What's wrong with unrealistic games in realistic genres?

To go along this, I rather play Mario Kart and Burnout than any realism racing game. To game is not to be strict but a bit unrealistic.ArisShadows

OMG, I am SO agreeing with you right now. Like, you have no idea. Wow.

By unrealistic I don't mean like horrible animations, unresponsive characters, or stupid AI, etc. I mean unrealistic in the way the game is played. Sometimes people will say a racing game sucks because it is too unrealistic (like an arcade racer or what not) or a fps sucks because it is too unrealistic. I never hear people say a game sucks because it is too realistic. I mean aren't videogames for providing people with experiences different from reality as much as or ever more than simulating reality. idontknow1110

I'd rather play Mario Kart or Crusin than a racing sim any day. Racing sims are so boring.

The point im trying to make is for example there seems to be a lot more people who like racing simulators saying mario kart or burnout sucks than people who like arcade racing games saying gran turismo/forza sucks.idontknow1110

They are narrow-minded people and should be ignored. You will find alot of those types of people here on SW.

I don't know what kind of comments to which you're referring, but a lack of realism in a realistic atmosphere is most definitely a negative in my book. Take something like Burnout where the whole thing is distinctly over-the-top, and it's a great style. But take something like a WWII shooter where you regain health and take out entire enemy brigades as a single soldier while touting the realism of your innaccurate 40's era guns and historic battles most of us have never heard of and you've got yourself a really stupid concept.yodariquo

that practically describes every FPS ever made. That's why I play online 0_o.

I personally can't stand realistic racing games. Realism is over rated in general.Svarthek

Many people love realisitc racing sims. If you're into cars, games like Forza and GT can be outrageously fun.

[QUOTE="Svarthek"]I personally can't stand realistic racing games. Realism is over rated in general.Koalakommander

Many people love realisitc racing sims. If you're into cars, games like Forza and GT can be outrageously fun.

neither of those are particulary very realistic...there are very realistic racing games out their, and those really cant compare (in terms of realism)

[QUOTE="Koalakommander"]

[QUOTE="Svarthek"]I personally can't stand realistic racing games. Realism is over rated in general.cobrax25

Many people love realisitc racing sims. If you're into cars, games like Forza and GT can be outrageously fun.

neither of those are particulary very realistic...there are very realistic racing games out their, and those really cant compare (in terms of realism)

....name them

I don't know what kind of comments to which you're referring, but a lack of realism in a realistic atmosphere is most definitely a negative in my book. Take something like Burnout where the whole thing is distinctly over-the-top, and it's a great style. But take something like a WWII shooter where you regain health and take out entire enemy brigades as a single soldier while the game touts the realism of its inaccurate 40s era guns and historic battles most of us have never heard of and you've got yourself a really stupid concept.yodariquo

If it touts realism and gives u inaccurate guns and battles thats sorta lame. But whats wrong with being a supersoldier as long as they can present it in a fresh, challenging way?

realistic gernes like simulations games? thats the only realistic gerne I know because racing game cannot considered as realistic gerne, racing games like gt are considered race/simulation game.

and I dont know any game that is too realistic so tahts why nobody is complaining that a game is too realistic

I dunno, but I think one of the main reasons people play videogames is for the feeling they are doing something with the char in the game that they can't do IRL.

And realism makes that feeling even more in depth. How often do you get to drive a ferarri? how often do you get to blow up entire cities? how often do you get to shoot someone in the face with no consequences, and then teabag their corpse.

Most importantly, and i think this is proabaly one of the top three reasons people play video games.

There are no do-overs, or continues in real life. Basejumping off a 400 foot cliff with no parachute in a game? AWESOME! Reload it and do it again! IRL, the only interaction you'll have with a cliff after that is your family dumping your ashes off it.
0rin

There are sort of two types. Games that simulate things possible in real life (like driving a ferarri, or WWII battles) that people don't have chances to do (or wouldn't want to do in reality) and games that simulate things that are just flat out impossible (wipeout racing games for example). Sort of like comparing Crysis to Halo where in halo you can do things that you flat out can't do IRL (jumping in the air like 8 feet, shooting aliens, etc.).

I think it has more to do with feel and personal taste than actual realism. Its not so much if a game is realistic or unrealistic, but if it feels right. A good example of this is the PGR series. The game is generally loved by both the arcade and simulation racers. Why? Now obviously this is all personal opinion, but to me its because the game strikes a perfect balance for what the designers were trying to achieve. You can race it straight like you would in Forza or GT, or you can powerslide like you would in Burnout or Mario Kart. However if you look at the game from an objective standpoint, the game shouldn't be popular to either crowd. The game is far too arcadey for a Sim racer, but it also requires the skill and attention to detail that arcade racers seem to hate. The reason its popular is it feels right, you don't feel like you're breaking the laws of physics when you drift around a turn at 120mph, but you also don't feel like you're racing in a hovercraft. Same with games like Mariokart or Forza. If you look at them objectively, they may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but they both feel right considering what the developersgoals are.

Another point would be the difficulty of realistic games. I remember when Forza came out it seemed like every other reviewer was complaining about how hard the game was. And while playing the demo for it even a hardcore sim racer like me was frustrated by the game, I just wasn't used to the attention to detail the developers forces you to take. You have to be on line, you have to brake and accelerate at the right times and you have to drive realistically. Now juxtapose (my 11th grade english teacher would be so proud) that with Mariokart, where for the average user you just have to worry about the "go" button and turning. Sure there are techniques that only a hardcore Mariokart fan would know about or use, but generally speaking anyone can pick up a controller and at least compete in Mariokart, whereas you have to understand at least the fundamentals of racing to even complete a turn in Forza. Simply put, the difficulty of realistic games turnsmany people off.

Finally we come to personal choice. Plain and simple, people like different things. While someone like me who generally loves hardcore games is a huge fan of the Ghost Recon (orginal PC ones anyway) and Operation Flashpoint games, a person who thinks Halo is the be all and end all of shooters is going to be damn frustrated when a sniper shoots them from over a mile away.

I don't know what kind of comments to which you're referring, but a lack of realism in a realistic atmosphere is most definitely a negative in my book. Take something like Burnout where the whole thing is distinctly over-the-top, and it's a great style. But take something like a WWII shooter where you regain health and take out entire enemy brigades as a single soldier while the game touts the realism of its inaccurate 40s era guns and historic battles most of us have never heard of and you've got yourself a really stupid concept.yodariquo

I take offense to that! Please edit your post as it is inaccurate. Surely you know nothing of firearms. Patton himself claimed the M1 Garand, "The greatest battle implement ever devised." And this stands up to today. It is just as accurate as the M4, more accurate than the ak-47, and can go toe to toe with just about any squad based rifle of today--in terms of accuracy. I should know, as I own most of these rifles. The M1 Garand is superb rifle, and is still considered a highly accurate rifle by today's standards.

Do not knock on the great rifles of yore. The 1903 Springfield is another beauty, and can be matched to just about any rifle of today.

I think it has more to do with feel and personal taste than actual realism. Its not so much if a game is realistic or unrealistic, but if it feels right. A good example of this is the PGR series. The game is generally loved by both the arcade and simulation racers. Why? Now obviously this is all personal opinion, but to me its because the game strikes a perfect balance for what the designers were trying to achieve. You can race it straight like you would in Forza or GT, or you can powerslide like you would in Burnout or Mario Kart. However if you look at the game from an objective standpoint, the game shouldn't be popular to either crowd. The game is far too arcadey for a Sim racer, but it also requires the skill and attention to detail that arcade racers seem to hate. The reason its popular is it feels right, you don't feel like you're breaking the laws of physics when you drift around a turn at 120mph, but you also don't feel like you're racing in a hovercraft. Same with games like Mariokart or Forza. If you look at them objectively, they may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but they both feel right considering what the developersgoals are.

Another point would be the difficulty of realistic games. I remember when Forza came out it seemed like every other reviewer was complaining about how hard the game was. And while playing the demo for it even a hardcore sim racer like me was frustrated by the game, I just wasn't used to the attention to detail the developers forces you to take. You have to be on line, you have to brake and accelerate at the right times and you have to drive realistically. Now juxtapose (my 11th grade english teacher would be so proud) that with Mariokart, where for the average user you just have to worry about the "go" button and turning. Sure there are techniques that only a hardcore Mariokart fan would know about or use, but generally speaking anyone can pick up a controller and at least compete in Mariokart, whereas you have to understand at least the fundamentals of racing to even complete a turn in Forza. Simply put, the difficulty of realistic games turnsmany people off.

Finally we come to personal choice. Plain and simple, people like different things. While someone like me who generally loves hardcore games is a huge fan of the Ghost Recon (orginal PC ones anyway) and Operation Flashpoint games, a person who thinks Halo is the be all and end all of shooters is going to be damn frustrated when a sniper shoots them from over a mile away.

PBSnipes

nice post :). I agree totally that its personal taste, I just think that people should stop saying that a game like mario kart or halo sucks because it is too "unrealistic" (it might not fit their needs but doesn't mean its a bad game, might be a bad game for other reasons though).

I think it has more to do with feel and personal taste than actual realism. Its not so much if a game is realistic or unrealistic, but if it feels right. A good example of this is the PGR series. The game is generally loved by both the arcade and simulation racers. Why? Now obviously this is all personal opinion, but to me its because the game strikes a perfect balance for what the designers were trying to achieve. You can race it straight like you would in Forza or GT, or you can powerslide like you would in Burnout or Mario Kart. However if you look at the game from an objective standpoint, the game shouldn't be popular to either crowd. The game is far too arcadey for a Sim racer, but it also requires the skill and attention to detail that arcade racers seem to hate. The reason its popular is it feels right, you don't feel like you're breaking the laws of physics when you drift around a turn at 120mph, but you also don't feel like you're racing in a hovercraft. Same with games like Mariokart or Forza. If you look at them objectively, they may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but they both feel right considering what the developersgoals are.

Another point would be the difficulty of realistic games. I remember when Forza came out it seemed like every other reviewer was complaining about how hard the game was. And while playing the demo for it even a hardcore sim racer like me was frustrated by the game, I just wasn't used to the attention to detail the developers forces you to take. You have to be on line, you have to brake and accelerate at the right times and you have to drive realistically. Now juxtapose (my 11th grade english teacher would be so proud) that with Mariokart, where for the average user you just have to worry about the "go" button and turning. Sure there are techniques that only a hardcore Mariokart fan would know about or use, but generally speaking anyone can pick up a controller and at least compete in Mariokart, whereas you have to understand at least the fundamentals of racing to even complete a turn in Forza. Simply put, the difficulty of realistic games turnsmany people off.

Finally we come to personal choice. Plain and simple, people like different things. While someone like me who generally loves hardcore games is a huge fan of the Ghost Recon (orginal PC ones anyway) and Operation Flashpoint games, a person who thinks Halo is the be all and end all of shooters is going to be damn frustrated when a sniper shoots them from over a mile away.

PBSnipes

I found Operation Flashpoint to be one of the most difficult games I had ever played. It wasnt the shooting....but the randomness of it....gunfire could come out of nowhere and hit you and your squad while you were out of cover...and kill half of them...and their was simply nothing you could do about it....one mistake would cost you the game....

its simply the most unforgiving shooter out their...and that makes it very difficult, in combination with the endless controls...and complex gameplay mechanics...it took me by complete shock.