Poll: Realism: Emotional or Technical?

[Mikkel421427]

Disclaimer: Im about to touch a few sensitive subjects and maybe insult a game or two, so if you're going to whine about it, do it elsewhere, I wont have it here. Its a discussion about games in general, not specific ones, I just use them as examples. Im not claiming to know a heck of a lot about it, so... Yeah. Take your whining elsewhere.

Hmm... Realism... Let me give you two examples...

The statistics for an M16:
Rate of Fire: 12-15 rounds/min sustained, 45-60 rounds/min semi-automatic, 700-950 rounds/min cyclic
Weight: 7.8 lb (3.5 kg) (unloaded)
8.79 lb (4.0 kg) (loaded)
Length: 39.625 in (1,010 mm)
Barrel length: 20 in (508 mm)
Muzzle velocity: 3,110 ft/s (948 m/s)[3]
Effective range: 550 Meters (point target), 800 Meters

The second example is...
The emotion of Guilt:
Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes?accurately or not?that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

Take a good hard look at the two... They have something in common... Can you guess what it is?
Well, here's the solution anyways... Both are related to war. The M16 for obvious reasons and guilt in another form... Known as survivor's guilt. Its also something that people who survive a catastrophe might get hit by.

You can hold a replica of an M16 in your hands, or even a real one if you're lucky, at your local gunshop/Dragon's Lair (or the likes). You can fire one, designed to look, fire and act just like the real thing in a game. The only thing you cant get is the feeling from the recoil and somewhere, I think we should be happy for that... That's technical realism, where you replicate a real thing, right down to even the most minor of details. But, there's a counterpart to technical realism.

Guilt is, as we all know it, an emotion. You can get it from stealing from the cookie jar, stealing from your mother's wallet, punching someone and all that stuff... Or from watching your friends die around you. Which happens a lot in war. You can of course, also get it from killing another person. Let it go through your head for a bit... You just shot someone in a lethal manner. He died in front of your eyes and blood is slowly leaking from his body and this is when it hits you... This guy has a family, kids, friends... People who will never see him again and why? Because you put a bullet in the man's body... Its hard to shrug off, I've had conversations with people who have killed others in Iraq/Afghanistan and they've said it doesn't feel good but it's either them or you... and of course you'd prefer it to be them and not you, so you shoot them. Your friends might also die around you, maybe even right next to you and that begs the thought of "Why did that bullet hit him and not me?" and that's survivor's guilt, that nagging thought of "Why not me?" at the back of your head. That's emotional realism.

I've just presented, to you, two kinds of realism. We can easily replicate the technical one, that's a bunch of numbers and variables you just need to tap in and woopie-do, you got a weapon/grenade/car/armchair, ready to go. That's what we've been doing in most of the big shooters nowadays, like Call of Duty, Battlefield and whatever else there is. Emotional realism is... Harder... and then we're putting it lightly. In order to achieve emotional realism, you need to make not only the hero and the people around him seem real and human, you also need to make the enemy seem real and human too. No matter whether its you or the enemy, you both have families and lives and friends to get back to and preferably in one piece. In current games, the enemies and people you kill are just generic, random bunches of code, while the protagonist or his companion(s) seem much more human.

Lets take a great example of... Humanification(?) straight out of the box! For those of you who have played Mass Effect, I present to you Tali'Zorah nar Rayya/vas Neema/vas Normandy, whatever you like to call her... Let's stick to Tali for now. Tali here is a great example of what a good voice-actor and great dialogue can do with a character. Tali is the most... Interesting character I have long had the honor to meet in a game. She isn't your standard galaxy saving hero, she is just some girl with some father-issues who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and got weaved into it all. The fact that she didn't just go around and talked about saving the galaxy as if it was a piece of cake, but that it actually was quite a major task on top of dealing with her father-issues made her seem... Real. Genuine. Relatable... Say that word again... Relatable... Im not referring to the fact that you can pursue a relationship with her but the fact that you can maybe see a bit of yourself in her. Maybe even a lot.
Now take a look at say... Alex Mason from Call of Duty: Black Ops. How relatable is he? Spec-Ops guy with balls the size of basketballs? The whole cast in that game and not a single relatable character to your Average Joe.

Game developers keep saying "Realism enhances immersiveness" to some extent, more or less... Let me put things in perspective...
I was able to immerse myself more into a sci-fi game that gave technical realism the finger before chucking it out the window than I could with a game that hung onto it as if it was the life-support system keeping it alive. To any day, I would rather go shooting people in a world where everyone seems genuine and human with their own quirks and issues, even if it was the enemy, instead of some bland, generic G.I. Joe straight out of the printing press.

Don't sit on your butt and marvel at the fact that they can replicate a gun to perfection... Any AAA developer worth their salt can do that nowadays. Marvel at the fact that the developers have managed to make you feel something emotional, like grief, joy, loss, maybe even love. And it's a bit odd and maybe even slightly shameful to admit but... I think I managed to get a crush on Tali on my first playthrough... And that's emotional realism for you

This is not a plea to game developers. This is a request to you, the people, the gamers, the poster that the next time you use the word "Realism", you might want to think about what kind of realism you're talking about... Happy hunting.

P.S It might be that the cake is a lie, but it's still cake!

 

[HellspawnCandy]

I voted technical but it depends on the game. Take fallout new vegas for example, that game would have a lot of immersion and be tons more fun(with technical realism), but that's because your character is a silent protagonist in a world where survival is key. But take a game with good writing and more depth emotional realism would hit the immersion level hard.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh it depends, but in a game like heavy rain, i refuse to finish that game, i felt like i just watched lifetime for 18 hours straight after playing that game for 3 hours, that game made me feel so many damn emotions.

so yes i like emotional realism, but when its as extreme as heavy rain...fuck off. your gonna make me qq like a man when im trying to enjoy a game.

 

[darth.pixie]

It seems to me like technical realism is something that might annoy people in games. Sure, our characters need to sharpen their swords, clean their guns or whatever, but they actually have some free time. I usually don't rest, take things by storm and as fast as I can (finished Baldur in less than a month, gamewise).

Normally, my character would have to sleep and could do it before bed but I, as a player, don't watch them prepare for bed, brush their teeth, read a story and get tucked in. I see a 5 second black screen / rest bar and that's it.

The recoil is also annoying and while as a human, you can get used to it and minimize its effects, in a game, you can't.

As for emotional realism, I also liked Tali. I like characters with feelings, that seem alive and their own person who actually worry and chat about things. That being said, this means more dialogues (which the designers have to implement) otherwise you'd just end up with Aerie and her wings or Casavir and Old Owl Well.

Sure, people talk about other stuff...but in game, they never do.

It's also normal for people to be a generic kill. If they weren't, I'd feel guilty. Not my character. Me. And that sort of takes away some of the fun because if I were a sociopath who didn't feel much for a dead person, I'd be out killing them for real, not in a game.

I prefer and selected emotional realism for the NPCs that touched me and whom I want to see defined. However, if I start seeing widows who come crying to me, I'd probably just quit the game altogether.

 

[Daniel Kay]

Since there are a few realism topics already I guess it's best I post this here.
I had a few thoughts about realism in gaming and wanted to summarize a few points about it, it's a bit of a lengthy read but hopefully some people may find this interesting:


Realism in video games:

Realism is still a topic that splits the gaming community, some want more, some want less realism.
However there are many problems that are often overlooked.

Some of them I want to mention here are:
-Realism in context
-Realism where it's usefully applicable
-Realism as gameplay mechanics
-Realism done well


-Realism in context:
There often is the misconception of realism meaning "removing everything that is not like in real life". While this may apply to the closest definition of the word it is not what realism in video games means.

The true concept that should apply here is "Realism in context", something that I personally refere to as "Believability".
This means if something is a well established fact in a games setting, even if it's not possible in real life, is realistic in this setting and therefor ?realistic in context?.

As an example, take a game setting that is very much like the real world but some people possess telekinetic powers. Within this setting telekinesis is realistic so seeing it used would be realistic and believable as well.
However suddenly having werewolfs appear when it's otherwise based on the real world would not be realistic in both senses, it is not something that is in real life and it would be something that is not realistic within it's own context unless it was explained in some way.

This concept gets a bit more blurred in game worlds that feature magic but it can still apply.
Even in a game setting with magic that can raise gigantic demons there are things that are not believable.
An average human being decapitated and surviving it for example, unless there was a very good explanation for how this was possible it would neither be realistic nor believable.

Something that should be remembered though is that usually where a gap is left open it's not too far off to fill it with what you know from reality which can leave a feeling of wrongness if it doesn't match with real life experiences.
This is the important part about establishing what you want in your games setting.


-Realism where usefully applicable:
A common complaint about realism is how some games simply are not realistic and that is the fun about them.

Here the concept of "realism where usefully applicable" comes into play.
When asking for more realism it usually doesn't apply to every game and to every system in a game.
Nobody would argue that in "Super Mario Bros." you only have a realistic jumping hight, that "Tetris" should have blocks that are just a little to wide to fit a gap because realistically not all blocks could fit so perfectly or that you should have to go to the toilet every few hours in an action based FPS.

There simply are factors where realism should not apply which mainly depends on the game itself.
FPS games would often do well with a locational damage/effects system, jump n' runs don't. But the same time having your character go deaf from constant gunfire would not be a system you'd want in a FPS (at least not in the wide majority of titles).

Simply said, it depends on the game where, if and how realism should be applied.
And even in games that are usually low on the realism scale you can have semi-realistic systems, take "Super Mario 64" implementing fall damage that was not present in older titles.


-Realism as gameplay mechanics:
Another common misconception is simply putting it in to have it.
But it's rarely thought through how it could actually be tied into gameplay in a way that can actually add something to the experience and be useful.

An example I often like to mention is "Locational damage and effects" and "Arrows".

Being able to injure or cripple limbs could very well be used to end fights in a game without having to kill your opponents, if they are no longer able to fight it's over.
This could be a very useful function in heavily character interaction based games, when you have to fight someone but the same time want information you can attempt to incapacitate that person and then ask questions.

Arrows would fit into this as well.
A common problem with arrows in video games is that they either do next to nothing and you require tons of arrows to bring down enemies (A thing I often refer to as "Toothpick Tossing") or you have arrows that could by the damage they do bring down a brick wall (A "Wooden Nuke").
But if you combine this with the before mentioned locational damage and effects system arrows don't need to be overpowered to be effective. While an arrow to the knee won't kill anyone it would prevent them from running making them an easier target or even unable to fight at all.

Similarly other mechanics could be added that create some realism and still have them tied into gameplay instead of simply "being there".
Eating for example, instead of simply being necessary to do it could very well offer benefits to keep your character well fed that you don't have if you stay in a starved state which itself could have certain effects as well. However I don't want to get into too much detail about this here, this is just to give a few examples on this but I'm willing to give more and in greater detail if required.


-Realism done well:
This here really is a big point as it concerns both gamers and game developers equally.
A very common complaint coming up when discussing realism in games is "You'd get hit/shot once and you're dead".
However this is not realistic but somehow this concept has seated itself very solidly.

This is where you have to stop and ask yourself "How can a realistic system be done well".

Mentioning locational damage from before, realistically the only way to be killed instantly is by receiving sufficient damage to the brain or heart. All other injures could be potentially lethal but not instantly, wounds would need to bleed out to kill you or for suffocation you'd have to fully run out of oxygen in your blood stream.

All those could be well simulated in games and have been in spades. "Call of Cthuhlu: Dark corners of the Earth" is a game I like to mention in this, it features a for it's time fairly detailed locational damage system for the main character and even features psyche effects when the character is under heavy stress which adds greatly to the atmosphere.
However a step down was the strict limitations to your medkit which gave it an too arbitrary limitation.

Other misconceptions include "If you don't eat/sleep regularly you suddenly drop dead/lose health till you die".
Again it's neither fun nor realistic and could be done much better by 1. giving you more wiggle room between the initiation and before effects manifest and 2. make the effects more gradual instead of instant.

On the other end of the misconceptions of how systems would be realistic is taking small exceptions from reality in a still more realism based system.

With injures for example, in realty they would require weeks to heal, in game they could very well heal in a short time. This would be an acceptable exception from full realism.



In conclusion:
There are simply a lot of misconceptions about what can be meant with realism and how it could potentially be used.
It depends on the game, the setting, what is established in it's context and also how well it's done, those are all factors playing into this and that have to be thought through.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Whether it is firing a gun or having a crush on a character they are both cheap vicarious thrills in games. I suppose that a difference is that you can fire a gun again and again and if that floats your boat then you don't get bored and buy every new game that allows you to fire a gun. Or is that a difference at all, I thought it was but this sentence is not coming easy. The point is that having your emotions manipulated or shooting a gun is something safe and detached from reality in games. There is no real consequence. It doesn't make sense to say that one is more real than another to me.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Emotional realism is always better. You can invent weapons and they will always feel like weapons. Objects can easily be imagined. Emotions can't. It is impossible to create an emotion that nobody has ever felt, nobody will recognize it, so adding emotional realism makes the game a lot more sincere then putting in a gun that few players have probably ever held and giving it specs you could just as easily have made up.

As an interactive medium, games can have a lot of power in this manner. I want to see a game where "holy shit, I just shot a guy" equates to PTSD, rather than jubilation.

That isn't to say that all games should be that way. Sometimes, brainless fun is a very good thing.

 

[spartan1077]

eh it depends, but in a game like heavy rain, i refuse to finish that game, i felt like i just watched lifetime for 18 hours straight after playing that game for 3 hours, that game made me feel so many damn emotions.

And this is why I loved Heavy Rain. It made my emotions cringe and go nuts while playing it. It strained me to the point of having to turn off the game a few times and go back to complete it. I must admit, some tears were involved.
But that's what was fun about it.

When playing an FPS, and I'm shooting 'bad guys', I want to feel that I'm shooting people and not mindless AI. This is why I chose Emotional Realism.

 

[lacktheknack]

Both, please.

If I have to choose, then it depends on the genre. For example, Silent Hill 2 was technically realistic and not emotionally realistic, and benefited greatly from it. <spoiler=Silent Hill 2 spoilers>No one - NO ONE - reacted correctly to their situation.

Maria would switch from sultry to desperate at the drop of a hat, would rather stay outside in a town full of THINGS than go inside a bowling alley because she "hates bowling", she acts completely blase upon being found IN A PRISON CELL, and decides to go lie down for a while before running into a dark basement in a hospital full of murderous monstrosities, then shrieking at James that he was supposed to protect her. No WONDER she got murdered four times.

Eddie spends about ten minutes vomiting after seeing one corpse, then we next see him eating pizza, then we see him again after he's gone completely psycho and vows to murder everyone who makes fun of him. Gee, you recover quick.

Angela's behaviour is just beyond messed up.

Laura just stands around and acts like there's nothing wrong, despite the fact that she's met at least four people who are in constant freak-out mode.

Finally, JAMES continues going through hell to find a dead person.

NONE OF THESE ACTIONS OR EMOTIONS MAKE SENSE. However, it heightened the psychological terror that the game caused indefinitely. Yeah yeah, I know that everyone is in their own little pocket of hell, and that explains away Maria and Angela's responses and emotions, but it DOESN'T adequately explain away Eddie's, James' and Laura's behavior.

In the end, a high realism from a technical standpoint would have done the best to heighten the game's emotional punch and atmosphere.

Also, if I'm looking to play something that doesn't have obviously deep and involved characters (Crysis, Prototype, Tomb Raider) then at least make it look pretty.

Now, a game like Mass Effect, as you already mentioned, makes a point of making deep and involved characters from the get go, so emotional realism is much more important.

So yes, it varies.

 

[Crimson King]

I voted for Technical Realism just to root for the underdog but it really depends on the game...as I'm sure every other post on this poll will tell you.

 

[Seneschal]

I'd actually like a "both" option. Emotional realism comes from a well-told (or, in the case of interactive media, merely presented) story/setting. Technical just comes from stuff shooting, moving and blowing up like you expect it to. If the behaviour of objects and people around you is instantly understandable and recognizable, you connect more easily to the world, and everything in the game gains palpable weight.

Though good science in a game shows the designers have done their homework, technical realism merely means that physical objects should behave consistently and within the confines of what the viewer sees as "physical boundaries." I disagree that Mass Effect "gives technical realism the finger"; the game early on gives simple and believable explanations for many of the technologies in the world (including the weapons). They aren't even close to real, but they feel real (at least in ME2). So no, strict technical realism isn't as important as believable consistency (unless you're playing a simulation like Silent Hunter or ARMA), which comes from giving good physical foundation to your universe, and then sticking to the rules you established. This is what provides immersion, even if the mechanics have nothing to do with reality.

For example, the arsenal in many FPSs makes no sense - in real life, shotguns are used for hunting and breaching, and have lousy penetration which makes them ill-suited against armored soldiers. Pistols (including big revolvers) are never more accurate and lethal than a standard rifle. Yet, for the last 15 years we've had shotguns that turn enemies into red mist (at close range), and revolvers that break open helmets from fifty meters away. The rationale is "slower rate of fire, higher damage" to preserve gameplay balance and diversity, and this is what we're now expecting everywhere. Real life doesn't have this balance - it has roles, and these weapons are situational. This is why internal consistency should be more important than plain realism, because it gives you greater creative freedom as long as you don't alienate the player.

Though I think this is kind of a shame. I love classic hard-sci-fi, which often dedicated countless pages to explaining scientific theories, concepts and technologies, and how they all relate to the fictional setting. Of course, this is best suited for books, that's why most sci-fi in visual media is fluffy fantasy like Star Wars. Arguably, Mass Effect had more scientific background of any game ever, although the visual style is a bit on the ostentatious futuristic side.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh it depends, but in a game like heavy rain, i refuse to finish that game, i felt like i just watched lifetime for 18 hours straight after playing that game for 3 hours, that game made me feel so many damn emotions.

And this is why I loved Heavy Rain. It made my emotions cringe and go nuts while playing it. It strained me to the point of having to turn off the game a few times and go back to complete it. I must admit, some tears were involved.
But that's what was fun about it.

When playing an FPS, and I'm shooting 'bad guys', I want to feel that I'm shooting people and not mindless AI. This is why I chose Emotional Realism.

i'll agree that game drove me crazy, in a good way, but those games aren't really my kind of games...so i respect the hell out of it, but no thank you, i'm done with those kind of games from now on.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Since so many people are convinced that emotional content is so much harder to get across and therefore more valuable I think a counter point is needed.

Guns are ugly, they are made to kill people and the thrill you get from firing them is the thrill of domination and power that you know most people will not respect if you share with them. This sort of observation is not that special. You can get it from watching the Matrix, reading William Burroughs or from many other sources. The fact is though that of all the shooting games there are a small handful that excel at giving the player a bigger feeling of power when shooting. It is not an easy thing at all and the people who create these experiences work very hard to recreate them and have a large amount of experience.

On the other hand, love, or feeling a crush on someone is a nice thing. Media celebrates it all the time. Melodrama excels in indulging us in tales of innocent young love. Just play a bit of the right music, have a well presented character and get them to say some formulaic dialogue. Bingo, job done. It's not exactly that easy since people want variation and standards change all the time but it isn't rocket science. The visual novel scene in Japan excels at this and they don't seem to struggle with the issue of characters that people can connect with being much harder to recreate than a hugely expensive game like Call of Duty.

 

[veloper]

There's nothing to bring a game down, like the inclusion of much terrible writing and wooden voice-overs.

The wrong calibre for the rifle is much easier to ignore.

 

[Chibz]

Neither. What I want is consistency.

I thoroughly believe that realism has a limited (if even that) place in gaming.

 

[MrAkuma201]

WOW Chibz hit the nail on the head with this one. Consistency thats what I was going too post.