Obviously you need to read this before you vote. If you disagree, please state your reasons. Now, it is my belief that even the most modern games with the latest graphics and effects are still VERY primitive when compared to real life, or even compared to what games will be like in 15-20 years. Lets face it, no matter how a game looks today it does not even begin to look or play like real life. Characters look like a smattering of polygons, no matter how well done they may be, terrain looks fake and often times patternish. Objects pass through other objects as though they aren't even there (walk up to a wall on just about any game with a weapon out and watch the tip of it go through the wall, just one of a million examples that could be used). On almost any game an uber rocket launcher or cannon cannot even scratch a blade of grass, much less a wall (and those few that do have fully destructible environments are poorly done and looking nothing as it would in real life). And a final point is how scripted so many events are, from enemies spawning to walls being destoryable (EA games for example play like a movie by using a million scripted events, and are thus exactly the same each time you play them). So...all that being said, games are nowhere near achieving real life realism, graphically or gameplay wise. If i were to rate a game based on how realistic it was, a 1 being space invaders, and a 1000 being real life, here's how most games would rank IMO.
Space Invaders--------1
Original Doom----------3
Doom 3-----------------6
Unreal Tournament----6
Halo---------------------6
Counterstrike----------12
Medal of Honor---------15
Rainbow 6--------------16
Brothers in Arms-------20
Real Life----------------1000
Just to a name few. This is just how realistic i believe games to be, and why i think gameplay is key because no game even comes close to true realism. Most of the reason why is because you know it is a game, and that if you die you simply respawn (there is no fear of death). Even a game like paintball (in real life) is nowhere near being similar to a real combat situation, because you know if you get hit you simply walk off he field...you don't lay their coughing up blood thinking of your family as everything becomes cold and dark. I recall someone stating not long ago that "realism is the ultimate balancer". Which i have to say is just simply not true in modern day video games. Now, i'll go even further to say that some features that are technically realistic do not always make the games themselves more realistic. One issue for example is friendly fire. I believe most games with FF are actually LESS realistic. This is because in real life you generally have some kind of battle plan, you know where your troops are, and coordinate some kind of attack. In a game, specifically online, what it basically is, is a big free for all, except you don't shoot people of your color (on your team). So what happens at the start of the round is, everyone runs to the best spot and/or gets the vehicles, and just charges out randomly by themselves to attack. Obviously, this leads to mass confusion and thus, tons of friendly fire. The only exception would be a VERY well organized clan match, and even then you don't have the same kind of perception on a game that you have in real life, so FFs still more likely to occur. Battlefield 2 is a good example. I could list other examples, but this post is long enough as is. So, unless we're in the holodeck on the enterprise, video games on a 2D screen will NEVER EVER be even remotely realistic. So all that trying to make them so does is add frustration and damage gameplay. Generally the people who prefer this type of style are those who actually think that they could do in real life what they do in games (yes...i've known several people like that, and yes...the DO prefer games that claim to be more realistic). Now, i don't want to see Mount and Blade with magic or healing potions, as i like the authentic feel of the game. I believe armagan is a very bright person, and that he realizes it would be foolish to attempt to make this game uber realistic. So unless armagan screwed up horribly (which i seriously doubt), this game is NOT intended to be a realistic sim. It is meant to be a fun and engaging game with an authentic feel possessing certain elements of realism, but with gameplay being the key.
Agree or disagree?
Space Invaders--------1
Original Doom----------3
Doom 3-----------------6
Unreal Tournament----6
Halo---------------------6
Counterstrike----------12
Medal of Honor---------15
Rainbow 6--------------16
Brothers in Arms-------20
Real Life----------------1000
Just to a name few. This is just how realistic i believe games to be, and why i think gameplay is key because no game even comes close to true realism. Most of the reason why is because you know it is a game, and that if you die you simply respawn (there is no fear of death). Even a game like paintball (in real life) is nowhere near being similar to a real combat situation, because you know if you get hit you simply walk off he field...you don't lay their coughing up blood thinking of your family as everything becomes cold and dark. I recall someone stating not long ago that "realism is the ultimate balancer". Which i have to say is just simply not true in modern day video games. Now, i'll go even further to say that some features that are technically realistic do not always make the games themselves more realistic. One issue for example is friendly fire. I believe most games with FF are actually LESS realistic. This is because in real life you generally have some kind of battle plan, you know where your troops are, and coordinate some kind of attack. In a game, specifically online, what it basically is, is a big free for all, except you don't shoot people of your color (on your team). So what happens at the start of the round is, everyone runs to the best spot and/or gets the vehicles, and just charges out randomly by themselves to attack. Obviously, this leads to mass confusion and thus, tons of friendly fire. The only exception would be a VERY well organized clan match, and even then you don't have the same kind of perception on a game that you have in real life, so FFs still more likely to occur. Battlefield 2 is a good example. I could list other examples, but this post is long enough as is. So, unless we're in the holodeck on the enterprise, video games on a 2D screen will NEVER EVER be even remotely realistic. So all that trying to make them so does is add frustration and damage gameplay. Generally the people who prefer this type of style are those who actually think that they could do in real life what they do in games (yes...i've known several people like that, and yes...the DO prefer games that claim to be more realistic). Now, i don't want to see Mount and Blade with magic or healing potions, as i like the authentic feel of the game. I believe armagan is a very bright person, and that he realizes it would be foolish to attempt to make this game uber realistic. So unless armagan screwed up horribly (which i seriously doubt), this game is NOT intended to be a realistic sim. It is meant to be a fun and engaging game with an authentic feel possessing certain elements of realism, but with gameplay being the key.
Agree or disagree?