Realism in games
With the advent of pillars of eternity, and a few other discussions with similar topics this has been on my mind a lot. I was just over at the PoE(or is it PE? P:E? Whatever.)forum where the discussion about this is a lot more prevalent, due to the fact that we(or you, at least. I haven't given them any money) have been a large influence of the whole game, because of the way it's being created and the simple fact that it's being created now, not 15 years ago. The specific discussion that comes to mind was female breastplates... Honestly I don't think theirs any argument here, as someone who concerns himself heavily with such things(armor, not breasts. Get your mind out of the gutter) and possesses a basic understanding of human anatomy and armor. But not everyone sees it that way.
So what do you think? How much can a game stretch reality before it's to much? Obviously there are caveats and exceptions, but I'm speaking in general, and pretty much within the confines of games that are set in "the real world" or something close to it, I.E. No cartoon games; don't come crying about how the physics in angry birds is totally off.
I don't want to have a paragraph in every poll option, so I'll detail here:
1. Doesn't care that its totally dumb. Goes with anything, as long as he gets a good show. Chainmail bikini? Sure! Superman is OP? Naw.....(my apologies to superman fans but he's kinda dumb. Especially after the last movie)
2. Is ok with it if a movie/game is way off, he know they're there to entertain, not inform. o.k. With boobplate and superhero physics.
3. Thinks it's kinda silly when superman flies through a mountain and his hair stays perfect, but can deal with it if it's a good movie/game.
4. Thinks superhero/over the top action movies are dumb, but plays along. Will generally accept the crazy stuff with a decent explanation.
5. He's 'that guy' that points out why all batman's gadgets wouldn't work, and complains about how slim iron mans suit is. He is very annoying and you hate him. Trust me, I know. I am he.
6. Doesn't like anything silly. Superheroes, magic, and not dying when falling 5 stories are right out. I don't imagine this person play any videogames at all.
So what do you think? How much can a game stretch reality before it's to much? Obviously there are caveats and exceptions, but I'm speaking in general, and pretty much within the confines of games that are set in "the real world" or something close to it, I.E. No cartoon games; don't come crying about how the physics in angry birds is totally off.
I don't want to have a paragraph in every poll option, so I'll detail here:
1. Doesn't care that its totally dumb. Goes with anything, as long as he gets a good show. Chainmail bikini? Sure! Superman is OP? Naw.....(my apologies to superman fans but he's kinda dumb. Especially after the last movie)
2. Is ok with it if a movie/game is way off, he know they're there to entertain, not inform. o.k. With boobplate and superhero physics.
3. Thinks it's kinda silly when superman flies through a mountain and his hair stays perfect, but can deal with it if it's a good movie/game.
4. Thinks superhero/over the top action movies are dumb, but plays along. Will generally accept the crazy stuff with a decent explanation.
5. He's 'that guy' that points out why all batman's gadgets wouldn't work, and complains about how slim iron mans suit is. He is very annoying and you hate him. Trust me, I know. I am he.
6. Doesn't like anything silly. Superheroes, magic, and not dying when falling 5 stories are right out. I don't imagine this person play any videogames at all.
- Realism in games37 votes
- Entertainment is completely more important than realism.18.92%
- Entertainment is somewhat more important realism.21.62%
- Entertainment is marginally more important than realism.45.95%
- Realism is marginally more important than entertainment.5.41%
- Realism is somewhat more important than entertainment.5.41%
- Realism is completely more important than entertainment.2.70%
Post edited by Jalily on
9
Comments
The only fields where I ask for realism/rational construction is the story and characters, since silly characters and Deus Ex Machinas (to give examples) ruin a story for me.
Whats this about boobplate?
Edit: I am right in the middle--hence why I am not voting.
So I'm an outlier. I know. My reaction to most games and action movies is "this is dumb". I hate racing games that let you smash up other cars at 200mph and run into walls. I hate first person shooters pretty much as a rule(though I have very limited experience with console games, well, any games at all, really.) I hate games with completely stupid weapons and armor, and by extension, I hate anime.(I don't like the way it looks anyway- don't try to convince me)
So yeah, I'm an outlier, party popper, Debbie downer, hopeless realist, nitpicking, whatever.
I cut superhero movies a little slack because they're superhero movies, but other than that I need to have a good justification.
But I game and watch movies to have fun. There does come a point of ridiculousness when I can't deal with it anymore; but generally speaking, any honest attempt at an explanation will likely work for me. As long as its all fun!
Maybe they are in an altered reality, or it is specified they have supernatural powers and can use them at will (a la Superman…), which goes in par with what I was saying, if there's knowledge and an explication for Superman being able to fly, it's OK for me (even if I also think Superman is a bit silly sometimes), but then if you are playing a game that tries to replicate RL and, e.g. cars can fly, I don't like that (too), but it also comes the fact to this debate that I don't play those type of games (i play very few games
Also, Marathon (all of the series) has a pretty solid story (which was nearly wasted in a FPS) with very good background (if you actually read everything while you are getting shot by 36 creatures armed with grenade launchers…). Also, they are more like a Dungeon-crawling-FPS, since 70% of the game happens insides (well, on spaceships and that stuff) and you'll get shocked hundreds of time by monsters coming out of a sliding wall-door
Halo 1 was a good successor of Marathon engine-wise, Halo 1 it's still my favorite MP FPS (while Marathon (as a series) is my all-times-favorite).
As for unrealistic shooters, I think a good approach on them is to just turn off your brain and fire away XD. Still, to each one his own and I don't want to look like a prick who thinks only he is right.
I also like weapons to feel lethal at any level. Jagged Alliance 2 and Mount & Blade are the only games I've found that handle this well. In those games basic weapons are always a threat, even a little dagger can quickly end your super character if you're careless.
But I don't need eating, sleeping, shitting, or weight management in my games, because I can handle all that with my own roleplaying.
Anyways, I don't care about scantily clad men and women, if that's how they want to roll that's on them. Or not on them, pun, deal with it. What I DO care about is me. Or more specifically, my imagination. If you give me less reality I will activate more imagination. Nothing strengthens John Lennon's favorite tool more than (paper and pencil) PnP (role playing games) RPGs. Baldur's gate is a poorly dungeon mastered computer RPG. It's up to me to make it entertaining, I must fill in the voids with illumination from my mind.
To each their own. I see both sides of the argument, and I land a little on the side of "entertainment" because I accept that reality needs a bit of tweaking. A realistic game, done well, can be the most immersive and believable of all though, so there is plenty of room to create such games.
Some examples:
Good design, simple and effective, with interesting details (chainmal underneath).
Horrendous design, so many spikes and unnecessary stuff, compare the breastplate itself. It just hurts my eyes by just looking at it. It's so big and unpractical, and those enormous shoulder pads. I don't understand why in almost any fantasy settings armor has to have huge shoulder pads, it just looks stupid.
Now, about fantasy weapons, I'll post a link to an excellent commentary on this topic:
Some years before, I would go for entertainment over the realism, but this recent trend over exaggerating in art style just makes me sick. Everything has to be big and overcomplex, that's not for me, I prefer simplicity (not necessarily realism). I can give a game the benefit of the doubt, but if it looks silly and dumb, I can't stand it.
So, I would go for somewhere in the middle in entertainment vs realism, but simplicity > overcomplexity.
Games and movies should bring me entertaiment, sometimes something to wonder on and sometimes strong emotions. Not neccesary realism.
But the world still has to have rules, and it has to make sense, otherwise what's the point? If we throw all logic out of the window, we might as well forget creating a world, and just have your character able to walk up to things and hit them with his "Win Stick" which instantly kills everything. Things like armour has to have a purpose, and at least look like it was designed for that purpose (which mail bikinis do not, and neither do excessively big pauldrons), and weapons have to look like they function properly, or you can make up any old crap and call it a sword.
Also, it depends on the game. If I'm playing Rise of Flight, I obviously want 100% realism in that because it's being sold as a simulator. For a fantasy RPG, too much realism will kill the fantasy aspect of it, so you want some leeway there. For something like Elite...again, total realism won't work because it'd be boring, so I want hyperspace, pew-pew lasers and WW1 style dogfighting in space. But for Kerbal Space Program, I want 100% real physics, because that's the type of game it is.
eta: actually, on the topic of realistic RPGs, this does look interesting:
http://kingdomcomerpg.com/
It's a purely medieval (no monsters, dungeons, etc) RPG set in 15c Europe. Definitely worth a look if you fancy a change of pace from modern day WoW/anime influenced fantasy RPGs.
If it tries to be realistic and has teleporting/super-dashing characters in combat and people swinging greatswords like they are made of paper, I mind. I look at you Dragon Age 2.
I can enjoy games like Chrono Cross/Final Fantasy with talking robots, bunny-girls or talking skeletons as well as more realistic games.
It depends on the setting. If the setting says that such people exist, I'm more than fine.
For example, one very popular game has a talking skull, a box-sized robot-thing, a flaming man, as well as celibate demoness. Can you guess it's name? Planescape Torment.
For instance, I love Forgotten Realms, but when it came to 2nd edition, they introduced some gunpowder weapons using the magical "smoke Powder". As for me, I never used them in the game, and never acknowledged that they existed, because to me, guns and high fantasy do not go together. No way, no how. Maybe in Spelljammer, but not in the core Realms. That's just my comfort level.
Similarly, in the comics movies, like those based on the Marvel franchise, you have Thor, who is basically a magical being (a God), mixing it up with Iron Man whose suit uses almost magical power (REAALLY Advanced Science), etc. But they did a good thing in making the "Magic" of Thor and his people just science so advanced that it seems like magic- Arthur C. Clarke is the one who said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This can also happen if that advanced technology isn't explained as well. Go back to someone in medieval times and show them television or a computer, and they'll interpret it as magic
The problem for me comes when something or things in that game or movie go directly against the world that the creators have made. You have a non-magical world with no magic or high-tech and then you have someone show up doing actual magic. Or you set a game in the actual middle ages and in the middle of nowhere you have a future sci-fi city show up for no discernible reason other than, "Wouldn't it be cool!" Or you have men in normal looking armor that covers them like armor from medieval times would, and then you have women walking around in chain mail bikinis or strings and try to tell me that those armors offer equal protection- or that the strings/chain mail bikini is even better protection! At that point, my brain breaks and I say, "No, that's ridiculous. I refuse to accept that." I don't even really object to boob plate so much- as long as the man's armor is just as ridiculous. You want chain mail bikinis? Fine. Why not chain mail thongs for men? Or a fur drape over their privates? Equally as ridiculous and not as sexist, either.
So even weird and ridiculous stuff is fine as long as it makes sense in the world where it exists. When it crosses the line into unfitting in that world/deliberately sexist to show off women's bodies or it's just there to be cool with no reason to exist beyond that is when I get fractious about what is going on.
However the kinda (un)realism I cannot stand is poor logical realism, for example where the hero randomly finds a new power that allows him to defeat the villain, or where an antagonist does something incredibly stupid in order for the protagonist's genius plan to work out precisely. Seriously if I ever became a super-villain, I'd kill the heroes the moment I capture them, not gloat and then leave them alive guarded by incompetent sub-ordinates.
I think entertainment is more important than realism in *most* art. However, there are certain situations in which realism can add to entertainment. The most notable being The Wire (the David Simon television series by HBO). In that work the realism added to the entertainment, and the way that the work informed the audience made it more enjoyable to watch.
I also will note that when Battlestar Galactica (the remake show) first came out I enjoyed some of the more "realistic" (to the extent that this kind of program can be realistic) aspects such as using projectile ammunition rather than lasers or plasma cannons and having propulsion in the fighter ships rather than "airplanes in space". The show got a lot less enjoyable when they ventured into less realistic and even supernatural stuff, though this might be an extreme case since they kinda waaayyy overdid it.
So I appreciate realism. That said, strictly adhering to realism does not have the same effect on all entertainment and story-telling. I like being able to cast fireball at kobolds in a mineshaft without suffocating. I like being able to take hits from arrows in a video game. If Baldur's Gate strictly adhered to reality it would suffer just as much as The Wire would if all the gangsters were shooting lasers.
That brings me to my next point: logical realism vs scientific realism. If the novel/film/tv program/videogame chooses to disregard the Law of Thermodynamics if it helps the story. However, characters should also behave in a consistent manner (even the crazies). Human beings are purposeful creatures, and I have no problem with Khalid taking four arrows to the chest and still struggling on but I would definitely take issue with Khalid if all of the sudden he decided to have a mid life crisis, buy a Forgotten Realms equivalent of a convertible and start having an affair with Alora. This would be the same as if in The Wire Omar Little ended up going to nursing school and raising a family in a middle class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago.
Some issues, like the one about gender that you mentioned, are different. Sure, most women couldn't walk around 24/7 in plate mail (nor could most men, lol) but in the game you have to consider that these are exceptional adventurers who are far more suited for this lifestyle than the common person. Women on average are not as strong as men, but there are some rare cases where a woman can actually be stronger than the average man. Plus, most importantly, having a woman capable of leading that sort of life makes a more interesting story, which is the main concern.
So overall realism can both add AND detract from my enjoyment of a certain work, but that entirely depends on the context and the type of story that is being told. I'd also like to add, as an aside, that sometimes when something is ridiculous you are better off glossing over it. Don't spend 20 minutes giving me BS science about how Wolverine can heal from multiple gunshot wounds to the head or that Storm can control the weather or how Iron Man can... get thrown through buildings wearing only a metal suit and not get his body crushed to bits. By entering a superhero movie I already accept that the characters can do stuff that doesn't make sense. By trying to explain it you run the danger of highlighting the issue to the point where it becomes a problem. The less we concern ourselves with it, the better off we are.
edit: Damn, @Archaos conveyed the point I was trying to make in my last paragraph much more elegantly with like 1/10th of the words. This is what I mean.