What makes an Adventure Game seem "REAL"?

[timh_009]

Just a quick question. What makes a game seem more real to you? what is it that makes you care what happens in the story? Is it better more photorealistic graphics? It is great dialog? it it the characters or the story and the conflicts they get into?

I have no idea but I want to make a game that people would think "gee that could have really happened" or " Gee that could happen to anyone anytime ANYWHERE!"

I know that the game genre prehaps isn't the best method of doing this and a book or movie would be ideal but this is the AGS forums and I'll ask a question related to AGS.

thanks for your input

[Hollowman]

Well for me, personally, it is the story and the dialog more than anything else. Many of the older adventures had better atmosphere and immersed me more in the game than modern ones do with flashy graphics. I think one of the reasons for this is that too much time is spent on flashy presentation and not enough time on an in-depth storyline. The problem with that is that flashy graphics wear off quickly, whereas an engrossing plot will stay with you a lot longer.

[shbaz]

Lens flare helps. Plus everything should be in ultra-realistic 3d.

[Trumgottist]

The word that came to my mind when I read the subject line was "details". That applies to all aspects to the game making. Do worry about the details, beacuse they make a difference.

An extra animation for the main character adds to the polish, an extra detail (possibly animated) in the environment makes the setting come alive, an extra detail in the character of an NPC makes him more believable...

Attention to detail in the technical implementation also helps make the game more real. Every thing that doesn't work properly or is slightly awkward reminds the player that he's playing a computer game.

In reply to John: True, but when cathing up on last year's games (I wanted to have played all the nominees for the TCN awards and I had only played a few, so I've been doing quite a lot of that) I realised that graphics and music are more important to me as a player than I thought. First impressions matter, and you don't get to know the story and puzzles until after you've played for a while. A game that can set an atmosphere from the start has a clear advantage, and you can only do that with good graphics. (Note that good graphics doesn't have to mean hi-res or the latest 3d engine. For the purposes of this discussion, a text only game can have "good graphics".)

[Gonzo]

I don't know whether seeming 'real' is really what they aim to do - however much you play Sam And Max you're not going to believe all that stuff could really happen. Animals just don't run detective agencies in New York for a start.

But there are some games where a lot of effort has to go into realism I think - like the dialogue has to seem natural (not a stream of gags). Actually the first Gabriel Knight I seem to remember being quite like that - even though it dealt with the supernatural, it was done in a pretty down-to-earth way, e.g. the conversations were believable, which really worked for that game particularly. It really felt quite real. Graphics and music surely help too.

But I think all adventure games have in common a need to just immerse the player in the world, make it *interesting* to explore beyond the bare bones of the puzzles, whether it seems real or not. The puzzles are in a way the mechanics of the game, how the story is told, and you need more than that. It needs to be filled out with interesting characters, backstories, places. The interactive experience isn't enough to truly grab a player - you need details and fleshed-out characters, like a film.

[timh_009]

Gonzo, when I said "gee that could have happened" I meant it as in that could happen in the weird far out world the characters are in. So in the Sam & Max world yes these 2 animals can run a detective agency.
do you understand what I mean? I can't seem to get the right words.

In Gabriel Knight you believed that the supernatural stuff could happen because the characters reacted to it in a real lifelike way. Like Indiana Jones you believe this can be real, you believe this could happen because of the way the story and characters react to it.
But in something like.... Friday the 13th. You knew that Jason wasn't real because the characters didn't react to him in a lifelike way. (mainly due to bad dialog and bad acting)

So I think I answered my own question but still what are your thoughts on the subject?

[Barcik]

It's in the characters, man. The characters must have a real independent personality. They have a life of their own, not just the one in the game. "The Longest Journey" is a perfect example. There's plenty of small talk that has nothing to do with the plot of the game. This makes us feel that April lives in real world, where people can say more than "fetch me that key, would you?".

[HillBilly]

I think Grim Fandango tells more about the main character(Manny). It's like what Barcik said; chit chat. But there can be more than that. Like in the office of sam and max, you can SEE that they are slobby, possibly not really economic established and lives in a ghetto look-a-like area. When you go inside the "Liqour, Guns and baby needs" shop, you can see that Sam and Max don't care much about rules, and Max would happily kick your ass.

[Ginny]

Apart from what everyone said being true, I really agree with Trumgottist on details. I often ramble a bit too much on these so I'm glad Iwas  spared that.

Now, when saying 'real' I dont think of it as the game being an experience that resembles real life, and in fact I am not at all fond of realistic graphic, but it is rather the immerssion of the game, that should, on some level, cause the player to forget (isn't there a word for this?) that he is playing a game, and thus anything at all that makes sense in the game world is 'real'. Is this what you meant timh?

Now, other than details, which are needed in every part of the game for all purposes, immerssion, or 'realism' is also echieved, in my opinion, by having interesting stories, surprising and/or emotional twists in the plot, dialogue, deep fleshed out characters, and athmosphere, including graphics and music of course. The comment that text only adventures can have "good graphics" is abrilliant point, as having no graphics and no music does set an atmosphere as well, and though it is often dark and mysterious, it doesn't have to be.

I wouldnt really want a player to say or think that a situation is possible, wether its in real life or in the realistic game world (heh, Ive been meaning to start a discussion about realism in games, something sorta similar to this ). I prefer that the player feels, subconciously, that he is not in a game, and only later he will realise he was so immersed that everything seemes realistic. In real life, we do not think all of a sudden, wow this is possible, or gee this can happen, we just accept it because we are used to it. The level of immerssion I hope to see in games some day in the far future is like that of real life, or rather that of a dream. The most unusual and illogical things can happen in dreams, and yet we do not take them as such, we go about the dream and everything makes sense.
This is all theory though, and implementation is difficult. I think the truest immerssion wil come when, at some late time, scent, touch, and taste are implemented in games, but for now, and in general, great immerssion can be achieved with graphics, sounds (not just music, sound effects and voice acting too), and most importantly story, character, atmosphere, characters, dialogues, and one more thing I forgot which is puzzles. Especcially in AGS games, a surprising puzzle, and puzzles that make sense within the game. See my post in the last GTD on atmosphere for a long example I wrote.

P.s. One more thing is that all the aspects and parts need to have a little something that increases immerssion, and they should all work well together too, otherwise these inconcistencies(sp?) or clashes will get in the way and destroy all the realism you may have established. As an AGS game developer I find it easier and more productive, for me, to focus on story and characterss rather than graphics and music, as writing is my stronger point. I sometimes feel that my writing only works for adventure games, but I actually think very cinematically and verbally at the same time, which I think/hope is a good method. Saying that games cant be as immersive as books and films isn't true, and there are even a few games I consider examples of this, such as (at the risk of being repetetive), surprise surprise, Grim Fandango.

[timh_009]

GinnyW: yes that is exactly what I meant about everything making sense.
and i totally understand where your coming from with the dream thing. I dream about a lot of weird stuff but during my dream I never say to myself "Gee this is too weird to be real" I just take it for granted. I also get all that stuff about immersion in the game experience.

Barick: I also get what you mean about the small talk. I love it when a character gives you so much info that is entirely irrelevant to the story. Take "Under a Killing Moon" for example. I love this game   Well anyway the dialog goes into each characters back story. e.g why are they here? what in their life brought them to act like they do? and other main questions. Instead of just having the merchant stand there and offer jackets and fake eyeballs, you get an idea of why he is offering jackets and fake eyeballs? even though you don't need to know why.

Also I realize that my first post sort of phrased my question wrong but you all seem to be getting what I meant.