Who else utterly despises when someone uses the amount of realism incorporated in a game to determine it's plausibility? Does no one actually realize that our reality/=gaming reality? The commonly known phrase used in Movies goes as dubbed "Movie Realism" where as in things like shot gun blasts, or any overall damage has a lesser impact on the individual simply as a plot mechanic. It's nothing worse than going on Youtube and seeing a comment attempting to sloppily criticize a game by questioning "how" he survived "three shotgun blasts to the chest" or "body armor wouldn't matter, he'd be dead!". Movie Realism only detracts when you are in a "plot moment" as in when a cut scene or narrative that drives the story forward occurs. I see this being tossed through reviews to others as a valid criticism, and blatantly, it's beyond silly. Though, I can agree it depends on the game, as in a game like Gears of War 2 you never see a comment like "why didn't that bullet kill him!!!", but in a game like Modern Warfare 2 or Uncharted 2 you see constant berating comments about how this or that isn't feasible. Anyone else agree?
Yeah I don't think it really matters. Each game is distinct from one another, so I believe that as long as the game consistently follows its own rules as to what constitutes "realism," then there is nothing to complain about. If a game like Gears of War establishes that it takes lots of bullets to die, and it always takes that amount of damage, then it is adhering to its own rules of realism. I only question a game's realism when something out of the norm happens (as in I shoot a guy in the head with a sniper bullet, only for him to return the favour and kill me). Realism is relative in gaming and I rarely use it as an excuse to a game's faults. It is ultimately a design choice that rests with the developer
As skinny said, a game should put forward its own rules and follow them. These rules can be nonsensical (see banjo), but it must. Halo, Lost Odyssey, The Darkness, etc.--> none are very realistic, but all are very convincing when it comes to a story. I see these games as more plausible than something like Call of Duty where many of the actions cause no drive at all. No More Russian for example, didn't make logical sense- they tried to, but in reality, that wouldn't be plausible in COD's universe. However, the forerunner creating rings in Halo to destroy the flood is totally more believable due to its mythos.
The CoD franchise was originally founded on plausible, even true to life scenarios. You would have never found something as ridiculous as an airport shooting setting off WWIII in the early CoD titles (these supposed, nonexistant early CoD titles wouldn't have been set in WWII, naturally).
Log in to comment