Suspension of Disbelief and Realism.

Ironsouled

New member
Nov 5, 2009
278
0
0
To begin with, let me say I love my dirt brown shooters and such to death.

On to the topic: Recently, especially among the more mainstream publishers, I've started to see a slightly one track mindset; namely on realism. The obvious explanation for such is better fidelity means more opportunities for realism, and so developers want to experiment (and make money) with it in any way possible.
However, does realism really add to the suspension of disbelief? Does the fact that my sword glimmers just right make me care more or less about the story? I can't actually imagine a Portal Gun being remotely feasable, but it doesn't stop me from loving Portal.
When does realism go to far? Indeed, do you feel that it does not or even cannot?
 

Ruwrak

New member
Sep 15, 2009
845
0
0
Realism, yaaaay for grey and brown metal surroundings right?

Realism is in more things and in general to create a good realistic game, it's not just the looks. It's the feel of a game as well, it's atmosphere.

And I think generally we toss realism out of the window when I start walking around in Magical armor that protects me against fire from the dragon standing in front of me while my sword is glowing with electricity.


Seriously, realism? Oh pah, partial realism you mean. Realism as in the model animations, the graphical convincing of the player, the audio blasted from the speakers and the general interaction :p


Then again, Half Life 1 was excellent in the suspension of disbelief even though it was not really.. real was it?

But I find that Forza 4 and F1 2011 are great realistic games. It's a matter of perception and genre I think.
 

OriginalLadders

New member
Sep 29, 2011
235
0
0
A perfectly realistic game will never be created. Even if the processing power and programming knowledge existed, the nature interface would ruin it, assuming we never invent a virtual reality system that interfaces directly with your brain.

Personally, I find that the more realistic a game is trying to be (not necessarily how realistic it is, however) the less I am able to suspend disbelief, I just end up focusing on all the little things that are wrong. I don't have that problem with something like Portal.

NB- I very rarely play first person shooters, so take this with a heaping helping of salt.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
Replace the word "realism" with the word "verisimilitude" and I'm sort of with you. The more details a developer can make mirror real life, the more drawn into a game we get. Even Portal 2 with its campy silliness gave us a glimpse of the Aperture Science complex as a whole, making the whole game seem less compartmentalized, more part of a larger world. Tossing that quality out the window doesn't necessarily ruin a game, but leaving it in can add a lot of value.
 

Raptor_Pilot

New member
May 6, 2010
10
0
0
That's a very good post.

I do think realism can greatly enhance the suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy certain games. However, if the game is dependent on "realism" to provide immersion, then that will be easily shattered when you find the limits of the realism programmed into a game.

I cannot count all of the times I have heard this line: "I like the new Call of Duty games because they are realistic." Coming from a milsim backround with games like Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, and Combat Mission; I cannot help but laugh when people call games like Call of Duty "realistic".

While the textures are realistic, and the weapons look just like their real-world counterparts, the actual gameplay, damage modeling, and storytelling in the game are so far from realistic as to be laughable.

That being said, if all you are looking for as far as realism goes is for a game to look nice, then any set of fancy textures that look real is enough to provide immersion. It does seem that to the vast majority of gamers, looks are more important than anything else.

On the other side of the arguement, there are times when realism seems to go too far. Speaking of the games I mentioned, it's hard to find many people who would think low crawling through tall grass for 30 minutes to fire a single shot at a single target to be any fun. Also taking 8 hours to play a battle that runs for 1 hour of real time would quickly leave most gamers bored.

It really seems to depend on your own personal preferences. There is such a wide variety of games being made these days that the level of realism you search for in a game can be found with many flavors as to the game type. There is no longer the simple choice between "arcade" and "simulation", there is a broad spectrum of games that cover many levels of realism.
My only worry is a games market driven by popular opionion (i.e. profits) might eventually phase out games that take realism to extremes due to lack of sufficient demand.

Anyway, I think I'm starting to lose my train of thought. I'll stop here.
 

SidingWithTheEnemy

New member
Sep 29, 2011
759
0
0
Don't really tell me that the shooters are realistic in any way.
Well, at least those that I play aren't.
I still looking for that shooter where the enemies moan in pain and whine for half an hour straight just because I shot at their kneecaps with my riot-shotgun. That would be awesome and realistic. (I had an accident damaging my patella slightly, let me tell you it f*cking hurts, but these stupid enemies just continue shooting)
A game where you deploy chemical weapons and see the soldiers coughing their lungs out and begging for mercy.
Any game (not really shooter related) where the radation of some nuclear device doesn't go away because "some turns have passed" or you sent your "settler" to clean up the mess. (Nuclear launch detected, anyone?)

Try to imagine what happens when you slightly cut your finger with a kitchen knife by accident.
Now imagine the pain you have once you got hit by a bullet that passes through your body like aforementioned kitchen knife passes through butter, now how many times do you need to shoot an enemy (excluding headshots) hitting bare flesh (not armor) at your regular shooters? Do they even flinch?

Games are games, they are not ment to be realistic and never will be, because that would be frightening for most people. (Mostly the press and the publishers)
I have not yet started but I could go on mentioning the absurdly amount of blood and gore of most shooters. I think a shooter that calls itself "realistic" is just embarssing itself. Because most games only need you to immerse yourself. Realism doesn't help much. If Saints Row would be more "realistic" it would be fun anymore. But that is just my opinion.