Realism in Games, What do you think?

[SonOfHax]

This is a topic that has been bugging me for quite some time, so I want to get it out of my system. I have heard often the term used for games, "It's more realistic" to say something in the game's benefit. However this idea has always irked me (as well as many other members of the gaming community) for several reasons. However, I have found myself using the very same phrase to speak good about a game. Classic example, Half-life's lack of cutscenes is one trait I like about the game, and is more realistic. Another example, the characters in the JRPG Persona 4 are more realistic characters, something I have both acknowledged, and enjoyed about the game. It makes me wonder, how the idea of realism relates to games, and how in can improve or impair the experience

Now, I don't want an entire thread of people saying "Games are too realistic" or "I think realistic games suck". I want to have a constructive discussion about how realism can impact games, for good or bad. I have my own idea, but I won't say anything until I here for you folks. I want to know what everyone else thinks, and I don't people to just mirror my idea cause it might sound good. So, tell me what ya think.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Gamers argue against realism, and for LOGIC. That's what I think.

Most gamers just want logic, really. Not necessarily brutal realism in every aspect. But logic. If I shoot car with an RPG, I expect it to blow up.

We have certain things we expect, and when we complain that something is "unrealistic", we're really complaining that it doesn't fit our logic.

When it comes to Persona, the thought processes of characters are more logical.

But I do think Half Life could benefit from cutscenes, myself...not a lot...but some...

Valve could really show some of their prowess, like with the game intros for Left 4 Dead and Portal 2 video/ad things. I wouldn't mind Half Life cutscenes one bit.

 

[Camaranth]

Realism has its place. Character interactions yes, some artistic designs (depending on the game obviously) yes

A realistic take on a fighting game or final fantasy HELL NO.

Personally I think realism is a good thing in games, it adds to the immersion and that sense of the uncanny. There are certain rules which we expect to be followed except when given a way to circumvent them ie gravity If a character survives a hundred foot drop without a parachute and walks away unscratched there had better be a goram reason for it!

 

[Veldel]

I hate realism in game and dont enjoy games with it really :/

 

[Vianyte]

As long as the game is fun I don't really care

 

[KeyMaster45]

I don't have too many games in my collection that fit into the realism category. I prefer more stylized games like the Jak and Daxter series. Since games like that are in short supply I've settled for things like God of War, Darksiders, Bayonetta, and the Fable series.

Do I like realism? Not so much; I think gaming needs some whimsy pumped back into the mainstream market.

 

[kane.malakos]

Well, there are different types of realism. The thing that bugs a lot of people, like me, is "realistic" graphics that are brown, boring and drab, or "realistic" game mechanics which aren't fun to use. We rarely complain about realistic characters or a logical game world.

 

[feingat35]

I personally feel like "realism" is often an excuse on the part of the developer to be lazy. The first example that comes to mind is people justifying GTA IV's god-freakin'-awful vehicle controls, and the crappy physics in general, by saying "It's R* trying to be realistic."

I definitely think realism has a place in games. Fallout 3 improved the atmosphere by adding realism. BioShock's art-deco style made it look almost believable, and System Shock before it created a really oppressive atmosphere of terror with the audio logs and the body parts everywhere. Silent Hill 2 gave you a protagonist who couldn't fight very well, helping cement your perception of him as average, vulnerable, and weak, and the other touches of realism really added to the perverse surreality of Silent Hill as a place. The Assassin's Creed games are stunning with their recreations of historical places.

However, these games don't try to be entirely realistic. Fallout 3 plays fast and loose with the science, and is in touch with its roots in 50s sci-fi. BioShock and System Shock gave you amazing powers. Silent Hill 2 had horrible monsters running around. Assassin's Creed has you climbing buildings, jumping from hundreds of feet, killing popes, and fighting secret societies.

Realism is good when it adds to your game or improves it in some way. The problem is that it's so often used as a crutch or excuse by developers, and when they use it that way, it feels like a limitation. The best uses of realism are the ones you barely notice, like Half-Life 2's physics puzzles and gravity gun.

In summary, I feel like realism, when done correctly, is a feature that you'd put on the box as a selling point, rather than a limitation that pisses you off because it tears you out of the experience.

 

[ZtH]

Gamers argue against realism, and for LOGIC. That's what I think.

Most gamers just want logic, really. Not necessarily brutal realism in every aspect. But logic. If I shoot car with an RPG, I expect it to blow up.

We have certain things we expect, and when we complain that something is "unrealistic", we're really complaining that it doesn't fit our logic.

When it comes to Persona, the thought processes of characters are more logical.

But I do think Half Life could benefit from cutscenes, myself...not a lot...but some...

Valve could really show some of their prowess, like with the game intros for Left 4 Dead and Portal 2 video/ad things. I wouldn't mind Half Life cutscenes one bit.

I pretty much agree with this. In some games "realism" as we would define it doesn't really belong. Whats the point of a game for building fantastical structures (ie Minecraft) if you have to deal with realism where it doesn't belong. I think that, going along with what Onyx Oblivion mentioned, people really just want games to not be entirely arbitrary.

 

[Proteus214]

Gamers argue against realism, and for LOGIC. That's what I think.

Most gamers just want logic, really. Not necessarily brutal realism in every aspect. But logic.

I agree with this statement so much I could marry it. Nothing throws me out of an experience more than something that just doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit the established pattern of thought in a game. If you train a player to think one way at first, then throw something at them that doesn't fit that logic at all, it makes for a jarring and sometimes frustrating experience. The thing is, this tends to happen when games try to be more like true-to-life simulators than dressed up logic puzzles and challenges, which is just my personal take on what a game should be.

 

[darth.pixie]

Gamers argue against realism, and for LOGIC. That's what I think.

Most gamers just want logic, really. Not necessarily brutal realism in every aspect. But logic

It's exactly what I think but I will add that it's not necessarily logic as we know it, but logic in the world's context. For example there was a discussion on dragons my friends and I had as we compared D&D and DA:O dragons to Divine Divinity 2 dragons and their aerodynamics. And shapeshifting.

That's not a discussion that touches realism even remotely but it was logic from the fantasy world point of view even if we did apply our world physics. Same with bags of holding, which was made especially for the purpose of beating reality upside the head. But it's perfectly explained so it's fine. I think this is why D&D worlds like Forgotten Realms are so immersive. You can find anything on everything from eating habits to mating to a drawing of their anatomy.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

A game needs to be fun. Real life is not fun. However, it is still possible to achieve fun by taking elements of real life and putting them in more fun situations. At the end of the day, a fun game is fun, no matter how true to life it is. Same thing with innovation, your game can be as realistic or innovative and you like, but if it isn't fun then it is a crap game.

Captcha: Thundi Bluesmen. One day, I'm going to have that as a user name.

 

[Euhan01]

Realisim not a point in the games favour or against it, its like saying this flower is Red/Yellow, its just a thing, can be good or bad depending.

 

[ScoopMeister]

Realism isn't really something you should strive for in games in my opinion. As long as there's enough that the characters, the environments and the stories are believable (and some games don't even need those things to be fun. Think Bayonetta), then that's enough realism for me.

Besides, if you want realism, you've got real life for that.

 

[Judgement101]

I hate when people say that a game need more realism, I hate it more when someone saying that a ZOMBIE game needs more realism.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Realism has its place, and some realism is good. For instance, in my epic 60+ fantasy RPG, I want my characters to behave like real people, not caricatures. In my shooter game, I want my enemies to die without having to empty an entire clip on them.

Overly realistic is good if that is what you are going for too. I do not think total realism is an indicator of quality, but some realism definitely adds to the enjoyment of a game. Just some consistent internal logic, like Onyx said.

 

[SonOfHax]

Getting some good response, I like what people are saying. For those of you who are really trying to add to the debate, I thank you.

Now here's what I think, and many of you have touched upon it. What I think, is that realism is the wrong word to use for games. The word I think should be used is immersive. Going back to examples some people have given (BioShock Scenery, Half-life physics) All those game use realism to make it feel like we aren't playing a game, but experiencing a story or setting. Using my example with Half-Life, I enjoyed the lack of cutscenes, cause it kinda made me feel like I was Gordon Freeman, and not that I was playing Gordon Freeman. As for BioShock's scenery, that made it feel like we were going through an actual place, Like Rapture really did exist, and I liked that.

Someone here brought up the idea of Logic in realism, and I think that plays a part too. I had a discussion with someone who played strictly war games. Me being a RPG lover had a different roster of games. He told me one day (Kinda outta the blue, it was a tad irritating) that he didn't like Final Fantasy because it wasn't realistic. This didn't click well for me initiall, but now I have given it some thought. It's not that one game was more realistic, it's that he couldn't find a realm of magic and monsters more believable or logical than a world of modern day warfare. RPGs don't click with him, because he has a certain logic pattern of thinking that doesn't line up with it.

All-in-all, I think using the word Realism doesn't do justice. Certain aspects of the game can enhance game play which could be considered realistic, however, that's not why they improve game play. They help because they let us immerse ourselves in the game more, and let us experience it rather than watch it.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I think realism is fine so long as it's done properly (and there's still plenty of variety in the industry)...

Games like CoD however, are not actually realistic (not since 4 anyway). The plots are often bat shit mental, you can take way too much damage, you can pick up a weapon and use it just as accurately as a weapon that was zero'd specifically for you, you pick up ammo just by walking over it... I could go on.