Is realism important in a game?

[qlpoth]

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..

Stuff and nonsense.

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.

Perfect example of why discussions like this will always go nowhere. Not flaming GS, although his name makes me want to. But his opinions on what makes a game 'immersive' are clearly different than mine. And since people have differing opinions, games are going to be made to differing standards. I don't find Rez immersive at all. I don't need to, it can still be fun without being immersive. Mario's the least realistic game I can think of, and Nintendo's made a bajillion dollars off of that franchise.

But -I- will always find realistic, immersive games more fun, because that's what I like to play. So again, for me, it's important.

 

[FIzeE]

http://www.purepwnage.com/episodes/s2/5/

^all that needs to be said ;P

 

[October Country]

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.

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.

Maybe I just define realism differently than most people.

Well, realism can take many forms and for a game to be considered realistic would require more than just realistic graphics which was what I first thought about. But yes, realism is also about writing, physics and depiction of various political, scientific or military elements. Although that kind of total realism can only be found in reality, reality in games cannot be expected to perfectly portray a world as complex as the one in which we live.

 

[Arehexes]

If we had realism we wouldn't have prinnies. Which are exploding penguins from Disgaea, and prinnies==win meaning realism==fail.

 

[TheGreenManalishi]

A game is mean to put you in control of a fun or interesting situation, realistic or otherwise.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

For me, I think a cranial imposture should always be lethal.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I'd say yes. Heres the thing. Theres a few types of realism. Theres the needed unrealism (eg magic in Oblivion needs a new set of laws because none exist already ect...). Theres the needed realism which hopefully binds the game into something playable. And then theres the realism that isnt wanted or needed, which works in both directions of being to much so or too little. Oblivion for instance (sorry this game gives good examples). I can shoot a man in the face with no helmet with an arrow, but the laws of oblivion say he isnt dead becase hes wearing good boots and hes got health. This is bad. Sure it makes the game a damn sight easier but an arrow through the face = death... always. Il accpet it may glance, be reflected by spells, helmets, ect... but that is a complete lack of realism. Then theres san andreas. I have to eat salads 24/7 between violent shoot offs and car jackings because my character is both hungry and fat. This is unwanted realism. If i wanted to see a fat guy lose weight id stand outside wieght watchers in a tent with a camera.

In short theres a perfect balence. I cant think of a game that actually forfills this "perfect ratio". If you can think of any that do this so theres never a moment where you think "If this scenario was real this would definatly not be the way the physics/laws would make it play out" id like to hear and try this game.

 

[Saitken]

Realism should never take priority on having a game be fun. Imagine if you could only kill zombies with headshots in left 4 dead.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

It's really quite simple: if I'm playing Falcon 4.0, I'll take the max of four missiles that my jet can carry and go on to have fun, within the boundaries the game has set. If I'm playing Ace Combat, you load me up with four missiles and pitch me against fifteen enemy jets in a dogfight, I'll track you down, break into your house when you sleep and do some very nasty, non-sexual things to you.

I can understand realism when it comes with the package and the game calls for it. But when I play an action game with guns, I'm just playing a game; I'm not training for the military. And when I play a sandbox game, I want to blow stuff up; I don't want to have to take irritating dates to crappy diners that I would probably not even go near in real life.

... Though, regarding that last part, San Andreas should've tipped me off. The game actually asked me to go cut my hair. I'm too bored to cut my hair in real life. I've grown a mullet because of that. Why would I play a game where I have to do things that I find too boring in real life?

 

[gamshobny]

Reality can be important for immersion, but yeah, reality is overrated. I play games to get out of reality, not to be confronted with some half-ass simulation of it.

 

[richasr]

I'm talking about in Oblivion, being able to carry so many different items, yet, due to a silly statistic in the inventory, if you picked up a quill and met that maximum number, you'd be stuck there frozen when previously you could run and jump with ease.

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.

Ah well, I had trouble thinking of examples to get my point across and that was one that stuck in my head. The other was the fact that you can take so many bullet shots in games without dying or being wounded, but that crosses the boundary between realism and making the game playable.

also, i'm not a child!

 

[DirkGently]

While I'm pretty sure this thread has been to death, resurrected, killed again, became a zombie, bludgeoned to death, gave rise to a flesh-eating virus that has since been cured and used to create a bioweapon, which gets loose and creates more zombies, which we were are currently fighting against and for our survival, I'll answer.

Depends on what you mean by realism. Games should have physics engines, to better propel ragdolls through the air. Likewise, said ragdolls should react realistically in terms of how they can move and land, but I've got nothing against a grenade blasting to the moon and back again. A game shouldn't have realism that is detrimental to the fun, like the driving in GTAIV, the people in GTAIV, and the like.

I have nothing against realism being sacrificed for gameplay, especially balancing gameplay for multiplayer.

The only 'tons of realism' I'm fine with is photo-realism, ie, making the game look real.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If the purpose of the game is to model reality then yes it is important. In most cases though, fun is far more important than accurate physics models.