🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Down with realism threads!
I think going for realism is a phase that a lot of people go through, and then they realize that realism isn''t useful.
Realism to me is so realative and subjective.
I mean if when I spoke of more realistic sword fighting, I meant more that the potential chance of death would be realistic not the actual action is realistic. People use realistic in different ways.
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
I mean if when I spoke of more realistic sword fighting, I meant more that the potential chance of death would be realistic not the actual action is realistic. People use realistic in different ways.
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
quote: Original post by BitBlt
But it''s kinda contradictory to make a game that has magic and spells, but then try to make it realistic. This is where consistency comes in. If your going to make your game fantasy like, than be consistent and don''t bother making things too realistic.
You people are lazy. You keep using this argument as an excuse to not do research. And I feel that is the main reason we see proponents of non-realism.
There is a big difference between realism and overloading the player with a myriad of options which are boring. Realism is for immersion. It is to suspend your disbelief and draw you into the world. Realism does not mean giving the player a command to unzip his fly so that he can go to the bathroom.
Let me use literature as an example. You can have a book set amidst a fantastical backdrop, but without realistic character behaviour, everything becomes less believable, and hence less immersive. Books do not constantly bore you with the details of character bowel movements, but they are still heavily researched to bring a more immersive experience to the reader.
Let me use art as an example. Even stylized art like impressionism uses tonality and shading based upon the physics of light interaction.
I also wonder that if you made an absolutely alien system in complex that had nothing to do with reality as we know it, if it would still be something that players would enjoy... Would they understand it? Would trying to understand it cause them frustration? Would causing them frustration make them hate your game? Or would it just be so new and revolutionary that people could play it and be in a different plane of existence. I think the former are more likely, that is why you need one step in reality. Everybody knows what reality is, and they know if you ask to walk somewhere then you will do so along the ground if you are a human and you do not have any magic.
What I think would be more useful than something that was UNREALISTIC is something that was realistic, viewed from a different perspective. Like the Matrix. The analogy of the spoon comes to mind where it is not the spoon that is bending but you that is bending.
Things like ''throwing a fireball'' is not as magical as it appears because you look at it in a different way. You realise that time is not necessarily a dimension and so two different things can exist in the same 3D space at different times. You can bring things through time in such a way as it seems magical that you can throw fireballs at people. The truth is that you were passing rocks that had been dripped in napalm and lit to your other self who is throwing them.
It may sound like a crap idea but it was just an example of looking at things in different ways. Nothing can be based entirely out of reality because otherwise nobody willunderstand it...
Enough ranting...
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
What I think would be more useful than something that was UNREALISTIC is something that was realistic, viewed from a different perspective. Like the Matrix. The analogy of the spoon comes to mind where it is not the spoon that is bending but you that is bending.
Things like ''throwing a fireball'' is not as magical as it appears because you look at it in a different way. You realise that time is not necessarily a dimension and so two different things can exist in the same 3D space at different times. You can bring things through time in such a way as it seems magical that you can throw fireballs at people. The truth is that you were passing rocks that had been dripped in napalm and lit to your other self who is throwing them.
It may sound like a crap idea but it was just an example of looking at things in different ways. Nothing can be based entirely out of reality because otherwise nobody willunderstand it...
Enough ranting...
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
Well, if I may be a bit philosophical for a moment...
I don't think it's possible for humans to create something that is 100% unrealistic, cause all we know is this thing called reality.
So, everything we envision will either model reality or use reality to create something that is not like reality. Even if we create something that is not like reality we are still using reality for contrast. Basically, something is unrealistic only when compared to realism...so anything that's "unrealistic" will still show traces of the absence of "realism". It's all so subjective that this conversation is useless.
I guess my point is that realism means different things to different people...so let's just drop it....
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 28, 2000 10:26:47 PM
I don't think it's possible for humans to create something that is 100% unrealistic, cause all we know is this thing called reality.
So, everything we envision will either model reality or use reality to create something that is not like reality. Even if we create something that is not like reality we are still using reality for contrast. Basically, something is unrealistic only when compared to realism...so anything that's "unrealistic" will still show traces of the absence of "realism". It's all so subjective that this conversation is useless.
I guess my point is that realism means different things to different people...so let's just drop it....
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 28, 2000 10:26:47 PM
Part of the argument here I think, is to create games that are 100% believable given the circumstances. And the main circumstance many people perceive is reality. Combining the two (reality and expected fantasy) is supposed to give a fairly believable instance of "fantasy reality".
Take for example, a game set in a futuristic backdrop where humans have met other space-life, fly around galaxies in intergalactic-travel ships, attend militant schools for training with said spacecraft, and generally investigate unexplained phenomena. (Star Trek, anyone?)
Now let''s say the game developers add in an element that is chosen purely based on the fact that it''s a cool visual (some particle or curved-surface effect) and has absolutely nothing to do with the atmosphere of the game. This, I think, ruins the game simply because it doesn''t fit in with the rest of everything else. In short, it is a sharp diversion from an established norm.
So if you want to balance your RTS wargame, then make heavy vehicles'' weapons do damage on a (reasonably) realistic scale dictated by nuclear physics. It''s not simple, but it is what can honestly be expected by players. Base RPGs'' weapons'' damage on their physical weights / masses, combined with their wielders'' skill. This would give a more believable result for that established norm.
MatrixCubed
Take for example, a game set in a futuristic backdrop where humans have met other space-life, fly around galaxies in intergalactic-travel ships, attend militant schools for training with said spacecraft, and generally investigate unexplained phenomena. (Star Trek, anyone?)
Now let''s say the game developers add in an element that is chosen purely based on the fact that it''s a cool visual (some particle or curved-surface effect) and has absolutely nothing to do with the atmosphere of the game. This, I think, ruins the game simply because it doesn''t fit in with the rest of everything else. In short, it is a sharp diversion from an established norm.
So if you want to balance your RTS wargame, then make heavy vehicles'' weapons do damage on a (reasonably) realistic scale dictated by nuclear physics. It''s not simple, but it is what can honestly be expected by players. Base RPGs'' weapons'' damage on their physical weights / masses, combined with their wielders'' skill. This would give a more believable result for that established norm.
MatrixCubed
Why don''t we all just take a look at The Blair Witch Project : Rustin Parr and see how realsitic it is and how its realism makes some of the exciting moments more frightening. I do agree that submersion and supending the player in belief is of utmost importance but gameplay is what the player wants. If realism adds to gameplay then why not? But if realsim disrupts gameplay, like in the instance where you need to flush your bladder, then it would be better used for more important things.
On the subject of snow however, if someone needs to see snow, or rather realistic snow, he could simply go to some snowy land.
Unless of course, his country doesn''t have such a season. Which in that case, he would probably have seen some snow on the TV and nobody would play a game to see snow.
On the subject of snow however, if someone needs to see snow, or rather realistic snow, he could simply go to some snowy land.
Unless of course, his country doesn''t have such a season. Which in that case, he would probably have seen some snow on the TV and nobody would play a game to see snow.
Hey, I didn''t say it, I think it was Rick Goodman from Ensemble Studios (the guy who worked on Age of Empires).
We obviously have different interpretations of what realism is. Take physics for example, in real life, when you jump up in the air, you will accelerate back towards the earth at approximately 9.8 meters per second (not including wind resistance), but in a game, that may not be the best to do.
Now I do like the idea of having things such as traffic in city streets and other things going on in the game world besides your character. This is a different way to define realism, given this way, I do think realism is good. The player does need something to relate to in the real world. Anything unrealistic should have an explanation. If the player can go for two weeks w/o food or drink, it better be cuz he has some sort of spell or something on him. Otherwise your lack of planning will show through. (Also realize that realism also may depend on the genre).
Graphical realism is good as well, having your world looks as realistic as possible is a great. If the player sees a metal door, the door had better look metal.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka
quote:
You people are lazy. You keep using this argument as an excuse to not do research. And I feel that is the main reason we see proponents of non-realism.
We obviously have different interpretations of what realism is. Take physics for example, in real life, when you jump up in the air, you will accelerate back towards the earth at approximately 9.8 meters per second (not including wind resistance), but in a game, that may not be the best to do.
Now I do like the idea of having things such as traffic in city streets and other things going on in the game world besides your character. This is a different way to define realism, given this way, I do think realism is good. The player does need something to relate to in the real world. Anything unrealistic should have an explanation. If the player can go for two weeks w/o food or drink, it better be cuz he has some sort of spell or something on him. Otherwise your lack of planning will show through. (Also realize that realism also may depend on the genre).
Graphical realism is good as well, having your world looks as realistic as possible is a great. If the player sees a metal door, the door had better look metal.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka
"So if you want to balance your RTS wargame, then make heavy vehicles'' weapons do damage on a (reasonably) realistic scale dictated by nuclear physics. It''s not simple, but it is what can honestly be expected by players. Base RPGs'' weapons'' damage on their physical weights / masses, combined with their wielders'' skill. This would give a more believable result for that established norm."
really? I would be shocked if I ever played an RTS with realistic physics. It would be nothing like any RTS I have ever played, it would also be horrible as well since RTSs are probably the hardest kind of game to balance and you have to throw all that realism stuff out to get anywhere close to it. Some realism stuff happens to be fun, and it should be included but the reason it should be included is not because it is realistic. For example the use of realistic physics in myth makes the game more fun. However in another RTS those same physics could ruin the game. It all comes down to making the game fun. If it ends up realistic, that''s fine. If it doesn''t, thats fine too. Don''t strive for or against realism, just ignore the concept entirely.
really? I would be shocked if I ever played an RTS with realistic physics. It would be nothing like any RTS I have ever played, it would also be horrible as well since RTSs are probably the hardest kind of game to balance and you have to throw all that realism stuff out to get anywhere close to it. Some realism stuff happens to be fun, and it should be included but the reason it should be included is not because it is realistic. For example the use of realistic physics in myth makes the game more fun. However in another RTS those same physics could ruin the game. It all comes down to making the game fun. If it ends up realistic, that''s fine. If it doesn''t, thats fine too. Don''t strive for or against realism, just ignore the concept entirely.
quote: Original post by Darkor
On the subject of snow however, if someone needs to see snow, or rather realistic snow, he could simply go to some snowy land.
Unless of course, his country doesn''t have such a season. Which in that case, he would probably have seen some snow on the TV and nobody would play a game to see snow.
Generating realistic snow is not based on the need to see snow. It is based on the concept that if the game has placed you in a snowy environment due to its plot and setting, then realistic snow will NOT distract you from gameplay because your mind has subliminally picked up on the total immersion of the experience. On the other hand, poorly rendered snow in a game will most certainly be distracting to those who have had experience with the real thing. Just like a low budget movie is laughable and NOT immersive, a low budget game (one which tries to shirk algorithm development because of mistaken beliefs and / or is developed by individuals who make sweeping assumptions about their audience) will also fail on the immersion scale.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement