Is realism in games really even necessary? Every video game that I've seen recently come out was more realistic in someway.In the case of GTA4 it was the driving.In COD4 it was pretty much everything (except people throwing frags over buildings to kill someone).But racing games have been hit the hardest IMO.the last game where i could take hairpin turns at 100 mph was burnout paradise.I'm not saying that games like gran turismo and forza aren't fun,it's just that they are definatly not for everyone.I want to blow things up with my mind and crash into things going 150 mph and live.maybe it's just me, I don't know. maybe this thread will clear it up

Hey, some people like the realistic stuff, I personally enjoy taking an ocean of bullets and destroying a nation singlehandedly

I think it depends on the certain aspects of realism, I like real time damage on cars a hell of a lot but if it takes me fourty hours to turn its not very fun, I also love it when cities in open worlders feel alive, like in Assassin's Creed and GTA IV, pre rendered sound clips looping of a generic crowd while theres only three people on screen is not my Idea of a living and breathing city, I know AC had looping soundclips but there was at least more than one person on screen at all times. AC also knew what aspects of realism to keep in and what to take out, for example in real life you couldnt be as acrobatic as Altair nor can you sprint like him forever in real life, but its still in there. but I do see your point.

I think so because realism is not the same as fun.

This shit gets pretty sticky, but a game is supposed to be fun, right? A game that's not fun is like a breakfast cereal without marshmallows. What's the point? So a fun game will be a version of reality. In some way or another, will be an abstraction a simplification of reality to make it into a game because, well, I don't know if you noticed, but reality is not a whole lot of fun. Sure, parts of it are fun. But most of it is either boring or painful, neither of which are fun. So a game reduces reality to those fun bits while leaving the boring and painful parts out. This trend toward realism is putting the boredom and pain back in. That is simply stupid.

Depends on the game

End of Story

Bye bye.

see you later.

[/thread]

Killing them slowly...but its not really ruining them right now

I would agree with Jack, realism as a whole is not that great in video games.

Although it has its place, I think realistic physics is a great step forwards, realistic graphics is another one. Realistic gameplay can be fun in certain shooters and a few other genres.

Unfortunately "realism" kills some games, take the Battlefield series for example. Battlefield 1942 is in my opinion one of the best online shooters (along with Tribes 2), sure they tried to be realistic in the battle settings, period weaponry and vehicles etc. But you could do things not so realistic, such as riding along the wings of a bomber if you were skilled enough to maneuver without falling off while in flight, or activate your parachute 5 feet from the ground and still not be hurt, or drive a jeep at top speed down a hill into a tank and jump out just before impact and be fine. Then one day realism crept into the mix, and we wound up with Battlefield Vietnam/2/2142, all of which were fun, but no where near as great as 1942 because they were too much like a generic war shooter based on real life, and they took away all the fun little "quirks".

Some people will argue that a game needs to emulate real life in order to be "bad ass", but I whole-heartedly disagree.

It's not realism's fault, it's the developers who think they can throw in "gritty realism" because it's all the rage, instead of making their environments, y'know, interesting.

There will allways be your average shooter like halo where you can conquer a whole country in the time frame of about 10 hours. a "realistic" video game where stratgey is used to achive victory instead of just running and gunning would be a great addition to the game industry. But if games are going to go to a point where your buddy gets shot and all you hear befor he bleeds to death is him screaming MOMMY. This would take the point of video gaming away ( escape from reality )

yes..... because realistic games suck, and take technique and style out of games. Im talkin gameplay though.... Realism is just something to make newer players happier. Games that arent realistic have the highest skill ceilings, the most style and flare that shows off during the game. When was the last time you saw a triple air rocket into lg combo then finished off with a nice rail..... you haven't..... you know why... because you cant do that anymore. Slow weapon switching is just another thing made so that new players can be happy about cause they just so happened to have the smg selected a in small room. Point is that amazing things just dont happen in realistic games. The most you get is a couple headshots in row. You don't have the crazy out of proportion action, you dont have controlling armor and weapons. You dont have to think about anything except your position... and where they may be coming from... slow and dumb..

this is all online ranting : )

I think realistic games are good. Don't get me wrong I love playing the games where some of the weapons have the damage and splash radius as a 10,000lb bomb being droped between an eneimies knee's, but I just enjoy popping in GRAW or R6V from time to time. I think we need to keep all the run and gun type games popular and not flood the market with gritty realism though. I agree with Jezuz X games are meant to be an escape from reality.

Um... I think I've replied to this thread. Except it had a different name. Hmm. Maybe I can make a better answer.

I don't think realistic games suck. Some people do. I understand that. But saying that realistic games are going to kill the industry as analogous to saying that FPSes or RTS games will kill the industry. It's just another sub-genre. How do people not understand this?

Jazzyluv says that the skill ceiling is lower in realistic games, and that amazing things don't happen in realistic games. This is untrue. One could argue that realistic games actually require more skill than non-realistic games. In other games, you can have an all-out gunfight, bullets flying amok, and hope that your HP doesn't hit zero before the other guy, and not worry about it. In more realistic games, any more than a couple seconds in a gunfight, and you are probably dead. You have to be able to jump out quickly, analyze what's happening, and disable or kill your enemy in one or two shots, or your life is instantly on the line. How is there less skill in that? Amazing things do happen in realistic games. You have to realize that more things can be amazing than triple-rocket jump-kills can be amazing. Not the same kind of amazing, but still amazing. Imagine movies where a protagonist bursts into a room, fires three shots, and takes down three guys before anyone knows what's going on. That is amazing. Or maybe a grenade is in the air, and someone shoots it in mid-arc, and it lands back at the enemy's feet (I've seen this happen in "hyper-realistic" games, it was freaking awesome). Things can happen in realistic games that just blow your mind. They take skill, not random shooting (the grenade example might take some random shooting).

Also, how are games not meant to be realistic? No, not all games are meant to be realistic, but some are. Not all games are meant to have real time strategy, but some are. Maybe some people actually like realism in games. I'm one, so I know they exist. Saying that games aren't meant to be realistic is like saying that games aren't meant to have first-person shooting. Does everything have to be a sub-form of "unrealistic"?

It's good to have a little of both in my opinion. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a realistic game, sometimes I'm in the mood for one that defies all logic.

vdgmprgrmr:
Um... I think I've replied to this thread. Except it had a different name. Hmm. Maybe I can make a better answer.

I don't think realistic games suck. Some people do. I understand that. But saying that realistic games are going to kill the industry as analogous to saying that FPSes or RTS games will kill the industry. It's just another sub-genre. How do people not understand this?

Jazzyluv says that the skill ceiling is lower in realistic games, and that amazing things don't happen in realistic games. This is untrue. One could argue that realistic games actually require more skill than non-realistic games. In other games, you can have an all-out gunfight, bullets flying amok, and hope that your HP doesn't hit zero before the other guy, and not worry about it. In more realistic games, any more than a couple seconds in a gunfight, and you are probably dead. You have to be able to jump out quickly, analyze what's happening, and disable or kill your enemy in one or two shots, or your life is instantly on the line. How is there less skill in that? Amazing things do happen in realistic games. You have to realize that more things can be amazing than triple-rocket jump-kills can be amazing. Not the same kind of amazing, but still amazing. Imagine movies where a protagonist bursts into a room, fires three shots, and takes down three guys before anyone knows what's going on. That is amazing. Or maybe a grenade is in the air, and someone shoots it in mid-arc, and it lands back at the enemy's feet (I've seen this happen in "hyper-realistic" games, it was freaking awesome). Things can happen in realistic games that just blow your mind. They take skill, not random shooting (the grenade example might take some random shooting).

Also, how are games not meant to be realistic? No, not all games are meant to be realistic, but some are. Not all games are meant to have real time strategy, but some are. Maybe some people actually like realism in games. I'm one, so I know they exist. Saying that games aren't meant to be realistic is like saying that games aren't meant to have first-person shooting. Does everything have to be a sub-form of "unrealistic"?

only problem is.... it's not that amazing, anybody can come behind somebody and kill them, or even kill three, its not hard to flank people. Realistic games are just slow and thus you dont have to think as much. Ill use quakeworld as an example of more than just raw aim. You have armor that you HAVE to control, spawns 20 seconds after you pick it up(im talking 1v1 here also). First, you have to time atleast 3-4 items Yellow armor, red armor, green armor and mega health. Also have to control weapons, while predicting where your opponent will go. If your down on armor(say your opponent has control of mega and Red armor and is double stacked) you have to trick you opponent. Flanking will get you 1 or 2 rockets in at most. You have to play really smart. And so does the player in control. 1 rocket to the face could make him lose the lightning gun battle. Mistiming armor could lose him control of the game.

I just think it has more actual brains in it. You have to know where your oppenent is ALL the time, you have to think about where weapons are, what kind of jump could he make, did he make a rocket jump to get the armor faster, does he have an lg, what is his health at?

Realistic games are just easy, there are far less things to think about and generally overly reward flanks....

that's it

I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

Jumplion:
I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of playing a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

Jazzyluv:

Jumplion:
I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of play a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

I probably shouldn't have used CoD4 as an example as it really isn't very realistic when you look closer to it.

But if you want something completely out of proportion and crazy then go by No More Heroes or something, but don't say "REALIZM IS BAAADDD!!" because your tastes are different. Some people like realistic games, I for one like them every now and again but there's obviously a limit to how much realism I want from a game *cough*GTAIV*cough*.

I think part of the reason why some people like realistic games is because that they feel like they are the ones actually doing all the pwnage. In CoD4- no, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (couldn't think of a better one) you're the person headshotting terrorists and saving Vegas, while in all those crazy over-the-top games it's the main character doing all the saving (unless it's an over the top FPS of which I can't think of any).

Jazzyluv:

vdgmprgrmr:
Um... I think I've replied to this thread. Except it had a different name. Hmm. Maybe I can make a better answer.

I don't think realistic games suck. Some people do. I understand that. But saying that realistic games are going to kill the industry as analogous to saying that FPSes or RTS games will kill the industry. It's just another sub-genre. How do people not understand this?

Jazzyluv says that the skill ceiling is lower in realistic games, and that amazing things don't happen in realistic games. This is untrue. One could argue that realistic games actually require more skill than non-realistic games. In other games, you can have an all-out gunfight, bullets flying amok, and hope that your HP doesn't hit zero before the other guy, and not worry about it. In more realistic games, any more than a couple seconds in a gunfight, and you are probably dead. You have to be able to jump out quickly, analyze what's happening, and disable or kill your enemy in one or two shots, or your life is instantly on the line. How is there less skill in that? Amazing things do happen in realistic games. You have to realize that more things can be amazing than triple-rocket jump-kills can be amazing. Not the same kind of amazing, but still amazing. Imagine movies where a protagonist bursts into a room, fires three shots, and takes down three guys before anyone knows what's going on. That is amazing. Or maybe a grenade is in the air, and someone shoots it in mid-arc, and it lands back at the enemy's feet (I've seen this happen in "hyper-realistic" games, it was freaking awesome). Things can happen in realistic games that just blow your mind. They take skill, not random shooting (the grenade example might take some random shooting).

Also, how are games not meant to be realistic? No, not all games are meant to be realistic, but some are. Not all games are meant to have real time strategy, but some are. Maybe some people actually like realism in games. I'm one, so I know they exist. Saying that games aren't meant to be realistic is like saying that games aren't meant to have first-person shooting. Does everything have to be a sub-form of "unrealistic"?

only problem is.... it's not that amazing, anybody can come behind somebody and kill them, or even kill three, its not hard to flank people. Realistic games are just slow and thus you dont have to think as much. Ill use quakeworld as an example of more than just raw aim. You have armor that you HAVE to control, spawns 20 seconds after you pick it up(im talking 1v1 here also). First, you have to time atleast 3-4 items Yellow armor, red armor, green armor and mega health. Also have to control weapons, while predicting where your opponent will go. If your down on armor(say your opponent has control of mega and Red armor and is double stacked) you have to trick you opponent. Flanking will get you 1 or 2 rockets in at most. You have to play really smart. And so does the player in control. 1 rocket to the face could make him lose the lightning gun battle. Mistiming armor could lose him control of the game.

I just think it has more actual brains in it. You have to know where your oppenent is ALL the time, you have to think about where weapons are, what kind of jump could he make, did he make a rocket jump to get the armor faster, does he have an lg, what is his health at?

Realistic games are just easy, there are far less things to think about and generally overly reward flanks....

that's it

I never said anything about the triple-kill being a result of flanking.

Realistic games are easy? What? How is a game where even being seen is scary as hell easy?

Flanks are rewarding. That's how it is. If your enemy doesn't know you're behind him, or has to react to people on both sides of him, he would be screwed in almost any situation. If he makes it out, that would be awesome.

Realistic games are slow? Play STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. The first fight in the game, you and three guys matched with about five bandits, in a ruined carpark. Play that, and tell me it's slow. Tell me there's not much to think about. How about keeping track of five guys while analyzing the environment so you're not a sitting duck if one manages to get a shot off. There's not the same stuff to think about, but there's still just as much.

Here's an example, it's from something that inspired realistic games. It's reality. Imagine you're a guy over in Iraq. You have an MP5, and are with four other guys. You're in a city, and it's silent. You know it's a hostile city. Suddenly, gunfire breaks out! You are sucked into a fight with an unknown amount of terrorists. The fight ends up mostly inside the buildings. You want to try and tell me that you use more brain-work in Quakeworld than a soldier does when he's fighting? Damn, that means playing a video-game is actually harder than real life warfare.

EDIT:

Jazzyluv:
it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of playing a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

Ruins the point of playing a game? What's the point of playing a game? Fun, isn't it? I'm pretty sure people play games because they want to have fun. Don't even try to dispute that. I'm thinking I shouldn't have to repeat what's been said far too many times, and I seriously am trying to avoid sounding like a dick here...

SOME PEOPLE THINK REALISM IS FUN.

Jumplion:

Jazzyluv:

Jumplion:
I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of play a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

I probably shouldn't have used CoD4 as an example as it really isn't very realistic when you look closer to it.

But if you want something completely out of proportion and crazy then go by No More Heroes or something, but don't say "REALIZM IS BAAADDD!!" because your tastes are different. Some people like realistic games, I for one like them every now and again but there's obviously a limit to how much realism I want from a game *cough*GTAIV*cough*.

I think part of the reason why some people like realistic games is because that they feel like they are the ones actually doing all the pwnage. In CoD4- no, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (couldn't think of a better one) you're the person headshotting terrorists and saving Vegas, while in all those crazy over-the-top games it's the main character doing all the saving (unless it's an over the top FPS of which I can't think of any).

my opinion, i think realistic games are bad, they can still be fun, but they are still bad GAMES. I can take whatever stance i want, and i don't like it when people take these safe stances on things and not really adding anything to the discussion. The whole, "well it depends thing" is true, but we don't really get anywhere with the discussion. And it may be that i haven't really enjoyed a realistic game in the psat two years that i have been gaming.

And to the guy above me. Download Quakeworld at www.Nquake.com, and just go on any 1v1, ANY 1v1 server, you will get your ass handed to you so hard its not even funny. It happened to me, still a GREAT gane.

Ive played, CS 1.6, COD4, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, CSS, COD2, and TF2 all competively.... ive won hardware and money in Battlefield 2142, and my team NGA>>(now dead) took 1st place at the 8v8 season 2 TGL, and 2nd place at 6v6 infantry only. Realistic games are easier, i wont go as far as saying quakeworld is harder than real fighting, but i will go as far as saying that it is harder than any realistic game on the market, CSS, Americas army, they are all not as hard, and you just don't have to think as much.

(and yes i realize that winning a gaming tournament is pretty pathetic.....)

I think as long as you keep realism to where it should be then it's fine in games. Take for instance the GTA series, to make the game fun in a fictional way you as the player can absorb tons of damage like getting hurled through a windshield at 110mph or getting shot more times than you can count and still be able to run to the nearest diner to grab a quick bite and amazingly that hot dog and coke will bring you back to full health. That much is fine in gaming because that's what makes it fun to play (not the eating part of course), but in real life we all know that hardly anyone has the skull thickness (except maybe George Bush) to be able to survive a head first dive through a windshield at those speeds much less do anything else after that.

Point is this realism is put into games to make them more challenging. But it comes to point to where it's put in too much, left out completely or just put in the wrong places. As long as developers know where it goes then fine. Like if your a genetically enhanced super-soldier with armor and shields from head-to-toe but if someone is able to inflict enough damage to you or just in the right place then you die (like getting hit with a rocket in the chest or bullet straight to the forehead). That's fine cause it gives you a sense of realism in a fictional world while making it fun and challenging. But say if your that same soldier and if you didn't eat or sleep or even go to the bathroom while playing the game then you die, well that just ruins it doesn't it?
Enough said.

I like realistic physics in a non realistic world. But I think the physics should be applicable. Like in Oblivion, yes it's very interesting to watch the bodies roll down the hill, but why can't I use telikinesis to whack that guy over the head with the warhammer sitting next to him, I can pick it up, and swing it around, but can't hit him with it.

Realistic looking characters are nice, realistic physics are nice. But the only realism we are really ever seeing is a color scheme consisting of only browns and grays, really dark areas, and poor driving.

Jazzyluv:

Jumplion:

Jazzyluv:

Jumplion:
I said it once and I'll say it again;

It depends wholly on the game itself.

If it's supposed to be an over-the-top-game that completely ignores realism (No More Heroes) then of course it's not supposed to be realistic.

If it's a realistic game that takes place in an actual world or a war, I do not expect my enemy to be exploding with confetti and yelling out stupid catchphrases unless it's an unlockable (CoD4, Halo 3)

As for realistic games not needing more skill, AGAIN that depends on the god damn game. In some cases, CoD4 takes an enourmous amount of skill while the same can be said for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

It depends on the game, get over it, realistic games are not going to all of a sudden vanish because some of you are nostalgic and whining over the "Good ole days". They're gone, get over it. There may be some remakes though, so pray for that.

it does depend on the game, though i do think, personally, that realism in games is a bad thing, and ruins the point of play a game. I want something just totally out of proportion, something totally amazing, that doesn't happen in COD4(and yes i played it competitively for 6 months, 1v3 takedowns are not that uncommon cause it only takes 2-3 shots in the LEGS with an AK-74U, also, taking out 1 shot headshots for rifles severely lowered the skill gap between top players and mid-range players). Super smash bros. Brawl i cant say much about since i haven't played it that much. But from i can tell it's alot like melee, just a little easier.

I probably shouldn't have used CoD4 as an example as it really isn't very realistic when you look closer to it.

But if you want something completely out of proportion and crazy then go by No More Heroes or something, but don't say "REALIZM IS BAAADDD!!" because your tastes are different. Some people like realistic games, I for one like them every now and again but there's obviously a limit to how much realism I want from a game *cough*GTAIV*cough*.

I think part of the reason why some people like realistic games is because that they feel like they are the ones actually doing all the pwnage. In CoD4- no, Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (couldn't think of a better one) you're the person headshotting terrorists and saving Vegas, while in all those crazy over-the-top games it's the main character doing all the saving (unless it's an over the top FPS of which I can't think of any).

my opinion, i think realistic games are bad, they can still be fun, but they are still bad GAMES. I can take whatever stance i want, and i don't like it when people take these safe stances on things and not really adding anything to the discussion. The whole, "well it depends thing" is true, but we don't really get anywhere with the discussion. And it may be that i haven't really enjoyed a realistic game in the psat two years that i have been gaming.

And to the guy above me. Download Quakeworld at www.Nquake.com, and just go on any 1v1, ANY 1v1 server, you will get your ass handed to you so hard its not even funny. It happened to me, still a GREAT gane.

Ive played, CS 1.6, COD4, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, CSS, COD2, and TF2 all competively.... ive won hardware and money in Battlefield 2142, and my team NGA>>(now dead) took 1st place at the 8v8 season 2 TGL, and 2nd place at 6v6 infantry only. Realistic games are easier, i wont go as far as saying quakeworld is harder than real fighting, but i will go as far as saying that it is harder than any realistic game on the market, CSS, Americas army, they are all not as hard, and you just don't have to think as much.

(and yes i realize that winning a gaming tournament is pretty pathetic.....)

But "It depends on the game" is the exact thing that ends this type of discussion of "REALIZM SUKS! IT"S SO STOOPID!". We don't need to get anywhere in this type of debate because the god damn answer was shown in the 5th post of this thread.

It does depend on the game, end of story. I don't care if you think realistic games are bad, that's opinion and Realistic games are not ruining video games.

As for realistic games being easier and slower, I call bullshit on that. Play the whole CoD4 campaign including Mile High Club on Veteran and tell me it's easy. Play CoD4 online in an average sized map with regular spawns with grenades flying everywhere, enemies shooting everywhere, and guys running for cover and tell me it's slow. Play CoD4-no, play Metal Gear Online and tell me that you don't have to think and work together to overcome the opposing team.

And the difficulty factor depends wholly on your skill as the player both online and off in some cases. If you can snap headshots left and right, good for you, you're pretty much a god. But if you're average you could easily get your ass handed to you by anyone no matter who it is.

It may not seem like you think much, but you really are subconsciously (I think). Some people are natural at getting the hang of controls and doing things automatically but in reality you're really thinking about "Is there a person around the corner? I can't reload fast enough, I need to switch to my pistol. I'll clear the path for my friends." etcetera. This is basically why people who don't play FPSs or game where you have to shoot things in general find it very hard to get 10 feet away from the spawn point as they arn't making these thoughts in their head yet. It seems hard to them, but then then get better (usually) and then everything seems easy to them (unless there's one person pwning them)

Many of these discussions can be ended by "It depends on the game" because there's no need to go on with the discussion because it does depend on the game.

Are realistic graphics ruing games? Depends on the game, Cell-shaded? Water Pasteled? Gritty and dark?
Are controls too complicated nowadays? Depends on the game, can you rearange controls? Is it an FPS? RPG? RTS? Console-RTS?
Can games be art? Depends on the game, is it Shadow of the Collosus or Haze?

Like it or not, it does depend on the game. Just accept it and play your unrealistic games that you like, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I personally don't think that a game like Call of Duty 4 is realistic. It is superlative with with a gritty paint job. Even games like Rainbow Six (the Vegas series anyway) still are pretty arcade like when you think about it. When I think of realism, I think Insurgency, I think Red Orchestra. Those are games attempting to mimic reality, where one shot kills and if you are not running for your life you are lying in wait or dead. Those games tend to have steep learning curves, hence why its a really small subgenre. And to answer the topicality of the thread, realistic games are not killing the industry. They are making it stronger.

While I know the fundamental point of a game is to allow you to escape from reality, that does not mean having to escape from realism, it just means taking you to another time and place. Realistic games like Red ORchestra, which accuratly depict combat as it was in World War II, broadens our connections to history and those who came before us. Medal of Honor and Call of Duty presented World War II as heroes tales of bravery and high adreniline. Those games depict an war movie. Red orchestra depicts war. Rainbow six depicts a Hollywood caricature of Counterterrorism, wheras SWAT 4 presents counterterrorism itself. Realistic games, even if many players don't like them, add a new direction to gaming because they depict another facet of reality. There will always be fantasy, but we connect the most to reality.

Captain_Planet:
I personally don't think that a game like Call of Duty 4 is realistic. It is superlative with with a gritty paint job. Even games like Rainbow Six (the Vegas series anyway) still are pretty arcade like when you think about it. When I think of realism, I think Insurgency, I think Red Orchestra. Those are games attempting to mimic reality, where one shot kills and if you are not running for your life you are lying in wait or dead. Those games tend to have steep learning curves, hence why its a really small subgenre. And to answer the topicality of the thread, realistic games are not killing the industry. They are making it stronger.

While I know the fundamental point of a game is to allow you to escape from reality, that does not mean having to escape from realism, it just means taking you to another time and place. Realistic games like Red ORchestra, which accuratly depict combat as it was in World War II, broadens our connections to history and those who came before us. Medal of Honor and Call of Duty presented World War II as heroes tales of bravery and high adreniline. Those games depict an war movie. Red orchestra depicts war. Rainbow six depicts a Hollywood caricature of Counterterrorism, wheras SWAT 4 presents counterterrorism itself. Realistic games, even if many players don't like them, add a new direction to gaming because they depict another facet of reality. There will always be fantasy, but we connect the most to reality.

SWAT 4 is the only exception to this rule of mine..... Swat 4 was awesome fun, i loved it actually, but maybe it's because the AI was probably the hardest to predict out of any game ive played.Personally i think Red Orcestra is too easy, if you can get a sense of the exact timings it takes to get to certain outposts and camp spots then you have essentially mastered the game, most of game is decided beforehand, and is something i don't enjoy, it doesn't have the on the fly thinking i like.

its killing its creativity thats for sure

Realism can hurt some games. Like America's Army where if you get shot once you're out of the match until it ends. Doesn't even matter where you get shot either. I don't know if they fixed that or not but it made me hate the game.

With some games, realism would be a bad thing, ie: Burnout, Halo, any game with magic in it, Star Wars, etc. But with other games realism can be, would be or is a good thing, ie: Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, any game where "the odds are stacked highly against you", etc. It depends completely on the kind of game and other circumstances.

I am of the opinion that realism in games is fun, far more than a game that is not realistic. However, the problem comes when a game aims for realism, and misses. Then it becomes a slow, boring mess.

Another problem with realism is that, when something happens that is NOT realistic, it is a glaring mistake rather than a small quirk.

And realism is absolutely not easier! When you can take only a single bullet before collapsing (though perhaps not dead), you are suddenly in danger all the time! For a good example of this, try the game Red Orchestra; no HUD, no ammo count, no nifty little tags above ally and enemy telling you who is who, and one bullet to the chest is likely to kill you, and it is still the most intense FPS I have ever played, because you are always in danger.

Red Orchestra also gets points for having the single most effective way of telling who is new and who isn't: when you fire a bolt-action weapon, you must press the fire button again to reload (as opposed to automatically doing so as if some sort of irresistible force made reloading mandatory after firing a shot). This leads to some hilarious situation where you turn around a corner, have a rifle muzzle in your face and! He reloads. So you promptly shoot him in the face.

EDIT: Just in case you can't tell, I like Red Orchestra...

ALSO EDIT: This does not, however, mean that realism MUST be present in games. I like non-realistic games too, especially Burnout. However, I would like to argue the point Keela made above me, in saying that games with magic do not necessarily need to be unrealistic. Though I have not played a game with magic that IS realistic, I would love to see a world where magic has a set of hard-and-fast, easily observable rules like physics in the real world), that does not just 'make things happen'. Some rhyme and reason to a magic system in a game would make me a very happy man. Obviously this magic wouldn't be 'regular' magic that we, as gamers, have grown accustomed to, and might not even count and magic in the way we understand it, but it would still be cool.

Have you eve

john_alexander:
I am of the opinion that realism in games is fun, far more than a game that is not realistic. However, the problem comes when a game aims for realism, and misses. Then it becomes a slow, boring mess.

Another problem with realism is that, when something happens that is NOT realistic, it is a glaring mistake rather than a small quirk.

And realism is absolutely not easier! When you can take only a single bullet before collapsing (though perhaps not dead), you are suddenly in danger all the time! For a good example of this, try the game Red Orchestra; no HUD, no ammo count, no nifty little tags above ally and enemy telling you who is who, and one bullet to the chest is likely to kill you, and it is still the most intense FPS I have ever played, because you are always in danger.

Red Orchestra also gets points for having the single most effective way of telling who is new and who isn't: when you fire a bolt-action weapon, you must press the fire button again to reload (as opposed to automatically doing so as if some sort of irresistible force made reloading mandatory after firing a shot). This leads to some hilarious situation where you turn around a corner, have a rifle muzzle in your face and! He reloads. So you promptly shoot him in the face.

EDIT: Just in case you can't tell, I like Red Orchestra...

ALSO EDIT: This does not, however, mean that realism MUST be present in games. I like non-realistic games too, especially Burnout. However, I would like to argue the point Keela made above me, in saying that games with magic do not necessarily need to be unrealistic. Though I have not played a game with magic that IS realistic, I would love to see a world where magic has a set of hard-and-fast, easily observable rules like physics in the real world), that does not just 'make things happen'. Some rhyme and reason to a magic system in a game would make me a very happy man. Obviously this magic wouldn't be 'regular' magic that we, as gamers, have grown accustomed to, and might not even count and magic in the way we understand it, but it would still be cool.

Id like to see you play quake.... you know who a new player is too, its those that can't figure out how to time armors, its those that cant strafe jump, its those that don't exactly where to go when they spawn... its those that try to attack with the shotgun rather than running away and grabbing some armor. games like Red orchestra are easier than games like quake, period. If you need proof, download Quakeworld at www.Nquake.com, and pop on this server ip 69.90.113.10:27500

In Quake you also have a HUD, ammo counter, health bar and, unless it's been changed in recent versions, a tag appearing when you aim at allies (and possibly enemies, though I don't remember it being so), so it's give and take.

Also, you sir are a cheat! I used one example, and you used many! I could give more examples, and I'm sure you could too, so let's just say it balances out, and leave it at that? Especially when you-

NO! Bad john_alexander! LEAVE IT AT THAT!

EDIT: Also, I used to play Quake a lot, back in high-school, and I was rather good at it. Out of my friends, anyway. There was only about 20 of us in the computer room at a time, so the pool of talent was not large.

john_alexander:
In Quake you also have a HUD, ammo counter, health bar and, unless it's been changed in recent versions, a tag appearing when you aim at allies (and possibly enemies, though I don't remember it being so), so it's give and take.

Also, you sir are a cheat! I used one example, and you used many! I could give more examples, and I'm sure you could too, so let's just say it balances out, and leave it at that? Especially when you-

NO! Bad john_alexander! LEAVE IT AT THAT!

EDIT: Also, I used to play Quake a lot, back in high-school, and I was rather good at it. Out of my friends, anyway. There was only about 20 of us in the computer room at a time, so the pool of talent was not large.

You should play quake with me...... add me to xfire, lovenpeace, like how you at least defended your opinion : )