• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Realism in games - what do you think?

Chrono

Banned
Short version:

- Do you think games should become more like real life? Single bullet deaths, only carry what a normal human can carry of weapons/ammo/items/stuff, etc...



I personally want games to stay being games. Even if I can 'live' in a game world, like in the matrix, I'd want the experience to be like I'm inside a videogame world.


MGS4 is a good example. It'll be the closest game to a movie but I wouldn't be excited if kojima suddenly says he's moving the series in a 'real' direction. Imagine boring characters that would fit in a movie but not the MGS world. That's what I mean. Oh and not just characters/story. Gameplay also, like health + carry lots of items + all that stuff.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS3 is powerful enough to do natural worlds like in MGS4. You'll still be playing videogames. No matter how real a forest or enemies are everything is just a videogame. You have (well in most games) an unreal amount of ammo and weapons, health, more than 1 life, and get to save at checkpoints and get hits on how to progress.

There was a discussion here on when will consoles be powerful enough so that developers would leave dead bodies in a game, instead of making them disappear. Am I the only one who doesn't want that?

Another example: Could you play a game where a sniper shot to the leg would dismember your leg and leave you dragging yourself around until you bleed to death and.. game over? Boring.
lightblueside.gif


Of course that more has to do with gameplay and the dead body thing is very different. Maybe if you're playing a game like Resident Evil bodies lying on the ground after you shoot them would add to the atmosphere. Well I'm confused now.
erm.gif


Sometimes it isn't as clear . I turned off voice acting in Tales of Symphonia but can't imagine playing FFX w/o it. I just got Radiata Stories too and there's no way I'm playing with the VA on.

Really, imagine games in the future (50 or 500 years whatever) where people can plug in a 'matrix' just like the movie. In it you see forgot-her-name learn how to pilot a heli in seconds- this is just like learning a new skill in a game. Keanu's character calls up an insane inventory of guns - imagine ''transporting' ' to a place like that when you press (or think...) start in a matrix-game.

Just look at the Final Fantasy Advent Children trailer. The part where Cloud slices those monsters on his bike and they disappear - it doesn't look out of place at all. If say you can plug into a matrix console (not that I'm saying this will ever happen, or at least in the next XX years but you get the point)- and you play FF7 remake I would want it to be exactly like Advent Children. And those monster disappear after they're killed. Not everything has to though. And the characters in the game would still be 'game characters.'


Also, how do you think some games will deal with this? I just played against Ninja in MGS yesterday and there's no way I can see the same fight with MGS4 graphics. A few pics:












It would just look too silly, snake running up to a cyborg and doing the same attack over and over again. An attack that doesn't really look like it would work on anybody in real life. :p Plus it would be boring for snake to die from a single bullet in the head or something. Gameplay will have to change a lot. Kojima said in an interview that he had ideas piling up for 2/3 years, so I'm hoping MGS4 will live up to the expectations. Games that focus on gameplay won't have this problem, or at least not to the extent that games like MGS4 (which focus on immersion) do.



[/rambling off]
 
Of course not all games need to become more realistic, but I wouldn't mine seeing a few games experiment with the idea of single-shot deaths and whatnot.
 
Always a fine balance bewtween realism and fun, though these are not mutually exclusive.

ie. realism does not necessairly mean less fun, but it can be related. This is why there is still no indicating and clutches in driving games.
 
Yes, but I would be in the extreme minority.
I prefer "iron sights" in all of my shooters, even of the Doom variety. But I'm a strange fellow. Floating crosshairs should go away, IMO.
I know that Ninja Gaiden is true to the originals, I have no complaint about that, but as I was playing it, I thought to myself "whoever heard of a Ninja that doesn't use stealth?"
My quest for realism in games is difficult, but I must realise that I'm in the minority and they must cater to the masses. At least in games like Call of Duty you can turn the crosshairs off, but that also has an iron sights option, where a lot of shooters don't give you that.
I'm glad that games are slowly but surely moving away from the "health pack" idea, but RE4 sure did drop a hell of a lot of ammo and first aid sprays. Why these crazy farmers had their pockets loaded up with bullets I will never know. :D
 
I play games as an escape from the "real" world. So, no, I don't want my games to be more realistic.

That being said, though, I could see games like Full Spectrum Warrior incorporating one-shot kills, and such.
 
i want games so realistic that when you die in the game, you die in real life. it'd make online gaming more interesting
 
I say keep 'em games. Most attempts to make games seem more "real" (i.e. FMV games and the actor capture technology that popped up in the mid-90s) generally have produced bad results. Games are fun because of their UNreality. The key lies in giving the player just enough reality to allow them to have a connection to the game world while distorting enough to provide the fun and unique experiences that video games are tailored towards.

Too much reality can be frightening from a psychological and experiential point of view. Much like The Matrix and Strange Days, if games become THAT real in the future, people might start having trouble distinguishing it from reality. A lack of reality in games, however, can be augmented by unique gameplay elements, art direction, story, etc. So, its best to err on the side of caution and stick with unreality.
 
If I'm not mistaken I heard that Kojima was experimenting with a game where if u died once the disc will erase itself so u cannot play the game again (really game over man). Isn't that so realistic? :D
 
Finaika said:
If I'm not mistaken I heard that Kojima was experimenting with a game where if u died once the disc will erase itself so u cannot play the game again (really game over man). Isn't that so realistic? :D

:lol Oh God, that's so cruel.

*GAME OVER*

*puff of smoke from PS2*

"Mom, I need another copy of Sly Cooper!"

"Again? That's the third time this week!"
 
You just have to make sure playability is not sacrificed for realism. Forgiving the player for having limited control and senses while keeping the virtual reality believable is a major balancing act that the designers are constantly working on. If they can increase your sensory to the virtual world and control then they will be able to increase the realism with out adding too much frustration to the player.
 
It all depends on the game really. James Bond movies are hardly realistic and that's why most fans love them. However if you're trying to create the ultimate driving sim or WWII combat game then yeah reality can be cool...Provided it doesn't come at the sacrifice of gameplay/fun.
 
I prefer videogames to stay games, not simulations. The ideal for me is what I think of as cinematic reality - epic adventures filled with impossibly attractive characters and over-the-top action (John Woo-style gunplay, HK wire-fu, chase scenes you'd see in a Michael Bay flick, etc.) in the vein of a Hollywood summer blockbuster. Adrenaline and eye candy - escapism in its purest form.
 
Just because they are looking more realistic doesn't mean they're are going to be or have to be realistic, cause in point movies. The vast assortment of genres from the 'real' to the 'fantastic' is all across the board even if we're using real life sets and actors.

Metal Gear Solid is as fantastical as it is realistic, I expect MGS4 to just take that to the next level.
 
I prefer games to remain games, and present themselves as such. I don't think a convincing version of 'reality' in games is attainable yet, and is probably a long way off.

The more a game strives for realism, the more glaring it is when it doesn't achieve it. But a fictional world setting--say, Star Wars, allows for a lot more suspension of disbelief.

Here's an example of a game attempting realism and completely failing: the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory videos on my site (about halfway down, blue text):

http://www.gameswelike.com/web/gameswehate.htm
 
The problem is that while you can make the game environment and characters as real as you want, there aren't that many games where realistic gameplay is desired.

What games offer realistic gameplay, anyway?

* Some racers
* Some flight sims and airplane shooters
* STRATEGY based sports games (you play as the coach, for example)

Most other games aren't realistic as far as the gameplay goes.

(As an aside, I really, REALLY hate the MGS developers who decided that breaking the 4th wall through a weird puzzle was a good idea. "BACK OF THE PACKAGE"... yeah, go ahead, completely destroy "game reality" for the sake of a stupid puzzle)
 
Realism can be neat and a worthy goal. However, the current emphasis on more and more realism is lame. I's like to see more and more creative and bizarre games. If you look at games compared to other more mature art forms, games have yet to really hit an experimental phase in terms of visuals or gameplay. We keep going for more polys so it looks more like a person, or more like a car etc: representing reality.
We need more games thet experiement with a variety of visual styles, stuff like Feel the Magic, Katamari, Windwaker, Killer 7 and the like. Game that are more experimental in visual and less tied to what things look like in reality.

And as an addendum, fun should never be sacraficed for realism even in games which strive to meet that goal.
 
DavidDayton said:
(As an aside, I really, REALLY hate the MGS developers who decided that breaking the 4th wall through a weird puzzle was a good idea. "BACK OF THE PACKAGE"... yeah, go ahead, completely destroy "game reality" for the sake of a stupid puzzle)

So what did you do? Rent MGS?
 
Jonnyram said:
I did that before I bought it too :lol
The bastards at Blockbuster didn't even have the box for me to check.

Haha, game ownage!!

Funny thing about the original MGS for me was the first time it came out, I wanted to rent it simply because I didn't have the money, but my dad saw that Blockbuster didn't have any copies and the disappointed look on my face and pretty much said "Screw it" and took me to Toyrus right away to buy a copy.

I love my dad.

First time I must have spent half an hour thinking "Where the hell is freakin' code supposed to be?!! Back of the CD case, what CD case!!" I kept calling the codec, checking everywhere. I felt like a total dumbass figuring it meant the actual real life MGS1 game case. Still pretty damn cool of involving the player.
 
blindrocket said:
Yes, but I would be in the extreme minority.
I prefer "iron sights" in all of my shooters, even of the Doom variety. But I'm a strange fellow. Floating crosshairs should go away, IMO.
I know that Ninja Gaiden is true to the originals, I have no complaint about that, but as I was playing it, I thought to myself "whoever heard of a Ninja that doesn't use stealth?"
My quest for realism in games is difficult, but I must realise that I'm in the minority and they must cater to the masses. At least in games like Call of Duty you can turn the crosshairs off, but that also has an iron sights option, where a lot of shooters don't give you that.
I'm glad that games are slowly but surely moving away from the "health pack" idea, but RE4 sure did drop a hell of a lot of ammo and first aid sprays. Why these crazy farmers had their pockets loaded up with bullets I will never know. :D

Realistically speaking, I've never heard of any ninja, period.

Actually, the whole ammo thing in RE4 was enjoyable. It's what made it still a GAME, and not just some exercise in being as realistic as possible (I mean, ammo aside, what about money, the ammo-crows, and the salesman?). Teh settings for most games are fantasy, and it only makes sense.

But I know where you're coming from - sometimes you're really immersed in a game, but something like that can pull you out. Typically, though, I find that the more realistic a game tried to get, teh more easy it is for something minor to pull you of the experience. Example: Fences, invisible walls and locked doors in Silent Hill2. It was all very real looking but seeing that you couldn't even jump a fence... and on teh other hand, something like Wind Waker, you hit a giant Stone cliff, can't go on, and just go oh well... it doesn't stick out as obvious as it does when a game world is presented to be life like.
 
DavidDayton said:
(As an aside, I really, REALLY hate the MGS developers who decided that breaking the 4th wall through a weird puzzle was a good idea. "BACK OF THE PACKAGE"... yeah, go ahead, completely destroy "game reality" for the sake of a stupid puzzle)

That wasnt even the worst part, infinitely regenerating baddies, flashing corpses, Bosses that become invounerable for a short time, totaly took me out of the of the game reality and just yelled 'poor game design'. Instead of making fun of Splinter Cell, Hideo needs to be taking notes.
 
blindrocket said:
I know that Ninja Gaiden is true to the originals, I have no complaint about that, but as I was playing it, I thought to myself "whoever heard of a Ninja that doesn't use stealth?"
That's where the Tenchu games come in (just played Kurenai last night btw, my first Tenchu game... it rocks!) :)
 
I don't see why one has to be sacrificed for the other. Or why there even really needs to be a preference. Ideally, I want both. I can see a lot of fucking awesome games coming from such strict adherence to the laws of this world. People haven't gone far enough with it yet, in my view. At the very least, a game which offers to opportunity to play with this sort of "difficulty" would be incredible for me. In the example of a realistic warzone-type game, every bullet then becomes your life.

On the other hand, there's plenty of room for fantasy, crazy wacky shit, whatever. Lots of areas haven't been explored, as I'm sure Revolution will soon demonstrate.
 
Until we have 180 preriferial vision with 3D depth perseption and 60.1 suround sound, one shot kills would be a little too hard to avoid without much frustration.
 
Chrono said:
What did he say about Splinter Cell?

He made fun of Splinter cell in MGS4 teaser. On the same note Splinter cell needs to get rid of those damn glowing goggles and patch on the back.
 
Amir0x said:
He didn't say anything negative. If I'm not mistaken, Hideo actually said he was fond of the series at one point.

He is, but Snake Fisher was to make fun of the way Sam animates. Notice in the trailer when he's walking there's a loud sound whenever he takes a step?
 
SolidSnakex said:
He is, but Snake Fisher was to make fun of the way Sam animates. Notice in the trailer when he's walking there's a loud sound whenever he takes a step?

Oh I know that. I was just saying that it was a friendly joke rather than a malicious jab, as he has no ill blood toward Splinter Cell.
 
Amir0x said:
Oh I know that. I was just saying that it was a friendly joke rather than a malicious jab, as he has no ill blood toward Splinter Cell.

Yah it wasn't done in a cruel way, just him playing around as he was also poking fun at Raiden in the trailer.

On topic, if MGS ever started trying to be realistic the series would be ruined. It'd be turned into a typical military game which we have dozens of now. A large part of the series charm is that it doesn't take itself all that serious and is unrealistic. There needs to be large mechs and enemies with super power, without that its not MGS.
 
SolidSnakex said:
On topic, if MGS ever started trying to be realistic the series would be ruined. It'd be turned into a typical military game which we have dozens of now. A large part of the series charm is that it doesn't take itself all that serious and is unrealistic. There needs to be large mechs and enemies with super power, without that its not MGS.

Agree 100%. I would like certain things changed, like perhaps seeing codecs in the screen in real-time, but nothing to make it unrealistic.
 
for the right mix of realism and enjoyment, try Operation Flashpoint. being subject to lethal sniper fire from 600m away may sound like a pain in the ass, but its actually exhilariating!
 
I'm abit unsure about the onscreen codec. If you got into a firefight while that was going on you'd miss alot of info. The old codec seems to be gone though, atleast in the trailer since Snake couldn't make any contact with it.
 
SolidSnakex said:
On topic, if MGS ever started trying to be realistic the series would be ruined. It'd be turned into a typical military game which we have dozens of now. A large part of the series charm is that it doesn't take itself all that serious and is unrealistic. There needs to be large mechs and enemies with super power, without that its not MGS.

Yep that's what makes the Metal Gear world so awesome. Many people love the trailers because they're edited very well and push the graphics but to me it was always cool to get a look into the MG world. I saw the trailer for Snake Eater that features its bosses and I'm already itching to finish up 1/2 and move on to 3.
 
SolidSnakex said:
I'm abit unsure about the onscreen codec. If you got into a firefight while that was going on you'd miss alot of info. The old codec seems to be gone though, atleast in the trailer since Snake couldn't make any contact with it.

My ideal way for codecs to be handled real-time is dynamically. For instance, if you're in the middle of a discussion Otacon on the other end might go "Holy shit, what was that? Is that gunfire? Get out of there, Snake!" And the line would go silent. After the firefight subsides, you would re-contact Otacon and the conversation would intelligently recontinue from the time you got cut off. However, because that sounds a tad complicated and probably somewhat out of the realm of possibility to do it in the complex fashion I want, they could simply do call logs. Open up the menu and read anything you think you missed.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd miss information much anyhow. I've played plenty of games where people talk to you during fights, and usually it doesn't seem so distracting that I don't retain the information. Then again, this is next-gen.
 
SolidSnakex said:
Yah it wasn't done in a cruel way, just him playing around as he was also poking fun at Raiden in the trailer.

On topic, if MGS ever started trying to be realistic the series would be ruined. It'd be turned into a typical military game which we have dozens of now. A large part of the series charm is that it doesn't take itself all that serious and is unrealistic. There needs to be large mechs and enemies with super power, without that its not MGS.

So I guess we get to keep our MGS, and with a lot more in part 4.

On the account of realism in games, only to a certain extend. Like most people around here are saying. I agree with the fact that it should never impede on the actual gameplay and/or your experience. You could throw people in a warlike setting, making bullets one-hit, one-kill, but then you'd have to lower the chances of it actually hitting you in the head considerably. Otherwise, the game would be nearly impossible to play, seeing as the enemy forces do have an intention to kill you.

You could work around this with, let's say, bullet-time, but that in it's turn retracts from the realism you try to provide. Like some of you said, it's a difficult balance to find.
 
Amir0x said:
My ideal way for codecs to be handled real-time is dynamically. For instance, if you're in the middle of a discussion Otacon on the other end might go "Holy shit, what was that? Is that gunfire? Get out of there, Snake!" And the line would go silent. After the firefight subsides, you would re-contact Otacon and the conversation would intelligently recontinue from the time you got cut off. However, because that sounds a tad complicated and probably somewhat out of the realm of possibility to do it in the complex fashion I want, they could simply do call logs. Open up the menu and read anything you think you missed.

If they could do that then it'd a great idea. MKII seems to be your codec now which allows Otacon to see whatever is around much like Snake so responding to being underfire during a conversation would work. They'll have plenty of space to put audio this time so Kojima won't have to worry about that.
 
There's an old-school gamer in me that just can't help but enjoy Tecmo Super Bowl more than the latest release of Madden.

As for action games, well I like both styles. Doom and Halo are fantastic, but I also enjoy the 'realism' of games like Battlefield 2.

Battlefield 2 could be much more realistic, but at the cost of fun. Imagine how useless medics and engineers would be if the game really was realistic.
 
Chrono said:
[

Also, how do you think some games will deal with this? I just played against Ninja in MGS yesterday and there's no way I can see the same fight with MGS4 graphics. A few pics:


Dude, your first example has a scene which features a bi-pedal death bot with bio-mechanical legs. Not exactly Rainbow Six were talking about here. :)

Personally I think the whole thing with Realism in games just comes down to consistency and the work put in to truly maintain it. No matter how fantastical or allegorical the world and environment a designer creates, what makes or breaks the immersion in the end is its very own internal believability and cohesion. All the elements that make up an immersive and believable game world- the environment and setting, the characters, the art and the situation work best when they all feel like they're a part of a self contained universe that has its own synergy. As opposed to a series of ideas, artwork and design thrown on the wall that clash with one another. That sense of connectedness and attention to detail (or lack there of) seperates the good art and design from the bad IMO.

Its what makes something like the Metal Gear series so great. As unrealistic, surreal and silly as it is at times, in its own universe everything has an internal logic to it thanks to the level of detail and expression they always aim to achieve.
 
hukasmokincaterpillar said:
Dude, your first example has a scene which features a bi-pedal death bot with bio-mechanical legs. Not exactly Rainbow Six were talking about here. :)

The first part of my post was about realism in games but the last part about MGS4 and the ninja fight in MGS had to do with realism in graphics. I was just wondering how kojima might create a game like MGS that will 'flow' nicely with the uber-real graphics.

I guess I'll get my answer when kojima shows gameplay at E3. Some snippets of a boss fight with one of those mechs would be really cool. :D


 
Chrono said:
I was just wondering how kojima might create a game like MGS that will 'flow' nicely with the uber-real graphics.

He doesn't even consider Snakes model to be realistic, so I doubt much will change in terms of how he chooses the enemies.
 
SolidSnakex said:
So what did you do? Rent MGS?
HomerSimpson-Man said:
First time I must have spent half an hour thinking "Where is freakin' code supposed to be?!! Back of the CD case, what CD case!!" I kept calling the codec, checking everywhere. I felt like a total dumbass figuring it meant the actual real life MGS1 game case. Still pretty damn cool of involving the player.

Nah. I bought it (used, then later on the GC as Twin Snakes)... however, I really find that puzzle to be, well, "broken". The game disc and case does not exist in the world of the game, and thus can't be referenced within the game itself -- it breaks basic rules of gaming by referencing itself. Now, a game referencing controller BUTTONS is okay -- that's a common convention which is necessary due to the nature of video games themselves. But referencing a PACKAGE?

Heck, if the game's manual had the word "OPERATIONS GUIDE" and the game said something about a "manual" -- I could accept that. It's referring to a "disc case" in the context of the game that annoys me. There is no way to solve that within the context of the game... it requires "cheating" to solve the puzzle.
 
DavidDayton said:
Nah. I bought it (used, then later on the GC as Twin Snakes)... however, I really find that puzzle to be, well, "broken". The game disc and case does not exist in the world of the game, and thus can't be referenced within the game itself -- it breaks basic rules of gaming by referencing itself. Now, a game referencing controller BUTTONS is okay -- that's a common convention which is necessary due to the nature of video games themselves. But referencing a PACKAGE?

Heck, if the game's manual had the word "OPERATIONS GUIDE" and the game said something about a "manual" -- I could accept that. It's referring to a "disc case" in the context of the game that annoys me. There is no way to solve that within the context of the game... it requires "cheating" to solve the puzzle.

Dude, MGS has so many instances of this. It tells you to place your controller on the table for fucks sake so that Psycho Mantis can "telepathically" move it. If you have Castlevania on your card, what would he say? It happens all the time, referencing itself/breaking 4th wall. And it's not just MGS. There's plenty of brilliant games that bring attention to the fact that it IS, in fact, a game. Earthbound and Paper Mario do it frequently, to just name two. It's called not taking itself too seriously. And really really, there are no basic rules of gaming in the way you're talking about.
 
Amir0x said:
Dude, MGS has so many instances of this. It tells you to place your controller on the table for f---- sake so that Psycho Mantis can "telepathically" move it. If you have Castlevania on your card, what would he say? It happens all the time, referencing itself/breaking 4th wall. And it's not just MGS. There's plenty of brilliant games that bring attention to the fact that it IS, in fact, a game. Earthbound and Paper Mario do it frequently, to just name two. It's called not taking itself too seriously. And really really, there are no basic rules of gaming in the way you're talking about.

Eh. I didn't mean to say that "breaking the fourth wall" is bad in and of itself. My complaint is that it's a puzzle with an impossible solution. There is no way for the gamer to know that the game isn't referring to an in game item... it's not a puzzle, it's an unfair design choice. Every other "odd" action in the game is odd, but it works within the context of the game. Star Tropics did something similar, but it was made very clear that you needed to check the "letter from your uncle" -- a piece of paper in the box which WAS clearly a letter from the uncle in the game.

Again, the puzzle in entirely "unfair" and bad game design.
 
DavidDayton said:
Eh. I didn't mean to say that "breaking the fourth wall" is bad in and of itself. My complaint is that it's a puzzle with an impossible solution. There is no way for the gamer to know that the game isn't referring to an in game item... it's not a puzzle, it's an unfair design choice. Every other "odd" action in the game is odd, but it works within the context of the game. Star Tropics did something similar, but it was made very clear that you needed to check the "letter from your uncle" -- a piece of paper in the box which WAS clearly a letter from the uncle in the game.

Again, the puzzle in entirely "unfair" and bad game design.

It depends on if you did or did not solve the puzzle without problem. I didn't have any issues - I figured it out fairly quickly. Because I was thinking outside the box, like I typically should in a Metal Gear game. An impossible solution would mean that there is no way to overcome it, no way to solve it. It is perhaps difficult, perhaps unclear to many people. But impossible it is not.

In any event, what you're complaining about is completely different from your argument about "breaking the rules of gaming." You're saying that it didn't do a good enough job of providing hints about what they meant when the time came to use the CD case. That's just an issue with game design itself, not the subject of breaking the 4th wall.
 
Top Bottom