weirdaljedifan2:
To me, graphics don't mean shit. Sure, today's games are better looking than anything we had in the '90s, but there is a difference between realistic and perfect. Some times the graphics are so realistic you can hardly see anything but that depends on the time of day. Like playing GTA when the in-game time is at night and your time is noon. Thanks to the fact that hardly anyone besides Nintendo makes games so realistic, everything in the uber realistic games are starting to look brown, GTA San Andreas is the PERFECT example. And I agree with Quindo.

Wait... Nintendo? Seriously? We're talking about the company whose biggest recent games were one about a plumber in space saving a princess and one where an electric rodent can beat the #@%! out of Solid Snake*, right?

*What I mean by this statement is that it can happen in the game, and nothing more. I don't want idiots yelling at me because 'there's no way Pikachu could beat Snake.'

First off games these days do not strive for photo-realism if they did every model in these games wouldn't have colour balances that are so oversaturated that they practically flouresce on their own. Water should not behave like a viscus material when in large bodies, etc.

Second games should be able to avoid the more obvious distortions of space by adjusting their mechanics accordingly. For example if you are going to make a game for the Wii that is in first person view and involves swinging a sword you are going to want to include two sets of player/weapon models and animations. Why? Because if the player decides to do a motion for a slash with the hand opposite the one the on screen avatar uses you create a complete mind fuck if the motion used to trigger the event is something that would naturally be different depending on the arm used. Thankfully the makers of Zelda for the Wii were smart enough to address this detail by allowing players to pick either a left or right handed model and operate accordingly. To me that is more real than witnessing ragdoll effects.

If you are making a game based around relatively small arms like pistols which actually could be wielded in two hands why not simply forget about reloading and go with just having multiple pairs of pistols? Of course it might add an extra bit of strategy if the player is given the choice of using one or two guns. Hell why not try something really daring and set a game on a space station and restrict sound to the player inside the suit removing external sounds in areas that are in a vacuum? It would be pretty neat to have a survival horror game that focused on vibrations or other visual cues in order to create mood rather than incorporating a musical score for such things.

None of these kinds of things require extra special technology. I don't expect the devs to finally figure out a solution to creating peripheral vision in first person games. That would probably require entirely new technology. Realism should be about small details as well as the big things like ragdoll physics and the like.

As long as devs. stop doing this "We must have three colors in our game -Brown, Grey,and Muzzle Flash...MAYBE some Red..., and excessive Bloom, and blurry backgrounds = Realistic" - then I'll be fine.

Danny610:
Fun should be the main aim for every game designer

Yeh, isn't this the motto for every game designer? Or, at the very least, the good ones?

And, as for me, I couldn't care less about graphics; I buy my games on gameplay and story, ergo, for fun.

Nah, play Tim Schafer Instead.

But seriously, play "Fun" games instead. I mean, what else are games made for?

And I play games to escape reality, not simulate it.

But I do enjoy a realism that creates a vague plausability in the game, though, although it is not necessary.

MichaelH:
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the pinnacle, the ultimate example of gaming that strove WAY too hard for realism. From the "Bus Driver" website:

"Bus Driver is all about driving buses.

In Bus Driver, your job is to transport passengers around an attractive and realistic city. You must drive to a timetable on a planned route, whilst obeying traffic rules, and taking care not to upset or injure your passengers. This makes Bus Driver unlike any other driving game - the experience of driving a bus is very different from blazing through a racing circuit."

Sounds...fun?

Cheap ripoff of Desert Bus.

L.B. Jeffries:

2. If they're dropping a couple million on artists and designers, that's cash that doesn't go into playtesting, A.I., and the myriad of other things they could be spending the cash on. So yeah, it hurts the gameplay because they have less cash.

Quiet! If developers ever realise this. I'm out a job...

I find it strange that someone mentioned Portal as being an example of how enhanced realism helped a game's appeal, because I would have argued the exact opposite point -- Portal's appeal was enhanced because the devs didn't shoot for realism and instead focused on gameplay. Anyone who listened to the commentary tracks (lord...such a nerd) heard the tales of how the environments were scaled WAY back to keep players focused on the puzzles.

But imagery was only part of the point of this post. The other side to realism is all the mundanity that goes along with making something feel "real." To paraphrase Yahtzee, there is a great deal to GTA IV that feels like doing chores, not playing games. Same with hyper-sandbox RPGs like Oblivion. I'm only 10 hours into GTA IV, but I'm already at the point where I wish I could find the button combo that would let me smash that fucking cellphone.

I'm personally not a big fan of RL, and I don't like my fun things trying to resemble it.

I dislike some the added realism in GTAIV. While I love the realistic looking surrogate New York, the better methods of Police Pursuit and how you buy weapons I REALLY hate the new driving engine. I'm sorry Rockstar, handbreak turns and the ability to engage in high-speed car chases without spinning out = fun, no the burdensome realism inherent in the game at the moment, everytime I try and run from the cops I end up getting killed and every time I have to chase someone I find myself swearing at the screen because they can make better turns some how.

fix-the-spade:

L.B. Jeffries:

2. If they're dropping a couple million on artists and designers, that's cash that doesn't go into playtesting, A.I., and the myriad of other things they could be spending the cash on. So yeah, it hurts the gameplay because they have less cash.

Quiet! If developers ever realise this. I'm out a job...

No worries, I think artists and designers are more important than ever if a game is going to have any style or grace. It's money well spent, I just hate the idea of everyone thinking games should look or play more like RL.

PedroSteckecilo:
I'm sorry Rockstar, handbreak turns and the ability to engage in high-speed car chases without spinning out = fun, no the burdensome realism inherent in the game at the moment, everytime I try and run from the cops I end up getting killed and every time I have to chase someone I find myself swearing at the screen because they can make better turns some how.

This aspect of "realism" slipped my mind, and I think you've touched on a major point. I want to be able to do things I can't do in real life. It's not a difficult concept. Give me back my @#$#$%^& handbrake turns.

Also added to this heading would be racing games that make you sit on your roof for 30 seconds when you lose control and flip instead of just turning you the eff back over so you can keep playing.

MichaelH:

PedroSteckecilo:
I'm sorry Rockstar, handbreak turns and the ability to engage in high-speed car chases without spinning out = fun, no the burdensome realism inherent in the game at the moment, everytime I try and run from the cops I end up getting killed and every time I have to chase someone I find myself swearing at the screen because they can make better turns some how.

This aspect of "realism" slipped my mind, and I think you've touched on a major point. I want to be able to do things I can't do in real life. It's not a difficult concept. Give me back my @#$#$%^& handbrake turns.

Also added to this heading would be racing games that make you sit on your roof for 30 seconds when you lose control and flip instead of just turning you the eff back over so you can keep playing.

That is one of my major gripes with GTA4. I checked my stats to see what my average speed was and it turned out be just a shade over 30 miles an hour. The excitement is never-ending!

I think that if these hyper-realistic game designers actually went out and saw the real world, they'd say "Meh, the graphics look too cartoonish, it should be more realistic," because they apparently can't seem to grasp the notion that there are other colors in the world besides brown, gray, and very dark green.

I like both realistic and unrealistic games, but I find that I enjoy unrealistic games more if the developer somehow acknowledges how unrealistic they are. Games like Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, and Psychonauts were unrealistic to the point of absurdity, and that absurdity is what made those games fun.

On the flip side, I get a little annoyed with games that try so hard for realism but have glaringly unrealistic things in them that distract you while playing the game. I could go on describing games like this, but it's just so much quicker to say "the Metal Gear series".

I can see how some people prefer realistic games and others prefer unrealistic games, I imagine they feel what I feel when I play games in either extreme. When playing a realistic game I feel more immersed and I'm more likely to appreciate the art side of the game. When I play unrealistic games, especially the cartoony ones, I enjoy them for the wacky fun and I'm able to laugh when I've died at the same spot for the hundredth time.

GTA needs to take some lessons from Saints Row...

Colorful Pretty World
Tougher Vehicles
Really Fun Driving Controls

Though some of the airtime/flips and such in GTA IV beat the snot out of Saints Row.

Turbo Extreme Phone Operator!!
Realistic like no other video-phone game and fun like a rocks behind!

Fuck realism. Games have got enough realistic. Concentrate on the FUCKING GAMEPLAY AND USE YOUR COMMON SENSE!!!

I have to admit, i canīt stand realism in games above a certain level. Realistic shooters like CoD 1-36 or driving sims like Gran Turismo or Forza are no fun. Give me Quake 3 and Burnout.

The one thing i have a giant personal grudge against is night and day shift in RPGs. It is just annoying as hell. Okay, it adds a little bit atmosphere, but at least allow me to disable it. I remember Gothic, Morrowind, Oblivion, MM6... night sucks. You canīt see anything, shops are closed!!!, i am just forced to press "wait for 6 hours". Oh, the hate.

GTA 4 wasn't as great as i had hoped,
It's still a great game, but it is almost TOO realistic.
How great was it in Vice city when you were escaping from a 4 star wanted level, and could hand break turn beautifuly round a corner and continue your escape?
Tried this in GTA 4 and spun out of control, hit a tree and went flying through the windscreen (granted was preaty cool).
Bring back FUN and EXCITING driving!!!

Realism works if you have a deep game world to go with it. Added realism can suck you into a gaming world that feels authentic because number one, it looks real and number two it has depth.

If you want a game that's primarily about 'fun', then realism doesn't always work, and it can hinder the game.

I think it's a problem when realism means too many details. In the real world you normally get sensory overload when you walk down a street in Tokyo; in a game you're frequently running down the street in Neo-Tokyo carving up whores with dual chainsaws while fifty spaceships and tanks are shooting at you and you're supposed to hunt down a maniac in a car and listen to radio instructions and save the free world at the same time. What do they think happens when they add motion blur, adrenaline fog, breath fog on the inside of your visor and freaking lens flares on top of that? It doesn't matter if it's immersive if it's impossible to play.