Realistic enough to "feel familiar" without crossing over into absurdity. That means it's a matter of Good Taste™ (as previously mentioned) which determines what you're allowed to "get away with" when Reality™ isn't up to the task of telling the story (or developing the characters) you want to present.

Comic books, the good ones anyway, are a syncretic blend of reality and wish fulfillment. The challenge however is to Define The Rules of comic book reality ... and stick to them. Of course, every writer wants to push the boundaries of the envelope, but you need to be careful when you do ... otherwise you wind up with Pink Kryptonite that turns Superman gay, and then everyone points at the writer and laughs derisively because the situation is ridiculous, rather than pointing at the comic book and "feeling the jeopardy" for the character(s).

So there's a challenge to keep everything acceptable enough to maintain the Suspension (bridge) Of Disbelief. It doesn't have to be REAL ... but it doesn't need to be PLAUSIBLE and in order to do that you need to stick to the "rules" of the world you're creating, rather than just making shit up as you go along simply because you can and there's no one who will stop you. That's what I mean about having Good Taste™ when it comes to content creation.

Empyrean wrote:

Yeah, the wicket is sticky. There's realistic and there's realistic. I think it's more about tastefully using both realism and unrealism within the context of the genre. And we all know the problem with taste--everyone thinks they have it.
For example, a guy who survived being irradiated by his own gamma bomb which genetically mutated him and turned him into a nearly indestructible green monster that gets stronger the madder he gets, yeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhokwhatthehellit'sacomicbook...I'll buy it.
An ex-girfriend of his who happens to get mutated into a red female version of him who can *punch so hard that she warps reality* and so can punch her way between dimensions--not with magic or mind powers or energy powers, mind you, but specifically on raw physical strength.... and still bothers to use sais and guns as weapons?
Now which is more realistic? Hard to really say. Which is more tasteful within the genra. Well, everyone thinks they have taste, but I'll buy the first one and leave the second one alone.
Or a mutant who has animalistic senses and who can heal from a gunshot wound within a day, so a government team decides he can survive his skeleton being surgically reinforced with an indestructible metal and retractable claws and so turns him into a living superweapon--pretty cool.
But a mutant who was born with bone--bone, not keratin like every other animal on the planet--claws and a healing factor so intelligent that it can decide to utilize injected supermetal by depositing it in his skeleton, and so powerful that he can survive being at ground zero of a nuclear explosion and regenerate within seconds though no tissue could possibly have survived...
Which is more realisitic? Debatable. Which is more tasteful? Well, if I have any, the first one by a mile.
So to me it's really more a matter of tasteful, relatively restrained writing that isn't constantly over the top than it is a matter of "realism".

well here's the thing those two examples are more about consistency than supposed realism, I don't really get why people assume they are the same thing but there not. For example I can understand gamma radiation making the hulk who he is even though gamma radiation in our world would more likely kill someone outright on our world because that's how gamma radiation works in the marvel universe, it makes you grow bigger and green the more angry you are, that's a fact of life in the marvel universe and the world that they've made. Red she hulk on the other I can't accept because we know that's not how gamma radiation works in the marvel universe, it may make you super strong but not strong enough to punch through space itself in order to teleport, and it makes you green not red. If she had no connection to gamma radiation in any way, shape or form then I can accept her even if she's strong enough to teleport by punching through reality. It's the same reason why I don't question why the flash doesn't burst into from friction burn whenever he uses his super speed. or how I can accept how superman can touch things without breaking them, even though his hands are a small surface area with a lot of pressure behind them. Come to think of it it's also why I'm not questioning how Frodo baggins isn't crapping himself to death from an infected stab wound in a time period that didn't have proper hygiene, realism doesn't make a story consistent and more often than not has the potential to ruin the story being told rather than improving it.

Empyrean wrote:

notears wrote:
well here's the thing those two examples are more about consistency than supposed realism, I don't really get why people assume they are the same thing but there not.

Well, just to be clear, my whole point was that those examples weren't realistic but rather tasteful, of which proper internal consistency is a part.

my mistake, I apologize.... though I guess my point still stands, supers is one of if not the most fantastical genre in the entire spectrum in fiction, it's about cyborg wizards fighting demon possessed robots, about wire fu style monks and ninjas fighting against space pirates and it shouldn't be limited to what would happen in our world. It needs to be consistent sure, but it doesn't need to feel like it could happen in our world, it should feel like it can happen in theirs.

Gluke wrote:

Yes please, I want realism in this game, as much as they can allow without breaking the gameplay. If I want to play a cartoon, there's DCUO or CO, so I hope CoT brings something different.

That's what you have VO for.

Empyrean wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Gluke wrote:
Yes please, I want realism in this game, as much as they can allow without breaking the gameplay. If I want to play a cartoon, there's DCUO or CO, so I hope CoT brings something different.

That's what you have VO for.

Mmmm? Naaahhh...
I don't personally see VO as a good example of a realistic style. Not saying they're style isn't good, just that it's not a good example of a realistic style.
I'd say a good example of a an attempt at a realistic style for a Superhero game would be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93DGhH5oX6I, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kn8xwa50O8 (yes, I know that this game wasn't going to be an MMORPG).
Not particularly arguing for realistic, just saying VO isn't a good example or option for a realistic looking Superhero game.

I'm going a bit of what looked like screenies. So they may not look as real now, but I don't care for that link either. Especially the movements we saw.

Valiant Online is still in pre-Alpha. In all honesty, the game is so rough they shouldn't even have a public server. What is online now is basically a mapping exercise with a handful of attackable NPCs scattered around. And this has been true since at least last December when I first started participating. They are now on their third map and second character model since the beginning of the year. Again, to be completely blunt, this is not a game, it is a programming experiment.

They are learning the tools and learning the thought process and doing it in a very open, public way. Kind of like standing in Times Square butchering animals and grinding up sausage.

It is impossible to predict what their final project will look like, even as it is equally impossible to predict what the CoT will look like once it is finally released. The only real difference between VO and everyone else is VO is standing in the middle of the street doing their thing while everyone else is hiding in the basement.

Personally, I hope all four groups will eventually have a complete commercial product that I can pay for, play, and enjoy as much as or even more than I enjoyed CoX.

Who will survive? What will be the strengths and weaknesses of each game? All of that is still up in the air.

It's hard enough making a single player RPG of decent quality. When you add "Massively Multiplayer Online" to the mix, it becomes almost impossible to succeed. I'm very tired of watching good games fail. We now have four game engines out there that developers can download for free and start building a game with. I'm hoping that as time goes on instead of one gigantic World of Warcraft competing with one gigantic League of Legends (and both of them overshadowing gigantic but half the size EVE Online and Everquest while everyone else lives off the scraps that fall from the table) inside a couple years we'll see hundreds of completely unique AAA quality MMORPGs with a couple hundred thousand players each.

Now that would be a gamer's paradise.

kinda depends on what one means by the term "realistic". realistic as in mimics actual real life and all the crud that goes with it...or realistic in appearance only?

I want to play a superhero game and all the absurdity that comes with it and COH did a pretty fine job of accomplishing my goals pretty durn well. are there things I would like to see? sure...correct scale is a big one. always annoyed me that the normal NPC's were monstrously huge (Citenik, my brute was a relatively tall fella and most of the NPC's could look him in the eye...errr) and then the furniture was all made for little people. same for vehicles...who the hell was driving those tiny things?

Brand X wrote:

whiteperegrine wrote:
kinda depends on what one means by the term "realistic". realistic as in mimics actual real life and all the crud that goes with it...or realistic in appearance only?
I want to play a superhero game and all the absurdity that comes with it and COH did a pretty fine job of accomplishing my goals pretty durn well. are there things I would like to see? sure...correct scale is a big one. always annoyed me that the normal NPC's were monstrously huge (Citenik, my brute was a relatively tall fella and most of the NPC's could look him in the eye...errr) and then the furniture was all made for little people. same for vehicles...who the hell was driving those tiny things?

Now size scaling is something I can get behind! Normal NPCs at normal heights, vehicles at the size they would be, same with buildings!
My name sake is 5ft 1in! Let her feel short!

Oh yeah, size and scale definitely need to be consistent! Some items in bases would make my 5'5" characters feel giant, while others would make a 7' character feel short!

Semi-realism would be fine. As I noticed briefly with Champions Online and I discovered with Wildstar some people really do not like a full on cartoony style in an MMO (I personally do not know what is so bad about it).

One problem I will point out though is that realistic art styles do not age well. Usually more cartoony ones do. That is why World of Warcraft lasted so long without a graphics update.....

Izzy wrote:

Compared to CoH,
- before the Gong Rouge update gets a 6/10 for art style
- after the Going Rouge update gets a 8/10 for art style/graphics.

I agree. And you know, occasionally people have referenced CoH as an example of a more "realistic" style, but I think CoH was very graphic and stylized, just in a classic comic book way rather than in a "cartoony" way--which was perfect for the genre of the game.

CoH looked, to my eye, much like Bronze Age comic art. Champions looks like Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.

That might be a nice way to put it. Regardless of what you define it as I liked it.

But what if there were a checkbox to switch to some kind of comics-like shaders?

Fireheart wrote:

I didn't find SWtoR very cartoony... Pretty realistic, I'd say, just horribly limited in terms of customization of characters.
Be Well!
Fireheart

I agree with Fireheart here. When I think cartoony, I see CO, not SWToR.. I really didn't like the CO art style. I much favour 'realistic-looking' toons where possible.

Gorgon wrote:

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
But what if there were a checkbox to switch to some kind of comics-like shaders?

Champions. Knock yourself out. I want realistic shading of large, round objects.

I'm thinking in terms of one of several "non-default" rendering modes, like that happyland mod for PyroVision in TF2.

I'm of the rule that Gameplay always triumphs over realism

Comicsluvr wrote:

We're talking about a video game that simulates the lives of characters normally reserved for comic books. Worrying about 'realism' here is like wondering about Superman vs Underdog. It's fiction.
That said, there HAS to be a level of consistency and this is where many comics fail. If your game world has established that getting shot in the head is considered fatal for all but the supers or the lucky few mortals, then the game has to be written that way.
Realism is that bad guys would be separated from their junk and shipped to a prison. Consistency says that they will be able to get their junk back somehow. The reasoning just has to be written well is all. A good story can cover a LOT of plot holes...

Those are good points, but you're talking about realism and of subject matter and this thread is ostensibly about realism of style and appearance. I would love to see all the craziness you normally get in superhero-verses but with attention paid to realism and detail in the way everything looks.
Of course, some realism and realistic practical logic in the subject matter, characters, dialogue and plot-lines would be great as well, and I would like to see the semi-realistic subgenre of superheroes get some decent representation as well (ie Punisher, some Daredevil and Batman, GI Joes, Call of Duty-type stuff).

Comicsluvr wrote:

Realism of style is what it's ALL about. As my last comment said...good writing can cover plot holes.

Good writing shouldn't have plot-holes to cover, IMO.

Comicsluvr wrote:

Example: We have a typical scenario where a tech villain is being broken out of prison. In a 'realistic' setting he would have NO gear except maybe what he could cobble together from stolen parts. Why? Because he gear isn't kept at the prison. Solution? The guys breaking him out bring him new gear. Might even be a good chance for a costume change and/or power upgrade. You just have to write it in that way.

Or he could have a super skill like this one: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fabricator-power-set-origin-specific-crafting-power

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I'm going to d something different this time. I'm going to take a walk down memory lane. Come with me.
Back in the late 80s I read X-Men Classic. A comic book that reprinted old X-Men stories and in the back of the book had new short stories set around the same time as the reprinted story.
Now one of these back up stories was about Professor X's alien girlfriend, Lilandra. She was alone and snooping around the Professor's house, she went to the bathroom and accidentally turned on the shower. She was shocked to discover that falling water was the only means humans have of cleansing ourselves. I don't remember anything else about the story it was a long time ago. If you remember anything relevant feel free to comment.
Now there are some problems with the parts of this story that I remember, and the weirdest thing about it is that I didn't notice most of these problems at the time.
1) First of all, just how do these aliens cleanse themselves? No alternative method is even hinted at.
2) If this is all so freeking alien to her, then why did she assume that that's what the shower was for? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for her to be puzzled, instead of shocked, and just wonder what the shower was for?
3) That's NOT all we have. We also use soap, rags, sponges or Loofahs (I'm not sure what the Professor keeps in HIS shower) razors, clippers, trimmers, shampoo, shaving cream, toothpaste, toothbrushes, mouthwash and a whole freeking industry of chemicals and tools. Which she should've really had some clue about.
4) How did she become his girlfriend, and get close enough to be left alone, snooping around his home, without realizing his hygiene standards weren't up to hers? It couldn't have bothered her THAT much. Which mean she's kind of dumb and (by her own standards) kind of gross.

1) Some other way? That's not really a problem, just an unknown.

2) No, it wouldn't be more reasonable. Exactly HOW alien it was to her is, again, an unknown.

3) Why should she have had some clue, especially if it was really "all so freaking alien" to her? And none of those things would get us very clean without water, anyway.

4) She never said water didn't do the job, just that she was surprised it was the "only"way we had.

I'm only answering this because you seem to have looked at these plot points of omitted information from a very limited perspective and outsmarted yourself.

Many things, presented out of context, will seem very weird. I enjoy films where two people/beings/whatever are trying to communicate and they give up on talking and just pantomime what they mean. A concept as simple as eating might turn out to be horribly complex when you have no common ground to work from.

What if Llandra's people NEVER used water to clean themselves? Suppose water was scarce on their home world? Suppose they evolved in such a way that they simply didn't need to bathe as often as we do? Communicating between two Humans without common language would be bad enough. Communicating with another species? I shudder to think what sorts of mistakes might be made. Our idea of a salute or a handshake might be their idea of a visual or tactile insult or a challenge of battle

Empyrean wrote:

TheMightyPaladin wrote:
I don't thinks so. I find your answers. Unsatisfying.

Well, fair enough. You're the expert on what satisfies you and what doesn't.
But the issue was that you were couching certain omissions of information as "problems" when all storytelling omits non-essential information, and the particular "problems" were only created by you, using a very limited way of looking at the possibilities.
And I. Find. Your punctuation. Very William Shatneresque :P.
Anyway, as I said, fair enough, you don't like those particular information omissions and you personally find my answers unsatisfying.
But that doesn't mean that there's an intrinsic problem with the storytelling in your example, just that you personally have a problem with it.

Given enough time I can usually come up with dozens (if not hundreds) of plot holes and/or story problems in just about every movie I've ever seen. This even includes what I consider to be the best movies of all time. The key of course is when (or even if) I start to think about these issues.

For me a "good" movie is one that entertains me well enough that I don't bother to "critically analyze" it until well after the movie is over. Even my most favorite movies, the ones I've seen dozens of times over decades, tend to have plenty of critical goofs or problems if you dig far enough to reveal them. Basically no movie is 100% perfect. But often times I don't mentally stumble over or recall those problems for years after the fact because the movie was "good" overall.

On the other hand a "bad" movie is, to me, one that allows my mind to wander and start randomly assessing its flaws well before the END of the movie. If I can't ignore what's making a crummy movie bad while I'm still watching it it's clear the movie has failed to suspend my disbelief on at least some level.

The point here is that given enough time you can punch holes in ANY story if you really want to. A good story is simply one that's good enough to make you not care too much what those ever-present problems are.