Why do people always strive to replicate reality within something as virtual as video games? Is it solely for the sake of immersion? That being asked, I feel that games do not need to mimic reality in order to be "immersive". Let's take the Metal Gear series for example. The kind of things that happen within the series is ridiculous. There are people contacting the dead, surviving falls from gigantic bipedal robots, controlling wasps, taking down tanks singlehandedly, using psychic powers, calculating ricochet physics precisely and instantaneously, etc. However, this series is simply compelling. You "believe" it can happen, even though common sense tells you "No f***ing way!". If this is possible, why is it that people complain about some games not being "real" enough? The entire game is artificial, yet people strive to make it as close to reality as they possibly can.

This brings me to the graphics. Why do so many people want their games to look "realistic"? What does that offer us? If we ever do reach a point where our games become photorealistic, won't it just look boring? Where's the artistry in simply reproducing what our eyes already see? The medium is capable of so much more than this. Take the games from Clover Studio for example. "Viewtiful Joe" looks quite good to this day, yet it's far from being realistic. The upcoming "Okami" is even further removed from reality, but I can't help but be intoxicated by the visuals. And what discussion about video games as an art form is complete with the mention of "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus"? Ico's textures weren't all that detailed, and neither were the character models, yet it's breathtaking. I felt as though I was "in" the game even though it was clear that what I was looking at was not reality.

Discuss before I go nats >>

you pretty much nailed it in the coffin i mean graphics can only go as perfect as they can and i think making games look realisticly would be kind of dumb by you wanting games meaning you wanna play an arcade or simulated game i think xbox 360(the graphics) is the best it can get or at least that should be the best it can get i mean ps3 will try to top it but you can only go so far

That is a very simplistic view. It is like saying that just because you have more options, you can't be creative. Some of the most beutiful art is done with a computer.While there are some interesting things painted on cave walls, they are not as aesthetically pleasing to modern man as the art that has come after them. Some games are better with realistic graphis. GTA will get even more fun as they add realism to it. If you don't want things to improve just stick with what you have now and don't bother buying the 360 or the PS3.

I totally agree with Goofy. One of the best things about games is the fact that you can do stuff that you would normally never dream of doing, and if the graphics are too realistic, I think it just kills that atmosphere of fantasy. Also, the really brilliant stuff is often the way that the graphics are used: I mean, realistic or not, if the graphics aren't breathtaking, if they don't have the right feel to them, then they count for nothing anyway.

Dungeon Siege is a brilliant example of this. The graphics aren't as real as they could be, but WOAH the scenery is amazing. True Art at its finest.
Also the cinematics in final fantasy 8... the people don't look entirely real, but the cinematics are still absolutely amazing. And the computer generated look of the whole thing is part of what makes it special. Makes it look like animation as opposed to photography.

There's nothing wrong with striving for realism in a game. Think of the possibilities, which somehow make the player more involved in the game. Imagine a car simulator, which allows you to drive something you normally could never afford, or, as antisocial as it may be, realism of dating sims or whatever could be equally appealing to some people. There is a lot of reason for realism; why would artists attempt realistic pictures or paintings at all if realism offered "nothing".

Of course more abstract and wacky graphics and art has it's own charm, and to be honest, I do prefer that kind of thing in games. I do know a lot of people who would beg to differ though, and it's an opinion I respect and understand where they're coming from.

I dont really like realism much in games. Take NHL Hits 2003 for example. Sports games usually try to be realistic, but Hitz strays way away from that. You can play hockey in a car factory, a barn, have players set on fire, and get rewarded for fighting. And its the funnest sports video game Ive played. When I play games, I wanna forget about reality. I wanna have fun. There are many games that have great graphics or are realisitc, but aren't that fun and therefore aren't that great of a game (according to me). To be honest, most (like 8 out of my top 10) of my favorite games are over 10 years old. Before they had realisitc graphics. They just are more... fun. For me its all about enjoying the game, and I find that "realism" takes away from that enjoyement often. Sometims I think that people are forgetting that video games are supposed to be fun. Thats what they started as: entertainment, not art. Good art can help a game be more fun, but too much focus on art and gfx... And so on...

The whole point of video game realism is to allow the gamer to better feel as if they are actually a part of the game, instead of just a player of the game. True, there is a certain point that shouldn't be crossed with realism, else a game becomes just as boring as real life, but having things look and act as one imagines they would if the world was real only enhances the experience that comes with gaming.

They try to make games as real as possible without unbalancing the gameplay. For example, let's suppose the game is realistic in every aspect--you'd die in one hit, so the game would be hard. Once you die, you'd never come back to life. You cannot load or save the game. You have to eat, sleep, and do ordinary tasks as often as you do yourself, which would require patience and much effort. Games try to be as realistic as they can, but they cannot do everything without creating a horrible mess.

For me, videogame is not realistic after all. Think about it, if a videogame is so... realistic, then why won't you play it by yourself? For example, I often played soccer videogame in the old-consoles, until SNES. But, after it's so much realistic like in Sony PlayStation (Winning Eleven if I'm not wrong), I stop playing it. Better I went to the soccer ground and play it with my friends.

That is an example of what I've seen about realistic in videogame. For me, maybe cool graphics can make something so real, to think now with XBOX360 out, the model in the game almost as real as real person outside the videogame world. Yeah, I thought that's good...

Gamer as player in the game is what they had to be, I thought. We as gamers play in something different than normal world, the real world we live in. I myself play videogames only if it's something I cannot do in real life. Take example as Metal Gear Solid if you would. There's no possibility for me to go to do espionage if not in the game.

The next the more unrealistic game is one like 'free-roaming genre'. Some believes GTA 3 is the first who make this genre popular. See, the unrealistic make the game is so much famous. It's crazy if someone just go to the trafiic and hijack the cars as he wish, or get a gun and kill anyone he met then noone put him in the jail?

But there are also a field of videogame that I want to be real. You see, .hack// series made the new world (a game called THE WORLD) which can transfer a real huma