Realism vs. Fun
Every day in the modding world we see projects releasing media and boasting about how realistic their weaponry, environments, physics and AI are. We have new technology coming down the pipeline that promises us ever more realistic physics in the form of PPUs. New shader technology that gives us more realistic textures. And somewhere in this flood of progress, the idea has spawned that realism must, by its very nature, be a good thing in a game.
Personally, I think this whole trend has got to be one of the most collectively stupid ideas we've seen in ages.
People play games to escape from reality - to experience something different and divert their attention from their every day lives. To solve puzzles or challenges that they don't see in their normal world, or visit unusual places, or participate in activities that they can't or wouldn't normally do.
Up to a point, some games can benefit from a certain measure of realism. After all, immersion is a great tool for improving the impact of your game. But does every single first person shooter mod out there have to have "the most realistic guns"?
I'm sure the apologists for the realism in gaming faction will quite confidently state that more realistic weapons and physics means more immersion, which means more fun. Where I disagree with this viewpoint is that more immersion necessarily equates to more fun.
Look at a game like F.E.A.R. F.E.A.R. is probably best described as "first person shooter goes Hollywood". Everything in the game is over-the-top, from the plot tension to the particle effects. There is absolutely no concession to reality in the game whatsoever - every visual, every line of dialogue, every encounter is pushed to the extreme and provide maximum impact, regardless of whether it's "real". Despite this total lack of attention to realism, it's one of the best titles in the FPS genre - fun, visually pleasing, and quite creepy.
Looking at the modding scene, some of the most interesting and well received mods out there have thrown out the whole idea of realism. Garry's Mod for Half Life 2 is a prime example. It's a huge, unrealistic toybox full of neat tools that bend the reality of the Source engine into pretzels, yet it's still fresh, innovative, and fun.
Realism for the sake of ever-more immersion at the cost of fun is silly, and I am tired of seeing the endless zombified masses chanting about how great it is.
If realism makes a game more fun, great. But if it doesn't, then it doesn't, and they should recognize this and stop apologizing for it.
I think too many have forgotten that immersion is one way to produce fun, but it isn't the only way, nor the most important.
Even "reality TV" shows aren't realistic, and yet they're hugely popular.
Video games don't need to be, either.
Personally, I think this whole trend has got to be one of the most collectively stupid ideas we've seen in ages.
People play games to escape from reality - to experience something different and divert their attention from their every day lives. To solve puzzles or challenges that they don't see in their normal world, or visit unusual places, or participate in activities that they can't or wouldn't normally do.
Up to a point, some games can benefit from a certain measure of realism. After all, immersion is a great tool for improving the impact of your game. But does every single first person shooter mod out there have to have "the most realistic guns"?
I'm sure the apologists for the realism in gaming faction will quite confidently state that more realistic weapons and physics means more immersion, which means more fun. Where I disagree with this viewpoint is that more immersion necessarily equates to more fun.
Look at a game like F.E.A.R. F.E.A.R. is probably best described as "first person shooter goes Hollywood". Everything in the game is over-the-top, from the plot tension to the particle effects. There is absolutely no concession to reality in the game whatsoever - every visual, every line of dialogue, every encounter is pushed to the extreme and provide maximum impact, regardless of whether it's "real". Despite this total lack of attention to realism, it's one of the best titles in the FPS genre - fun, visually pleasing, and quite creepy.
Looking at the modding scene, some of the most interesting and well received mods out there have thrown out the whole idea of realism. Garry's Mod for Half Life 2 is a prime example. It's a huge, unrealistic toybox full of neat tools that bend the reality of the Source engine into pretzels, yet it's still fresh, innovative, and fun.
Realism for the sake of ever-more immersion at the cost of fun is silly, and I am tired of seeing the endless zombified masses chanting about how great it is.
If realism makes a game more fun, great. But if it doesn't, then it doesn't, and they should recognize this and stop apologizing for it.
I think too many have forgotten that immersion is one way to produce fun, but it isn't the only way, nor the most important.
Even "reality TV" shows aren't realistic, and yet they're hugely popular.
Video games don't need to be, either.
1 Comments:
As a fan of realism I wish it was a zombified mass of players jumping the fence to more realism oriented FPS games, but the audience is still somewhat niche if you just go by the numbers online. For example a realism game like Red Orchestra has a total player base that is a tiny fraction of say Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, which are both games I would equate with the more arcady side of the spectrum.
Fun is relative. I'm 36 years old and have been playing FPS games since Doom. My own transition to realism games came when I started craving less of a hollywood stunts experience and more of a tactical simulation. To say that everyone plays game to escape reality is incorrect. Look at the number of sim games. Games allow people to be Railroad Tycoons and fighter pilots. Sure they are escaping their *own* reality, but on another level they are craving another reality, and for some people the more accurate the alternate reality the more fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home