I had a thought a little while ago. I think Manveer Heir's GDC panel is still very fresh in my mind.
My main problem with Realism™ is that I've noticed players and a few game developers in other companies keep using realism as an excuse to exclude:
Minorities
Women Protagonists
LGBTQ characters
I've heard this a lot. So I'm leery of the word, because too often it's being using as a reason to exclude others. It's even more grating when it's in a fantasy game.
I think realism is a word that gets thrown around a lot.
I agree.
My problem with it is when it's thrown around to try to explain, for instance, why there aren't many female background soldiers (remember that thread?). People start spewing randomness about medieval times and realism and current military as some sort of explanation of why there are more men in the game than there are women. Their facts about our real world end up being incorrect, first of all, and secondly they can go on and on about why realism makes sexism okay but then not bat an eyelid at dragons, magic, or any of the rest of it. 
It's this sort of picking and choosing that bothers me.
I had a thought a little while ago. I think Manveer Heir's GDC panel is still very fresh in my mind.
My main problem with Realism™ is that I've noticed players and a few game developers in other companies keep using realism as an excuse to exclude:
Minorities
Women Protagonists
LGBTQ characters
I've heard this a lot. So I'm leery of the word, because too often it's being using as a reason to exclude others. It's even more grating when it's in a fantasy game.
That is exactly what I think, too! Like these same people have no problems with any other parts of the game. They throw around the term "Realism" like an excuse to perpetuate sexism and misogyny. Instead of coming out and saying what they really think about minorities, women, LGBTQ, they try to cover it up with this strange word that they think explains away everything. They make it into a pill that they hope is easier for us to swallow.
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.
And that's fine; but ultimately that opinion is going to change from one person to the next.
Me, coming from the World of Warcraft background, I think Dragon Age is relatively tame in the oversized weapons and armor catagory, all things considered. But at the same time, how over the top the weapons and armor in WoW got two expansions ago was a big part of the reason I quit that game, so I fully understand where you're coming from.
In my experience, Realism is most often used as a "catch-all" complaint for art, gameplay and sometimes narrative in an attempt to make one's opinion more valid. Rarely is it used as a positive and frequently is the thing the person asks for no more realistic than what the person has issues with.
A good example that used to be thrown around is the use of twohanders between DAO and DA2, where the former is seen as desireable and often hailed as more realistic. It's not. DA2 is actually closer to the speed and style real two-handed weapons would be wielded with (that's not saying it's a very accurate depiction. It's not).
It's not realism, but the word is used to make the opinion more valid. Which is pointless since all opinions is valuable regardless. If one prefers the DAO approach in my example, then that's fair. Whether it's realistic is immaterial.
I think Maria Caliban got it right earlier in this thread: What's most important is that the story is good (and the game fun). As long as that is true, it does not matter how realistic it is.
After that comes that the setting is internally consistent (but flexible enough to bend the rules to produce the better story). The Art and gameplay should support those two goals as much as they can.
Over the top art or gameplay can be a detriment to people that do not prefer it, and by all means say that. Make your opinion heard. But it's not more or less realistic. Just different art.
The best photographs are not the ones that makes the most realistic depiction of reality, it's the ones that captures the imagination the most.
Maybe, but at the same time, "it's fantasy" is used as a catch-all to justify even the most ridiculous elements and brush off all arguments brought in the name of realism.In my experience, Realism is most often used as a "catch-all" complaint for art, gameplay and sometimes narrative in an attempt to make one's opinion more valid.
And that's fine; but ultimately that opinion is going to change from one person to the next.
Me, coming from the World of Warcraft background,
Oh yeah. The silliness going on there is incredible, especially when it comes to the way Azeroth mixes magic & technology. I cannot figure out why if they have mechanical airplanes & helicopters and powered zeppelins/dirigibles, they are still using sail ships? Surely it's time to put some steam engines on the boats?
And then why are people still riding around on horses, turtles, and other ground mounts? It's a bit weird that gnome and goblin engineers can build airplanes, rockets, & helicopters that fly, but haven't figured out how to do an automobile yet, given that there appear to be motorcycles and the goblin "trikes" (which are kind of like small cars).
And now that hunters and others have guns, why is anybody still using bows? (Granted, they still appear to be at the "blunderbuss" level.)
At the end of the day, though, I'm still playing. But yes, I do sometimes think about the inconsistency.
I hate over-sized and ridiculous weapons in fantasy.
I mean how can you fight with something like this?
This is why I like the Witcher art and design much more. Weapons are not 100% realistic but at least they are believable
I hate over-sized and ridiculous weapons in fantasy.
I mean how can you fight with something like this?
This is why I like the Witcher art and design much more. Weapons are not 100% realistic but at least they are believable
about magic and technology - the idea of each other canceling out is plausible imho (Arcanum). if you cannot make something fly with a spell - use tech. engineering seems like a natural course of action for dwarves and qunari (who despise magic) and it's kind of there (Bianca, gaatlok).
as for realism? if something is consitent with the setting, it's not unrealistic.
i hate uncomfortable looking swords tho. why someone would use a bone-shaped sword? how one hones it? i cannot imagine it's handy. or sharp. or light.
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.
It's not about animations. A fireball should melt your armour into your skin. The first time a darkspawn mage hits the party, Alistair should be rollin on the ground screaming as his flesh burns, his eyes melt, and his hair is reduced to a crisp.
It's not about things being "cool and badass". It's about them being stylistic, because pretending their realistic is absurd.
A game like the Witcher can justify it because Geralt isn't meant to be human. He's beyond a badass normal.
Maybe, but at the same time, "it's fantasy" is used as a catch-all to justify even the most ridiculous elements and brush off all arguments brought in the name of realism.
My main requirement is that I must be able to believe in what I see in terms of the world's lore. The combat element in your typical rpg is already an epic failure in that regard since we usually kill a lot more people than any even remotely realistic scenario can justify. At least, then, let me have a game where a single such encounter is believable. The more outrageous and damaging to suspension of disbelief combat becomes, the more I just want to skip it, since I increasingly fail to see it as part of the world rather than a game embedded within the story but separate from the world, and one I don't care about. This is the same for other elements, but the combat is usually the worst offender.
I've been thinking about this, and that statement is a pretty pithy way of stating my problem with "realism". When a game has RPG mechanics and tries to be "realistic", I don't find it believable - I find it ridiculous. Every single encounter is unreal. It only works because I have to totally suspend my disbelief about combat for everything... except when it comes to cutscenes when suddenly an Ogre can crush a character in their bare fist instead of doing that 100 times and everything being OK because you can drink a health poultice. That, to me, makes the world way, way less believable than just having the cutscenes be over-the-top and incorporate the fact that (at least the protagonists) are out of this world when it comes to their abilities.
Like a comic book. Batman is supposedly just a guy in a batsuit, but pretty much everything he does is actually pretty superhuman. It just has to be, because a truly realistic portrayal would make everything he does impossible.
I find that wepons the same size I am breaks my suspsion of disbelief. The weapons that are practical eases me into the world and allows me to except the far out things as pausable.
Without suspension of disbelief there will not be sustained immersion.
Personally I've always found dragon age to be on the tame end of over the top weaponry; there are a few exceptions, but even at its worst, the series has always been mild compared to other games like Darksiders, Kingdoms of Amalur, and especially World of Warcraft.
In that case, wouldn't it be best if those elements are just as unrealistic as necessary instead of about 200% more? Or perhaps you tell me: why does DA2's combat come across as silly and over-the-top to me? Why do I think it's like a parody of what it should look like? Maybe I'm on the wrong track about why I react as I do, but I'm pretty sure "over-the-top" comes into it somewhere.I've been thinking about this, and that statement is a pretty pithy way of stating my problem with "realism". When a game has RPG mechanics and tries to be "realistic", I don't find it believable - I find it ridiculous. Every single encounter is unreal. It only works because I have to totally suspend my disbelief about combat for everything... except when it comes to cutscenes when suddenly an Ogre can crush a character in their bare fist instead of doing that 100 times and everything being OK because you can drink a health poultice. That, to me, makes the world way, way less believable than just having the cutscenes be over-the-top and incorporate the fact that (at least the protagonists) are out of this world when it comes to their abilities.
Like a comic book. Batman is supposedly just a guy in a batsuit, but pretty much everything he does is actually pretty superhuman. It just has to be, because a truly realistic portrayal would make everything he does impossible.
Without suspension of disbelief there will not be sustained immersion.
I agree - the problem is the breaking point for this is different for different people, in that sense it's a bit like pain threshold.
But no, the problem, because of this variability, does not fade into nonexistence.
I once proposed that warriors should be able to fart explosively, and hurl the 5 nearest enemies around them several feet away.
Why not? You'll say it's silly. But there's nothing more silly than people chanting a bit of gibberish, waving their hands in the air, and generating a lightning bolt by doing it.
I think it's because that might, just well, pass everybody's threshold. 
In that case, wouldn't it be best if those elements are just as unrealistic as necessary instead of about 200% more? Or perhaps you tell me: why does DA2's combat come across as silly and over-the-top to me? Why do I think it's like a parody of what it should look like? Maybe I'm on the wrong track about why I react as I do, but I'm pretty sure "over-the-top" comes into it somewhere.
I just think that games shouldn't bother with proper realism if they're an RPG because the very nature of an RPG is anti-realism.
I guess one could argue the modern-world/spycraft ones try and come the closest, like TSR's Top Secret, James Bond 007 d20, or the CRPG Alpha Protocol.
At the end of the day, though, they're also fairly "fantastic" ideas of what espionage is like. Which, because my brother had a friend who worked for the CIA and often discussed this, is, at its most "intriguing", more like John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, then it is like Ian Fleming's Bond books. At least for the covert black ops guys, who do exist - but their lives are nowhere near as glamorous as Bond's. It's actually a fairly crappy existence, if you can imagine having to constantly lie to everyone, including friends, family, and significant others, about what you really do. Anyway, his friend was an analyst, as are most CIA employees, and he spent more time poring over documents, photos, and reports at a desk than he did chasing bad guys with a pistol or doing live surveillance and infiltration.
I agree with your point, IE, because just about every RPG genre, whether it be superhero, fantasy, sci-fi, or supernatural-horror, is pretty much about living and doing things you can't do in the real world. Or they're like Secret World, and at least claim that behind the facade of the everyday, ordinary world we all live in is one of grand mystery, dark conspiracies, and supernatural forces. Some people believe this to be true in reality, of course, but Secret World lets you play it out as if it were true, whether or not it is. 
Then there's the ARGs - alternate reality games - that people play "out in the real world". Our favorite company, EA, tried this out with Majestic. Most of these (Why So Serious?) have typically been tie-ins or promotions for movies or films, like The Dark Knight.
http://en.wikipedia....te_reality_game
There have been many strange ones like The Institute, which seem to be at once massive performance art, social experiment, and game.
http://www.theinstitutemovie.com
A lot of people find the idea appealing of pursuing an imaginary objective, solving puzzles, finding clues, locating secret messages, even siding with mysterious fictional (?) factions, but doing this all in their real bodies in the physical world.
I think my problem with these types of games is, personally, I suspect getting lots of strange phone calls with coded messages, etc., will start to wear down what remains of mental health, and ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
The one thing about CRPGs is while I can be immersed in their imaginary world, I can always wake up out of the Dream. 
At least, I think so.
"Dreams feel real while we're in them... it's only once we wake up that we actually realize there was something strange."
I just think that games shouldn't bother with proper realism if they're an RPG because the very nature of an RPG is anti-realism.
RPG's aren't anti-realism, they are alternate realism.
Most, if not all fantasies are somewhat based in reality. It's like blending in some truth to make a better lie. Writers often weave realism into the fantasy settings and stories they create.
For me, the Dragon Age setting is one of the few fantasies that I can thoroughly enjoy because of its realism. Yes, the dwarves, elves, magic, qunari, darkspawn, and the titular dragons are fantastical, but the world feels real. Maybe that is from well-written characters or thought-out history and politics, but it is more appealing to me than something like the Hobbit.
RPG's aren't anti-realism, they are alternate realism.
The interesting thing is, I find many people are constantly comparing fantasy and other worlds to reality, when it seems many of us are not living in the same one.
http://en.wikipedia..../Reality_tunnel
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. – Anais Nin
Most, if not all fantasies are somewhat based in reality. It's like blending in some truth to make a better lie. Writers often weave realism into the fantasy settings and stories they create.
For me, the Dragon Age setting is one of the few fantasies that I can thoroughly enjoy because of its realism. Yes, the dwarves, elves, magic, qunari, darkspawn, and the titular dragons are fantastical, but the world feels real. Maybe that is from well-written characters or thought-out history and politics, but it is more appealing to me than something like the Hobbit.
Its the history and the politics for me, they built the tevinter empire to be like the roman empire, the chantry is like the catholic church, the darkspawn have yet to appear in our history, but then again im not a parent yet
Most men in real life are weak. Most women don't train.
I've worked in the fitness industry. The average woman can get strong enough to wield a heavy one-handed sword without gear, provided she's willing to gain some fat as well. The thing about natural strength training is that, besides not gaining that much compared to "enhanced" people, you tend to lose more muscle if you diet. Losing body fat, you lose strength. The average woman here is weaker than the average men however, there's no arguing that. Giant two-handed swords would be troublesome, but then again if you're looking for strict realism only the Qunari could use them.
That said, people seem to be stronger in Thedas than in this world in general, without considering their gender. Beside that, there's a few perfectly reasonable explanations for women being as strong as men in DA. Heavier estrogen/testosterone production (contrary to popular belief, estrogen boosts your strength too), more hgh, higher natural muscle density etc. We don't know how strong is the Average Joe in Thedas, but there seems to be a lot of capable fighters around.
Retour en haut