The different between Realism and Immersion

A lot of developers and SW posters talk about games being realistic. Developers usually say their game is good because it's realistic, whereas SW posters prefer to bash on stuff that isn't realistic. Here's what I think about it:

REALISM SUCKS.

You may think you like a game to be realistic, but you're wrong. If a game was realistic, you would die after only getting shot once, you would spend hours of the game talking to people and waiting, you would have to actually play for a year before you levelled up even once, and most of that playtime would be training rather than killing monsters. Realism is dead boring. If realism was fun we wouldn't be playing games, we'd be living real life.

But some realistic things are cool. The graphics in Resistance, the two-gun limit in Halo, the physics in Half-Life 2, the NPCs in Elder Scrolls... all these features are realistic and also great additions to the game. But the reason they are good is not because they're realistic, it's because they're immersive. Stuff like that makes you feel more like you're in the game rather than sitting on your couch, which is great. When these elements of realism are added, the game world becomes more believable.

However, not all realistic things are immersive. When, for example, in The Getaway, you have to shoot guys with no aimer and fire your gun with no ammo counter, it actually makes you less immersed, because you're constantly distracted by thinking "Why the hell did they take out all the HUD from this game?" Basically, a realistic element only works if it is also a good gameplay element. Like in Halo, the two-gun limit makes you think before you pick up a weapon. The AI in Elder Scrolls means you can do a lot more things with NPCs, hire them, attack them, annoy them and so on.

Now here's the thing: A game doesn't have to be immersive to be good. In Super Mario Bros, did you ever once feel like you really were a fat plumber jumping on mushrooms? Thought not. And even if the game is trying to be immersive, it doesn't have to be realistic. For example, Twilight Princess - I would say this is an immersive game. It doesn't have HDR lighting or whatever, it doesn't have limited inventory space. That's because it's not set in a realistic world. Instead it's a kind of lightweight fantasy anime world. So it is immersive in other ways, with its beautiful art design, excellent draw distance over large areas, and well-designed dungeons.

The point is, realism for realism's sake is never a good thing in a videogame. Like any other form of art*, games should be about the player's experience.

*If you don't think games are art, argue about it in another topic, please.

Very good post.

I remember at one point I spazzed out when playing Windwaker. It's scairy to think how close that game was to perfection graphically. It felt like a cartoon and worked well whilst playing. At that point I noticed how graphics can actually help the gameplay. More of style than number crunching.

Realism has it's place but the enjoyment factor cannot simply derive from that alone. Sometimes the way a game plays is tweaked from it. It's why I give alot of kudos to EA for FNR3.

If a game was realistic, you would have to actually play for a year before you levelled up even once, and most of that playtime would be training rather than killing monsters. chutup

:|

in The Getaway, you have to shoot guys with no aimer and fire your gun with no ammo counter, it actually makes you less immersedchutup

I think it's nice when the HUD feels like part of the game. Metroid Prime (hud) and STALKER (sights) do this well.

[QUOTE="chutup"]If a game was realistic, you would have to actually play for a year before you levelled up even once, and most of that playtime would be training rather than killing monsters. Lilac_Benjie

?

:|

I think it's nice when the HUD feels like part of the game. Metroid Prime (hud) and STALKER (sights) do this well.

Think about RPGs for a second and you'll see their leveling systems are completely unrealistic. Assuming we're talking about a fantasy RPG, most medieval soldiers would have learned most of their skills from training and practice bouts with allies. Not to mention they probably only killed up to 50 people in their entire career, a far cry from the hordes of random goblins you slaughter in most RPGs.

Excellent post. I think what most people want from games (in general) is a movie level of realism. People in real life are not really able to run and shoot two sub machine guns simultaneously with excellent accuracy. In real life hiding behind a desk or a thin wall or door is not gonna protect you from assault rifle bullets. Real life physics are good up until a point, but would we be really pleased with the physics if our character just dropped dead for no apparent reason because of a random ricochet from a firefight at the opposite side of a level. Realistic AI is a good thing up until a point, but too realistic and games would be imposibly hard, all those 4 against 1 situations would result in instant death. Plus the best AI would use the annoying tricks that real people use in games, like bunnyhopping etc. Would COD4 be as immersive if the enemy soldiers were all bunny hopping across the levels. As far as graphics, for games that are supposed to represent real life, the closer to reality the better, although the most important thing is to avoid glitches, I don't care how good the textures are if you see a tank stuck five feet off the ground (happened to me in a Medal of Honor game) any feeling of 'being there' is gone. Plus there is no real mechanism to interact with your environment to the full extent that you can in real life so there is always going to be a certain level of disconnect.

Realistic immersiveness:

waht about graphics? i take realism in graphics as a good thing. but for all else, i guess i agree.