At what point should realism be stopped?

[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.

 

[blankedboy]

I'll take anything between 0%-50%. I guess it depends on my mood. Sometimes I'm up for Morrowind or TF2, sometimes even stuff as realistic as Counter-Strike, but at the moment I'm into atmospheric/abstract games like Knytt Stories.

Does anyone have some suggestions of games along those lines? It can be as concrete as AnUntitledStory, but I really need more games like that. Knytt Stories is fucking awesome.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I recently picked up Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising for 360 and that's loads of fun with a friend, largely thanks to all the realism. Every success is so much more satisfying when a single mistake could get you killed.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Stopped? Never, because there's gonna be someone out there that likes it, and if I don't I have plenty of other games to play.

At what level I cease enjoying is the point where realistic things are added purely for the sake of realism, regardless of whether or not they detract from gameplay. For example, CoD has you play as one of the few asthmatic snipers, forcing you to actively hold your breath and removing any feeling of precision from sniping. Look, CoD, there no long ranges in your game aside from that one level from CoD4. Seriously, medium range in real life is one side of a CoD map to another, no actual call for snipers. They are in there purely for fun. So why the need to make them shake so much?

 

[Gigano]

Depends on the genre really.

Some people enjoy fairly realistic military FPS's where a single bullet will kill/incapacitate you, and scouting and planning each assault meticulously is the only way of potentially winning, whereas others just want to soak up preposterous amounts of damage and pulling off spectacular acrobatic moves, while firing their full auto dual rocket launchers at each other. Plenty room for both.

Personally, I'd generally go with something like the level in the Uncharted series; just enough of an illusion ingame to usually fool you into thinking actual humans could pull it off, but not enough to get in the way of the fun by weighing you down.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

It depends wholly on the game. If the developer wishes to display the cold truth, then realism is necessary. I very much dislike realism, but I can support an artists intention if they feel it needed to incorporate a sense of realism.

 

[Katana314]

Too much unrealism makes the game unidentifiable; you can't easily relate to the situation when the laws of physics seem nothing like your own. And of course, on the other hand, certain elements of realism just aren't fun. I remember cursing Bad Company 2's bullet-physics system, when Call of Duty's point-and-click was so much easier, and actually more fun.

 

[DanDeFool]

So here's what the REAL realistic version of, say, Battlefield 3 would look like.

When you join the game, you would be squirted out of your mother's vagina, you would live through your childhood in 80's and 90's America, maybe in an urban or suburban setting. You'd enlist in the military, have to train for a few months, and then you'd finally be deployed to the battle.

Then you'd get shot once in the chest and have to sit in a corner bleeding to for a few hours until you finally expire. Then you'd be kicked from the server.

I think we can all agree that's a little too much realism. Being set in a realistic setting is all well and good, but sometimes 'realism', as in, 'this kind of stuff could actually happen in real life' can easily start to get in the way of the fun if it goes too far.

So my opinion is that realism should be stopped when it starts to make the game less fun; or if it doesn't add enough to the immersion to make the fun loss worth it.

 

[Archangel768]

A game should be as real as the maker wants it to be. Some people will like it and other will not. I would not want to deprive people of the opportunity to play a game that takes realism as far as possible if that is what they wanted. I myself have no real preference, I like variety so going from non realistic games to more realistic games keeps me happy otherwise I tend to get tired of playing the same type of game one after another and I just need a break from it.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

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.

 

[LaMer]

As soon as the game stops being fun because of realism, there is too much realism.

 

[Squilookle]

Realism should stop the moment it prevents an otherwise fun thing from happening.

 

[Merkavar]

get as much realism as possible as long as it doesnt negatively affect gameplay, enjoyment, or entertainment value.

 

[Zantos]

Depends on the game. In a military shooter like TC's GRAW the fairly realistic damage system was pretty good. Wouldn't want to be down in one or 2 hits in a game like Oblivion though. If it's got a clear picture of how realistic it wants to be, then as long as it sticks to it it's fine. It's only when they start messing about with it that problems occur.

 

[Woodsey]

This is an almost completely pointless question.

Believe it or not, some people do actually like simulation games. In which case, you want them to be as realistic as possible. Trying to say realism should stop at a certain point in all games is pointless.

 

[Blue_vision]

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

 

[Voration]

I like realism with regards to attention to detail and how immersed i feel during gameplay, there shouldn't be a limit to the realism. For example if a mythical creature jumps out at me I want it to have realistic detail, proportions, limitations and strengths according to the reality of the game.

Increased realism makes a game all the more immersive, but there has to be a balance between fun and realistic limits

 

[Hyper-space]

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

This.

Developers should not abandon a particular style just because its popular or because its not your cup of tea.

 

[veloper]

When it stops being fun.