::Random Post:: (I may or may not have read through all of the arguments in the previous four pages. So you can call me lazy, but don't expect this to all be original)
1.) The only real reason (economically) to produce a game that's out of the mold is to capitalize on the fact that said game is out of the mold. Consumers are quite happy with what they have. But they'd be alot happier with something better, and chances are they'd buy it too. So, regardless of whether or not consumers are sick of the status quo (It's foolish to wait to get to that point with games in any case) there is money in pushing the limits.
2.) Realism isn't just graphics. Physics adds to realism. The subtle way that things move adds to the realism. However, realism isn't a very good word to use for this quality. Familiarity and some relation to the real world are a prerequisite of humor and enjoyment. Without delving too much into phsychology, we find things humorous (I know game 'fun' isn't neccesarily humor, bear with me) because they break out of an expected pattern. The brain works on patterns. Things are fun because they exceed our expectations, or give us the idea (Illusionary or otherwise) that we've gotten something, or fulfilled a need. Realism is needed in games to suspend disbelief, and to set up a scenario that the player can understand. Without belief first (reality) there can be no suspension of disbelief. Furthermore, in any game (unless previously stated), the player assumes that the game world has some things in common with the real world. If you created a game that had no common paradigms with the real world, it would be useless. Even the most 'abstract' of titles have lots in common. Rez, for instance, featured a humanoid character flying around a world composed of texureless polygons and lines. People called this abstract. But it's not really. Humanoid characters, music, physical surroundings (even if they were composed only of lines). Just to lay the 'Realism' aspect to rest. Realism is neccesary for familiarity which is neccesary for fun. As a final end to that argument, there has been no game ever realeased that attained any level of genuine fun (E.g., you can't build a real argument against this) devoid of familiarity. Even Tetris had gravity! In fact, only the simplest puzzle games don't have abundant familiarity to reality - but for any complex game, it's a requirement.
3.) That said, the rules systems used in RPG's are antiquated, and not very realistic (The realism of D&D could be disputed in another thread, but be assured that the opposition would loose). D&D rules? Great for a boardgame. Why the hell can't developers create something new thrity years later? Those rules aren't realistic. And it's no longer neccesary to simplify reality to that extent with the computing power we have to use. Maybe its useful as a way to simplify data for the player, but there are probably many better ways of handling stats on the computer side of things. I find it incredibly frustrating when my miss rates are determined by a random chance. You don't win in RPG's because you're good at them - you win because of a string of completely random chances. This defeats the illusion that you've worked to accomplish something (at least for me - but I'm quite sure, as I stated above, that while the current system may work, a better system would be both more desireable and make more money. Obviously, publishers don't want to rock the boat. They have their money in the status quo. Someone's gonna make their money beating the crap out of the status quo. Who would you rather be?). The excuse that RPG's aren't supposed to be skill based or that using another system will lead to mundane hack n' slash is not only logically incorrenct (Involving player skill does not cause simplistic hack n' slash gameplay, developing a poor system does. Do not argue that because no one has done it correctly it cannot be done either. That should be obviously foolish.), it's a cop out. I would find it hard to believe that the D&D system is the best system possible to create. Has anyone even tried anything other than D&D? (Obviously yes. Don't take this one literaly.) The system was created for a boardgame. If someone created a more detailed (Strength is one stat...hah..could you get any more oversimplified?), more intuitive, and more realistic system, RPG's would be better. In fact, if each development firm crafted their own unique system, it would be even better. Of course, many firms do this, but they're often (if not always) as simple as D&D. It's a text-based RPG with a 3D rendered cover on it (Add to that the fact that those covers are not very good - World of Warcraft doesn't even have player - player collision detection. [sarcasm] You can jump though! That's a start [/sarcasm]). Give players at least the illusion that they rely on more than how well they can copy a build off of a website or whether or not they rolled a hit or a miss. D&D was created in a setting where combat was not feasible, and tactics were preffered. They were creating a different type of military strategy game. Now, seeing as we are no longer limited by a board - why can't we have all the good and none of the bad? RPG designers stick by the D&D rules like gospel. No one has come up with anything better? That seems to me to be just creatively lazy.
What I hate about RPG's is the limited gameplay and combat focused around a reverence for antiquated board game RPG rules. You've already heard my rants about the economic purposes of MMORPG's outshadowing the gameplay, but it's truly a shame when game developers can't even break out of the mold and still get their title sold (Rhyme unintentional). I'm not going to post my concept of what would make a good/better RPG. That would take too long. But, I can tell you that if someone fixed the problems that I have presented, they'd become filthy, filthy rich very quickly (Assuming they marketed it correctly, etc. On a gameplay to gameplay comparison, there would be a clear winner. If they marketed such a game instead of the next 'blockbuster' - they'd win). Even that aside, the game would be superior. Period.
.
The more suspension of disbelief without incumbering irritating limitations (It'd suck if you died from gunfire realistically in Max Payne - that would be going overboard. But if you could fly and were invulnerable to bullets, the game would suck just as much.) the better. Therein, to settle that argument, whether or not realism is needed needs to be decided in a logical fashion on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. When someone speaks of increasing realism in a game, the counter argument should not be, "Realism is bad and makes games boring," just as the argument should not be, "Realism is good and suspends disbelief." It's a case by case thing. However, in most cases, it seems that people oppose realism for a silly reason and people pupport realism for an ill-defined while probably good one.
----------
Quote: Quote:
Let's face it, as Maddox says, "rag-doll" is basically just a BS hype name for an engine that supports basic Newtonian physics.
With all due respect to the "best site in the universe" I have to say that this isn't a trivial problem. Think about it. If it were simple to drop in, you'd already see it. It's not that there aren't legions of programmers who don't know physics, its that there are optimization and resource problems which have to be solved for each engine (because they all have their quirks).
No offense meant Wav (I mean that in the sincerest of terms. You push the envelope with your ideas, I respect that), but there are many simple things that are left not done :). Think of all of the stupid trivial things throughout human history that people haven't done. I really do think the physics engine example is an example of a lack of expertiese. It's all documented, and it's not a problem to do. The key issues involve time and expertise, not money. Of course, learning physics isn't relegated to the top 2% of the population, but I venture to say many of the programmers don't actively have the knowledge required to produce a physics engine. In any case, more so than that, publishers want to neither spend the time developing physics nor the money to liscence an existing engine for many projects. However, rag doll physics is in just about every modern FPS - liscened in every case. It's a battle between money, time, and lack of expertise. Naturally, this doesn't mean it's easy. It just means that they don't have a good reason not to include physics (from a game design standpoint).
----------
5.) Seeing as a certain amount and type of realism is good, and pushing the status quo is an oppurtunity to both chase down creativity and sell a blockbuster game, it logically follows that new ideas should be welcomed, not shunned. That said, the item system pisses me off in most RPG's. In Diablo II, the system worked great, however. It's counter intuitive and unrealistic to limit someone's armor based on class. Why is it that these two characters who look physically exactly the same will have such vastly differing strength? In Diablo II, sorceresses wore less armor than Barbarians because sorceresses had to invest more in mana than strength. They *could* use heavy armor, but it would require a large investment that would be outweighed by the losses in mana. Sure, the current system works. But this one was better. I'd like someone to please explain to me how you can randomly find a piece of armor that fits you perfectly (Real armor has to be customized for its wearer. I find it hard to believe that you could find the exact same magical item as someone else and have it fit both people in reality) - but you can't wear a piece of armor because "You're a mage." Am I physically incapable of PUTTING THIS HELM ON MY HEAD? That is such a lazy, half assed design mechanism. Instead of developing a better more complicated system, they cut corners and put in this lazy system instead. Bah.
There will be more.
[Edited by - Nytehauq on July 4, 2005 5:59:31 PM]
