I was typing this out in another thread and decided the topic kind of deserves its own thread.

On the topic of realism in video games. Realism is something that is absolutely necessary for a video game to be successful and fun to play, so long as it is included with moderation. People have to relate to the game world but also need to be able to have fun.

I could go and type out an even bigger ole wall of text, or I could just link to a man who pretty much laid the argument out quite nicely.

This is Nathaniel Chapman, a developer at Obsidian Entertainment.

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/5/entry-139-realism-vs-what-designers-care-about-verisimilitude-and-the-responsibility-of-expectations/

The key feature he mentions is the "responsibility of expectations", amongst several other things that are interesting to consider. I find myself heartily agreeing with a lot of what is said. It basically means what it says. If you expect to eventually run out of breath when your character is underwater, but your character does not, the developer has failed to deliver on your basic expectations. Which is their responsibility when making a game. This is where the realism argument gets kind of sketchy though.

As an advocate of realism in moderation, I think it is key to understand that certain things cannot meet your real life expectations because it would detract from the game if it did so. I don't think many people would want to have to micromanage their bowel movements in a game, for example. A more relevant and controversial example would be something like the developers not having player to player collision detection in the game. Players expect their character to not be able to just run through another character, however, in a lot of games the character does just that. It tends to bother people because it fails to deliver on your basic real world expectations. At the same time, many problems and difficulties come with this form of collision detection. Most people here know what that is by now so I don't feel a need to go into detail about that. It is sufficient to say that the inclusion of Collision Detection, in such a way that is done right, would be a very expensive process. This conflict between expectation and compromise creates a dilemma. People expect collision detection and they can see that there would be benefits to having it in the game from a tactical perspective. Such as shield walls, choke points, wedges, formations, etc etc... On the other hand, a quote from the developers is apt I think. "We can do anything, but we cannot do everything." If they went through the trouble to make all the systems necessary for collision detection to feel 'right' , it would cause other features to suffer and would very likely detract from the game as whole.

On the flip side, many basic things that are realistic very much enhance the experience of the game. Gas, solids and liquids pretty much act like they do in our world, as it is a much simpler and more immersive experience for everyone if they do so. People walk on their feet, fall to their deaths as gravity is simulated, swim in water, breath air and kill other people by causing irreparable and severe damage to their body's systems. All of these types of things are expected in games. People can relate to these basic ideas as we have no real idea how the world would work without them. It is something that becomes critically hard to grasp and the last thing a developer wants is someone scratching their head and getting frustrated trying to understand a simple part of their game. However, not all of these things are implemented perfectly as they are in our world and that makes them unrealistic. You cannot kill every NPC in the game after all, people are revived with magical soul gems and falls that would kill normal people in our world are shrugged off by the characters in this game. Other examples include boobplates, boob windows, spiky armors, giant weapons and other things that are not very realistic at all, but they add variety to customization, which makes the game fun for certain people.

My whole point here is this; yes this is just a game and it is a fantasy game to boot, but being grounded in realistic elements enhances the experience and expectations in a lot of ways. However, because it is a product meant to entertain, it should not limit itself to being completely realistic. Artists should have liberties to express themselves in order to awe the player. Players should not need to do things they don't want to do because it is realistic. Sure a shield wall would be a good last ditch method of defending a keep from people pouring in a broken gate entrance, but the game does not have to simulate that in order for it to be a fun experience. What should be remembered is that games are primarily about fun, incorporating elements that are limiting for the sake of realism is a bad idea that could detract from the primary focus of what games are about. Enjoyment.

Cheers.