Just exactly HOW realistic do you want it to be?!! (Rant)

Gamer Bhoy 89

Ugh god, I was just going through some various forums for different games and I started to flip. Because I am getting pretty sick of the people who say a video game is horrible...because it isn't "realistic". . . .

As the title suggests, how f*cking realistic does a game need to be to fit you're definition of "realistic" ??? Honestly like??..

People who insult Battlefield and give the idle reason of it being "not realistic". (usually giving excuses like the snipers suck or you can't prone or lean or whatever) Okay, do you want the developers to fly you to the Middle-East, stick a heads up display around you're goggles and tell you to go capture some flags?? Is that realistic enough for you??? Hey, you get to do all the crawling and leaning you want at least!

Then there's the Forza vs. Gran Turismo crowd who say one is better than the other because the bad one isn't realistic enough. Go out and drive your car along the M9 then if it isn't realistic enough for you.

I can tolerate one who plays a game, then says it's not very realistic, but plays it anyway because he enjoys the game for what it is. But I can't grasp why some people actually refuse to even look at a game let alone play or buy it because it's "not realistic enough". Last time I checked, these were Video Games. They aren't real events happening within the game. I don't think any game is supposed to be realistic.

Rant over, i feel better now :cool:

ríomhaire

They're just all jealous because they know Team Fortress 2 is the best game ever.

Gamer Bhoy 89

lol LIKE

Samich

Hmmm play GTA on a ps2 then play a GTA on a 3rd gen console, which would you rather play? The latter as it's more realistic

Sarky

I found the first GTA more fun actually. Gouranga! Kill Frenzy!

Which would you rather play? Freespace 2 or MS Flight Simulator?

deathrider

This is something that really grinds my gears too. I can't imagine it was always this way. People in the 80's didn't avoid Mario games because he didn't get a headache from hitting blocks (I know he punchs them, but back then, we were unsure). Fantasy is what draws me to video games. Doing the extreme, the incredible, and the completely unrealistic is where most of the fun lies. Hell, even if I play racing games, I go for the Need For Speed/ Burnout types, instead of something that feels real. If I wanted realism, I'd probably play flight sim games because they are so close to the real thing. But that's not what I want. That's why I love games like God Of War, Mortal Kombat, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, and why I'm looking forward to Lollipop Chainsaw so much.
Give me the ridiculous!

ríomhaire

Samich wrote: »

GTA on a 3rd gen console

I didn't know GTA was on the Sega Master System!

deathrider

Samich wrote: »

Hmmm play GTA on a ps2 then play a GTA on a 3rd gen console, which would you rather play? The latter as it's more realistic

I'd rather the PS2 GTA games, as they were more fun.

Samich

Sarky wrote: »

I found the first GTA more fun actually. Gouranga! Kill Frenzy!

Which would you rather play? Freespace 2 or MS Flight Simulator?

There's a difference between fun and realistic

dreamers75

Game is a game, dont really care what it looks like.

Sarky

Exactly my point. GTA got much more boring the more realism was pumped into it.

There's a certain satisfaction to be had from military or flight simulators. I understand people enjoy train simlators.

But I'd prefer the games where you play a man dressed up as a bat beating up 50 people at once, or where you wake up in a morgue and the first person to talk to you is a disembodied floating skull.

marco_polo

Simples

It matters when ...

The game you prefer is widely considered to be more realistic than its competitor.

It doesn't matter when ...

The game you prefer is widely considered to be less realistic than its competitor.

DarkJager

Sarky wrote: »

Exactly my point. GTA got much more boring the more realism was pumped into it.

There's a certain satisfaction to be had from military or flight simulators. I understand people enjoy train simlators.

But I'd prefer the games where you play a man dressed up as a bat beating up 50 people at once, or where you wake up in a morgue and the first person to talk to you is a disembodied floating skull.

.


That's very realistic, happens every weekend in the Limerick Regional Hospital!!

WhiskeyGoblin

gamercfc wrote: »

lol LIKE

You're as bad as those cúnts who complain over "realism"
Or even worse than the people who just write "this" under a rant

>_>

tonydude

Samich wrote: »

Hmmm play GTA on a ps2 then play a GTA on a 3rd gen console, which would you rather play? The latter as it's more realistic

Vice city any day

Robby91

tonydude wrote: »

Vice city any day

Driving over people with a moped causes them to fly 20ft into the air? That's my kinda realism tbh :pac:

Wolfe Tone

Its not realistic enough until mirrors and water in game reflect real life, and not just stuff in game dammit!

Realistic does not equal good.

Operation flashpoint is by far the most realistic shooter on ps3, still ****. Cod is extremely unrealistic yet popular.

K.O.Kiki

Okami is an extremely unrealistic game from the previous generation.

Its visual style also knocks the pants off pretty much anything on the PS3/360, to this day.

Doctor DooM

Over in the fighting game world I (as a Street fighter fan) am continually amazed when people say they prefer SF to tekken because it's "more realistic" and doesn't have fightin bears and aliens et al.

Yes, Getting grabbed by a huge russian, thrown about 30 feet into the air and then slammed head first into the (usually) metal or rock ground and then getting up and throwing fire from your hands is perfectly reasonable.

I think the actual issue here is suspension of disbelief. People don't understand it's a personal thing and different things take people out of the narrative of a game or film for different reasons (for example my suspension of disbelief was ruined watching the directors cut of aliens because of the rudimentary tech they use to look at the map of the base. Other people wouldn't notice it at all. Whereas the slavering aliens with poison for blood was perfectly acceptable to my brain).

Gamer Bhoy 89

marko93 wrote: »

You're as bad as those cúnts who complain over "realism"
Or even worse than the people who just write "this" under a rant

>_>

I like the way you managed to figure out my personality with one little reply on Boards. Now you know what I'm like 100% , we should be friends :rolleyes:

Gamer Bhoy 89

I don't get it though lads, like... Why do people want pure realism from a video game? Especially from games like GTA. I'd actually be more concerned to people who wish GTA was more realistic, it sounds like they actually want the authentic feeling of actually killing someone or breaking the law :eek: I don't even expect Fifa to be realistic despite loving football so much I've never complained about Fifa and although being one of the most popular, if not, THE most popular sports game this day n age, it sure is one of the most complained about.

People saying things like the linesmen having "super-sight" or something like that, because they were a foot-long offside that a linesman wouldnt be able to see that in real life so easily. You'd be surprised! I actually have friends who play Fifa and shout abuse at players as if they were actually there! WTF?? One friend of mine was playing against me on Fifa, I scored with Gerrard and he shouted "F*** you Gerrard you should've gone to f**king prison" The last time I checked this was a VIDEO GAME I was playing.

My point is there are people who don't think games are realistic (for all the wrong reasons) and people who think a game like Fifa and NBA simulates the real thing to the extent of actually shouting abuse at the player you truely hate in real life, towards the video game equivelant! Pointless.

Sorry about the double post

Shiminay

gamercfc wrote: »

I don't get it though lads, like... Why do people want pure realism from a video game?

Probably because they have really poor imaginations and can't fill in the blanks when they see a representation of something on a screen rather than a fully rendered 361235billion polygon count with 16.7m colours.

<WARNING>
I'm speaking in general terms and so any cries of "THIS GAME ISN'T / I AM NOT LIKE THAT!" will be ignored

Think about it - gaming has become more popular not strictly because of games getting "better" (there have been huge advances, but by large, the basic idea of what a computer game is has remained the same for the last 30 years - do things, earn points, try to get the highest score. For story driven games, the highest score is "learn all of the story"). For many, the idea of looking at Space Invaders and seeing it as space ships rather than stupid looking angular things on a screen did not translate. So when you make games look more like the real thing (or certainly more like how people might imagine it looking), you draw those with the lack of imagination and willingness to suspend their disbelief in. So this is why graphics and accuracy is so important to so many gamers. If you're a soccer fan for example, you're going to enjoy FIFA a whole lot more because it's got the actual teams you see playing week in week out in their own kit, in their own stadium (a lot of the time). You're also hearing familiar voices in the commentary team and the reverse of all that was you saw the EA Sports logo start appearing on Sky Sports' feeds to again draw the reality of the thing closer together. So when gamerfc's buddy starts shouting things at a computer representation of Stevie G, then you know they've succeeded. He's not the only one btw, I often play big sessions of FIFA with 6+ people in Lounge mode and we all get great fun out of shouting abuse at one another and at the players as though we were really there. None of us thinks its reality, but it *is* a lot of fun.

I don't btw, consider these folks any less of a gamer than me, I guess as a kid I preferred to let my imagination run riot and it's stuck with me in a lot of ways This area of "suspension of disbelief" was a huge barrier for a lot of people in the same way that the gaming companies considered the controller a barrier to entry for a lot of people, so they introduced Kinect and Move and all the rest (and tbh, it's going pretty well for them).

WhiskeyGoblin

gamercfc wrote: »

I like the way you managed to figure out my personality with one little reply on Boards. Now you know what I'm like 100% , we should be friends :rolleyes:

Really? WE CAN BE FRIENDS?
FREIIIIIIIINEDS!
I simply said those comments were as annoying as people wanting realism. While I flamed you slightly, i meant nothing by it my good sir!
No attack on your personality and I hope we become good chums, hating on saps who want "REALISM".
Much love,
MARKO93

Vegeta

gamercfc wrote: »

Then there's the Forza vs. Gran Turismo crowd who say one is better than the other because the bad one isn't realistic enough.

This is a terrible example to pick OP. Both these games strive to simulate all features of real world cars as closely as allowable on a console. Spending millions in the process.

If a game tries to simulate real life and is noticeably wide of the mark, then imho it deserves criticism for it.

penev10

There seems to be two debates intertwined here:

Graphics:
Realistic Vs Stylized

Gameplay:
Realistic Vs "Fun"(for want of a better word)


If the graphics strive to be as true-to-life as possible should the gameplay follow suit? If confronted with a perfectly rendered, photo-realistic Iraqi insurgent should he really take 15 bullets to down?

If something breaks the immersion of a gaming experience due to it not being in keeping with the world / ruleset than it tarnishes the experience. This principle I would hold to.

"My guy is able to take 40 bullets which is ok by me but when I come accross an enemy who's a similar damage sponge than it's blatanty unfair!" This argument holds no water for me and is just whinging

Dcully

I dont buy into this realism V fun, some games/simulations are designed to be both not one or the other.
There seems to be a misconception that you can only have one or the other.
Id argue that something like iracing is both the ultimate in realism and is a hell of a lot of fun to those into hardcore sim racing.
Likewise i get more fun from red orchestra than your usual run of the mill fps title.
Its a pretty silly even debating this to be honest, some people enjoy realism others dont,end of debate right there.
Some genres suit realism others dont,some people enjoy it others dont.
To throw a blanket over gaming or indeed a genre and label it either too realistic or not realistic enough or whatever is pointless, there are too many permutations and possibilities to just generalise.
I play and enjoy games from both ends of the spectrum and games that fit somewhere in between.

ríomhaire

penev10 wrote: »

Gameplay:
Realistic Vs "Fun"(for want of a better word)

For some reason non-realistic gameplay is often referred to as "arcade" (arcade being an adjective here).

Call of Duty Modern Warfare is classified as a arcade military shooter.
ARMA II is classified as a realistic military shooter (or a military sim).

o1s1n

I want a realistic platformer. One where you try to jump over a big gap, fall into said gap and then have to spend two weeks in hospital with a broken leg.

Realistic hospital based mini games could include -

A text based game in which you have to argue your way out of a conversation about the existence of god with the communion delivering nuns.

A throwing/physics type game where you try to get the attention of chattering nurses outside the ward while not waking up the grumpy old man beside you.

'Cast doodle'

Realism is where it's at.

Skerries

I just hope the Dragons and Orcs in Skyrim are going to be more realistic than Oblivion

Gamer Bhoy 89

Vegeta wrote: »

This is a terrible example to pick OP. Both these games strive to simulate all features of real world cars as closely as allowable on a console. Spending millions in the process.

If a game tries to simulate real life and is noticeably wide of the mark, then imho it deserves criticism for it.

Don't have a go at me. It's not me who is comparing both games.

Orim

gamercfc wrote: »

Don't have a go at me. It's not me who is comparing both games.

No but you are the one that is giving out about people making those comparsions. The point was that Forza and Gran Turismo both aim to be as realistic as possible so therefore comparing them based on realism is perfectly valid and should not be a target for your derision.

And based on that comparsion, driving a Micra round the M50 at 100kph is not the same as taking a prototype Audi around the Nürburgring at full pelt. Hence realistic racing games exist and will be compared based on their realism.

Sisko

I don't really encounter this attitude much really. I mean, yeah as mentioned already , of course you are going to get this with racing sims and that's perfectly normal.

People saying they won't play BF3 cause its not realistic? Bf3 is not supposed to be realistic and I really am surprised there'd be people that say that. People saying that they would prefer to play a sim over BF3 because they enjoy more realistic games, is fair enough (arma 3 v bf3 for example)

But they are totally different genres.

nyarlothothep

This is one of the reasons I stopped playing Oblivion, I felt like it was becoming a career rather than a game, advancing up the ranks of different guilds, I know this happens in other games but Oblivion made it seem like work. I think people like realistic games perhaps because they can say yeah I can be a sniper too, I've played a realistic fps game so I can also do it. There is an appeal in photorealistic graphics, although stylized can be fine too.

Gamer Bhoy 89

Orim wrote: »

No but you are the one that is giving out about people making those comparsions. The point was that Forza and Gran Turismo both aim to be as realistic as possible so therefore comparing them based on realism is perfectly valid and should not be a target for your derision.

And based on that comparsion, driving a Micra round the M50 at 100kph is not the same as taking a prototype Audi around the Nürburgring at full pelt. Hence realistic racing games exist and will be compared based on their realism.

Yeah exactly I AM giving out about people making the comparisons so just stop where you are right now and have a go at them people for it and don't tell me the difference between Forza and GT because I never said sh*t about any of the differences between them so just pack it there, go back and read it again.

Perfectly valid? You missed my point completely. I don't agree with complaining about ANY game for it's sense of realism. At the end of the day they're both played by using a controller pad and for some, a steering wheel controller.

And if I want to make them a target then I will because it p*sses me off when people want realism from a f*cking VIDEO GAME! Then bash it because it "ISN'T" realistic.

Ross_Mahon

It really depends on the mood I'm in, but some games can really go too far with being ditzy, Left 4 Dead compared to Dead Rising is a good example

Myrddin

I like my games, the same way I like my films/tv/books etc. Give me a bit of unreality/escapism anyday. I prefered when video games knew they were video games, & didn't try to simulate reality in ways that simply can't be done.

Classics like Zelda - Links Awakening, has absolutely no basis in reality...yet is one of the greatest games ever made. The same can be said of games which most people favour.

Reality is good to a point, but in the video games industry, entertainment & imagination are far more important.

Chris_Heilong

I know people that wont play Soul Calibur because the swords dont cut off the opponents limbs, when I try explaining its a game and is more about the balance and fighting than the realism they just zone out, I have never put down a game due to Suspension of disbelief, that would be nuts but would explain why some gamers turn their noses up at oldschool 2D, they think it looks like a chartoon.

Overheal

People get hung up on realism because thats how that particular title presents itself. Games like TF2, Mario, etc. do not, and are not held to that standard. However games that stress how realistic their bull**** is, are going to be. People have an expectation of certain things when they are engaged into a Reality that a game represents. In mario I expect that when I jump on things they die unless they are spiky or flamey or otherwise dangerous looking. Whereas in Gran Turismo they spend such an inordinate amount of time perfecting car details and track physics that you expect that when/if you crash into something that the damage should show up - yet it doesn't. Which just suspends your disbelief. On the other hand, burnout prides itself on cranking tunes and hitting a physically impossible amount of objects and nitro burns to have fun, and I have no problem with that. Ace Combat too, is a game that is very realistic but where it counts. People want to enjoy the thrill of 'dogfighting' even though no such thing really exists anymore and most of the flight mechanics wouldn't be considered realistic. The point though is the game is fun, and successfully suspends disbelief.

when people complain that you can't lean left in a video game, and that that feature destroys the feel of the game: the designer has failed somewhere. And it's not necessarily because they didn't include the leaning feature but rather they caused the player to anticipate that the feature should have been there.

This will explain my case perhaps a little better (for film):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4BKwYvNE3U

and by the way, is a great film if you want to learn all about the suspension of belief.

Gamer Bhoy 89

I know some people who are almost the same age as me but didn't really play much video games (well, they play them but WAY more casually than I and most people do) and they say that they wouldn't touch a PS2, PS1 or Megadrive because "the graphics suck" ehhm....

Yeah I hate it when they compare current gen graphics to the older ones. Stupid really.

deathrider

gamercfc wrote: »

I know some people who are almost the same age as me but didn't really play much video games (well, they play them but WAY more casually than I and most people do) and they say that they wouldn't touch a PS2, PS1 or Megadrive because "the graphics suck" ehhm....

Yeah I hate it when they compare current gen graphics to the older ones. Stupid really.

They are the same kinda people who wouldn't watch classic movies because "sure, the special effects are sh1te". Their loss.

Retr0gamer

I'm kind of scratching my head at all the reviews saying that Xenoblade is a bad looking game. It's one of the best looking games this generation despite being on the Wii. Is it really that hard to get over the lack of shader maps and low polygon models?

the_syco

AdamD wrote: »

Cod is extremely unrealistic yet popular.

It's popular, as you don't need to know how bullet drop works.

=-=

[troll]If you want realistic, would you like to buy a new game every time you died?[/troll]

K.O.Kiki

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm kind of scratching my head at all the reviews saying that Xenoblade is a bad looking game. It's one of the best looking games this generation despite being on the Wii. Is it really that hard to get over the lack of shader maps and low polygon models?

Wait what.

Xenoblade runs on WII??

Lab_Mouse

i hear ye op.

I remember when i was a young fella and seen the first stars movie.Thought it was brill.then I watched the second one and thought it was ****e,Way too far fetched for my liking.

if games were realistic no one would use a sniper class.It would involve logging on to a map 3 days before anyone else logged,get your camping spot,have a 20 second kill window and then you'd have to log out before you were spotted.

Realistic !=fun.

briany

Creativity often arises from having limited tools or abilities and having to make do with what you have. For example, some old audio chips back in the day (the 80s) had little or no polyphonic capabilities, therefore programmers would have to have them play rapid arpeggiated sequences instead of chords to give the illusion of polyphony. This practically gave rise to whole new school of composition and is still being done today in some decidedly retro styled games and the 8-bit music genre.

I like my games to be immersive. Immersion is not just brought about by realistic graphics, AI or whatever other singular mechanic you care to mention but all too often, sadly, it is route one for developers with the pockets to make it happen. The other route is great gameplay and thankfully we're seeing a renaissance in indie developers who are realizing this and providing it. Pretty much out of necessity ,as far as I can tell, because EA sure as hell were not going to do it.

Here's some interesting thoughts on the matter. (Skip to 2:38)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Sz6QcAAhc

K.O.Kiki

Goddamn, I miss Rab & Ryan.