So, it’s no surprise that the game didn’t sell the way Ubisoft projected – and despite a positive outlook from the company – I don’t think it will end up being a major success.
Despite spectacular environments, excellent persistent graphics (almost no loading) and a game that paints a realistic portrait of war-torn
The trouble with realism in games is simple: games are not real. They might be built on physics systems that operate like the real world, they might include real weapons, real environments and advanced AI – but in the end, they are not real – they are games.
So why doesn’t realism work? I’ve got three reasons:
Immersive versus Enjoyable
While many games strive for immersion, whether through environments (GTA 4) or narrative (Portal), the ultimate question that decides if players come back to a game constantly happens to be: is it enjoyable?
The immersion tactics of GTA 4 serve the gameplay – they are not the sole focus of it. All the sights and sounds of
Same goes for Portal with its strong sense of narrative that draws you in through a subtlety delivered story. The game makes you feel like you are part of the environment, but ultimately, its window-dressing to the gameplay mechanics.
Certainly, these games are successful at using immersion to portray reality – but the key is that the reality is the game’s own. It’s not real-world logic that the games are holding players to, but the internal logic of the game itself. The “reality” of the game works in harmony to how the game is played, further enhancing a player’s experience.
Far Cry 2 stumbles because the game’s dedication to creating a “real” environment goes against the internal logic of the game. To name a few, here are some of the “realistic” things the game does to create immersion:
- Weapons can jam and break over time
- Warring militias will attack you frequently
- Outposts that you’ve cleared will have people in them again
- Traveling to different places can take a long time
All of these things adhere to the logic of the real world. If you were to attack an outpost, it’s likely that if you came back later there could be people in it – and they wouldn’t be friendly. Same goes for weapons – they can break and jam.
The problem is, these mechanics don’t jive with the logic of the gameplay. Consider the premise of Far Cry 2 – you are a solider whose mission is to kill the Jackal. To accomplish your mission you must:
- Kills hundreds of men who stand in your way over various missions
- Trek endless miles either in a jeep, boat or by foot across the African Savannah
- Negotiate between two dangerous militias
- Find a way to constantly battle malaria during the whole affair
No matter what kind of elements that are added to make it realistic, such as giving the player malaria attacks, the fact is – the goal of the game could not be realistically achieved by one person in real life.
That said, these real-world elements make playing Far Cry 2 often excruciatingly frustrating. The game wants you to kill dozens of men to complete a mission (unrealistic), but then it hinders you by making your weapon jam (reality), and making you travel a long distance (reality) through countless hostile, respawning outposts (reality).
Games as escape from reality
So what could Far Cry 2 have done differently? That’s simple, remove weapons jamming and make it easier to teleport to the start of mission objectives. Is this realistic in the real world? No, it isn’t. But at the same time, it’s not unrealistic to the logic of Far Cry 2, which asks you to complete missions using a lot of weapons and traveling to lots of different locations.
The key is that games are an escape from reality – so while they might reflect elements of reality – they should not operate exactly like reality. The point of the game is to challenge and empower a player to do something they couldn’t do in real life. The trouble with Far Cry 2 is that it attempts to give you “real-life” challenges in a game that couldn’t possibly be replicated in real life. The result is that the realistic elements frustrate and limit a players’ enjoyment of the main mechanic of the game – planning and completing objectives using a variety of weapons, tactics and vehicles.
The sore thumb theory
As some reviews attest, another problem with trying to make a game reflect the real world is that when the game to do this with some component, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
With Far Cry 2, all of these pieces attempt to create a vivid picture of a real war-torn African landscape – except the day and night cycle happens faster than in real life, enemies don’t act like humans and sometimes when they are shooting at you, they are not even facing you.
The trouble with realism is that it demands complete loyalty. You can’t make some elements realistic and then shirk other things because they just stand out even more, doubly reversing the immersion you’ve attempted to create. Sure, my weapon jams just like a real gun, but why do the guards not see me when I’m standing right next to them? Why does it take five shots to knock down an enemy? The problem is, you can’t go for reality half-way because every element that’s not realistic takes game players out of the game, and gets them asking these types of questions.
The trouble with realism is that it’s not always fun – especially when it doesn’t serve the gameplay. Just look at the equally mixed-reviews of Mirror’s Edge, which attempts to portray parkour in a realistic way, but then makes design decisions that conflict with the internal logic of the gameplay.
With Far Cry 2, it suffers from the same problem – the balance between creating an immersible reality and delivering an enjoyable game experience is offset for the former.
So when you ask, is this game realistic: you can say “mostly, yes” but when you ask is this game fun:
I have to say “mostly, no.”
No comments:
Post a Comment