102 réponses à ce sujet

[ME_Fan]

And you clearly aren't realizing that Human limitation and our concept of physics go out the window when you have a port hole to hell open due to a sigil stone, or can create you're own reality from one, also the whole flying castle bit again.

Oh and deities walking Nirn?

._. And folks whine about demons, Least they don't have Mehrunes Dagon crossing the veil.

Oh my god, FFS man! What I'm trying to say is that goofy oversized weapons in fantasy are something I can't stand! Everything else is fine, it is fantasy after all. OKAY?

[Master Warder Z_]

Yeah, but Mehrunes doesn't go about possessing people though

 

When did the Prince of Destruction ever need a vessel?

[TheLastArchivist]

Well hello friends! 

 

I was thinking about this a lot recently and thought it would be good to get a discussion going. I've been hearing a few arguments lately for what people would like to see in DAI that incorporate the words "realism" or "realistic". This usually comes up in threads to do with female characters or female representation, but it can pop up basically anywhere. Just now I saw an argument regarding companion sexuality where the person said they wouldn't appreciate playersexual characters because that wouldn't be "realistic."

 

So my question to you is: Do you think realism is something that matters in a fantasy game like Dragon Age, and if so, to what capacity?

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "realism" argument (it's right up there with the "resources" one for me ). I find that people end up picking and choosing what they feel should be realistic in the game, rendering the argument inconsistent and ultimately irrelevant.

 

Thoughts?

I'm a fan of realism because the alternative is for the game to resemble something like a Disney movie.

Too much realism may cause people to be shocked or have no connection to the game and its characters. But I prefer this to a childish, annoying fairy tale plot, with predictable characters and situations.There are already too many movies, animations and games that follow this tiresome formula. Let's hope Dragon Age preserves its healthy mature ambiance.

[Mes]

I'm a fan of realism because the alternative is for the game to resemble something like a Disney movie.

 

 

So what specifically in terms of realism do you like seeing Dragon Age?

[Ryzaki]

I understand hating tedium, but you don't have to be tedious to approximate the real world.

 

I just think it's silly to call for less realism, when there's a whole realm devoted to having no rules already (The Fade). They have to be differentiated somewhat. And the games have already done a decent enough job at that imo.

 

But that's what it usually boils down to. "It's not realistic you can carry X amount of weapons!" tends to lead to me dropping some weapons, dragging them back to the shop to sell coming BACK to get the rest, dragging those back to sell. NO NO NOOOOOOOOOO. *flips tables*

 

Who's asking for less realism? When I ask for something I don't give a flying fig how "realistic" it is. I just want something fun and thematically consistent. That's not too much to ask. >:| I don't mind a hit to the latter if it's entertaining enough though.

 

 

Oh my god, FFS man! What I'm trying to say is that goofy oversized weapons in fantasy are something I can't stand! Everything else is fine, it is fantasy after all. OKAY?

 

If this is your issue there was absolutely no reason for you to bring up realism. Just say "the weapons are laughably huge. Can we get them smaller?" Makes the same point without opening the realism! But fantasy! debate.

[Ryzaki]

I'm not paying attention enough to know who's asking for it. I'm just posting my own thoughts in this thread. Like I said, I think the games have already done a good enough job of it.

 

XD fair enough. And agreed. They were fine to me as wel.

[Bob from Accounting]

Let's me just go ahead and be the person to say that, #1, Realism is far too often used as synonymous with 'good,' and that #2, it's a very tricky word applied to fiction in general that can very quickly lead to fallacies.

[CybAnt1]

Well, it's interesting. It doesn't so much operate in fantasy, but in the sci-fi genre, it creates a division. Of course, we here are on the DA forums, not the ME forums. 

 

So-called "hard" SF tries to stick to things that are in perfect accordance with the known laws of physics. 

So-called "soft" SF focuses on character and narrative over "hard science". And honestly doesn't really get too picky about getting the science perfectly right. 

 

Lots of interesting discussion here.

 

http://www.treitel.o...rd/sf/hard.html

 

I like the scientist who points out that if we used a strict enough definition for "hard" SF, most SF would fail the test. So it all would end up "soft." So at the end of the day, he says he simply makes a decision not to let contravention of physics ruin his enjoyment. 

 

Just about every sci-fi series often conveniently ignores that deceleration is necessary and requires lots of time and energy, just like acceleration. Just as one example. Everything accelerates, but when do you ever see the Enterprise hit the brakes and gradually slow down? 

 

The other problem is, at the end of the day, we can only say something appears to be impossible at the moment. Our knowledge of the possible is evolving. At one point, people writing about breaking the sound barrier would probably have been considered crazy. Then it happened. So, while many would say time travel is an impossibility, ... that's only because in our current state of knowledge, it doesn't seem possible. 

 

Thus, can we say all sci-fi stories that feature time travel are "soft" ... or not? 

[Grieving Natashina]

I'll probably add more later, but when it comes to Realism™ in a game, I'm going to paraphrase Manveer Heir here:

 

"We need to stop using 'realism' as an excuse.  We're fantasy writers.  We can make the rules whatever we want them to be."

[Tcab96]

This reminds me of the armor and weapon threads where people disliked impractical weapons and armor. While that's completely fine for them to dislike the weapons or armor because of this, I honestly really like my big swords and fancy, spiky armor. If I think it looks cool, looks cool on my dude/dudette, and looks fun to wear, then they're wielding or wearing it. In this case, I don't particularly care for it.

The only time I do care is when the story has plot holes or isn't consistent with its own story and rules.

[Grieving Natashina]

This reminds me of the armor and weapon threads where people disliked impractical weapons and armor. While that's completely fine for them to dislike the weapons or armor because of this, I honestly really like my big swords and fancy, spiky armor. If I think it looks cool, looks cool on my dude/dudette, and looks fun to wear, then they're wielding or wearing it. In this case, I don't particularly care for it.

The only time I do care is when the story has plotholes or isn't consistent with its own story and rules.

 

First, since I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet...Welcome to the forums!  

 

Secondly, I really liked your post, especially that last bit.  I fully agree here; as long as the story is consistent with the rules already established by lore, I'm a happy gamer.  When a story starts breaking it's own fantasy rules, then it throws my immersion out of the window and I'm left glaring at my monitor.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hell, I would say Andraste is probably based on Boudica and Joan of Arc (some people say Jesus as well, but he wasn't a warrior).

Bioware I believe stated that Andraste was basically if Jesus Christ was born as Joan of Arc.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The irony is that Skyrim's inclusion of dragons totally throws all of that out the window too. An animal with the size of a dragon cannot achieve powered flight.

How big were the dragons in Skyrim? Do we have actual dimensions?

[Nefla]

All I care about is that a game stay true to its own established rules and lore. If everyone has been shown to have normal strength as humans do in real life, I don't want to see the PC jump 50 feet in the air and rip a helicopter out of the sky. If the lore says "men and women are equally represented in the military, politics, etc..." and that the world is not sexist, I don't want to have people constantly being shocked that your female PC is a warrior or having female warriors make up only 1% of politicians, warriors, etc...I don't care if that fantasy world conforms to reality, real physics, real genetics, or real social history or culture. At all.

[renfrees]

Then what, you hit the enemy's armor until it crushes their insides? It still requires some strength if that's the case.

 

This one looks heavy enough

Actually yes, many of the bastard type swords weren't that sharp and were used to crush armor and break bones behind it. And to cut horse's legs or neck.

Heavy 2-handed swords (espadon, claymore) weighed ~4kg with the length of 180cm and were used to skew and break lances. Warriors wielding it, had normal size sword as well, to actually fight. The sword on that picture is a stylized claymore type.

[In Exile]

 

So my question to you is: Do you think realism is something that matters in a fantasy game like Dragon Age, and if so, to what capacity?

 

 

I think realism is impossible in a game that has RPG mechanics. Combat is designed to be as unrealistic as possible. There's no grappling, so you can face multiple foes without any problem, when IRL the biggest issue is getting swarmed. All damage comes via HP pools, so things that should straight up murder and/or cripple you forever (being frozen solid, being set on fire, being crunched in the jaws of a dragon) basically don't do anything to you, etc. 

 

When the basic exposure to the game is so beyond anything realistic, I think the game has to embrace being stylistic. Anything else is just so dissonant that it's impossible to take seriously. Like in a JRP when you're lv 100 and can murder everything in sight but you surrender to 3 guards because the plot requires it. 

[Mockingword]

No, realism is not even slightly important to fantasy. In many ways, it's antithetical. The more realism you have in your fantasy story, the less of a fantasy it is.

 

But that doesn't mean that they can't work well together. Just that elitist nerd-snobs should stop whining about it.

[Ieldra]

I think we need to distinguish between two categories: fantastic elements grounded in lore and artistic license. The former is responsible for things like the existence of magic and possibly gods, the latter for things like the oversized weapons, nonsensical "armor" types, over-the-top combat animations and suchlike.

As I see it, the first category can be as fantastic as it wants, since that makes the identity of the world, but I would impose severe restrictions on artistic license if I had any say in it.

[In Exile]

I think we need to distinguish between two categories: fantastic elements grounded in lore and artistic license. The former is responsible for things like the existence of magic and possibly gods, the latter for things like the oversized weapons, nonsensical "armor" types, over-the-top combat animations and suchlike.

As I see it, the first category can be as fantastic as it wants, since that makes the identity of the world, but I would impose severe restrictions on artistic license if I had any say in it.

 

I don't think the distinction works, because "fantastic elements grounded in lore" includes things like fireballs and dragons, and the basic gameplay violates any actual sense of the world functioning like an IRL world and not being basically Order of the Stick. In fact, that webcomic is about as close as you get to what a world is like when the actual rules of gameplay translate to the daily lives of characters. 

 

A game just becomes a bit of an inconsistent joke if it doesn't have over-the-top armour, weapons, and animations. Because in that case it asks you to believe the whole thing is realistic, and that a squad of five darkspawn is a threat, while you murder hundreds by yourself. 

[luckycooky]

So fantasy is unrealistic almost every one geth that. But if you look to myself that world need bee realistic for me. 

for if the world is Realistic and have some fundemental rules that you cant change. that what make it real. in a unreal world 

 

for explame Game of Thrones  The dragons the magic shadow baby's rocks, Because of people in the book/tvshow are almost real the have feelings and goal's and alot of them bite the dust.

 

In other fansty great worlds. but the have a hero that geth shot full of arrows like say 10 and still manage to kill 5 demons,And then hi recovers from that 

 

the first one i like the other one i dont like 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Fantasy needs to adhere to its own lore and create characters that have believable goals that the audience can relate to. However, a lot of people use the word "realism" to complain when their preferences are contradicted in a way that frames the complaint with objectivity. 

[Former_Fiend]

I think realism is a word that gets thrown around a lot.

 

Realism has never been a thing in DA. Even back in Origins, warriors could stay standing after being slammed by ogres and could stagger said ogres with pommel strikes from their swords, and leap six feet off the ground to tackle-stab the ogre. They could survive being picked up in a dragon's jaws, chewed on, and being thrashed about for a good few seconds and keep on fighting.

 

I think what most people mean is that there's a certain point when something crosses their suspension of disbelief. It's a matter of tastes; how over the top is too over the top is going to vary from one individual to the next.

[Ieldra]

I don't think the distinction works, because "fantastic elements grounded in lore" includes things like fireballs and dragons, and the basic gameplay violates any actual sense of the world functioning like an IRL world and not being basically Order of the Stick. In fact, that webcomic is about as close as you get to what a world is like when the actual rules of gameplay translate to the daily lives of characters. 
 
A game just becomes a bit of an inconsistent joke if it doesn't have over-the-top armour, weapons, and animations. Because in that case it asks you to believe the whole thing is realistic, and that a squad of five darkspawn is a threat, while you murder hundreds by yourself.

I'm not seeing that. IMO the games would be a great deal better with less over-the-top stuff. You might need special unrealistic animations if you're to fight dragons and suchlike, but there's a point beyond which "cool and badass" becomes "silly", and I don't see *any* need for armor less protective than normal clothing and oversized weapons that look as if people were more likely to injure themselves with them than the enemy.

@Former_Fiend:
Yes, there a great deal of YMMV in this debate. I think that stuff which is unrealistic even in terms of the game's own lore should be limited to where it significantly adds to the experience. Now, do those over-the-top animations and oversized weapons add to the experience? Maybe for some, but for me they detract from it, significantly. In fact, I don't see *any* gain there, so of course IMO the price in the strain on suspension of disbelief is too high.