Telling Results: Realism Vs Fantasy

**Colovion** · 10-17-2004, 04:08

Scary

Well people like fantasy more than realism it seems. However, it is nice to see that the spread isn't that much and that there are plenty of people who will say they would rather have realism over fantasy.

**IceTorque** · 10-17-2004, 04:30

i for one prefer realism and rtw does not give me the feeling of commanding mighty roman legions it's more like commanding a rabble of retards....

**ChaosLord** · 10-17-2004, 04:31

Well, the arguement is more history versus fantasy then realism versus fantasy. As no game is truely realistic, but fantasy games can be made as realistic as the history based games. As for which I prefer, its a toss-up really. So long as the game and theme is made well it doesn't matter what its based on.

**Thoros of Myr** · 10-17-2004, 04:34

It's not too suprising...but a little sad nonetheless. Fantasy has more instant gratification especially for folks that didnt take much liking to real history in school. Fantasy allows them to create whatever they want no matter how over the top. I try appreciate the best of both worlds. I would say I prefer realism in games becuase though it's all too often tossed aside these days.

**Ken** · 10-17-2004, 04:51

I like both types, and fortunately both genres are catered for by game designers, so its a win-win as far as I can see.

**DisruptorX** · 10-17-2004, 17:26

That's gamespy. No more needs to be said.

**Ashitaka-san** · 10-17-2004, 21:43

Well, more people prefer fantasy according to that poll but there are still many who like realism (I like the history label better as well here).
I, myself, like both. However, the Total War series has been one of the best simply because it is not matched by any other game for it's strategic/tactical elements during the battles. Plus, I like the fact that you can focus solely on the battle and not have to worry about resources.

**panchoamd** · 10-18-2004, 15:15

The difference beetwen fantasy and history is evident. When i commanding an army in the desert of sahara, im doing this. But making same in Middle earth... oh... is different. Nobody knows how is middle earth, for example.
And the Legion Cohorte in a time exist, but a flying dragon...
A historic based game is much more difficult to make, because there is limitations in every single thing, like units, factions, terrains. Is much more limited to let fly the imagination. Besides, the fantasy is much "freestyle" and one no have seriously limitations for make units, etc etc.
i think that both genres has many "similitudes" and are ,however, completely differents.
I prefer Strategic Games, and for me, the Total War seris are the Bests Games

**DisruptorX** · 10-18-2004, 19:04

While its true that fantasy has more potential for new ideas, that is sadly the opposite of what really happens. Pretty much every fantasy game takes place in a carbon-copy world, where only the names are changed to protect the guilty(from being sued).

In fact, other than Morrowind and FFX, I can't think of a fantasy game released recently that isn't a boring tolkien rip-off.

Realistic games are just more satisfying, because the developers aren't conforming as much to marketers ("add more orcs"). In fact, games like Civilization and total war are thought of being far superior to fantasy games released in the same time period, because "fantasy" actually means "tired tolkien knock off number --".

**Ptah** · 10-19-2004, 12:23

On the other hand, "realism" in gaming usually associates itself with a concept known as "selective realism", but some people refuse to accept that fact. As strange it seems, some people start to consider "real" as a term that retains some kind of "superiority" - as in "this game is more real, so it is better than that other game, which is not so real".

The truth is, when people say "I want realism", they usually mean, "I want realism upto the point I see fit." This is true for all of us. There is a fine balance to maintain between gameplay and realism, and every depiction of the real world inside games, is at some point a compromise between the 'real thing', and the 'fake, but necessary' thing. People usually forget this fact and consider their own views on 'realism' as being something really associated with the real world. All games are fantasy, and all "realism" is a reflection of our own views on the real world - which of course, may not be so 'real' after all.

So the next time we want to use the "R-word" let's ask ourselves, "do we really know that this is more realistic? Or do we just think we do, and want to justify our own claims by claiming that it is more real?"

**aw89** · 10-19-2004, 13:20

i agree BUT this is the most realistic game(s) in a long time, i remember 1 other game with moral but i cant remember what it name was...

**DisruptorX** · 10-19-2004, 16:18

Originally Posted by aw89

i agree BUT this is the most realistic game(s) in a long time, i remember 1 other game with moral but i cant remember what it name was...

That Warhammer: Dark Omen game had moral. I only tried the demo though.

However, it wouldn't be "realistic", as it had skeletons and necromancy.

More so than AoE, perhaps.

**Ghost of Rom** · 10-20-2004, 04:37

Sid Meir's Gettysberg was the game before Shogun that was based on morale.
Pretty fun but it had no campaign aspects which made me tire of it very quickly. Shogun was extremely well done...I still love the music and art from that game.