When does "realism" have bad effects on story and gameplay?

[Pierman Walter]

A lot of developers are proud of how realistic their games are, and there has recently been a wave of games whose main selling point is being historically or physically accurate, such as the new Battlefield, or Dwarf Fortress, and many virtual reality games. Obviously, it is impossible  to make a game identical to real life, but the general consensus seems to be that the more realistic a game is, the better it is. What do you think?

 

[Andar]

It depends on the game and its target audience, so there can't be any general answer.


Even in the best simulation game there are levels of realism that no player really wants - for example, search for the (failed) "Master of Orion, Part 3" - the second part of the series is one of the most liked 4X-games in history, but the third part became a spreadsheet-simulation.


Or as another case a fishing simulator game I read about (never played it myself) - where you had to wait until you see a fish biting, then use the mouse in a similiar way to drawing on the fishing rod to get the fish in.


The catch? they even simulated the time correctly - the random generator had you wait for one or two hours before the first fish came, and then you had about half a minute to react or loose your bait. And of course there was no warning beep - if you looked away from the pond picture at that time you couldeasily miss it.


So you always have to check if realism impacts on the game's fun - for example, having realistic wound effects in a shooter means that most of the time, most players are out on first hit (there are things like wound shock, and if you got a wound on your arm even holding a weapon becomes difficult (not to mention targeting).

 

[Wavelength]

Realism usually hurts the quality of a game when it does any of the following:

• Takes control out of the player's hands
  
• Introduces unnecessary complexity that doesn't enhance the depth much
  
• Forces the player to do boring tasks or taxing mental bookkeeping
  
• Gets in the way of achieving a desired fantasy (story, gameplay or otherwise)
  
• Forces the designer to scrap interesting (but unrealistic) elements of the game
  
• Reduces the fun or creates boredom in any way
  

As Sid Meier once said, fun always trumps realism if your goal is to design a good game.


@Andar Regarding the real-time fishing simulator, I definitely wouldn't play that kind of game myself, and I think most gamers wouldn't - but I could see it being a really good "abnegation" kind of experience for someone who badly needs to chill out with a time-killing, low-intensity experience.

 

[Cunechan]

Reduces the fun or creates boredom in any way

depends on the gameplay, if a part of being a realistic game is going to the toilet or such and it has an interesting mini game or gameplay it is ok and contributes good things. I think it always depends on the game genre and it's most needed aspects in gamedesign. If it's a horror game for example you can make some realistic parts like in the new fnaf game sister location, free movement and crawling on the floor, actually almost all of the gameplay parts, yeah. And in effect, it has a great atmosphere (build with graphics, free movement and music) and a variety of gameplay aspects.


But I mostly really agree with you, players play games because they want to control things, they want to play it, and it's an rpg. Forcing to do boring stuff is used very often (like in many commercial games too, for example the legend of zelda "You have to level up your shield to enter this lava area and it costs money or you need to find xyz").


I think it's not about realism but more about the immersion. You want to feel like you are in the game, like you are a part of it. (Which does NOT work when one breaks the fourth wall). Realism contributes to the immersion eventually, but as you and/or Sid Meier said, fun should be more important, ofc.

 

[HexMozart88]

Fun is usually more important, but the reason I said sometimes was because video games glorify war. It's a well known fact. Sometimes it enhances your story if your game make battle look like what it is: dirty. Maybe that's the whole point of your game and perhaps you can't have Sailor Moon-esque transformations and rainbow-coloured commands to get your point across. Sometimes a Shoujo type game would be better than a fantasy game, and in that case, realism wins again. But, if you go overboard and try to make everything realistic, it's basically real life on a screen. And little to no gamers come to see that. 

 

[Wavelength]

depends on the gameplay, if a part of being a realistic game is going to the toilet or such and it has an interesting mini game or gameplay it is ok and contributes good things. I think it always depends on the game genre...


But I mostly really agree with you, players play games because they want to control things, they want to play it, and it's an rpg...

I was careful to say that realism *usually* (not always) hurts the quality of a game when it does one of the six things I listed - there are some rare times that an element of realism could, for example, obstruct a fantasy or take control away from the player or temporarily reduce the game's "fun" factor, yet still contribute something worthwhile and meaningful enough to justify doing so.  If it's crucial to the game's theme (or story) that you as the player feel powerless in some situations, then as the designer you are justified in adding the same chaos and lack of control to your game in a situation in which the player would be equally powerless in real life, and if you do it well the game will be better for it.


Pick your battles, though - it's only worth taking this particular risk, for example, if the lack of control actually is crucial to the game's theme, story, etc.


And of course, there are lots of times where some degree of realism will contribute to the game's quality!  Most of the time, it's not like they are mutually exclusive.  You can have both.  Like in your example of going to the bathroom being "an interesting mini game or gameplay".  I'm trying to picture how that would work right now!

 

[Cunechan]

And of course, there are lots of times where some degree of realism will contribute to the game's quality!  Most of the time, it's not like they are mutually exclusive.  You can have both.  Like in your example of going to the bathroom being "an interesting mini game or gameplay".  I'm trying to picture how that would work right now!

lol probably pretty much like in South Park: The Stick Of Truth xD

 

[Naridar]

Depends. Elite Dangerous is one of the more complex spaceflight games out there, and provided you have a decent joystick (Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS X does the trick for 50$ new) it's quite a lot of fun. Many enjoy the truck/train simulator genre despite how complex it is. On the other hand, if you make the barrier of entry too high or the mechanics bland and unrewarding, players will be frustrated rather than entertained - the hundreds of stillborn survival games on Steam early access could speak hours about this.

 

[Corfaisus]

I've played games that feel so real that I'm quickly "living" in their worlds (sometimes I go for a stroll just to do it), and I've played games that are so over-the-top crazy that I can't help but want to know more. It depends on what your story is trying to convey. You've got the ability to make whatever you want, but it's typically a good idea in a fictitious setting to experiment with what might otherwise not be possible. It engages the player's inherent sense of wonder and keeps them coming back.


Throw some action at them just because and see how they react. With time, you'll start to develop a plethora of knowledge that you can draw from to create successful worlds in the future.

 

[PsychicToaster]

I have yet to play a game that is actually realistic. Battlefield, CoD, etc aren't realistic. Ducking behind cover and waiting for what I can assume is some sort of deity to heal my 10 realistically fatal bullet wounds disqualifies these games as realistic. What we're left with is an attempt at realism that does little more than destroy all suspension of disbelief and make for a rather dull, unexciting experience. "Realism" simply does not belong in a video game. I play games to enjoy my spare time in a reality that cannot exist within my own, to experience something mysterious, interesting, or exciting. Not to look at the color brown and plod along an adventure line with some unseen jackass over a radio treating me like I'm four years old, removing all need for me to think whatsoever as he tells me exactly where to go and how to accomplish whatever minute tasks await me once I arrive. Garbage game design in a nutshell. "Go here, do this, press X to not die, hold this button to advance the plot" is BORING. Get it out of my games. Bring back the glory days of rocket jumping, bunny hopping, gory killfest madness. Or how about some RPGs that aren't dumbed down, maybe requiring at least a bit of effort to play through? Might be why I love the Souls games so much. Or maybe I'm just biased. I don't know, but realistic games and games that hold your hand are the worst offenders in my book.


Granted there are games that are meant to be realistic, for those who want to experience at least part of something they either can't do or don't have the chance to. Like those deer hunting games. I don't personally enjoy them but there doesn't seem to be a problem there.