Too realistic = not enjoyable are you serious ?

[traen]

The "too realistic" game does not exists.
None of the current games are realistic. Not even close.

And the games that were more realistic than others just 5 years ago, now look like a piece of crap.

Nothing in the game industry is realistic. Physics is not realistic, graphics is not realistic, AI is not realistic, sounds are not realistic, even npc dialogs are not realistic.

Some people like cartoon graphics. Like some people like to sometimes watch a cartoon instead of a movie.
But thats it. It does not mean that any of the current games are "too realistic".

[Djalil]

tbh 8 wasn't until disk 3, up till that point it was a card collecting extravaganza.

I'd admit 8 was a bit of a emo tweeny love story

---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 10:38 AM ----------

The "too realistic" game does not exists.
None of the current games are realistic. Not even close.

And the games that were more realistic than others just 5 years ago, now look like a piece of crap.

Nothing in the game industry is realistic. Physics is not realistic, graphics is not realistic, AI is not realistic, sounds are not realistic, even npc dialogs are not realistic.

Some people like cartoon graphics. Like some people like to sometimes watch a cartoon instead of a movie.
But thats it. It does not mean that any of the current games are "too realistic".

Absolutely true.
I think though that what he means for realistic and non realistic isnt tied to graphics only.

[Hraklea]

Only that's not how RPG's work. In RPGs (like Morrowind) character skills are actually more important than player skills (assuming the player at least uses the common sense).

No, only bad RPG are like that. Take Final Fantasy Tactics or Samurai Spirits RPG, for instance. As the game progresses, your level and your gear gets better, but just because the enemies are stronger: you still need strategy to defeat them. Your level and gear are not more important than the player's brain. I never played Morrowind, so I can't talk about it specifically, but this game design where you can stay punching an useless rock until your character gets strong enough for you to one shot a dragon is terrible. Again, I never played Morrowind, I was criticizing the idea, or at least, how it was presented.

All he said was that he liked the idea of skill based leveling, which is slightly more realistic than the standard experience point levleing system. I.e. "you do something more often - you get better at it", compared to the regular "you do whatever you want, kill, steal, talk or trade, doesn't matter - you choose what skill to raise next time you level up"

What if the game reads my playstyle wrong, or if I want to try a new playstyle? I have to start the game from the beginning?

[Worgoblin]

Realism is not something I seek in video games most of the time. Maybe when I'm playing Madden and my RB breaks 20 tackles and runs 99 yards for a touchdown... but certainly not in fantasy MMO's or RPG's. Realism is not important, and sometimes it's downright detrimental to gameplay.

[Heathy]

It really depends for me, i have arma 2 and i have baldur's gate, the realism in the former is only managable by me in small doses, i like realism but it becomes tedious. where as realism in an RPG as in you get hit by magic it owns you, your character is perma dead untill revived by magic, that i can handle in larger doses.

i think the realism is pushed too much, for example you can spout realism as much as you like but due to design constraints no realistic game allows you to fully control your character as you would in real life, FPS's are good examples because chest high walls and sub par cover mechanics barely offset the amped up difficulty introduced by the added 'realism' i look at red orchestra 2 for this one, good game, pretty good realism, shitty cover system that leaves you poking out all over the place.. i don't see how they could ever have a game where you can fully manipulate your covering position so that it becomes more realistic in not just the shooting and killing but also the ability to defend against such. this could probably only be done is some sort of VR thing i guess.

[Shinzai]

I think this is too vague a question/opinion to debate.

Some games benefit from realism. Others benefit from actively trying to be surreal or just unrealistic. It's like the alternative art of games Mario type games - they just don't look right if made to look 'realistic' and have no reason to look that way, except to be absurd. However, some RPG/action/adventure games can benefit from increased realism where characters or environments are concerned, as it can often add impact and grounding to the scenarios presented. While on the other hand, extremely unrealistic appearances can create a more dream-like or fantasy feel. Also simulators tend to directly benefit from being as close to the reality they portray as possible.

Games do not need life-like graphics to be amazing. The current wave of indie games proves this. Some of the best games I've played in the past few years wouldn't look out of place in the 1990's. And at the same time, one of my favourite games at the moment is Battlefield 3, which, while not being completely realistic, is a lot more realistic than some games.

So in conclusion: Realism can be enjoyable. When, where and how are up to the player concerned.

[crackleslap]

I dislike realism and i tend to relate to more mythical games, anyhow.

However, for an example. Forza Motorsports 4 - realistic car racing game, i find it boring as shit. Not enough thrill.
Need 4 speed games / cars with guns (full auto) - unrealistic car racing game, i find extremely fun. Nitro boosters, shooting and blowing up other cars with mounted rpgs on my cars and what not. I find that fun.

[Mavecryst]

We face plenty of realism a day, I think it's a pain if games are trying to get "too realistic" as well. I love having slightly off looking characters, massively unproportioned swords/guns/fireballs in my games. The popular games (in my opinion only, of course) are popular because they strike the right mix between showing you enough visuals to entice you, but leaving a tad bit to your imagination to fill in the rest. Having to take that little step to imagine, is important.

Games are so fun because they allow us to do, to look like, potentially experience what we otherwise would only be able to in dreams/imagination. Indie games are a good example; why are they popular despite the hyperrealistic graphics we seem to be heading towards? Because when your character swings a sword, you see the sword, but at the same time, they've left some space for you to imagine for a fraction of a second, swinging that sword yourself and how cool it would feel. Those fractions add up!

Suspension of belief is important too, and it's really hard to suspend belief when the game world is trying to be too realistic. Then you spot every mistake, and have no fun.

[Voidgazer]

Final Fantasy Tactics

It isn't an RPG though. It's a tactics/strategy/grid combat/whatever game with some RPG elements. And I think using tactics and your brain in general falls udner common sense - i.e. not throwing your spellcasters on some heavily armored enemys in melee combat etc.
Still, what I mean is that despite all your strategic genius it might be simply impossible to win some battles just because your character is underlevel or doesn't have appropriate gear. These are the core aspects of RPG gameplay. Another example, is if your character lacks lock picking skill, you won't be able to open a certain lock until you put more points into it - and the player skill doesn't matter in this situation, only the PC skill does. Or if you don't have enough charisma or your persuation skill is too low, you might not even see an additional option in dialogue window. And good luck trying to persuade an NPC with your real life rhetoric skills. RPGs aren't all about combat, y'know.

What if the game reads my playstyle wrong, or if I want to try a new playstyle? I have to start the game from the beginning?

Now that's just silly. You, yourself pick a class (or can made a custom class like in Morrowind we're using for example here). It determines some starting skills and what of them recieve bigger bonuses. But how you level up those skills is entirely up to you. The game can't "read your playstyle wrong", since it is YOU who's playing the game, and YOUR actions alone determine what skills to raise. But you won't have to start from the beginning, since skill based systems usually allow to reshape your character whatever you like. But if for example you've tagged melee combat skills in the beginning, you will obviously have harder times building your character into a mage or more stealthy or social oriented character.

[Minrolol]

Realism doesn't mean fun. Could easily name at least 5 shooters that were too realistic to the point they were not fun. The degree of realism people like varies from person to person some favoring a lot some favoring little to none. It's all subjective.

[HBpapa]

I have yet to see something 'realistic' in a game. I don't find micromanaging my character's life in the game realistic (like a tiredness debuff) and I don't find graphics realistic (most 'realistic looking' games just look like too shiny plastic to me).

[Hraklea]

Still, what I mean is that despite all your strategic genius it might be simply impossible to win some battles just because your character is underlevel or doesn't have appropriate gear. These are the core aspects of RPG gameplay. [...] RPGs aren't all about combat, y'know.

Your character skills should not be more important than the player skill. For instance, in games like Fallout 3 or Kingdoms of Amalur, you can lockpick without lockpicking, but it will require you more skill as a player. A challenge like "below lvl X, can't do it; above lvl X, faceroll it" is not really a challenge.

Now that's just silly. [...] The game can't "read your playstyle wrong", since it is YOU who's playing the game, and YOUR actions alone determine what skills to raise. But you won't have to start from the beginning, since skill based systems usually allow to reshape your character whatever you like. But if for example you've tagged melee combat skills in the beginning, you will obviously have harder times building your character into a mage or more stealthy or social oriented character.

Your overestimating the intelligence of an AI. The game can read my actions wrongly. If I want a particular design of character that only works with high levels (like Enchantress, in D2), I'll need to use some skills in early game that I won't use in late game, and it is likely that the game fail to read it as a "leveling skill".

Then you're suggesting that I should reshape my character by making it practice, which is boring, specially if you're already a skilled player. I can't see how that is more fun than the usual respec system that most RPGs have nowadays. Imagine if WoW were like that...

[Solidito]

I don't find it enjoyable either. I don't play games for realism, i prefer smooth gameplay not my screen jerking all over the place trying to simulate movement. I prefer games for what they are, games. I don't want realism put into it besides the odd game, like a survival game.

[Voidgazer]

Your character skills should not be more important than the player skill.

Not in RPGs. Player skill in RPG is determined by your ability to build a specific character. Your skill can't affect the dice rolls, especially virtual dice rolls in a cRPG.

For instance, in games like Fallout 3 or Kingdoms of Amalur, you can lockpick without lockpicking, but it will require you more skill as a player. A challenge like "below lvl X, can't do it; above lvl X, faceroll it" is not really a challenge.

Fallout 3 and KoA aren't really the brightest examples of RPG games, they're much closer to action. Anyway, when you can lockpick every single lock in the game without even raising the skill isn't really a challenge either. The lock picking mini-games are kinda fun, have to agree on this one, but there should be some level restrictions that will not allow you to pick locks that require, say, at least 10 more skill points in lock picking than you have. Being able to max out whole another skill at the expense of lock picking is not well balanced.

Your overestimating the intelligence of an AI. The game can read my actions wrongly. If I want a particular design of character that only works with high levels (like Enchantress, in D2), I'll need to use some skills in early game that I won't use in late game, and it is likely that the game fail to read it as a "leveling skill".

Err, I don't think you have the understanding of the classless/skill-based system. You're talking about completely unrelated things. But bear with me, I'll try to explain it again using the D2 example for you.

Let's say D2 has a skill based leveling system. In this case Sorceress would only have 3 skills - Fire, Ice and Lightning magic. She would still have all her spells though. But power of a certain spell (or it's mana cost, or chance of failing to cast, or everything of the above combined) would depend on the level of your skill the spell belongs to. And using the spells from a particular magic skill would raise it level. For example the more you cast Fireball, the higher your Fire magic skill gets. In its turn Fireball would become more and more powerful, because your skill grows.

In short, the more you do something, the better you get at it. It IS somewhat realistic. But not really all that much.

Then you're suggesting that I should reshape my character by making it practice, which is boring, specially if you're already a skilled player. I can't see how that is more fun than the usual respec system that most RPGs have nowadays. Imagine if WoW were like that...

Yes, your character have to practice in magic, swordfighting, lock picking, even running or jumping to get better at it. Again, if you decide on what role your character should assume before you actually start playing, you shouldn't have problems with it. But if you find playing the character YOU planned, the way YOU wanted to play boring, I wonder why you even play video games at all.
And respec system is a very forgiving mechanism almost casual, RPGs started to widely use it only recently. In ye olde times you had to plan your character carefully, to not screw up and waste a skill point you need on something else.


Anyway, we kinda strayed from the general theme of the thread in our discussion. And I don't see necessity for any further explanation on this subject.

[jbombard]

Games are for fun, we play games to get away from reality. If things are so unrealistic that it breaks immersion then it is a problem, but the inverse is also true if things are too realistic they aren't much fun. Even low level characters can generally survive more than a few blows that would kill someone if it was being realistic. Being able to infinitely rez over and over is also not very realistic. However games break from reality here because dieing every 5 seconds is not fun, and having to start over every time you die is also not fun.

As far as graphics are concerned, generally "realistic" graphics end up looking old much sooner than stylized graphics because advances in technology are constantly changing our perceptions and expectations about what is realistic.

Fun is the goal, and that is usually a blend of realism and fantasy and convenience. If that balance falls too far in any one direction generally it's going to suck.