Balance issues. And realisms different from gamer to gamer.
GET OFF MY LAWN!
Last edited by biggunsar; 01-11-2009 at 02:13.
Realism usually makes a game worse. A lot of people like realism because nobody can create a world with more depth than the real one and the more depth something has the more seemingly realistic it is. So basically you like depth and you can get a lot of it from imitating the real world but some people think bringing the bad and unnecessary from the real world (Working in an office for 12 hours a day) will make things better. Realism doesn't always equal to depth.
Last edited by Urvad Litast; 01-11-2009 at 02:16.
Forums bring me unending hatred and rage.
Obviously there are different interpretations on what "realism" implies for a game, so you're going to have a to be more specific.
My problem with realistic games is that I don't think they feel realistic very often. If we talk about a FPS, mostly there is still tons of GUI and shakey camera when you run. If you haven't noticed the world doesn't shake when you run. And for that matter the graphics are often crap. Realistic for me is both the feeling of the world and the interaction with it.
I played WII Online alot and it has alot of realistic features, but it still doesn't feel real anywhere. The enviroment is dull and the graphics sucks. I want a combat game that would make me think how would I do it in real life. Where would I hide or how would I approach the enemy?
Last edited by TiraX; 01-11-2009 at 02:54.
some realism (like 1-2 shot kills in games with guns) is good.
but when its taken too far (like Roma Victor), to the point where its actually HARDER than it would really be, thats when its going too far.
Originally Posted by Charles DarwinOriginally Posted by Hyldor Gwyvallt
it's because games are about escapism, not realism
It seems a lot of people completely misunderstand the meaning of realism. It's one thing to make a game which mimics real-life to the fullest extent and another to add characters who die fast, add collision, make movement slower, make actions more in depth, etc.
Obviously no one will make a game about working in an office... When people say they want more realism they want things that are more realistic without the real-life problems.
In other words realism doesn't mean that the game also makes you do boring things....
Would you rather:
a) Crafting items based on random numbers, a few generic ingredients and a mouse click
b) Create an item based on how it is in real-life
Ex. If you want to make a sword. First you collect the ore, smelt the metal, mold it, then work it on an anvil hammering it, cooling it, etc. Then add the hilt and handle etc.
I would enjoy "b" far more and it would work out better for a game then "a". Why? Well consider that in "a" crafters typically will be bored senseless as crafting is easy and the results are always the same.
In "B" the results (if setup right) will be based entirely on the skill of the crafter. If you cool the metal the wrong way, or mix the alloy improperly your product could turn out weaker. Instead of people buying from random people, some crafter become master of the trade selling wares to various clients.
In Short: Realism when done right adds much more depth, challenge and a few extra bonuses nothing else can add to a game.
I hate realism, I love believability.
Darkfall is going to be an FPS, First Person Sworder, which means you're going to sword the first person you meet.
I am a big fan of realism.
Most against it are mainly looking for a game where they are the hero. I don't really care, I like the challenge most realistic games give so long as they don't add in the most ultimate 'realism' of real life.... boredom.
People get mad at it because "realism" to them would mean their character getting punched in the face and shoved into cramped spaces.
And if ur not in that group...want realism? join the military.
FLAME BLITZ! FLAME BLITZ!
Because games are meant to get away from realism, to expand the thought on things that would never happen, and to play it through.