At what point should realism be stopped?

[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!

 

[Netrigan]

When virtual gunshots cause real-life exit wounds.

Other than that, it's simply a case of developers using as much realism as serves the game.

 

[Blue_vision]

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.

Pretty much.

Of course: rather unrealistic shooters can be tonnes of fun (TF2, Bulletstorm, etc.) while realistic ones can be loads of fun too (Battlefield, Metal Gear Solid.) Fantasy settings may be grounded in a level of ordinariness and reality (perhaps the Witcher and Oblivion,) or they could be totally wacky (Little Big Planet.) Driving games could be unrealistic (Mario Kart,) or incredibly realistic (Gran Turismo.) Those above are all good games (if you disagree, just swap with another from the genre): it all depends on who's going to buy the game.

There is likely a relatively big market for an incredibly realistic 90% chance of incap/shot FPS, where a bullet to the leg will put you down but not out, and where you have to work in a fireteam, minimizing casualties as much as possible. Of course, we don't all want that, which is why we have CoD and TF2. Perhaps there's a trend of mainstream games going towards realism simply for the point of it, but that's not something inherently bad with realism, just with the industry in general.

 

[baddude1337]

Should stop if when you die, you can't continue as there are no saves or checkpoints in real life.

 

[archvile93]

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.

I wouldn't really call Counter Strike realistic. Yes being killed with one shot to the face is pretty realistic, but the uselessness of cover, fast running speed, and the ability to shrug off entire clips of assault rifle ammo at point blank range in any area other than the face is much less so. This isn't necessarily bad, but definately not realistic.

OT: I can enjoy any particular style except hyper realistic. The only experience I have with that style is the Arma 2 demo which I found terrible (probably because it didn't even bother to teach me the controls, and just plopped me down in a mission after the broken tutorial without telling me how I was supposed to handle my objective or even where to go.)

Okay the captchas are really getting annoying, and I know they're getting longer.

 

[MaaZeus]

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.

No good fantasy & Scifi novel that I am aware of add ridiculous looking/sounding stuff just for the hell of it. That would make it a very bad fantasy world. All of their unrealistic elements have a sort of rationalization behind them. They are there to keep your suspension of disbelief up and let you immerse in the world. Stuff like why Mages are capable of magic when normal human cannot, where do the demons come from/what are they etc... We accept those as part of what makes that fantasy world go around. They belong there.


Rogue doing ridiculous stunts like teleportation, there is no real ingame explanation other than dumb cool-factor. It just looks silly. Same thing with enemies that explode to pieces from a mere dagger attack. Makes no sense. However those are just a gameplay elements. You dont see those things in lore elements like cutscenes, where people actually move and/or die quite "realistically" so to speak.

 

[SageRuffin]

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.

There is wisdom in this wo/man's words. I recall a complaint when someone said that DA2 felt like an anime since your character could do a butterfly kick [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQ0cvrJRCs]. Never mind the fact that, according to the game lore itself, blood is the most powerful weapon anyone can wield (Circle origin anyone?), "here there be dragons" and all that, and one can vanish right in front of someone's face and they won't have any idea what the fuck just happened.

Realism has it's place (i.e. military shooters, sports sims), but trying to impose a sense of hyper-reality where it doesn't belong just makes you sound like a tool.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You just put arbitrary percentages on something inherently unmeasurable. That makes you 85% stupid.

Realism should go as far as the story of the game, the art direction of the game, and mechanics allow. The mechanics come first and if you can make a game realistic while keeping them intact, gravy if not drop that bit of realism its unnecessary and probably unfun. If your story or artistic direction is inherently not very realistic (i.e. cell-shading to some extent or a game in space with future magicians) then your realism gets scaled back a bit. its a matter of seeing what people will expect based on the level of suspension of belief associated with the current game and setting and trying to match 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.

I wouldn't really call Counter Strike realistic. Yes being killed with one shot to the face is pretty realistic, but the uselessness of cover, fast running speed, and the ability to shrug off entire clips of assault rifle ammo at point blank range in any area other than the face is much less so. This isn't necessarily bad, but definately not realistic.

OT: I can enjoy any particular style except hyper realistic. The only experience I have with that style is the Arma 2 demo which I found terrible (probably because it didn't even bother to teach me the controls, and just plopped me down in a mission after the broken tutorial without telling me how I was supposed to handle my objective or even where to go.)

Okay the captchas are really getting annoying, and I know they're getting longer.

I know it's not very realistic, but it's still alot more realistic than most of my games.

 

[manythings]

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.

No good fantasy & Scifi novel that I am aware of add ridiculous looking/sounding stuff just for the hell of it. That would make it a very bad fantasy world. All of their unrealistic elements have a sort of rationalization behind them. They are there to keep your suspension of disbelief up and let you immerse in the world. Stuff like why Mages are capable of magic when normal human cannot, where do the demons come from/what are they etc... We accept those as part of what makes that fantasy world go around. They belong there.


Rogue doing ridiculous stunts like teleportation, there is no real ingame explanation other than dumb cool-factor. It just looks silly. Same thing with enemies that explode to pieces from a mere dagger attack. Makes no sense. However those are just a gameplay elements. You dont see those things in lore elements like cutscenes, where people actually move and/or die quite "realistically" so to speak.

But why is A mage suddenly acceptable with all it's outlandishness versus someone being skilled in misdirection and moving very fast? People will happily guzzle insane nonsense and spew at the sight of something that's not quite right.

 

[badgersprite]

When it stops being fun. Some games work best when they're as realistic as conventions of the medium allow, like say survival horror, but I sure as hell don't want a realistic remake of Psychonauts or Spyro. Some grounding in reality often isn't a terrible thing, but, let's just put it this way, San Andreas was more fun than GTA4. Not saying one is better than the other, since I actually really like both, but one is definitely designed to be more fun.

Basically, some games should use as much realism as they can, some games should balance realism and fantasy, and some games should throw away any and all pretense of realism at the outset.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

stop before smell o vision please

 

[Wayneguard]

how real should games actually get before they should stop?

When they're so realistic that the distinction between reality and virtual reality becomes blurred............

 

[English Stew]

In every art form, there are realistic and absurdist varriations. Both have their strenghts, so realistic games are a good devolopment insofar as that previously all games were absurdist due the technological limitations.

This statement is only true, however, if the games in question are truely realistic, and not just using realistic visuals as a substitute for maturity. Of course, no game can be truly realistic right now, but I think they can do better than RECOVERING FROM BULLET WOUNDS IN UNDER A MINUTE!

Seriously, magic health packs are more belivable than that,at least with them we can pretend that some actual medicine was used.

captcha: for lontalso
Epic battle cry or what?

 

[Singularly Datarific]

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

Get Irrational to make a cyberpunk Bioshock (No, I don't mean system shock), sort of chaotic future city, bristling with neon and scuzz, a permanent storm occupying the region!
(Okay, done geeking)

OP: When it kills you in real life upon failing.