Slashdot Mirror


Decrying the Excessive Emulation of Reality In Games

An editorial at GameSetWatch makes the case that game developers' relentless drive to make games more real has led to missed opportunities for creating unique fictional universes that are perhaps more interesting than our own. Quoting: "Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds? Or a plumber that took mushrooms to become large, and grabbed a flower to throw fireballs? In reality they do none of those things, but in the name of a game, they make sense, inspire wonder, and create a new universe. ... We’ve seen time and time again that the closer you try to emulate reality, the more the 'game' aspects begin to stick out. Invisible walls in Final Fantasy, or grenades spawning at your feet when you go the wrong way in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are examples of kicking the player out of that illusion of reality, and letting them know that yes, this is a game, and yes, the rules are designed to keep you in the space of this world, not the real world. In reality, as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side. I could be cowardly and turn back to base. Games shouldn’t have to plan for every eventuality, of course, but it’s not so hard to create universes that are compelling but where the unusual, or even simple backtracking, is not so unfeasible."

18 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. yes, but by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, but creating an alternative appealing universe experience takes imagination, ingenuity, creativity, sometimes requires radical approach to ideas and expects thinking outside of the box.

    Doing any of that increases the risk that the outcome will not be popular enough and will not succeed in terms of sales, this is serious business and money we are talking about here, what do you think this is, a game?

    1. Re:yes, but by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.

      The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...

      Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished, due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...

      The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites. Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.

      Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:yes, but by pinkushun · · Score: 4, Informative

      World of Goo is one such game, elegantly simple and more addictive than sugar candies!

    3. Re:yes, but by SimonGhent · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I had $50M I would buy a rocket ship and go to the moon and Mars and take a bunch of Victoria's Secret models with me.

      Lord British might have something to say about that.

      --
      simon
    4. Re:yes, but by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Not every game HAS to have super high detailed 3D graphics, a physics system plucked from the altars

      Yes you would think that, but it's not how the average buyer (read: kid, teen, or young adult) thinks. As example I didn't know what to buy my nephews for Christmas, so I just bought a pile of new Xbox and X360 games, and let them pick the 4 games they liked best. I was surprised when they picked the X360 game "Pinata" (or whatever it's called) instead of the Xbox Splinter Cell 2 game. So I asked why they chose the kiddie party game rather than the military game (which is their favorite genre).

      "Because Xbox games have poor graphics."

      Yep. Already judging games on looks, not fun, and this is why you can't create some 2D or 2.5D game - it will be automatically judged as crap. Personally I would have picked the Splinter Cell game (since I thought the Pinata game was dull), but then I've learned to judge things based upon the personality (fun, challenge, et cetera) not the T&A (polygon or pixel counts).

      Aside -

      This is why I like Nintendo games, and get a little annoyed when I hear people say "Nintendo consoles are crap". Okay so their consoles are not impressive hardware, but Nintendo still uses their imagination to create fun games. Ditto Sega. FOR ME the less real a game is, the more I enjoy it, because it feels like I've entered another world. Simulations of reality are nice, but how many times can I watch a body blowup and splatter blood all over the place? I think I'm sick of that genre. (Plus it really isn't realistic that you can get shot a dozen times and still be moving. I'd like to see a real FPS where one shot and you're done.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:yes, but by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat, and as someone pointed out, Counter Strike were originally done on the old HL engine.

      The newer Source engine was designed specifically for that, AND to produce lower cost games that might not be as polished as full titles, but worth the lower price (The Ship, Garry's Mod) as well as create interesting free games that are pure mods. Steam has been doing it, AND created a digital delivery system that has effective enough DRM that isn't as draconian as other systems. They get the majority of my gaming dollars because I can install on multiple computers (but play on one at a time), they autoinstall, they are a great value (hello, Orange Box?), and they *do* protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.

      To me, Gabe has found a perfect balance between consumer and provider, and provides lots of free trials, lets you *give* extra games you get when you buy a package that has a game that you already own, etc. Plus I never install a CD to play, never worry about losing or scratching the CD, and they have great sales, from 10% to 75% off on a regular basis. Steam deserves to succeed, and I hope they continue to do so, because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content. It isn't perfect, but it is evolving, and doing so in a good way.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. From the opinion-piece-pulled-out-of-ass dept. by BenevolentP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uhm, what? The article summary starts with "too realistic" then suddenly turns to "not realistic enough" in terms of open-world gameplay. I dont really get the point, if there is one.

    Im pretty happy not every game is a sandbox game, which mostly try to do everything but do everything mediocre (GTA, Oblivion etc).

    BTW, nothing in doom kept me from staying cowardly in the first room of e1m1, not moving, shivering.

    All with real world consequences if i choose so (boredom and starvation).

    1. Re:From the opinion-piece-pulled-out-of-ass dept. by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is suspension of belief in "not realistic" allows for much more liberties about player's freedom than in "too realistic". If you know falling through the bottom of the level kills you in Mario, you're okay with it. Don't cross the bottom line of the screen, fine. If you make an awesome swing on grappling hook in Nexuiz and the invisible "bottom of the world" kills you mid-swing, you get angry.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:From the opinion-piece-pulled-out-of-ass dept. by zacronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see it as a little like the idea of an uncanny valley for games. If it's fictional enough, we don't care about whether it accurately matches reality -- it's more of an abstract game with a veneer of reality over it (i.e. we don't care that a mushroom really shouldn't make someone double in height, because underneath we know the mushroom is just an arbitrary visual label for a certain abstract powerup). On the other hand, once it passes a certain threshold of realism such that the mechanics seem to be intended to resemble reality rather than being abstract and arbitrary, then the fact that it isn't totally realistic bothers us -- it's a game that resembles reality in many important ways, but which falls short of what we expect reality to allow in many other important ways.

      Being able to move forward but not back doesn't really bother us in Super Mario Brothers, but not being able to retreat in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 seems like an extremely artificial restriction in the context of a (somewhat) realistic game. (Disclaimer, I've never played CoD:MW2, I'm just inferring from the summary.)

  3. Re:Play ARMA2 instead by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality, instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever, i.e. that kind of reality where cars explode when you shot a few bullets and interesting things only happen when the game designer tells them to.

    Games that actually try to emulate real reality, i.e. simulations, basically just get better for it, as a large part of emulating reality is the removal of artificial restrictions. Take flightsims for example or Operation Flashpoint/ARMA, those games don't have invisible walls, you can literally go into any direction for an hour and not see an end. What makes those games great is that all the interesting stuff that happens, happens due to the game mechanics, not duo to fake scripting events.

    That said, I don't mind the Mario64 or Katamari style game, quite the opposite, but the thing that makes those games so great isn't just that its a colorful comic world, but also that they, just like a hard core sim, lack the artificial scripting madness that has invested so many of todays games, instead the games provide you with some core gameplay mechanics and everything that follows is basically a result of those. Its the player that plays those games and not the game designer that is playing the player.

  4. MW2 realism is a joke... by HopefulIntern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, when I play a game like an FPS, I want realism. By that I mean good graphics, physics, sound, etc. Others argue that "graphics dont make a game good" etc. I agree that good graphics alone don't make a game good, but to me, they are an essential part. Playing Sonic the Hedgehog is different than an FPS. Nothing is meant to be real, so realism isn't an issue. But when I want realistic online warfare, I want just that, realism.

    Silly me, I actually got MW2 thinking it would be a realistic tactical shooter. I was deeply disappointed (especially since MW1 touched on it quite nicely). Dual-wielding sawn-off shotguns, firing grenades at a conflict area having only your team mates survive and the structures intact, submachineguns accurate to over a mile....It is more like a Die Hard film (where I am a bad guy..). And i got the game for PC, so I can't even trade it in.

    I love playing Bad Company 2. Although I struggle with it, I find it much more enjoyable. Graphics are decent (but not dazzling, I admit) but the sound is incredible; gunfire changes pitch/tone when heard from further away, the crack and hiss of a sniper shot that just missed your head...I actually get startled, my blood pumps, adrenaline rushes! The game is not without its faults, I have used a high powered sniper rifle and hit an opponent three times without going down (though this may be related to lag). Still, for those after realism, a much better game.

  5. I HATE invisible walls by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are few more immersion-shattering elements.

    So I plan: "This will be the right sniping spot. I will have them all right on the plate, and covered on their escape route too. The approach is covered, and the location provides decent cover behind these rocks. This should be easy then." Then - bump - invisible wall, border of the world. And I'm stuck with hopeless frontal attack which I barely survive.

    Recently, I began playing Planeshift and learned how to find the perfect spots for mining. Unfortunately some of them are just past the invisible wall, leaving only crumbles for the poor in the open area.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  6. Old discussion by vlokje · · Score: 3, Insightful

    REALLY old discussion.. Similar comments could be read in game magazines when the Amiga was the hottest thing around (late 1980s). People new to gaming tend to prefer realism while long time gamers consider playability more important. Personally I still remember paradroid on the 64 and the amount of time I spend with it. Realism? Not really. Absorbing gameplay? Definitely.

  7. Two Stories... by shoemakc · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...posted two stories after the headline "Haptic Gaming Vest Simulates Punches, Shots, Stabbing". That's just funny. -Chris

    --
    --an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
  8. Re:exception... (closest?) by Tapewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's probably better than most, but if you've ever climbed out of the Catacombs Entrance area in Paris, you'll probably have discovered that the large tower you were airdropped onto has a trap at the bottom to make you explode, most likely to try and prevent the player surviving if they jumped off. Similarly, forget about exploring the ravine in the Vandenberg base (see also the "Vandenberg effect" on youtube).

    Frankly I tend to play medieval fantasy type games more because you have more of an excuse ("It's magic!"), but having said that I do kind of wish that DE's "Realistic" setting had gone for something more like "If you're shot, it will kill you". As opposed to... well, if you know what you're doing, you can blow yourself up just before the mission ends and start the next one as just a head with no limbs or body.

  9. Kids love the lack of reality... by BlackBloq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was chatting with my kid and his friends (11-13) about video games. I was saying how I hated games where you have to shoot someone more than once/twice (I only play hardcore (reality mode) on Modern Warfare 2). I was specifically making fun of Halo and no skill gamers. One kid piped up "why would I want to have it all real! Real is no fun!". Kids play with a big smile and want the fantastic, myself I play with a serious scowl and try real hard to outdo my last games performance. In other words I don't play at games, I try hard at games. Real effort is better rooted in reality unless playing to addictions like gear collectors. We play to hone what we are as a species, like a kitten chasing a floating leaf to hone hunting skills. The gear collectors are driven not by fun but hours of collecting (See work!). PVP reminds me of kids because of the way it plays out in some arenas with taunting and all the silly talking however... I've seen adults freak the f out over PVP games because of how much work/hours they put into character development. To sum up, you can change where we play (in game environment) but not what we are (hunter gatherers).

    1. Re:Kids love the lack of reality... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The kid is exactly right. I can go outside to get reality, what I want in a game is just enough realism to help my suspension of disbelief, but no more. If I found the reality fun, I'd be doing that, so I would never want a perfect emulation of reality in my game. I refused to play hardcore mode in CoD 4, because it simply sucked all the fun out of the game when you would instantly die and have no way of knowing where you got shot from.

      Oh, and for the record, it isn't "kids" that want a lack of realism. I'm 25, so while I couldn't be called old, I'm certainly not a kid any more either. In fact, until your post, I would've guessed that it was only kids that wanted such "realism" (quote marks used because even "realistic games" usually aren't realistic, including MW1 and 2), but that apparently isn't true either. I suppose it's foolish to try to draw age boundaries, people like what they like.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  10. Re:Is it my line now? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get people sometimes.

    Take the game I worked on a little while back: "Vin Diesel: Wheelman". It wasn't a realistic game, it was a game designed like an action driving movie. Driving at impossible speed through a city, impossible jumps, impossible side-swipes, impossible cornering, cars exploding from being shot by a pistol, jumping out of a moving car, into another moving car, the works.

    And it gets points deducted in reviews for not being realistic enough. I can understand if they didn't like it, but at least complain about something it was trying to be.