Is it necessary for accurate science to be present in video games to make things believable?
The presence of science in video games is in most cases a normal part of the design process so that it keeps our understanding of whats going on grounded in our own reality, so when does the fiction begin and hard science end in order for the player to enjoy the world they are in ?
The most commercially popular game we found didn’t quite get evolution right. “Spore” left out something many other games did, too: Organisms’ genetic differences didn’t affect their survival rates. Instead, organisms whose genes were unfit for the environment would not necessarily die more often, in keeping with evolutionary principles. Rather, players could intervene and increase an organism’s likelihood for success by, say, helping it move more intelligently and strategically, beyond the scope of its genetically predisposed movements. (Leith, 2016)
Despite the fact that most of the popular games don’t follow accurate hard science they can borrow specific elements correctly to keep their title grounded in our reality. Nevertheless, “Spore” does a reasonable job presenting the broader concept of evolution to players, and is the best such game made this century. (Leith, 2016)
So even though the science of evolution in popular games like Spore isn’t exactly a correct representation it is still able to borrow elements from the theories in order to make a complex yet fair game experience with some educational elements into how part of evolution works.