Viewing Thread:
"Do We Need Gaming Realism?"

There has been a recent spate of people complaining that games simply aren't "real enough". The release of Perfect Dark saw a mixed response from gamers around the world - some complain that the weapons aren't true enough to real life, some praise the game for the inclusion of blood, some say that the surroundings are too unlikely, and so on.

But do we need realism in our games? Is it completely necessary to make every single aspect of the game in question as true to life as possible? Granted, realism can add a lot to a game – taking Goldeneye as an example, and the way that the guards react to where your bullets hit them, the enjoyment value was undoubtedly ramped up via this realistic portrayal of an in-game event.

But there is also the imminent danger that we losing sight of what games are all about in our quest for the ultimate realism within a virtual world. Indeed, as technology increases in its power and capabilities, people are constantly pondering how realistic the environments will look, and how fantastic the in-game physics will be. The GameCube is a prime example: I challenge anyone to say, without any doubt, that the majority of gamers aren't excited about how 'real' the GameCubes games will look. It is undeniable that everyone who has even considered the GameCubes power has at some point thought "God, the games are going to look more lifelike than anything before".

It is a natural response for people to want a realistic game - people wish to play games in which they can do things that simply aren't possible in real life. Things such as speeding down a high-street, police chasing, pedestrians flying left, right and centre in a desperate bid to escape your marauding car. Things such as infiltrating a secret base, stealing plans essential to national security and eliminating anyone in your way with a silenced and efficient head shot. These are just a couple of examples of some of the reasons we all love to play games.

However, games don't have to be based around real-life situations in order to be fun. Most, of course, are not - look at possibly the finest game on the N64: Zelda Majoras Mask. Majoras Mask is widely hailed as a classic, a masterpiece, the Mona Lisa of the gaming world, and yet none of it could really be said to be true to life. Instead, Zelda creates it's own world, a warped and twisted vision of a magical land where temples are inhabited by mystical monsters, and cruel rulers are fought by heroic teenagers wanting to retrieve what the enemy has stolen. The Mario universe is the same, as are the Metroid,
Lylat Wars and Pokemon counterparts. All of these are hailed as golden moments in gaming history – and none of them bear any resemblance to real life.

Shigeru Miyamoto, the Great God of All That Is Good and Beautiful, claims himself to be a storyteller. He is a man with stories to relay, fantastical and magical tales that could never, ever be as essentially boring as real life. Think about it - Nintendo is the last barrier against an industry that wants to make games lifelike. Nintendo alone insists that games don't need to be realistic to be fun, nor do they need any basis in the laws of physics. If something would make a game fun, but would make no sense in the real world, Miyamoto doesn't refuse to implement it. Look at the winged cap in Mario – is
this realistic? Would this be possible in the real world? Is there any semblance at all between this event, and any phenomenon AT ALL in the life we all lead? No. Is it damn good fun? Hell, yeah.

If Nintendo were to stop this defiance against those who claim games need to be realistic, then the entire industry would be in trouble. Everyone - with the possible exception of Rare, and perhaps a few others - would have nothing to justify a departure from what the producers want. Only Nintendo, with their multi-million selling Marios and Zeldas, can prevent the gaming world from falling into the trap that realistic titles bring. Sure, they can be fun. But a game with it's own laws of physics, and it's jurisdiction of what's possible and what's not, can often be 10 times as fun as a game adhering to the
rules that real life brings.

Now that games are all aiming to have the best cutscenes and realism gameplay is shunned aside.
I cann see the future and its not good! Soon games will be nothing but interactive movies.Gaming as we know it will be killed of with a cruel blow to the head by $ony and Micro$oft.(The $ signs signaling there main aim:money.Not gaming.)The only companys to keep games as games are Nintendo:The great,and sega.Both of those companys actually give a damn about the people who play the games they make.The want the player to be imerrsed in a world where anything happens.Somewhere fun but not at the expense of great graphics.
A prime example is Metal Gear Solid 2.Playing consists of a half hour video,2 minutes of interaction and then more videos.
This only does harm to the great empire that is games.

To be honest, I think that realism in games is just a bonus and as a result of the improving hardware and graphics techniques that games developers now have at their disposal as a result. Its nice that we are seeing absolutely gorgeous games that look almost deceptively realistic- for example a journalist at the Tokyo Games Show last week tried wafting away what he thought was dry ice from the screen during a demo of Final Fantasy X, when actually is was photo realistic fog on screen in the game! Realism makes games much more believeable to the eye, espically as developers are now accurately recreating real life things, like a 20 square km section of London for The Getaway on the PS2 which does look believeable. But to be honest, the added realism drives costs of development of games up. If it wasnt for realism we wouldnt have motion capture, a very expensive and costly process. To but it simply, as games get more realistic, they are more expensive to produce as games players expect game to be of that standard, and also they take longer to produce, and they are subject to delay after delay, the best case of this has to be Gran Turismo 3.
20 years ago, games were far from realistic. Look at the first computer game Pong for example. Was that realistic? Hardly. All it was was a couple of vertical lines on either end of the screen and a square that went from side to side in essense, a tennis game. That was so popular in the mid 70s. Why? Because it was playable. That is the primary concern of computer games developers and it always should be. Its not about the way it looks, its about the way it plays. If it looks good but doesnt play good, why buy it? However, when we go to buy a game we look on the back at the pretty pictures, where we should actually play the game first before making our choice on whether to buy it or not. Because people go to buy games just on the way they look and not how they play, games developers do not take into account the playability of a game when they develop it, they try and get it to look as good as possible, which in turn makes the game as bad as a rotten egg. To be honest, before realism gets crazy in games, developers should take a step back and ask themselves whether the games they are making are any good to play, because at the way we are going, sure they will get more realistic, but if nothing is done, games will become more difficult to play or even unplayable and then as costs go up, and as they will need to sell more games as games are the major profit of the industry, they will lose a lot of money or even in the worst case go bankrupt because noone will buy their games because even they are so realistic, they are unplayable. Basically, games designers should be a bit less realistic in order not to sacrifice playability, because after all, we are not looking at games, we are playing them right?

meka_dragon wrote:
> I wouldn't mind driving through the streets of
> London (without traffic) at ridiculously high speeds.

MSR on the Dreamcast lets you do that, every last detail is there down to the traffic bollards, shop signs, lamp posts and double yellow lines.

meka_dragon wrote:
> Did you ever wonder why a bat could fly into you and do as much damage as
> getting shot? 8-bit games suffered badly from this, and it just
> seemed daft.

Have you ever been bitten on the nose by a bat? Believe me, you'd rather take a bullet anyday.

hmmm, actually according to SR it was released yesterday!

meka_dragon wrote:

> Battle For Naboo arrived!


awwww.... no fair, IJATIM hasn't come yet, although thats probably because it hasn't been released...

Its probably best you dont turn into an old boy actually. You know the sort i mean, sit about Weatherspoons all day, drinking bitter and discussing how to make thier eyebrows even more bushy!

Thats when they're not talking about the war and eating worthers originals.

Did you know that on average the germans only laugh for 15mins each per day, but the english laugh for an hour and a half each per day.

I think me and my coursemates must beef the UK average up a bit, thats for sure!

Yeah, but who said I had to be a grown up just because I've reached a certain age?

Should I be purchasing slippers and worrying about my garden?

Nope, I make bad puns and do what I like.
They say laughter keeps you young, and by that reckoning I'm 5.

And you reckon you're 28?

Nah, a bit of lotion, lay off the spanking for a while and he'll be back to new.

I just can't resist when I see his big stupid head peering up at me.....spank spank spank..yeah monkey, you like this don't you?

Who's your daddy?..