Poll: Realism VS. Fantasy

[zehydra]

Well, as contradictory as it might sound, Fantasy and Realism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they're not opposites at all!

Fantasy as a genre is kind of like what the setting, situation, and characters are like.
Realism is how these are portrayed. A game which is Realist would protray the setting, situation, and characters in a way that requires the least amount of suspension of disbelief. Most of realism's work in Video Games occurs in the protrayal of graphics and sound effects. For example, Banjo & Kazooie and the Super Mario Series are about as far away from realism as you can get.

Skyrim and the rest of the TES series are examples of Fantasy-Realism in this way.

Examples of games that aren't realist are the Warcraft series, Final Fantasy (most Square games), Fire Emblem...

 

[Something Amyss]

I want fun, whatever that ends up being. However, "realism" in video games is usually just something boring or poorly thought out. Shitty handling for cars, sluggish movements, etc. In that sense, I take fantasy.

I play games to be entertained, to enjoy myself, to relax. I don't play games for "realism."

Though I'd be open to realistic elements and whatnot.

 

[Ruedyn]

I don't want games that make sense, I want the weirdest most outlandish game developers are afraid to think of! I WANT THE FOOLY COOLY OF GAMES!!!

*Ahem* Umm yeah, I don't really like games that are realistic, most developers use it to get in the way of the fun.

 

[Shinsei-J]

I'm a fan of the outlandish but small groudinqs in reality can help not feel so outoff place at first.
Groundings in reality like, ya' know, basic logic. (unless the game activly tries to smash logic)
But I'll love any game as long as it's interesting.

 

[piinyouri]

I enjoy both.


And I don't understand why the gaming community at large feels everyone has to choose on as homecamp.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Depends what I'm in the mood for.
I'll gladly play both Dark Souls and Red Dead Redemption, even though they're diametrically opposed in their entirety.

 

[Scrustle]

Well it would make sense that the people on The Escapist would enjoy games for escapism. I know I do. It's the main reason I play.

But I enjoy a mixture of realism and fantasy. It depends on what type of game it is. If I'm playing a sim or something else that's trying to recreate a real life event then I want it to look as real as possible. It doesn't necessarily have to play as real as possible in every aspect, but it should get the important things right.

To borrow a term used by TotalBiscuit, it's usually not "realism" that people want, it's "authenticity". The way he uses it seems to be rather flimsy, but what he seems to mean with "authenticity" is realism, but only in certain things. Like it's fun to have realistic sound and lighting effects in a game, but it's not fun to have to deal with the tedious stuff that you would have to deal with in real life that would take away from the fun. I think there also has to be an element of consistency and believability in there too. For example it makes sense that you can't jump 10 feet in the air in a game where you would be weighed down by lots of gear, but you may be able to do other things that, although aren't realistic, aren't completely immersion breaking. Or take one of my favourite games, Forza. The cars look and sound realistic. The physics are realistic too, but you don't have to deal with travelling around the globe with a huge pit crew, or having to wait hours to prepare before a race. You just get right to the good stuff. The realism is there where it matters.

There are those who are completely obsessed with the idea of realism though. They think that for any game to be good it has to be realistic. The more realistic a game is the better it is. They don't understand that they don't really want everything to be realistic, but they are so wrapped up in the idea that they fail to see it. I think the reason people here (and many other gamers) appear to be against realism is because what they're actually against is this idea that more realistic = better. We have these amazing machines to play games on now. We can create pretty much anything. It would be a huge waste if we only focused on recreating something we already know. We can create and explore fantastic worlds and be anything we could ever possibly dream of, yet some people write it all off simply because it's not something we already know.

Some people may want to play a game with more realism than other people do, and that's fine. For example some people prefer racing sims where you do need to take a lot of time to prepare for a race, but that doesn't make that game better. As long as you remember that more real =/= better, and games can be anything, so we should take advantage of that.

I don't want games that make sense, I want the weirdest most outlandish game developers are afraid to think of! I WANT THE FOOLY COOLY OF GAMES!!!

*Ahem* Umm yeah, I don't really like games that are realistic, most developers use it to get in the way of the fun.

I recently watched Fooly Cooly. Made zero sense. Pretty fun though.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

I want things to be more or less realistic, or authentic, but with enough wiggle room that the fun in a game isn't bogged down. I want the pretense of realism so that I can relate to it somewhat but infuse it with enough fantasy to make it fun and adventurous.

 

[Burig]

Since there wasn't an option for both on the poll, I selected fantasy. Hypothetically examining two games that were exactly similar in terms of fun, gameplay, puzzles, etc, I can imagine fantasy would be better, but both can be great. It's not a one or the other situation for me either.

 

[The_Echo]

It really depends on the game and the narrative they're going for. In a game like Max Payne, it really works in the game's favor to keep it believable. Conversely, in a game like Spyro the Dragon or Katamari Damacy, being realistic would just diminish the experience or even just plain ruin the game.

Personally, I play very few "realistic" games. Oftentimes the closest I get to a realistic game is something like the Elder Scrolls or BioShock, which take a realistic, believable world and inject fantasy into its bloodstream.

 

[Squilookle]

I don't want games that make sense, I want the weirdest most outlandish game developers are afraid to think of! I WANT THE FOOLY COOLY OF GAMES!!!

Holy cow- FLCL the game? My head just exploded.

As long as everything really did make sense in the end, if you play through the game enough times... much like the show...

 

[theSteamSupported]

I prefer fantasy when it comes to setting, aesthetics and plot.
I prefer realism when it comes to characters, dialogue and atmosphere.

Did I give you the best answer possible?

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

Some realism in games is fine, and some games do well with being realistic, but I play games for an escape and my favourite place to escape to is some sort of fantasy world. So, the more fantastic the games the better, in my opinion. Wacky graphics, quirky soundtracks, weird characters, magical powers, physical mythological beings; the works. I'll take all of it.

 

[smmnc3000]

Where's the option saying, 'it depends'?

Depends on the game is trying to achieve. I expect my Battlefields and CoDs to a be grounded in realism, (not the same as real life because there still needs to be a game it there) guns fire where I point them, with recoil etc. However I like my TES to be as far from realism as possible. I can enjoy both depending on what suits the game.

I agree, that was the option I was looking for.

 

[Shpongled]

Why do people keeping bringing up CoD and Battlefield as examples of Realistic games? They might have been marketed as such, but they're no more realistic than Doom, they just take place in a modern day setting.

If you're looking for realistic FPS's look at Red Orchestra or ArmA, not bloody CoD. I honestly would have thought gamers would have been able to see through the marketing bull, CoD isn't realistic, it's not even aiming for realism in the slightest. There's nothing realistic about regenerating health and enemies endlessly spawning from nothingness.

Aside from RO or ArmA or Op Flashpoint and maybe 1 or 2 other shooters i'm struggling to think of any game that could be in any way defined as "realistic", or even argued as aiming for realism. Many games might try and market themselves as such, but they clearly aren't actually trying to be realistic in execution.

So, are we discussing whether we prefer games set in a realistic settings vs fictional settings or are we discussing whether we like gameplay geared towards realism vs gameplay ignoring realism? Because thats two very different questions.

 

[Denamic]

Extremely few games are actually realistic though.
And those that are can scarcely be called games.
Most people who clamour about realism in games have likely never even played one.
Games like CoD or Battlefield are about as realistic as an average B action movie.

 

[octafish]

Just about every game I play is fantasy. BF3, FIFA, Need For Speed Shift, COD 4, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six...all fantasy. The only games I have ever played that have no element of fantasy are flight sims and even then no one is really going to let me pilot an A-10 Warthog with no training are they? Pure fantasy, each and every one.

 

[EvilMaggot]

We play games to escape reality.
Why bring reality into games?

Same reason I never read any books beside fantasy or sci-fi (or steampunk, or... you get my point).
The real world is extremely boring. Fascinating, but boring.
Now, if you were to add Pokémon, everything would be fan-fucking-tastic now wouldn't it?

the world is actually not that boring mate.. try and look out of the window once in a while or flip on the tv alot of shit is going on xD

I like Both

for instance i like my racing games as unrealistic as possible.. or very arcady.. its just more fun for me like that.

for my shooters.. now thats a whole other thing ^^

 

[The Critic]

As many have said before, it really depends. There's nothing wrong with one game having a more realistic (or, perhaps, "authentic", as was said earlier, is a better word) bend, and others having a more fantastic bend. There's also nothing wrong with a mixture of the two. Both the universes of The Lord of the Rings and The Elder Scrolls are fantasy settings, but they have consistant logic and various elements that enhance the willing suspension of disbelief by straying closer to the realm of reality. Likewise, a game with a very realistic bend (in terms of setting and story) like Red Dead Redemption benefits from it's grounding in realism, but it also benefits from "arcade-y" gameplay to allow for easy fun in moment-to-moment gameplay.

I could keep listing examples, but the point would remain the same: what's better between realism and fantasy really depends on the game, personal tastes, and various other factors. And, often, the best place is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

 

[Sande45]

I prefer a balanced mixture of both, with an emphasis on realism.

For example, Demon's Souls was the first hack'n'slash type of game I enjoyed because the combat had even a resemblance of realism with weapons and armor actually having weight and enemies and players dying with relatively few swings etc. But some fantasy was obviously required in order to have bosses and not to bleed out from one stab and so on. I would have preferred more realism in the setting and regular enemies though. I prefer fighting humanoid creatures over supernatural slugs, bugs and what have you. And I wouldn't have minded if the humanoids had been actual human beings instead of some undead ghouls and skeletons. Also, the not so far-fetched bosses like Penetrator and Tower knight were way better than weird goo piles like the cow pat (Phalanx) and Leechmonger.

So I guess I quite heavily prefer realism but realize that some unrealistic aspects are usually required to make the mechanics reasonable.