Realistic = More annoying Or Less Fun
- Thread starter ionveau
- Start date
Couldn't have put that any better myself.octafish said:
I don't mind realism coming into games. But if you are going to bring it in, do it. Using FO:NV's hardcore mode as an example, it is a half-ass attempt. You can tell it was tacked on. If you are really going to add something like that in, you really need to require the game to make you eat 1-2 times a day, drink at least 4-5 times a day and, sleep for 7 hours at least every 24 to keep your meters at 0 correctly. If they don't like the pacing, slow down your day/night cycle.
Most of the time with games "realism" is added in a superficial way that is usually wherever they feel like it. See Call of Duty.
Playing NecroVision: Lost Company, all I have to say is fuck realism. If I want realism, I'd play Red Orchestra, but when I want to have mindless fun, yah for absurdly overpowered guns! I mean really, two gigantic machine guns (like MG42 size) in each hand, what more could you ask for? I didn't think it could be any more insane until I found one with a flamethrower mounted onto it as a secondary fire option. Those Polish people really know how to make games...
Realism in games is all well and good, however games are meant to be a form of entertainment and an escape from reality - it's fine to have them deviate from normal standards or rules. Sure, sticking to some conventions or having a few games that stick staunchly to reality are fine, if you enjoy that sort of thing.
I have no problems with reality or fantasy elements in games.
I start having problems when people mention realism in an argument about a game when the game itself breaks the rules of reality fairly consistently (thereby making their point null and void).
Case in point: Quickscoping in Black Ops. I don't have a problem with Treyarch removing it or in the future if they add it in at some point or in some way. My problem is with the people who moan and whine about it not being realistic in a game that is designated a 'realistic' FPS and yet the game mechanics themselves, aren't (realistic).
Pisses me the hell off.
I have no problems with reality or fantasy elements in games.
I start having problems when people mention realism in an argument about a game when the game itself breaks the rules of reality fairly consistently (thereby making their point null and void).
Case in point: Quickscoping in Black Ops. I don't have a problem with Treyarch removing it or in the future if they add it in at some point or in some way. My problem is with the people who moan and whine about it not being realistic in a game that is designated a 'realistic' FPS and yet the game mechanics themselves, aren't (realistic).
Pisses me the hell off.
What if Mario Brothers was real...ill tell you what would happen NOTHING...the shrooms would not attack you nothing would...an Italian plumber...the biggest thing ANY Italian plumber in NYC or Italy would ever have to face is a flooded basement and maybe a rat
It depends on the game. I do not find racing simulators like Gran Turismo interesting in the slightest. I also am not a big fan of 'realistic shooters' like Arma and Operation Flashpoint.
Here's the thing about realism and the complaints about it:
You might not enjoy it. You might not like being unable to jump higher than 2 feet, or having your guns kick like mules. Other people, on the other hand, do enjoy this. Maybe they're looking for a simulation, or maybe they just find suspension of disbelief easier if they're not playing as a superhero. Perhaps that makes the game more enthralling for them, and therefore more entertaining. This can be the case even if the game's subject matter isn't inherently realistic - maybe they'd enjoy a WRPG more if it were a more "believable" take on what it would be like to live in a world in which dragons, elves, orcs and magic are facts of life rather than fantasy.
Let's take a step back here and examine the Survival Horror genre. We all know zombies, mutants, monsters etc aren't realistic. But don't they feel more like a real threat if you're not capable of mowing them down? If a claw to the throat means instant death - as it would in real life - there's a real reason to be afraid of them.
The Survival Horror genre is also a good place to look to see the different things that different people enjoy in games. Let's look at the Resident Evil remake for the GameCube - a game that was brutally unforgiving to newcomers even on its lesser difficulty setting.
You might say: "Why would I want to play a game that gives me next to no ammo? Why would I enjoy having such low ammunition in a game where it can take a full magazine to kill a single zombie? What's enjoyable about the fact that even if I do succeed at killing a zombie, it's going to get back up as something faster, stronger, and seriously pissed off in a few minutes?"
Other people will relish those gameplay decisions. Having low resources, being constantly pressed into fight or flight situations against enemies stronger and faster than you is what they enjoy. You might find it more exhilarating to mow down 60 enemies with a machinegun - they enjoy running for their lives from impossible odds. Neither one of you is right.
If realism is what people want, then that's their damn choice. Their reasons don't matter. People bashing realism and the demand for it need to shut the fuck up and understand that their particular brand of approved video game attributes is not universal.
You might not enjoy it. You might not like being unable to jump higher than 2 feet, or having your guns kick like mules. Other people, on the other hand, do enjoy this. Maybe they're looking for a simulation, or maybe they just find suspension of disbelief easier if they're not playing as a superhero. Perhaps that makes the game more enthralling for them, and therefore more entertaining. This can be the case even if the game's subject matter isn't inherently realistic - maybe they'd enjoy a WRPG more if it were a more "believable" take on what it would be like to live in a world in which dragons, elves, orcs and magic are facts of life rather than fantasy.
Let's take a step back here and examine the Survival Horror genre. We all know zombies, mutants, monsters etc aren't realistic. But don't they feel more like a real threat if you're not capable of mowing them down? If a claw to the throat means instant death - as it would in real life - there's a real reason to be afraid of them.
The Survival Horror genre is also a good place to look to see the different things that different people enjoy in games. Let's look at the Resident Evil remake for the GameCube - a game that was brutally unforgiving to newcomers even on its lesser difficulty setting.
You might say: "Why would I want to play a game that gives me next to no ammo? Why would I enjoy having such low ammunition in a game where it can take a full magazine to kill a single zombie? What's enjoyable about the fact that even if I do succeed at killing a zombie, it's going to get back up as something faster, stronger, and seriously pissed off in a few minutes?"
Other people will relish those gameplay decisions. Having low resources, being constantly pressed into fight or flight situations against enemies stronger and faster than you is what they enjoy. You might find it more exhilarating to mow down 60 enemies with a machinegun - they enjoy running for their lives from impossible odds. Neither one of you is right.
If realism is what people want, then that's their damn choice. Their reasons don't matter. People bashing realism and the demand for it need to shut the fuck up and understand that their particular brand of approved video game attributes is not universal.
The best selling games and series on consoles for the past 3-4 years have all been games known for their online multiplayer. So may some people "don't want online", but you are all a very, very small minority that developers don't care about, and rightfully so, because developers are interested in making money.temporalcrux said:
If you mean "realistic" in the way that people refer to Call of Duty, then that type of realism KILLED Resistance 2. Killed it and buried it in an unmarked grave that read "This is what happens to copy cats." Guess that doesn't make it an unmarked grave then, but that's besides the point.
Realism in certain games works fine. I happen to like the fact that I don't have to empty half of my magazine into an enemy to put him down in Call of Duty. On the other hand, I love the fact that it does take a lot of ammo to kill a Grub in Gears of War or the fact that Hale can carry an entire armada on his back in Resistance: Fall of Man (something they removed in Resistance 2). It's all about how the setting is for me, and what a game leads me to expect.
Realism in certain games works fine. I happen to like the fact that I don't have to empty half of my magazine into an enemy to put him down in Call of Duty. On the other hand, I love the fact that it does take a lot of ammo to kill a Grub in Gears of War or the fact that Hale can carry an entire armada on his back in Resistance: Fall of Man (something they removed in Resistance 2). It's all about how the setting is for me, and what a game leads me to expect.
Realism isn't inherantly bad or flawed but because it's become very popular and common these days it's becoming easier and easier to see cases of bad games that have attempted realism.
Some of the worst offenders are those that hammer elements of realism into a game with no real reason as to why, for example, the newest Turok game.
Compared to the other games in the series, Turok on the 360 and PS3 felt kind of bland, lackluster and unimaginative because they tried to give it a semi-realistic feel (or at least went for the 'Call of Duty' school of realism which basically means having only 2 guns and regenerating health). The game wasn't bad but it was horrifically difficult and didn't feel like a Turok game (there was no tripping on power with the cerebral bore) so it did feel like a huge let down to me, there were moments of greatness (one involving a huge fuck-off hand grenade and a T-Rex's head) but overall it felt like the usual generic Sci-Fi space marine shooter, all because they tried to edge it closer towards 'realism'.
This is just one example of a game that has been dragged down by reality but there are those which are fun because they're realistic (see SWAT 4, I've heard it's a brillint game).
Some of the worst offenders are those that hammer elements of realism into a game with no real reason as to why, for example, the newest Turok game.
Compared to the other games in the series, Turok on the 360 and PS3 felt kind of bland, lackluster and unimaginative because they tried to give it a semi-realistic feel (or at least went for the 'Call of Duty' school of realism which basically means having only 2 guns and regenerating health). The game wasn't bad but it was horrifically difficult and didn't feel like a Turok game (there was no tripping on power with the cerebral bore) so it did feel like a huge let down to me, there were moments of greatness (one involving a huge fuck-off hand grenade and a T-Rex's head) but overall it felt like the usual generic Sci-Fi space marine shooter, all because they tried to edge it closer towards 'realism'.
This is just one example of a game that has been dragged down by reality but there are those which are fun because they're realistic (see SWAT 4, I've heard it's a brillint game).
Ok, I'm sorry for the double post but I have to make a point here.zehydra said:
Bad Company 2 was not even remorely near being realistic.
Yes, there is bullet drop.
Yes, armour and aircraft can be deployed as a part of a co-ordinated assault.
Yes, most weapons prove to be almost instantly lethal.
But you also happen to be playing as a character who can pull paracutes out of his arse on command and apparantly posesses shins of steel (seeing as falling damage is seemingly a mild inconveinience in that game) and a defribrilator can apparantly be used in the same fashion as a true resurection spell no matter how many 50. cal bullets you place in someone's head.
The problem is not realism itself. It's choosing the right kind of realism.
Realism seems to be one of the many bandwagon targets in the current gaming industry. Doesn't matter though. You'd still buy a good realistic game, even if your idiot self doesn't know why. Even if you don't understand what it means to create an interesting experience, you'd still recognize one.
And if it isn't good, at least you have something simple to blame.
Realism seems to be one of the many bandwagon targets in the current gaming industry. Doesn't matter though. You'd still buy a good realistic game, even if your idiot self doesn't know why. Even if you don't understand what it means to create an interesting experience, you'd still recognize one.
And if it isn't good, at least you have something simple to blame.
Maybe I'm just a gamer-snob, but I want FUN. They kill the fun to make money. Why was the Wii so enjoyable? Because the multiplayer is in-room the majority of the time. Why are "console multiplayers" big sellers? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL SHOOTERS! Name five major sellers for online multiplayer in the past 4 years that haven't been FPS. You probably can't.Brawndo said:
THIS has caused the death of in-room FPS games because they want to crank out the next five hundred yards in front of the player with perfect realism.
depends on the game mechanics and what it entails. Good gameplay and story and realism is involved = no problem. However if realism gets in the way, then the game will be sufficiently diminished in awesomeness.
I had just made a post on a thread about a character design that many agree'd was more realistic, my response was that in making the character "realistic," the designers left out a lot of the characters' actual character.
Realism is not a bad choice of style in any medium, but in doing so you can't go too real or you loose a crucial method of storytelling. Characters, level design, and gameplay elements can be designed to carry the story and they are excellent tools in doing so. In real life that may not always be the case; or the realistic method may not be the best way to convey your story. If you wanted to show someone becoming a great swimmer the best way to show it is to make the swimming mechanic simple to use and use jump-cuts and film making techniques to show the passage of time. That's like, a 5 minute tutorial and some 3 minute cutscene. The realistic way to do it would be to develop a more complicated, time and pattern based swimming mechanic with a steeper learning curve and have long, drawn out scenes of the character practicing, or even the player practicing the gameplay mechanic over and over. That's potentially an hour or so of learning about how this guy became a good swimmer.
So reality is fine so long as it doesn't get in the way of the storytelling, once it does things become a bit more boring or frustrating... you know, just like real life.
Realism is not a bad choice of style in any medium, but in doing so you can't go too real or you loose a crucial method of storytelling. Characters, level design, and gameplay elements can be designed to carry the story and they are excellent tools in doing so. In real life that may not always be the case; or the realistic method may not be the best way to convey your story. If you wanted to show someone becoming a great swimmer the best way to show it is to make the swimming mechanic simple to use and use jump-cuts and film making techniques to show the passage of time. That's like, a 5 minute tutorial and some 3 minute cutscene. The realistic way to do it would be to develop a more complicated, time and pattern based swimming mechanic with a steeper learning curve and have long, drawn out scenes of the character practicing, or even the player practicing the gameplay mechanic over and over. That's potentially an hour or so of learning about how this guy became a good swimmer.
So reality is fine so long as it doesn't get in the way of the storytelling, once it does things become a bit more boring or frustrating... you know, just like real life.
See, that's your problem, playing a bad game. It has nothing to do with the realism, but how well the game was designed in the first place. And just as a matter of interest, can you name me one of these bad realistic games you're thinking of?ionveau said: