When is saying a game isn't realistic enough a valid critique?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
When is saying a game isn't realistic enough a valid critique?
When is saying a game isn't realistic enough a valid critique?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Not really especially when the game is probably a buggy mess anyway and any sense of "realism" happens way too often and is so artificial it completely ruins the immersion.
when it's a sim
When game's logic doesn't make sense in it's own world.
Never valid criticism because we don't even know what is real and what is fake. Think about it anons, how does gravity work? How do magnets work? How do interwebz work? We don't even understand Dark matter a.k.a. the most common thing in the whole universe. Real is subjective, which is why only women and men a few chromosomes short of moronic use realism as a critique of anything.
Who says that a government wouldn't pay you to sweep dirt off of dirt for a living like ? Who says a guy can't survive being shot in the head a couple of times? I'll tell you who, people who have never read the history books of ancient shit jobs and the people who have never once been shot or have shot someone in the head.
>tl;dr bc im a gay
Real is undefined, ergo real is invalid critique
Hello, Based Department?
What a dumb b***h.
He's actually right, though. Turn-based Fallout feels more abstracted and the player is willing to suspend his disbelief: if an enemy survives a headshot then maybe it's because the round just grazed his scalp or took a chunk out of his ear.
IRL, people rarely take a bullet to the face or brain without swiftly losing consciousness and it's hard to suspend your disbelief when you know you just put a round there and several more in his body.
To be clear, I think 3D Fallout should have been turn-based or it should have realistic damage.
>To be clear, I think 3D Fallout should have been turn-based or it should have realistic damage.
This is simply a preference.
There's nothing wrong with liking a blend of the two.
Either way, he comes off like a moron.
all video games are an abstraction. you dont kill someone instantly in a 3D realtime FPSRPG because stats and health exist as gameplay abstractions and to provide a sense of progression and relative strength.
in elder scrolls you can hack at an unarmored head with a magical battleaxe and they dont die and yet, unless they have autism, no one goes OMG THIS ISNT REALISTIC!!!! HE SHOULD BE KILLED (or if he's wearing a helmet or whatever) HE SHOULD BE STUNNED BECAUSE THE HELMET WILL HIT HIS HEAD AND THE FORCE etc etc but ALSO HE WONT TAKE DAMAGE BECAUSE ACTUALLY ARMOR WAS EFFECTIVE AT PROTECTING FROM BLADED WEAPONS EXCEPT WHEN YOU USE THRUSTS A
do you see where i'm going with this? fallout is not a milsim, its not an attempt to recreate anything about guns accurately, its a science fiction fantasy RPG with stats and stats have to do /something/. ultimately fallout is a video game meant to be played and enjoyed. there's no accurate ballistics and wind, why arent you complaining about that? why not complain about having to recover for days and weeks after a traumatic injury? where does it end? what about your clothes deteriorating? why dont you have to go set your clothes sewn up all the time? why dont you have to take a shit and piss during gameplay?
>ultimately fallout is a video game meant to be played and enjoyed
You had me convinced I was wrong until that point. I would enjoy Skyrim and New Vegas more if the lightly-armoured human enemies weren't damage sponges.
> I would enjoy Skyrim and New Vegas more
anon did you really just type into the computer.... the phrase, "the game was designed wrong because i would enjoy it more if it was designed differently"
the game was created and to the best ability of the creators, designed so that most people could find the game fun. that you would enjoy it differently if it were different has nothing to do with the first part. i could say i would have enjoyed fallout more if the vault suit were grey or something stupid but that doesnt mean that fallout somehow was intentionally designed to not be fun for me or whatever it is you're implying.
wow, didn't know varg sucked at rpgs.
>woman teaches me how to shoot
he's just a europoor that hates guns and anyone who has them, so this is expected
>mad that a character in a rpg doesnt die from 1 cowadooty headshot
just straight up a stupid Black person
>he's just a europoor that hates guns and anyone who has them, so this is expected
Gonna go out on a limb here and say the far-right convicted murderer who idolises the pagan societies of the past approves of the right to bear arms. You're a dumbass.
>approves of the right to bear arms
he hates america, hates "nazis," idolizes communists/antifa (all communist nations had strict gun control)
varg is a homosexual snowBlack person
only simulators, anyone who says different is a literal rard that can't disconnect reality from fiction.
about the only thing of competency varg ever said.
>about the only thing of competency varg ever said.
it makes him sound like an idiot.
don't know why people keep posting that screenshot as if it makes him look good.
What a moron, you don't even get the Bloody mess perk until lvl 10 or something.
but the gay perk is the first thing you see sister!
ive heard this was bs because the exploding thing would only happen with bloody mess which isnt a strarting trait
Varg confirmed cheating?!
when realism is a primary goal of the game
I would say is when it breaks the logic the game world set up. Lets say you play a game where getting shot once will likely kill you and a second time for sure, this rule applies to everyone in the game. Then, for no apparent reason, some enemies take 10 shots to go down, they look just like everyone else, their isn't any supernatural about them, or anything that would imply they could take 10 times the amount of damage.
Its shit like that. Real realism will never be properly achieved as it doesn't create for interesting narratives or game play.
Only when you want to be a realistic sim.
It's never a valid critique, the only thing that matters is that it follows its own rules of its universe, which is why people hated Fallout 4 so much because it just ignored things that were previously established.
"Realism" in video games with fantastic elements is fricking moronic and should be abandoned by anyone who wants to be taken even remotely seriously.
Maintaining suspension of disbelief and internal consistency are entirely different matters, however.
If you expect the player to care about the story, you should make an effort. Otherwise if it's some purely arcadey game it doesn't matter.
this guy almost makes a real point and then chokes on his own ass at the finish line, it's almost impressive
also this has to be a troll or satire the more i read it, this guy really says shit that is answered by the game and somehow chalks it up to being ludonarrative autofellatio or whatever like how "why are guns being sold in vending machines in an artists paradise" or "why do the machines for these dangerous things have such slick and polished product design" like the whole game wasnt going "hey look, an obvious critique of objectivism and lassez-faire capitalism taken to extremes where you can buy weapons and body-altering compounds from the soda machine"
this is a moronic argument because no one with a brain goes to a movie and goes wait a minute, what happened? first the characters were sitting down at a cafe and then all of a sudden we're at someone's house?? that doesnt make any sense! people dont just teleport from one place to another!
and no filmmaker ever then goes "damn we're talking filmmaking conventions for granted!"
There's a bit of a difference there, at least for the first part. He goes full moron in the end and it definitely is valid to make that comparison, but stuff like "Why is my guy eating chips out of the garbage 5 minutes after surviving a plane crash?" is somewhat valid, at least to the point where it's a question that can be asked, even if it isn't necessarily a criticism. Ultimately, you have to decide whether the game is better because of the mechanical benefits of poorly justified health pickups even with the minor downside of """ludonarrative interference.""" Obviously the vast majority of the time it is, Link doesn't die when he falls into lava because the game is better this way. The developers try to make the choice that results in the most enjoyment for the player.
But just like how some games let you pause and eat 50k calories to go from almost dead to perfect health or make guns have infinite ammo, and some try to have full limb damage that requires specific medical treatment or keep track of how many bullets are in each magazine, it depends on the kind of game that it is. If you were playing a game with permadeath where healing was limited and challenges were balanced around high lethality and punishing mistakes mercilessly, and then if you fall in lava the screen just fades to black and you pop back up next to it only missing a little health, that would seem very strange and take the player out of the experience. Even if in that situation maybe instant death for falling in lava would be too harsh a punishment, the zelda solution still doesn't feel right. The best choice would be designing the levels so that falling in lava killing you instantly feels like an appropriate punishment for the level of mistake you made.
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you have to disagree with literally every letter of his point. He can be ultimately incorrect and moronic but still make individual points that are worth considering.
Yeah, he halfway has a point and then has to strawman to make himself feel like its more valid, if someone asked me why Link doesnt die when he touches lava id just say "Its a stage hazard and the game was unconfident in its traversal ability to make you suffer a death for dealing with it, just a punishment"
I would have asked questions like, why is Aeris dead when every character has phoenix downs, or why does Handsome Jack, whos company built the respawn system, not simply respawn when killed in BL2
He doesn't have a point, he's a "heh, gamers" homosexual sniffing his own farts
Pointing out that a gun shoots more ammo than it can hold doesn't make you smart, pointing out fundamental contrivances of the narrative doesn't make you smart, pointing out that characters in a story are not perfect rational actors does not make you smart.
All of this applies to all mediums, not just video games, this homosexual singles out video games as a unique target of criticism because he does not respect them and is openly insecure about enjoying them in spite of flaws that do not exist outside of his own head. He's the type of person whose dad told him video games were a waste of time when he was a kid and he's been coping about it for twenty years.
"Realism" (as arbitrarily determined by the critic) is not a meaningful foundation for criticizing works of fiction.
The only thing lending that wall of text any shred of credibility is the notion that "some things people familiar with video games take for granted are not recognized by people unfamiliar with video games" but that is not what the complaint is actually about and even it is taken to absurd extremes. People who don't play video games still wouldn't assume something like "if you die in a game your character is permanently dead and you have to stop playing forever," that's inherently absurd, everyone understand the concept of what a game is and that it follows its own rules.
Never
When the purpose of the game isn't to be an accurate simulation of reality, and when "being realistic" is diametrically opposed to smooth and enjoyable gameplay (eg. virtually no games have "realistic" health recovery, ammo management, supply chain simulation, etc.)
ergo "not realistic enough" is almost never valid critique and people who say shit like "this is too video gamey" aren't worth listening to
How come the original Fallout doesn't have VATs
VATS is pretty much just bringing the old turn based and body parts targeting in old turn based rpg Fallout to the new action ones.
original fallout has the aimed shots thing which is basically just VATS
most people forget it exists because they take fast shot which disables it
Usually when the actions you can take in game start to get nonsensical, like in point and clicks where you open the door not by finding a key, but by cramming a balloon into the lock and blowing it up to push the tumblers.