Realism =/= Better game

Mm, I completely agree with this.

I seriously don't think realism is that necessary - both official and fangame. That's my take on it. As for me, in regards to the fangame end - realism isn't necessary; I'd rather do the "support the players while the players support the stars" approach.

And of course, "stars" = which character(s) have the lead and/or supporting roles. :P

I personally don't always prefer realism in my games, but the way you phrase it, it makes it sound like every game that isn't realistic is intensley violent.

See: Team Fortress 2

Love the cartoony style

If it's done well, some degree of realism isn't bad.

Regardless of the game it has to have some sort of counterbalance, though - most videogames are an escape mechanism that allow you to, literally, escape reality and do things that make you feel OUTSIDE of it.

Personally I never give up fun in favor of realism, but if it's in favor of telling a fantastic story (MGS4) or simply being stylistically appealing (GTAIV) then I suppose it's not all so bad.

sometimes it does


depends if it'll be sweet if they made a 3D sequel or not

yeah really

Left 4 Dead or equal 'horror' games would be silly in non-realistic style, and not appear as horrific.

I find it funny (and ironic) that anyone would argue for realistic video games on a mario fan site!

ahem

Between the game and the player, there is always going to be a dividing barrier between the area of realism and nonrealism. How much this bar differs is entirely up to the game and usually the wider it is the more interpretation is required.

Take a game like Mother3, for example - it has a very unserious, almost cartoony style; yet despite that it manages to tell a great story through player involvement alone. When we compare this method of storytelling to a game like MGS4, there is a vast difference in the amount of interpretation, involvement, and visualization between either game. Because everything looks closer to reality in MGS4 you essentially skip a layer of interpretation, as you don't need to look as deep for that 'hidden moral' while you're not distracted - whereas in Mother3, the colorful, happy, unrealistic world almost deters you from the idea that you're playing a heavily story-driven game in order to push you to get involved to understand it.

Realism usually derives from the need to tell a story visually in a straightforward manner; whereas unrealism has you look harder for the core meaning, and in turn gets you more involved. Or perhaps if the story's not as important, lack of realism will let you concentrate on the game itself rather than what you're looking at.

Sorry. What I meant is that someone would argue for realistic games over unrealistic games. Not trying to attack realistic gamers or anything. I have a bunch of friends who are all about fallout 3 and left 4 dead and stuff like that.

This post has been edited by Omnomlicous on Mar 27 2009, 08:19 PM

Spoken like a poet.

realism

about 0.05% percent of every video game

Not really!

When you think about it, we humans are a real selfish race. We feel the need to see ourselves and everything about ourselves - including what we create - inside everything that makes us happy. Videogames, being a good form of escapism, release endorphins to the brain, making you therefore get a natural high, in proportion to how much the AWESOME factor of the game correlates with you (ok that last part was a lie but it's probably true when you think (read: do research) about it).

In any case, realism in videogames, while often not very outstanding, is a constant idea. And it's not so much a matter of visual styles, but interpretation too: the more a game gets you to act as the character, the more you become the character, and such an idea is a good basis for saying that the game, in a sense, becomes very real to you. This really neat theory is the also the platform for VR gaming, which is also the basis of its imaginary slogan 'Become the game.'

Anyways, because the amount of realism perceived can often contrast with the amount of realism/humanism portrayed, you can never really eliminate realism from the game. It should be noted, though, that there's a certain point where the game becomes so abstract that any sign of immediately perceptible realism is erased both visually and psychologically. The player becomes unable to find any traces of himself/herself in the game (this would normally happen subconsciously so you never really notice it) so the game gets lost in that respect. This can push some players away because it takes some of the "immersion factor" out of the majorly subjective "fun factor" - while others will jump to the other side of the stream, claiming it is a work of art (such an abstraction cannot possibly be a game geared towards everyone, after all). The first game to pop up in my mind to do that is LSD for PSP, where reality is substituted for weirdness.

Bottom line is, realism is a part of humans, and no matter how much we want to believe we like to see impossible things and/or fantasy because they're ****ING AWESOME, the real reason is because our brain enjoys basking in its self-centered imagination, picturing how cool it'd be to have wings to fly and try to ram into a plane like a stupid cuckoo. Oh, also, we can't erase realism from games without them turning into a potential mind****-fest.

This post has been edited by Tri on Mar 28 2009, 02:45 AM

Yeah I got a whole bunch of endorphins in my brain from playing sonic 06

yep

*pummeled*

realism can be a great thing- i'm not saying it can't- but it has to be done right, the same as everything else.

a bad game that has realistic graphics and a realistic storyline is still a bad game.