I don’t understand this so-called comparison. It explicitly implies that “realism” and “fun” are somehow opposite ends of the same scale. As if the greater the level of abstraction, the more fun a game becomes, which is ridiculous. Neither realism or abstraction by themselves have much to do with how fun a game is.

Abstract games tend to be more conducive to current human-computer interfaces, which are inherintly binary (keyboard) or 2-dimensional (mouse). At most we have joysticks and gamepads which can combine the two with a some success. But it is more the poor sensory feedback computers can give us that creates a barrier with more realistic experiences (referring to world physics–player movement, object handling, field of vision, environment design).

Regarding comparisons to movies, I believe there is some overlap in the sense that both strive to create a “cinematic experience,” the cathartic reliving of some experience we cannot or would not do ourselves but are nonetheless curious. They also both rely primarily on moving images and sounds to convey the experience.

There is a monumental difference however in the way audiences engage with the media. Movies are by their nature a passive medium and absolutely require their own specific techniques to absorb and immerse the audience. The interactivity of games transforms the way meaning is created through the experience. It *requires* the audience to actively engage, not only in the “physical” interaction and decision making, but also in how they interpret and formulate meaning from it.

This is not black and white. There is a wide spectrum between completely passive and entirely abstract entertainment (anyone who has watched their MP3 visualizer WITHOUT any music playing for an hour can tell you that), and a hyper-realistic simulation of leading a fire team through a house-clearing mission in Kosovo.

The design of the most successful and endearing games could probably be arrived at by imagining how a situation would appear in our reality, and abstracting the rules and mechanics as necessary to fit the technological constraints of the delivery platform, and the desired focal point of the experience.

But I think the quest is not for that, but for believability…

It doesn’t have to be realistic to be believable… it just has to have some sort of sound logic that ties everything together…

even that last statement isn’t entirely true, but I think that is part of the gist of it all…

Robin Hunicke attended last week’s Game Tech industry seminar, I assume circumventing the $2450 registration fee . The gathering was comprised of a Creating Believable Characters Seminar and a Game Tech Leadership Summit. She wrote up a great t…

But in games, you’re right–the answer’s pretty much dead obvious. The ancient Magic Candle games sometimes came down on the wrong side of this–who didn’t hate it when terrible consequences followed forgetting to set up a “rest” sequence just right, and have enough people fix their weapons?