What make a game "Realistic"?

[Darzen]

Personally i always find realism in gaming to be a game where theres no health regen and the events that take place during are "plausible"
Take "Half-life" for instance. theres no health and armor respawn and i could totally see humans accidentaly tearing a hole through space causing an alien race to take over. CoD:MW2 on the other hand claims realism but at the same time give you infinite health as long as you know how to hide away for 30 seconds. I could believe the plot if it made more sense and (SPOILER) didn't involve 3 seperate character that all die in the end.
Halo is totally unrealistic and never claims to be realistic either.so the health respawns and odd storyline are excusible.In fact if a game is unrealistic and claims to be realistic then it's odd when you start realizing how unrealistic the game is.Don't get me wrong just because health doesn't respawn does NOT mean a game is realistic it just means it made to be more challenging.
The again this is all just my opinion.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

EDIT: Shit, forgot. A game becomes realistic when the gameplay takes more concessions to realism than realism takes concession to gameplay opportunities.

 

[Darzen]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

Yes but since when is hiding for 30 second made you perfectly healthy? and not all health kits are Insta-Health Kits.

 

[VincentX3]

Simple:

Realism

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Link please to Modern Warfare 2 claiming to be realistic.

Also, what makes a game realistic? No respawns. Seriously, you can't make a realistic war game, because, in reality, war is actually scary... because you might die. In Arma, there are saves.
So, it's not a realistic, true representation of combat.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

Yes but since when is hiding for 30 second made you perfectly healthy? and not all health kits are Insta-Health Kits.

It's an accelerated version of a real life process. Even the most realistic games accelerate things, for example, if you play a game for one hundred hours, how many shootouts will you see? How many people will you shoot? Even sims will have a ridiculously high number. A real soldier, in any given hundred hour period, might not have conflict of any kind.

Also, real life battles take hours, if not days. Ever seen that in a game?

And I'd say most health kits, even if they don't heal you much, take effect instantly. And in real life, medics serve to pretty much just stabilize you so you can get to a doctor, so them fully healing you isn't realistic either.

 

[ArchAngelKira]

Basically "if you die by 1 bullet wound, get tired, not super human, and down right suck in the first few moments of the game".

 

[Imbechile]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

Yes but since when is hiding for 30 second made you perfectly healthy? and not all health kits are Insta-Health Kits.

It's an accelerated version of a real life process. Even the most realistic games accelerate things, for example, if you play a game for one hundred hours, how many shootouts will you see? How many people will you shoot? Even sims will have a ridiculously high number. A real soldier, in any given hundred hour period, might not have conflict of any kind.

Also, real life battles take hours, if not days. Ever seen that in a game?

And I'd say most health kits, even if they don't heal you much, take effect instantly. And in real life, medics serve to pretty much just stabilize you so you can get to a doctor, so them fully healing you isn't realistic either.

Call me old, but I still think that a health bar is more realistic than regenerating health.
OT: simple, take most the things from SWAT

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

Yes but since when is hiding for 30 second made you perfectly healthy? and not all health kits are Insta-Health Kits.

It's an accelerated version of a real life process. Even the most realistic games accelerate things, for example, if you play a game for one hundred hours, how many shootouts will you see? How many people will you shoot? Even sims will have a ridiculously high number. A real soldier, in any given hundred hour period, might not have conflict of any kind.

Also, real life battles take hours, if not days. Ever seen that in a game?

And I'd say most health kits, even if they don't heal you much, take effect instantly. And in real life, medics serve to pretty much just stabilize you so you can get to a doctor, so them fully healing you isn't realistic either.

Call me old, but I still think that a health bar is more realistic than regenerating health.
OT: simple, take most the things from SWAT

Health Bars themselves aren't realistic, as something like Health is a little too nebulous to be represented by a bar.

Anyway, having too place mags in pouches on your characters body, and selecting which one to grab when you reload. Although that level of realism would get annoying pretty fast.

 

[Rock Beefchest]

In my opinion the details pertaining to how the game treats life regen or permanent damage are not what makes a game realistic. More so a "realistic" game involve scenarios that could actually happen within our present understanding of our world. In that way games like battlefield and COD are more realistic than Half-Life or Halo. If I turn on a game and play through the story without ever having the suspension of disbelief moment then it qualifies as a realistic experience.

Pure realism in a game would not be a fun experience. If one bullet killed no matter what the weapon and there was no respawn I believe the game would be a complete failure.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Health regeneration is more realistic than insta-heal health kits, when you think about it. Health could represent pain tolerance, and death is you passing out. And people do heal over time, but very slowly.

Yes but since when is hiding for 30 second made you perfectly healthy? and not all health kits are Insta-Health Kits.

It's an accelerated version of a real life process. Even the most realistic games accelerate things, for example, if you play a game for one hundred hours, how many shootouts will you see? How many people will you shoot? Even sims will have a ridiculously high number. A real soldier, in any given hundred hour period, might not have conflict of any kind.

Also, real life battles take hours, if not days. Ever seen that in a game?

And I'd say most health kits, even if they don't heal you much, take effect instantly. And in real life, medics serve to pretty much just stabilize you so you can get to a doctor, so them fully healing you isn't realistic either.

Call me old, but I still think that a health bar is more realistic than regenerating health.
OT: simple, take most the things from SWAT

The health bar is more realistic. Fact really. The idea is that any repair you make is temporary and that any wound, no matter how tiny, adds up to bring down titans. You could be a god but be brought down by 10000 pistol shots. Its the tactical knowlage knowing that, no matter how easy the fight you still need to be carefull. You need to make sure you achieve health efficiency. In regernation games when i had 1 guy left i just knifed im, regardless of how much damage i took, the game was on easy and i knew it didnt matter what he did.

 

[Nylis]

I don't understand why people want "realism" in games anyway. I mean, if you want absolute realism, that means, 1 shot to the head or any other vital area, you're dead. No saves; if you die, you're dead, no replays, end of gamed. Things like that.

I don't see anything wrong with realism taking a back seat. I get enough of realism in real life. I mean, if you really want realism, go join the armed forces or something.

 

[auronvi]

Counter-Strike.

Health-bar is more realistic. You get shot in the leg... u are close to death. CS basically had it down pretty good. If you don't look at the health bar as a... health bar... but more as a luck bar. Think about it! An AK shot blasts out of a rife at over 2,400 feet per second and crashes into the armor of your character. I would say that if you are wearing body armor you have a better chance of surviving the hit but it isn't guaranteed. Now CS isn't perfect but you need someway to indicate damage.

You can maybe do it the table top way and use chance. Based on the strength of the round and the type of armor there is a chance of inflicting a fatal wound. Basically an all or nothing thing. That would be realistic. Either the bullet that hits you busts through your armor and you die, or it doesn't.

I have an AMAZING game idea now that I will be working on. It will be the future of FPS.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A game becomes "realistic" when, in questions of design, one favors a simulation that approximates reality versus one designed exclusively around the concept of fun.

As an example, Team Fortress is "realistic" when compared to Quake. In Quake, a player could fight at maximum effectiveness until their health counter reached zero. In Team Fortress, it was possible to reduce a characters effectiveness without reaching a death state. For example, a sniper round through the leg would cause a reduction in movement speed (or a step on a caltrop). A player could contract a communicable illness that spread to others he came into contact with. Movement and fire speed could be slowed with a tranquilizer. Visual awareness could be impeded with flash grenades, flash mines or hallucinogenic grenades. To go a step further, in Quake there was no distinction between a bullet in the head and one in the sleeve. In either case the health reduction was the same. In Team Fortress, the body was divided into three distinct hit zones and damage and effects varied depending upon where the round hit.

None would claim that Team Fortress was realistic, but it certainly held realism to have higher value than Quake did.

 

[suhlEap]

i don't think any games are realistic really. but that's kinda the point isn't it?

 

[Jack Gruff]

Realism = Realism.

The problem "realistic" games can have is an imbalance.

Realism is ok, as long as you balance the degree of it against what you plan to make unrealistic in your game.

Example: Far Cry 2. I liked how it was realistic in parts. But please, don't, as the developer, tell me you can't introduce wild predators cause you're scared they'll kill off all the animals but bloody well go ahead and make all enemies instantly re-spawn the moment I'm half a km away - having just executed a brilliant plan to kill them all.

Now, if they hadn't done that, suppose let me bribe those outposts with cold bear and make friends, VERY slow re-spawn, etc... then I would have enjoyed what the game touted as realism.

Realism is OK. It just has to be fair, not stupid.

 

[linkzeldi]

Realistic, it could occur in reality.

For example Playing madden and taking the vikings all the way to the super bowl would be realistic, but in reality for that to occur hell would have to hit record temperature lows.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

OK guys, let's "get real" here. Brown makes things realistic. End of thread, yeah?

 

[ALuckyChance]

Realism = Microsoft Flight Simulator. Or, if you like submarines, then Realism = Silent Hunter 3.

 

[C95J]

no game can be truly realistic to some peoples ridiculous standards, but there are usually many different factors in making a game realistic. and when I say realistic I don't mean so close to real life that it isn't fun any more. I look at things like graphics, the weapons, how the weapons work, the characters, the scenery and setting. Sure MW2 and BFBC2 are both really realistic games to my standards, but so are games like Mass Effect, and Dead Space. Even though both those games are as far away from real life as possible, its not about that. Games aren't supposed to be imitating life the the very last detail, and don't need to for them to be known as realistic. What I am saying is that there is a difference between realism, and real life, and people should learn to be able to separate them and tell them apart.

Hold on, I might have gotten a bit carried away with myself, and gone on a bit of a rant. Oh well, if you did read it and make it this far along the text, then you deserve a cookie


EDIT: Realism is good fun, but so are games that can be classed as 'unrealistic' as well. Enjoy the best of both, because sometimes, realism just doesn't matter in the gaming world.