What is the deal with sci-fi games?

Hey,

I do not know if it is just me or there are others out there who feel like me. I would like to know what is up with these very "successful" sci-fi/space shooters/fictional games? Everbody talks about Borderlands, Bioshock, Crysis, Mass effect, Starcraft, and other games where you shoot with very modern weapons creatures that are sci-fi born in a year beyond 2100.

I have always leaned towards the realistic side of games. Games like Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Total War series. Sure, I do enjoy a bit of fiction like in Resident Evil series, Half Life, and Lord of the Rings.

Is it me? Do I have a distorted image of these games that I have listed or are they really like that. Because, I personally have never tried them (except crysis) but have watched videos, read reviews, etc...

 

what exactly do you want to know about them?

 

Interesting this one of my recent considerations in gaming. Yes assains creed is very realistic, lol. Have you actually played it? (I dont want to spoil it, but its NOT real. GTA? Yes one random man who had nothing to his name, owning a city by pure violence unwanted by the government. I find the total war series to be TOTAL cardboard. No real society to manage, just a lame overworld and specific closed end battles? No thanks it was boring in history class, and recreating them and wining would a burden I would never want to do for enjoyment. I generally like my games realistic, however games like L4D, borderlands, Mass Effect etc are very good games, that you simply must play to appreciate. I mean when I first heard about those games I was like, fake, lame, not my thing. But after doing my research and playing them fully, some of the them have become my favorites. Lately I have grown tired of all the war games and military shooters. Its alway the same thing, 7 hour single player of going through a linear environment and clicking on 3000 of the same solider character models. Inset deagle, m16, and knife and presto! Its funny because I used to swear by the CoD series. I think at some point a lot of gamers will give up the war games. I pretty much gave them all up. I stay clear of games that are half reality/ half fantasy. I either want total realism, or all out fantasy. Of course there are some branches of fanstay I dislike. Japanese animie, final fantasy, warcraft, diablo. Thats the beauty of gaming (relative to all forms of enternaiment) you can play what you want, just dont judge a game by its cover!

 

I think you're just being very selective in how you're categorizing games.

Bioshock takes place in the 1950's, under the ocean, using "futuristic" weapons such as tommy guns, and grenade launchers made from junk parts that shoot paint cans filled with gunpowder. Assassin's Creed is not at all realistic, it just mashes a lot of unrelated history together.

As far as successful games, COD:MW2 is the best selling game ever, while actual realistic games such as ArmA II and Flight Sim X are relatively obscure.

You've just sort of lumped all the games you haven't played into one category, and all the games you have played into another.

 

I think the definition of realism is what created this confusion. When I said "real life" I did not mean simulation like FlightSimualtor or The Sims. Like I said I do accept a bit of fiction in games. I have played both games of Assassins Creed and I loved them. The gameplay is quite "real" (and do not quote me on definitions ). Sure the story is far fetched and miles from being real but again it does not take it to the level of the other games I mentioned.

For example, Crysis started out as good. I enjoyed the game and the "fiction" part of the nano suit. Go to the "middle" of the game where I am suddenly shooting/running away from large metallic creatures. At that point, I did Alt+F4 and then uninstall Crytek media from my PC...

Also @Lethal Lottery, I forgot to mention that L4D was a good game. I enjoyed playing it, except that it did not last too long on my PC possibly due to how the story is built.

EDIT: There is absolutely no point in saying that AC and GTA IV suck because of some aspect. I have played both games but thats not what I came here for. To say that GTA IV sucks because of a "one random man that owns a city and has nothing to his name" is a totally different discussion. The game still does not use futuristic weapons, characters, or storylines.
And btw, I do aggree that GTA IV story is not the greatest and far from being excellent but again that is not what this discussion is about.

Yes I did lump all of the games that I haven't played in one category only because I think they belong together, but again I could be wrong.

I mean C'mon... in Bioshock, laser comes out of the guy's hand!

 

I'd like to see a Mount-n-Blade-esque game where you can operate as an individual in a Greek Phalanx, tight formation and all yet still have all the flexibility of Mount and Blade's varying combat. IIRC there are proper Roman and Greek mods for it but I'd prefer something that really genuinely recreates being in formation and experiencing combat in a well formed unit against heavy odds.

 

All things considered, I prefer games with sci-fi elements ( Crysis, Left 4 Dead, Prototype) to games that take place in a mundane setting ( GTA, FarCry2, COD).

It could be because I'm a sci-fi fan, but yeah.

 

Never said those games "suck" (all though I personally don't care for them, I tried them, but I see how they can be considered great, well at least GTA). I am just analyzing your definition of realistic since you grouped those games there.

 

There's nothing that says realistic more than some dude being gunned down and fragged until he sees red and all he has to do is go hide behind a crate for a few seconds to be 100% healthy again.

Yeah, I'll take the lasers-shooting-from-metallic-creatures-head scenario over that any time.

 

It's oh so realistic to one shot kill an enemy soldier, while you yourself can survive a grenade + getting shot at all directions, but you will always survive by hiding behind crate and heal up, then proceed to pwning an army all by yourself.

Games are not meant to be realistic because they are simply polygons. Personally, I'm totally sick of all those WWII games like CoD, BFBC etc such that I don't even want to play them, it's always the same old thing - hiding behind cover and shooting and win, or sometimes you get some fancy lame minigame like throwing down missles from the sky, then every iteration of CoD or some other games are basically just increasing the texture resolution or something with close to zero change in gameplay.

 

I think you put too much cats in the same bag with those games. Bioshock and Mass Effect have the plot, roleplaying and storytelling as their forté, Crysis succeded for being a breakthrough in graphics (let´s face it, plot-wise is a mediocre game), Borderlands is a game that appeal to who likes to shoot and blow things up. I really don´t see them together, not even labeled as "sci-fi" games, unless for Mass Effect and Bioshock (which is more fantastic fiction than science fiction).

 

Swell i think honestly you need to just expand your idea of what a good game is. Uninstalling a game because it takes a slight scifi turn? Who does that? Im sorry if Science fiction doesnt float your boat but frankly those are the only games that are gonna really have any genuine stories. Games like BC2 and the CoD games are sure fun. But their stories are less then "original". Or do you just have to be killing people to get your enjoyment? Is that it? Are you a closet serial killer? lol i think your taking your gaming way to seriously if seeing one particular thing makes you set the game down.

 

eh, people have different tastes, it's like food really, Sushi for example might look weird, but you are never gonna know if you'd like them until you give it a try yourself. and try to start with a game with a good reputation, you won't like sushi if your first experience with it is 1 hour of sitting on a toilet.

 

I enjoy the scifi games exactly because they deal with futuristic type of stuff that has little to no connection to real life.

What, shooting aliens was unrealistic?

If you want realistic, then our Galaxy is 100 Ly's from one end to the other.
Do you have any idea how vast that is?
And that's just 1 galaxy (which also contains millions of stars similar to our own, and thousands of planets with conditions like Earth) among trillions of other galaxies in the universe.

Realistically, it would be quite sad to find out that we are the only 'intelligent' life form in this universe (which from a certain point of view, could be possible, but very unlikely).

I like my scifi to actually be scifi.
And I really detest the FPS aspect that seemingly took over the gaming industry.
Games like KOTOR 1 and 2 and Mass Effect (1) for example are some of the types I'd like to see more.
Bioshock was ok, but ultimately, I found it a bit of a bore.
Crysis I haven't even played because I got so sick with FPS's I had to lay off.

And in terms of RPG, the fantasy medieval setting was done to death and needs something like Mass Effect for a change to make it more interesting if you ask me.

But those are just my personal opinions on the subject matter of course.

 

If you want realism join the army.

I don't look at a game by it's genre. If a game has had good reveiws from critics and other people, friends or people on this forum, or even a brand new game i have only seen promo gameplay of then I'll give it a go. If the game is good it will draw me in, if not then I won't enjoy it. You need to let go of the 'its this genre, i am never gona touch it' and just play a game on the basis it could be fun. Uninstallling Crysis immediately because some aliens appeared is a bit OTT.

I was really against getting Bioshock because it looked weird to me, but it came on special on steam and a friend said he enjoyed it, and i actually liked the game a lot. Don't shut yourself away from good game potential.

 

Im not very picky about that kind of game it is as long as its gameplay is good.
Nice looking graphics are a bonus

Currently im messing around with EVE Online, and thankfully my ship has yet to been blown to pieces.

 

Well Borderlands is Post apocalyptic, for me this is the most interesting setting for a FPS and I am looking forward to R.A.G.E from ID.

 

if you want realism, stop playing games.

 

Don't really know what the OP is trying to accomplish here.

They're great games, most have very good storys and charicters, and the art styles and gameplay offer something a little more then shoot, kill repeate.

Hell, the first major blockbuster FPS ever [DOOM] was sci-fi. Duke Nukem was too. Not to mention all thoes point and click adventures back in the day.

But, there's always been an abundance in different genres and different style of games, especially with PC. Personally, I haven't noticed any difference. Maybe you're just wishing for more blockbuster games ala MW? But we also have BFBC2, soon to be MOH, the Tom Clancy series, ect, ect...

So again, not sure I follow. Looks like english is your second language, so maybe there's a barrier there to what you're trying to get at. Are your pruchasing options limited where you live?

 

Controls:
Arrow keys or wasd to move
Left click to thrust spear forward
Right click to raise spear

Gameplay:
On command, move forward and occassionally turn slowly. On further command, lower spear. Finally, thrust spear and walk forward.

You could make an iPhone game out of being a member of a phalanx. At least as a legionarie, you could move your shield to deflect arrows.

 

Flight simulator can actually teach you to fly. I know this from personal experience. GTR and its sequels are extremely realistic with a wheel and only lack g-forces (more monitors give you peripheral vision) and does make you a better racer, but wont teach you from scratch like msfs will.

Just because console games are rarely even close to realistic doesn't mean there arent pc games that are extremely similar to reality.

 

OP basically seems to have a problem with Sci-Fi games, but seems unable to express himself probably.


Assassins Creed is indeed sci-fi. It's about uncovering memories of past ancestors through technological advanced machines, that can read a lineages history through a persons DNA. How is that not Sci-Fi?


What I noticed about all the other games that OP mentioned - COD, GTA4, Total War, Asssassins Creed. They are all either current or historical in their settings.(counting The Holy Lands/Italy in the case of AC1 and AC2).

Maybe OP has a hard time to relate to Sci-Fi games, because they are not something that has happened. Maybe OP process things, in a way that Total War or GTA becomes interesting because they take place in something he knows from TV, History, movies, books, school.

But the Sci-Fi games leave so much to the imagination.

I could see why some people would get turned off by this. I don't know if this is the case. Just trying to guess.


I find Sci-Fi and Fantasy refreshing over current modern Military like COD. Real life and "realism" is not interesting to me in some cases.

Then I like it more when it has a spin to it. GTA Vice City takes place in the 80s. It gives it that magical spark that makes it feel different!

 

I thought this thread was gonna have some good Seinfeld style jokes...

 

I can never get into science fiction games, so I think I understand. I prefer fantasy games, like Diablo. But if you call Grand Theft Auto and the Total Wars realistic, you're mistaken...

 

I like Pokemon games. You battle cute monsters and trap them in capsule-like devices called pokeballs. You then raise them and use them to battle other trainers (and capture more Pokemon).

If the mid-game change in Crysis made you uninstall the game, well... I can only imagine you would probably go berserk and kill your family and friends in the most messed up manner if you ever played Pokemon.

 

I don't know that FSX can teach you to fly as much as it can be used as a practice tool for the real thing. I'm a certified pilot and used MS FS before I started training and thought I knew a lot, well I guess I knew just the basics. But once I was in training, I used FS to practice my solo flights, so everything would be somewhat familiar to me, and use all the right frequencies, airspace altitudes, etc. It is spooky how "real" the simulated FS universe really is.

 

Most of you fell prey to the ambiguous definition of "realism" again and started telling me how CoD is not close to being real. I do understand that healing in a few seconds behind a crate and enduring to fight a whole army is far from being real, but If you read luffytubby post (quoted below), I hope you can get the vibe of what I am trying to say. Again, I think my inability to define "real" or perhaps use a better word caused this confusion.

I am trying to have you convince me of sci-fi gaming. And I think you were all successful.

In fact, I have always loved Pokemon games. I remember playing them years ago. I would love to get my hands on a copy of a recent Pokemon game if you have any suggestions

Not surprisingly, you are the only one who really got the feel of what I was trying to say. I am pretty sure that others did not because my points were not clear enough.

Anyways, having said that I am quite convinced to try some of these games, I would like to know which order should I try them in. I need the really good ones at first so I would really change my view of gaming.

Thanks to all.

 

Oh I was just making a somewhat veiled jab at the Total War series less than accurate historical story telling.

 

What's the deal with airline food?

This whole topic makes no sense. Someone is criticizing an entire genre.

 

Really I never criticized the games. If you read carefully I was criticizing myself more.

 

Lumping the storytelling and fiction of Crysis and Bioshock into your argument is like lumping Lord of the Rings books and Twilight books into the same category of story and storytelling... so gimme a break.

Nobody will argue that the story in Crysis is poor and the alien levels kind of sucked. You say you liked Half-Life game(s).. oh really? With it's scientist gone mercenary, gravity gun and inter-dimensional overlords? That's not too far fetched for you but Mass Effect is?.

I think you need to give each game its due, especially if you haven't played them, before making any kind of attempt at critique. That's like writing movie reviews based on trailers or attempting to discuss the merits of Paradise Lost based on the liner notes.

Maybe you generally don't like sci-fi? That's fine. But your examples are poorly thought out.

My best friend LOVES sci-fi movies and books. But unlike me, he really isn't interested in sci-fi games for some reason. When it comes to video games his tastes lie more with yours; historic settings, knights and armour... that kind of thing. I enjoy those settings as well, but I enjoy many sci-fi games too.

 

I couldn't care less about the setting of the games I play.

 

YES

as long as the gameplay is enjoyable

 

Try Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway.

Its a close to realistic shooter as possible: Placement of your squad matters, suppressive fire, cover, blind firing, flanking, etc..

 

X-Wing and Master of Orion on a friend's 486 were what convinced me to give up playing Mutant League Football (is it sci-fi? fantasy? sports?) on the Genesis...neither one had a very good story, but I thought they were heaps of fun...

But then I'd rather watch episodes of the original Star Trek than Lost or 24...

I enjoy most of the games that you listed, too, swell9...with the exception of the GTA series...never played them, never will...don't know the first thing about graphics/gameplay/story...just not really interested in violence portrayed in a modern, criminal type setting...I'll take my violence killing geth or Flood or Zerg or Nazis or mercenaries on a jungle island or zombies or the Burning Legion...

To each, their own...

 

So basically you're asking people why they like genres you don't like?