Viewing Thread:
"Will "Realism" bring gaming forward? Really though?"

One of the most common cries in this crazy gaming world is for games to have more "realism". Yes, we can have graphics that look more life-like and sound that seems more realistic etc. But at the end of the day, we're always playing "the hero" which is not very realistic (unless you live such a rich and varied life as mine).

Why are we always the hero in games? We're always earth's last hope, or the top premiership side, or the only man able to rescue the princess, etc. We cry out for realism yet all we want to do is immerse ourselves in a fantasy world where the fate of whatever rests on our hands.

Television has grown from throwing us fantasy worlds where everything is uber dramatic, to giving us a wonderous insight into what 10, middleclass, decidedly average people would do to fill their time if locked in a house for 9 weeks.

Should gaming follow down a similar path? Instead of leading the revolution on mars, should they introduce games where we play as "Jack Hepworth" out of work minor, trying to pick up any sort of job and signing on every two weeks.
Or, instead of taking the role of Sir Alex and leading Manchester United to win the treble for a second time, should we be entering the world of "Terry Stevenson" player manager at a struggling sunday league club, where amongst his team worries you also have to juggle the problems Terry is having with wife Barbara and giving up smoking before christmas.

Or what about, as an alternative to being put in charge of a team of crack commandoes and being sent into desert/forest/drug run capitol city, you're put in charge of a landscape gardening team. Trying to land good and regular work, whilst bringing something new and original (and affordable) to the gardening world in a bid to secure that TV deal.


Do we want to see "reality gaming" following in the footsteps of "reality TV"? Do we really need extreme reality to bring gaming forward?

Personally I think it sounds a bit fudging dull!
Give me badgers attacking each other with bag-pipes any day!

It'd make a hard game though!

That, in turn, could make it fun.

Although if its a choice between "Walking to school sim" and "Badger Reveloution", I guess I'd avoid the realism.

if the game character can only jump half a foot of the ground and gets killed if he is shot once, it won't really make a good game.
cartoony games are fun.

real life sucks

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> I play games to get away from the real world, realistic games can be fun, but I
> would much rather be playing a game like Mario Kart instead of GT3.

Exactly, something that you can't do in real life is fun!

I play games to get away from the real world, realistic games can be fun, but I would much rather be playing a game like Mario Kart instead of GT3.

Bonus wrote:

> The main point about this is, most people would rather play games, not live
> them.


Thats kind of what I was getting at, too much realism being dull.

Hence "Give me badgers attacking each other with bag-pipes any day"

Res�vilfan wrote:
> Realism is essential because it's what we relate to, adding fantasy and twisting
> facts in the virtual world is fine but if it's all too strange it'll flop.



Llamatron springs to mind.

Although that was PD so technically it didn't flop. But still whackyness to the Nth degree.

Ahh Jeff minter, what a guy!

The thing about computer games is that a lot of people use them to relax, get away from the stress and generally do things that we couldn't in real life. I mean how many people could seriously claim to be able to drive an F1 car, or lead a rebel revolution on Mars, or even go Ghostbusting with a hoover?

Quite simply, there isn't any, but some games and genres are totally dependant on a high degree of realism. Looking at the PS2 for a little while, would GT3 have been as good as it was if the driving wasn't so realistic? But would it have been the same if it was more realistic? One of my mates makes a great arguement for there never being any damage in realistic games such as GT3. Just think how many times you try to race and hit other cars, walls etc. without actually meaning it? Your race in most instances would be automatically over, fair enough it is realistic, but why bother if getting round a corner in one piece is nigh on impossible.

I do believe that realism is good to a certain degree, when done properly, games can be exceptional, but they must always make concessions to being a computer game, for gameplay and general sanity purposes. The main point about this is, most people would rather play games, not live them.

I did a topic along the same lines of this last Sunday and it turns out that we think the same. The realism in games cannot go too far as what fun would it be? We are not outselves when playing the best computer games but the actual character and that is how they make the good games, by capturing yourself in the first seconds of the game then slowyl luring you in for the rest of it.

I think Realism is a big factor etc but I like wacky games with realistic visuals and that.

Realism is essential because it's what we relate to, adding fantasy and twisting facts in the virtual world is fine but if it's all too strange it'll flop.