Talking about realism in video games

[SleightRocket]

I don't know about you guys, but when I play a video game, I want to feel like I'm playing a video game. I enjoy fun graphics, not real graphics. What are your thoughts/opinions about this?

[danceswithsloths]

i enjoy either one, as long as it's done well and is a fun game. i'm currently playing Red Dead 2 and the Spyro Reignited Trilogy which are pretty much polar opposites but both great games.

[HuntingFever]

10 minutes ago, danceswithsloths said:

i enjoy either one, as long as it's done well and is a fun game. I'm currently playing Red Dead 2 and the Spyro Reignited Trilogy which are pretty much polar opposites but both great games.

This^

 

There's a fine line where it comes to realism because if a game is too realistic, it can quickly become a bore to play and cause players to drop it like a hot brick but things can also go too far the other way with certain genres so we end up with games that are so unrealistic that it takes you out of the experience and the game in question becomes a farce.

[Elvick_]

I don't like "realism" much at all, developers should stick to stylized realism if they want to tell more grounded stories. Because technology isn't there yet. Watching Elena eat in Uncharted 4, for example, is really weird and uncanny. And TLoU2 looks to have similar problems due to them designing the characters more realistically instead of doing stylized realism like on PS3.

 

edit; and "realistic" environments are just kind of bland. Everybody's Gone to the Rapture comes to mind. Good graphics, but it's boring to look at. Game has other problems, but everything is just so sterile and "realistic". The only thing that made me go "wow, that's amazing" is the rain which barely ever happens and only in one area of the game. The way the water would land and ripple off things was immensely impressive. But then I love water so.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Elvick_

[Durandal]

I pretty much prefer stylized graphics over so called real graphics. It is much more interesting! Especially when the creators come up with something really intriguing or artistic. Like Trine or the Warcraft III for example. Sure "real" graphics has it's appeal but it always falls short to stylized graphics.

 

But my real issue with realistic graphics is more technical and hence complicated. It's a bit of a rant I agree but here you go ...

 

There is no such thing as realistic graphics in video games anyway. Never has been, never will be. The problem with the current technology is simply put a fake or an illusion. Realistic lightning is simply not possible in real time, since it requires a lot of computing power. Current tech uses a raster that simply put traces every light from the camera to the source, which is not how real lightning works. Our eyes and anything else receives light and it reacts with the surface, which creates almost infinite light sources. And that's something you can't simulate. Raytracing is a technology that simulates it to a point and it is only possible in per-rendered images or movies. This may sound like a silly argument when you consider how good games can look but it is still not real, and you can see the difference, especially when it comes to shadows and diffuse lightning, and more importantly reflections in any surface, not just glass. These things will always be limited, not just the real world.

 

Another thing is how the real world is actually build. I am talking about particles, elements and all the physics that is involved in our universe. Of course a game doesn't have to simulate the physical world but it needs to create an object from very small "particles" otherwise you will always have a somewhat flat surface that is covered with a few objects, or even a lot but you will still see the flat surface eventually, if you look close enough. It is literally all in the detail! Just look at a tree and you will see how much detail a simple object like a tree has, and then look at a tree in any game. It looks complete unreal when you compare it to the real thing, of course you have to look close enough. And it also looks unreal if you look how objects are arranged in any virtual world, they usually hover somehow or stick unrealistically in a surface. Our world and consequently real images look is so detailed and random, it cannot be replicated not with such immense detail. While a computer generated world always looks too orderly or simple.

 

But the most striking argument for me is when it comes to animations. Again it looks completely unreal to me, because any object is always animate with a loop of a set amount of motions, most visibly in trees, not to mention the lack of any realistic wind in any game. It usually is just a few trees swaying around almost mechanically and without any relation to the entire scene. Or look at any character in any game, they usually do the same set of animations over and over again. Sure they have a lot of animations available but you have to create a system where a character behaves real in order to have it look real. And a real person doesn't do the same thing over and over again, there is always a variation visible.

 

There might be a time when lightning can somehow be simulated in real time but it will always be limited because of the sheer computing power it requires. Just as it might be possible to calculate all the things that makes our world real. But I highly doubt that it will ever be possible to combine everything that is required to create truly realistic graphics in real time. Because it will always be trade off between what's possible and what a developer is willing to invest. And I doubt that any developer will ever go to such impossible lengths to create a world that looks real, because it will always be too expensive in the end.

 

I also find the idea of creating virtual world that looks real silly. What for? A virtual world is usually set in a fantasy world or an alternative version of our world. Why does it have to look exactly like ours? Personally I find it much more intriguing to explore a stylized world then the real thing, because I just have to go outside to see the real thing! And I have a real problem when characters look real, it is actually a bit disgusting to me. Because it always looks like a lifeless shell to me, albeit a fascinating one but still lifeless. And the more effort they put into making it more real the stranger it looks in the end. You know, Uncanny Valley and all that!

Edited December 30, 2018 by Durandal

[Lorajet]

I like both and my list of games reflects that.  Right now I'm back in GTA V because it is probably the most realistic game I have.  Depends on the mood I'm in really

[Beyondthegrave07]

I don't really focus on the graphics. I focus more on the gameplay. A game can have both realistic graphics and fun gameplay or 8-bit graphics and play wonderfully or vice versa. They could look beautiful and play like crap or look and play awful.

 

Therefore, I'd have to agree with  @danceswithsloths on this. Realistic graphics or not, games tend to find their own way of being great.

 

[trucmucho]

Graphics are just that, graphics.

They do not save a bad game design nor wreck a good game.

 

It's a matter of taste.

[maxijodi]

graphics good or not does not really matter. Depends on a game.....

Jump & run? Graphics don't matter. Puzzle games? Graphics don't matter. Beat 'm' up? No! Novels? No! Sport games? No!

Shooting (online) games: you have the time to look at graphics before you die???

Adventure games? They do!

 

However:

 

 

Ain't that real life with real graphics? ?

Edited December 30, 2018 by maxijodi

[Dr_Mayus]

Well considering that Saints Row, Ratchet and Clank and Katamari are 3 of my favourite series of all time that will answer your question.

 

Also I would much prefer to play NBA Jam, Sega Soccer Slam or NFL Blitz over NBA 2k, Fifa and Madden 

[Carol]

For me, the most important thing is the gameplay. For example, AC Odyssey is beautiful, but, unfortunately, I didn't like the game much, because I thought the missions were too simplistic.

In general, I prefer beautiful realistic graphics (FC 5, TLOU, Uncharted...), with impressive landscapes and buildings, but I don't mind other types of graphics. I enjoyed plenty of games with non-realistic graphics. As long as the game is good...

[Fish613]

5 hours ago, SleightRocket said:

I don't know about you guys, but when I play a video game, I want to feel like I'm playing a video game. I enjoy fun graphics, not real graphics. What are your thoughts/opinions about this?

It depends on my mood and the type of game I'm playing. I love games like God of War but also games like Just Cause. I go into each game with certain expectations and I love playing any genre of game. The most important thing to me is gameplay.  I don't like the idea of narrowing down my choices of games based on it's graphics. Borderlands has some amazing games, even though their graphics are funky. On the same hand, games like Uncharted are still amazing and fun as well.

[Fallen_Chaos_]

I love realism in the way of the characters themselves. I don't really care about graphics at all, never really have. What I look for most of the time is the story and how the characters are written. I love when I'm able to relate with a character / feel for them and their struggle. I get taken out of the experience when dialogue and plot points seem like they're written by someone writing poor fan fiction. If I absolutely had to choose a visual aesthetic though I suppose I lean more towards the fictitious graphics as there's much more artistic freedom that can be done within those types of styles.

[DUDEwithCOFFEE]

On 12/31/2018 at 1:05 AM, SleightRocket said:

I don't know about you guys, but when I play a video game, I want to feel like I'm playing a video game. I enjoy fun graphics, not real graphics. What are your thoughts/opinions about this?

 

I guess it depends by what you consider "realism".

 

Seeing the grass move back and forth or seeing your breath in cold weather in Red Dead Redemption 2 is more of an "attention to detail"  than realism in my opinion, while cleaning your guns after usage is more of a realism. For me, I feel realism is more a simulation aspect in gaming seen in survival for example, and sim games of course. 

 

I do think you need to have a good balance of this depending on the game. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by DUDEwithCOFFEE

[RedRodriguez87]

Kinda disappointing you just kept it in terms of graphics. There is a good chunk of games where the realistic graphics go quite a ways in compliment the gameplay in unique and interesting ways ie GoW and the Infamous series.

 

Now where it gets stupid for me is when one tries to put realism in the gameplay, because it's just not meant to be. It's like you are never gonna fully recreate an authentic farming experience (or ANY activity) and still hope to get people interested in your game, rendering hairs on a horses scrotum doesn't accomplish anything in how the game will be remembered (and really, would you WANT to be remembered as the game with the hairy horse ball-sacks?), and I don't to be doing mundane things that I can easily do in real life.

[Zircon_Lotus]

Sometimes graphic realism seems to be a way to distract the players from a shallow or simply bad gameplay. Other times developers seems to think that their game needs to look real, preferably with dark colors, or their games cant be taken serious. 

Realist elements related to the gameplay, like a character having stamina to limit its actions, can be interesting if done right.

 

Personally as long as the game is interesting I dont care if it's realistic or not, but I seem to favor games that stray from realism. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Zircon_Lotus

[Lava_Yuki]

I don't like realistic games, I much prefer games to look "fake" and like fantasy, with crazy hair and clothes that can't be worn outside a cosplay event irl.

 

I like CG games close to real but not quite best e.g. Final Fantasy, Nier Automata, Resonance of Fate, Horizon Dawn etc. where the characters look somewhat like real humans but aren't, either with their funky hair, slightly deformed body or crazy clothings. This category would be the one I most prefer.

 

I also like the common jrpg regular anime style games like Tales series, Persona and Atelier, not as much as CG games but much more than super realistic games like Life is Strange and Until Dawn where everything is just too close to real life. 

I love how Kingdom Hearts looks as well, it seems to fit right in between the close to Real life CG type games like FF and the anime style games, kind of like CG Anime where everyone has massive heads and even bigger shoes. 

Funky designs are another category I really like where the game looks more exaggerated and deformé, e.g. Disgaea series, Okami HD, The World Ends With you etc. 

 

To be honest, I hate it when realistic elements are added to games, like day and night, having to actually eat, fish and camp at night to avoid the "boogie men" in FFXV was so annoying. In terms of realistic elements like eating and days passing, Persona series seems to get it right in that it doesn't interfere with gameplay. 

 

For certain genres realism can be forgiven like many drama adventure games, but games like rpgs are best being more fictitious imo. 

[Helmet_time]

Personally, I find the quest for realism or the goal of imitating life a rather negative trend in all forms of art. 

 

With a video game you can do anything.  There are no restrictions from pesky things like physics.  Why limit yourself to what is or what is possible.

 

As a practical matter realistic graphics age much faster and more poorly.  Plenty of SNES games with 'cartoony' graphics still look good.  A lot of games that attempted realism back in PS1-PS2 days now look like a right mess.  To say nothing of FMV clips from the 90's

[TJ_Solo]

I don't see how a game using less realistic graphics makes it more of a game or more fun.  Seems superficial to me.

[RadiantFlamberge]

There's such a thing as too much realism in gameplay elements.  A balanced amount of realistic & non-realistic elements can work.  Gun jams (Far Cry 2 did this... there's something I really hate!), backfires, random dud grenades, or getting killed by a headshot in campaign mode are things I don't care to see in a FPS.  Now destructible objects are a nice "realism" feature- such as being able to chip away at a wall your enemy has taken cover behind.

 

On 1/2/2019 at 4:06 PM, Lava_Yuki said:

To be honest, I hate it when realistic elements are added to games, like day and night, having to actually eat, fish and camp at night to avoid the "boogie men" in FFXV was so annoying. In terms of realistic elements like eating and days passing, Persona series seems to get it right in that it doesn't interfere with gameplay. 

Agree.  While I don't mind day/night cycles, I'd rather not have to deal with starvation or lack of sleep in an RPG.  Eating & rest should be strictly to restore HP or gain some certain power.  Having your weapons or armor get damaged & eventually break if you don't fix them is an annoyance.

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

There's such a thing as too much realism in gameplay elements

 

Maybe. However, these's no objective line for anyone to follow or know when anything happens to be "too much". 

The only video game ever built to really establish such a limit has been Desert Bus. Outside of that one instance it's either gamers arguing what they personally like/dislike or developers conversing about game theory and implementation. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by TJ_Solo

[DF007gamer]

On 12/30/2018 at 6:05 PM, SleightRocket said:

I don't know about you guys, but when I play a video game, I want to feel like I'm playing a video game. I enjoy fun graphics, not real graphics. What are your thoughts/opinions about this?

 

I'm not worried about either to be honest. I've played shit games with amazing graphics and played amazing games with shit graphics. For me it's all about good storyline, enjoyment and immersing myself and getting lost in a game. You know when a game is good when you on your way to work/school and you thinking about how you going to play it when you get home. You not thinking about "WOW I have to continue the game because of the graphics".  Even if a game has great/shit graphics you forget about it 10mins into the game. 

[Dauersack]

I can live with either. I have played games that tried to be realistic to the point of utter player discomfort, and then games that were hilariously stupid and over the top. What is kinda important to me is that the game follows its own rules and is consistent with its choices. Both in gameplay and story, sudden switches in tone are almost always done in a bad way and the experience is therefore worse thanks to it. Recently I had this experience with the Uncharted series. While never realistic in terms of gameplay with the hordes of enemies your character kills or the almost physically impossible things he can do with ease for hours, the story was pretty grounded and clearly meant to be a realistic treasure hunt that could happen in any serious movie. So when both Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 started to throw supernatural shit into their stories right before the finish line, I was really irritated by it.

 

The worst offender in that category I have ever played was the game Fahrenheit, which I played more than 10 years ago. The game was marketed as a crime game where you play both sides, the unfortunate criminal who was dragged into things by what appeared to be a mental breakdown, and the police trying to catch him. The depression of the criminal protagonist was a constant theme in this game, giving off the impression that the strange things he saw occasionally were only in his head due to the guilt of having murdered someone. The game was not really showing supernatural stuff in its first hours, on the game case or in its advertisement. A friend of mine who played a bit of it confirmed as much to me, so I got the game. Lo and behold, a few hours later I was slow-motion dodging bullets, returning from the dead, having Matrix air fights with a superhuman oracle and trying to save the world by stealing a cathartic child from an orphanage while being followed by a shining artificial intelligence that could impersonate people and then tried to vacuum vortex me into them to "delete" me.

 

I think I prefer somewhat realistic stories and characters so I can relate to them better, but as I said I have played and enjoyed all kinds so far.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Nighcisama

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

So when both Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 started to throw supernatural shit into their stories right before the finish line, I was really irritated by it.

 

 

I'd argue that since those were the original games that supernatural stuff was part of the formula that made it consistent. I'd say the more grounded approach to UC4 is the jarring exception and is made worse by them using supernatural powers into the mp. The discovery of the supernatural was paired with actually discovering the treasure that was being chased. 

I don't know about serious movies but I have seen movies that combine treasure hunts with supernatural elements.

[starcrunch061]

On 12/30/2018 at 10:05 AM, SleightRocket said:

I don't know about you guys, but when I play a video game, I want to feel like I'm playing a video game. I enjoy fun graphics, not real graphics. What are your thoughts/opinions about this?

 

I take the same view on realism in games that I do on realism in comics: the more real you try to make it, the less real it seems to me.