Realism In Gaming
illuminex
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Since I'm bored arguing about politics.</div> Realism in gaming: it seems to be the Holy Grail, the unreachable standard of the entire Gaming Industry. To make people feel like they're inside the game, that there is a player/game connection. Half Life was, in my opinion, the first game to really take this technology and apply it to real game immersion, which would be why it won practically every important award and was basically called the #1 game of all time.
But, as gaming reaches higher and higher towards its lofty ultimate goals, what are the dangers? Is true immersion a positive or negative thing? What are the effects of total immersion on people? On society?
That's what this thread's about. Give your thoughts, keep it intelligent, and keep it without flame.
But, as gaming reaches higher and higher towards its lofty ultimate goals, what are the dangers? Is true immersion a positive or negative thing? What are the effects of total immersion on people? On society?
That's what this thread's about. Give your thoughts, keep it intelligent, and keep it without flame.
Comments
But, as gaming reaches higher and higher towards its lofty ultimate goals, what are the dangers? Is true immersion a positive or negative thing? What are the effects of total immersion on people? On society?
That's what this thread's about. Give your thoughts, keep it intelligent, and keep it without flame. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think we can really go much further in realism without replacing the mouse as the interactive medium. You can only do so much with a mouse and have it feel natural.
However, with graphics I feel we're pretty close. A little bit further and we'll have nearly photorealistic worlds with realistic lighting and posistional audio.
But I suppose you could take 'realism' in the other direction (than immersion) and bring it over to simulation (which would probably stem from the two topics in OT...eh?). They appeal to me, but I know that's not how it is for everyone.
Anyone that says "What do you get from realism in games though?" Needs to remember that video and computer games are intended as a source of entertainment. They're intended to let you live a life that's not really yours, let you do things you'd never be able to do in real life.
If I want to try out being a sniper in the depths of the Columbian jungle, adjusting my scope for wind shear and bullet drop while trying to stay camoflauged while rebel patrols circle around me - it's my choice; I want to try it out. The more realistic factors you can throw in there to stretch immersion, the better (in those situations).
You need to remember there are different types of games though, just like there are different types of movies (and books). You've got realistic action movies, you've got your rambo action movies, you've got dramas. And it doesn't mean they can't all be appealing.
There might be a perfectly simulated game out there someday. Sometimes it's just not what you want.
Take the Titanic for example (and a fairly bland part of it): Near the end, the ship sinks under the water. In the movie DiCaprio's saying "Stick with me, the ships going to pull us under." While in reality (based on eye-witness accounts [I believe it's the guy you see take a swig of whiskey in the movie]) the ship didn't create a big suction.
You wouldn't really have a dramatic or climactic end if they just sunk into the water and sat on a door for the next 15 minutes, would you?
[conversely, it'd be cool to see what a realistically simulated Titanic sinking would look like, so realism can work both ways]
The only danger I see with total immersion is a 'matrix' like effect, where people wouldn't know if they're playing a game or being in the real world (though I doubt that level of technology will ever be achieved). There would probably be safety measures implemented to prevent things like that...or maybe even psychological tests for you to play 'total immersion games'. Or maybe everyone on the planet will go psycho and we'll nuke ourselves.
Then again, I'm not entirely sure what you were going for with the topic, so maybe I'm way off of what I should be talking about.
I guess you were asking more for opinions though, not theoretical rants. I think realism in games is good in moderation, but could be overdone. Also, I think that realism just makes games less playable and less fun than they otherwise could be. I think authenticity and realism can be balanced with playability and fun well, such as in Delta Force Black Hawk Down. It feels like you're an Army Ranger, fighting your way through the dusty streets of Mogadishu, but it's not realistic. The same could be said for Call of Duty. It has a good, unrealistic but authentic-feeling rendition of fights for Ste. Mere Eglise, Red Square, etc.
Although some games are as realistic as possible, like Republic: The Revolution and Operation Flashpoint. I don't mind this, some games need realism as part of their identity and to be unique. I just don't think they're as fun as, say Half-Life or Shogun Total War.
I guess you were asking more for opinions though, not theoretical rants. I think realism in games is good in moderation, but could be overdone. Also, I think that realism just makes games less playable and less fun than they otherwise could be. I think authenticity and realism can be balanced with playability and fun well, such as in Delta Force Black Hawk Down. It feels like you're an Army Ranger, fighting your way through the dusty streets of Mogadishu, but it's not realistic. The same could be said for Call of Duty. It has a good, unrealistic but authentic-feeling rendition of fights for Ste. Mere Eglise, Red Square, etc.
Although some games are as realistic as possible, like Republic: The Revolution and Operation Flashpoint. I don't mind this, some games need realism as part of their identity and to be unique. I just don't think they're as fun as, say Half-Life or Shogun Total War. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have computers that can carry out the same number of transactions as a human brain, so why couldn't technology exceed reality? I think it's a viable possability, not keeping my hopes up though... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
I was playing Mafia, the level in the farm, with the rain and everything. Spooky setting :o. Anyways, then my friends calls me on the phone, and he asks me to go biking. I was about to say "it's raining!", when I looked outside in the window, and then at my monitor, and remembered that it's raining only in the game. Good thing I take a long time to answer...
Eh.
It wouldn't simulate the whole universe. It would simulate only what is affecting the client.
Look at it from a client/server perspective. The client's computer does far more work than the server's, since the server is not rendering any video, just position, bullet hits, etc. The server is simply getting numbers.
So, in theory, it wouldn't be one computer doing all the work, it would be all of the client side computers networking through a server. In the future, for a Matrix scenario, you'd have billions of "clients" interacting over hundreds of servers. Remember, there were screwups in the Matrix, glitches and what not. The system wasn't perfect, but people were willing to accept it because the brain made a choice.
It's all about Networking. Billions of computers, millions of servers, hundreds of thousands of server monitors, thousands of Managers, hundreds of executives, and a chosen few laughing at the top. The ultimate networking pyramid, with the bottom not even clear of the Executive's existence.
Networking = The Future is Now. (Stop: don't sue me, it's just a forum <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
It wouldn't simulate the whole universe. It would simulate only what is affecting the client.
Look at it from a client/server perspective. The client's computer does far more work than the server's, since the server is not rendering any video, just position, bullet hits, etc. The server is simply getting numbers.
So, in theory, it wouldn't be one computer doing all the work, it would be all of the client side computers networking through a server. In the future, for a Matrix scenario, you'd have billions of "clients" interacting over hundreds of servers. Remember, there were screwups in the Matrix, glitches and what not. The system wasn't perfect, but people were willing to accept it because the brain made a choice.
It's all about Networking. Billions of computers, millions of servers, hundreds of thousands of server monitors, thousands of Managers, hundreds of executives, and a chosen few laughing at the top. The ultimate networking pyramid, with the bottom not even clear of the Executive's existence.
Networking = The Future is Now. (Stop: don't sue me, it's just a forum <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True to an extent, but the problem with that is that potentially anything could affect the client.
Well.... there's that, yes, as far as realism and simulation goes (imagine the training exercises we could come up with, not just for soldiers but doctors, drivers, etc)., to have every little detail would be fabulous.
But as far as entertainment goes, do you really want that? You can have realism to a degree - there are those games out there where you get on a mounted motorcycle, or hold up a lightgun, etc. - but what if you added more realism, to the point where you had to know how to really handle that rifle, to adjust for the wind, to hide properly... catch my drift? ^^ Just a tangent of thought, I guess; "when is it TOO MUCH realism to no longer be entertaining?" And to continue on that thread, let's say we had a realistic war game, and you get shot. How far would the game go to let you know you get shot? What if it gave you such adrenaline, the shock and fear that you were shot, that it was unhealthy?
Maybe I'm going too far with the realism angle, but anyway, just my thoughts. ^^
Well.... there's that, yes, as far as realism and simulation goes (imagine the training exercises we could come up with, not just for soldiers but doctors, drivers, etc)., to have every little detail would be fabulous.
But as far as entertainment goes, do you really want that? You can have realism to a degree - there are those games out there where you get on a mounted motorcycle, or hold up a lightgun, etc. - but what if you added more realism, to the point where you had to know how to really handle that rifle, to adjust for the wind, to hide properly... catch my drift? ^^ Just a tangent of thought, I guess; "when is it TOO MUCH realism to no longer be entertaining?" And to continue on that thread, let's say we had a realistic war game, and you get shot. How far would the game go to let you know you get shot? What if it gave you such adrenaline, the shock and fear that you were shot, that it was unhealthy?
Maybe I'm going too far with the realism angle, but anyway, just my thoughts. ^^ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't actually mind having to adjust my rifle and attempt to be camoflauged. It would give you a chance to experience someone else's life with your knowledge instead of theirs. Although, in all realistic ideas: the game would probably sell very little without giving you information how to play and what you should be doing.
It would also make more sense to allow scalability in the realism. While some people may want the above type situation, others might just want to see how many rebels they could snipe before dieing themselves, or try to get the furthest shot or maybe even some guy who wants to go down there and try to make friends with the rebels and join them.
I think the realism works in the same way people enjoy drama genre movies. And while they may enjoy their hero's sacrifice or the hero's seemingly imminent demise - only to be saved by our old friend deus ex machina.
And while I may want to try out the example above, I'd be fine playing games like HL2 (or even just Half-Life), or AvP2 or NWN.
[although that does bring up one thing for me: I'd love a game where I could play as a Predator with realistic human hunting <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I loves me mah Predators.]
Imagine what the world of "cyber sex" would be like?
I remember posting in a previous thread about how the "digital world" is become infinitely more influential in our daily lives. Well, imagine how much people would lose out on the wonders of the physical world with the advent of the super-entertainment-plugyourselfin industry? Imagine how easy it would be to influence people. How easy it would be to control people.
As much as I think of the amazing experiences that could be had in the plug-in digital world, I think that the physical world is somewhat....better.
However, realism will have no limit, because realism is simply the imitation of the real world in entertainment. As long as a customer wants to plug himself in, there will be improvements, new additions, and more "realism."
What these games most probably want to capture is the challenge of some realistic game elements. Like realistic gun recoil, iron crosshairs, slow and noisy movement, etc. Mastering these mechanics gives the player a sense of mastery just like any other game mechanical element.
If a game designer mistakes the entire scope of realism for a challenging game environment, he's no longer a game designer: He's a simulation designer.
A realistic environment might also help to give the game immersiveness. It captures the player, and it makes it easier for the player to relate to what's going on in-game. Of course, this might not always be a good thing -- I believe there should be a clear line between game and reality.
As a final note: Not even real life games are realistic. They are still incredible enjoyable; perhaps because of that.
But, as gaming reaches higher and higher towards its lofty ultimate goals, what are the dangers? Is true immersion a positive or negative thing? What are the effects of total immersion on people? On society?
That's what this thread's about. Give your thoughts, keep it intelligent, and keep it without flame. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To get True immersement find the part of brain that makes dream and just manipulate it to the games will using brain implants. It will be dangerous of course but would be fantastic
They removed crosshairs, ammo and health gauges, and with ff on, it seems like the best simulation of a real world situation. They say CS is realistic har har. Since when do people take 10 bullets with a glock and live?