Realism in Video Games

[Aztec Triogal]

This is not a discussion about how cool it is but rather, how much of place do you think it has in video games? I'm not just talking realistic graphics. I'm not just talking blood, guts, and sex. I'm not just talking weather generators and physics simulators. I'm not just talking about non-fantasy plots. I'm talking about realism in a game as a whole.

Do you think there is place for it? If so, how much? Where should the line be drawn? Should a developer have your character need to eat, drink, and use the bathroom in order to keep the immersion factor high... or does that just become annoying and awkward. Where is that line? What happens when games are so real, like Wii-fit, that it's not longer a "game"?

 

[dee_hopper]

I think that one of the purposes games serve is to allow people to experiance things they may not be able to do in real life. If a game becomes too real the fun is lost. In my opinion, people want the illusion of reality not reality its self.

For example if a tony hawks was really as hard to master as skateboarding why would you play? you would just pick up a skateboard and go.

 

[Big Casino]

Its good to be realistic in games but there is a line, if you take things too far ie eating, drinking, sleeping etc its just boring i think. You want a game to be realistic but not so far thats its almost reality. You wanna play a game and get shot loadsa times and still waste all the bad guys around you without dying after you get shot in the leg. (mgs3 is a good example of a mixture of reality and fiction)

In the case of consoles like the wii, although it is a very basic machine, its no doubt the future of gaming i reckon. Id love to be around in a few hundred years and see what games are like. Imagine actually being in the game determining what happened next etc now that would be amazing, though i have trouble picturing it.

IMO id be happy to see games stay the way they are for now with a mixture of both elements. If the tecnology ever becomes affordable to the public in my lifetime then id love to see VR games, but that probadly wont happen

 

[Davey Gaga]

A game, by definition, should at least be somewhat fun. Having the chore of being forced to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom and such like are all tasks that are better left out of video games. As none of these tasks are fun, or contribute to the reasoning behind the creation of the game (unless we're talking about The Sims), I'd rather not have to partake in them.

I suppose, in fairness, it has occasionally crossed my mind that these characters never seem to need to poop, or eat, or wash, etc. However, I'd still rather stay far away from these day-to-day tasks. Consider, also, when you read a book, or watch a film - do you ALWAYS need to know that the main character is pooing, eating, sleeping, scratching themselves and washing? Nah, not really.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

Alright, well let me take the conversation in another direction then...

If you're playing a first person shooter, how many times can be shot before you die? A lot is the answer. In some games you have to riddle your enemies and opponents with bullets before they'll even seek cover. In multiplayer, one shot almost never kills unless it's a headshot with a sniper rifle. Why do limbs not cripple? Why do enemies not take cover? Should one shot in the liver be enough to kill a foe or is that too much detail? Would it make the game seem too random?

How about in an RPG. You wear armor. There are physics simulators out there. Why not make armor that becomes bent and scratched over time. Not in a Fable 2 way, where it's just an aethetic thing... but why not actually have the metal bend and become strucutrally weaker as it is hit? Would that not be a great game mechanic... or is it too real for its own good? (Btw, this example is my own personal idea I had for a fighting game in which weapons and armor fatigue based on actual physical contact rather than degredation simulations like in Oblivion or Dead Rising)

 

[Bambi]

I think that one of the purposes games serve is to allow people to experiance things they may not be able to do in real life. If a game becomes too real the fun is lost. In my opinion, people want the illusion of reality not reality its self.

For example if a tony hawks was really as hard to master as skateboarding why would you play? you would just pick up a skateboard and go.

What she said xD

I think some games are just getting too real, like Gran Turismo for example, I ligthly tap left and Im in a fucking wall, gone are the days I can just his the X button and zoom around......or C button...super hang on laaaawl xD

I think, taking my characters to the bog and stuff got old in the sims, anfd that was the whole point, if I had to start doing shit like that in any other game, I think Id just dig my megadrive out and say up yours realistic games. I can take a shit IRL. Although, as childish as I am, taking my character for a shit would amuse me no end........damn

Alright, well let me take the conversation in another direction then...

If you're playing a first person shooter, how many times can be shot before you die? A lot is the answer. In some games you have to riddle your enemies and opponents with bullets before they'll even seek cover. In multiplayer, one shot almost never kills unless it's a headshot with a sniper rifle. Why do limbs not cripple? Why do enemies not take cover? Should one shot in the liver be enough to kill a foe or is that too much detail? Would it make the game seem too random?

How about in an RPG. You wear armor. There are physics simulators out there. Why not make armor that becomes bent and scratched over time. Not in a Fable 2 way, where it's just an aethetic thing... but why not actually have the metal bend and become strucutrally weaker as it is hit? Would that not be a great game mechanic... or is it too real for its own good? (Btw, this example is my own personal idea I had for a fighting game in which weapons and armor fatigue based on actual physical contact rather than degredation simulations like in Oblivion or Dead Rising)

Too real for it's own good. Nuff said

 

[Scrutator]

I think that one of the purposes games serve is to allow people to experiance things they may not be able to do in real life. If a game becomes too real the fun is lost. In my opinion, people want the illusion of reality not reality its self.

For example if a tony hawks was really as hard to master as skateboarding why would you play? you would just pick up a skateboard and go.

Pretty much sums it up there.

Realism in gaming will always have a place with me as long as it doesn't detract from the fun. We want to play games not life simulators.

Things like making enemies limp by shooting them in the leg is pretty cool and small details like that are nice touches. But going so far as to have things like weapon/armor degradation with repeated use is taking it too far and is annoying for me personally in some games which use this.

 

[Warbsywoo]

Crap, I forgot the name of the game where they're putting in such a 'weathering' mechanic in which weapons become duller over time.

I do know that Tomb Raider: Underworld has a mechanic that allows the game world to be altered permanently by your actions. The environment is also incredibly important in gameplay as conditions such as rain can hinder your movement and present a danger to you every time you step on a ledge.

In terms of graphics, I like the idea of blurring the line between movie and game (I know I've tricked my mum a couple time when I was playing FIFA 09 and she thought it was an actual game; Barca vs. Madrid 10:00pm my time? Please.). Maybe when the next generation of consoles come out, we might not be able to tell at all if we didn't have a HUD.

We tend to overlook audio too, but it's increasingly becoming important to the way the game is designed as it sets the tone for many scenes or environments and even helps you progress in the game (think horror games; you don't progress if you have the TV on mute xD).

Gameplay mechanics and realistic human movements still need improvements, but not much. Obviously, pretty much all human characters that aren't in sports games are usually superhuman anyway. >.>

Some things like destructible environments need to be expanded on too.

I think the game industry needs to keep going with this concept, but not to the extent that you're putting it, Aztec.

 

[Morrigan]

Ipersonally play video games because they're not that "realistic" as you mentioned(1st post).Games such as Sims seem boring to me,feeding your character,wash him,drag him to the bathroom before he pees himself,it just angers me and I feel like I don't really have a life.I can do all those things on my own I don't need to control a character just to give me the impression that I have a life in the game.Sure it's cool at first but then meh.
Other games less realistion(more adventure like) are more popular and more likeable because the gamers are looking for something they do not do in their everyday life(probably).It also depends on tastes,there are many who are crazy about games "that realistic".

 

[Aztec Triogal]

I think the game industry needs to keep going with this concept, but not to the extent that you're putting it, Aztec.

lol I was being dramatic to prove a point. I do that sometimes, as I'm sure you know.

I think the game you're thinking of is Alan Wake. It's actually a really cool concept. The character is a action/horror writer and every night he goes to sleep in the town of Alan Wake, he dreams and those dreams become real. The game was supposed to be out in '08. Hopefully we'll see it in '09.