It's undeniable that one of the most attractive things to the gaming community these days is realism. Games such as Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed (above) and Bad Company show this factor being used and they've all done well. This is a fairly recent thing, at least for the last ten years or so as in the days of NES and SNES the idea of a game replicating reality was unheard of. 'But this is how we get away from all that!' everyone said. And now all we want is just to live life again, but in a virtual world were you're allowed to bugger up, and we can make ourselves as stylish and unapologetically over the top without just looking like a twat. However, something that's really got to me recently is that our idea of realism in gaming is simply... wrong.
Ok that last statement sounded a bit 'I'm right and you're wrong'. However, just think about this situation, for example. Is Gears of War realistic? The planet Sera is being devoured by a humanoid, subterranean race called the Locust who use a giant worm to sink human cities and ultimately attempt to wipe them out. Sounds far-fetched, of course, but that isn't unrealistic. This isn't happening on earth, it is fair enough that another race exists underground, and that a giant worm creature exists, there are no scientific rules stopping it happening. It's also perfectly realistic in that a shotgun will blow your enemy to bits at close range; that's what shotguns are for. Realism is NOT: 'If I was to go out into the world now, this would happen'. Realism IS: 'Things work how they should in the context, and do not do the physically impossible'. It would be unrealistic if the giant worm created a black hole by trying to sing Copacobana whilst making a bacon sandwich, and forcing the planet into a state of gravitational hilariousness. YES, HILARIOUSNESS. So this conflicts with, for example, the common view that Halo is unrealistic. Apart from the ridiculous gravity, there is no reason why there shouldn't be armour developed that can take so many bullets, or have grenades that stick to your face.
However this also reveals a huge hole in the supposed realism of our champions of lifelike gameplay, my thoughts mainly upon GTA. GTA perfects a supreme city life simulation which is undoubtedly fantastic, people move and react just how they should and cars crumple from crashes, not just smoke and explode. So how is that Niko Bellic, an ordinary man from Eastern Europe, can take about 20 bullets, only to be healed again by eating a hotdog or screwing a hooker? Perhaps this is one grey area we shouldn't expose. Gaming's no fun if all you do is die, right? Health systems should perhaps keep you as a big bullet absorber, like a cushion made of Kevlar. Call of Duty made this less of a problem with the ability to take only a couple of hits, but then Call of Duty sucks. Yes, I said it, and will explain why in other posts.
And then there is blatant evasion of realism. Assassin's Creed was a good game with an even better concept, but you try sitting on a bench in a crowded street and listening to ever word of a conversation happening 10 metres away. Even better, try out jumping from 200 feet, and landing right in a hay bale, in a wagon only just bigger than you. And you're not allowed to touch the sides of it. Now do it 100 more times, and you have to get it perfect every time. Ridiculous, right? Not at all realistic seeing as it is set during the Crusade, not during the age of the infinitely perfect acrobat ninjas.
Do not mistake me for saying that unrealism is a bad thing. Oh, no, while I like game using realism effectively, the sacrifice of it is often refreshing, and/or necessary. Even when everything, including the health/damage dilemma is sorted in games like Operation Flashpoint, I simply don't think realism should be a case for a game being good, especially when we hardly know what we mean when we say it. Now go play Abe's Odyssey, safe in the knowledge that you're playing a 100% realistic simulation of when the Mudokens will overthrow the Glukkon and Slig rule over Rupture Farms and all of Oddworld.
Ok that last statement sounded a bit 'I'm right and you're wrong'. However, just think about this situation, for example. Is Gears of War realistic? The planet Sera is being devoured by a humanoid, subterranean race called the Locust who use a giant worm to sink human cities and ultimately attempt to wipe them out. Sounds far-fetched, of course, but that isn't unrealistic. This isn't happening on earth, it is fair enough that another race exists underground, and that a giant worm creature exists, there are no scientific rules stopping it happening. It's also perfectly realistic in that a shotgun will blow your enemy to bits at close range; that's what shotguns are for. Realism is NOT: 'If I was to go out into the world now, this would happen'. Realism IS: 'Things work how they should in the context, and do not do the physically impossible'. It would be unrealistic if the giant worm created a black hole by trying to sing Copacobana whilst making a bacon sandwich, and forcing the planet into a state of gravitational hilariousness. YES, HILARIOUSNESS. So this conflicts with, for example, the common view that Halo is unrealistic. Apart from the ridiculous gravity, there is no reason why there shouldn't be armour developed that can take so many bullets, or have grenades that stick to your face.
However this also reveals a huge hole in the supposed realism of our champions of lifelike gameplay, my thoughts mainly upon GTA. GTA perfects a supreme city life simulation which is undoubtedly fantastic, people move and react just how they should and cars crumple from crashes, not just smoke and explode. So how is that Niko Bellic, an ordinary man from Eastern Europe, can take about 20 bullets, only to be healed again by eating a hotdog or screwing a hooker? Perhaps this is one grey area we shouldn't expose. Gaming's no fun if all you do is die, right? Health systems should perhaps keep you as a big bullet absorber, like a cushion made of Kevlar. Call of Duty made this less of a problem with the ability to take only a couple of hits, but then Call of Duty sucks. Yes, I said it, and will explain why in other posts.
And then there is blatant evasion of realism. Assassin's Creed was a good game with an even better concept, but you try sitting on a bench in a crowded street and listening to ever word of a conversation happening 10 metres away. Even better, try out jumping from 200 feet, and landing right in a hay bale, in a wagon only just bigger than you. And you're not allowed to touch the sides of it. Now do it 100 more times, and you have to get it perfect every time. Ridiculous, right? Not at all realistic seeing as it is set during the Crusade, not during the age of the infinitely perfect acrobat ninjas.
Do not mistake me for saying that unrealism is a bad thing. Oh, no, while I like game using realism effectively, the sacrifice of it is often refreshing, and/or necessary. Even when everything, including the health/damage dilemma is sorted in games like Operation Flashpoint, I simply don't think realism should be a case for a game being good, especially when we hardly know what we mean when we say it. Now go play Abe's Odyssey, safe in the knowledge that you're playing a 100% realistic simulation of when the Mudokens will overthrow the Glukkon and Slig rule over Rupture Farms and all of Oddworld.
No comments:
Post a Comment