Science on video games

[BAndrew]

As you might have suspected from my posts I am really interested in science subjects like mathematics and physics. But how important are they on video games?

(I am not refering to the development and the programming stuff, but on the game itself. Definetely there are not any equations and things like these, and there shouldn't be. Also keep in mind that I will primary be speaking for Amnesia and Penumbra.)

Physics: Well every game obviously uses some physics more or less (stuff like gravity, motion, injuries, weather, light, etc.), but there are only a few which actually manage to create a detailed and realistic interaction in terms of physics. The best example is Penumbra series and Amnesia the Dark Descent developed by Frictional Games. They have done a really stunning work on their engine. Physics interaction is excellent and demonstrates the real world with a wonderful precision. In my opinion, although you might not notice the importance of physics at first while playing, it definitely is important. It makes you feel that you are present in the events of the game, it gives you the feeling that it's "you" that acts and not another person (of course you know that it's Philip or Daniel or someone else, but how many times are you considering this while playing?). Another advantage is that it's realistic. For instance, you pick up a rock as you would in real life, you have to open a door normally, and so on . A "click" won't magically do it for you. Also, I have to mention one major factor in Penumbra and Amnesia - lighting. By "playing" with lightning, absense of lighting (darkness), spot lights, etc. the developers of Frictional Games managed to create a fantastic experience of fear and terror not because you are actually seeing something scary, but because you think you do. Your brain in its attempt to understand what's happening automatically makes complicated thoughts and horrifies you in order to stay alert. Of course sound effects enhance this experience.

Puzzles: Puzzles are logic, and logic is science. When they are carefully designed which means they are not way too hard nor way too easy and they have an impact on the story and on the way the plot unfolds, then they can be quite interesting and enhance the experience. Thomas has already written some essays about this and I think he greatly covers the subject.

Mathematics: Mathematics are everywhere, you can't escape from them! Well, to be honest maths as pure maths don't really help in the game experience or whatever, but without them everything would be impossible. So I felt that I had to at least mention them.


I would like to hear (how ironic) your thoughts about this. I would be interested if you could find other examples of how science helps video games build up an atmosphere.

[Tomato Cat]

Interesting perspective. I've never really thought about it this way. Engine physics and in-game puzzles seem more like features rather than direct representations of scientific principals.

Not to say it doesn't help with immersion and realism. It certainly does, it's just that I doubt the average user would think like a physicist/maths major.

[BAndrew]

Of course. That's the point. You don't want to confuse the player with scientific stuff that he might not care. What you can do, is to allow the player to have a realistic experience like in the real world. As you called it - features. I agree that most players don't view it that way,

[Bridge]

They are as important as you make them. I do not think these things are useful on their own; they are merely tools (if abstract ideas can be considered tools) to help you realize your ideas. Sorry, but I really don't think this is a worthwhile discussion. It'd be like asking: "how important is hydrogen in cooking?". The answer is "necessary" and nothing more because it is a useless and irrelevant question. All games use science, but that doesn't mean that many of them actually emphasize that fact. I place a higher emphasis on the aesthetics.

[FlawlessHappiness]

How about Theory?

Theory about what going to come next, where, why how and what.
Especially in horror games, theory is a good part of both puzzles and story.

[Tomato Cat]

They are as important as you make them. I do not think these things are useful on their own; they are merely tools (if abstract ideas can be considered tools) to help you realize your ideas. Sorry, but I really don't think this is a worthwhile discussion. It'd be like asking: "how important is hydrogen in cooking?". The answer is "necessary" and nothing more because it is a useless and irrelevant question. All games use science, but that doesn't mean that many of them actually emphasize that fact. I place a higher emphasis on the aesthetics.

Basically this. ^

[BAndrew]

@BeeKayK

I understand what you mean. I agree with that. You (as a player) are making theoretical assumptions all the time as to how you can solve a puzzle or what could have happened in the story.


@Bridge
Of course they are not useful on their own. They are as you said just tools which help. "How important is hydrogen to cooking" seems an interesting discussion to me. It hasn't any practical application on how you cook, but it is important. I disagree that such a discussion would be pointless. It's theoretical as you are never going to count how many atoms of hydrogen you are going to use, but that doesn't mean it has no point. It's more about how interested you are in making such a discussion. Most people would say "Who cares? I can cook and that's all that matters".

I never said that science is emphasized on video games. What I said is that it can help in some ways the game experience, although it is not obvious that it does.

And aesthetics hide science behind in some sense.


added some more stuff - EDIT: I think that it is too obvious that you don't ever notice. Try to imagine a game without gravity or without light or without motion.

[Bridge]

They are as important as you make them. I do not think these things are useful on their own; they are merely tools (if abstract ideas can be considered tools) to help you realize your ideas. Sorry, but I really don't think this is a worthwhile discussion. It'd be like asking: "how important is hydrogen in cooking?". The answer is "necessary" and nothing more because it is a useless and irrelevant question. All games use science, but that doesn't mean that many of them actually emphasize that fact. I place a higher emphasis on the aesthetics.

Why a higher emphasis on the aesthetics, if I may ask? I would consider aesthetics secondary in most genres and themes in gaming, as I feel that the gameplay must always come first, for the reason that would a game like Dishonored be as good if it had decided to polish its aesthetics moreso than the gameplay which defines the game very well?

Different schools of thought, but in general I don't appreciate purely practical concerns. I am fine with a game lacking in gameplay if all of the other elements (audio/music, visuals and story) are solid. In fact, a game with great gameplay and nothing else is just pointless IMO (unless it is intended purely for modding purposes). However, that's not to say bad controls are acceptable; there is only so much one can take, but I think it is a little less important than the aesthetics. It is of course all important though.

Speaking of Dishonored, I found it quite appealing aesthetically actually. Solid job in many respects - really the only thing lacking is the story (and perhaps level design).

@Bridge
Of course they are not useful on their own. They are as you said just tools which help. "How important is hydrogen to cooking" seems an interesting discussion to me. It hasn't any practical application on how you cook, but it is important. I disagree that such a discussion would be pointless. It's theoretical as you are never going to count how many atoms of hydrogen you are going to use, but that doesn't mean it has no point. It's more about how interested you are in making such a discussion. Most people would say "Who cares? I can cook and that's all that matters".

Actually I do apologize slightly, I did not mean to impugn your thoughts here. They certainly are interesting, I just do not see personally how the question you posed can be answered. I admit though that talking generally about the application of scientific concepts in games and how successful/authentic these applications have been would make for a good discussion.

[BAndrew]

@Bridge

It's okay. It's your opinion after all. You could take my thoughts more general. By saying science I don't only mean physics and maths. I just chose to write about those.(Maths actually have no applications in the game itself). Take science as a general category.

For example:
Psychology: comes into play in terms of how the player reacts to a sudden event, what are his thoughts when he is in a dangerous and horrorful situation? How can you enhance his experience by predicting his reactions? I don't know. What do you think?

Music: Music is a scienctific subject. It's just not exactly the same type as physics, but that doesn't matter. Who can argue that by using it you can create a terrifying atmosphere and that's what amnesia does.

Art/Graphics: This is also a scientific subject. Artists can make visual effects and like music instantly puts you in a mood which is something that physics DOESN'T DO.

In any way I wouldn't like this topic to be restricted in two or three subjects/factors.

[palistov]

Hehe the Newton physics engine is ok. It suits Amnesia well (I don't know if HPL1 used Newton), but it's not even close to stunning. Screwing around in Amnesia for 10 minutes can give you a few examples of its shortcomings. You should check out Nvidia Physx, CryEngine3's physics or Bullet.