- Primary Subject: Video Game Realism vs. Playability (The Realism Paradox)
- Key Update: The article examines "the realism paradox," arguing that while ultra-realism and nitpicked physics hurt game design, intuitive "gun and ball" or limb-based mechanics make games accessible and fun.
- Status: Confirmed
- Last Verified: September 28, 2026
- Quick Answer: Video games achieve good realism when they use real life as an intuitive framework for gameplay rather than pointlessly emulating reality down to tedious details.
I’ve come to realize that gaming realism is in such a confusing place right now because I’m not sure many people understand what they’re asking for, and developers may be paying the price. For as long as I can remember, we’ve tried to emulate reality in video games, and it just isn’t working out the way it should. As we’ve seen with the Nvidia DLSS5 debacle, making everything a yassified version of the dev’s original vision, there comes a point where realism is too much. But I don’t think it’s just a visual issue; I think it’s also a gameplay issue that explains why the big accessible games are as successful as they are.
Realism is in a weird place because not everyone understands its place in video games. Realism should be used as a framework for a game that you’re playing so that players can easily identify and relate to a game. Realism SHOULDN’T try to emulate real life as much as possible with very little creative wiggle room. Ultra realism does have a place in games such as Project Zomboid and Green Hell where important mechanics are meant to be found through common sense, but these are specific cases. If a game becomes too realistic, then what the heck are we even doing playing a video game?
Surprisingly enough, I believe that gun and ball video games are the few genres of games that get realism right, and that’s why they’re so successful. Every mechanic in gun and ball video games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and any of the 2K sports games is a proper translation of realistic mechanics in video game form. If you want to shoot your gun, you pull the trigger. You press a button to kick the ball into the goal, and another to shoot the ball into the court. You want to go left? Move the left stick to the left. It just makes sense. It’s why anyone can pick up any of these gun and ball games and start playing by just fiddling around with the controls.
Another genre-hopping example that I had in mind is Tekken vs Street Fighter. Both fighting games have just as much depth, although Tekken, being a 3D fighter that has a list of moves per character as long as a Cheesecake Factory menu, helps it edge out as the more difficult fighting game. With that said, I believe that Tekken is still the easier fighting game to pick up and play with 0 knowledge, not because of busted offensive-focused mechanics, but because the game is somewhat rooted in realism. Buttons aren’t light, medium, heavy punches or kicks; they’re divvied up into a button per limb, which makes moves feel easier to understand. Tekken’s roster is also mostly more “normal” (save for some bears and devils) without having to rely on fireballs and flying sumo wrestlers.
But most video game players (and dev company executives, eugh) have a misconstrued understanding of realism in games, to the point where it actively hurts the product. It’s not uncommon to see posts glorifying small realistic details in video games, such as procedural chair breaking in Red Dead Redemption or realistic car scratches in Grand Theft Auto. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the developers at Rockstar for even putting in the time and effort to make it to code these interactions into the game, but they are not what makes these games good.
I remember coming across some discourse online over Ghost of Yotei’s water physics. A vocal minority of gamers decided to steer their eyes away from the game’s stunning visuals and instead nitpick the game’s water physics. Judging a game by the character’s ability to “Look wet” when they roll through water should not be a point of criticism, especially when it isn’t a game about “Looking wet”. The same could be said about every game that criticizes based on realism, because not every game is meant to be ultra-realistic. The sooner we accept that video games and reality are separate concepts, the better video games can be.
I am a huge fan of video games translating real-life mechanics into video games well, and I believe it’s what every developer should aim for. Video games, depending on the genre, should make reality feel easier and more fun. I do not want a version of Elden Ring that tells me I need to sharpen my Bloodhound’s Fang in case it dulls due to consistent use, nor do I want a Call of Duty game that forces me to reload my magazine bullet by bullet while I keep track of my ammo.
Video games are meant to help us escape reality, not emulate it fully. If we did emulate it fully, then we lost the entire point of what makes video games relaxing. Otherwise, just go out and roll in a puddle if you want realism.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming features and opinions.