Jump to content

Why are people so obsessed with Realism and Believability?


Ottservia
 Share

Recommended Posts

I honestly don't understand this obsession people have with realism in fiction. I just don't get it. I know I've said this like a million times by this point but fiction is inherently unrealistic. A fictional story can never truly represent reality. Which is why it confuses me so much when people complain about it in stories so often. It's like even stories that have a realistic setting are unrealistic. I don't even know what it means for a story to be unrealistic. I mean when you get right down to it "plot convenience" is realistic because life is just kind of a string of coincidences anyway. I don't see why that's a problem if you wanna complain about realism. Even so, criticism regarding realism or the lack there of are also incredibly biased and to a degree can also be insensitive. Like just because a character is feeling an emotion unrealistic to you that doesn't mean it actually is unrealistic. To say that it is would be insensitive to the people who do in fact relate to said character. I just don't understand this mentality cause there is no such thing as a story that is wholly realistic and a true representation of reality. So why do people keep expecting every story to be that? And another thing why people keep expecting stories to be completely flawless and plot hole free? Like no, there's no such thing as a story without plot holes or inconsistencies. I swear you can find a plot hole in any story if you look hard enough. Sometimes I feel like it gets to a point where people are just nitpicking for the sake of it and I don't understand why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"Realism" and "believability" are two different things. Your paragraph only mentions the former, so I'm going to assume you mean that one specifically.

I don't think anyone really cares about realism in fiction unless the story is meant to be realistic. When people complain about something not being realistic, they likely actually mean that it wasn't believable. Something can be believable but not realistic; a fantasy story is inherently not realistic, but suspension of disbelief allows us to let ourselves believe it anyway. So when someone makes this complaint, they're saying they felt whatever it is they're complaining about didn't work within the context of the work. Believability is way more important than realism.

Side note, "plot hole" is extremely overused and rarely used accurately these days. Everyone seems to use it as their go-to criticism when they don't like something but can't actually explain why. It's the new Mary Sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It breaks immersion if something is so unbelievable or forced that it reminds you this a story, e.g. plot armor, tons and tons of convenient coincidences stringing the plot together, people doing things that don’t make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont mind things not being realistic, but I prefer characters that have "human reactions and qualities" if a character is mourning a loss, I want to feel their emotion, not them reading off a script. If they are happy to see someone after a few years, I want to see their beaming face or excitement! Characters are fiction, sure, but I want them to feel things in a way where it touches my heart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so we're getting a few things out of the way.

1. If you "truly don't know", then I expect to see constructive questions regarding what other people post.  If I see arguments to valid answers, I'll assume that you're trolling, and warn you accordingly.
2. Not everyone will have the same opinion as you.  This is okay.  Let it go.
3. If you whine about these restrictions in this topic at any time, I close it and give you a warning stiff enough to warrant a suspension.  I've had to clean up one too many messes made by you, and I am in no mood to do it again.

Now, my answer:

Even fantasy/sci-fi worlds have rules.  Take Fates - only those of royal blood can manipulate Dragon Veins.  I don't take issue with the existence of Dragon Veins, or the fact that only royalty can use them - that's part of the world.  What I would take issue with is some non-confirmed royal using a Dragon Vein - which thankfully never happens.  That's an example of realism in context.  When a world breaks its own rules without an EXTREMELY good reason, I'm not going to have a high opinion of it.

Also, don't expect everyone who wants realism to want a world that's perfectly realistic to ours.  That's a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Even fantasy/sci-fi worlds have rules.  Take Fates - only those of royal blood can manipulate Dragon Veins.  I don't take issue with the existence of Dragon Veins, or the fact that only royalty can use them - that's part of the world.  What I would take issue with is some non-confirmed royal using a Dragon Vein - which thankfully never happens.  That's an example of realism in context.  When a world breaks its own rules without an EXTREMELY good reason, I'm not going to have a high opinion of it.

That's an example of Fates doing something right which people often overlook. 

Speaking of the world breaking its rules, what about a retcon? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

That's an example of Fates doing something right which people often overlook. 

Speaking of the world breaking its rules, what about a retcon? 

Really, REALLY depends on the context, how said retcon is done. and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Icelerate said:

Speaking of the world breaking its rules, what about a retcon? 

This may be odd, but retcons GENERALLY don't tend to bother me that much, although the payoff for the retcon matters a lot to me.

For example, Goro Majima in Yakuza 0 is probably my favourite character in all of fiction. He's entertaining, charismatic and funny, while simultaneously deep, troubled and has strong internal conflict. Even though Kiryu isn't particularly weak in 0, Majima steals the spotlight and really made the game for me.

And also, he does this:

His character in Y0 is, in my opinion, absolutely masterful and near perfect.

However, that character was a retcon. Y0 was the sixth released mainline Yakuza game, but is chronologically the first, with it being a prequel. In all five* prior Yakuza games, he was simply The Mad Dog, an unhinged Yakuza who is just weird and funny, but also scary. Yakuza 1-5 Majima and Yakuza 0-onwards (including the remakes of 1 and 2) are not the same character. Is it a flaw in the writing? Sure. Am I glad that they added even more to an already beloved character? Heck no. The mood whiplash between the Majimas is very noticeable, but to me, that doesn't make his appearance in 0 weaker. Plus, this also lead to him retroactively being a little better (Yakuza 1 notwithstanding) and some amazing moments in the remake of Y2. The prequel does explain WHY he chose to become the Mad Dog, but it is very evident that his wonderful depth was planned to be added AT LEAST midway through Yakuza 5's development, but also very likely during the planning for 0, due to him being a fan favorite already.

...All that to say, retcons can be well-done and improve a story or character. And also play Yakuza 0.

 

Retcons as plot twists... I hold the same stance, actually. It's more about the payoff than the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

And another thing why people keep expecting stories to be completely flawless and plot hole free? Like no, there's no such thing as a story without plot holes or inconsistencies. I swear you can find a plot hole in any story if you look hard enough. Sometimes I feel like it gets to a point where people are just nitpicking for the sake of it and I don't understand why.

I actually think the opposite there. There's very few stories that have actual, legitimate plot holes. But people toss around the term very generally for stuff that is stupid, but is still possible.

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

Even fantasy/sci-fi worlds have rules.  Take Fates - only those of royal blood can manipulate Dragon Veins.  I don't take issue with the existence of Dragon Veins, or the fact that only royalty can use them - that's part of the world.  What I would take issue with is some non-confirmed royal using a Dragon Vein - which thankfully never happens.  That's an example of realism in context.  When a world breaks its own rules without an EXTREMELY good reason, I'm not going to have a high opinion of it.

Also, don't expect everyone who wants realism to want a world that's perfectly realistic to ours.  That's a logical fallacy.

So you haven't played Hidden Truths 2 then...

(not an actual plot hole there, but it's just a bit funny that the one example you took from Fates actually exists in Fates).

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people look for "realism", what they mean is probably closer to "internal consistency". The quick way of putting it: if the story establishes certain rules, they need to remain rules. If a story claims "this superweapon can only fire once a day" and later has that superweapon fire twice in five minutes, that's a violation of internal consistency (a blatant one, but this is just an example to illustrate the idea). Some inconsistencies are minor, which is to be expected (writers are human, and make mistakes), but glaring holes big enough to drive cars through are another problem.

Character portrayals/interpretations are more subjective than events, so that's more open to debate. Characters in stories being idiots can happen sometimes, and that's fine. What's not fine is when they contradict their previously established characters to be idiots for the sake of advancing whatever plot the author is aiming for. A military genius being caught by a clever deception is allowable; a military genius who gets himself trapped in a very obviously telegraphed ambush despite prior warnings is a giant red flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Palarran said:

A military genius being caught by a clever deception is allowable; a military genius who gets himself trapped in a very obviously telegraphed ambush despite prior warnings is a giant red flag

Well, it kind of happens in real life. At least it felt like it happened. I would mention the Germans falling for those inflatable tanks on D-Day, but aerial recon wasn't as advanced as it is, nowadays, obviously.

 

Maybe I can find something from the American Revolutionary War or the Civil War.

Edited by Armchair General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Well, it kind of happens in real life. At least it felt like it happened. I would mention the Germans falling for those inflatable tanks on D-Day, but aerial recon wasn't as advanced as it is, nowadays, obviously.

 

Maybe I can find something from the American Revolutionary War or the Civil War.

Well you certainly can have a military genius fuck up, just depends how you handle it. If the character in question is distracted for some reason, or if it's a comment about how people can think too advanced and get tripped up by the basics. Or just that the character plain fucks up and admonishes themself for making a stupid mistake. The issues lie when a character keeps on making mistakes and the narrative treats it like they're still a genius despite all evidence to the contrary. That's when you end up with off book Tyrion from Game of Thrones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Palarran said:

A military genius being caught by a clever deception is allowable; a military genius who gets himself trapped in a very obviously telegraphed ambush despite prior warnings is a giant red flag.

Depends on how you define "genius", if being a genius denies hubris, then you'd be right. If a genius can become arrogant however, then it can be understandable that they would think themselves invincible from their past successes, and hence leave themselves vulnerable. Genius requires effort, and over time, if people feel secure, they can fail to put in the proper work, acting wisely can be exhausting.

 

---

As for the topic itself, yeah, it's internal consistency that primarily matters, although it's not the only thing.

You can make an absurdist or satirical story that intentionally breaks from internal consistency. You could have a random villager say "That ancient prophecy about a Hero of Light defeating a Lord of Darkness? I made it up three weeks ago. Also, I don't like it anymore, so you Hero of Light are now Zombie Cabbage." *Poof* *The Hero is physically transformed*. But this has to be intentional and satire can't be an ex post facto excuse for bad writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well you certainly can have a military genius fuck up, just depends how you handle it. If the character in question is distracted for some reason, or if it's a comment about how people can think too advanced and get tripped up by the basics. Or just that the character plain fucks up and admonishes themself for making a stupid mistake. The issues lie when a character keeps on making mistakes and the narrative treats it like they're still a genius despite all evidence to the contrary. That's when you end up with off book Tyrion from Game of Thrones.

This kind of reminds of the Prince of Saxony from Iron Harvest.

 

 

He went from being an beloved field officer to going to "the end justifies the means" what this video doesn't shows is him executing POWs because his country was losing men by the million...And there's also the mustard gas incident, which wasn't used against his country, but since the Russians had it in the basement of an warehouse, they must be intending to use it, right?

 

But for all intents and purposes, the game frames him as an lunatic who kills his father out of nowhere and blames it on the general who lectured him on what a war crime is. Because that's how you do royalty.

Edited by Armchair General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ottservia Again, I got this weird feeling that I was able to predict everything you were going to say. How many times have we have variations of this discussion across different threads? I can think of around 6 off the top of my head. Oh, wait, I just noticed that you said, "I know I've said this like a million times by this point"; never mind.

Anyway, what do you mean when you say "realism"? Realism in narrative is broadly defined as representing reality, but that can mean different things depending on the context. For instance, it can refer to a grounded narrative, it can mean a less stylized narrative, and lately, it's been misused a lot to mean "gritty, dark, pseudo-edgy narrative" as part of a fad that I hope dies very soon so we can move on from all this poorly-written pseudo-edgy nonsense. There are even subgenres of literary realism that approach "representing reality" in different ways based on different definitions.

You seem to think of "representing reality" in very binary terms, and you even use words that have multiple definitions as if you're using the same definition both times when you're really not; it's a common logical fallacy that's easy to do accidentally that I learned about in a critical thinking course that I took. 

 

I think the term closer to what you're looking for when you mention realism and believability is a term that's more often used to describe the effect of certain editing techniques and stuff like that, but still very much applies here: it's verisimilitude: the plausibility of a fictional work within the bounds of its own genre. Essentially, it's talking about how well the viewing audience can buy in or suspend disbelief, but in objective terms where stuff like suspension of disbelief is more subjective. You're right in that a work of fiction is inherently unrealistic; it cannot 100% mirror reality and still be an interesting narrative. However, a narrative still needs to be verisimilitudinous; it still needs to be a work that is intuitive for the audience to be able to buy in (again, in objective terms). 

For an example that Wikipedia was kind enough to provide, "In the production of the classic superhero film, Superman, director Richard Donner had a picture of the title character holding a sash with the word "verisimilitude" on it in his office during the project. That display was to remind Donner that he intended to approach the story of the fantasy superhero in a way true to the source material that would make it feel intuitively real to the audience within the context of the story's world. The result was a highly acclaimed film that would set the standard for a film genre that would become dominant decades later." In other words, where a lesser director (cough Zach Snyder cough) might look at the superhero genre as inherently silly & unrealistic and ultimately overcompensate when directing a superhero movie, Donner instead remembered that what actually mattered was that the film be intuitive for the audience to buy in. The results speak for themselves with the first two Donner Superman movies being widely acclaimed to this day.

In this regard, when people are criticizing something being "unrealistic" or "unbelievable", often (not always, but often) they are really talking about a moment where the story failed to maintain verisimilitude. For the example of a character's emotional reaction being unrealistic, they are often not talking about the reaction being unrealistic to them, but unrealistic given what's been established about the character. That intuitiveness is broken by an ill-fitting reaction. Plot holes, plot contrivances and inconsistencies similarly break the story's verisimilitude. 

 

15 hours ago, Ottservia said:

And another thing why people keep expecting stories to be completely flawless and plot hole free? Like no, there's no such thing as a story without plot holes or inconsistencies. I swear you can find a plot hole in any story if you look hard enough.

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood says hi. Seriously, the attention to detail in that show is amazing and one of the things I most enjoy about it, alongside the compelling characters, narrative and magic system. 

Anyway, no one is expecting stories to be completely perfect, but problems in a narrative are still worth pointing out to prevent them from happening again. Without criticism or feedback, how do we expect to improve? A couple of small problems are blemishes in an otherwise good story, while a story riddled with holes, contrivances and inconsistencies (cough The Last Jedi cough) are bad stories because the rest is not enough. 

Edited by vanguard333
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Palarran said:

When people look for "realism", what they mean is probably closer to "internal consistency". The quick way of putting it: if the story establishes certain rules, they need to remain rules. If a story claims "this superweapon can only fire once a day" and later has that superweapon fire twice in five minutes, that's a violation of internal consistency (a blatant one, but this is just an example to illustrate the idea). Some inconsistencies are minor, which is to be expected (writers are human, and make mistakes), but glaring holes big enough to drive cars through are another problem.

Not that I disagree with this but in my experience I constantly see people complain about inconsistency a lot of the time when it isn’t actually inconsistent and makes sense in context. Take Xander’s character as an example. People like to call his character inconsistent when his character in birthright contradicts his supports but when you look at it the inconsistency makes sense for a couple reasons:

1. Xander’s supports are written with the idea that you’re playing conquest in mind. The arc he undergoes in Conquest is different from the one he goes through in birthright so of course there’s gonna be some discrepancies

2. Xander as a character is intentionally written to be hypocritical. That’s his character flaw and his ability to overcome said flaw or failure to is the crux of his character. It’s not inconsistent as it is a character flaw which is fine if you ask me.

Then there’s all the Buddhism and and Taoism symbolism in fates tgat people don’t seem to understand and it’s exhausting.

also @vanguard333 I know what verisimilitude is. I might add more to this later when I have time but to clarify my views on realism in fiction is not as binary as you seem to think it is. My question more so is why does everyone else seem to view it in such a binary when it isn’t. In my experience people just don’t understand verisimilitude or how it works. They just complain about realism because they don’t care to understand the work in question. When in actuality it makes perfect sense within the context of the story’s world and/or themes. It’s kinda like people complaining that Naruto contradicts its hard work message when Naruto was never about hard work vs talent to begin with but instead of trying to understand what the story is actually trying to say they just dismiss it and call it bad/contrived/unrealistic/etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

also @vanguard333 I know what verisimilitude is. I might add more to this later when I have time but to clarify my views on realism in fiction is not as binary as you seem to think it is. My question more so is why does everyone else seem to view it in such a binary when it isn’t. In my experience people just don’t understand verisimilitude or how it works. They just complain about realism because they don’t care to understand the work in question. When in actuality it makes perfect sense within the context of the story’s world and/or themes. It’s kinda like people complaining that Naruto contradicts its hard work message when Naruto was never about hard work vs talent to begin with but instead of trying to understand what the story is actually trying to say they just dismiss it and call it bad/contrived/unrealistic/etc.

I see; I didn't know if you did know it or not, so I made my statement with the definition included both as a "just in case" and in case someone else who didn't know what verisimilitude is also reads it.

Forgive me; your view just seemed rather binary because of statements like, "Fiction is inherently unrealistic" and probably because I'm a bit too used to these discussions and might've failed to notice the differences. For that, I apologize.

Perhaps one thing that would help would be to provide examples; you say "they" a lot and bring in non-specific examples, and I think something more specific might help with clarification. Perhaps an actual comment or a clip from a review video or something like that. For instance, you bring up Naruto in this reply; perhaps maybe a clip or quote of that "Naruto: the Self-Made Hypocrite" video on YouTube that has a lot of views for some reason. Just something specific to help me get a better sense of what you're referring to, because right now, all I have to work with are generalizations, which don't really help my autistic (and I'm using that in the literal sense: I have autism) brain understand your points.

 

4 hours ago, Palarran said:

Character portrayals/interpretations are more subjective than events, so that's more open to debate. Characters in stories being idiots can happen sometimes, and that's fine. What's not fine is when they contradict their previously established characters to be idiots for the sake of advancing whatever plot the author is aiming for. A military genius being caught by a clever deception is allowable; a military genius who gets himself trapped in a very obviously telegraphed ambush despite prior warnings is a giant red flag.

You make a good point. For an example from actual media, people who are supposed to be experts on medieval warfare sending a huge thing of light cavalry directly into an army that badly outnumbers them, and at night no less, while also putting all their siege engines on the front line, outside the castle. GoT Season 8 episode 3; that was really bad. These are things that even people who are not experts in medieval warfare were able to point out were dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Forgive me; your view just seemed rather binary because of statements like, "Fiction is inherently unrealistic" and probably because I'm a bit too used to these discussions and might've failed to notice the differences. For that, I apologize.

What I mean by storytelling is inherently unrealistic is that when you try to read stories purely by the rules of reality. It’s not gonna make sense. It never will. If you look at a fantasy map and compare it to a real geographical map then it’s not gonna make any sense. You look at a map of middle earth okay. I’m no geologist but I don’t think that’s how mountains are supposed to work. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/325948091752223483/
 

and this is Tolkein we’re talking a man renowned for his amazing world building but again if you read it purely by the rules of reality then it just won’t make sense. It will never be wholly realistic no matter how much it may seem that way. My point is small logic gaps like that are not something we should be complaining about in regards to actual nuanced discussion and criticism. Cause if you were complain about something like that, then I personally just think you’re nitpicking for the sake of it. Like my problem with this kind of discourse is that people are complaining about problems that aren't actually there. Again take Xander for example. People like to complain that he's inconsistent when that's kind of the point of his character. The fact that he's a hypocrite is kind of why his character works in the first place. Not only but people just kinda like to neglect context and try to understand the story they're criticizing. It's kind of like in that plagueofgripes video where he says that the hyuga family's branch family system doesn't make sense when it does make sense. It's just that he's looking at it from a western perspective when you gotta remember that this is a japanese story and a lot of the ideas in it are gonna be pulled from japanese society and culture where the idea of branch family is fairly normal unlike in the west. But instead of trying to understand how branch families work and understand what the story is trying to say about them, he simply dismisses it for not making sense when it's his fault it doesn't make sense.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

So you haven't played Hidden Truths 2 then...

(not an actual plot hole there, but it's just a bit funny that the one example you took from Fates actually exists in Fates).

The game tried to fit the rules of the Dragon Veins into their narrative.  Which is far more effort than this sorry excuse of a comment.

49 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What I mean by storytelling is inherently unrealistic is that when you try to read stories purely by the rules of reality. It’s not gonna make sense. It never will. If you look at a fantasy map and compare it to a real geographical map then it’s not gonna make any sense. You look at a map of middle earth okay. I’m no geologist but I don’t think that’s how mountains are supposed to work. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/325948091752223483/

. . .and who the hell is criticizing anyone's fantasy map on the basis of "not being realistic enough"?  I'm sure that anyone that isn't a self-absorbed jackass would know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eclipse said:

and who the hell is criticizing anyone's fantasy map on the basis of "not being realistic enough"?  I'm sure that anyone that isn't a self-absorbed jackass would know better.

You’d be surprised. I can’t tell you the amount of arguments I’ve seen in regards to awakening’s map and geography

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You’d be surprised. I can’t tell you the amount of arguments I’ve seen in regards to awakening’s map and geography

Like what?

 

The only thing that stands out in Awakening was the Mila Tree, but that was explained in another game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You’d be surprised. I can’t tell you the amount of arguments I’ve seen in regards to awakening’s map and geography

Maybe don't engage with people who literally have no idea what they're talking about?  Or perhaps you're being trolled?  Regardless, pick your battles.  Anyone can talk shit about anything, but there's a difference between legitimate criticism and "OMG ELISE IS A BAD CHARACTER BECAUSE HER HAIR IS TOO LONG!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Maybe don't engage with people who literally have no idea what they're talking about?  Or perhaps you're being trolled?  Regardless, pick your battles.  Anyone can talk shit about anything, but there's a difference between legitimate criticism and "OMG ELISE IS A BAD CHARACTER BECAUSE HER HAIR IS TOO LONG!".

On this I can fully agree and I’m trying to get better with it. It’s just when you’ve heard these bad criticisms a million times it kind of gets tiring. 

 

2 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Like what?

 

The only thing that stands out in Awakening was the Mila Tree, but that was explained in another game.

I’ve seen people complain that the demon’s ingle doesn’t make sense geographically or that wyvern valley doesn’t make sense to be where it is because there were no cliffs there originally in Valentia(disregarding the fact that it’s been 2,000 years). Like really small shit like that doesn’t really matter to the overall story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...