Poll: Do you care about realism??

[zombiesinc]

I don't prefer any particular style or type, just that it's done well.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

I don't really care much about the game itself being real but the mechanics/physics should be somewhat real. Like FPS, I want some recoil feel, if I don't let go of trigger, I should be shooting the sky at some point. Infamous, Cole should have limitations based on electricity that effects him. You know, things like that.

So your idea of realism is a hardened soldier or whatever with rubber arms who has no idea how to compensate for recoil?

You see how nitpicky realism is?

 

[SuperCombustion]

I'd rather level whole armies with exploding zombie guns and battleaxes with flaming bunnies instead of blades than crawl painfully around with realism.

unrealistic gameplay is fun. You know, fun? That thing we used to have?

 

[Dfskelleton]

A bit is always nice, but games that feature over realism are boring. I like mildly realistic games like Splinter Cell, but I enjoy over the top actiony fun like Doom, Quake, Gears of War and Painkiller.

 

[badgersprite]

I'd say that, as a general rule, games that don't adhere to realism are more fun to play. Games that do adhere to realism, by contrast, elicit more of an immediate physical and emotional response, because they can be more immersive. That said, of course there is a happy medium where you can have both.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, Fallout 3 comes to mind as a good balance. It was more realistic than Saints Row 2, but, at the same time, it's not going the CoD-style FPS route. You can still make your enemies heads explode in a shower of gore for laughs, but, if you let yourself, you could also be on the edge of your seat from the atmosphere of the game, suspending your disbelief and getting really into it.

However, let's not discount that blending the two may not be everybody's cup of tea. I'd also put up RE:5 as a blending of realism and over the top fantastic silliness. A lot of people preferred previous games for being more camp and ridiculous. Suddenly injecting a more generic military/action movie feel to it didn't work for a lot of people.

Personally, I think I'm always going to prefer originality. Sticking strictly to realism can kind of limit that. I mean, put it this way, everybody loves fighting Nazi Zombies. =D

 

[bam13302]

oops should have voted hail the fluffy bunny, ratchet & clank is one of my favorite game series

 

[Joey245]

Realism should be a spice, NOT the core ingredient.

Example:

Modern Warfare is touted as one of the most realistic shooters, but it bores me to tears.

The Mass Effect series adds a tiny bit of realism (the science aspects of it are exceptionally well thought out), and its one of my favorite game series of all time.

On the other hand, the Kingdom Hearts series features a teenage boy with spiky hair beating black creatures to death with a giant key, and it's my OTHER favorite game series of all time.

So, really, it's good in moderation.

 

[Woodsey]

It depends on the game, obviously.

 

[Sacman]

Only if it gets in the way of the fun which is usually the case...

 

[ClassicJokester]

Not really. But I don't care about it in the same way I don't care about goofy shit in games. If it works for the game, it's all gravy.

I like my physics to react in predictable ways, but they don't necessarily have to be realistic to do that. Halo, for example. They modeled the physics really well, but the interaction with the actual game sandbox can have some "unrealistic" effects.

Or Just Cause 2. You can drive a car over to a base with well done collision and driving physics, but then you can SURF THE TOP OF A PLANE, jump off from 2,000 feet up, and HOOKSHOT INTO THE GROUND.

Or you can have something as unrealistic as Kingdom Hearts, where your combo attacks will bring you into the air after you've just double jumped up a 10 foot wall. But it works with the game worlds, so I don't mind it.

 

[the-kitchen-slayer]

I care about "realism" in "realistic" games. Aka, it's a game. Even if it's "based in our era" doesn't really mean it's literally happening. Games are about exploring possibilities, and well, having fun. Look at the games in the 90's. And compare them to today.

See? Not so "realistic", but just as much, if not more, fun. A game doesn't have to take itself seriously or be "realistic" to be fun, and so i'll happily take my fluffy bunny gun and go kill some space marines with it, and then ram a tank through the side of a building to have it blow up in my face when an army of ticks climbs onto it armed with miniaturized C4 bricks

You want realism? Do it outside of a game, there's your realism.

 

[Enigmers]

A game should be realistic enough to be immersive, though often realism isn't much of a requirement. I found Dragon Age to be immersive but it's hardly realitsic (elves, dorfs, magic, the inability to jump, glowing treasure chests, etc.). So really, I don't care about realism at all. Especially since most people interpret "realism" as "gritty dirty brown modern-day thing that thinks Warhammer 40,000 is really cool"

 

[Imp Poster]

I don't really care much about the game itself being real but the mechanics/physics should be somewhat real. Like FPS, I want some recoil feel, if I don't let go of trigger, I should be shooting the sky at some point. Infamous, Cole should have limitations based on electricity that effects him. You know, things like that.

So your idea of realism is a hardened soldier or whatever with rubber arms who has no idea how to compensate for recoil?

You see how nitpicky realism is?

Yeah, if I got a M16, why shouldn't it feel like a M16 or an Uzi feel like a Uzi? Unless you got concrete/robotic arms, recoil should effect you no matter how strong you are. But hey, if it is a Covenant laser rifle, who cares? According to my flashlight, shooting light has no recoil.

 

[TheHecatomb]

Well realism is a bit of a slippery thing I think. I definitely think games need a certain amount of realism in order to be able to be immersive at all. Realism is a lot more than just the whole 1-shot-1-kill and an unforgiving physics engine thing.

Realism can also be the animation of how your fantasy character walks when wearing a massive iron piece of armor. Or when swinging that gigantic claymore around. Even the weirdest kind of fantasy stuff needs to be presented in a convincing manner, and hinting to things we know/understand and that we know are realistically possible is in my opinion the best way to achieve that.

 

[himemiya1650]

I do not care too much, I play videogames to get away from real life and realism.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Sorta yes, sorta no. I mean if they were real life Why don't I just go and do it. It I know some people got bored with Heavy Rain because it got 'bogged' down with the real life aspects. But games like MW2 demand that level of realism in them. Thing that want to be a moderen shooter should try and strive to be somewhat realistic. Halo can get away with it since it's so far in the future. On that note, I like Halo. I like it a lot. I like how things work in it and I never have to say "Damn you could never do that in real life" because it doesn't pride itself to be real.

 

[Flamma Man]

Doesn't matter to me really. If the realism is there to add more immersion into the game, then I'm fine with that, but it's like an "ultra-realistic" kind of game, then I would imagine that not being very fun.

 

[superbatranger]

Realism or a lack thereof in my games don't bother me. If I find it fun, I'll play it.

Woah..just had a deja vu moment.

 

[Aux]

There are certain aspects of game that I like being unrealistic, such as inventory systems. However I am a big fan of being able to grab onto ledges and have my character move as if he or she was a real person.

 

[Custard_Angel]

I didn't grow up with realism in games and I grew up fine.

I grew up playing Duck Tales using Scrooge McDucks cane as a pogo stick to jump 5x above your own head while on the surface of the moon.

These days all you do is play some souless wanker crouching alot firing at who cares across cover.

Games have forgotten how to be fun. Statement of fact.

Only when you choose to look at the games you consider to be "unfun"
There are plenty of fun games, you just have to try them.
If you really want that old school fun with something you haven't played before, try some downloadable games. They look stupid but to be fair so do a lot of those older games at first glance. You can find a few gems in there.

EDIT:BTW I think being able to shoot an enemy that's hiding behind a wall or launch an airstrike on a group and then pick off the stragglers is pretty damn fun, what your saying isn't a statement of fact but your personal opinion. Fun still exists in gaming, it's just hard to find when your wrapped up in the "popular" games.

Firstly, if I need to actively search for a fun game to play a fun game, there is a huge glaring issue I feel. Why aren't the fun games the popular ones? I haven't wholely enjoyed a new game since Portal.

Secondly, I would agree that blowing people up can be great fun, but very few games do it well these days. Call of Duty's Predator Missle thingy is probably the best example of an airstrike being fun to use in any modern game, but it pales in comparison to the Worms games where an airstrike could consist of anything from rockets to moles to carpets to a concrete donkey.

Thirdly, in an attempt to bring some neutrality to my case, I am fully aware that there have always been crap games at every stage of gaming. I argue that because of there being unlimited graphical and gameplay potential for gaming (at least in comparison to past games), crap games these days are worse than crap games previously. In a world where computers are billions of times more powerful than previously, the world is still capable of making games like Too Human.

Side note: I realise I'm adding points that weren't present in my original post, I'm ok with this.