Realism in games

[K^2]

This is something that's being thrown around a lot, but not really talked about in any specific terms. I mostly just want to set up some clear definitions, and then share what I think it all means for the GTA. It's going to be a long one, so if you don't care to read it all, just leave now, and I won't hold it against you.

 

 

First of all, I don't think it is fair to throw around "realism" as a blanket term. Because if you try to define an overall "realism" you end up with a paradox. Playing games is a form of escapism. How are you meant to escape reality playing something that's trying to be as realistic as possible? Clearly there is something wrong with that. So there are different aspects of the game that may or may not be realistic. I'm going to define four that I consider to be primary. Each one may be split further, and there could be some overlap, but this should give us a sufficiently clear basis to discuss the rest.

 

1) Realism of Presentation.

2) Realism of Setting.

3) Realism of Situation.

4) Realism of Behavior.

 

Let me clarify each of these separately.

 

First is the Realism of Presentation. This is primarily visuals and audio. The level of realism ranges from Pong to Crysis. Sometimes the lack of realism is technologically limited, and sometimes it is artistic. A cell-shaded game is inherently unrealistic in its presentation, and intentionally so. Presentation mostly impacts gameplay because it forces a certain perspective. A side scroller will play differently from an isometric game. And isometric game will play differently from first person shooter. But beyond that, with rare exceptions, impact is limited.

 

Realism of Setting is how closely the setting of the game relates to the world around us. An ordinary city in the modern day, with people rushing to work, and cars stuck in traffic is about as realistic as this gets. While a game about interdimensional shape-shifting time-traveling wizards would be pretty far out. Though, the only limitation on how unrealistic the setting can get is imagination of the writers. So perhaps, it would be better to score the un-realism of the setting. The impact on gameplay is very limited. Pretty much any setting one could come up with can have a game with pretty much any gameplay.

 

Realism of Situation is tied to the story. In any good story, things happen that don't just happen every day. But they could. Ever notice how the main character in every detective story just randomly stumbles across another murder victim every other week? The setting of these stories may be entirely believable. Every single event makes sense. But it's just not possible for all these things to keep happening to the same person. On the other hand, a story set around World War II does not need to invent incredible chain of events to provide a supply of people trying to kill each other. Situation and setting will always play off each other whether or not each one is real.

 

Realism of Behavior is probably one of the most complex ones. This ranges from AI of the NPCs, to the health system, if there is one, to the item behavior, to physics, etc, etc. This is really the one where you stop and think what the gameplay of the game is all about. It's also the one that may be limited by just about anything. You can have hardware limiting physics and AI, development time limiting what could be coded in before the release, and mental capacity of players and sometimes even that of developers preventing the full use of the system. On the other hand, it's the one that is least tied into all the other ones. There is going to be some connection between presentation and physics, but even in a 2D side scroller you can have realistic physics. There are many flash games out there that demonstrate that. Behavior can be realistic or unrealistic in games set in modern world or in land of fantasy. They can be applied to everyday situations, or something that presents an absolute statistical impossibility. And it can all be presented to you in stereoscopic 3D with surround sound or on a monochrome display with bleeps for sound effects.

 

 

A lot of this is fairly non-specific, and is really just a matter of artistic choice, but there are a few things that apply to the game as a game.

 

Again, there can be a lot of discussion on what makes a game a good game, but I would still split it up into 3 main components. Presentation, story, and gameplay, not necessarily in that order. Note that none of these translate directly into one of the above. Presentation of the game would include behavior of the objects in the game, for example. Story and presentation, however, don't apply just to games. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about these and focus on gameplay element instead.

 

As I also pointed out earlier, there has to be an element of escapism in the game. You cannot have a game without an escape element. I mean, one could probably come up with something, but there must be a reason for why someone would play a game. It must be something a person can't just go and do in real life for reasons of cost, safety, or even plain impossibility. So there has to be something to distinguish a game from reality. Something where the game is not quite real. But whether it's realism of Presentation, Setting, Situation, or Behavior that's sacrificed is left open. It could be all four, of course, but it absolutely has to be at least one of these.

 

So all in all, whenever you are designing a game, there must be an element of the game that is not realistic, and in deciding how much of the rest should be realistic, gameplay has to be taken into account. Because if you disregard the gameplay, it's not a game. It's some other form of digital art. And if you make everythign perfectly realistic, there is no reason to actually play it.

 

 

Onto GTA, because the rest of discussion needs an example anyways, and GTA is ultimately what I want to talk about.

 

Taking them in order from the beginning, again.

 

Presentation really isn't what makes GTA. Personally, I'm absolutely flexible. I've played first GTA on an old Palm Pilot with B&W screen and enjoyed it. A lot of people, however, want to see very realistic graphics. I don't think a lot of people disagree with that, though, so it's not really a problem. Maybe pick a slightly more colorful location, so that fewer people, like myself, complain about all the grays and browns. But otherwise, presentation isn't a problem. Crank it up as high as hardware allows.

 

GTA games, with exceptions of GTA2, have always been big on Realism of Setting, however. Even if it's not an actual real city, it's something very similar to one. Atmosphere and dynamics of a big city is a bit part of what makes GTA. You can take every other part of the game, stick it into the land of wizards and dragons, and get a good game out of it. One that might even have some of the GTA feel to it. But it will not be a GTA. So like the previous one, this one is pretty much set.

 

So that's two down, and they both should be realistic in the future GTA games. So we still need to add a degree of escapism to one of the remaining elements. What I'm going to claim is that whatever you choose for Realism of Behavior, Realism of Situation is the one that has to go. Not necessarily all the way, but pretty far off field. I hope I don't need to explain why a GTA game about Joe Average the Accountant with a 9 to 5 job won't work. He doesn't race stolen cars through the streets. He treats his car gently, because he's still making payments on it. But how far do you take it? Personally, I think San Andreas sets it up pretty well. It had a lot of flaws, but the sort of crazy situations CJ found himself weren't part of it. They were the stuff that GTA should be made of. Granted, stealing Hydra from an aircraft carrier or obtaining Green Goo is going a bit too far. But these things run into problems of Realism of Setting (no such thing as Green Goo) and Realism of Behavior (nobody guards a military object that poorly). The ides of Toreno as a character, however, is absolutely brilliant. Here we have an ordinary thug, which there are plenty of out there, end up in employ of a government agent, which again, is nothing new, and is sent on to perform various tasks. Each of these by itself is nothing particularly strange. But but when put all together it's about as likely as finding a dead body every other week. And that's what makes the story exciting and what makes you want to complete it.

 

GTA IV, in contrast, was a lot more strict on Realism of Situation. A lot of people enjoyed GTA IV more than San Andreas, and attributed that to realism. But was it Realism of Situation they liked? Niko still found himself in a fairly crazy mix. That's what drove the story and the game. The "realistic" bits, with going to play pool and get drunk with friends and family were not fun. Not in comparison to actually going out there and getting drunk. Now, if you are not yet of drinking age and that's why you liked it, alright, I can see that, but then it's not the realism you enjoyed, is it? But rather ability to escape the reality of being underage.

 

So it's clearly the improvements in Realism of Presentation and Realism of Behavior that attracted people. We covered the former, so lets talk about the later.

 

Realism of Behavior is where the gameplay dwells, at least for the kind of games like GTA. Challenge of driving and fire fights is directly related to realism of both elements. Improved realism of cars led to many arguments. People weren't used to being unable to drive like they did in SA. But with some practice, you can still drive as masterfully as in previous GTA games. Driving became more challenging, not just more difficult. But this is also a problem. Challenge is only good when it can be overcome. That's good gameplay. It seems that for the majority of GTA players, new driving system was a good kind of challenge in the end. There are still places where that sort of level of realism can be taken. On the other hand, we have helicopters, which are nowhere near realistic. Now, in terms of game's technology, it would be entirely possible to make helicopters perfectly realistic. Get in, make sure the avionics are off, set throttle to off, take the rotor brake off, turn on fuel pumps, fuel, battery. Hit starter, increase throttle, let go of starter, turn on generator, turn on avionics, turn on light, set governor to full, and you are ready to take off. Of course, majority of GTA players won't be able to figure out how to get the engine started, and there are some that won't be able to do it even after being shown step-by-step. Similar problem with flight physics. Don't get me wrong, I think there is still some room for making helicopters more realistic and still allowing most people to play with some practice, but expecting full realism on these is simply not reasonable. Not for a GTA game.

 

Similarly, weapons have to be limited in their realism. There are a lot of things that can be done, but if you expect a player to know how to take a weapon apart for cleaning, you'll run into problems. Making weapons as lethal as they are in real life might also cause a backlash, though, that might work out the same way as driving.

 

Then we have elements of Realism of Behavior that clash not with gameplay, but with Realism of Situation. If you make everything behave exactly as it does in real life, you'll only have realistic situations. I shouldn't need to explain it, but I would like to illustrate it.

 

Consider behavior of the police. Yes, AI can be greatly improved. They can benefit from better logistics, better driving, better squad behavior, and so on. But at the same time, do you want police to behave exactly as it does in real life? If it did, any time you got a wanted status, you would end up busted or wasted. There would be no other alternative. And pretty much anything you do, will involve breaking laws. Imagine you want to drive from point A to point B. Ran a rad light? Busted. Speeding? Busted. Ran over a pedestrian? Busted. Bumped another car? Busted. So you are instantly forced to drive like you do in real life. In other words, Realism of Situation is forced upon you, and now you have Realism of Presentation, Realism of Setting, Realism of Situation, and Realism of Behavior all at the same time. Escapism - gone. You no longer have a game, but rather a life simulator, which really, really is not GTA.

 

 

So when I put it all together, here is what I conclude. Make the city look and live as realistically as possible. That's something R* has already been working on and doing a good job of. Keep at it. On the other hand, the actual flow off the story does not need to be realistic. You don't have to try and make it wacky, or anything, but it has to be of "This only happens in movies" kind. On everything else, first determine what sort of realism would hurt the gameplay by making the learning curve too steep for the audience, that they seem to have down, and then make absolutely sure that extra realism in behavior of characters around you does not force ordinary behavior from the player. That's the one where IV lacked a bit compared to SA. With these boundaries set, make it as realistic as time, technology, and budget permit. That's realistic vehicle behavior, better AI, euphoria for characters, and so on. But do try to prioritize what will and will not be important in the game. There are a lot of things you can make more realistic and player will never notice, either because it doesn't matter, or because it is never used. For example TV from IV. Realistic. Occasionally funny. I'd rather see the team spend that time working on something else.

 

That's pretty much all for now. Maybe I'll come up with more later.

[EduardKoeleJuck]

Nice topic. It's really nice to read. There is one big difference in games (imo): serious games, and non-serious games. GTA IV is serious; Saints Row is not.

[Vercetti27]

comparing GTA IV to Saints Row is like comparing an apache helicopter to a rusty old bicycle

[K^2]

comparing GTA IV to Saints Row is like comparing an apache helicopter to a rusty old bicycle

And yet I had more fun with the later. Of course, if someone gave you an Apache helicopter, but told you to stay on the ground with weapons locked and just do taxi exercises in specified area, you'd probably find more fun things to do with a rusty bicycle.

[The Notorious MOB]

I think, simply put the only changes in realism that would greatly benifit the next GTA are changes in "the environment" in order to make the game seem more lifelike. Imagine Red Dead Redemption in an Urban Setting in the modern day and you can capture the perfect level of realism. Then add into that a bit of business, nutrition and economics i.e. the empire building from SA and VCS, a hint of the management and customization elements from the Sim/Tycoon games and the eat and get fat/work out and get buff elements (also from SA) and you have a game that is both largely realistic yet largely fun an engaging.

 

Other than that I think GTA IV had the balance of realism down to a tee. In my view the only aspect of lifelike realism that would absolutely not work is the the true realism of consequence that is attached to going to jail for life for multiple homicide or the game never being able to be played again once the protagonist dies etc.

 

Of course even with these improvements, people will still complain that they want the game to be unrealistic and include planes and jetpacks as they equate that to the game being more fun - but for those people there is always Saint's Row.

[Toup]

That should explain to everyone why too much realism isn't good. Well done.

 

Never played Saint's Row so i won't compare the two, i didn't even knew it existed one week go.

[MattyDienhoff]

Good analysis.

 

Like you I get frustrated with the way people throw the word around. Realism is a sliding scale and people often use it as part of a strawman argument against whatever they do or don't like, which just leads to pointless back and forths like this:

 

1: "Why isn't there a flamethrower in GTA IV?"

 

2: "Rockstar wants to make it as realistic as possible!"

 

1: "If I wanted realism I'd go outside!"

 

Not even simulations are meant to be as realistic as possible. Even games at the most realistic end of the scale (Operation Flashpoint/ArmA is a good example) take certain liberties for the sake of gameplay.

 

I think Rockstar got the balance between plausibility and accessibility/entertainment value just right with GTA IV. It has its fair share of action movie craziness, but it rarely if ever reaches the point of absurdity. Likewise with the actual gameplay mechanics. It's not exactly realistic that Niko can go through the windscreen of his car and hit a concrete barrier head-on, then walk away with no deblitating injuries. It's implausible, but it's not absurd, and it's not nearly as jarring as the possible outcomes in earlier games. In Vice City, for example, it's possible to leap from the top of a skyscraper and only lose a quarter of your health or, worse, body armour if you're wearing some.

 

As picky as I am about realism in games, the only realism-related issues that bother me about IV are little details that are easy to get right and have no effect on gameplay one way or the other, such as the weapon animations. The standing reload animation for the assault rifles, for instance, bothers me because it just shows the player character racking the charging handle, and then the gun magically has a full magazine again. In reality this would achieve nothing but to eject a live round from the chamber (if there is one), which is essentially the opposite of what happens in the game.

 

The fact that it's done this way is made even weirder when you recognize that the crouched reload animation for the same weapons does show the player character changing magazines. This probably seems like a petty critique but I think it's valid since you spend more time using the weapons than almost any other asset in the game, and because it's so easy to get this stuff right... Whatever the case, it's still an example of a break from realism that hardly affects gameplay one way or the other.

Edited July 21, 2010 by MattyDienhoff

[evh5150vanhalen]

I personally loved saints row 2....until i get into vehicles.. the cars handle soo bad it's not funny. But outside of that it's fun running around with the weapons and killing people and junk.

[JoshGTAfreak]

Good read K2. I found this really interesting.

[K^2]

 

I think Rockstar got the balance between plausibility and accessibility/entertainment value just right with GTA IV.

In therms of physics of things, yeah, I think there are still places for improvement, but at very least, all of the changes were the right kind of changes. And like you said, a lot of things that could still be improved are purely cosmetic.

 

But I do think R* went overboard trying to make certain things realistic. There is no reason for wanted level when you drive around the airport. There is no reason to require you to spend that much time entertaining your "friends". There is no reason to make police that impossible to shake with high wanted level. And so on.

 

Now, I know that bothers me more than it does most people. But I'm very far from being alone in thinking that could have been handled a lot better. If you look at pols on "Best GTA Game", you'll see that while GTA IV does hold the lead, the number of people who liked San Andreas or Vice City more is still too hight to just disregard. And the above issues are a big part of why that is so. If a future GTA improved on realism of behavior, but relaxed realism of situation a bit, to bring it a bit closer to level of San Andreas, that game could win all the GTA IV fans and all the SA fans.

 

I personally loved saints row 2....until i get into vehicles.. the cars handle soo bad it's not funny. But outside of that it's fun running around with the weapons and killing people and junk.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Spaghetti Cat]

ya good read K^2

 

If I could I'd add one more:

 

Realism of Action - This is the way the player controls the character in the game. Think of it as how well the game controls act to the way you would instinctively react in real life. I was amazed on one level how Niko acted, he would walk with a limp, or brush off water in a rainstorm. I love the animation when you do nothing at all like holding a gun or standing on a street corner. Niko would stretch or limber up by shaking around a bit.

 

Compare that with how Noko would use cover in a fire fight. I'm sure more than one of us would dive for cover. expecting to hide behind a post or box or something, and end up more exposed than previously because the AI makes you go to a weird spot. One of my favorites is the ankle high ledge. R* did a great job with the city detail, but the clumsy controls and AI make it a burdon. If any of us encounters an ankle high obstacle in real life, we would just step over it, without even thinking about it in most cases. Yet somehow Niko does the whole running into the wall thing and never goes anywhere. You would think the same AI coding that went into the side affects, like the water in a rainstorm thing, would translate into some sort of better control scheme.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've died because the controls didn't do what I wanted them to do. The common thing in all great games is simple, easy to learn, hard to master, controls. You want to feel like you are there in the game, a part of it. I'd say that R* does a great job of presentation and setting, and an OK job of situation and behavior, but it's a game for me so I've never really had that high on my list like the first two. Controls is the thing I think should be a bit more realistic, but also more instinctive. If they fix that in the next game I'll be thrilled.

 

[GTASanAndreasbestever]

Good analysis.

 

Like you I get frustrated with the way people throw the word around. Realism is a sliding scale and people often use it as part of a strawman argument against whatever they do or don't like, which just leads to pointless back and forths like this:

 

1: "Why isn't there a flamethrower in GTA IV?"

 

2: "Rockstar wants to make it as realistic as possible!"

 

1: "If I wanted realism I'd go outside!"

 

Not even simulations are meant to be as realistic as possible. Even games at the most realistic end of the scale (Operation Flashpoint/ArmA is a good example) take certain liberties for the sake of gameplay.

 

I think Rockstar got the balance between plausibility and accessibility/entertainment value just right with GTA IV. It has its fair share of action movie craziness, but it rarely if ever reaches the point of absurdity. Likewise with the actual gameplay mechanics. It's not exactly realistic that Niko can go through the windscreen of his car and hit a concrete barrier head-on, then walk away with no deblitating injuries. It's implausible, but it's not absurd, and it's not nearly as jarring as the possible outcomes in earlier games. In Vice City, for example, it's possible to leap from the top of a skyscraper and only lose a quarter of your health or, worse, body armour if you're wearing some.

 

As picky as I am about realism in games, the only realism-related issues that bother me about IV are little details that are easy to get right and have no effect on gameplay one way or the other, such as the weapon animations. The standing reload animation for the assault rifles, for instance, bothers me because it just shows the player character racking the charging handle, and then the gun magically has a full magazine again. In reality this would achieve nothing but to eject a live round from the chamber (if there is one), which is essentially the opposite of what happens in the game.

 

The fact that it's done this way is made even weirder when you recognize that the crouched reload animation for the same weapons does show the player character changing magazines. This probably seems like a petty critique but I think it's valid since you spend more time using the weapons than almost any other asset in the game, and because it's so easy to get this stuff right... Whatever the case, it's still an example of a break from realism that hardly affects gameplay one way or the other.

I disagree with you, GTA is not something you want to be "realistic" Besides with games like NCAA, Madden, and other sports games doing their part with the realism, it is nice to get a game with a bit of looneyness it in every once in awhile.

[K^2]

I disagree with you, GTA is not something you want to be "realistic" Besides with games like NCAA, Madden, and other sports games doing their part with the realism, it is nice to get a game with a bit of looneyness it in every once in awhile.

Have you read the opening post? You really should if you are going to comment on any posts on this thread, as they are all within a context.

[Kwandilibro]

So much truth in the OP. Holy sh*t.

 

I notice how some people claim they want this and that realistic, but in reality that would not be fun for a game. For example, realistic damage to the player. This would mean that every car accident could potentially kill the player. Jumping from the top of a one story building would break the player's legs, making him as good as dead. One bullet wound could instantly kill the player, a blow from a baseball player would knock the player out, hell even glass shards would f*ck up the player. And as for collisions with other vehicles, consider yourself dead.

 

But best of all, if the player gets killed, which would be very easy, the disk crashes and becomes a useless piece of sh*t. Not to mention having to shut the game off every few ours to sleep.

 

I also agree with what you mentioned about the police and wanted levels. If wanted levels were as realistic as possible, we would get busted every few seconds, making the damn thing unplayable. And getting wasted would be as easy as breathing in real life, as one bullet, again, would kill the player.

 

Now obviously, these are things that would not be implemented out of common sense.

 

I also find the escapism thing to be true. I mean, SA had some crazy ass missions that were just madness for a gangbanger to experience. But it was hella fun. Killing government agents with a katana, stealing green goo, breaking into a military installation to steal a jetpack, the sh*t was fun. The same can't be said about IV's missions. Everything was kill kill kill. BORING.

 

See, one thing that bothered me was how in IV, the things that were supposedly realistic were actually stupid. I can sort of understand the police AI, since police in NYC are plain wild, and will stop at nothing to get criminals(or people they think are criminals), and even in SA, it was mentioned that police in Liberty City were rough. But things like friends. Wow. Who the f*ck calls you every few seconds, and if you don't hang out the them, they don't like you? And the activities, what the f*ck? Bowling? Darts? Come on. Where's the fun activities, like going out to race, or rob people/places, or just plain f*ck around?

 

The last thing I notice, I think it would fall under realism of behavior. What the f*ck is with the NPC's? I shoot somebody in the face with a shot gun at point blank range, and they bend over grabbing their shoulder? Or I shoot somebody in the stomach, and they limp away? Who does that? Realistically, I any normal person got shot in the head, they're dead. If they got shot in the stomach, they would fall to the floor. If they could move, they would drag themselves/crawl away and hide. Same goes for legshots.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

I also find the escapism thing to be true. I mean, SA had some crazy ass missions that were just madness for a gangbanger to experience. But it was hella fun. Killing government agents with a katana, stealing green goo, breaking into a military installation to steal a jetpack, the sh*t was fun. The same can't be said about IV's missions. Everything was kill kill kill. BORING.

 

See, one thing that bothered me was how in IV, the things that were supposedly realistic were actually stupid. I can sort of understand the police AI, since police in NYC are plain wild, and will stop at nothing to get criminals(or people they think are criminals), and even in SA, it was mentioned that police in Liberty City were rough. But things like friends. Wow. Who the f*ck calls you every few seconds, and if you don't hang out the them, they don't like you? And the activities, what the f*ck? Bowling? Darts? Come on. Where's the fun activities, like going out to race, or rob people/places, or just plain f*ck around?

 

 

To me the missions in GTA IV were fine. I actually found them to be more fun, because they were much more believable IMO. Then again I've always thought the missions in SA were overrated. Apart from the preparation missions for Breaking Caligula's, and the mission itself no other mission in SA does anything for me.

 

As for friends not liking you if you don't hang out with them, no different to the girlfriends who get pissy with you if you don't take them out on dates after a while in SA.

 

Atleast in GTA IV you can counter it by canceling an arranged activity. In SA if you don't go out on dates after a certain amount of time they start to dislike you, and there's no way of stopping it.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Miamivicecity

[MattyDienhoff]

But I do think R* went overboard trying to make certain things realistic. There is no reason for wanted level when you drive around the airport. There is no reason to require you to spend that much time entertaining your "friends". There is no reason to make police that impossible to shake with high wanted level. And so on.

Ah, I see what you mean about the friends. Fortunately Rockstar toned down the friends mechanic in the DLC episodes, turning it into an optional activity that you do if you feel like it, not something that you're always being nagged to do.

 

I think that the difficulty of the six star wanted level is about right. It should be hard work to lose them, but I would say it's easier than the previous games because, as dangerous as it can be in IV, at least the streets aren't filled with tanks that blow your car up in one hit.

 

 

If a future GTA improved on realism of behavior, but relaxed realism of situation a bit, to bring it a bit closer to level of San Andreas, that game could win all the GTA IV fans and all the SA fans.

 

Sounds like a perfect description of The Ballad of Gay Tony to me.

[NinjaWJ]

this is a great topic you have made K2. i agree fully with your points. I personally liked SA better because it was realistic in someways (eating, gym, buying clothes) but it wasn't so realistic that it made the game unplayable. the situations were movie-like but not extremely over the top unbelievable except in a couple of scenarios. thats what made the game fun. there were also a variety of activities to do unlike GTA4. GTA4 did a nice nice job making the city more believable and "real" along with the cars. but like some people have stated earlier, there were some things that rocksta4r couldve implemented better like the friend system. Also some things like the internet and the TV were so miniscue that they hardly affected gameplay

[xNewtype Acex]

 

To me the missions in GTA IV were fine. I actually found them to be more fun, because they were much more believable IMO. Then again I've always thought the missions in SA were overrated. Apart from the preparation missions for Breaking Caligula's, and the mission itself no other mission in SA does anything for me.

 

I gotta disagree here, most missions in IV were just "go here, kill these guys" or "go here, follow this guy, kill him".

 

Atleast the episodes had more varied missions, with TBOGT having some of the coolest ones, some of them very "Hollywood-ey".

 

 

I notice how some people claim they want this and that realistic, but in reality that would not be fun for a game. For example, realistic damage to the player. This would mean that every car accident could potentially kill the player. Jumping from the top of a one story building would break the player's legs, making him as good as dead. One bullet wound could instantly kill the player, a blow from a baseball player would knock the player out, hell even glass shards would f*ck up the player. And as for collisions with other vehicles, consider yourself dead.

 

I just can't believe this, how some people actually want you to be able to have a a 9-5 job, I mean what the f*ck would we do? "Press to file this report" or "Press to apply for another position".

 

This just goes on to show throw ideas around for the sake of having them, but they don't stop and think how this idea would affect the game. it woulddn't make the game fun or "realistic", it would just make it tedious, boring and stupid.

 

 

And the activities, what the f*ck? Bowling? Darts? Come on. Where's the fun activities, like going out to race, or rob people/places, or just plain f*ck around?

 

Another good point, I don't play GTA to play darts, or go bowling, or watch TV, I play GTA to raise hell, to do the stuff I can't do in real life, these are OK features, sure we can keep them, but for the love of god R* bring back the stuff that made VC and SA fun, robberies, gang wars, stuff that I WANT to do, not stuff that I have to do because it's the only thing in-game.

 

 

I can't tell you how many times I've died because the controls didn't do what I wanted them to do. The common thing in all great games is simple, easy to learn, hard to master, controls. You want to feel like you are there in the game, a part of it. I'd say that R* does a great job of presentation and setting, and an OK job of situation and behavior, but it's a game for me so I've never really had that high on my list like the first two. Controls is the thing I think should be a bit more realistic, but also more instinctive. If they fix that in the next game I'll be thrilled.

 

I have to agree with this too, using cover in the game is a chore, and sometimes the controls are just a clunky mess, like pressing a button with nothing happening, I'm relieved RDR had a much more improved cover & weapons system, but they should just keep on improving it and make it more fluid.

[K^2]

the situations were movie-like

You know, this is probably a good gauge for the whole thing. Ask yourself, "Would I want to watch a movie about that?" Granted, even something as mundane as going to work can be turned into a good movie if you do something like "Clerks" with it. But it better be scripted with enough unusual situations that make you think about life or give you a good laugh. Otherwise, there really isn't a point to it.

 

And staying true to the genre is probably a good idea. GTA is action/adventure with elements of black comedy. Turning it into a sitcom is probably not the way to go.

[AnthMUFC-Champs]

I like realism as long as the game is fun to play as well.

[GritEngine]

I skimmed.

 

To me, games are not supposed to be nor trying to become realistic anytime soon - just realistic representations of tv. In other words, games are not made for realistic gfx, they are made for realistic visuals you get from cameras more than realistic representations of real things. This is why bloom, lens flares and all that camera-related stuff is done, and not "real grass" for example. Some games do it, it looks fake, usually cartoon games - but for the most part, you can't see the blades of grass in a movie, and so they aren't done in a game. Hope that makes sense.

 

With that said, I see GTA becoming more and more realistic in the sense that it will become more and more like the real-motion video on a tv screen, but no games will venture into the "realistic" world any time soon, at least not go further than heavy rain, which suffers from the uncanny valley for trying to be "real" and not "really like film".

 

I loved side activities in GTA, don't think there were enough of them, I picture IV as the most logical and best possible step the series has taken in any generational leap, and I hope the next two cities follow it, then I hope V rolls around as LC again. I just can't get enough of a well known place, and it excites me more to see the whole game, in every aspect, evolve and become more technical, way more than it excites me to think about reinventing it or how zany it used to be.

 

The less real GTA looks, the more zany it is. CTW is a good example. So are the old games. I welcome all evolution to realism, as long as it always remains easy to control and interact with. I think it will. I don't mind if they keep making throwbacks to the wacky stuff like CTW, but keep the main series growing.

Edited July 22, 2010 by GritEngine

[JWZZR]

How real Do you want does the next Gta Charcter Have to shop for food?Has to brush His Teeth was his face and bath regularly?

 

Will you have to pump Gas?

 

I mean Its called a video Game for a reason

[K^2]

To me, games are not supposed to be nor trying to become realistic anytime soon - just realistic representations of tv.

I don't think that's true for all games, and both extremes are well represented.

 

On one hand you have simulations, which in many ways exceed TV in realism. Visuals can be as good, and sometimes, not instantly-distinguishable from the real thing. And the behavior of all the vehicles is far more precise than what you'd see in a fiction film.

 

On the other hand, you have games like Katamari, which consider realism to be something that goes well with soy sauce.

 

Neither genre goes for TV-realism, and both genres have a strong following.

 

But as far as GTA goes, yes, I think that's about right.

[Mokrie Dela]

comparing GTA IV to Saints Row is like comparing an apache helicopter to a rusty old bicycle

That's almost word to word something i said months ago. Someone then put it in their sig!

The point being that you can't compare them

 

As far as realism in games goes, you need a level of realism in games. Saints row feels like you're playing a game. The characters are underdeveloped and have all the depth of personality as a plank of wood. the game is very arcadey - you're playing what feels like a plasticy game.

 

GTA on the otherhand, although you KNOW its a game, it feels so much more. IMO at least, if you allow yourself to become immersed in it, it feels real. the story speaks to you, drags you in. When (RED DEAD REDEMPTION SPOILER ALERT: John dies in RDR, i sat for a moment and offered a moments silence. Films like The curious case of benjamin button also pull on this sort of heartstring. Saints Row 2, Carlos gets half killed by the tribal gang, and your player has to put him out of his misery. There was no emotion in that. When you finally kill Julius, its still detatched.

 

At the end of the day, Rockstar are taking a more mature approach to game producing. Like films, or fiction, there is a story theme, and a thesis. What Rockstar are trying to say about the world. They are conveying a story, a ballad if you will. Saints row promises you random chaos shooting a hot dog man in a pimped out police car with a Rocket launcher. GTA gives you a human account of someone's life, mainly the downs in it.

This is one major reason why i hold GTA in such high regard. Story-wise, it brings the player in and lets them live the gritty world.

There's a contradiction in writing/film. Realism is not real.

Sometimes things SEEM realistic when they're not.

orange sunsets, torrential storms, exagerated sound effects, ambient city sounds. In GTA these all make the game feel real. But compare them to real life? The sunsets are a much subtler shade of orange, the storms are less defined. Perhaps poor examples, but anyone who's studied writing or films will know my point.

 

I read something years ago that is still true today. it always will be.

Think of realism as a see-saw (not sure if americans call it anythign else...). on one side is realism. on the other is fun.

Realism itself is the opposite. You can't have hot snow, or cold fire. Games have to find that balance. Make it real enough for players to immerse themselves in (immersion in itself offers a certain level of fun imo) but don't sacrifice gameplay.

Example: Realism: One bullet would kill you. A shot to the arm would disable your ability to shoot. To the leg will prevent you from runnning (SWAT 4 anyone?). Downside - the game would be tedious, having so little margin for error.

Gameplay/fun: Being able to take alot of gun damage and give hell back would be fun, a bit of insane gunplay. Downside - it could feel false. you'll know you're playing a game and get bored.

 

GTA IV has the balance right.

 

Sorry for the rambling. I like realism in games but its not something thats easily done. To every realism effect there is a negative impact on gameplay and vice versa.

 

Even plausible things, like shooting from a parachute. Its possible, people do it, but would it FEEL realistic?

[K^2]

I really feel like people are confusing realism with quality of production. Saints Row 2 had cheap dialog, cheap graphics, cheap physics, and cheap UI. So the whole thing felt fake. Naturally. But it's like complaining that original Star Treck looked unrealistic because of cheap production. Now look at the new Star Treck. Yes, it now makes you believe all that fake stuff is real, which is what you really want from it, but the actual realism of events and technology is on exactly the same level.

 

GTA IV and Saints Row 2 are the same way. SR2 felt fake because of cheap props. While GTA IV looked real with all the expensive CGI. But if you look at the plot itself, they are both pretty much equal amounts of fantasy. A Serbian ex-military isn't going to single-handedly take on Russian Mafia in New York any more than an escaped convict is going to build up a gang that takes on a large corporation. Both of these are complete fabrication that have nothing to do with reality.

 

The real difference in realism between the two games is that on the off time from the main story, GTA IV had you play pool with your cousin, go on dates, and watch TV, while Saints Row 2 had you out shooting up gangs and breaking things. Now which was more fun? Honestly now.

 

The problems with SR2 had nothing to do with realism. They were all related to production value and lack of experience from the team. If SR2 was produced as a proper AAA title running a modern graphics engine, having good physics, descent controls on the vehicles, and actually have competent writers writing dialog, would you find reasons to complain about realism in that game? I am certain that you would not.

 

Now, perhaps, these things are very important for you in a game. In that case, you would of course see GTA IV as a better game hands down. And I'm not going to try and convince you of anything else. But do try to actually think why you enjoyed one game over the other. Don't just jump for the buzz word "realism" as your magic one-size-fits-all explanation. IT's not about realism. Its about something different.

Edited July 22, 2010 by K^2

[MattyDienhoff]

 

I read something years ago that is still true today. it always will be.

Think of realism as a see-saw (not sure if americans call it anythign else...). on one side is realism. on the other is fun.

Realism itself is the opposite. You can't have hot snow, or cold fire. Games have to find that balance. Make it real enough for players to immerse themselves in (immersion in itself offers a certain level of fun imo) but don't sacrifice gameplay.

Example: Realism: One bullet would kill you. A shot to the arm would disable your ability to shoot. To the leg will prevent you from runnning (SWAT 4 anyone?). Downside - the game would be tedious, having so little margin for error.

Gameplay/fun: Being able to take alot of gun damage and give hell back would be fun, a bit of insane gunplay. Downside - it could feel false. you'll know you're playing a game and get bored.

 

GTA IV has the balance right.

 

Sorry for the rambling. I like realism in games but its not something thats easily done. To every realism effect there is a negative impact on gameplay and vice versa.

Well articulated!

 

Interestingly, one-shot-death game rules can work out pretty well in an FPS (

), but only if the game is built with that kind of thing in mind, because the gameplay has to be fundamentally different to that of normal shooters. In a common FPS such as Call of Duty where you spend the majority of your time in close quarters combat, almost always outnumbered, it's just not possible to make a good game out of it.

 

...unless your target audience are masochists.

 

 

How real Do you want does the next Gta Charcter Have to shop for food?Has to brush His Teeth was his face and bath regularly?

Stop being unreasonable. Are you familiar with the term "straw man argument"? It refers to when someone takes their opponent's viewpoint to an absurd extreme and then refutes it, rather than discussing that viewpoint as it was originally presented.

 

Anyone who seriously suggests such extremes of realism when they voice a preference for more realism in games is either trolling or part of an incredibly miniscule minority. The rest of us, like the person I quoted above you in this post, understand that realism is a scale and that Grand Theft Auto belongs somewhere in the middle of it.

[The Notorious MOB]

 

understand that realism is a scale and that Grand Theft Auto belongs somewhere in the middle of it.

If GTA sits in the middle then what sits at the top (most realistic)??

 

[GritEngine]

 

The real difference in realism between the two games is that on the off time from the main story, GTA IV had you play pool with your cousin, go on dates, and watch TV, while Saints Row 2 had you out shooting up gangs and breaking things. Now which was more fun? Honestly now.

Good points above too. For this question, IV. Without a doubt, but because of the same reasons you outline in this post. Production value. Not only did SR and especially SR2 [attempt to] rip off GTA, it ripped off "the wrong interpretation of gta" - it tried to be something that a lot of people think GTA is but really isn't, and failed technically speaking with the various things you listed.

 

The reason that off time was so fun for me was the brilliant execution throughout the entire production. The TV might be TV but Rockstar made TV - in a video game - fun. The press it got about "would you rather?" even ripped off GTA, hiring former actors of their games to pretty-much reprise their roles while bashing GTA. I bet Gary Busey didn't even know what was going on, either. He was blowing bubbles with his mouth just doin' his Gary Busey thing.

 

Tangent.

 

What I was trying to say is that with all the press like "would you rather?" it turned out that not only did rockstar make a seemingly boring thing somewhat deep and exhilarating to do in a game, but they did with production value that made me really, really like being Niko Bellic. I am about to go watch some Luis TV, or find one for Johnny as I know I haven't checked that out yet I wonder if Johnny can even watch TV? Or if his safehouse even has one

Edited July 22, 2010 by GritEngine

[crackdawg]

SR I and II have 3D content that looks like it was made with a 90s 3D modeling tool, textures were also flat with no details. They compensated with normal maps which is trademark of "next-gen".

 

GTA has better content+better story writing+better game mechanics.

 

Did you see the buses and cars in SR I and II? Enough said. It looked like you were playing some game some kids put together with free web downloaded 3d content. The AI was also utter garbage. Even their engine had very high level bugs which till this day have not been fixed.

 

R* knows what they are doing.

[Knife]

As far as I'm concerned, realism should only be used if it complements and improves a game and its gameplay. GTA IV took some aspects of realism which are great and others that aren't.

 

The great stuff really all comes under 'visuals'. The physics, textures and all the little details are just fantastic an unmatched. Sadly though, other realistic elements tended to impact fun and cause frustration. The stupid 'Get tapped by a car and then lie on the ground for 5 seconds' thing is so stupid. I have no idea why they did that.

 

The same goes for the story. As others said, in San Andreas you went into Area 51 to grab a jetpack. That sort of crazy stuff is so much more fun than realistic gritty missions where you just go shoot a couple of guys to save your cousin. GTA IV took itself a little too seriously.

 

Gay Tony was absolutely a step in the right direction. We need a full game of that kind of stuff.