Realism vs Satisfaction in Narrative/Storytelling?

[Kreekakon]

So after finishing DBZ a little while back the ending got me thinking a small bit on this particular topic. Here was my initial post, and response to it:

One is the circumstances on how the final main villain Buu was defeated. This is an interesting topic, because it gets me thinking on how much one should relinquish real world realism common sense to create a more optimistic, and wish full-filling scenario. In more spoilerly terms:

Spoiler below!

Kid Buu was defeated by Goku's Spirit Bomb Attack which he created by gathering energy from all of Earth's people. They initially refused to do so out of skepticism when asked by Gou, and Vegeta, but later instantly gave their energy when Mr. Satan (A false hero who took credit for defeating the previous villain Cell) did it.

On one hand it's a very realistic interpretation on how we would react, but on the other hand it's just downright depressing, and cynical to see the entire Earth turn away from what can save their world, and only do it when a false hero does the asking. The whole thing just turns out very depressing.

Which is why I think that sometimes to create a more satisfying viewing experience to the viewer, sometimes it's okay to take advantage of a viewer's suspension of disbelief, and create more wish fulfillment. I would not have noticed it at all if Earth decided to give their energy when Goku, and Vegeta did it.

Now since the example is out of they way let's talk in some more general terms.

Realism is oftentimes praised on the basis that it is able to more properly immerse a viewer in a particular media's narrative, because it boosts their suspension of disbelief, and views something that is happening in said story as reasonable.

However as I indicated in the example above sometimes applying realism can sometimes come into conflict with the "wish fulfillment" of the viewer. Generally speaking this means that what the viewer WANTS to have have happen will not happen on the basis that it is unrealistic.

This will also go slightly sideways to the concept of wish fulfillment in general, and if it is a suitable form of "engagement". Some people dislike the notion of wish fulfillment in narrative, because they feel that it conflicts with actual meaningful, and realistic character development in favor of satisfying the viewer instead.

It may be a shallow form of engagement, but is that really a bad thing? Isn't the whole purpose of consuming media to generally engage oneself? If wish fulfillment will fill that role is really a bad thing that it ends up as being shallow, and sometimes even manipulative?

Also, like in the case of DBZ, if a media has the chance to seamlessly pace a satisfying plot into the narrative, and get away with its unrealism just because of a good suspension of disbelief...then is it a bad idea to go back, and change this aspect for the sake of being realistic?

It will no doubt hurt a viewer's experience during the watch, but there is also the great likelihood that having opted to go for a more "realistic" approach will have the viewer appreciate this aspect of the work in hindsight better, because they realize that it "made sense", and what they wanted to happen in the spur of the moment did not.

So basically that's a very general idea of what I wanted to say on the topic. Now I'd like to hear your thoughts:

What is your opinion on realism vs satisfaction in stories?

Also a secondary question which leans more on whether, or not making the viewer feel good should be a primary objective:

What is your opinion on proper character development (Even if it's nasty) vs satisfaction in stories?

EDIT: Best case scenario of course is that the two are able to go hand in hand. But try to think in the context of cases that cannot, and which path they should take.

[Wooderson]

I had a conversation with a friend today who said he didn't like The Last of Us's lack of realism. I couldn't help but laugh, after listening to him explain himself, he actually did give me a valid but very subjective opinion that to me is very picky, and could be considered elitist.

He explained that he disliked the Clickers and the other enemies in the game because it wasn't 'Realistic'. He told me that he wished that they were like regular zombies. In other words he was saying he wanted them to be Romero's traditional version of a zombie. He also mentioned 28 Days/Weeks Later which technically aren't zombies... So he has a preference for zombies that to me personally is pretty boring as it would mean they're all the same. It goes against what I praise in imagination and variety.

But this is related to your question because he kept telling me his preference was 'Realistic' and that anything else was 'Unrealistic'. I couldn't help but facepalm. When it comes to character design in a fictional narrative such as Last Of Us, how can you call any other piece of FICTION more realistic than the other.

To break it down, he was claiming Romero's Zombie was more realistic than the Last Of Us' enemies. How can someone think that when both are as fictional as the other that require just as much suspension of belief to appreciate in the first place.

Anyways, I think to answer your question... Suspension of belief is different for everyone and that there can be a difference between what is actually possible proven by science and physics, and what isn't. I get more put off by action films that show things happening which are totally impossible than when watching a piece of fiction such as Star Wars where people are dog fighting in space. I also find it interesting how to me personally, hearing sounds and explosions in space seems actually OK to me and i'll let that slide, when morally I know that its bullshit because of the vacuum. Ah well, double standards. I suppose thats an example of Satisfaction>Realism because sounds are attractive. But then again, Realism can be the key to Satisfaction and lack of Realism can be the cause of less Satisfaction. Woooah dude.

[MrWhitticus]

"Never sacrifice a good story for the truth"
-MrWhitticus' Dad

[Froge]

If the two can't go hand in hand, I'll take satisfaction over realism. I don't have any particular argument in mind, but I am drawn towards less realistic stories with more satisfying narratives, like in ATDD. It's probably a cultural thing. I immerse myself in fiction as a reprieve from reality (not saying that reality is bad, it's just I want to enter a different universe sometimes).

Also, realism sometimes makes stories worse, like in The Hobbit films. Or it could make things better, like in Nolan's batman trilogy. I don't think realism vs satisfaction is so much a dichotomy as it is a perspective taken by the writer on how to execute the story. If the execution is well done, then either way can go well. Of course, it's always better if they go hand in hand.

On the other hand, I find proper character development to be more important than satisfaction. Fundamentally, all stories are about people, or if they're not about people, then they're about some form of sentience that we can relate strongly to. If there is good character development, chances are, we will be able to empathize with those characters regardless of how unsatisfying the story turns out. This is probably shown best in Telltales' The Walking Dead, where the body count kept increasing and the situation kept getting worse, but because of how realistic the characters were, we were still able to enjoy the story.

In other words, stories should have realistic characters, but the events and settings can be made unrealistic to satisfy the audience.

[MrBehemoth]

Interesting question, Kreekakon. First, I want to say something about the terminology. If what you mean by "satisfaction" is "wish fulfilment", then we have a word for that already: "fantasy". Not in the elves and dragons sense, but in the sense of a work of fiction that is desirably unrealistic. So the question really comes down reality versus fantasy. In your DBZ example, humanity joining hands and minds to overcome a common evil would have been the more fantastical outcome.

I don't think reality and fantasy are mutually exclusive, except where a particular story calls for it, as you acknowledge. The best stories have both. LOTR / Middle Earth is what always springs to my mind when searching for story examples and it works quite well here because, underneath the battles and magic and heroism, it's a story about a world changing from a fantastical to a realistic one. The destruction of the Ring heralds the end of the time of the Elves and the departure of magic from the world. As Frodo kills a fallen god by destroying his horcrux and is rescued by eagles from an exploding volcano, so too is the fantasy killed and the gritty realism of the world is too much for him. He is basically a PTSD survivor and living in the cold, hard, realistic Middle Earth of the 4th age is too much for him.

It's a bit of a trite summary, I know, but my point is about how LOTR (imho one the most important works of literature in the English language, dare you to disagree) uses fantasy and realism together.

Now, as for character development, I think, because our brains are uniquely wired for recognising and analysing other personas, characters should always behave realistically, no matter what situation they're in. This what is typically wrong with action films and light SF/F stories. An example of this working well would be in a certain kind of survival horror (movies) like, I dunno, 28 Days Later, since Wooderson mentioned it. The situation is completely fantastical, but the characters, rather than being heroic, just want to feel safe again.

Realistic characters, with realistic motivations and choices, work perfectly well in fantastical situations. And Woody is right, the more fantastic a situation is, the more willing we are to forgive.

So, inconclusion, I think that fantasy and realism belong together and I think any time you find yourself wondering about the realism of a story, there is something wrong with how the the characters are approaching it.

[Mechavomit]

You know what I think is unsatisfying in stories? Lack of character development and proper structuring. I would never leave out development in favour of satisfaction, I feel like an underdeveloped character looses their entire point of being, they're like an unfinished story on their own, they turn into useless luggage in the plot. Sometimes even death of a character is nescesarry and I feel it's important not to leave out things like that out of fear that the audience will stay despleased with loosing a fave.

I had a conversation with a friend about a similar topic not so long ago. She was writing a story of her own featuring a kid who lost her parents. She could not decide wether or not to make the kid still depressed about their death or move on to able to properly engage herself in a new adventure(the plot has ariiiived). My friend feared that having her character move on would be unrealistic (lots of literature on child psychology has beer read..), but having her sad would interfere with the story. We though about it and decided that sometimes it's ok to sacrifice realism if needed. Not saying that the charscter should completely dismiss a trauma or whatever, but focusing on it for the sake of realism is just unnescesarry. The story needs to follow certain rules to work properly, even if it means admitting that "that would never happen.. but it just works so well!"
You mentioned Frodo and the Ring (and I much prefer the movies version of Frodo, so...). The realistic situation would probably be him dying somewhere along the way to Mordor, but that would be horrible for the story.

[MyRedNeptune]

When a story's intended meaning and purpose is undermined by lack/excess of realism or attempts to make it more/less "satisfying", the result is an inferior story, in my opinion.

[AGP]

It depends on how you wish the story to be told when it comes to satisfaction vs realism. I've always felt though that too much realism can drive a viewer away. Like last night, I watched "Filth" on Netflix, and while the story was intriguing and the concept mindblowing, the amount of footage containing characters snorting coke and having sex/masturbating nearly got me to stop the movie numerous times. Realistic, yes, as people do these things in real life, but it wasn't really necessary.

But continuing on: I find the term "realistic" to be, ironically, very subjective, because what we view as realistic will depend on our previous exposure to other environments.

And a story is generally not meant to be for viewer entertainment, when you really get down to it. Writers/creators just choose to share them with us and we either enjoy them or dislike them.

Things designed especially for mass audiences usually come out like "Frozen". While they may be entertaining for some, there's just kind of a lack of personality as it was meant to be for so many and not really knowing who, as opposed to maybe you creating something for yourself and sharing and enjoying it with like-minded individuals.

[Kreekakon]

Very good posts from everyone!

After a small bit of digging around I'd like to present to all of you what I think could very well be one of the most extremely controversial examples in deciding which one of the two factors is more important:

Mass Effect 2's Ending

Yes Mass Effect 2's ending. Not three...TWO. Mass Effect 2's ending has throughout the years been constantly praised as one of the best endings in video game history being able to combine epicness, satisfaction, and chills all in one package. All the while these feelings were all amplified by our emotional attachments to our crew members.

However despite all of this praise there seems to be a group of people who have voiced criticisms as to how the core of the ending was handled overall. Their complainants mainly go back to the below points:

1. The whole game, with the ending being the particular standout, is god-complex galore. The critics say that if one deconstructs the overall ending, the suicide mission is actually rather un-suicidal. As long as Shepard isn't being stupid at all, then he can breeze through the mission without really coming close to losing people at all. They say the tension ends up being false tension when deconstructed.

2. Lack of actual meaningful choice. This is an extension of the first criticism in that the choices are not difficult at all as long as Shepard knows what he's doing. This is further amplified that there are no actual "consequential choices" which force the player to choose - there are only "right or wrong questions" which are easily answered without too much thought.

Fans who have voiced these criticisms noted that they still massively enjoyed the ending because it was still really exciting. They were mainly voicing their disappointment that the experience of Mass Effect 2 couldn't have been more tweaked to have been a deeper experience with more deeply impacting interactions instead of a "best ending where all the heroes end up happy".

---------------------------------

My personal response to these criticisms is that I believe that they are well grounded yes, but I feel that this is one of those cases where the work has "properly" taken satisfaction over a deeper experience.

I think from the start of writing the story was meant to be a story that was showcasing that if Shepard tried hard enough, and worked hard enough together with his crew then he could really make a triumphant ending.

It may be a god-complex showcase, but it's stemmed from Shepard's understanding of his crew, and how to properly prepare which allows everyone to go unscathed.

Of course there could be another version of the story in which it did end up as a deeper experience, and without having seen it I don't know how it would really turn out. But I do know that it would be vastly different from this upbeat and hopeful version that we all love so much right now.

What do you all think?

[Froge]

Also, I think Higurashi is a good example when satisfaction is better than realism.

Spoiler below!

Even in the last timeline, there was no way the crew could've won against Takano by determination alone. Too many things went their way, such as the positioning of the soldiers when they fell into the traps.