We all know that games are becoming more realistic with movie quality graphics, high quality physics, and basic things that make it feel real. However I have a bit of a beef with game developers on the small things that they could easily put into games to make them be more realistic and generally improve the quality of the game itself.

But first lets review, what are the things that are in most recent games that are realistic?

-In first person shooters, recoil effects weapon accuracy

-High quality graphics on objects and models

-Projectiles are effected by the laws of physics/bullets can penetrate weak surfaces

-Ragdolls

-Somewhat destructible environments

-So much more, just think about your typical game like Call of Duty or Motorstorm, and the physics and graphics that they have.

Now personally, I think that games are still missing many small details that would make the games just that more interesting, allowing you to submerge yourself in the game, and possibly never put down the controller. Small details make a difference in gameplay, regardless of the game genre. Here are some examples.

-Realistic shadows and lighting effects (few games have this)

-Ground objects such as grass should have 3d models that flow in the wind (note to developers, grass is not a texture)

-Fully destructible environments (Red Faction: Guerrilla, thanks for setting the example!)

-Explosion realism (One would think grenades would make stuff other than dirt go flying, and did you know that when you activate a real grenade, there is only 5 seconds until it explodes?)

-Vehicle Realism (Last time I checked, if you crash into a brick wall at full speed, you end up dead, not with your car bouncing backwards a bit and your engine taking no damage, MotorStorm is the only game I can think of with somewhat realistic vehicle physics.)

-So much more, some easier for developers to implement than others.

Now, I am not saying that current games are unrealistic, they are the most realistic the world has ever seen to date, however before companies like Sony or Microsoft try to step forward to Motion Capture technology, they should ensure that the games that plan to use it are realistic enough to provide the, dare I say it, "Perfect Gaming Experience" for the first time. We hate to admit it, but graphics and realism has a large impact on how we would rate a game. Personally I would like to see a game that has full weather and wind effects, and a fully destructible environment, with these effects on the environment effecting the gameplay with constant change, such as a high wind speed effecting a snipers bullet or rain on the ground making it harder to control a vehicle. The technology exists, it just requires some extra thought to put it in.

But I would like to ask, what do you think? Are small changes for added realism necesary to improve gameplay? Or should games simply have more stuff to do and see, and make the gameplay last longer? Leave a comment!

-Lucas Penney