Video games are games, obviously. They are meant to be entertainment, enjoyment with layers of challenge and necessary skill. As such, most video games have elements that defy reality or are just flat out unrealistic. A video game standard, the double jump, is not at all physically possible yet it is in so many games.
There are some games, however, that ignore this mentality and strive for more realistic experiences. After recently playing Red Dead Redemption 2, a game that could easily be reclassified as a ‘cowboy simulator,’ a question came to my mind that I wanted to discuss, or at least write out my thoughts. Does a more realistic gaming experience make a better game? Upon reflection, however, that seemed like too broad of a question. Every gamer could answer it differently depending on his or her taste. So instead I came up with a different two-part question: When should a game be more realistic and when should a game be more fantastical?
THE APPEAL OF REALITY
Video games are, for the most part, distractions from the real world. Like most television, movies, and recreational reading, they are meant to be forms of escapism. So why is it then that some games, including a few very popular games, add prevalent gameplay elements that revolve around mundane, real world tasks and physics?
In Red Dead Redemption 2, for example, Arthur Morgan, the player character, moves at a normal walking speed. In most video games, this is rather unusual as the player character more than likely moves at a brisk jog the majority of the time. Whether it’s Witcher, Zelda, Assassin’s Creed, Arkham, or the majority of other major titles, standard movement speed is much faster than it is in reality. Yet RDR2 forces the player to move, well, like an actual human. You have to… walk!
But RDR2’s realism doesn’t stop there. Arthur Morgan needs to eat, sleep, and bathe in order to survive and thrive in the game world. The idea of doing such tasks in video games would largely be considered absurd by many without seeing it in practice. It’s more akin to taking care of a pet or child rather than playing a game. In most video games, player characters can go on for hours and hours without having to eat and sleep, let alone bathe. It’s just something that isn’t normally done. Hell the only realistic function Arthur Morgan doesn’t seem to have in RDR2 is the ability to relieve himself.
Despite these mundane activities RDR2 forces you to do in order to thrive, the game has achieved massive success. Not only that, but these mechanics have been praised to some extent and this gamer is personally a fan. Why? Why do people who want to play a game about the old west with gunfights and robberies end up praising and discussing Arthur Morgan’s cleaning, eating, and sleeping habits? And RDR2 isn’t alone with these sorts of necessary tasks in large-scale games. Both of Bethesda’s Fallout and Elder Scrolls series have a Survival Mode, which is similar to the basic needs of RDR2.
What these gaming elements seem to do is add to the immersion of the adventure. It’s not that exciting if you can cross Skyrim or the Old West without worrying about hunger, thirst, sleep, weather, disease, wounds, and a host of other basic real world concerns. But the second you have to take all those things into account, the journey becomes much more perilous and therefore much more intriguing. The challenge has been increased and with it the players desire to overcome that challenge. At the same time, there is no great loss upon failure. It is not the player who suffers should their character not survive (well, they may suffer annoyed disappointment.) It’s, well, the character that suffers. Simply put, realism simultaneously adds to the challenge and to the immersion. It psychologically makes players feel like they are on the adventure without actually putting them in harms way.
This might be true for large-scale epics, but what about smaller games that function more like simulators? Well, for those, the idea of realism is to strengthen the draw of whatever activity the game is simulating. For people to enjoy these sorts of games, they probably need to have a liking for the game’s topic before they pick up the controller. Otherwise, it would most likely be boring. This could be said for the epics as well to some extent, but they have a broader appeal with sweeping stories and a variety of tasks to do. Meanwhile, the smaller, simulator type games focus on one or two things.
THE FINE LINE
There is always an aspect of the fantastical in video games no matter how realistic one gets, and I don’t just mean with settings or magic. In RDR2, for example, there is the famous Dead Eye mechanic that briefly slows down time when you draw your gun. Eating in the Bethesda games is instantaneous. I personally have never eaten a whole chicken in one bite, but I might not be trying hard enough. And as stated before, normal movement in most games is at a brisk jog. I don’t know about you, but I can only move at that pace for about ten minutes before I need a break.
So it’s clear that all video games have elements of fantasy, but that begs the question of how much reality should go along with it? Well, frankly, the answer changes from game to game. More realism may be acceptable in RDR2, but frowned upon in something like Bloodborne. The elements of realism in each game vary as well depending on what the intended experience calls for. Adding a basic needs system to adventuring games like Skyrim or Fallout make sense because of the emphasis on exploration. Realism in fighting games, with the exception of boxing or UFC, probably wouldn’t be as fun or engaging as compared to the likes of Mortal Combat or Injustice. Realism has a time and place in video games, but at the end of the day, no matter how real one game may seem over another, they are all games in the end.
So what are thoughts on realism in gaming? Are you a fan or do you prefer the fantastical? Or do you prefer a healthy mix? Share your thoughts in the comments below!