Real is Boring

By Cyrris

A couple of days ago, a forum thread got me thinking. Just how does the world in which a game is set affect the overall experience? By game world, I of course mean the era/location the game is set - be it modern-day, ancient Rome, or in a galaxy far, far away. Game worlds typically fall into two main categories. Firstly, there is realism, where the developers may try and convey today’s world, or that of a time in history. We’ve seen a lot of World War 2 games recently, that’s for sure. The other category is that of the make-believe. This is mainly cut up into fantasy and sci-fi, and I believe that games of this category have consistently been better than their realism counterparts.

I think that strategy games are perhaps the most vivid example of how this is the case. Let’s look at StarCraft, Blizzard’s only (so far) venture into the sci-fi universe. The game has 3 races, each with their own distinct culture and attitude. This is resembled in their units, the cutscenes, and even in the games interfaces. The developers have gone out of their way to teach us about the unique societies they have created, as they know that we aren’t already familiar with what they have to offer. Blizzard also uses a remarkable story with good characters to convey the attributes of each society in turn, and thus give a distinct overview of the unique game world (or in this case, universe) which StarCraft is set in.

Similarly, but on the fantasy side of things, WarCraft 3 is perhaps the most shining example. 4 playable races, each with it’s own special feel. Because we don’t see these things in every day life, the developers do everything they can to make each culture’s intricacies readily apparent. Hell, even your mouse cursor is different depending on what race you’re playing as. To this day, the Night Elves remain my favourite faction of any game - ever - simply because I love the way Blizzard created them.

With magic (or in sci-fi, technology), actual gameplay gets a boost as well. The developers don’t have to work with whatever history or modern day weapons lets them. Physics isn’t much of an issue, and this means they can create all kinds of different and interesting strategies to be used, and skills to be utilized.

On the other hand, let’s take a look at strategy games which are based on realism. Can you think of any WW2-based RTS games which didn’t seem a bit bland compared to their sci-fi and fantasy counterparts? I can’t! The Age of Empires series, based in ancient to medieval times, didn’t demonstrate much depth to it’s respective cultures at all, and I found both games quite bland. It featured different buildings and units, and that’s about it. It seems to me that because developers of these games have to work within the confines of history and reality, their games often lack good atmosphere and depth, as they take these things for granted. They don’t need to explain every detail about them because we already know such things. Sometimes.

I find that this is less true outside of strategy, but it still generally holds. There are some very good shooters which do an outstanding job in creating an atmosphere that is worth gaming in. Some depict World War 2 very, very vividly, while the last installment of the GTA series, Vice City, also had a great retro feel. However, I just think that these are in the minority. Look at Counter-Strike. No real atmosphere at all, very bland.

It is true that some fantasy games suck. I thought Age of Mythology was pretty bland and boring - but still better than it’s historically-correct predecessors. Perhaps this is because the developers still had some confines to work within, because they chose to follow actual ancient mythology? I guess so. Unlike WarCraft 3’s developers, they weren’t allowed to let their creative juices flow as freely. Dungeon Siege had the chance, but blew it by not incorporating the cultures it created into a living, deep game world. It’s NPCs were boring, the storyline and background stories weren’t at all enthralling, and interaction on almost all levels was pretty poor.

Perhaps I’m not being fair by using Blizzard games as my fantasy and sci-fi benchmarks, as Blizzard has always delivered amazing quality, no matter the game. I suppose one good contender would be Command & Conquer: Generals - only of my favourite games. It is set in modern-ish times, and still has a rather good atmosphere, brought through using some decent cutscenes, culturally-related in-game music, and units/constructions. That said, it also does have a bit of sci-fi in it, as it is set slightly in the future. This, I suppose, is how the developers tried to free themselves from the bland confines of boring modern-day reality. Come to think of it, that’s been the case with every Command & Conquer title to date. No wonder they were so good.

So that’s my take. I think games where the developers have more creative freedom are games that just end up being better, deeper, and more appealing than their realism counterparts. Perhaps it’s because the real world is actually boring. Hell, that’s why we’re gaming in the first place, isn’t it?