We all want realism to be a significant feature in any fitting game, don’t we? Call of Duty 4, Killzone 2, Far Cry 2, and Metal Gear Solid 4; each of these games made extensive efforts in the realism department, each was applauded for those efforts, but how far down this path can we possibly go before crossing into hazardous territory? We all love a great shooter and we love how it more or less feels real, but where do we draw the line? When does a game become exceedingly realistic to the point that it is considered unplayable?
In the real world, war is hell. A single well-placed shot will undoubtedly incapacitate, if not kill, any unfortunate individual who happens to stand in its line of attack. Moreover, you don’t have the perks of a virtual world, such as the lovely red tag above an enemy’s head a la Call of Duty, or the steady hands of any Bioshock dweller using an iron-sight. Stress takes over, your hands shake, and friends get lost in the mix of your foes; friendly-fire happens, it hurts, and it kills. Think for a moment, what if the next shooter you bought sacrificed fun in the name of realism?
Far Cry 2 is quite possibly the best exhibit for video game realism since the peak of the new generation. With each mission, you had to find your own transport, and drive yourself to the target. Not only were the roads fortified, but dealing with your objectives was no easy task either. Affix that with single shot kills and no means of health regeneration, and the result is certain to be chaotic. Even on the grand scale, Far Cry 2’s expediency is quite minimal in regard to “the real world”. Regardless of its unbearable storyline, it still shows extensively what the highest point of realism is like in today’s games.
The stakes of a mere video game vary from a shameful splash screen to a few grueling seconds on respawn timer. I’m sure any war veteran would be appreciative of such seconds or defeat screens. Call of Duty 4 amongst other games has included multiplayer modes which disable the precious respawn ability. If this were to be implemented in all available game modes, I’m rather sure there would be a spike in broken televisions and uncontrollable shouting.
Regenerating health is nothing new in games nowadays, and while it’s a step up from the classic health bar system, it would need further refining to be real-world standard. It encourages a sit-and-wait style of gaming, which all but shatters the immersion. However, this “real-world standard” may cross the line in terms of difficulty once again; it’s always nice to know that a few seconds behind cover is all it takes for a second chance. While I don’t deny that this particular aspect is arguable, for the time being, I would opt for the regeneration method.
Soldiers on a battlefield clearly have the slightest idea of how many rounds are left in their clip. Now, with games akin to Crysis and Killzone 2, the near absence of HUD is becoming a popular trend. Some games even offer an option to completely disable any heads-up display features. To be left on your own, no crosshair assistance, no ammunition count; for any novice to this concept, it’s difficult to grasp. While the hardest at core will consider this even in live matches, others wouldn’t dare to brave conflict without the maximum HUD assistance. I’ll agree that this is yet another arguable facet, I do consider it a thrill to switch off the display at times, but I doubt it would fare well with other aspects mentioned above dictating the game as well.
Real life can be stressful, and to put such authentic elements in a video game would be absurd considering games are a common means of stress relief. Games today are as entertaining as ever, but with each release we see more enhancements to realism, and I’m a fan of that, don’t get me wrong. We just need to draw the line, the industry isn’t ready should it be crossed.
10 comments ↓
Seth
May 7th, 2009
I agree that realism is not the ideal that games should be aiming for. Not just in terms of gameplay, but graphics as well. With the HD era now upon us, many developers seem to strive for photorealistic visuals, when there are so many other artistic ways to present a game.
Rob
May 10th, 2009
Another thing i’m worried about with the effects of realism, is how gory visuals and physics could affect the player. There has got to be a certain level in realistic games, but when they hit an extreme amount, and it could be fairly disgusting and vulgar… and this isn’t what most gamers want, especially parents buying games for their children un-knowingly… as they already do, with games like GTA.
Derka
May 12th, 2009
I missed most of the realism in those games imo. I’ve seen mods with far more/better realism.
Health regen is just a ADD fix they added to games.
manuel
May 12th, 2009
“many developers seem to strive for photorealistic visuals, when there are so many other artistic ways to present a game”.
I agree with you and of course with this blog, good blog by the way, i think if the games start to look like reality, we will stop playing them period, we need imaginary worlds coming from the minds of the developers ,artisticcaly and visualy represantations alike, real life sucks, thats why we love games they take us away into beutiful great looking worlds, think okami , and the new prince of persia, for example they are not lifelike represantations, but the imaginary world is so damn beautiful, thats the greatness of those games, and all the games we played.
Beranmee
May 21st, 2009
I turn away from realism in games, i find the more realistic a game becomes the less i enjoy it.
Games like GTA, MGS 4, CoD and CoD W@W, were good, but the realism took the fun away for me.
I want to see innovation in the games i play instead of Imitation.
Pete
May 26th, 2009
I don’t quite get the point of this feature. “Games are getting more real, but they shouldn’t…..man!”
Well yes, we will hit a wall and developers will start back tracking, i think the over population of cell shading is proof were already on our way. But right now everyones still figuring out what current gens can do… and more importantly get away with (in terms of realism).
Its abit silly trying to suggest that people who make games… For A Living, would ever make the sacrifice of real over fun.
Seth
May 26th, 2009
Pete, are you suggesting that game designers always make the right choices?
Pete
May 26th, 2009
If were talking super realism, then surely that means AAA title, millions of dollars, and a seasoned team.
Surely they are the ones better qualified to say if its a viable route for games to take.
Seth
May 26th, 2009
Not necessarily at all. Marketing idiots may push for realism in a misguided attempt to appeal to what the uneducated masses would like.
In fact, a project with a huge budget and the input of hundreds of people is the best way to dilute (and ruin) the original vision of a game.
Even if the majority of people think they would enjoy realism, does that mean it’s the direction that videogaming as an artistic form should be heading?
Pete
May 26th, 2009
The conclusion of the article was that, “maybe we shouldnt be running head long into more realism.” Im saying that a large project with a bigger tolerence for playtest and adaptation upon those tests would surely be the best chance to figure out if its viable. Not gamers theorising that they didnt have as much fun on GTAIV because they couldnt sky dive, so GTAV will definatly involve indicating before every corner, and awkwardly looking away from newspaper salesmen.
Were talking about if there is much room in the future for progessions towards more realism in games, that still retain the fun of their ancestors.
And obviously if the marketing buffs push for realism at the expense of gameplay, then the immersion that goes hand in hand was never going to materialise anyway.
But im pretty sure that the Artistic Form of gaming can take abit more of a Realistic licking before we have to start worrying about guiding plasters down manually to cover our digital bullet boo boo’s.