Fun vs Realism

I think one of the reasons gaming is such shit now is because of realism. Seems like every new big budget title tries to be as realistic as possible. They try to make the world of the game out to be like it could possibly exist. I think that limits creativity.

We've gotten to the point to where we can pretty much render whatever we want into a game. Why limit ourselves to the rules of realism? Usually the best new games coming out are the ones that throw realism out the window and have over the top, ridiculous stories, characters that act like they've been ripped straight out of old school comic books or 80s action movies, things like impractical weapons like ice beams or chainsaw swords and items that wouldn't exist in real life like giant hearts that refill all your life energy.

Is realism just easier for developers or are they just uncreative?

Its probably the universities they graduated from lobotimising them and rendering them unable to see anything but the fake world they think they see. They are physically unable to imagine any other senarios other than what they're taught, and you see it in modern games. They cant think outside the box, when there is no box.

It's the same bias in the west when it comes to animated shows. Anything Cartoony and fun is only for children and adults can only like dark and gritty dramas and sex.

Don't confuse "realism" with realism. You sound like you're referring to shit like Watch Dogs, which has some of the worst parts of both realism and fantasy. Which would make the answer to your question yes, that devs don't know how to do anything but copy the cityscape they spend their time in.

That definitely is a problem. That's why shows like Axe Cop don't take off here.

Moderation and understanding your overall goal is what is important.
Full realism can be boring, so can no realism.
It should not be "Fun vs realism". Fun depends on the player, depends on the design intent, depends on the function and build of the game. I find ARMA fun, and it works for that 'military simulator' type setup, right?
Realism isn't a determining factor of 'fun'. A good game is.

You're already looking at it wrong.
Realism is not the antithesis of fun, it's simply used by poor developers as a cover for convolution, like fucking FATAL's 4d100/2-1 stat rolls for 16 or so different sub-abilities.
Furthermore, incompetent writers such as the film school flunkies whose shit peddling is enabled by the "journalist" hacks use realism to shut down any criticisms regarding the verisimilitude of their setting, characters, etc.
The worst part is that just a tiny bit of well-done realism can add a lot to a work, like the wide array of real-life tools SWAT 4 gives you, but thanks to the faggots mentioned above 'realism' is becoming a buzzword.

Realism can be fun as fuck, you're just playing shitty games by bad developers.

YOu're full of shit, mate. Most western shows are full-retard plots that'd never happen in real life, and the cartoons for adults are even worse crazy comedy nonsensical rubbish.
Just because the gooks go full retard even more anti-realism, doesn't mean the west does it.

Incidentally, this sort of helps after the point I was making
It isn't the realism what makes a thing bad. It's the shit design and writing.

What makes the realism push worse is that while the textures and to complexity of the geometry is always improving, animation quality is stalling.
Say what you want about Arkham series (I certainly do with the AK shitshow), but the combat animations tie together really well and generally look quite good. But even with that series known for good animation, it still has the same problems as pretty much every 3D game has for the last decade. Reverting to idle animations is clunky and noticeable. Characters partially clip through walls and other geometry. Their limbs clip into themselves when they bend. They either clip through stairs or have weird leg postures when climbing sloped areas. Rag dolls are usually far too light, occasionally going ballistic.

I think this issue ties into the engines game devs are using, since they just keep updating the same ones because they lack the technical know-how and willpower. They have their safe-zone that they can't bear to leave. Their obsession with bland kinds of realism is much the same. It does seem to be slowly changing, but it will take time.

...

>even though things can be fun, and realistic at the same time.

Almost all western cartoons targeted towards adults are low quality "comedies" with no craft or thought put into them, not saying that Japan is a pure bastion of quality either but at least with them there is much more variety.
Also explain Naughtydog and how theres almost no western games with a cartoonish art style that arent side projects or are cashing in on a pre-established franchise from the ps2 era.

There's nothing wrong with realism inherently.

The problem is that the execution usually sucks fucking ass.

There's no need to try anymore when it comes to making vidya because the name value alone sells now. Just make sure there's a decent marketing campaign, perhaps a little pandering here and there, and you're pretty much set.

Nice job, you're doing your mind owners proud

Exactly. Japland does make way better stuff, but it ain't due to realism. It mostly has to do with the shittery of the west's media producers.

There's quite a huge load of different cartoonish games from the West, mate. Just because you're looking at the running AAA trash, doesn't mean they don't exist.
They're mostly failures, to be fair, or otherwise shit. But again, that's an issue of western media in general.
And it ain't like nipland doesn't do this too. Hell, I'd make the case that, outside of Nintendo, usally with pre-established franchises, most the stuff's been non 'cartoonish'. Certainly the big wigs. Dark Souls, Nier, Dragon's Dogma, and so on aren't exactly 'cartoonish', are they?

.>>12923533

Let's not derail the thread with political shittery just because someone namely >>12923500 never learned how to read.

e.g
splatoon (bright, colourful, cute fps) and don't starve (cartoony fantasy survival game)

Fair enough, I really just want the platformer genre to come back, R&C, J&D, Sly.
And not those fucking shit reboots theyve been putting out. The fuck are they thinking.

Sure, I'm in the same boat. I think a new Sly would be amazing, even if it is likely to be blatant furbait. All these ass creed clones, you'd think something like it would be easy money for somebody.

My problem is more a running idea of that it is the fault of 'realism' that games are bad. It's the fault of shitty devs without much creativity. You can do a lot with realism, just as you can do a lot without it. It's no more than a 'setting', a 'theme', a 'basis' so to speak. No different from my perspective to making a fantasy or modern game, or making a 3rd person shooter instead of a 1st person shooter.

Exactly. The shitty devs are the problem.

They have no creativity. It ALWAYS has to be a clone of something else - namely shit like Overwatch, CoD, etc.

Hell, Assassin's Creed could've been a cool nifty kill everything that moves in new and varied ways simulator but instead it's just generic "da aliens conspiratard" bullshit.

Doom is a shitty game?

They also don't cling to "realism" as though it's the thing that will set them apart when God comes to reclaim his people as per the Book of Revelation, instead opting to engage the player through their interactions with the game.
In Dark Souls, for instance, instead of going on at length about how your gear is enchanted and what it does to you to change your stats, just says "it's magic, now go fight Capra Demon/Ornstein and Smough/whateverthefuck", and nobody questions it because they're preoccupied with fighting Capra Demon/Ornstein and Smough/whateverthefuck.

Some people are autistic enough to have fun from euro truck simulator, rfactor, DCS World, arma, project reality and squad.
I mean i don't understand them. They should play doom and quake instead, its not fun to play what they are playing. Simulators are for faggots.

...

Sure, but neither do western developers. Unless you think it is totally realistic to get ammunition from two guns firing two different caliber bullets, be able to heal from gunshot wounds instantly, or magically revive your friends from death by simply zapping them once with a defib.
The difference is merely that western developers use 'realism' as a buzzword to mask their shittery.

Why would explaining how enchantments work be a bad thing? That's just good worldbuilding, explaining how magic works and the fanciness involved, rituals and all that, to make superior weaponry. That shit's cool, mate.
Just because you're focused on just the fighting doesn't mean that putting story in your game is a bad thing, mate.

I didn't say Doom was realistic.

Because it takes time away from things that your target audience actually wants to engage with.
You can probably come up with a simple answer to lend flavor to shit, like the pilot profiles in Brigador or Dark Souls item descriptions, but having the writers shit out an entire in-game encyclopedia is an inefficient use of resources.

Dude, that's massively gay, and you fucking know it.
Hell, I'd even go so far as to claim that is the mentality which is a primary contributor to the downfall of games. The notion that story and gameplay are at odds with one another, and a game cannot be good unless it foregoes story and worldbuilding, in favour of simple mechanics.
You can have both, you homosex. Good worldbuilding builds a good setting, which in turn is one of the larger contributors to a good story, which is an important factor, whatever you might say, in a good game.

That's not what I'm saying at all, what I'm saying is that good worldbuilding can be done without throwing a fucking library shelf at people.
Just look at Magic: the Gathering, they've built a setting though admittedly they've shat it up in recent sets entirely out of pictures, a line of flavor text, and gameplay stats.
If WOTC can do that with a bunch of playing cards, surely Bioware can convey the point that krogans are super tough deathworlders who've got fertility problems and 4 balls without sending us away to the Great Big Book of Everything.

And there's a lot of stuff in those flavour texts. Stuff that adds together. That creates a world. Though, even then, the overal world is quite lacking for anything outside a cardgame.

Books are perfectly fine. If you've truly got the lack of attention span, just play the fucking game without reading them. No need to remove functional and interesting shit just because some people've got some ADD.

Pic related. It's you. Stop.

Correct.

Realism is god-tier when it comes to games - as long as it's implemented right, with a deep and realistic story and actual interesting characters and plot involved. For a realistic game to be fun, there needs to be something that get's the player's attention. Give him a reason to keep playing in that realistic world.

So far, realism in games is done poorly. It's divided in 2 things.
1. Actual simulators - either multiplayer or offline campaigns with no story
2. Games that don't know what they want to be. Usually boring with mediocre multiplayer. Is obviously an arcade shooter, intended for the masses but still tries to keep a realistic tone to it.

You can still have your encyclopedia, I'm just saying that it's best kept supplemental to the actual game because the developer's making a game, not a simulation of an entire fucking universe.

cloth physics + freedom > realism > no clipping

"supplemental" in what way? I'd say in-game books are "supplemental" enough.

YOu don't have to have a 'simulation of the entire universe', mate. That's not what good worldbuilding entails. Do you seriously think that every bit of worldbuilding done entails an in-depth explanation of every single atom in every single location in the entirety of the fantasy universe?
No, that'd be fucking retarded.
Stop being fucking retarded.

Nigga they used to write a full novel to go along with each set, and I'm pretty sure they still do comics and shit for the faggot planeswalkers.

Except you didn't need to read the book to get an accurate impression of the setting.
You don't need to read a book about Phyrexia to figure out that Phyrexia is a terrible place where dead shit is made into cybercorpse monsters, nor is an Innistrad book necessary to learn that Innistrad is also a terrible place, this time because of eldritch god bullshit.

You don't need to read the books in Mass Effect, TES, or elsewhere to get an "accurate impression of the setting" in games what include them, either. You don't need to read the descriptions and flavour text in Dark Souls to get a feel for the world, either.
You sure as hell don't need them to play the game.
That's not the point.

This is what we should actually be challenging instead of inconsequential horseshit like "portrayal of women in vidya and media" and pushing leftist propaganda in our entertainment. Or, what we would be doing if (((they))) weren't in power.

Well, they are. They're generally idealistic and black-and-white like Steven Universe. What makes fun cartoons less mature than gritty TV shows is that they don't put you through a variety of emotions and place you in uncomfortable situations.

I don't to be an asshole, but the fan base reflects this. They contain abrasively weird people like Chris Chan and the Holla Forumslumbine brony supermarket shooter who screech at anyone who deviates from the canon.

Well, the only adults that still like this pastel, childish stuff are autists which is to be expected. It's that their autism package comes with batshit insanity instead of creativity and originality.
Speaking of Chris Chan, his "SLGBTQ" has straights in it, which is surprisingly honest and straightforward with the whole "equality" message