The level of realism that is desired depends on the game.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I kinda wish physics in some games were a little more realisic. There are soo many games where you think a object with 400 kg flys 10000000 feet up when you only use 1 stick of dynamite.
Secret gym code: http://shrani.si/f/m/1r/u8tkte8/tanjagym.png
Yes, too realistic movement very quickly becomes less enjoyable.
I'll point to one example that really turned me off the gameplay: Cry of Fear. It was based off Half-Life, but the movement was completely different, in particular incorporating momentum and shaky movement.
Now if you don't get a certain ending, picture Xen, but with momentum and shaky, slippery movement. That's how bad it was.
I am not sure form original post what does author means by "realistic". i didn't really like Baldur's Gate example, as night/day cycle was really bad due to the way resting worked here. It is really hard to see anything in night time, and resting in Bg was always penalized by like 99% chance of random encounter.
I have idea of realistic game for OP. This game has a lot of content, 3 hige continents, worth years to explore. But to be realistic you can die only once. Then you will have to start from scratch. You wlil also have to spend like year playing just to make enough ingame currency to keep you up with expenses. You would also need few years of gameplay to make your character to be quite mediocre combatant because realistitcally - that's how much time is required for that. Oh and don't forget that for game to be truly "realistic", your character will never get enough power to fight dragons or other creatures which would pose any kind of threat to mediocre human being.
Now, would you enjoy such "realistic" game?:P
Oh I played some such games. They are also those games which usually push you to save-scum, which is just boring tedium and nothing else.I've NEVER found things like "hunger" or "sleep" that force me to quit playing to address to be fun, it quickly becomes tedious and frustrating in any game it is included in.
It's simple really. the problem with realistic graphics is that it has never been realistic enough. You know we see real world everyday so it's so easy to tell what's wrong with "realistic graphic".
Too much realism always hurts gameplay.
"Realistic" gameplay is almost like the realistic visuals, at some point you will hit the uncanny valley, and unless you fully simulate real world in game, it will be unappealing to the player.
I'd for example like to see "realistic" shooters implement the very basic element - when you reload your weapon, you waste all unspent cartridges in the magazine. They very rarely do this, but instead implement so-called "hardcore" mode, without HUD, and when players have even less health (or it is the weapon damage that is buffed). This really doesn't make a MP FPS game better, since it turns it into point and click game, because most weapons are hitscan (or really fast projectiles) and you simply have to spot the enemy before he spots you. Oh, and at the same time they have regenerating health and bloody droplets on your eyes...
I have nothing against some realistic elements that actually help to diversify gameplay and make it more engaging or challenging. But realism just for the sake of it? No. It simply does no good in this special kind of medium which is video games.
That's why you need me.... Need someone to punish you for your sins.
I think realism in the right areas is good though, I think the point isnt about making everything 100% realistic and I dont think that having realism means you need that.
Using my racing game example. In an unrealistic game you have your car that looks realistic but is coupled with a gameplay that isnt realistic, impossible ammounts of grip, turbo boosters and other flashy looking things, generally a gameplay that isn't based on a real world physics model. In this case you wouldnt (or I wouldn't) think of that as being realistic even if the car looked accurate and lifelike, realistic in games to me is nothing to do with the graphics.
On the other hand some racing games have a gameplay model that is based on advanced physics calculations that model the whole car, the movement of each part of the suspension and even the structure of the tyre, the heat it generates on the road and the flexibility in the sidewall of the rubber on the tyre, the heat in the brakes and the interaction of these elements around it, aswell as the engine and gearbox and their relation to the characteristics of a car.
Obviously getting something perfectly realistic that models all of these aspects perfectly in real time is next to impossible with current computers, but to get it damn close with compromises is very possible, infact many have achieved it to an extent. The gameplay in these racing games is generally more difficult but includes a lot more depth and a lot more longetivity and enjoyment for the player, it can increase the lifespan of a game based on active player base by years.
In this case, realism to a great extent in gameplay is possible and popular, even if the opposite end of the scale (the first example used) is also popular, perhaps more popular in terms of game sales. The disadvantage of this realistic simulation is that much of the gameplay development time is spent on the gameplay itself, more than on the game around it. While many of the non realistic games focus on building a game for players to play through with a basic but functional gameplay system. The focus in this case is on consuming the content rather than focusing on the gameplay itself being the main factor.
I7 2600k @4.5ghz : 16GB DDR3 : GTX670 : Firestudio : Naga : G27
Some games have room for realism, some have not. There's a reason why Street Fighter is more famous than MMA fighting games.
Imagine yourself raiding and needing to leave the raid because your character needs to go to the bathroom. Not everybody enjoy The Sims.
That works for everygame with a decent difficulty curve. You, as a player, have to practice to improve your skills. A game where you put your character to do the same thing over and over and he gets stronger because you, as a player, is not skillful enough to defeat the challenges... that's a terrible crappy game.I kinda loved that in game like morrowind you have to train to be good at it.
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". The former is definitely more realistic, but if not implemented properly can turn into a grind, or put some skills in disfavor, especially in early stages of the game.
Though I wouldn't say that the classless, skill-based system is TOO realistic, like the topic implies, just another kind of leveling system, not better or worse than others.
That's why you need me.... Need someone to punish you for your sins.
Well that all depends. Some games are fun because they're super realistic - which can be frustrating in gameplay terms but because it's part and parcel of the nature of the game that's fine, you're along for the ride. Other games are fun because of their gameplay, which might make it extremely unrealistic in many ways but you don't care because it's fun to play.
Different types of games if you ask me.
Look at WoW, by level 90 you can kill massive level 60 dragons in like a few seconds. And you're doing thousands of times more damage in general... obviously that's pretty unrealistic compared to the actual range of human strength.
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 06:37 AM ----------
I could swear I've played a game where reloads caused you to waste unspent ammo, wish I could remember which one it was. Kind of horrible isn't it? I'm such a miser I'd never reload!
I guess it's possible that the player character is collecting those unspent rounds as he goes and is loading them into partially depleted magazines. When you're not looking :P
---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 06:39 AM ----------
the 'bad community' might be a huge understatement, have you seen what happens in the RL?
i'll stick to consoles and computers, don't need any organic games with textures so perfect it hurts the eyes, plus it's hard to turn down the gamma without screwing over the gfx, leading to blinding situations...hell i can't even look at the sun in RL, such a beautiful thing and i think RL got the sun spot on, but console suns are much much better and don't do any lasting harm.
and no savegames you can load up when you mess up a robbery and get caught, Thief Deadly Shadows is one of my favorite games.
game over is game over in real life, and i've never been a huge fan of "hardcore" characters.
i will stick with non-realistic.
Still I cry, tears like pouring rain, Innocent is my lurid pain.
Aside from that (when it comes to games) I really love cartoon style art and animation. I guess that's why I'm a big fan of the Mists of Pandaria graphics, games like Giana Sisters: Twisted Dreams as well as my retro game collection.
Seeing I grew up in the Atari 2600 era, going the path of the NES, Gameboy and SNES, I think my fondest memories in gaming revolve around 2D or cartoony type games
Wanting realism or not is an entirely personal thing, so please don't try to say everyone wants realism. It's personal taste.
I hate realism and wish we'd just move the fuck away from this constant 'arms race', where almost every game developer is trying their hardest to have the 'BESTEST, MOST REALISTIC GRAPHICS EVAR'. Graphics aren't something you should be trying to maximise. It's something you should get just enough of to do the job, to portray what you want, then focus on what's truly important: narrative and gameplay.
Focusing on graphics is seriously damaging the games industry, since it forces all games to become multi-million dollar investments. With that sort of cash, investors will want certain returns on their money, so a ton of AAA games will be (and are) 'safe', not pushing any boundaries and just copying what someone else has done. It's stagnating the industry and removing creativity from a medium which has the potential to be one of the most creative and interesting art forms.
As for the rest of 'realism'? Why do I want realism when, y'know, I get enough of it in my day to day life? I play games to escape the real. To become a hero saving the world, or the pilot of a giant mech, or a superpowered being just destroying the city for shits and giggles.
Fuck realism. Fuck realistic graphics. Fuck it all, and throw it in the garbage. Then set it on fire.
Well it depends on the game and the individual really, I see a lot of CoD players complaining that some other FPS's are "not realistic enough" when anyone who thinks CoD is realistic probably hasn't spent much time in real life. I much prefer something like Arma, even if it's kinda clunky and unintuitive.
Also, I only really enjoyed skyrim once mods that added stuff like like hypothermia, survival, needing to eat and once I disabled fast travel. A bit of realism adds a lot to sandboxes that could feel empty otherwise.
Some games try too hard and end up failing at "realism" but that's life.