As a concept I'm quite happy with Realism. I like the real world, it brings me great joy. I enjoy realistic looking paintings, I like pictures, and I learn about how the real world works. However, I do have a limit to how much I enjoy Realism, and when I've had enough of the real world I go read a book or play a video game. It is during these retreats that I start to encounter difficulties with Realism. That's not to say that I refuse to play realistic games or read books about real events, because that simply isn't true, but I find far too often that Realism equals boring.
Who reads history books for fun? Anyone? Oh you over there... yes I see, so what you're saying is that sometimes reading about history is pretty interesting. True, but how was that book written? Was it a straight run of the facts? I'm sorry, I can't quite hear you, but I'm guessing that you said that it wasn't. There were pictures, asides, anecdotal evidence, why there were even events that got cut-out. All of these things were done in the effort to make the history more presentable. A great example is Mark Twain's biography of Jeanne D'Arc (Joan of Arc). I would say that about half of Twain's biography is about his fictional protagonist, and yet when Jeanne does come up Twain changes, adds, and removes nothing from what we know about her and the events that surround her. The book is entertaining in its own right, and is also an extremely accurate, if slightly biased, biography.
Video Games could learn a lot from Twain. It is more common than I would like to hear a game designer talking about how realistic their physics/visuals/setting is/are. I do like accurate physics (Half-Life 2's physics system was more fun than the original game), and I eagerly await when we break out of uncanny valley (when digital representations of people start looking to real they start looking really strange to us). What I do not like is when nobody asks that designer the question that should follow up anything they do or so involving a video game, "But is it fun?" Watching my roommates trade off on the TV has been a great example of this lesson for me.
One of them has been playing Assassin's Creed, and the other has been playing Super Mario Galaxy. I watch my friend play Assassin's Creed and it looks like he's having fun, but then he swears a bit when hits a loading screen, or a little more when he stumbles off a ledge, and then curses wildly when his character falls over like a buffoon because a guard threw him. On the other side I have my friend who shouts in excitement as he gets hit by flying cannon shells that chase him, and laughs when he accidentally leaps into a black whole. The difference between the two games is that when Super Mario Galaxy was being made, the most common question that was asked was, "Is it fun?" Assassin's Creed is a lot of fun, but if the developers had made the character a little faster, a little better at jumping, and a whole lot better at not falling down like a drunk frat boy like the super-cool assassin that he's supposed to be, then both of my friends would be having as much fun as each other. I have some more to say about how the general public seems to fear things that aren't Realism, but it's one in the morning and I have class at nine-thirty. Till tomorrow, good night and sleep tight.
-Cory Ragsdale
1 comment:
Realism vs fun factor... um. I agree I want to enjoy my time!
Post a Comment