Talk:Realism - Revision history

JFletcher: /* Deletion */ Edit

2012-02-24T23:48:12Z

Deletion: Edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 24 February 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Just to directly respond to your concerns though:		Just to directly respond to your concerns though:
	*''There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing'' - Well in that case, I've done an amazing job of [http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#adebate arguing for the opposite of what I believe]. Realism was ''always'' what I loved about GTA, which is why GTA IV is my favourite game in the series (and I actually particularly ''disliked'' GTA San Andreas).		*''There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing'' - Well in that case, I've done an amazing job of [http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#adebate arguing for the opposite of what I believe]. Realism was ''always'' what I loved about GTA, which is why GTA IV is my favourite game in the series (and I actually particularly ''disliked'' GTA San Andreas). '''EDIT:''' And I should probably mention that it's not a lack of realism why I didn't like GTA San Andreas, it was a number of reasons relating to it not being what I had come to expect from GTA games.

	*''I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV'' - Okay then, but maybe it's more about what those things are used for. For example, military personnel being called out to stop a single criminal. Perhaps your argument that ''believability'' is a better description fits here nicely. Also, I specifically mentioned that it's a balance between realism and gameplay, with realistic features from GTA San Andreas not reappearing in GTA IV, so I never claimed that GTA San Andreas is ''not'' realistic.		*''I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV'' - Okay then, but maybe it's more about what those things are used for. For example, military personnel being called out to stop a single criminal. Perhaps your argument that ''believability'' is a better description fits here nicely. Also, I specifically mentioned that it's a balance between realism and gameplay, with realistic features from GTA San Andreas not reappearing in GTA IV, so I never claimed that GTA San Andreas is ''not'' realistic.

JFletcher: Reply

2012-02-24T23:36:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 24 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Deletion==
	I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans have claimed. There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing. I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV. Take tanks, parachutes, and spray cans for example. They're not over the top and actually exists in SA, which already makes SA as realistic as IV in terms of what features are available in the game. I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed because, by definition, you need something to be already there in order to remove that thing. Since RAGE was built from the ground up, things were added and not removed. There is also a huge bias towards fans and not the general population of GTA gamers. IV was critically acclaimed by the majority of career game journalists and surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time, both of which is counter to what is written in the article. I can rebut this article all day so that is why I wish this article to be deleted.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein\|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)		I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans have claimed. There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing. I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV. Take tanks, parachutes, and spray cans for example. They're not over the top and actually exists in SA, which already makes SA as realistic as IV in terms of what features are available in the game. I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed because, by definition, you need something to be already there in order to remove that thing. Since RAGE was built from the ground up, things were added and not removed. There is also a huge bias towards fans and not the general population of GTA gamers. IV was critically acclaimed by the majority of career game journalists and surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time, both of which is counter to what is written in the article. I can rebut this article all day so that is why I wish this article to be deleted.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein\|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


	:I'd like this wiki to include more conceptual and over-arching topics about features and style etc - not just lists and facts. However, this article does seem a bit too much like an opinion essay at the moment. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point to create a proper unbiased objective article looking at the issues of believability/immersion/realism, where different games fit on the scale, or even just gameplay style in general? [[User:Gboyers\|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers\|talk]]</sup> 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)		:I'd like this wiki to include more conceptual and over-arching topics about features and style etc - not just lists and facts. However, this article does seem a bit too much like an opinion essay at the moment. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point to create a proper unbiased objective article looking at the issues of believability/immersion/realism, where different games fit on the scale, or even just gameplay style in general? [[User:Gboyers\|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers\|talk]]</sup> 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

			I agree that this article is nowhere near perfect, hence the cleanup tag. I'm really not the right person to be writing about this kind of thing, but I believe that there should be an article about this, so I started it so that others can finish it (see my edit summary: ''Starting article'', and what I wrote in the cleanup tag). I'm experimenting with the idea of having articles about things that don't directly exist in the game, but are still important to the players, and I'll be writing a few more in the coming days (though this was the most difficult of them all to get right). This article is currently basically a collection of personal experience (differences that I've noticed), facts from other articles and things people have said on talk pages/forum topics.

			Just to directly respond to your concerns though:
			*''There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing'' - Well in that case, I've done an amazing job of [http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#adebate arguing for the opposite of what I believe]. Realism was ''always'' what I loved about GTA, which is why GTA IV is my favourite game in the series (and I actually particularly ''disliked'' GTA San Andreas).

			*''I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV'' - Okay then, but maybe it's more about what those things are used for. For example, military personnel being called out to stop a single criminal. Perhaps your argument that ''believability'' is a better description fits here nicely. Also, I specifically mentioned that it's a balance between realism and gameplay, with realistic features from GTA San Andreas not reappearing in GTA IV, so I never claimed that GTA San Andreas is ''not'' realistic.

			*''I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed'' - Features may not have been ''technically'' removed from the game engine, but they were present in previous games, and specifically not re-added in GTA IV.

			*''IV [...] surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time'' - My general presumption has always been that people liked the look of the realism from all the reviews, etc. (and therefore bought the game) but then ''after'' playing it decided it was ''too realistic and not fun''. And I'm not saying that no one liked it (quite the contrary, I mentioned the current poll!), and also see my first point here. '''[[User:JFletcher\|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher\|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Gboyers at 21:50, 24 February 2012

2012-02-24T21:50:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 24 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans have claimed. There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing. I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV. Take tanks, parachutes, and spray cans for example. They're not over the top and actually exists in SA, which already makes SA as realistic as IV in terms of what features are available in the game. I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed because, by definition, you need something to be already there in order to remove that thing. Since RAGE was built from the ground up, things were added and not removed. There is also a huge bias towards fans and not the general population of GTA gamers. IV was critically acclaimed by the majority of career game journalists and surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time, both of which is counter to what is written in the article. I can rebut this article all day so that is why I wish this article to be deleted.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein\|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)		I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans have claimed. There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing. I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV. Take tanks, parachutes, and spray cans for example. They're not over the top and actually exists in SA, which already makes SA as realistic as IV in terms of what features are available in the game. I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed because, by definition, you need something to be already there in order to remove that thing. Since RAGE was built from the ground up, things were added and not removed. There is also a huge bias towards fans and not the general population of GTA gamers. IV was critically acclaimed by the majority of career game journalists and surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time, both of which is counter to what is written in the article. I can rebut this article all day so that is why I wish this article to be deleted.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein\|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


			:I'd like this wiki to include more conceptual and over-arching topics about features and style etc - not just lists and facts. However, this article does seem a bit too much like an opinion essay at the moment. Perhaps we could use this as a starting point to create a proper unbiased objective article looking at the issues of believability/immersion/realism, where different games fit on the scale, or even just gameplay style in general? [[User:Gboyers\|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers\|talk]]</sup> 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Spaceeinstein: New Page: "I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans ha..."

2012-02-24T20:00:05Z

New Page: "I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans ha..."

New page

I suggest a deletion of this article. "Realism" is too conceptual and is not a part of the game. ''Believability'' or ''immersion'' is what makes up GTA IV, not realism as the fans have claimed. There is a huge bias in this article, making IV's realism seems like a negative thing. I can write an entire essay claiming that SA is much more realistic than IV. Take tanks, parachutes, and spray cans for example. They're not over the top and actually exists in SA, which already makes SA as realistic as IV in terms of what features are available in the game. I can also write an entire essay proving that features weren't removed because, by definition, you need something to be already there in order to remove that thing. Since RAGE was built from the ground up, things were added and not removed. There is also a huge bias towards fans and not the general population of GTA gamers. IV was critically acclaimed by the majority of career game journalists and surpassed SA's sales over the same period of time, both of which is counter to what is written in the article. I can rebut this article all day so that is why I wish this article to be deleted.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)