142 réponses à ce sujet

[Oberkaiser]

Women in armor is probably the single biggest immersion-breaker.

[ScarMK]

Personally, I thought Origins has a nice blend of fantasy and realism/believability in the weapons/armour. Other than that, as long as the game follows its' own rules and lore, I'm usually fine with it.

[ReallyRue]

I like emotional reactions and societal structure to be 'realistic' in so far as I find it believable and it makes sense.
Everything else can be as mad as it likes.

[Knight of Dane]

renjility wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Y'know what, I just replayed the "Nature of the Beast" quest in Origins, I'm completing another DA3 import.
I chose to attack the Hermit with the acorn and he "teleported" away.
When I talked to him again Wynne said that "he uses illusions to disappapear," so it's apparently already established in DA:O that, that can be done 

Hmm, fair enough. I still find it leaning a bit toward the "cheating" side, and it does raise the question why none of your own mage characters can learn something like that (yes, well, Merrill can move underground like a mole, I know, I know). 

So can Velanna.

And any rogue in DA2 can learn that instatransportation talent, similar to Merrills, where they appear next to an ally, so It's a little switchy it seems.

[Swoopdogg]

 The key here is suspension of disbelief. If you can justify a dragon flying around middle age Europe, then it's golden. If you can justify why certain people have magic and why some don't, then it's golden. The problem arises when you can't justify why something is (like why templars don't know you're obviously a mage). So the question doesn't arise from how much fantasy is in the game; it arises from how much fantasy to reality there is. Like a ratio. The more fantasy you have, the more reality you should have to back it up. So in answering your question: both equally.

[TheCharmedOne]

I do not need realism in my fantasy game. I have no problem with a tiny 10lb elf wielding a massive hunky sword next to my mage shooting fire from his hands...give me fantasy on top of fantasy on top of fantasy. as long as the story is good, and the gameplay fun, i have no problems.

[Fortlowe]

I like realistic context, behaviour, and reactions relative to extraordinary settings, events, and circumstances. Basically, not matter how badass my PC is, if a high dragon drops out of the sky in front of them, they should: a. **** themselves. b. Try to run away. c. Failing the ability to flee, then engage the dragon.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Depends how the author/writer delivers the story Final Fantasy does a fantastic job with their stories and adding semi realistic elements to their story and characters.That being said tho the elements in Final Fantasy would never work in lets say Dragon Age.Because of how Origins introduced us to the DA world Bioware can't just make a 180 and make crazy overpowered Mages like a Kefka,Emperor Mateus,or Kuja or Warriors that can match the likes of Sephiroth,Cloud or Lightning.Dragonball did a good job of transitioning the story from battling earth level martial artists to opponents like Frieza who could destroy an entire planet with just one finger O_o...Long story short depends on how the writer tells the story.

[Travie]

0.7 Reality Units (RU) per 2 Fantasy Units (FU)

[wright1978]

Darth Death wrote...

Replying strictly to the title, enough where my suspension of disbelief isn't broken. As long as a story follows its own rules & laws from a structural storytelling perspective, & doesn't abruptly brake them (with no foreshadow applied) for no direct purpose, other than an "awe" moment or plot twist.

This

[Uccio]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

After touching on the debate in a few other threads, and with The Witcher series being so talked about of late, I thought it'd be interesting to see how much reality everyone likes in their fantasy games?

I personally like a realistic foundation, with fantasy elements built on top of that. The Witcher series does it great for me (even though I think the games themselves as a whole fall short of their potential) and one of the things which I loved about DA:O was that it still had a "grounded" feel to it too, even though it danced with totally outlandish flights of fantasy.

DA:2 was a step too far towards fantasy for me - it was starting to teeter on a JRPG and even though I like JRPGs it's not what I expect from a WRPG. There were barely any characters which were had any grit to them, and the whole tilt towards Anime felt very out of place, and very weak. It was even more strange that DA:2 focussed on less of a "save the world" plot, and more of a "survive in the city" plot despite the vibe being set totally opposite to that (seriously BW, someone in-house needs a proper slap for not covering such a basic lol. It's like saying "we're gonna record a killer hard rock album, turn everything down to 1 and add a harp playing through every song. ")

So does it matter to you? Do you want to feel like you're in a middle aged England but one which has magic and demons? Or could you not care less and accept 10 stone elves weilding two-handed swords bigger than they are?

I have to second this. In DAO I had some beef with the gigantic shoulder patches and a bit with those two handed swords, but since the game was  overall so good I didn´t mind. DA2 though went over the top for me.

[Fredward]

Define realism. If realism is massive prejudice, discrimination and hate crime you're totally bringing real world standards into the game. Which isn't just wrong, it's stupid.

[Hadeedak]

One of the things that brings me down is when realism is read as relentless grimdark, sturm und drang nonstop. Reality is a bit zany, and anyone who hasn't noticed that hasn't paid enough attention. That's why a lot of dark fantasies lose my attention fairly early on.

[Dragoonlordz]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Define realism. If realism is massive prejudice, discrimination and hate crime you're totally bringing real world standards into the game. Which isn't just wrong, it's stupid.

It's neither wrong or stupid. It's applying common sense to realise that in any game universe outside of utopian setting, such people with such attitudes would exist and such events would happen therefore should be present if done well. If it is not a utopian game setting then such should be present within the context of the societies, cultures and people of that world. To exclude such would be both stupid and wrong as far as I am concerned. Not everyone in that world, not every society, culture, race or region will have such issues but some would; therefore should exist within the game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 février 2013 - 10:21 .

[Plaintiff]

As long as the setting is internally consistent, I don't care.

[SerTabris]

I very much don't want to see instances of sexism/racism/etc. thrown in to make it more "realistic". I think this goes into the broader framework of internal consistency, rather than similarity to our world - it's not like there's some sort of innate requirement that a world with a medieval technology level has to have worse sexism than our world does, or any such thing. There are plenty of other sources for conflict that don't play in to the same cultural problems and expectations that can be seen everywhere else.

[deuce985]

Low fantasy.  Or high. Either is good enough for me.

Modifié par deuce985, 26 février 2013 - 11:27 .

[cJohnOne]

I like realism in a fantasy setting as much as possible. Real looking swords, and other items. I think it makes the game world come alive.

But I can live without it if the characters are good and I enjoy the game.

[CuriousArtemis]

As long as the writing's good I'm in.

I liked both DA games. Please stop with the anime comparisons. (I like anime, too.) (But not all anime, because there's a lot of anime out there. And I've never played a JRPG.)

[shootist70]

I'm pretty receptive, it is called 'fantasy' after all.

Still, some things bug me, like having people run around in full plate armour for their adventuring. Would never happen. Ironically, a leather thong and jerkin would be a far more sensible choice.

[Cobra's_back]

ejoslin wrote...

I agree with you in some ways, though the size of the character and their weapon doesn't bother me. In fact, I would be annoyed if women could not be capable warriors. But I did like the characters in DAO -- the reactions to the situation just felt realistic. When you can understand and relate to the motives of various characters, when the actions of people are not brought on by supernatural forces, it just seems more realistic and therefore, more immersive.

Comparing Loghain/Howe and Meredith for a moment here -- Loghain was a great antagonist whereas Meredith made me roll my eyes. Howe was terrific as well; he was a slimebag but I could understand his motivations and hate him all the more for it. Loghain, while flawed, acted with good intentions with disastrous results. Meredith, instead of being a complex antagonist, ended up having a cheap plot device which made her evil, and that took away a lot from the story for me.

I like fantasy. I loved in DAO that people reacted as you would expect to an evil that was invading their land. You had denial, power grabs, people taking advantage of the instability, and a final coming together because that had to happen to have a land to save. In DA2, I never really had that feeling. It could have been good -- there were some terrific ideas there.

Totally agree. Loghain and Howe loved hating them. Meredith was sad. The last paragraph is dead on. DAO is still my favorite.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I like my fantasy to adhere to Newtonian mechanics in all worldly things and to be realistic in regard to human psychology. Other than that, it merely needs to be internally consistent.

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 27 février 2013 - 12:01 .

[shootist70]

This 'internally consistent/suspension-of-disbelief' thing is spreading like a disease.

Tbh, those things should go without saying - they apply to anybody who ever wrote a story.