A lot of times recently, i've read people's opinions or reviews on games where a big let-down has been the lack of realism. Now i'm just wondering what you people here at the Escapsit think about this issue.

I think a computer game is an escape from reality, therefore shouldnt replicate it too much. Like for instance, in Metal Gear Solid 3, accidentally crawling into an electrified fence, would you like an electric shock to work it's way through the controller and into your hands? No, but that's going too far obviously.

I'm talking about in Oblivion, being able to carry so many different items, yet, due to a silly statistic in the inventory, if you picked up a quill and met that maximum number, you'd be stuck there frozen when previously you could run and jump with ease.

Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to get across, but is realism important for you? or is it merely an added bonus to an already fun game, or even further, is it something you dont want in a computer game?

No. I agree, the whole purpose is to enjoy yourself and I find I can do that if I enter a completely different universe, rather than a change of location. e.g. I find the sims is fun for awhile but it bores me after a couple of play throughs.

I do see this obsession with realism however. If something seems a lot more real, then it tends to be a lot easier to engage with as it's bound to the familiar, therefore easier understanding of the subject matter and thus a broader install base.

That or they want to show off what they can do with their "uber rigs".

Realism is good for some styles of games (such as war games) and bad for others. I don't think there are any games that sacrifice game play for realism out there though.

Piemaster:
Realism is good for some styles of games (such as war games) and bad for others. I don't think there are any games that sacrifice game play for realism out there though.

Well new ideas and experiences tend to be showcased using highly specialized artistic settings, like independent games. There aren't many realistic games that implore one to really use their imagination... None that I can think of, please correct me if I am teh wrongz.

Except Fluid, that is quite cool.

It depends entirely upon the game. Unrealistic elements in say ArmA would ruin it.

On the other hand introducing realistic elements into say Rachet and Clank would also ruin those games.

It depends on the game, obviously.
If the game is visually realistic trying to draw the player into a believable world then a certain amount of realism in the gameplay is expected (to which surreal or impossible elements could subsequently be introduced).

realism is important to insofar as how well it works with the game as a whole, if it serves no purpose other than a selling point on the back of the box then it's lost its meaning.

Realism isn't important. Gameplay is. if only wannabe gamers would stop saying that realism is the height of gaming.

Lack of realism only annoys me when things really don't make sense, like in your Oblivion example. Otherwise it's not important. I mean, holding a huge fireball in your hand for 3 seconds, then hurling it at a knight in loads of heavy armor, but he gets hurt and you don't... not exactly realistic, but it's needed.

realism doesn't matter one way or another, as long as it's entertaining

Pretty sure there has already been a thread for this. Ah well.

But realism is only important to a game if its trying to be somewhat realistic.
At the end of the day, gameplay and story line are the only things i care about.

Only in a game that is historically based... other than that NO!

I depends on what you're going for. If you're trying to create a world that is very similar to ours, but with a few minor differences (such as a zombie apocalypse: the zombies themselves are about as far as you can get from realism, but making everything else extremely realistic is what makes the game feel scary) then realism in certain places is very important. But, if you're going for a rich fantasy world (such as Morrowind, the Shivering Isles, WOW, NWN2, etc...) then no, it isn't.

without even reading the main topic, the answer for the question that the title asks is NO.
when I play a game, relaism is something I don't seek. There is a whole lot of realism in the REAL world, and I don't like playing things I can do in real life.

And then, realism and fun are oposites. If a developer wants game to be fun to play, they need to sacrifice a bit of realism.
Take assassin's creed. If it was a bit more real, it would turn annoying and frustrating. althoughthey wanted their game to be based on reality, they just had to make some sacrifices to make the game playable.

but then there is brothers in arms, and the only game I know where realism is actually a good thing.

Desert Combat is amongst my favourite games of all time, and the realism stops at exactly the right level

Bullets drop, and you have to lead shots (+skill). There is nothing that locks, even missiles (+skill). You don't die instantly (+fun). Learning curve (infantry simple, tanks simple, helos like flying upside down in a toaster at first) (+skill)

Every game released to day actually really should take some lessons from Desert Combat, as all it was actually was Skill and Fun.

The two most important factors.

Realism is important in realistic games. If it's a game trying to be a historically accurate depiction of Medieval warfare, then realism would be appreciated. Of course, SOME liberties will always have to be taken for the sake of gameplay, but games aiming for realism cut these down to a minimum.

What IS important for ANY game, no matter the genre is CONSISTENCY. If the game takes place in a universe where foxes sport butterfly wings and people fart fire after eating bananas that's fine with me, I just expect to see every damn fox with butterfly wings and if my char eats a banana I expect to get my rear-mounted flamethrower.

I think it's not really realism but fitting into character. You can spend millions of dollars to make a warthog shimmer as it rolled through a puddle. Great it looks nice. But saying that Master Chief just rolls through hundreds of world with out an expression but badass is less believe-able. You can have guns that shoot hamsters although if the character isn't cracking up trying to shoot aliens with it your game isn't good. Sad thing is many times it's just bad because you hit an uncanny valley though...

No it's not important. Games don't need to be realisitic to fulfill their purpose (beeing fun).

Actually I think that realism takes all the fun away in a game (GTA IV anyone?).

I could quote Yahtzee here and I will:

Yahtzee:

The history of gaming technology has been one long quest to total realism, but now where on the verge of it I'm seeing that it's probably not worth the effort.

And you know what? He's right. If you make games too realistic they aren't fun.

Dechef:
Lack of realism only annoys me when things really don't make sense, like in your Oblivion example. Otherwise it's not important. I mean, holding a huge fireball in your hand for 3 seconds, then hurling it at a knight in loads of heavy armor, but he gets hurt and you don't... not exactly realistic, but it's needed.

Yet Oblivion is a fantasy game so the laws of nature don't really apply. If they did you wouldn't be able to make a fire ball.

What about J-Man's I don't "get" simulation thread?

I guess, since this specifically refers to games...
But I think a game should do what it intends to do well.
Portal was so great partly because it didn't try to tackle anything that would trigger an, "uncanny valley" feeling, nor any graphical holes in the realism.

It is in some games... For example Eve online, Even dough today we don't have battle cruisers everything handles like a sack of bricks underwater... exactly how space ships should move :D. But that doesn't always mean it is fun. but some simulators such as eve or aircraft sims are good for:

-The fantasy
-Military training

But when it comes to entertainment it is different... it becomes something of preference. I personally like the sack of bricks that are the ships in EVE but Yahtzee doesn't seem to agree... it is more of a personal look I say.

Arehexes:

Dechef:
Lack of realism only annoys me when things really don't make sense, like in your Oblivion example. Otherwise it's not important. I mean, holding a huge fireball in your hand for 3 seconds, then hurling it at a knight in loads of heavy armor, but he gets hurt and you don't... not exactly realistic, but it's needed.

Yet Oblivion is a fantasy game so the laws of nature don't really apply. If they did you wouldn't be able to make a fire ball.

Maybe we can create a fire ball but we just don't know how.

Well it depends on what you mean by "realism" if you mean that a game aheres to the laws of physics, then the answer is no. If however you mean that the things in a game don't break the game's internal logic then I would say yes.

No. Unless your objective is to produce a simulation, realism should be subservient to player experience in every case.

OK here's an argument I get into all the time. Is it important? to me, yes. I like immersion, and if a game has no basis in reality, it's hard to get immersed in it.

The inevitable answer I get to this is: "But you're playing in a game that has INSERT UNREALISTIC THING HERE! How can you expect realism?"

The answer is simple: if it's necessary for the premise to the game, it gets an automatic pass. Making a zombie game? you need zombies. That's fine. But if you have a powerup that gives me the ability to fly and fart lightning bolts, there had better be some plot explanation of how magic suddenly started happening, otherwise, I'm gonna call zombie bulls**t on you.

Also, realism can be sacrificed in order to increase fun. I'm fine with that, too. Just pick the appropriate sacrifice. An Example: The first time I played Bioshock, I was plagued by the widescreen bug. (At the low graphics settings I had to use, the game didn't handle widescreen monitors well, and you couldn't aim worth a damn.) I didn't know this bug existed, and so I thought my inability to aim was by design, to make the game more realistic. This would be a VERY poor decision on the part of the game designers, particularly since they had also decided to give you a rejuvenation tank that everyone but you was too stupid to use. Being, as Yahtzee calls it, a hybrid of man and refrigerator makes a game more fun. it's unrealistic but a lot more fun than dying every 12 seconds. Having the game be impossible, but Death doesn't matter also is unrealistic, and is NOT fun, and that would be a very poor sacrifice to make.

So yeah, realism is important, but it's less important than fun. It is an element that can be used to make a game more fun, particularly for people who like immersion games. But like any game element it can be overdone to the point that it hampers fun. And that's bad.

See, this is an un-intentionally loaded question. Realisim in graphics is a good thing, until we hit the grey-brown of this generation, so most new games look like we're viewing them through tea stained glass. I do miss games like the original Dooms wherein you blew brightly coloured blood out of rainbow coloured enemies, but these games weren't very immersive or scary because reality doesn't look like that. So i think if a developer is making a game that should be really immersive or scary, go for the newer graphics, but if its meant to be colourful and fun, as well as good for children then make it bright and colourful.

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/844289/castle-crashers/videos/castlecrashers_wmv3207.html;jsessionid=1o3s868tf87g

nuff said.

I think the planning session for GTA IV went something like this:
Designer A: "Hey, guys, since reality is no fun, we should make our next game less fun so it'll be more realistic."
Designer B: "Hmm. That will appeal to the pretentious game critics, and to the 'hardcore' gamers who are ashamed to admit they like games."
Designer C: "Good idea. 'Hardcore' gamers stopped caring about having fun a long time ago, so this is a great idea."

Earth to game designers: With the exception of games that wish to be historically based, realism has never improved any game, ever.

Piemaster:
Realism is good for some styles of games (such as war games) and bad for others. I don't think there are any games that sacrifice game play for realism out there though.

This pretty much sums of my feelings perfectly. I also think that many games (especially action based) should try to be realistic, but not to the point were it breaks gameplay. An example were that works would be not having break out of jail/the hospital every time you die or get busted in Grand Theft Auto.

Also, first post, lol.

No, just... no.

Okay, maybe in some games.

Realism can make a game more interesting, yet a game too close to reality would defeat the purpose of actually playing a game.

For example, if you were playing a game that when your character dies, you have no way to continue. Realism to this extent is obviously ridiculous.

japlandweirdling:
Realisim in graphics is a good thing, until we hit the grey-brown of this generation, so most new games look like we're viewing them through tea stained glass.

Stop a second. Take fingers from keyboard. Look someplace other than the monitor. Is what you see an immersive Grey-brown? Mine is, but I'm in a drab office, so I'd call myself the exception. The current trend of grey-brown is nice and atmospheric, but not really realistic. I'd really like to see a game sometime where the horror of (war/zombies/alien invasion/whatever) didn't also come with a deadening of the cones in your eye. But then, I'd probably whine that it didn't have enough atmosphere.

I think that when people refer to realism in gaming, they are describing the rules and themes which govern our daily lives. Knowledge and bias gleened from years of experience meters our expectations and drives our actions. When I play a game which follows many of these physical and logical parameters, but gives reasons for the exceptions, I feel that the designers have put thought into the game. Being able to rationalize the extraordinary events taking place in the game is a sign of consideration.

However, when a game flies in the face of any rational logic, it seems lazy on the part of the designers. When events seem disingenuous, a designer should consider a way to work around the conventions we've come to expect in games, and work within the reason we've come to expect in life.

Considering I hate those gore porn movies like hostel, I don't ever want to see any realism in games involving death. There is nothing wrong with going cartoony, and I think I prefer the cartoony games over any realistic FPS out there. Mad world thankfully decided that going realistic for their game would have deterred some people, so they stuck with a different motif to make sure people didn't morally oppose what they were doing in the game.

Realism in a game can make it easier to identify with the world and easier to get immersed in, but like it has been said a number of times above, it all depends on the genre and style of the game. Realism is at the bottom of the important elements checklist, fun, gameplay, writing are much more important.

richasr:
I'm talking about in Oblivion, being able to carry so many different items, yet, due to a silly statistic in the inventory, if you picked up a quill and met that maximum number, you'd be stuck there frozen when previously you could run and jump with ease.

That's not a senseless attempt "realism", that is a gameplay mechanic very firmly rooted in role-playing history. Your Strength attribute governs how much you can carry in total - higher Strength means your melee attacks do more damage and you can carry as much as a small flatbed truck, and lower strength means you are weak and feeble. Even though you do suddenly stop when you go over your carrying limit, your movement speed and agility actually do decrease depending on the armour you're wearing and the more stuff you're carrying around with you. Again, this is all for the purpose of game balance and depth, not just to be "real". Bad example, kiddo.