Backhand of Justice

I want to argue that games should concern themselves with fun gameplay and if it comes at the expense of ‘realism,’ so be it.

Gameplay is king
 
I just read an article on Destructoid criticizing the way slain beasts drop currency in RPG games. Real beasts don’t drop money, why should this slime monster drop loose change? 

They should drop cash because making cash in the real world is hard and usually boring. Sitting at a computer for 8 hours a day to collect your paycheck to buy weapons in Final Fantasy wouldn’t be very interesting despite being slightly more realistic.
 
Office work is possibly an unfair comparison because RPG careers traditionally would center on mining or skinning or something that you can do in many RPGs; something that would feel thematically correct. Even that turns into a form of grinding, however, that I’ve already argued is poor game design. 

I call this one Magnum. Got to pay the bills somehow, right?

 
Besides, it’s simply unnecessary. Not everything in a game needs to be explained explicitly. If it’s fun and it doesn’t actively conflict with major plot points / gameplay elements, then it’s likely fine.
 
Monsters should drop cash in RPGs because you need cash, you’re killing monsters anyway, and killing monsters is fun. That’s the key – nothing should be at the expense of fun. If the most fun mechanic turns out to be you earn money and experience from screaming obscenities and dancing, then you should design your game that way and sort everything else out around it. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make sense in the real world, or even in the game world.
 
Gargoyles on the inside?
 
This reminds me of players who have criticized the recent Batman: Arkham Asylum for its illogical level design. They claim that having gargoyles on the inside of the asylum is stupid, because gargoyles are used as gutter decoration and that only makes sense on thee outside of buildings.
 
My response: Who cares? One of the best mechanics of the game is swinging around on the gargoyles during stealth sequences, and something had to fill the generic spot of ‘perch.’ Gargoyles fit in with the gothic architecture style in the game.
 
Those who imply that this design choice destroys the illusion of a consistent game world don’t seem to care if the game is fun. It would be one thing if they pointed out that an easy solution to this problem is to replace the gargoyles with support beams or equivalent, but that is not a cure-all. The RPG money generation problem is far more fundamental to the gameplay and has no elegant work-around.

Admit it Joker, you destroyed the gargoyles! Those weren't just decoration, they were functional! Now we have leaks everywhere and the carpeting is ruined. You think our insurance covers this?!

 
I suppose you could set up an explanation for why beasts carry money, or merely explain how there is a ‘store on the go’ mechanic where you auto-convert ‘realistic’ drops into currency, but any of those are unnecessary work-arounds.
 
People who criticize these points, which are minor in the grand scheme of things, are the same to me as people who criticize the film Independence Day for the scene where Jeff Goldblum hacks into an alien mothership with a Mac laptop. “What OS is he using? Alien Snow Leopard LOLOL FAIL!” Really?
 
Low hanging fruit
 
Lots of the best and most loved game mechanics make no sense, even in the context of the internal game world. Final Fantasy games have random encounters, even after Chrono Trigger demonstrated how to show enemies at all times; this isn’t a ‘necessary evil.’ If you walk over the same 2 feet of land long enough, something will materialize and attack you. Does this make sense?
 
In Zelda and other adventure games / FPS, much has been made of the inventory system where you either carry around thousands of pounds of equipment with no noticeable mobility limitations, or run faster when holding your knife when you merely put the gun into your ‘inventory.’ Nobody cares because it’s fun.
 
Many games have established that recharging health is good game design, or not decreasing accuracy / performance of a character after they’re injured is not good game design. Obviously soldiers in the field are of limited effectiveness after they’re shot two or three times, and their health will never automatically recharge. Nonetheless, these games understand that gameplay is most important and if story is your top priority then maybe you shouldn’t be making a game at all.

Hmm … health kit eh? Well, I’m not a doctor, what do I … do I eat it?

 
Are architectural inconsistencies in Arkham Asylum really the best thing that developers could be working on, especially if they’re an innovative creation that results in a good game? I for one hope that more games come out that are the quality of Arkham Asylum, and tried and true mechanics like enemies dropping cash in RPGs are so standard and so ridiculed because they’re successful and fun.
 
I’m not arguing that something else isn’t better, and nobody should try to innovate with these mechanics. I’m just arguing that criticizing games for inconsistencies with reality that are integral to the gameplay is foolish as at the end of the day gameplay is king.
 
I’m interested in your thoughts on the matter. Hit up the comments!