Realism in Games

[Racecarlock]

This was a topic posted on GTAforums a while ago. Here's the link to the topic if you want to read it whole. http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=454699

Here's the part I want to discuss.

First of all, I don't think it is fair to throw around "realism" as a blanket term. Because if you try to define an overall "realism" you end up with a paradox. Playing games is a form of escapism. How are you meant to escape reality playing something that's trying to be as realistic as possible? Clearly there is something wrong with that. So there are different aspects of the game that may or may not be realistic. I'm going to define four that I consider to be primary. Each one may be split further, and there could be some overlap, but this should give us a sufficiently clear basis to discuss the rest.

1) Realism of Presentation.
2) Realism of Setting.
3) Realism of Situation.
4) Realism of Behavior.

Let me clarify each of these separately.

First is the Realism of Presentation. This is primarily visuals and audio. The level of realism ranges from Pong to Crysis. Sometimes the lack of realism is technologically limited, and sometimes it is artistic. A cell-shaded game is inherently unrealistic in its presentation, and intentionally so. Presentation mostly impacts gameplay because it forces a certain perspective. A side scroller will play differently from an isometric game. And isometric game will play differently from first person shooter. But beyond that, with rare exceptions, impact is limited.

Realism of Setting is how closely the setting of the game relates to the world around us. An ordinary city in the modern day, with people rushing to work, and cars stuck in traffic is about as realistic as this gets. While a game about interdimensional shape-shifting time-traveling wizards would be pretty far out. Though, the only limitation on how unrealistic the setting can get is imagination of the writers. So perhaps, it would be better to score the un-realism of the setting. The impact on gameplay is very limited. Pretty much any setting one could come up with can have a game with pretty much any gameplay.

Realism of Situation is tied to the story. In any good story, things happen that don't just happen every day. But they could. Ever notice how the main character in every detective story just randomly stumbles across another murder victim every other week? The setting of these stories may be entirely believable. Every single event makes sense. But it's just not possible for all these things to keep happening to the same person. On the other hand, a story set around World War II does not need to invent incredible chain of events to provide a supply of people trying to kill each other. Situation and setting will always play off each other whether or not each one is real.

Realism of Behavior is probably one of the most complex ones. This ranges from AI of the NPCs, to the health system, if there is one, to the item behavior, to physics, etc, etc. This is really the one where you stop and think what the gameplay of the game is all about. It's also the one that may be limited by just about anything. You can have hardware limiting physics and AI, development time limiting what could be coded in before the release, and mental capacity of players and sometimes even that of developers preventing the full use of the system. On the other hand, it's the one that is least tied into all the other ones. There is going to be some connection between presentation and physics, but even in a 2D side scroller you can have realistic physics. There are many flash games out there that demonstrate that. Behavior can be realistic or unrealistic in games set in modern world or in land of fantasy. They can be applied to everyday situations, or something that presents an absolute statistical impossibility. And it can all be presented to you in stereoscopic 3D with surround sound or on a monochrome display with bleeps for sound effects.


A lot of this is fairly non-specific, and is really just a matter of artistic choice, but there are a few things that apply to the game as a game.

Again, there can be a lot of discussion on what makes a game a good game, but I would still split it up into 3 main components. Presentation, story, and gameplay, not necessarily in that order. Note that none of these translate directly into one of the above. Presentation of the game would include behavior of the objects in the game, for example. Story and presentation, however, don't apply just to games. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about these and focus on gameplay element instead.

As I also pointed out earlier, there has to be an element of escapism in the game. You cannot have a game without an escape element. I mean, one could probably come up with something, but there must be a reason for why someone would play a game. It must be something a person can't just go and do in real life for reasons of cost, safety, or even plain impossibility. So there has to be something to distinguish a game from reality. Something where the game is not quite real. But whether it's realism of Presentation, Setting, Situation, or Behavior that's sacrificed is left open. It could be all four, of course, but it absolutely has to be at least one of these.

So all in all, whenever you are designing a game, there must be an element of the game that is not realistic, and in deciding how much of the rest should be realistic, gameplay has to be taken into account. Because if you disregard the gameplay, it's not a game. It's some other form of digital art. And if you make everything perfectly realistic, there is no reason to actually play it.

It's a really interesting discussion isn't it? Because there are people who like things like the sims, or 3d driving instructor, or city bus simulator. Then there are guys who like saints row, final fantasy, and all sorts of other nutty games. Should games be one or the other?

Well, I'll tell you which realism type I don't like. Realism of situation. I don't play the sims anymore because it simulates average joe life, and I just can't get into playing an average joe because I am one. I don't like having to pee and eat and sleep and all that other stuff. I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy filing taxes. I am definitely not going to get one of those cubicle office jobs. So why the hell would I want those in a game? Well, I don't, but other people seem to enjoy that stuff. And I'm fine with that.

Until, that is, when they start trying to push realism on to the games that are generally unrealistic. IV may have been gray and brown with realistic physics and down to earth activities, but even then the story was nuts and you could evade the police by driving around a corner. This is where those realism pushers come in. They have asked for things such as traffic laws, a fuel system, having to pay rent, and having to go to jail every time you get busted. I think those would ruin the flow a bit.

And yet people still complain about the lack of realism in Saints Row games for example. 2 and 3 were never marketed as realistic, and yet people still complain. Why is this? Nobody needs every game to be a life simulator, do they? Well, I'm not really sure. That's why I'm asking this here.

How realistic should games get in terms of these realism categories?

 

[Racecarlock]

This topic got swallowed by the other posts apparently, so I am bringing it back with this post. This must be discussed.

 

[Fijiman]

While this looks interesting, It's 1AM where I am so I'll just wait till tomorrow to read all of that and replace this with an actual response.

 

[Vault101]

yes...very interesting

"realism" means alot of things and I dont like the "realism" vs "cartoony" thing because its a spectrum and those phrases have different meansings attatched (like darksiders is heavyly styalised..its also very violent...NOT what you would call "cartoony")

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

The need for realism undermines video games as an entertainment medium, in my eyes; the fun comes from it being what we can't plausibly do in reality. This is why games like Heavy Rain are lost on me; it tries a "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THIS WAS YOU?!?!?!" angle, but the bottom line is that it isn't entertaining to simulate some strange looking dude shaving his face for two hours while we try half-assedly to establish some sense of immersion. And I suppose that's my biggest beef with realism; it's usually at the cost of fun, and as I've said a million times on this website, a video game that isn't fun of a waste of everyone involved's time.

With that said:

This must be discussed.

I'd hardly go that far.

 

[djAMPnz]

I'm not sure I get the question. Games should be as realistic as the market dictates. Is there a problem with realism in games? Because if there is, it isn't outlined here. If people don't like the lack of realism in games then they should play other games. If there is nothing as realistic as they would like available, then they will have to wait until technology catches up and the market demands it. Otherwise they could put down a controller and go outside, you can't get more realistic than that.

 

[TehCookie]

I play games to escape reality, I don't want to be the normal (alright not normal, but not fantasy) girl who lives a boring life in the suburbs. I want to play a character who can take on an army of monsters/demons by themself. I want to explore colourful planets that only exist in dreams and are brought to life by our technology. I want to experience the kind of story that could never happen. Why would I play a game that mimics reality if I could go out and live it. It may take a bit more work that the game but it would also be a better experience. In games I'd want things to be exaggerated. If I'm flying a virtual plane I don't want to have to worry about fuel or cabin pressure and oxygen and how to actually steer the thing, I want to fly loops see how close to the ground I can get or crash into the tallest thing and watch the pretty explosion.

The only kind of realism I would want would be realism of behavior. However in a completely foreign culture and universe that does not adhere to our values and beliefs that's pretty broad.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think it's interesting that this discussion came up in a GTA forum as IV's move towards somber austerity was evidently an unwelcome shock to the system for many gamers expecting the first next-gen installment of sadistic GTA escapism. I for one welcomed the move; it towed the line between reality and fantasy by providing an environment and behaviours I could related to in the context of completely unrealistic situations. Bravo. This was a perfect example dof how realism has a time and a place and need not be a "hit or miss" qualifier. Every game is different and will aim to sate a different desire. Realism in any facet is appreciated when realism is desires; same goes for fantasy; and there's plenty of room for titles that touch upon both; whatever the goal is, the scope needs to be kept in mind and it needs to be done well.

 

[Strain42]

No, I don't go for realism in games. It's why I play Pokemon Snap over Cabella's Extreme Hunting or whatever that series is called.

Right now I'm replaying a game from 2008 called Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. King Abaddon, which is an RPG that takes place in 1920's Japan.

And while I do like that the developers took the time to actually make it look and feel like 1920's Tokyo and actually give the characters relatable personalities, I think I lost my right to say "That is so unrealistic!" around the time my little summoner man summoned a giant Penis that drives a chariot and belches fire.

 

[Racecarlock]

I actually do enjoy the realism of behavior thing. In skyrim, you hear townspeople talk to eachother as you journey, having conversations that you'd expect in towns, and also conversations you might not expect. For example, on my journey to high hrothgar to train with the grey beards, I overheard a father talking with his daughter about how they're not ready to let her adventure yet. It was an interesting touch.

I also like realistic physics. Crashing cars in burnout and rigs of rods is really really fun.

No, where it always falls down for me is realism of situation. I don't think I'd ever be able to get into a game that was based on married with childeren or full house. Or a game about a 9 to 5 office worker.

 

[Zen Toombs]

What is important for me is that the game flows together. If a game is extremely realistic except in one sense, in which the game is wildly unrealistic then the game suffers for it.[footnote]Ignoring, of course, if the juxtaposition is well done and intentional.[/footnote] In my opinion though, the most important of your four types of Realism is Realism of Behavior.

 

[Brawndo]

Realism of behavior is the only one of those that really matters to me. Given the vast advances in gaming technology, lack of realistic AI in 2012 is unacceptable. Most enemies in first-person shooters are just as dumb today as they were ten years ago.

 

[gigastar]

Realism has a place in games, i hold no problems with that.

Realism as a game, however, defeats the point of making a game and i hold huge problems with that.

 

[Westaway]

Interesting. I really want a super super realistic fps in Afganistan. One shot kill, high recoil and kick, no reloading halfway through magazines, putting down your gun to throw a grenade, all that good stuff. I think it would be kick ass if done properly. I think it would be best on an engine like Frostbite 2, but newer and better and more powerful. Frostbite 3.0. It would rock.

 

[Woodsey]

Each game should have its own internal logic, and stick to it. If that means it is more or less inclined towards realism than other games, then fine. Games don't have to be profiled as one or the other.

I mean, GTA IV is more realistic than its predecessors, but its still utterly fucking ridiculous. (Apparently all the reviewers giving it glowing reviews were in on this also, given the astounding reception to that crap.)

 

[albinoterrorist]

I think I lost my right to say "That is so unrealistic!" around the time my little summoner man summoned a giant Penis that drives a chariot and belches fire.

That sounds awfully like Mara of the Tower Arcana from P3.
Is it Mara? Please tell me it's Mara.

Anyway, back on topic, yes, Realism can be good in games. Especially when it is providing contrast to a market dominated by games with little realism.
For instance, the difference between ARMA and COD or Battlefield.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

For me, realism doesn't include brown/grey filters on everything ingame. Using GTA as an example, compare modern day New York to the depiction in GTA4. Real world is cleaner and more visually appealing.

The Medal of Duty generic FPS's out there also have this problem. The footage shown on the news, leaked video clips and even dramatic t.v serials show the typical middle eastern towns, cities and villages to be much cleaner than their video game counterparts.

Realism of behaviour; This will always be an illusion. the A.I will never be able to accurately emulate human behaviour. The A.I will always break you line of fire and get a bullet in the back of their heads for their troubles. Not always intentional, sometimes they cross in front of me just as I pull the trigger.

Have to call out the setting for some of these games too, an inordinate amount of terrorist cells seem to have world changing WMDs. I know why they constantly choose this option; They are "Michael Bay'ing it." Meaning they work with real world U.S armed forces experts and if they instead showed a rogue American general going sideways, they would likely loose the support.

 

[Strain42]

I think I lost my right to say "That is so unrealistic!" around the time my little summoner man summoned a giant Penis that drives a chariot and belches fire.

That sounds awfully like Mara of the Tower Arcana from P3.
Is it Mara? Please tell me it's Mara.

Anyway, back on topic, yes, Realism can be good in games. Especially when it is providing contrast to a market dominated by games with little realism.
For instance, the difference between ARMA and COD or Battlefield.

Yes, it's Mara. Though actually when it comes to giant penis monsters, I prefer Mishaguji. There's something much more delightfully horrifying about a giant lumbering penis monster carrying a giant scalpel...

 

[boag]

This was a topic posted on GTAforums a while ago. Here's the link to the topic if you want to read it whole. http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=454699

Here's the part I want to discuss.

First of all, I don't think it is fair to throw around "realism" as a blanket term. Because if you try to define an overall "realism" you end up with a paradox. Playing games is a form of escapism. How are you meant to escape reality playing something that's trying to be as realistic as possible? Clearly there is something wrong with that. So there are different aspects of the game that may or may not be realistic. I'm going to define four that I consider to be primary. Each one may be split further, and there could be some overlap, but this should give us a sufficiently clear basis to discuss the rest.

1) Realism of Presentation.
2) Realism of Setting.
3) Realism of Situation.
4) Realism of Behavior.

Let me clarify each of these separately.

First is the Realism of Presentation. This is primarily visuals and audio. The level of realism ranges from Pong to Crysis. Sometimes the lack of realism is technologically limited, and sometimes it is artistic. A cell-shaded game is inherently unrealistic in its presentation, and intentionally so. Presentation mostly impacts gameplay because it forces a certain perspective. A side scroller will play differently from an isometric game. And isometric game will play differently from first person shooter. But beyond that, with rare exceptions, impact is limited.

Realism of Setting is how closely the setting of the game relates to the world around us. An ordinary city in the modern day, with people rushing to work, and cars stuck in traffic is about as realistic as this gets. While a game about interdimensional shape-shifting time-traveling wizards would be pretty far out. Though, the only limitation on how unrealistic the setting can get is imagination of the writers. So perhaps, it would be better to score the un-realism of the setting. The impact on gameplay is very limited. Pretty much any setting one could come up with can have a game with pretty much any gameplay.

Realism of Situation is tied to the story. In any good story, things happen that don't just happen every day. But they could. Ever notice how the main character in every detective story just randomly stumbles across another murder victim every other week? The setting of these stories may be entirely believable. Every single event makes sense. But it's just not possible for all these things to keep happening to the same person. On the other hand, a story set around World War II does not need to invent incredible chain of events to provide a supply of people trying to kill each other. Situation and setting will always play off each other whether or not each one is real.

Realism of Behavior is probably one of the most complex ones. This ranges from AI of the NPCs, to the health system, if there is one, to the item behavior, to physics, etc, etc. This is really the one where you stop and think what the gameplay of the game is all about. It's also the one that may be limited by just about anything. You can have hardware limiting physics and AI, development time limiting what could be coded in before the release, and mental capacity of players and sometimes even that of developers preventing the full use of the system. On the other hand, it's the one that is least tied into all the other ones. There is going to be some connection between presentation and physics, but even in a 2D side scroller you can have realistic physics. There are many flash games out there that demonstrate that. Behavior can be realistic or unrealistic in games set in modern world or in land of fantasy. They can be applied to everyday situations, or something that presents an absolute statistical impossibility. And it can all be presented to you in stereoscopic 3D with surround sound or on a monochrome display with bleeps for sound effects.


A lot of this is fairly non-specific, and is really just a matter of artistic choice, but there are a few things that apply to the game as a game.

Again, there can be a lot of discussion on what makes a game a good game, but I would still split it up into 3 main components. Presentation, story, and gameplay, not necessarily in that order. Note that none of these translate directly into one of the above. Presentation of the game would include behavior of the objects in the game, for example. Story and presentation, however, don't apply just to games. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about these and focus on gameplay element instead.

As I also pointed out earlier, there has to be an element of escapism in the game. You cannot have a game without an escape element. I mean, one could probably come up with something, but there must be a reason for why someone would play a game. It must be something a person can't just go and do in real life for reasons of cost, safety, or even plain impossibility. So there has to be something to distinguish a game from reality. Something where the game is not quite real. But whether it's realism of Presentation, Setting, Situation, or Behavior that's sacrificed is left open. It could be all four, of course, but it absolutely has to be at least one of these.

So all in all, whenever you are designing a game, there must be an element of the game that is not realistic, and in deciding how much of the rest should be realistic, gameplay has to be taken into account. Because if you disregard the gameplay, it's not a game. It's some other form of digital art. And if you make everything perfectly realistic, there is no reason to actually play it.

It's a really interesting discussion isn't it? Because there are people who like things like the sims, or 3d driving instructor, or city bus simulator. Then there are guys who like saints row, final fantasy, and all sorts of other nutty games. Should games be one or the other?

Well, I'll tell you which realism type I don't like. Realism of situation. I don't play the sims anymore because it simulates average joe life, and I just can't get into playing an average joe because I am one. I don't like having to pee and eat and sleep and all that other stuff. I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy filing taxes. I am definitely not going to get one of those cubicle office jobs. So why the hell would I want those in a game? Well, I don't, but other people seem to enjoy that stuff. And I'm fine with that.

Until, that is, when they start trying to push realism on to the games that are generally unrealistic. IV may have been gray and brown with realistic physics and down to earth activities, but even then the story was nuts and you could evade the police by driving around a corner. This is where those realism pushers come in. They have asked for things such as traffic laws, a fuel system, having to pay rent, and having to go to jail every time you get busted. I think those would ruin the flow a bit.

And yet people still complain about the lack of realism in Saints Row games for example. 2 and 3 were never marketed as realistic, and yet people still complain. Why is this? Nobody needs every game to be a life simulator, do they? Well, I'm not really sure. That's why I'm asking this here.

How realistic should games get in terms of these realism categories?

This was an interesting read, thank you for sharing, as for your question.

I believe each game can deal with varying amounts of realism in terms of setting, presentation and situation, but behavior realism is completely needed to not break the experience entirely.

Taking the most famous example of this, Aerith/Aeris death.

It clashed with the world setting and it broke up the characters Behaviour, just for the sake of having a dramatic moment.

 

[Pebblig]

I don't feel that realism is really important, more the immersion. A game can be entirely fictional and set in a fantasy world, yet equally as immersive as a game that claims to be realistic.

What does bother me though, is games that claim to be realistic, or want to be realistic. Obviously the most common games that attempt to do this are shooters. They attempt to be graphically impressive to be realistic.

I watched a friend briefly play MW3 when in the tube level, strolling through Westminster Tube station. The in-game map of the tube had retarded "amusing" station names coating it, while the layout of the station did bear some mild resemblance to the real thing.

I understand that dev's probably don't make game environments identical to life as people may potentially use it to plot shootings or some bullshit.

However what f*cked me right off is the fact that the bloody entrance to the Westminster station in MW3 was about 200m down the Thames from it's actual location, rather than being directly opposite parliament. WHY.