Over the years, many of us have been measuring the power of a machine and the quality of graphics by the realism in games. It is easy to see how that mistake can be made when you consider the change in game graphics from 4-pixel crude drawings to photo-realistic characters and environments, it is more realistic, so therefore the graphics are better. Right? Not always. And this assumption that more realism is better is hindering creative development and making games less interesting in the long run.

To put it bluntly, realism is boring. I don't know about you, but I play games to escape reality, to enter new and exciting worlds that aren't like anything I've seen or experienced before. Okay, maybe you'll want to experience rally-driving, plane-flying, or one of many sports. But surely you only need one really good game to experience it. For example, why do we need Rally Driver [insert year], Rally Championship, V-Rally and countless other generic rallying titles that offer little new to the last one? I find it dissapointing that the talent, creativity and imagination of many developers is being squandered on merely recreating real-life situations. And the fact that it is real-life that is being recreated sucks all the fun out of a game. Take two case examples, the Shenmue and Gran Turismo series.

Now I realise that the realism and consequently, detail, found in these games is to be applauded, not every developer could've pulled such realism off. But realism isn't fun. Shenmue wasn't fun. Gran Turismo wasn't fun. Where is the fun in walking about a photorealistic city with photorealistic constraints. I mean, come on, you had to get a job to get money. Now spending time at my job is bad enough, I don't want to have to work in a game, a medium I use to escape the daily pressures and tedium of life sometimes. Who cares if you could interact with everything in your environment if all the reactions were just the same as the ones in the real life. You could play every tape. You could talk to everyone. You could examine the city that was detailed down to the last inch. But so what? Gran Turismo is the same. Sure, the realism on offer was staggering, but after the inital amazement at it, what was there? Just driving painfully real-life cars around ordinary tracks, with heavy concentration required. I really did not like that.

I would rather have a game like Mario Kart than Gran Turismo and all its kin. At least in Mario Kart you can do things you wouldn't have been able to do in real life, and have fun with your mates while you're doing it. Which of these is more fun? Using a lightning to shrink your opposition, and boosting your way through the course and past your tiny rivals only to be squashed by a Thwomp at the past minute, allowing your brother to sail past laughing his head off, or judging your taps and movement on your control stick to perfection so you beat your brother in an uneventful, almost scripted, race? I dare you to name a moment in GT that had you smiling and laughing more than MK.

Thankfully, as far as I can see it, obsession with realism is soon drawing to a close. I feel that this generation will see realistic graphics pretty much reach their highest point. Yes, graphics can always get more realistic (console abilities can always be raised) but I think that post-Xbox/Gamecube/PS2, the advances in realism won't be enough to get people excited about them, or warrant spending more money. Look at the stuff XBox is producing in its infancy, just imagine how realistic its games (and indeed, Gamecubes and PS2s) will be when this generation of consoles rolls to a close, developers won't need to focus on making games more realistic. And this will benefit gamers everywhere, because that means that developers will have to do one (or both) of two things:

a) Work on making a better game beneath the pretty graphics (something a lot of Xbox developers haven't caught onto yet)
b) Work on developing more unique and expressive graphical styles (Capcom and Nintendo are doing this, more on it later)

So we're eventually going to have more good games behind uber-graphics and more experimenting with other graphical techniques. It all depends on how computer games are seen though. Publishers may see them as juts a form of profit and so will discourage or outright stop their developers from branching out into graphical styles that their mainstream audience won't accept, lowering profits. However, I like to think of games as an expressive medium. As ever, it comes down to the subject of mainstream gamers slowly ruining the games industry, but I'll save that rant for another column. Nintendo and Capcom can afford to experiment with graphics that could put off some people (remember the 'Celda' uproar? Hell, my mates still hate the new look) because a slight dip in sales isn't going to worry them. But small publishers and developers mightn't be willing to take such a risk and possibly alienate a big slice of their audience. But hopefully with companies like Nintendo, Capcom, Sega, Ubi Soft, Vivendi and others experimenting with different types of cel-shading smaller comapnies with follow suit.

Because cel-shading and its different variants do produce lovely graphics. Just watching games like Zelda: Wind Waker and Viewtiful Joe (one of my personal bets for surprise hit of 2003) in motion gives me hope for creative development in the future. Playing the Gran Turismo and Shenmue series does not, because they are so ordinary, so contemporary, so rooted in real life. I don't want those games, I want games that amaze me with new and exciting worlds, where I can do anythinng, without barriers and restrictions. I want fun games. And unfortunately, the greater part of realism does not offer that.

By Conor

The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Gamecube Europe or any of its affliates.

Do you think realism is boring? Or does it add to the experience? Send any comments to [email protected] or use the news comments below.