Good Enough Physics: Why Imperfect Simulations Make Better Games

May 4, 2025

It’s time to rethink how we approach game physics. Are we so focused on perfect simulations that we’re sacrificing the very essence of what makes games engaging and fun? Let’s explore why striving for flawless physics might be the wrong path.

The Case for Imperfect Physics: An Interview

To delve deeper into this fascinating topic, we’re interviewing a game development veteran, Anya Sharma, whose unconventional approach to physics has resulted in some truly memorable gaming experiences. Anya, welcome!

Interviewer: Anya, thanks for joining us. Let’s jump right in. What sparked your unconventional approach to game physics?

Anya: Thanks for having me! I think it was a growing frustration. I kept seeing teams pour resources into hyper-realistic physics engines, only to produce games that felt… sterile. Something was missing. It dawned on me that perfection wasn’t the goal; creating compelling experiences was. We are not building simulators; we are creating worlds.

Interviewer: So, you’re advocating for less accuracy in physics? Isn’t that counterintuitive?

Anya: Absolutely! The knee-jerk reaction is always, “We need better physics!” But I’d argue that chasing that dragon can actually hurt the player experience. Perfect physics often leads to predictable outcomes. Players quickly learn the system and can exploit it.

Imagine a fighting game with perfect hitboxes and physics. Combos become optimized to a boring science. There’s no room for improvisation, no happy accidents. This removes a layer of depth and player expression.

Interviewer: Can you give us a concrete example of a game where “good enough” physics enhances the experience?

Anya: Sure! Think about Goat Simulator. Its intentionally wonky physics are integral to its charm. The unpredictable ragdoll effects, the absurd interactions with the environment – that’s what makes it hilarious and memorable. It’s not “realistic,” but it is engaging. Players remember those moments.

Another great example is early skateboarding games, like Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater. The physics were far from perfect, but they allowed for incredible stunts and tricks that would be impossible in real life. It created a unique sense of freedom and creativity. They were also quite forgiving, leading to a more accessible experience.

Interviewer: What are some specific challenges developers face when trying to implement “good enough” physics?

Anya: One of the biggest challenges is letting go of control. It’s tempting to micro-manage every aspect of the simulation. You need to embrace the unexpected. This requires a shift in mindset. Another pitfall is consistency. You want physics to be unpredictable, but not random. The system needs to follow internal logic to avoid frustration.

For example, in a platformer, you want jumps to be somewhat predictable, even if the character occasionally bounces off walls in unexpected ways. Players need to develop a sense of mastery to feel empowered. If the physics are too chaotic, it feels unfair.

Interviewer: So, it’s about finding the right balance between chaos and control?

Anya: Precisely! It’s a delicate dance. You need enough predictability to allow for skill-based gameplay. You need enough unpredictability to keep things interesting. This balance will change game to game, and even from moment to moment within a single game.

The Data Behind “Good Enough”

Interviewer: You mentioned data earlier. Is there any research that supports the idea that less-than-perfect physics can be beneficial?

Anya: Absolutely. While direct studies on “good enough” physics are rare, research on player enjoyment and engagement with simulated environments provides some clues. A study published in the Journal of Game Studies showed that players are more engaged with game worlds that exhibit emergent behaviors. Emergent behavior is the outcome of complex systems, and “good enough” physics can lead to far more of these scenarios.

The study found that these emergent behaviors led to increased player satisfaction and a greater sense of agency. “Good enough” physics leads to emergent events through quirky interactions. This can create unexpected and memorable moments for players.

Another relevant piece of research is the work on “flow state” in games. Flow state is that feeling of being completely absorbed in an activity. It is achieved when the challenge level is slightly above the player’s skill level. If the physics are too perfect, the challenge can become too predictable. It eliminates the possibility of creating a flow state. “Good enough” physics introduces an element of unpredictability that keeps players engaged.

Interviewer: That makes sense. So, what are some practical tips for developers who want to experiment with “good enough” physics?

Anya: First, start by identifying the core gameplay mechanics that rely on physics. What elements need to feel consistent and predictable? What elements can benefit from a bit of chaos?

Second, don’t be afraid to break the rules. Experiment with exaggerating certain physical properties, like friction or gravity. See what happens! The worst that can happen is you revert your code to a previous state.

Third, focus on creating interesting interactions between objects. How do different objects react to each other? Are there any opportunities for unexpected chain reactions?

Fourth, playtest early and often! Get feedback from players on what feels fun and what feels frustrating. Iterate based on that feedback.

For example, if you’re developing a racing game, you might want the handling of the cars to feel relatively consistent, but you could introduce unpredictable weather effects or dynamic track deformations that force players to adapt on the fly.

Overcoming the Optimization Trap

Interviewer: Let’s talk about optimization. Performance is always a concern, especially in complex physics simulations. How do you balance performance with the desire for emergent gameplay?

Anya: This is where the “good enough” philosophy truly shines. By relaxing the constraints on accuracy, you can often achieve significant performance gains.

For example, instead of simulating every single particle in a dust cloud, you could use a simpler particle system with fewer particles and less accurate collision detection. It will not be as realistic, but you will gain performance. It will also create a more visually appealing and stylized effect.

Another technique is to use different levels of detail (LODs) for physics simulations. Objects that are far away from the player can be simulated with lower accuracy. This reduces the computational load without sacrificing visual fidelity.

Interviewer: Are there any specific tools or techniques that you recommend for implementing “good enough” physics?

Anya: Many popular physics engines, like PhysX and Havok, offer a wide range of customization options that allow you to tweak the accuracy and performance of the simulation.

You can also use scripting languages like Lua or Python to create custom physics behaviors. This gives you more control over the simulation and allows you to experiment with unconventional approaches.

Another useful technique is to use pre-calculated animations or physics simulations to create believable effects without relying on real-time physics calculations.

For example, you could pre-calculate the trajectory of a projectile and then play back the animation during gameplay. This is much more efficient than simulating the projectile’s physics in real-time.

The Future of Physics in Games

Interviewer: Where do you see the future of physics in games heading?

Anya: I believe we’ll see a greater emphasis on creating physics systems that are designed to enhance gameplay and create emergent experiences. Instead of striving for perfect realism, developers will focus on creating physics that are fun, engaging, and memorable.

We’ll also see more games that use physics as a core gameplay mechanic. Games where players are encouraged to experiment with the environment and discover new and creative ways to interact with the world.

Imagine a puzzle game where the puzzles are not pre-defined, but emerge from the interaction of different physical objects. The possibilities are endless!

Interviewer: Any final thoughts for developers who are considering embracing the “good enough” approach?

Anya: Don’t be afraid to experiment! Break the rules! Question everything! And most importantly, always prioritize the player experience. Because in the end, that’s what really matters. The final goal is always to create a world that is fun to spend time in.

Challenges and How to Overcome Them

Interviewer: You’ve mentioned some challenges already, but can we specifically dive into some common pitfalls and how to avoid them?

Anya: Absolutely. Here are three big ones I see developers struggle with:

The “Unfairness” Factor: When physics are too unpredictable, players can feel cheated.
- Solution: Implement clear visual cues to explain unexpected behavior. Show, don’t just tell, the player why something happened. Calibrate physics to ensure results are consistently within a certain range, so players can learn the “rules,” even if they’re a bit loose. Add a difficulty setting for the physics.
The “Visual Clutter” Problem: Too much chaotic physics can overwhelm the player.
- Solution: Use visual effects and sound design to draw attention to the important physics events. Dampen or simplify the visuals of less important interactions. Ensure particle effects can be turned down by the player.
The “Animation Hiccup” Conundrum: Transitioning between pre-baked animations and physics-driven movement can be jarring.
- Solution: Employ techniques like inverse kinematics (IK) to blend animations seamlessly with physics. Use motion matching to select animations that closely match the current physics state. Focus on how the animation and physics systems are able to play off of each other.

Interviewer: These are excellent points. It sounds like thoughtful design is just as crucial as the physics engine itself.

Anya: Exactly! “Good enough” physics isn’t about being lazy; it’s about being smart and deliberate about how you use physics to enhance the overall game experience. It is better to create engaging and fun games with imperfect physics.

Examples in Practice

Interviewer: Can you elaborate on a step-by-step example of implementing this “good enough” philosophy into a specific game genre?

Anya: Let’s take a 2D platformer as an example. Here’s a breakdown:

Step 1: Define Core Movement:

Goal: Make basic movement feel responsive and reliable.
Implementation: Use precise collision detection for ground contact. Ensure consistent jump height and distance. Avoid adding any “quirks” here. Don’t deviate here.

Step 2: Introduce Environmental Interactions:

Goal: Create opportunities for emergent gameplay through physics.
Implementation: Add bouncy platforms with varying degrees of bounciness. Introduce destructible elements with exaggerated physics. Implement wind gusts that affect the player’s trajectory. Have some platforms shift or react when the player touches them.

Step 3: Add Player-Controlled "Chaos":

Goal: Allow players to manipulate the environment in unexpected ways.
Implementation: Give the player a “dash” ability that can be used to knock enemies into walls or launch themselves across gaps. Allow the player to pick up and throw objects with varying weights and physical properties. Allow the player to create platforms by manipulating the environment.

Step 4: Polish and Iterate:

Goal: Refine the physics to create a fun and balanced experience.
Implementation: Playtest extensively. Adjust the physics parameters based on player feedback. Ensure that the physics are challenging, but not frustrating. Make sure the player feels in control, even when things get chaotic.

Interviewer: That’s a great, actionable breakdown. Now, what about a more complex scenario, like an open-world game?

Anya: In an open-world game, the key is to prioritize performance without sacrificing the sense of believability. One effective technique is to use “physics proxies.” For objects far from the player, you don’t need to simulate their physics in detail. Instead, you can use simpler, less computationally expensive representations.

For example, instead of simulating the individual blades of grass in a field, you could use a single, simplified mesh that reacts to the player’s movement. Another technique is to use “event-driven physics.” Instead of constantly simulating the physics of every object in the world, you only simulate the physics of objects that are actively interacting with the player or the environment.

For example, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, you don’t need to simulate the physics of the tree falling.

Conclusion: Embrace the Imperfection

Interviewer: Anya, this has been incredibly insightful. The argument for embracing “good enough” physics is compelling, particularly in the pursuit of more engaging and memorable gaming experiences. Thank you for sharing your expertise.

Anya: My pleasure! Remember, the most important thing is to create a world that players want to spend time in, and sometimes, a little imperfection is exactly what they’re looking for. Don’t be afraid to let go of absolute control and embrace the emergent possibilities that “good enough” physics can offer. You might be surprised at what you discover.