It's been a while since the gamesblog has had a debate on the effects of game realism, perhaps because there (thankfully) hasn't been a big media link between gaming and violence in recent months. Now, in this relative moment of calm, is therefore the best time to consider what effects graphical realism and realistic artificial intelligence may have on the gamer, from a more diverse and less knee-jerk perspective.
It seems we're not the only ones to think so. Gamasutra has an excellent cover feature on the Uncanny Valley, describing the phenomenon in which behavioural and visual inconsistencies become more unsettling as the these aspects of simulation become more precise.
From the article:
Comprehensive knowledge of the mechanics upon which human behavior operates is a tall order, but luckily, while still a mountain we're yet to scale, a well informed AI performance is not so ambitious. By building towards more convincing AI, game developers are not becoming scientists, merely better magicians.
A point well-taken, but I'd argue it's incomplete. Perhaps the people who currently make up the gaming population are willing to suspend their disbeliefs, and those elements we feel are just AI glitches are simply unacceptable to the population who doesn't game. Simulation of the human system surely comes from an understanding of underlying psychological knowledge. That's why I've always thought psychologists would make the best games; they're great at manipulating, and doing it well.
As graphical realism continues to creep into games, it'll be very interesting to see whether more behavioural scientists are called upon to inform the creation process. Or, indeed, if psychology will become an important part of games degree courses.
