Viewing Thread:
"Will "Realism" bring gaming forward? Really though?"

One of the most common cries in this crazy gaming world is for games to have more "realism". Yes, we can have graphics that look more life-like and sound that seems more realistic etc. But at the end of the day, we're always playing "the hero" which is not very realistic (unless you live such a rich and varied life as mine).

Why are we always the hero in games? We're always earth's last hope, or the top premiership side, or the only man able to rescue the princess, etc. We cry out for realism yet all we want to do is immerse ourselves in a fantasy world where the fate of whatever rests on our hands.

Television has grown from throwing us fantasy worlds where everything is uber dramatic, to giving us a wonderous insight into what 10, middleclass, decidedly average people would do to fill their time if locked in a house for 9 weeks.

Should gaming follow down a similar path? Instead of leading the revolution on mars, should they introduce games where we play as "Jack Hepworth" out of work minor, trying to pick up any sort of job and signing on every two weeks.
Or, instead of taking the role of Sir Alex and leading Manchester United to win the treble for a second time, should we be entering the world of "Terry Stevenson" player manager at a struggling sunday league club, where amongst his team worries you also have to juggle the problems Terry is having with wife Barbara and giving up smoking before christmas.

Or what about, as an alternative to being put in charge of a team of crack commandoes and being sent into desert/forest/drug run capitol city, you're put in charge of a landscape gardening team. Trying to land good and regular work, whilst bringing something new and original (and affordable) to the gardening world in a bid to secure that TV deal.


Do we want to see "reality gaming" following in the footsteps of "reality TV"? Do we really need extreme reality to bring gaming forward?

Personally I think it sounds a bit fudging dull!
Give me badgers attacking each other with bag-pipes any day!

I know what you mean entirely.
All I was saying is that there is a cry for realism in the gaming world and it shouldn't go too far. Reality TV doesn't make good viewing in my opinion, so upping the realism in games while impressive, could make games become a bit pants

I do see what you're getting at though.
But why play a game where you're Mr everyday?
Where you are a small part of something and nothing you really do affects the outcome?

I already do that, it's called a job.
I want to stick a game in and save worlds/rescue my captive soldiers/command armies from hundreds of years ago.

I think the main point of video games is escapism (to whatever degree).
The day that you can get "Microsoft Employee Simulator" is the day I declare myself President of The World, because something would be very wrong.

Yeah, there is still a gaming element to Flashpoint, but compared to a lot of games, it's the most realistic I've come across.

You can complete it any way you see fit to.
Shoot an enemy soldier, take his LAW launcher and blast that tank near you.

See that helicopter? You can steal it, hard to fly without practice, but it's there to take.
Anything there can be used, and the really nice touch is the AI of the enemy.
A couple of times I've seen two patrolling helicopters that are searching for me smash into each other and crash to the floor.

Hard to hit moving targets, sometimes you can die without ever seeing who did it and one save per mission.
Makes you cautious and nervous when things start to get hectic.

There's none of that "Right, I'll just save here in case it gets hard".

I love Flashpoint, although initially I hated it for the exact reasons I dig it now.
It's hard, you cant jump about and you will get shot if you walk across a field willy-nilly

You're still kind of playing the hero in Operation Flashpoint though.

Although I like the level of realism in there, sounds good.

I'd still side with the badgers though.

Sound like a good game with a lot of realism, I definately think realism can add to a game if its subtle. Just a cut scene here and their to add some realism can really help.

Operation Flashpoint is a lot like this.

You're just a soldier in a squad, not the major of all the forces.
You run for a long time? You get out of breath and your aim goes wonky until your breathing calms down.

You are in a village and have to get to a point in the woods?
Cool, you can spend 45 mins moving from tree to tree and dashing across fields, praying you dont get shot.

OR

You can go left at the start, take the car and drive straight down the map until you reach the evac zone.

You can complete the missions anyway you want to.
Another one is having to blow up 4 tanks.
You can spend an hour crawling from bush to bush and placing charges, crawling back to the woods and setting them off
OR
You can get to the Hind helicopter, steal it and blast the tanks from the sky, taking out a few soldiers as well.

And if you continually screw up the missions in campaign?
After a couple of chewing-outs from your colonel, you get thrown out the army and that's it.
Game over.

Excellent.

I agree with what you're saying Meka! Some areas would definately benefit from being more realistic (physics and such).

I suppose this topic should've gone out under the heading "Be careful what you wish for".

The thing with realism that bugs me, is that people think you have to have an all or nothing approach. They say if you make your game more realistic, then your character has to die after one shot, and can't do this that and the other, and they have to stop to eat.

Well that's crap. I demand realism in games in some aspects, not in others.

Do I want a realistic tale of life in the 21st century to play with? No, not today thanks, I'll venture into the Mushroom Kingdom and save a Princess from a big reptilain creature instead, if you don't mind.

When I'm playing a football game do I want it to act as if I'm playing on the moon? NO! give me realistic physics in sports games, please! And don't start on the why not simply play it properly yourself stuff, that's balls (excuse the pun) I can't get a team of 22 blokes together, and don't have the level of skill or fitness to play at the same level as you do in a game!

What I wouldn't mind seeing (I would say stop me if you've heard this before, but you can't really, can you?) is a little more realism when it comes to interaction with the environment. How about a few footprints in the mud, wet due making your characters shoes look wet. More interactive items in the environment. There's a door? Then let me open it! There's a box? Let me open it!

From what I've seen and heard, Luigi's Mansion has a much greater level of interaction with the environment, with you being able to use Luigi's vacuum cleaner to pull open curtains, and sheets from beds and the like. Well that's a start, now give me some more!

anything real life sucks!

unless there racing games.

It would be interesting to be in a gaming world were your role wasn't that important to the story, but you could ruffle things up a bit.
In OPSM2 there was an interview with the fella what makes them Final Fantasy games (his name eludes me at the mo') and he was talking about holographic gaming and how you could be immersed in a story but not actually a part of it. He was talking about two of the games characters going to kiss each other but then you poke them and they get startled, not being able to see you they try again and you poke them again, they give up trying to kiss and the story takes a different path.

That would be good fun and you wouldn't be playing the part of the hero - oooohhhh and the replay value...