Too much realism in games?

[blatantninja]

Had a thought while playing BG1Tutu last night. Can you have too much realism in games? I'm not talking about visual realism, or even combat techniques, but in plot, story, etc. Perhaps it's simply because I've become accustomed to non-real world devices in games, but when I run into something that, in real life would make perfect sense, I find it annoying in the game.

A couple of examples:

1) BG1Tutu: There is a quest in Cloakwood where you are supposed to save some druids from a group of shadow druids. One of the druids is in a treehouse in one area but is not there until you rescue the other druid in the next area. Hence you have to back track. Not that I mind back tracking, but I was actually confused. I'd 'cleared' that treehouse and the whole other area and since the druid wasn't there, I assumed that there must be ANOTHER treehouse. So I searched around and couldn't find it. It never really occurred to me that I should revisit the original treehouse, which was of course what you had to do until I looked online for hints.


2) Ultima V Lazarus: When you are trying to join the resistance, you have to see the smith in Yew. However, he won't talk to you at the pub, nor will he talk to you about it in his shop. He is being super careful. You basically have to ambush him when he is getting out of bed!

In both cases, in real life, these things might make perfect sense to me, and indeed they may be the conclusion that I jumped to first. However, in the game world, they don't.

Is it just that I've been conditioned that once I clear an area, unless I'm told specifically to go back there (and sure in the first example they did say to go back, but it wasn't completely clear) I assume that there is nothing new and it won't change at all. And in 2, am I just conditioned that even with schedules, I should be able to get people to tell me what I want, in general when I want it?

I think it's worth noting that in both examples, these are user created quests. Are the official games dumbing things down for us to a point that when someone takes some initiative to make it realistic, it's actually a turn off?

[zakhal]

Well in new "role" playing games you can have only one active quest and your compass always shows which way to go next to finish it. Just run at max speed towards the arrow and youre always on the track. Simple and easy. Thats what roleplaying really means these days.

Old games like baldurs gate though lacks these highly advanced features so naturally one can get kinda confused.

[Prime Junta]

There are some very strong conventions in games, such as the ones you describe. Much of the time they make sense; at other times they don't. The challenge that game designers face is having the game convey enough information to the player. I think the trouble with your specific examples is that the games in question, as a rule, *do* follow that convention; therefore, it's not unreasonable to be puzzled when they suddenly and without warning depart from it.

There are other games out there that don't follow it -- they have lots of quests that involve revisiting previously cleared areas; your actions may even affect things and cause new events to happen in previous areas and to characters you already knew. That works fine in them, since they get you used to the idea.

[blatantninja]

Yeah, I eventually got used to the stuff in Lazarus, but it took me some time.

[Gorath]

When realism means eating, sleeping or similar micromanagement there can indeed be too much of it, IMHO.

[Konjad]

I don't really understand why are you complaining blatantninja, it's often in cRPGs [I mean computer RPGs like Fallout, not casual RPGs like Oblivion] games that you have to revisit some places or you have to search for something. And actually it's nothing wrong as for me, as far as it is not running from point A->B->A->B all the time, but one or two revisites are ok.

[blatantninja]

I see what you are saying. It's more about in a game like BG Tutu, when you need to return to an area that you've already cleared, it's very obvious that you need to go back, generally through dialogue. (IE someone says, "you should check at that tree, they might be there now."). If the whole game is like that, where you need to go back and it doesn't give you prompts, you get used to it, but when it's only a handful of times where it isn't obvious, it creates makes you scratch your head because you're basing your decision on what to do next based on what you did in the past, and suddenly, without warning, that has changed.

[JemyM]

A general rule that I learned the hard way, is that you can never copy reality, and a game is something you play because of it's entertainment. The "realistic" argument for a feature should therefore never defeat an "added for fun" argument. Boring features in a game should be cleaned out, if possible.

When a feature in a game is based on "reality" rather than "fun", they often makes me wonder why I am playing it. I have a whole real life that I could spend time with if reality is what I seek.

It reminds me of Star Wars Galaxies philosophy "work hard, and be rewarded". The game really feel like a second job. The amount of grinding in that game is insane, and features seems to block entertainment more than they offer entertainment. After lots of hard work and 3 years of my life dedicated to that game, I decided I could as well grind my real life instead, a decision that I never regret.

Sometimes a designer appears to include mechanics that are simply there to take time, such as "must kill X randomly generated opponents to get item Y". This makes me angry. We do not live forever, and doing meaningless and unentertaining actions in a computer game actually makes me feel that my life is draining away.

The more features to reduce "wasted time" in a game, however, the less length the game have. I am all for that. I prefer short and entertaining games above long games that are partially entertaining.

[Ionstormsucks]

I agree with BN... there can be in fact too much realism in games. In that respect the term RPG is quite misleading, I think. It would be better to use the old term storytelling because that makes pretty clear where all computer games come from (or most of them - at least those with a story). Games that try to tell a story are not much different from literary fiction. Now, if you read a fictional book you'll realize that very often it is not realistic at all. It won't bother you with details you don't need to know and will spare you most of the stuff that has nothing to do with the story. Very often things will happen by chance and situations will occur that are not very probable in real life.

One of the worst things a game can do is to try to create an illusion of reality. Games are usually quite structured - after a while you know how certain game mechanics work and how you can manipulate the environment of a certain game. If this game certainly breaks these structures than it will be utterly confusing for the player.

[magerette]

ISS wrote:
One of the worst things a game can do is to try to create an illusion of reality. Games are usually quite structured - after a while you know how certain game mechanics work and how you can manipulate the environment of a certain game. If this game certainly breaks these structures than it will be utterly confusing for the player.

I don't know, ISS. I think of The Witcher, and I really feel like a lot of what made that game work was realism--but it's more of a causal realism than a mechanical realism I guess. It's the irrefutable consequences of your actions and the grey areas of morals and ethics that make decisions as difficult as real life that gives the game its savor for me. Without that, it would really be just a very nicely done actiony rpg. With it, it becomes a game that challenges and embroils you in your character's life.

The other kind of realism, like the hunger/thirst mechanic that's being discussed in the Eschalon thread, or bn's original point, a convention or mechanic change that adds trivial actions and tedium to the gameplay, I do agree I can definitely do without. I hate, for example, NPC's that have to be courted with specific actions or timelines to open a dialogue thread. Didn't they always know what you're asking them? Did they just take a dislike to you personally? Yes, that's something that happens in the real world, but in a game it's a transparent time-waster and bores me silly--the essence of a game being "on rails."

[Konjad]

One of the worst things a game can do is to try to create an illusion of reality.(...)If this game certainly breaks these structures than it will be utterly confusing for the player.
I totally disagree. It is not good to dumb down the game or make it more simple due to limitation of some players or to not confuse players. I mean, really, we have too much games like Oblivion today. Why don't try to make some game realistic? I know not everyone will like it, but there should be all kind of games - realistic with depth and high-fantasy hack'n'slashes.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I felt there was WAY too much realism in Monkey Island 4 ...

An investor trying to turn pirate islands into fantasy parks ??? Huh ???