True Realism Manifesto

MANIFESTO REPRODUCED BELOW:

THE CAUSE

Gaming is infected with propaganda. From companies withholding licenses unless their products are portrayed positively, to special interests compromising games' artistic integrity, to developers that just don't know what the fawk they're talking about, our video game industry has repeatedly and unnecessarily pushed misinformation and fake news into your entertainment.

The True Realism manifesto is an acknowledgment that realism doesn't necessarily make a game accurate to reality. For the purposes of this manifesto, "fake realism" is any unrealistic mechanics, assets, narratives, and any other game features that reasonable players are led to believe are realistic. Thus, "true realism" does not necessarily entail realism. Rather, it is the lack of misleadingly unrealistic game features.

CASE STUDY: ARMA 3

Arma 3 is a self-described "military simulator" developed and published by Bohemia Interactive. It's Steam page entices you to "experience true combat gameplay". While the game depicts various military technologies with high accuracy, it also lacks long-term consequences for player actions. For instance, a respawn mechanic, light to no visible effects of killing civilians, and a lack of macro-level strategic simulation (logistics outside the theater of war, political considerations to the war effort, etc.) encourages and justifies players to place low priority on theirs and other's lives. This gives reasonable players an unrealistic representation of the effects of war, despite being told they would "experience true combat gameplay". Thus, the potential for fake realism is high; Arma 3 isn't true realism. Note that Arma 3 features many different game modes, some of which have less fake realism than others. For instance, a community-run campaign where the death of a civilian reduces the reputation of the player's unit is significantly less fake than unrelated, one-off missions.

CASE STUDY: PIKMIN 2

Pikmin 2 is a roguelite-RTS developed and published by Nintendo. It's back-of-the-box blurb says that "after crash-landing on an alien world inhabited by tiny Pikmin, Captain Olimar has returned to his home world to find out that his employer, Hocotate Freight, has been driven to the brink of bankruptcy!" As you would expect, the game isn't realistic in the vast majority of aspects, as the setting, narrative, art style, etc. make clear. During gameplay, you command squads of Pikmin. They take significant time to spawn/recruit and die in one hit. Meanwhile, the game has significantly dangerous enemies that like to ambush. While most enemies can be killed relatively easily, almost every enemy can quickly kill half your squad if allowed. This gives reasonable players a realistic emotional investment in their troop's lives, without claiming realism in any other regard. In addition, features such as procedurally generated dungeons introduce a realistic amount of unpredictability, yet the game's lightweight progression and treasure systems give realistic reasons to keep trying. Because of this, the potential for fake realism is low; Pikmin 2 is true realism.

---

MANIFESTO GOAL

A non-compulsive game with as broad an audience as possible that doesn't give people the wrong idea about reality. Anything else (fun, story, eye candy) is outside the scope of this guide, though it usually is a welcome addition, as it reduces the likelihood of players rejecting reality.

THE GOLDEN RULE

If it exists in real life, it must be portrayed as accurate as possible OR clearly communicated to the player that unrealistic. If it doesn't exist or have an analog to reality, it's fair game.

---

PROPERTIES OF TRUE REALISM

Note that whether a game is true or fake realism should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Consider these properties a list of tools; they're best suited for true realism, but like a power drill used to crack skulls, they can be misused. Whatever you do, don't stray from the golden rule.

PLAYER MOTIVATION

The most skilled man giving 100% can still fail due to luck, but anyone giving 0% is guaranteed to fail.
The least skilled man giving 100% can still succeed due to luck.
Player starts with nothing and can lose any progress they make. However, the journey itself should be engaging enough to repeat, regardless of reward.

GAME SYSTEMS

Stats should be in realistically measurable values; miles per hour rather than "speed", newtons of force rather than "damage", diagnosable wounds rather than "hit points" etc.
Combat should be brutal, unfair, and unfulfilling.
You only get information your character would realistically know in their situation. For instance, you'd need to unload you gun's magazine to check exactly how many bullets are left, health is expressed by your character's wounds, hunger is expressed through stomach growls, etc.
You should be able to do anything the player would reasonably expect their character to do. For instance, if you have hands, then you should be able to grab things. If you can fly, then you shouldn't be limited by an invisible wall. And so on.
If something absolutely can't be realistic, the unrealism must be pointed out to the player in a way the player understands and processes.

NARRATIVE THEMES

Fiction changes your view of the world, even when you know it's fake.
Everything in fiction happens because the authors say so.
Everyone is just as much a person as you, and that's okay.
People make mistakes.
Status awards are at best meaningless, at worst manipulative.
The player and player character are intertwined in complex ways; they're neither one in the same, nor completely detached.
If violence ever becomes necessary, it was preventable, though not always by you.
Death matters.

THINGS TO DO

Acceptable failure.
Procedural generation.
Permadeath.
Reputation system.
First person perspective.
Minimal HUD.
Minimal music.
One-to-one controls.

THINGS TO AVOID

Experience points and level ups. Character progression is fine, but it must be analog and realistically related to your actions; for instance, punching a training dummy for ten years shouldn't make you the greatest fighter in the world, as you never practiced tactics.
Human damage sponges. Respect the power of a gun; if you shoot someone in the head, they die. Aliens and other fantastic creatures are more acceptable, though they must be portrayed as much, much tougher than a human.
Oversexualization. Sexy is fine; impossibly sexy gives the wrong idea.
Excessive loot. If items with no practical value are given as rewards, then that misleads players into believing loot has unrealistically high value.
Points. Points are arbitrary rewards that can be used to encourage anything, truly realistic or otherwise. Thus, their potential for manipulation is high.
Mooks. Everyone is just as much a person as you, regardless of how important they are to your life.
Completely non-lethal weapons. They're actually called less-lethal. Less-lethal can be lethal.
Videogame logic. Not everyone knows videogame logic; people do know real logic. And if they don't, they should.
100% completion meters. Players should be encouraged to complete the game on it's own merits; if there's a definitive 100% completion state, there must be a reason to complete the game not inherent in any arbitrary task.
Karma meters. If you want to judge a player's morals, they have to know who's judging them and what their authority is. Standard karma meters do none of that.
Lettuce. It has no taste and horrible texture. Stop putting it on your sandwiches. Seriously, it's disgusting. You're disgusting.

---

WE MUST JUDGE GAMES BY THEIR VALUE

Using the principles of true realism, we can objectively gauge any game's value to humanity. To measure quality, we must look at the impact a game has on the world, good or ill.

What benefits does this game have? What harm does it cause? What truths or lies does it teach? Does it make life easier or harder? If a game is a commercial success or failure, what effect does that have on our lives? If a game's respected or vilified, how does that effect the world?

Many of these questions can only be definitively answered with time. However, reviewers and critics can make predictions via historical and scientific precedent. For instance, if evidence suggests a trope used under specific circumstances misleads the audience, then we can assume that trope will keep misleading the audience, even when used in other works. Which leads us to the final declaration:

WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE WORLD

We cannot know a game's impact without knowing the world. Without historical and scientific precedent, we have no means with which to make accurate predictions. Thus, we must study media and what it represents, sharing our knowledge as needed.

Only then can we rid our industry of lies. Only then can we game with peace of mind.