Why videogames always get science wrong

[Jamie McKane]

Why videogames always get science wrong

Games love to tackle the topic of science but this is why nearly every one of them got it wrong.

[DarthRiven]

Eish, another one... First off, the article only talks about the accuracy of Darwinian evolution mechanics in games, not science as a whole. Secondly, the writer of the article drew the games they tested from "game databases such as Gamespot and IGN". Neither of those are databases; so I'd love to know what arbitrary process they used to come up with a list of 22 (again, super random number) games they "tested" for these principles.

[DieGrootHammer]

I agree totally with [MENTION=8055]DarthRiven[/MENTION] on this one. I was about to post a lengthy debate about which games got science perfectly right, but then I read that this article only talks about the science of evolution. I believe the 22 games is probably a good representation of the total number of evolutionary games available. It's not like the concept of evolution has been a popular concept for game creators. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other games that the "researchers" could have looked at.

But here is another point I want to make: Science principles does not equate to fun, or even good game mechanics. Let's think about evolution. The three principles of evolution as discussed in the article are only the very basics of evolutionary theory. Sexual availability and capability, mutations, natural selection variations, cooperation and many more factors must be added to a game if it's to be accurate according to the science of evolution. And if you delve deep into the theory of many of those mechanics, it may be that there is nothing available to create a fun, engaging game. So, it's up to the individual game creators to choose which mechanics will work in the context of their game, not as a fully fleshed out evolution simulation. The point of the game is for people of various capabilities and intellects to play it, not to teach complex principles to the everyday man

Secondly, science is hard. To recreate complex science mechanics takes a lot of computing power, like from a Cray super computer. It's the reason why super computers exists. It would be silly to expect games to accurately model and integrate complex scientific calculations to make it accurately model the science of the subject the game is referencing

Thirdly, science can be boring. Science includes a lot of math, math that will make your face melt. Math that only a very small amount of people on the planet and understand and comprehend. Why would I want to have that in my game I play for pleasure?

Many games does get science right to a degree. I think about Kerbal Space Program and how accurately it recreates orbital mechanics and rocket science, yet it still isn't accurate, as the whole game is dealing with forces, distances and masses smaller to a factor of 10 than the actual universe. It's good to have games like that to teach the basics of a scientific study, or create interest into the sciences. But games will never become these accurate scientific en devours.

[Avatar]

*snip*

Secondly, science is hard. To recreate complex science mechanics takes a lot of computing power, like from a Cray super computer. It's the reason why super computers exists. It would be silly to expect games to accurately model and integrate complex scientific calculations to make it accurately model the science of the subject the game is referencing

Thirdly, science can be boring. Science includes a lot of math, math that will make your face melt. Math that only a very small amount of people on the planet and understand and comprehend. Why would I want to have that in my game I play for pleasure?

Many games does get science right to a degree. I think about Kerbal Space Program and how accurately it recreates orbital mechanics and rocket science, yet it still isn't accurate, as the whole game is dealing with forces, distances and masses smaller to a factor of 10 than the actual universe. It's good to have games like that to teach the basics of a scientific study, or create interest into the sciences. But games will never become these accurate scientific en devours.

But we use simplified principals all the time.. Water effects come to mind, where simplified equations are used to simulate the look and feel of water, whereas the real simulations used to accurately solve those problems take days (and can't even come up with one single right answer).

We use simplified physics all the time too; we simplify systems so that the mathematics is solvable in real time and too a degree of accuracy that is sufficient for games and fun.

And in other media this happens too. We typically define good vs. bad science fiction by how well it adheres to real life physics and plausible scientific and technological development. So while I agree with your points on the difficulty of science, scientific computation, and the "fun" therein (I put that in quotes, because I actually do love using genetic algorithms to solve optimization problems. I'm weird like that), I think it's important to recognize that there are two discrete parts to science in games: One, as a gameplay element, and two, as an engine element. Discrete might well be the wrong word there, because Batman's gliding mechanic is surely relevant to both categories..

I, for one, would love to see more and more in depth articles on science in video games.

EDIT: I only now noticed that the article is actually on The Conversation. I noticed an increase in decent article from there being linked all over the place so I had a bit of a look. It turns out in order to write for them, you have to be a member of an academic or research institution. I wonder if my old UP email addy still works..