At what point should realism be stopped?

[devotedsniper]

Never. Games should emulate as much realism as they need to achieve whatever particular style they're going for.

I agree, with most games some realism is required, with fantasy rpg's then no realism is required so long as it isn't rediculous and it is believable for that world, but with racing i think 100% realism (i'm one of those that turns all the assists off on racing games). It's all about the balance between realism, gameplay and fun.

 

[ronald1840]

This is where graphical advancement and 'realistic' visuals need to cap off. The rest of gaming culture should focus on new game mechanics, audio, AI programming, and new design philosophies.


I mean this just screams Blade Runner to me. If this will eventually turn out a type of game like this and it's exclusive then I will gladly buy an Xbox or high end PC for it. I don't see how you can get more realistic than this without being creepy

 

[Arsen]

Sports titles, first person shooters centered around real conflict, and other entities should be realistic unless it interferes with the "fun" aspect of the game. And by all means, technologies which showcase such displays of realism are cool and all...just remember that the game itself is still a work of fiction. At no point should fun, atmosphere, etc...be sacrificed for the sake of "realism".

But by all means, if the game simulates realism and heightens your senses, allows you to enjoy it more because of the realism, then so be it. It would have been a horrible concept in Shadow of the Collosus for instance. What sixteen year old boy can climb that high and be fearless in the face of such adversity by modern standards? It would ruin the epic sense of things if a young man truly had to be "realistic" due to the game's nature.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It wholly depends on the game in question on an individual basis.

 

[zehydra]

The only point where realism harms the gaming experience is if focusing on realism causes the game developers to lose sight of what they were trying to create, that is, a game.

 

[Alon Shechter]

Eh. Personally ArmA never bothered me.
Then again, ArmA's realism can be pretty fucking funny sometimes...

 

[FightThePower]

Easy - The point where it starts taking away from the fun.

I think the word people should look for is 'believeable', not 'realistic'. Minecraft is believeable in the sense that the world feels real, crafting is logical (sticks + stones = tools) etc. but of course chopping a tree down with your bare hands isn't realistic.

There's also the whole 'balance over realism' thing too.

 

[Wintermoot]

the moment we have to wear full-body suits that simulate the pain of wounds (or the moment we get real realistic and have to go through boot camp before we can play a army game)

 

[No_Remainders]

I think it should be stopped somewhere before you yourself are sent to war.

That's a good point, in my opinion.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Why should it be stopped? It?s not like everyone ever will stop also going for a stylized look because we finally achieved realism properly. Not all artists choose to stick with realism even once they can manage it.

Absolutely something should go for it.

 

[Saltyk]

I never really think about realism. Its what's fun that counts. Think of Uncharted 2. Is it realistic to think that Nathan Drake can climb buildings, shot and throw grenades while climbing said buildings, or even survive half of what he goes through? Hell no! Is it fun? Hell Yes!

In EVERY story, realism should be relevent to the universe it is set in.

For example, it's perfectly realistic for people to fly in Dragonball

It is NOT perfectly realistic for people to heal in 5 seconds in cover in Modern Warfare

Realism shouldn't be compared to what is possible in the real world but what is possible in the world the story is set.

I think you have a valid point. In any fantasy game, characters can use magic. Is that realistic? No. But it is perfectly acceptable in the game. Because in the game magic is real.

On the other hand, when you bring up MW2, I'd say that is about as realistic as the game can allow. Otherwise the player could never progress. Like others have said, its a case of realism vs fun. And fun should always come out on top.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Realism should be stopped when you get scalped by a single bullet the moment you pop your head out of cover. That's just not fun.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Basically I've been thinking about trending to realism in games and how people have often complained that X isn't realistic in the face of Y which is flat out insane in a "realistic" setting. (i.e. I once read a complaint that in Dragon Age 2 rogues were able to jump to far and high while ignoring Magic, dragons and demonic forces (no I don't care what you think about DA2 it's not what I'm asking).)

So, using whatever example you want, how real should games actually get before they should stop? I think that 40% realism/60% ridiculous is the most that can survive gaming without making games stupid. (Assuming it can never get realler than 99% or more unreal than 1%)

EDIT: What I mean is; At what point do you consider Realism to be an issue that harms your gaming experience? I'm asking for opinions not what you think about the Devs use of it.

I think it depends more on the game.Dragon Age 2 opted more towards a hack and slash variation as opposed to the first one and really,you can't call a game realistic when blood cures trample and cut wounds.That game would suck because you would be slaughtered by the greater horde since you've only got 4 people and are pushed into situations so tactics be burned.No,I don't want a game like that to be realistic.That's like saying Mario Kart should replicate Forza or Need For Speed.There is no point and frankly,the argument cannot be held up in games considering "our great reviver"-Nintendo opts to games where you enslave chinchillas to wrestle with dragons and plumbers who hop across planets.Sure,a good realistic game is good,but don't complain because a game isn't realistic.That probably isn't its job.

 

[manythings]

Basically I've been thinking about trending to realism in games and how people have often complained that X isn't realistic in the face of Y which is flat out insane in a "realistic" setting. (i.e. I once read a complaint that in Dragon Age 2 rogues were able to jump to far and high while ignoring Magic, dragons and demonic forces (no I don't care what you think about DA2 it's not what I'm asking).)

So, using whatever example you want, how real should games actually get before they should stop? I think that 40% realism/60% ridiculous is the most that can survive gaming without making games stupid. (Assuming it can never get realler than 99% or more unreal than 1%)

EDIT: What I mean is; At what point do you consider Realism to be an issue that harms your gaming experience? I'm asking for opinions not what you think about the Devs use of it.

I think it depends more on the game.Dragon Age 2 opted more towards a hack and slash variation as opposed to the first one and really,you can't call a game realistic when blood cures trample and cut wounds.That game would suck because you would be slaughtered by the greater horde since you've only got 4 people and are pushed into situations so tactics be burned.No,I don't want a game like that to be realistic.That's like saying Mario Kart should replicate Forza or Need For Speed.There is no point and frankly,the argument cannot be held up in games considering "our great reviver"-Nintendo opts to games where you enslave chinchillas to wrestle with dragons and plumbers who hop across planets.Sure,a good realistic game is good,but don't complain because a game isn't realistic.That probably isn't its job.

Did you even read what I posted? I'm saying that realism is detrimental before you even get to Half-real.

 

[MaaZeus]

Personally I would drop the word Realism and instead use Believability when it comes to games. Former can hinder the game enjoyment (depending on game of course. still even for realistic war simulators a 50/50 realism/fun mix is preferable) if taken too far, as you said, but latter can only serve to make game more immersible. (again depending on game) This is very true to RPGs.


Dragon Age II, or any fantasty game, mage throwing bigass fireballs is believable. They are mages for Petes sake! Rogue doing acrobatic moves that are bit unrealistic. Still very believable! They are just VERY nimble and acrobatic, thats how we subconciously rationalize these things when reading fantasy stories or playing games.

Rogue doing an obvious teleportations and suspension of disbelief starts to waiver. Although I realise it is a gameplay element, not a lore element so the characters are not actually "capable" of doing those things. They are just skills and are there just for the gamers to use.
It just looks dumb. Realism has little to do with it.

Characters of Mass Effect 2 surviving space in gasmasks. Not realistic, and certainly not believable! Being a lore element it is an epic brainfart from a game that tries to establish itself as a serious Sci-Fi world. Not a game breaking design choice (actually it is one of my fav games of all time) but I cant figure out what the heck were they were thinking...


Keeping things believable is a very very important thing to me even though actual real world realism goes out of the window. I do not even care about realism that much.

 

[Windcaler]

When games become so realistic that it negatively effects the gameplay then realism has gone to far. For example what if in any military shooter like Battlefield or Call of duty you were not on the front lines but in the rear maintaining weapons, doing paperwork, cleaning, etc. Sounds pretty boring doesnt it? That is the reality of the majority of military life, the combat portions we see in military style games are more like the highlights.

Lets take halo as another example. How exactly do the soldiers know how to use alien weapon technology, especially in reach which is, as I understand it, the beginning of the war. If you had to take the time to learn how to use each individual weapon then it would add another needless and boring portion to the game.

Now what is and isnt negative varies from person to person so its up to the individual to decide whats fine and what goes to far

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Basically I've been thinking about trending to realism in games and how people have often complained that X isn't realistic in the face of Y which is flat out insane in a "realistic" setting. (i.e. I once read a complaint that in Dragon Age 2 rogues were able to jump to far and high while ignoring Magic, dragons and demonic forces (no I don't care what you think about DA2 it's not what I'm asking).)

So, using whatever example you want, how real should games actually get before they should stop? I think that 40% realism/60% ridiculous is the most that can survive gaming without making games stupid. (Assuming it can never get realler than 99% or more unreal than 1%)

EDIT: What I mean is; At what point do you consider Realism to be an issue that harms your gaming experience? I'm asking for opinions not what you think about the Devs use of it.

I think it depends more on the game.Dragon Age 2 opted more towards a hack and slash variation as opposed to the first one and really,you can't call a game realistic when blood cures trample and cut wounds.That game would suck because you would be slaughtered by the greater horde since you've only got 4 people and are pushed into situations so tactics be burned.No,I don't want a game like that to be realistic.That's like saying Mario Kart should replicate Forza or Need For Speed.There is no point and frankly,the argument cannot be held up in games considering "our great reviver"-Nintendo opts to games where you enslave chinchillas to wrestle with dragons and plumbers who hop across planets.Sure,a good realistic game is good,but don't complain because a game isn't realistic.That probably isn't its job.

Did you even read what I posted? I'm saying that realism is detrimental before you even get to Half-real.

I did and all I am saying is that is depends on the game and that Dragon Age 2 really wasn't that good a comparison considering you use magic for one.I think that realistic games would be amazing,if done right.More so as a make your own history setting,sort of like a fallout-style written book.

 

[manythings]

Basically I've been thinking about trending to realism in games and how people have often complained that X isn't realistic in the face of Y which is flat out insane in a "realistic" setting. (i.e. I once read a complaint that in Dragon Age 2 rogues were able to jump to far and high while ignoring Magic, dragons and demonic forces (no I don't care what you think about DA2 it's not what I'm asking).)

So, using whatever example you want, how real should games actually get before they should stop? I think that 40% realism/60% ridiculous is the most that can survive gaming without making games stupid. (Assuming it can never get realler than 99% or more unreal than 1%)

EDIT: What I mean is; At what point do you consider Realism to be an issue that harms your gaming experience? I'm asking for opinions not what you think about the Devs use of it.

I think it depends more on the game.Dragon Age 2 opted more towards a hack and slash variation as opposed to the first one and really,you can't call a game realistic when blood cures trample and cut wounds.That game would suck because you would be slaughtered by the greater horde since you've only got 4 people and are pushed into situations so tactics be burned.No,I don't want a game like that to be realistic.That's like saying Mario Kart should replicate Forza or Need For Speed.There is no point and frankly,the argument cannot be held up in games considering "our great reviver"-Nintendo opts to games where you enslave chinchillas to wrestle with dragons and plumbers who hop across planets.Sure,a good realistic game is good,but don't complain because a game isn't realistic.That probably isn't its job.

Did you even read what I posted? I'm saying that realism is detrimental before you even get to Half-real.

I did and all I am saying is that is depends on the game and that Dragon Age 2 really wasn't that good a comparison considering you use magic for one.I think that realistic games would be amazing,if done right.More so as a make your own history setting,sort of like a fallout-style written book.

That was point I was making. It's ridiculous for someone to say How high someone jumped was somehow bizarrely fantastical in a world where people practice magic, fight dragons and demonic entities take possession of hosts.

 

[Seraph_Black]

Any game with a level of realism that is too high will end up being boring to the wider audience. You could have a game that is 100% realistic, but it would mean that in the case of say, a FPS game, you would get shot once, then most likely die shortly after that and have to start the whole game over. That sounds rather tedious and annoying to me.

While there will always be a market for different levels of realism and you will never please everyone, different genres seem to have different demands regarding realism. For example, in sports games you want the physics to be as real as possible. You don't want to be playing a golf game and drive the ball 3 miles due to poor realism. Also, the Tony Hawk games are another good example here. Things got out of hand and the tricks started to just get ridiculous. I think everyone knows that if you dropped in from some of those heights, you wouldn't pull off a sick move at the other end. You would crash and burn. Driving games probably allow a little less realism, depending on the title. Some will want to be spot on realistic with the physics (heavier cars don't handle as well etc) while others want to go a bit more on the silly side (Burnout 3 anyone?)

When it comes to Fantasy games though, I think so long as things are consistant and can be tied in with the story and nothing stands out as being much more "unrealistic" than anything else, you can get away with very high levels of "ridiculous".

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Basically I've been thinking about trending to realism in games and how people have often complained that X isn't realistic in the face of Y which is flat out insane in a "realistic" setting. (i.e. I once read a complaint that in Dragon Age 2 rogues were able to jump to far and high while ignoring Magic, dragons and demonic forces (no I don't care what you think about DA2 it's not what I'm asking).)

So, using whatever example you want, how real should games actually get before they should stop? I think that 40% realism/60% ridiculous is the most that can survive gaming without making games stupid. (Assuming it can never get realler than 99% or more unreal than 1%)

EDIT: What I mean is; At what point do you consider Realism to be an issue that harms your gaming experience? I'm asking for opinions not what you think about the Devs use of it.

I think it depends more on the game.Dragon Age 2 opted more towards a hack and slash variation as opposed to the first one and really,you can't call a game realistic when blood cures trample and cut wounds.That game would suck because you would be slaughtered by the greater horde since you've only got 4 people and are pushed into situations so tactics be burned.No,I don't want a game like that to be realistic.That's like saying Mario Kart should replicate Forza or Need For Speed.There is no point and frankly,the argument cannot be held up in games considering "our great reviver"-Nintendo opts to games where you enslave chinchillas to wrestle with dragons and plumbers who hop across planets.Sure,a good realistic game is good,but don't complain because a game isn't realistic.That probably isn't its job.

Did you even read what I posted? I'm saying that realism is detrimental before you even get to Half-real.

I did and all I am saying is that is depends on the game and that Dragon Age 2 really wasn't that good a comparison considering you use magic for one.I think that realistic games would be amazing,if done right.More so as a make your own history setting,sort of like a fallout-style written book.

That was point I was making. It's ridiculous for someone to say How high someone jumped was somehow bizarrely fantastical in a world where people practice magic, fight dragons and demonic entities take possession of hosts.

Ah,see now I get what you're saying.It seemed like one of those "everything realism roar" type of topics,even after I read it,but I guess that's just me on a Saturday trying to stave off a headache.Yeah,I have to agree there.Kind of dries up these forums when everything is cut and dry easy,like it should be.

 

[TornadoFive]

Graphics can get as realistic as they want (within reasonable cost/time constraints. Gameplay is a whole 'nother story. Take Just Cause 2. You can fall from the highest point in the game and grapple into the ground from 2 metres away and escape unharmed.

Realistic? No. Fun? HELL YEAH!

Realism should never get in the way of the fun. And I think that may be a Yahtzee quote. If not then I claim it!