Realistic or Unrealistic

[thebestofblue]

I'm going to be writing an essay about wheather unrealistic video games are better than realistic video games.

What I want from you is your opinions, which do you prefer and why?
If your argument is valid, and not just "realistic games are better cause their cool", I will probably use it in my essay.

All opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Moclon]

You do realize "not realistic" is basically a badly constructed way of saying "realistic"?

 

[Aensland]

I will give you my view but if this is for an essay I suggest "unrealistic" rather than "not realistic" as it is more grammatically correct.

By "realistic" I assume you mean games such as Medal of Honor or Call of Duty: World at War versus, say Halo or Team Fortress?

I love realistic games, but to be truthful they are far and few between. The problem stems from the fact that not a lot of gamers are willing to play a game where being shot once in the head or chest kills them, or in the leg slows them to a crawl. Picture playing a game such as Super Mario Brothers for the original Nintendo Entertainment System and having Mario fall from the jump to the flagpole in 1-1. Now picture if he landed and broke both of his kneecaps, his ankle, and fractured his femur. I doubt a lot of gamers would appreciate the realism; I know I wouldn't.

Every game you play has an unrealistic element somewhere in it. Call of Duty it is the amount of damage received even on hardcore mode. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater it is that you don't break bones or bleed from your crotch when you bail.

The only truly realistic game I can recall playing is the very first Bushido Blade for Playstation. I can't count the second one as realistic because, well, my favorite character dies in the first game's storyline and yet there he is in the second game! The game was amazing to me because it involved realistic weapon styles for combat and hitting someone in an arm made that arm unusable for them. A head or vital blow gave you an instant victory. Hitting their legs forced them into a crawl. the terrain such as trees and bamboo could be slashed through and knocked down if it was between you and your opponent.

I think the problem with making games too realistic is that most gamers, such as myself, wish to escape from the real world for a while and into a realm of fantasy for them. When I play a game I become the main character. I cry when they cry. I get enraged when they get enraged. I remember when I first played Final Fantasy 7 and I saw Tifa get slashed in a cutscene and my blood boiled. I sat straight up, lip twitching and eyes glaring as if I were going to kill Sephiroth myself. Emo Odyssey ... erm Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360 makes me cry far too much because every character has had a horrible background and the way the writers tell the stories in a narrated novelistic approach makes me imagine everything as if it was happening around me. While I am feeling those emotions I am not me. I am not a lonely guy living alone hating his life. I am a mighty warrior with a purpose who people love and respect.

In conclusion, I would say that I feel many gamers want to see action or drama that is not in normal everyday life when playing their games. Just as in a movie you would buy on DVD games are still entertainment and storyline, special effects, action... these are all elements that need to be considered. Look up Chibi Robo and its Wal-Mart exclusive sequel if you want an example of how realistic games fail.

 

[thebestofblue]

The title was actually "Realistic or Not Unrealistic", which is worse than Realistic or Not Realistic. Anyway, its been sorted now so no-one else needs to mention my occasional lack of grammar skills. That's my teacher's job.

 

[Floof5467]

Whatever works for the game. This is a silly topic for a essay, If I used realistic graphics for something like the Mario franchise it would look utterly stupid. But if I used cartoonish graphics for, I don't know the Call of Duty franchise (these are such stereotypical and overused comparisons but whatever) it would be ridiculous and i'd probably be called a sick bastard for playing it.

Same for things like physics. If you start busting out Newtonian gravity and shit in something like Pokemon that's just straight up ridiculous and also never going to be of relevance.

Most likely your teacher is looking for you to take a side though, so my answer is useless. Id suggest getting a different topic if you can't have a neutral take on it. Seems like the only acceptable way to view it. There is a time and a place for everything.

 

[Aensland]

Same for things like physics. If you start busting out Newtonian gravity and shit in something like Pokemon that's just straight up ridiculous and also never going to be of relevance.


LOL ever tried to play World at War on 360 nowadays? Hackers flying through walls and in the air and crap. that is what that made me think of.

 

[Disturbed Mouse]

Hmm, in my opinion I think unrealistic games are far more superior to realistic games. For example, take boss battles. In 'The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks' the final boss is a huge demon creature which shows you the power this creature has. It also creates quite a grand feeling as to when you've defeated this huge monster. In the more realistic games, they either have no boss at all or simply choose to have a boss that looks the same as everyone else -well, they can't have a monster during World War II now can they- which does affect how I feel about the game strongly.

Also, some gamers (including me) play games to escape reality and it is fairly obvious that playing games trying so hard to be realistic won't help you achieve this escape feeling which is another lacking point.

I know this is a strongly biased answer as some people prefer realistic games but I hope this helps!