Is realism important in a game?
- Thread starter richasr
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well it depends on what you mean by "realism" if you mean that a game aheres to the laws of physics, then the answer is no. If however you mean that the things in a game don't break the game's internal logic then I would say yes.
No. Unless your objective is to produce a simulation, realism should be subservient to player experience in every case.
OK here's an argument I get into all the time. Is it important? to me, yes. I like immersion, and if a game has no basis in reality, it's hard to get immersed in it.
The inevitable answer I get to this is: "But you're playing in a game that has INSERT UNREALISTIC THING HERE! How can you expect realism?"
The answer is simple: if it's necessary for the premise to the game, it gets an automatic pass. Making a zombie game? you need zombies. That's fine. But if you have a powerup that gives me the ability to fly and fart lightning bolts, there had better be some plot explanation of how magic suddenly started happening, otherwise, I'm gonna call zombie bulls**t on you.
Also, realism can be sacrificed in order to increase fun. I'm fine with that, too. Just pick the appropriate sacrifice. An Example: The first time I played Bioshock, I was plagued by the widescreen bug. (At the low graphics settings I had to use, the game didn't handle widescreen monitors well, and you couldn't aim worth a damn.) I didn't know this bug existed, and so I thought my inability to aim was by design, to make the game more realistic. This would be a VERY poor decision on the part of the game designers, particularly since they had also decided to give you a rejuvenation tank that everyone but you was too stupid to use. Being, as Yahtzee calls it, a hybrid of man and refrigerator makes a game more fun. it's unrealistic but a lot more fun than dying every 12 seconds. Having the game be impossible, but Death doesn't matter also is unrealistic, and is NOT fun, and that would be a very poor sacrifice to make.
So yeah, realism is important, but it's less important than fun. It is an element that can be used to make a game more fun, particularly for people who like immersion games. But like any game element it can be overdone to the point that it hampers fun. And that's bad.
The inevitable answer I get to this is: "But you're playing in a game that has INSERT UNREALISTIC THING HERE! How can you expect realism?"
The answer is simple: if it's necessary for the premise to the game, it gets an automatic pass. Making a zombie game? you need zombies. That's fine. But if you have a powerup that gives me the ability to fly and fart lightning bolts, there had better be some plot explanation of how magic suddenly started happening, otherwise, I'm gonna call zombie bulls**t on you.
Also, realism can be sacrificed in order to increase fun. I'm fine with that, too. Just pick the appropriate sacrifice. An Example: The first time I played Bioshock, I was plagued by the widescreen bug. (At the low graphics settings I had to use, the game didn't handle widescreen monitors well, and you couldn't aim worth a damn.) I didn't know this bug existed, and so I thought my inability to aim was by design, to make the game more realistic. This would be a VERY poor decision on the part of the game designers, particularly since they had also decided to give you a rejuvenation tank that everyone but you was too stupid to use. Being, as Yahtzee calls it, a hybrid of man and refrigerator makes a game more fun. it's unrealistic but a lot more fun than dying every 12 seconds. Having the game be impossible, but Death doesn't matter also is unrealistic, and is NOT fun, and that would be a very poor sacrifice to make.
So yeah, realism is important, but it's less important than fun. It is an element that can be used to make a game more fun, particularly for people who like immersion games. But like any game element it can be overdone to the point that it hampers fun. And that's bad.
See, this is an un-intentionally loaded question. Realisim in graphics is a good thing, until we hit the grey-brown of this generation, so most new games look like we're viewing them through tea stained glass. I do miss games like the original Dooms wherein you blew brightly coloured blood out of rainbow coloured enemies, but these games weren't very immersive or scary because reality doesn't look like that. So i think if a developer is making a game that should be really immersive or scary, go for the newer graphics, but if its meant to be colourful and fun, as well as good for children then make it bright and colourful.
I think the planning session for GTA IV went something like this:
Designer A: "Hey, guys, since reality is no fun, we should make our next game less fun so it'll be more realistic."
Designer B: "Hmm. That will appeal to the pretentious game critics, and to the 'hardcore' gamers who are ashamed to admit they like games."
Designer C: "Good idea. 'Hardcore' gamers stopped caring about having fun a long time ago, so this is a great idea."
Earth to game designers: With the exception of games that wish to be historically based, realism has never improved any game, ever.
Designer A: "Hey, guys, since reality is no fun, we should make our next game less fun so it'll be more realistic."
Designer B: "Hmm. That will appeal to the pretentious game critics, and to the 'hardcore' gamers who are ashamed to admit they like games."
Designer C: "Good idea. 'Hardcore' gamers stopped caring about having fun a long time ago, so this is a great idea."
Earth to game designers: With the exception of games that wish to be historically based, realism has never improved any game, ever.
This pretty much sums of my feelings perfectly. I also think that many games (especially action based) should try to be realistic, but not to the point were it breaks gameplay. An example were that works would be not having break out of jail/the hospital every time you die or get busted in Grand Theft Auto.Piemaster said:
Also, first post, lol.
Realism can make a game more interesting, yet a game too close to reality would defeat the purpose of actually playing a game.
For example, if you were playing a game that when your character dies, you have no way to continue. Realism to this extent is obviously ridiculous.
For example, if you were playing a game that when your character dies, you have no way to continue. Realism to this extent is obviously ridiculous.
Stop a second. Take fingers from keyboard. Look someplace other than the monitor. Is what you see an immersive Grey-brown? Mine is, but I'm in a drab office, so I'd call myself the exception. The current trend of grey-brown is nice and atmospheric, but not really realistic. I'd really like to see a game sometime where the horror of (war/zombies/alien invasion/whatever) didn't also come with a deadening of the cones in your eye. But then, I'd probably whine that it didn't have enough atmosphere.japlandweirdling said:
I think that when people refer to realism in gaming, they are describing the rules and themes which govern our daily lives. Knowledge and bias gleened from years of experience meters our expectations and drives our actions. When I play a game which follows many of these physical and logical parameters, but gives reasons for the exceptions, I feel that the designers have put thought into the game. Being able to rationalize the extraordinary events taking place in the game is a sign of consideration.
However, when a game flies in the face of any rational logic, it seems lazy on the part of the designers. When events seem disingenuous, a designer should consider a way to work around the conventions we've come to expect in games, and work within the reason we've come to expect in life.
However, when a game flies in the face of any rational logic, it seems lazy on the part of the designers. When events seem disingenuous, a designer should consider a way to work around the conventions we've come to expect in games, and work within the reason we've come to expect in life.
Considering I hate those gore porn movies like hostel, I don't ever want to see any realism in games involving death. There is nothing wrong with going cartoony, and I think I prefer the cartoony games over any realistic FPS out there. Mad world thankfully decided that going realistic for their game would have deterred some people, so they stuck with a different motif to make sure people didn't morally oppose what they were doing in the game.
Realism in a game can make it easier to identify with the world and easier to get immersed in, but like it has been said a number of times above, it all depends on the genre and style of the game. Realism is at the bottom of the important elements checklist, fun, gameplay, writing are much more important.
That's not a senseless attempt "realism", that is a gameplay mechanic very firmly rooted in role-playing history. Your Strength attribute governs how much you can carry in total - higher Strength means your melee attacks do more damage and you can carry as much as a small flatbed truck, and lower strength means you are weak and feeble. Even though you do suddenly stop when you go over your carrying limit, your movement speed and agility actually do decrease depending on the armour you're wearing and the more stuff you're carrying around with you. Again, this is all for the purpose of game balance and depth, not just to be "real". Bad example, kiddo.richasr said:
Stuff and nonsense.qlpoth said:
Games can be highly immersive whilst being very abstract indeed. Rez, for instance, is almost hypnotic but it's one of the most abstract games you'll ever play.
Exactly. That was actually my point in a round-about way. At what point is there too much dull grey brown, making games look unrealistic again, but for that matter where should we stop the scaling back of the grey-brown so things aren't to bright and non atmospheric?
For physics and the sort yeah, but I'd prefer things to be ridiculously un-realistic, things like being able to destroy armies of giant robots using another giant robot; that's why I enjoy games like Gundam, Quake and Half-Life. I don't like things as much if they're set in the normal world like Far Cry or Call of Duty.
OK, now I have to throw out trollbait: how is it that "Writing" and "Realism" are completely disconnected. If the main character walks around saying "I am Sad. My mother is dead and I feel sad." That's bad writing, true. but it's bad writing because it breaks realism, isn't it? Nobody talks like that. I can't think of a single case where "Writing" can be bad, but "Realism" good.October Country said:
Maybe I just define realism differently than most people.
Consider games like spore, or eve online. Eve has a super realistic economy. It simulates a real-time economy, real time trading, pirates, law enforcement, etc etc. That game is basically a real-life simulator except if you lived in space.
Now consider spore online. It is the most unrealistic game that has come out recently, in my opinion. You play as God! You create retarded looking buildings and creatures. You wage simplistic wars on other races without fear of reprisal, morals, or leadership.
Both of these games have sold extremely well. Both of them are extremely popular. Where does the argument for realism come into play for these games? Should Eve be less realistic? If it was, wouldn't that completely ruin the original design of the game? What if spore was more realistic?
The argument on realism is useless. Different games have different art directions, play styles, and histories. Arguing whether or not a game is too realistic or not realistic enough is silly.
Now consider spore online. It is the most unrealistic game that has come out recently, in my opinion. You play as God! You create retarded looking buildings and creatures. You wage simplistic wars on other races without fear of reprisal, morals, or leadership.
Both of these games have sold extremely well. Both of them are extremely popular. Where does the argument for realism come into play for these games? Should Eve be less realistic? If it was, wouldn't that completely ruin the original design of the game? What if spore was more realistic?
The argument on realism is useless. Different games have different art directions, play styles, and histories. Arguing whether or not a game is too realistic or not realistic enough is silly.