This topic concerns GAMEPLAY realism, not GRAPHICAL realism.
Before reading further I'd like to play a game of some sort, or rather a little experiment. From just reading the topic title and not any further please make a note of what your opinion is on gameplay realism and maybe write it down in a text file. Now when you're done with that save it and read on, you'll maybe see why I wanted to try that.
##############################
So onto the topic, gameplay realism, or rather, the common misconceptions, mistakes, errors and bad implementation of it which gave the concept a really bad name in the past and possible solutions to it.
Realism in gaming in itself is not a bad thing, actually it's a good thing in many genres or specific titles. However due to mostly bad choices and implementation it's now often associated with games that are not fun and frustrating.
So to maybe help clear up a few issues here are a few of my thoughts on the topic where improvements can be made or simply to clear up misconceptions.
Some of them I want to mention here are:
- Realism in context
- Realism where it's usefully applicable
- Realism as gameplay mechanics
- Realism done well
-Realism in context:
There often is the misconception of realism meaning “removing everything that is not like in real life”. While this may apply to the closest definition of the word it is not what realism in video games means.
The true concept that should apply here is “Realism in context”, something that I personally refer to as “Believability”.
This means if something is a well established fact in a games setting, even if it's not possible in real life, is realistic in this setting and therefor “realistic in context”.
As an example, take a game setting that is very much like the real world but some people possess telekinetic powers. Within this setting telekinesis is realistic so seeing it used would be realistic and believable as well.
However suddenly having werewolfs appear when it's otherwise based on the real world would not be realistic in both senses, it is not something that is in real life and it would be something that is not realistic within it's own context unless it was explained in some way.
This concept gets a bit more blurred in game worlds that feature magic but it can still apply.
Even in a game setting with magic that can raise gigantic demons there are things that are not believable.
An average human being decapitated and surviving it for example, unless there was a very good explanation for how this was possible it would neither be realistic nor believable.
Something that should be remembered though is that usually where a gap is left open it's not too far off to fill it with what you know from reality which can leave a feeling of wrongness if it doesn't match with real life experiences.
This is the important part about establishing what you want in your games setting.
-Realism where usefully applicable:
A common complaint about realism is how some games simply are not realistic and that is the fun about them.
Here the concept of “realism where usefully applicable” comes into play.
When asking for more realism it usually doesn't apply to every game and to every system in a game.
Nobody would argue that in “Super Mario Bros.” you only have a realistic jumping height, that “Tetris” should have blocks that are just a little to wide to fit a gap because realistically not all blocks could fit so perfectly or that you should have to go to the toilet every few hours in an action based FPS.
There simply are factors where realism should not apply which mainly depends on the game itself.
FPS games would often do well with a locational damage/effects system, jump n' runs don't. But the same time having your character go deaf from constant gunfire would not be a system you'd want in a FPS (at least not in the wide majority of titles).
Simply said, it depends on the game where, if and how realism should be applied.
And even in games that are usually low on the realism scale you can have semi-realistic systems, take “Super Mario 64” implementing fall damage that was not present in older titles.
-Realism as gameplay mechanics:
Another common misconception is simply putting it in to have it.
But it's rarely thought through how it could actually be tied into gameplay in a way that can actually add something to the experience and be useful.
An example I often like to mention is “Locational damage and effects” and “Arrows”.
Being able to injure or cripple limbs could very well be used to end fights in a game without having to kill your opponents, if they are no longer able to fight it's over.
This could be a very useful function in heavily character interaction based games, when you have to fight someone but the same time want information you can attempt to incapacitate that person and then ask questions.
Arrows would fit into this as well.
A common problem with arrows in video games is that they either do next to nothing and you require tons of arrows to bring down enemies (A thing I often refer to as “Toothpick Tossing”) or you have arrows that could by the damage they do bring down a brick wall (A “Wooden Nuke”).
But if you combine this with the before mentioned locational damage and effects system arrows don't need to be overpowered to be effective. While an arrow to the knee won't kill anyone it would prevent them from running making them an easier target or even unable to fight at all.
Similarly other mechanics could be added that create some realism and still have them tied into gameplay instead of simply “being there”.
Eating for example, instead of simply being necessary to do it could very well offer benefits to keep your character well fed that you don't have if you stay in a starved state which itself could have certain effects as well. However I don't want to get into too much detail about this here, this is just to give a few examples on this but I'm willing to give more and in greater detail if required.
-Realism done well:
This here really is a big point as it concerns both gamers and game developers equally.
A very common complaint coming up when discussing realism in games is “You'd get hit/shot once and you're dead”.
However this is not realistic but somehow this concept has seated itself very solidly.
This is where you have to stop and ask yourself “How can a realistic system be done well”.
Mentioning locational damage from before, realistically the only way to be killed instantly is by receiving sufficient damage to the brain or heart. All other injures could be potentially lethal but not instantly, wounds would need to bleed out to kill you or for suffocation you'd have to fully run out of oxygen in your blood stream (being strangled or suffocated long enough).
All those could be well simulated in games and have been in spades. “Call of Cthuhlu: Dark corners of the Earth” is a game I like to mention in this, it features a for it's time fairly detailed locational damage system for the main character and even features psyche effects when the character is under heavy stress which adds greatly to the atmosphere.
However a step down was the strict limitations to your medkit which gave it an too arbitrary limitation.
Other misconceptions include “If you don't eat/sleep regularly you suddenly drop dead/lose health till you die”.
Again it's neither fun nor realistic and could be done much better by 1. giving you more wiggle room between the initiation and before effects manifest and 2. make the effects more gradual instead of instant.
On the other end of the misconceptions of how systems would be realistic is taking small exceptions from reality in a still more realism based system.
With injures for example, in realty they would require weeks to heal, in game they could very well heal in a short time. This would be an acceptable exception from full realism.
A more recent example is how Minecraft handles healing and food in its latest versions which is pretty much one of the better food systems I have seen so far. You heal automatically as long as your “food bar” is about 80% full, when it drops below 30% you cant sprint anymore and you only lose health when it's completely depleted, plus the times between going hungry are sufficiently long and actions like sprinting, jumping and fighting drain it slightly faster.
So that is all I have on that topic for now.
Now you might ask yourself why I asked you to note down your thoughts on the topic before. The answer is, compare your thoughts on it before, then filter them through the points I mentioned here. Do you still feel the same way about the topic or were there a few misconceptions in your ideas about it?
In general you could say realism is not something the must be done, it's something that should be done where it's appropriate, in a WAY that actually adds to the game and it must be implemented well with exceptions where necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment