Why do people hate realism in shooters?

[ultrabiome]

'realistic' shooters (the ones that look like they are in real life, not necessarily the gameplay) are getting hate because they have saturated the market, with a release of multiple franchises every year, with marginal improvements with most of it going towards multiplayer.

also, its much easier to 'build' a 'realistic' world because everyone already knows what to expect. the rules are set, the setting is known and the world doesn't have to be thought out because we either know it or can look it up (buildings, forests, deserts, etc). you don't have to explain why there is a conflict (insert any world war/civil war), you don't have to design any new fancy weapons or armor or worlds, just use what already exists.

some people get joy from pretending to be a soldier with their friends and doing all of that tactics stuff (people i've known that have joined the military seem to really love these games because they know all of the equipment and whatnot and have been trained in tactics). others of us though, prefer to use games as escapism (i guess it can be escapism to want to be a soldier), to do things that can't be done normally, either due to ethics or physics, and to potentially go where you either don't want to or can't go. GTA is popular even though it is in a 'real-world' setting because most of us are adverse to being a criminal, but the rules of the game allow us to go all out and rob, steal and kill without consequences - and its fun!

realistic shooters feel more like simulations of real life than most other games. same with sports titles. i get that you're in control of something you might not ever do in real life, but at least personally, i'd prefer to have my escapism on all levels. if i'm going to shoot at something, i'm not interested in a simulation of hunting a deer in the woods or a soldier in some town in Afghanistan, i want to blast demons in hell with plasma guns or alien creatures on a distant planet with acid guns. and 'realistic shooters' aren't doing anything to make the gaming world filled with more unique experiences: their stories are dull, their characters have little to no importance, their worlds are ripped right from the dullness of reality, and nothing they do are things that can't be done yourself in the real world (go join the army or play paintball. go outside and play sports). to each his own i suppose.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

*Snip*

I apologize for the late response. Internet went out for a few days and couldn't respond. Now onwards to the topic at hand:

The primary issue with your arguments isn't that it hints at the possibility of marketing or even politics trying to take advantage of human nature, it's that your arguments are based primarily on unprovable assumptions that defy the very concept of Occam's Razor while simultaneously pulling a giant (and possibly unintentional) Red Herring argument.

To elaborate, your telling people who do actively criticize the overabundance of gritty or quasi-realistic games - contrary to what they themselves are actively saying - that they don't actually feel the way they do or believe in their own arguments. In other words, you're actively writing off people's criticisms of "realistic" as them lying about their own opinions, without any proof whatsoever that they don't actually believe in what they say. You're theory that not only do people not believe in their own criticisms, but that there is a political movement focused on making games less realistic and trying to manipulate people into believing something they don't is riddled with far more assumptions that simply assuming people are simply being honest about their opinions that they really are tired of the overemphasis on grittiness, grey-brown color palettes, and semi-realism.

This is where Occam's Razor comes into play - when adequate explanatory power cannot be obtained, it is best to go with the explanation with the least amount of assumptions. You're argument that people don't actually have a problem with realistic games contrary to what they themselves say doesn't have the proof desperately needed to make your argument valid, thus it is much better to go with the route of least assumptions - which in this case is most certainly that people are being honest when they say that they are sick of realism in video games.

As for the aforementioned Red Herring argument, you're entire spiel about businesses and the "left-wing" does not in any way affect the legitimacy of people's complaints and criticisms. Even if everything you said about there being a political movement that's constantly trying to convince people to turn away from realism in games is true, it doesn't automatically mean that most people are not being fully honest and genuine with their opinions / criticisms. To put it into metaphor form: Just because Person A, with ulterior motives and all, points out an issue to Person B that Person B agrees with doesn't mean that said issue isn't actually a legitimate problem or that Person B doesn't actually believe in their own opinion or is even unaware of Person A's ulterior motive.

The fact that your entire argument for why people's criticisms aren't genuine is based entirely on an issue that doesn't actually prove one-way or another that their opinion's are or aren't genuine, combined with the fact that you focus far more on arguing whether or not said issue (the political movement) exists rather than addressing the initial point that people are being dishonest about their own opinions and backing it up with solid, provable evidence is why it's a fallacious Red Herring argument.

Now going a bit off topic here, you also keep implying that the AAA gaming industry has been focusing on a lack of realism for the past 5 years, when the fact is that the AAA industry has been focusing far more on grittiness and at least a good degree of realism since at least the advent of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Yes, realistic depictions of sex and rape has been avoided like the plague in the industry as a whole (not just AAA) outside of full-on hentai games. However, sex and rape are the exceptions, not the rule. Increasingly realistic depictions of war (outside of rape in wartime scenarios), survival, murder, violence, racing, faces, and even foliage have skyrocketed during the last half-decade. It's to the point where even traditionally wacky or fantastical AAA games like Dead Rising and Tomb Raider[footnote] I admit, I haven't actually played the new TR, but everything I've seen and heard indicates that the whole "searching forgotten tombs for magical relics while solving ancient puzzles, platforming everywhere, and fighting mystical or supernatural beings and animals" theme was thrown entirely out the window for a bigger emphasis on telling a realistic origin story. It's the main reason why I don't actually want to play the new TR.[/footnote] (respectively) are now going the more gritty, realistic approach unlike previous entries in the series. The only place that completely unrealistic games has been on the rise is in the indie scene, where the cost of making games is low enough that something deliberately retro or non-realistic isn't considered a colossal risk. For you to say that when people are stating that they're tired of the over-saturation of gritty realism and grey-brown dominated aesthetics in games, that they aren't being honest with their opinions and that this fatigue couldn't possibly be, for many people at least, the root cause of the unrest / widespread criticism of realism in games flies straight in the face of what the evidence actually shows.

To sum it all up, all you provide in your arguments is assumptions and a fallacious dismissal of people's complaints based on an argument that doesn't actually invalidate people's complaints. You made an accusation that what people say is their opinion isn't actually their opinion, then not only failed to actually provide actual evidence or direct proof to back up that accusation but you also completely ignore both the facts at hand and the reasoning behind the counter-arguments that the critics themselves are providing based entirely on your belief that you know people's opinions on the subject better than they do themselves. Had you some indisputable proof that, with 100% certainty, the majority of the critics of realistic games do not feel the way they claim, then you'd have a point. However, you don't. All you presented were assumptions, and assumptions do not in any way make a valid argument. Until you prove beyond all doubt that people do not and could not possibly believe in their own arguments, you're entire theory will remain just that - a theory.