Videos games aren’t supposed to be realistic. I’m not supposed to put myself in the position of a real socom or seal or delta or recons or X18 for that matter. I don’t want to.play a video game that represents reality. That’s not what video games are about. Video games are supposed to be void of reality. Destiny, baldurs gate, elder scrolls, Mario, metal gear, etc… That’s what video gaming is supposed to be. Not real situations that could/would occur like call of duty. CoD is a garbage game and it’s offensive for them to remaster the bullshit and then expect people to pay for the bullshit that they couldn’t justify having paid for when the game(s] was first released. Do not fall for the Microsoft trap
But my gold pieces should have weight! It’s unrealistic that I can carry around 100k gold and 50+ sets of armor!
/s
I hate these people too. Make your own mods if you want to suffer, I certainly don’t. I’m more concerned that many RPGs devolve into Murder Hobo Simulator 2024 within an hour of starting, but hey, that’s games.
Someone made a comment about why we have inventory limits in Skyrim and Starfield. I grew up in the era where it was common to micromanage your inventory. There’s literally casual games of people organizing their Diablo 2-esque inventory.
So it never crossed my mind why we have limits.
After playing Elden Ring, I’m convinced.
Inventory weight is really really stupid.
What about simulators, they are designed to simulate a certain experience.
Simulate: to do or make something that looks real but is not real.
;)
Not real enough.
When I’m playing American Truck Simulator, I want that realism where cops pull me over for a shakedown, townsfolks chase me out of town because of the color of my skin, I refill on resources at a gas station and almost die from a meth head, and my cargo company’s health coverage doesn’t cover my status debuffs because they were “pre-existing conditions”.
I personally don’t enjoy games like COD, but it’s disingenuous to believe one of the most lucrative franchises to exist, played and enjoyed by billions worldwide, is garbage. You may not like it, but you can’t declare it a garbage game as it certainly has its appeal. Doing so reeks of ‘old-man-yelling-at-kids-to-get-off-his-lawn’.
As for your other point, it is certainly an unpopular opinion. For a lot of people gaming is an escape from reality, yes, but video games as an artistic expression can also represent reality and even mirror it. I don’t know what you mean by ‘realism’; is it graphical fidelity? Is it mechanics and its level of abstraction to model our world? There is certainly a conversation to be had here, but I would say how closely a game should mirror real life should depend on what type of game we are talking about, after all.I can whole heartedly state that COD is garbage. It’s been enshittified into the ground for years, and recent additions are overwhelmingly negative on steam. COD hasn’t been good for at least a decade, if not more. It’s not what it was in its prime, at all.
I think realistic videogames have a niche called “Simulators”. And while they stay there, I’m absolutely fine with it.
The problem, I believe, is that people often confuse realism with level of detail. And the main issue with this is that the line separating both is extremely thin sometimes. Additionally, a degree of realism is welcome in any game, as long as the game keeps being a game and not a simulator (e.g. on a car racing game, I want the cars to look like cars and to drive like cars, even if I want it to stay arcade-y enough)
Would you say Breath of the Wild is a realistic game? I think it isn’t, but the level of detail put in their physics engine is so detailed that it’s almost real, but at the same time feels like a videogame and not like a simulator.
In all the games you mentioned, there is a degree of realism (for example, in metal gear, it’s realistic that enemies can’t see you behind a wall or that they get alerted if they see a corpse), just not enough to make them look like a simulator instead of a game, this is what I mean with level of detail.
While the rant part isn’t interesting, this is a genuinely unpopular opinion in every way.
I tend to agree with you that playing real world plausible scenarios isn’t fun, with the caveat that the scenario isn’t as big a factor in that level of fun as the people playing. I’ll have tons of fun playing with chill people, mostly friends, no matter what I’m playing. But random players online, the ones that prefer that type of game tend to not only be competitive rather than cooperative, but tend to be jerks about it.
That makes ignoring the game content and premise impossible, and it starts sucking more.
I don’t object to such games existing per se, but the focus on that kind of game makes other efforts harder to find for online multiplayer options. Too many developers want to milk that audience, so other styles get abandoned or done halfassed.
But I agree completely that most remasters are blatant cash grabs that suck, cod in particular
Ehh, those military shooters like Socom and Call of Duty are also fantasy. Your average soldier isn’t doing any of that shit. They’re probably guarding base parking lots or mowing the base golf course.
Yeah, CoD is not realistic in terms of ‘how things work’, it only has a realistic aesthetic.
Try playing Arma with a whole bunch of realism mods.
Oh, you have an rpg, 2 extra rounds for it and a PKM, 600 rounds of ammo, and the tripod you you have to set it up on…?
… and you decided to sprint a mile across field?
Congratulations! You had a heart attack and died at about the half mile mark. Your respawn time is 15 minutes.
Of course most people enjoy a more casual experience, a more streamlined, less technical one, but there are dedicated fanbases for people that love the intricacies of stupendously detailed shooters.
Respawn time? Nah there should be a milsim where upon death you get permabanned.
I mean, there are some milsim servers/groups/events that just don’t let you respawn. Its usually just changing a value for respawn time or a bit of a modified server set up.
In my experience its more common for that to happen in a combat flight sim, or naval sim.
But also: Counter Strike and many many other games and game modes still function on a repeating round based system where there is no respawning in a round.
Fucking Space Station 13 and Barotrauma work that way, last I checked. Well… barring a crazed geneticist revives you as a frankenstein monster zombie or something.
The only game I can think of that you can truly only play once was some old, narrative driven flash game where no matter what you do, the world ends… but it has many different possible endings depending on what you do and say… but it would either use your ip or a cookie or something to register when you’d hit one ending, and if you ever came back to it, it would just be the specific ‘game over’ you got.
Realism is just a style. It’s like saying the only good art is photorealism.
Not all games need to be games you personally like, why shouldn’t people who like realistic games have them?
Games can be different, some realistic, some not.
Okay but I enjoy realistic milsim games. You don’t have to play them. Weird take.
Ah yes, Tarkov, where you die of inanition after 30 minutes without food and where jumping 2 meters breaks both your legs, which you can just fix in like 20 seconds with some splints. Very realistic.
I usually mean stuff like Arma, squad and so on for milsim. The coordination, different assets and the wounding. Most these games even if you do survive it takes a good length of time to heal and multiple items. That’s the realism, as opposed to the famous “bleeding out the eyeballs until I spontaneously heal in 30 seconds.” EFT is still in the same vein don’t get me wrong but way less coordination than other milsims.
My point is that even “realistic” games have unrealistic stuff for the sake of being fun to play. Realism is an interesting design choice, but trying too hard can make the game dull.
Your point is pointless. People say “I like realistic games” and your point is “oh but they’re not 10000% realistic!” Like yeah, so?
People like some realism in games. Look at how RDR2 was criticized for how tedious some things were. People liked the horse ball-jiggling physics realism, not the skinning or looting realism, because it slows the gameplay too much.
Still, there will be hardcore people that love realism to the point of controlling each individual joint like Toribash, but it becomes a battle of realism vs accessibility.
Okay. What’s your point. People like realistic games.
The point is saying games are “not realistic enough” is unproductive criticism, like saying “just fix it”.
For you, not for others. Same thing as people liking stick shift cars.
Stop playing AAA slop. There I fixed video games for you. To overfixate on the hype and marketing machine will only make you miserable and poison your brain with stupid ideas like “the problem with video games”. Video games are an extremely broad set of experiences. A digital implementation of a board game is a video game, and a painstakingly detailed simulation of the operations of an airliner down to waiting in real time for refuel is also a video game. And there’s an audience with taste for both and every other of the hundreds of genres that exist. A problem with one hyper specific genre of video games is not a problem with video games.
Upvoted as unpopular. I disagree with it though.
The problem is not with players complaining about what they believe to be lack of realism in games. It’s instead that game designers don’t dig further into those complains to know what exactly is wrong, and how to fix it: lack of internal consistency, limitations that feel unjustified, balance issues, etc.
Gee, here I thought corporate greed and a captive userbase were the problem.
There’s plenty of blame to go around.
What is “realistic” is on a spectrum and is hard to pinpoint. Even first person shooters like CoD have adjustability on how much lead you can eat before you drop dead and a medical kit on a grave wound can bring you from “should’ve retired yesterday” to “top shape soldier” so there are aspects that are not true realism. On the other side, Baldur’s Gate tries to somewhat realistically simulate the feeling of what it would be like to be in a Dungeons and Dragons world full of magic wielding creatures and adventure, without comic-ifying or arcad-ifying it too much.
However, the type of bullshit tactics you describe with games don’t have to come from Activision/Microsoft and to me are unrelated to the realism. Just as one example, Nintendo has done similar, with releasing a Super Mario Sunshine + 64 + Galaxy port for a limited time to maximize FOMO but keep getting them to buy these on every new console.
horrible opinion. other people like other things. complaining about things you don’t like is better than complaining about other people that don’t like the same things as you. just play games you like, others wanting realistic stuff doesn’t hurt you in any way. there’s more unrealistic games than you could ever play. upvoted.
