Realism: does it matter?

[GhostofAnakin]

For me, realism matters but only to a point. Do I want duel-wielding greatswords that look like they came right out of some Anime that are the size of an ogre? No. But at the same time, do I want my character to have to eat 3 meals a day and go to the bathroom on a regular basis or die? No.

 

I don't mind when certain things are based on reality: various things in the setting (ie. Kings, religious worship, technology matching certain periods of history of our own, etc.), usage of weapons in a realistic way, that sort of thing. I draw the line when realism turns to tedium.

[smithereen]

I don't want the game to make concessions to tedium, no. But things should work the same way as in the real world unless clearly stated otherwise, and above all, the game's world should remain internally consistent. As little "world and gameplay segregation" as possible.

[Dream]

It depends on how awesome it is. I don't particularly care that Dante can walk around with 10 scythes sticking out of his body, or that Jeanne can ride a motorcycle vertically up a giant statue in outer space since it looks freaking amazing. However, watching Shepard shrug off a laser blast that can cleave through dreadnoughts looked beyond retarded.

 

I suppose a big part of this is whether or not the universe was created with realism in mind, and while I have no problem with realistic stories I generally prefer stories where realism isn't a major consideration (Bayonetta, PS:T, Alice, Borderlands, Sucker Punch, etc.).

[Hormalakh]

I failed to mention that being fun is important, but when fun is not a factor, my thoughts as written above, stand.

[kabaliero]

portions of realism are pleasant to discover

like, "oh, i gotta eat to live, that's interesting"

 

but in most cases, you don't discover much of that, so~

up to whatever they wanna

[LadyCrimson]

I tend to like visual consistency. That is, if there are super-duper sized 1H swords, there better be super-duper sized magic staffs, bigger 2H swords, and even daggers should be ridiculously large. If you're going for a certain type of look in your game, it should be similar through either the whole game or the area of the game where such things occur.

 

But that doesn't mean I care much about visual reality. Rainbow hued flowers and fluorescent purple horses and dogs? Not my personal thing, but whatever. A gun chamber and reloading animation doesn't match reality enough? Don't care, as long as within the game the mechanics of reloading (across the board for all gear) feels fair and works well for the way combat is designed. I mean, it's cool when a game bases its stuff in reality that you can point to, but it's not something I particularly look/wish for ... unless the game is an actual simulator of something, perhaps (Subway Train Simulator #29!).

 

And I definitely don't want/care about truly realistic weight/hunger/thirst/everyone's-gotta-poo type reality in games.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Oy, I'm picking up a disconcerting habit of posing questions without answering them for myself.

 

My answer: "realism" (maybe better used in quotes, as it has been above) is important to me primarily because it indicates to me the designers are interested in the world they're designing. A realistic map tells me the people who created it sat down and considered what kind of terrain makes sense in a given area rather than just randomly scattering desert or jungle or arctic tundra wherever they feel it would be cool. A realistic treatment of swords or armor or whatever is important only because it tells me the creators have done their research on how swords and armor have historically been used.

 

In short, 'realistic' to me means 'the designers sitting down and doing their homework' which in turn means 'the designers going above and beyond the call of duty to create a cool and believable world.' It is much, much, much easier to do an a**pull than to research something and try to make it feel as true to life as possible.

 

Basically, its a nice touch, but is it essential? As the Infinity Engine games show, not at all. Its like showing off, not critical but nice to see regardless. Gameplay is still king. Is something realistic but boring or aggravating? Cut it without a moment's hesitation or regret. Is something unrealistic but makes gameplay far less of a pain or a lot more fun? Add it in, no worries.

 

Just my take.

[The Guilty Party]

I like people to have realistic reactions to things. I like conversations to be realistic. I want the world to be internally consistent, so that if fire burns a door down in chapter 1, I should be able to burn a door down in chapter 3.

 

The degree to which the game world models the real world though? I don't really care. Some kind of reasonable approximation is fine. (Sharp things cut better than dull things).

 

In the end, this isn't a medieval combat simulator. If you're looking for it to be, you are almost certainly going to be very disappointed. This is a medium to explore a world and experience a story and meet and master some tactical challenges in a rpg-style system where your character's skills are what matter and less what your skills are.

[Nonek]

Like a lot of the people above i'm a firm believer that the fantastic must sprout from a solid grounding of realism, and even the most fantastical aspects must abide by their own logic and laws, even if we do not know or are not told of them. Internal consistency as others have stated.

[Tsuga C]

Short answer: yes.

 

Longer answer: I like my science fiction heavy on the science and light on the fiction and my pseudo-historical fantasy heavy on the history and light on the fantasy. My credulity is easily strained, so I have a strong preference for keeping things in P:E on the well-grounded side of the spectrum instead of indulging in preposterous flights of fancy.

 

Keep the internal logic of the game consistent, keep the arms and panoplies historically-based (maybe with a subtle dash of artistic license; no battle axes with heads the size of trash can lids, though), and remember that this isn't Sigil or the Great Wheel. I genuinely enjoy the Planescape setting and Todd Stewart has done a fine job of keeping it alive and promoting a Planescape-esque feel in his collaborations with Paizo, but I don't want to see ludicrousness indiscriminately propounded with sterling ideas in this game for the sake of shock value to stimulate the junior high kiddywinks.

 

Re-read the first book of the A Song of Ice and Fire series, A Game of Thrones. Yes, there were certainly fantasy elements there, but they were decidedly subservient to the storyline and didn't come across as in-your-face weirdness for its own sake.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Tsuga C

[exodiark]

As long as it's not Final Fantasy over-the-top attempt to be cool, I'm fine with some exaggerations and unrealistic elements

Edited October 31, 2012 by exodiark

[Frenetic Pony]

"Suspension of Disbelief" is the term you and everyone is usually searching for when discussing these things. Meaning, essentially, wheter you get sucked into the story or not. And the more things seem to "make sense" or "are familiar" the easier it makes it for more and more people in general to suspend their disbelief and get sucked into the story.

 

So yeah, it "matters". But how much it matters depends on who you are, and how much things "making sense" affects your own suspension of disbelief. Fortunately this is a fantasy game, and so we can assume we're already dealing with people with some amount of imagination.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Frenetic Pony

[Larkaloke]

Realism does matter to me. Or at least, believability and suspension of disbelief do. I do not mind some unrealistic or wildly fantastical things, of course; certainly not when they fit the setting (which I do assume that any such would). Things such as weapons and armour, however, I prefer to have a solid grounding in reality. I don't necessarily want them to completely follow the course they have followed in the real world, just so long as they follow a course that is believable.

 

While I prefer a fairly high level of realism, I can certainly also enjoy games and stories with a lower level of it. It does reach a point where things start to simply seem ridiculous to me, however, and then I start to not really care any more. Extremely oversized weapons with nearly unusable looking designs can contribute to that. Armour that doesn't seem it would do its job can contribute to that. Day and night changing only when you make them change, or never, can contribute. The closer things get to a cartoonishly exaggerated level, the more I tend to walk away from them (although clearly, this isn't true of a large number of people, since lots of people like cartoons).

 

Specifically in a game like this, while I am always happy to see weapons and armour and such be completely realistic, all I ask is for believability and internal consistency. If there is a really good reason for things, even things that I might normally raise an eyebrow about and disregard might end up working.

 

I think perhaps the more realistic things already are, the less an explanation is needed for them. We all (most of us? Some of us?) already have a good idea of how most weapons and armour work here, for example, and why they are the way they are. So, no explanation for that is needed if they work and look the same way in the game. If they differ wildly, then things start to seem as though they don't make sense unless there is an explanation given.

[FrostPaw]

I think realism matters to the extent that the more realistic a game can be the more intuitive it becomes. In our world, fire burns, if fire is also damaging if you stand in it in the game, that makes sense and draws a connection within the players mind that they understand the world they're in.

 

On the other hand if you stand in fire and turn into a pink pony that craps candy canes it might be hilarious, but what you're teaching the player is they know nothing and cannot relate to what they see, which creates a divide between the character, the world they interact in and the player.

 

An example of realism for me would be having to remove plate or chain armor before diving into the water or you will sink and drown. An example of game sense in this instance would be allowing me to put that armor into my backpack, theoretically I'm still weighted and should sink but the alternative is you have to drop it and come back for it and then you have to worry about items on the ground decaying etc so for me the former is important but the latter makes sense from a gameplay perspective.

 

If a game is going to aim for realism then it should wherever possible to show the player the rules are consistent, as long as that realism doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the game, because ultimately we play games for enjoyment.

Edited October 31, 2012 by FrostPaw

[Rostere]

I want the world to behave exactly like our world, but with a made-up theology, magic, souls, and so on. The "realism" I want is all about the world obeying its own rules. For example, a language not like anything in the real world with an artificial grammar beats a "fake" language similar to a real one. A world map that is geologically feasible beats a one that a kid could have drawn.

 

I want the world to make sense, to be believable. I've nothing against magic as long as it is properly explained and does not create inconsistencies.

[jezz555]

I tend to like visual consistency. That is, if there are super-duper sized 1H swords, there better be super-duper sized magic staffs, bigger 2H swords, and even daggers should be ridiculously large.

 

 

but if everything is huge...how can you tell?

[Fooine]

To me, realism is important when it comes to world-building. I want to encounter cultures that are the believable product of that fictional world's history rather than just quirks. I want rivers to flow from lakes and inner seas towards oceans. I want moutains ranges where tectonic plates should meet, not sticking out of nowhere. I don't want tatooine-style sand dunes deserts in the arctic. So yeah. I guess I expect some realism when it comes to anthropology, geography and the like. World-building, y'know? Although realism is such an ugly word. "Consistency" might be better suited, as others suggested.

 

But when it comes to details such as fighting, magicking and watching the awesome deeds of people living in that world? Rule of cool, baby.

[JFSOCC]

You know, I believe there is quite a clear consensus here.

[Juneau]

?

 

We like realism but we accept that realism can be based upon a different set of rules and designs and if something can be explained logically we don't mind something vastly different and physically impossible in the 'real world'.

[JohanKris]

I say it again. Internal consistency.

 

the world must follow its own rules and the things it has set up, just make sure those things to contradict each other or change for no reason.

[Rostere]

I remember watching the first episodes of Game of Thrones and laughing at the silly protection against the cold weather. They talk about tough winter, but some of those guys look like they've never seen snow in their entire lives. It's maybe a bit nitpicky, but that's an (obscure) aspect of realism for me!

[Mikaw]

First, excuse me for my low english level.

 

About realism... Seriously, who cares? When someone create a game, a book or a movie... whatever media that contain a story, the focus should be on verisimilitude more than realism.

Especially when we talk about RPGs. No one want to play a realistic character, or play in a realistic world. We want some magic, wondrous places, epic destiny. We want to play a dragon slayer, a wizard capable to burn an entire army with a few words of power, a heroic warrior who can hold his ground against an army of orcs and even defeat them if he has companion.

Who cares if a blade can't pierce or slash through a plate armor... He's supposed to be strong beyond the actual limits the realism imposes. The weapon is supposed to be mighty as well, magically enhanced.

I'm not saying some elements of realism wont be good. But realism refers to some laws that rules our world. It's about reality and cant be applied to every aspect of a game, especially swordfight...

I would rather apply realism to minor elements, to make the world more consistent. For exemple, in a higher lever of difficulty, cold climate can affect characters ( interfere with movements and attack and some appropriate cloth could be required to not have those kind of malus. Or the player could have to check the quantity of food and water his characters have in their bags if they have a long journey. I wont consider other daily natural needs since we dont want a medieval sims and assume that our characters are smart enough to not pee in their pants, but the example of the food for long travel can be something that can make them travel faster if they have enough food. Otherwise they could be slowed because they'le have to gather it during their travel.

This is only an exemple and I think may players wouldn't like that, and it should be and activable option, but some minor elements like that can be the touch of realism that can make the world more immersive.

 

Again I'm sorry for my poor english, and please focus on the content and not on the form when you answer, but feel free to correct me about my many mistakes : it can't harm me to improve my english

[Archmage Silver]

Suspension of disbelief is important, otherwise you've got a flop game. Add "realism" until you achieve that point where the player is willing to suspend their disbelief and play the game.

[Kleisthenes]

I don't want realism. Especially since the argument is often used as to why magic users should be superior in every way to "mundane" characters, though it doesn't seem to be a problem here, with souls powering monks and warriors and what not.

 

I'm not quite sure which setting you are specifically referring to, but I'm going to take Forgotten Realms as an example. In Forgotten Realms you have deities who grant divine magic to those who serve them, and arcane users can tap into the weave or shadow weave, that both were created by Gods. Now, if you look at the non magic classes, like fighter. How is a regular fighter supposed to easily take on power that comes from the Gods?

 

I think it all depends on the lore. In certain settings it would make sense that magic is more powerful, in other settings it may be completely different.

 

Regarding realism, or believably. I think that armour and weapons should have appropriate size, and not be too big. There are other things as well, like the environment looking authentic, but besides that I don't care much. Fantasy means magic and realism is generally relative to the setting it is in.

[True_Spike]

I only want the world to be realistic within its own ruleset, as in consistent.