arguments, you're entire theory will remain just that - a theory.