|
There are many changes coming about in the game industry, and the biggest one has to do with the balance of Realism vs. Fun. Realism in games does not necessarily mean realism in the real world. For example, zombies are not a common occurrence in our world (at least where I live), but are seen quite often in the Resident Evil universe. Fun is the sacrifice of realism made to give the player a more fun experience. The 3D Super Mario games (64, Sunshine, Galaxy), for example, have rather small trickles of realism, but the game overall is too unreal for players to accept as real for even the Mario universe.
A major factor in the balance between the Yin and Yang (Realism and Unrealism) are the graphics. Uncharted 2 has amazing graphics, and their realism really immerses the player. Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker has cartoony graphics that seem more fun than serious and real. So which is more fun? It may depend on the gamer and what he/she is used to playing, but many gamers both play and enjoy games like Gears of War and Katamari.
A characteristic that many times defines a game's realism are the puzzles. The Half Life games have many very real puzzles and problems. At one point in a game, you must find a way to continue the flow of electricity between two seperated wires. Putting a near-by tin can between the wires completes the circuit. This is a very good solution in the real world, if under the same circumstances with limited resources. In Lego Star Wars, if both players step on the two switches near a door, it will open. This setup is VERY unreal, as it would probably be an inconvenient security feature for an enemy base, but puzzles like this are fun, even without realism!
In fact, most people see Realism vs. Unrealism as the deciding factor as to whether a game is "hardcore" or "casual" (although there are many games that are the opposite) amongst action-adventures. The sad thing is that these two fields are becoming more and more extreme (super-realistic or extremely fake), with fewer and fewer in-betweens. This makes sense in some cases, though. The upcoming Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction focuses on realism. Real graphics, real gameplay, real surroundings, and more and more real all promote the theme of... well, real! A "step on the large red button on the ground to unlock the door" puzzle is not going to flow with the rest of the game. If in the upcoming Super Mario Galaxy 2 game you had to find a bar of soap in a restroom, and mold it into a key to unlock the door, the entire flow of the game would be ruined, and the player would be confused. Throwing in realism, like picking a lock, to balance out the unrealism, like jumping on mushrooms to kill them, who then shoot out a coin, does not improve the game.
Another sad effect of the battle between realism and unrealism are the huge generalizations made in games. If you see a game with cartoony graphics, you will automatically think "casual". There are some exceptions to this, but it's pretty much always correct! We as designers need to ask ourselves why this is. A game with stylized graphics can have all of the realism as Grand Theft Auto 4, and a game with real graphics can have the fun of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.
A great example of a mix between realism and unrealism is The Legend of Zelda series, which every game designer (current or aspiring) should play and learn a lot from about game design. It has always been on the front of evolutionizing games. The Ocarina of Time had near the best graphics for its time (it was one of the only 3D games), included realism to solve puzzles, but also unrealism. For instance, shooting a glowing light on the wall with your bow and arrow might for some reason open the door on the other side of the room (an example of an unrealistic puzzle). At the same time, jumping off of a cliff onto a huge spiderweb might break it, opening a new floor to explore (an example of a realistic puzzle).
I believe, although it would be EXTREMELY risky and most likely be a failure, if done correctly under the right setting, world, and circumstances, a game that balances realism and fun could be the sensation that the industry has been waiting for for a long time.
|
Real = Artistic Goal
Real = Technical Goal
Real != Gameplay Goal
In most cases, any reality that a game promotes is just the flavor and context for whatever the game play is. You can take that gameplay and apply it to almost any setting. GTA could easily be recreated in a cartoon world. Would it sell as many copies? Probably not. The realism of the setting helps sell that game as much if not more than the game mechanics.
Very few experienced gamers, game designers, or game educators would agree with this statement. In fact, the vast majority of them would explain how such a view is a misperception that might be held by inexperienced people who are uneducated about game theory and design. For example, I seriously doubt that experienced designers and educators such as Brenda Brathwaite would voice such a view or teach her students such misperceptions.
I'd also disagree with a need for designers to play Zelda or other so-called "popular" products. In fact, I'd strongly advise playing other products that have had strong lifetime performance but not necessarily the mass market recognition of various "popular" titles so as to gain an understanding of a much broader view of what games are. For example, go with successful franchies like Ys or Phantasy Star (within fantasy RPG genre such as Zelda) or go with hybrid franchises like Langrisser or Growlanser to see how games can combine many elements into a singular experience. With respect to puzzles and similar design elements, I'd suggest Primal because of the idea of cooperative puzzle-solving using different strenghts of characters combined with excellent (for its time) graphical presentation of the fantastic environments (and real world setting, when they occur). Half-Life will probably be a standard for combining realism within the game setting with realism in puzzles and obstacles for quite some time, as it already has lasted for over a decade... or perhaps we should call it "believability" rather than "realism."
Ultimately, I find most games that offer "realistic" graphics are not enjoyable to play. I can see reality every day, so unless I want to look for specific tasks in reality, I don't think most people are that interested in "realism" in a game environment, per se. Of course, this goes back to "believable" rather than "realistic" because most games that trumpet their "realistic" graphics actually are not all that realistic when compared to real world environments and behaviors. They may often be believable, but I don't usually find them realistic... but being believable is more important for enjoyment anyway since you won't really focus on the unrealistic aspect while playing as long as you believe.
So... I was throwing out a generalization, in hopes that you could identify it's incorrectness, and show you one of the major problems in the gaming industry.
My theory (which obviously has some flaws because so many morons like Reality TV) is that people do not want reality in entertainment media. I have full confidence that they would open their doors, walk outside and engage in reality if that's really what they want. Most people don't. They want a credible but unreal world and action that entertains and escapes. This might explain the flaw I mentioned. Reality TV isn't real, simply put. That's why people like it. Could it even be real? I mean I don't know many people that own mansions that invite over lots of hot/trashy members of the opposite sex and make them compete for their love by cheesy wit, terribly worded conversation, and bizarre contests. Call me weird, but I know no one that does that in reality. In fact, very little of "reality" media (tv, games, movies, whatever) actually resemble real world scenarios. They simply have characters that look slightly more like regular people.
On the note of fun: in games, fun is king. If the game isn't fun, it's probably not a game at all nor is it anything worth your time. This is why I can't get into freeplay games, because most are simply not fun, but that's another rant for another time.
I agree that credibility and fun should be striven for though. I think it's mostly developers that read this websites so let's talk less and do more about that!
And I wasn't saying that realism makes for fun. It's just that some games are strengthened by realistic graphics. Some aren't. Mario isn't going photorealistic any time soon. But, if the game is believable, than that can be fun and more immersive, like the upcoming Splinter Cell: Conviction. It takes place in our universe, and follows its rules. Great graphics, no cutscenes, and one-shot deaths give us the illusion that what is taking place is real, which immerses us, which can build the fun of the game.
In this article, I was simply saying that different games can be benefitted/hurt by realism and unrealism, and that people need to stop looking at whether the graphics are realistic or not to stamp the game as casual or hardcore, unrealistic or realistic.