Realism and Video Games

Should video games based on "realistic" stories - from historical events (WW2) to fictional stories (James Bond) or even so far as "what if" situations (zombie apocalypse) - strive to be realistic? If so, to what point?

A clarification for the poll:

Strong No - Games like Dead Rising 2 are perfectly fine. Who cares if there's no way I could make a flamethrower using a squirt gun and a tank of gas? Anything goes, so long as it's fun.
To a Point - I'm willing to let a lot of stuff slide, but nothing too crazy. Developers should not be high while they're making this stuff up.
An Attempt Should be Made - For fun's sake, you have to let some things slide (like getting behind cover for just a few seconds to heal), but the game should still feel like a plausible story.
All the Way, Baby - If you get shot, you're in big trouble. If it's anywhere vital, you're dead. Those are bullets, not paintballs.

I don't like realism in videogames for 3 reasons

1. Realism is no fun
2. I can't see shit when the whole map is bump and normal mapped to hell with textures that clutter EVERYTHING
3. I am going to be working in the industry in less than 2 years now... and realism is hard as fuck to do

I think there should be a balance between the two.

Much like TV, Movies and novels there is a great range, some being incredibely outlandish and unrealistic to create escapism and fun, for example take a typical action movie, most of what the central protagonist does is damn near impossible, but it makes for a thrilling set piece and makes the film fun. Quite a lot of games fall into this category, like for example the upcoming Bulletstorm.

On the other hand, there are more gritty realistic media that try to make a point or try to recreate an event or potential situation to make a point or pay tribute. On this side you'd have games like COD2 and Operation Flashpoint.

To me games are escapism, and to be honest I don't mind either verisons, but realism really doesn't help with the escapism part. Sure they can be immersive and good games in their own right, but most people play games to get away from the horrors of real life, why would I want to play a video game verision of what I see and hear every day?

All the way!

Brown that shit up!

it should be realistic in that those decisions made against realism should be to improve fun, or be specific to the story.

SotC is far from realistic, but the premise stands that you can't swim forever, or hold on forever, and sometimes your best friend is your horse that you get to ride for hours on end.

I'm gonna go with Strong No and An Attempt Should be Made. I mean, there are some games that just need to be unrealistic for them to work. Stuff like Dead Rising or Resident Evil. Those games wouldn't be fun it they were realistic.

Shooters that refer to themselves as military or modern shooters need to have some sort of realism in them or they just get unbalanced to the point where it's not fun anymore. Modern Warfare 2 tried to call itself realistic, but really after it took real life weapons, it said "Fuck you" to realism and the proceeded to circle jerk on it until it wasn't recognizable anymore and shat it out onto store shelves.

Carlos Spicyweiner wrote:I'm gonna go with Strong No and An Attempt Should be Made. I mean, there are some games that just need to be unrealistic for them to work. Stuff like Dead Rising or Resident Evil. Those games wouldn't be fun it they were realistic.

Shooters that refer to themselves as military or modern shooters need to have some sort of realism in them or they just get unbalanced to the point where it's not fun anymore. Modern Warfare 2 tried to call itself realistic, but really after it took real life weapons, it said "Fuck you" to realism and the proceeded to circle jerk on it until it wasn't recognizable anymore and shat it out onto store shelves.

That's one of the reasons why MW2 failed in my opinion, as it was trying so hard to be a realistic gritty war piece, but came across as a cheesy micheal bay flick.

It became laughable as they were playing it seriously in a game that was completely silly and ridiculious setting and plot wise.

Vigil wrote:

Carlos Spicyweiner wrote:I'm gonna go with Strong No and An Attempt Should be Made. I mean, there are some games that just need to be unrealistic for them to work. Stuff like Dead Rising or Resident Evil. Those games wouldn't be fun it they were realistic.

Shooters that refer to themselves as military or modern shooters need to have some sort of realism in them or they just get unbalanced to the point where it's not fun anymore. Modern Warfare 2 tried to call itself realistic, but really after it took real life weapons, it said "Fuck you" to realism and the proceeded to circle jerk on it until it wasn't recognizable anymore and shat it out onto store shelves.

That's one of the reasons why MW2 failed in my opinion, as it was trying so hard to be a realistic gritty war piece, but came across as a cheesy micheal bay flick.

It became laughable as they were playing it seriously in a game that was completely silly and ridiculious setting and plot wise.

I think if Infinity Ward (or Activision, I still blame them for the awfulness, not IW) hadn't advertised it as a realistic game and just said well this thing is gonna have a lot of guns and explosions and a B-movie plot then the single-player portion would have came across a lot better. The multiplayer would still be shitty and unbalanced though unfortunately.

Agreed.

It really depends on what you guys mean by Realism here

are you talking graphics, or setting/ feel?

I agree 100% that actors and stories should be told relistically, albiet in a fantastical kind of way...

but for graphics... Real is boring... we see real shit every day... I like the look and asthetic of styleized realism that makes it easy to see whats happening, but still comes across as a beautiful environment.


example... MW2 is too cluttered for my tastes... a lot of the time in that game I have trouble differentiating props in the environment for objects I want to use... everything is bump and normal mapped to oblivion... some areas of it they fix that... but in some spots its really hard to tell whats going on.

a good example of stylized realism IMO is Red Dead Redemption.... everything feels like it could exsist... and most of the stuff in that game is absolutely beautiful... but the way it is textured (texturing being the real killer for "realistic" titles) I can still see everything thats happening and instantly read whats going on.

if realism is done right, it will look cool as hell... but it hasn't been done right, and will not be able to be done right for at least another decade... so all these "realistic" games just come across as an unfinished, un-artistic and screwed up representation of "real" that just plain feels wrong

I can't really pick any options since the question encompasses all games, and if all games were either ultra-realistic or the opposite, then we would lose alot of great games.

Yes, some games should be realistic, but I wouldn't say that about ALL games.

I find unrealistic games to be more fun than ones that are realistic.


It depends on the game that is being made, imo.

Three words:

Grand Theft Mario.

Its day will come.

The days that the Italian-American sets down his fire-breathing flower, and picks up the wrench and pistol he was BORN TO USE!

And he will finally have his revenge on the ruthless Puerto Rican drug lord, "Bowser" Juan Pablo.

I personally prefer it if shooter games that try to be realistic but fail at it, like MW, didn't advertise as being realistic. And when I look for a realistic game I don;t mean graphicswise, I mean that if you get shot in the head with just about anything you're dead. Same thing with most torso shots. Get shot in the shoulder and your aim is gonna be messed up. I mean stuff like that. And no hiding behind an obstacle for a few seconds to heal up.