It would only be too realistic if the bullets that get shot at you really come out of the screen, I don't see that happening anytime soon...
When is realism too real?
- Thread starter E-mantheseeker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe someday, when I can afford a gaming PC.Furburt said:I think that's most a problem with OpflashMiracleOfSound said:R's engine than the concept of realism itself. It's just too slow and clunky to work as a shooter.
ArmA II really is the better game. I'd give it a go if you ever want to take a walk on the wild side. It's only for PC though, and you need the PC of a god to run it. Its system specs make Crysis's look like the original Quakes in comparison.
My current laptop can barely run Morrowind.
So I'm stuck with my trusty 360 for now.
It only becomes too real the day you feel the pain, when your own stamina is translated into the game So you have to be fit RL to be fit ingame xD
Or OFC.. you sit around on the "battlefield" for 2 days and nothing happens at all, then suddenly you get blown to hell by an unmanned drone, or some artillery barrage, or shot by a sniper. Then it gets too real.
So you have to be fit RL to be fit ingame xDOr OFC.. you sit around on the "battlefield" for 2 days and nothing happens at all, then suddenly you get blown to hell by an unmanned drone, or some artillery barrage, or shot by a sniper. Then it gets too real.
When getting shot in the stomach doesn't mean you get really pissed off and kick some ass, but that you are rolling around on the floor in agony.
When everything that can go wrong does go wrong: You go to open door, but it's locked. You try and pick the lock and the pick breaks, you try and kick down the door and break your toe...
When everything that can go wrong does go wrong: You go to open door, but it's locked. You try and pick the lock and the pick breaks, you try and kick down the door and break your toe...
When you squeeze your finger to pull the trigger and feel the recoil pump into your shoulder...
...when you plunge your arm forwards to force a blade into your enemy's heart and hear his dying screams of pain...
...when you wriggle your fingers and hear your victim's groans while you gently fondle his intestines...
...but it's just a game, right?
[sub]I'm in a weird mood[/sub]
...when you plunge your arm forwards to force a blade into your enemy's heart and hear his dying screams of pain...
...when you wriggle your fingers and hear your victim's groans while you gently fondle his intestines...
...but it's just a game, right?
[sub]I'm in a weird mood[/sub]
Depends how the realism is put across as uber realism wouldn't work in GTA but is great in Arma, Flashpoint and Red Orchestra games.
I enjoy realism in games. Really, there is no "realistic" game out there at all. ArmA II (Armed Assault 2) is pretty realistic, but it doesn't tighten up in places that it should, so it's often a drag.
What we see today in games, is the desire for realism, but developers will make a handful of things "realistic", like having to eat, or refuel, or your stamina depletes when you run.. stuff like that. Yet, that's as far as they go. So instead of having a fun and realistic game, we get a game with annoyances because the rest of the game isn't realistic at all. So in those games where you have to eat food, you can also absorb 100 bullets. Where you have to refuel, you never have to do anything else, an annoyance which doesn't add anything to the game. Stamina depleting while you run, in some games, yet they allow you to jump and bunny hop without a stamina hit. So you can sprint for 15 meters and stop, but you can jump up and down for 3 hours straight.
Either go all the way or don't at all. I've yet to see a game that went all the way.
What we see today in games, is the desire for realism, but developers will make a handful of things "realistic", like having to eat, or refuel, or your stamina depletes when you run.. stuff like that. Yet, that's as far as they go. So instead of having a fun and realistic game, we get a game with annoyances because the rest of the game isn't realistic at all. So in those games where you have to eat food, you can also absorb 100 bullets. Where you have to refuel, you never have to do anything else, an annoyance which doesn't add anything to the game. Stamina depleting while you run, in some games, yet they allow you to jump and bunny hop without a stamina hit. So you can sprint for 15 meters and stop, but you can jump up and down for 3 hours straight.
Either go all the way or don't at all. I've yet to see a game that went all the way.
when there's too much realism in a game you should start making yourself questions... IE: "is it a recruitment program?" (America's Army lol)
Which is why I think realism in game CAN be a good thing. I like the idea of war games like ArmA and Operation Flashpoint where I can feel as if I'm in a real war without the negatives of getting shot and killed for real along without having to take another fellows life. That doesn't mean all games should strive to be realistic, I love game like Saint Row 2 where the game is so over the top it's hilarious. I think most games should be pretty unrealistic or implausible for the fun factor but it is nice to have the option on the market for some pretty damn realistic games.Furburt said:
Ho and after seeing ArmA II... I need a fucking new computer that can play games like that.
I honestly don't know where the bar gets set. I know that when a lot of people talk of realism they often mean graphics ("I think AvP is too realistic because a monster can rip a guy's head and spine out of his neck in an incredibly gory manner") or they mean boring ("I hate The Sims since it's just real life on a computer") or they mean it's realistic to the point of aggravation ("Flashpoint is too realistic. I don't want to die every frikkin second in one shot from some guy I never even saw three miles away")
Honestly, I think that the latter two decriptions are the problematic ones. When a developer sacrifices gameplay for realism they're not making a game, they're making a simulator. While there are definitly people into those kinds of things, the majority of the population is not, and that's why the video game market is so big into fantasy, historical, and sci-fi settings, because people want to do things that they DON'T do in real life. Granted, a few wargames (like Modern Warfare and World in Conflict) are able to embrace realism in gameplay without the massive sacrifices usually required, but regretably these games are few and far between.
In my opinion, when the game has become boring, aggravating, or shocking to the extreme, just for the sake of realism, it becomes too much.
Honestly, I think that the latter two decriptions are the problematic ones. When a developer sacrifices gameplay for realism they're not making a game, they're making a simulator. While there are definitly people into those kinds of things, the majority of the population is not, and that's why the video game market is so big into fantasy, historical, and sci-fi settings, because people want to do things that they DON'T do in real life. Granted, a few wargames (like Modern Warfare and World in Conflict) are able to embrace realism in gameplay without the massive sacrifices usually required, but regretably these games are few and far between.
In my opinion, when the game has become boring, aggravating, or shocking to the extreme, just for the sake of realism, it becomes too much.
Seconded (or at this point of the thread probably 44ed).veloper said:
Realism is good for immersion, but when it detracts from the gameplay it needs to back off a bit. This is why just about every FPS you'll play lets you soak up bullets and exorcise them away by touching a medkit. Even the FPS that don't do this would, if realism was the goal, require you to spend several months in traction from anything more than a graze.
A really clever designer figures out ways to blur realism and gameplay enjoyment. Most game developers don't have that kind of creativity.
