Quote:So Nytehauq, if a game must have "familiarity and some relation to the real world" in order to be fun, what about games like:

* Tempest, where you're ??? in a ??? shooting ???s?

* Qix, where you're a line, evading a big line and sparkling dots while trying to make boxes?

Have you ever shot at something with something else? What if you had a game where you were a @ $ %#$# % %%^ %^ # #%% ? That doesn't make any sense at all - because it's effectively written in a different language. It could, however, have some meaning to someone. However, being a ??? and being able to shoot allows you to draw some logical conclusions: You are some object complex enough to fire projectiles at some other objects, and you have the ability to exist inside another object. You can die in that game, I presume. Even if you can't die, you probably have some motivation to shoot the other ???'s - and motivation is a highly complex phsychological construct. In Qix, you have to evade the line or you will die. Concepts of loss, survival, desire, and possesion exist in almost every game. And every game that doesn't have these (if any) has some other basic concepts. Even those abstract games have something in common with reality. This becomes a moot point - essentially, there IS NO GAME that does not have something in common with reality. There are games like chess, reversi, and games of cards that don't personify the struggles involved, but games are always a version of reality. It just that as you get closer to the more abstract ends of the spectrum, the importance of the relation to reality begins to fade. But, the fact of the matter is, you must still use realism whenever realism applies. It's almost a statement of the obvious - but it appears that many have forgetten the obvious. Or, as I wrote before I saw your post, Wav:

-------

It appears we have been running around in circles ... for a game to adhere to a standard of realism, it has to have something realistic about it in the first place. Super Mario does have some things in common with reality - but not so many that being able to jump to twice your height and eating magic mushrooms is out of the norm. However, you can't blow up the world with a cosmic ray gun either, so that wouldn't fit. This doesn't mean that we should concentrate on fun only and not realism - you don't have to worry about realism in titles that aren't complex enough to be realistic, so there is no argument there. You do have to worry about realism in realistic titles, so it can never really be said that you should only worry about fun and not realism, and it can never really be said that you should only ever worry about realism and fun. But notice, I don't support either argument.

-------

The entire point is that you use a decent amount of realism. Notice the title is "Why there is realism" not "You should be using COMPLETE AND UTTER REALISTIC ENVIRONMENTS AND PHYSICS, or you're a BAD BAD BOY!"

There are things that don't make sense in games that should and can be changed. I personally don't like the armor system in (most) RPG's, and I have thought of quite a few ways that it could be made better. Invisible walls are no longer used in good titles - although they were once accepted as a part of design. There are many ways to avoid using invisible walls in games nowadays (Farcry renders miles into the distance even on sub-par hardware) - just like there are many ways to avoid using old systems in RPG's. To make that point, I had to explain the reasons that realism can make a game better. If you put too much realism in, you'll end up with a horrible title. But I don't think ANYONE has a problem with too much realism. It takes energy and effort to make something REALISTIC (10% health in Doom isn't realistic. It might force you to focus on tactics - but the entire concept of a 'health bar' isn't too realistic. It just means that you die faster. But what makes getting shot realistic is more than just how fast you die.) - and people don't tend to put in TOO MUCH effort on three year long projects. Hell, people always go for the simplest solution - it's human nature to simplify. Seeing as the problem doesn't lie in putting too much realism in games, I decided to address this issue of not putting enough realism in games. Too much realism will never be an issue, because no one wants to do more work than they have to. You shouldn't try to make things realistic, or make them unrealistic. If something is frustrating, arbritrary, unrealistic, and irritating (Invisible walls, one hit kills (Unless the game warrants it - a la Super Mario) spontaneous combustion, etc.) it should be changed.

You may be wondering, "Well, duh. What does this have to do with realism?" or you may be already quite sure that you disagree with whatever I'm saying, but the point is that we judge games by how rational they are. And rationality is garnered from reality. Things like putting in footsores and sunburn would be useless - unless you're building a real life simulator. Things like putting in invisible walls should be fixed. Now, you have to remember that this argument is in the context of games that provide a world that is based on or similar to our own (Fantasy games still apply, they might take place on different worlds but they're still based on our reality - unless of course they're not) - a la World of Warcraft, Halo (Set in the future, even), Lord of the Rings, Splinter Cell etc.. These games already feature parts of reality. However, when you change certain things in a certain way, it can be misleading. Essentially, the problem occurs when designers set up apparently realistic situations and then break the rules. This does not apply to all games, obviously - but only the ones that provide a realistic world and then pupport unrealistic limitations - or use parts of the real world and then use them in a way other than which they are commonly used. If something looks like a rabbit, hops like a rabbit, and feels like a rabbit - would you really expect it to breathe fire and fly? If something looks like thin air, feels like thin air, and moves like thin air - would you really expect it to be solid as a brick wall?

I doubt it. Putting irrational things in games is like speaking a different language. The problem is, it's very easy to confuse one language for the other. Now, some may argue that game designers can define the rules of their world however they see fit, and its foolish to hold them to some sort of standard. However, I disagree. If I pay you for a product, and we enter a contract, I expect to get whats advertised on the box. So if you have a game where you tell me that I am playing as a Night Elf, or a Human, or whatever else, and these characters are similar to humans in 98% of every possible way, shape, and form, I'm gonna be pretty damn pissed when you tell me that I am physically incapable of putting on a piece of armor. It looks, walks, talks, moves, and thinks like a human. Why in the hell can't it wear armor like a human too?

The solution to this is to give a plausible reason why said character could not wear said armor. But, if you can't give a plausible reason (within the bounds of your world, which for the vast majority of intents and purposes, uses a slightly modified version of reality) - then the limitation shouldn't exist. Of course, the answer here would be to redifine your universe, or to remove the limitation. Now, when using reality as a backdrop (Which the games being discussed here do - I've already gone over the imposibility of rewriting the infentesimal laws that govern our existence.) you can't just pick and choose things at whim to remove. It doesn't work that way. You'd end up with even more BS than you had when you started. So you have to make sure that you give a foolproof and plausible reason for things (Assuming you don't want to be a lazy punk and put out a half-*ssed title).

This is not done. Mages cannot wear leather, mail, or plate in World of Warcraft. They don't even try to give you a plausible reason. I gauruntee you that, all other things being equal, a game that was built with the philosophy that players can effectively gauge the realism of aspects in a game world and didn't give such pathetic excuses for a gameplay mechanism would sell alot better - even to those who like World of Warcraft as it is. So, even if it isn't 'broken' - there is nothing wrong in fixing it.

[Edited by - Nytehauq on July 6, 2005 3:32:36 PM]

Quote: You act like whenever realism isn't used, it's because the developers are lazy. You also act like it's a developer's responsibility to explain why something isn't realistic. Well, you know what? Starcraft would not have a televised profesional scene if the units were realistic; it would be impossible to balance, and boring to watch. Sometimes there are things that don't make sense realism-wise, but without them games would not be enjoyable. Realism does not equal fun. Fun equals fun.

1) Well, it's not always because they're lazy - there are other reasons. It's not that I think realism should always be used. I think that realism should always be used when the situation logically demands that it be used. Well, it should be a goal aimed for, at least. I wouldn't be so critical if there were so many blatantly unrealistic things in games that are left in because of laziness. Of course, it's impossible to make a perfect game. But that doesn't mean that you should never learn from your mistakes. You try to make the BEST possible game.

2) You're right. There are things that don't make sense realism wise. Realism does not equal fun. Conversely, there are things that don't make sense game wise, and those things often don't make sense because they are unreal in a world portrayed as being realistic in the areas at fault. Realism does not make fun. Not having realism where it is expected makes games frustrating. There is a certain amount of leeway you have in a world - depending on how close to reality it is defined. The technology doesn't always need to be explained, because it isn't actually reality. But certain things do warrant explanations if they break out of the established mold.

The argument really shouldn't be "Realism versus Fun." Fun exists 100% independantly of entertainment value. That means sometimes, a realistic aspect is nifty and other times, it is not. I do not think that the two catch-phrases of this thread are mutually exclusive ones.

I believe that it is important to recognize when to sacrifice one or the other. Professional simulation software isn't meant to be fun, it's meant to be educational. Simply remember your target audience when you are developing a piece of software.

However, since this is a _GAME DEVELOPMENT_ forum, I believe that the emphasis of its users is primarily entertainment value. Here, the target audience is game designers. Designers must invent a game with its own rules and systems of mechanics -- rules that revolve more around fun and less around realism because that is what a game is. That does not mean that "realism" (I'm really getting sick of that word) is an impossibility under these criteria, it just means that it should not burden the real objective of the software's design.

Quote:Original post by Nytehauq
The solution to this is to give a plausible reason why said character could not wear said armor. But, if you can't give a plausible reason (within the bounds of your world, which for the vast majority of intents and purposes, uses a slightly modified version of reality) - then the limitation shouldn't exist.

I'm sorry, but this is utter and complete nonsense. A limitation should exist if it makes the game better, or allows it to be published in the first place.

Here's a precise example: I want to give you the ability to command units in an RPG-like game (spacecraft or people). Because the design is an RPG, not an RTS, I have to artificially limit the number of entities that you can control. There is no logical reason why your ability to command people shouldn't be unlimited. But there is a strict gameplay reason, which includes, among other things, getting overwhelmed, having the time to track everything, and the lack of interest RPG gamers have in playing full on empire games.

The desire to remove all limitations or somehow come up with mumbo-jumbo explanations to explain away limits in gameplay or technology is a foolish exercise in jumping down a rabbit hole. Sometimes limits just are and most gamers don't even think twice about them.

Quote:

Quote:
Original post by Nytehauq
The solution to this is to give a plausible reason why said character could not wear said armor. But, if you can't give a plausible reason (within the bounds of your world, which for the vast majority of intents and purposes, uses a slightly modified version of reality) - then the limitation shouldn't exist.



I'm sorry, but this is utter and complete nonsense. A limitation should exist if it makes the game better, or allows it to be published in the first place.

Here's a precise example: I want to give you the ability to command units in an RPG-like game (spacecraft or people). Because the design is an RPG, not an RTS, I have to artificially limit the number of entities that you can control. There is no logical reason why your ability to command people shouldn't be unlimited. But there is a strict gameplay reason, which includes, among other things, getting overwhelmed, having the time to track everything, and the lack of interest RPG gamers have in playing full on empire games.

The desire to remove all limitations or somehow come up with mumbo-jumbo explanations to explain away limits in gameplay or technology is a foolish exercise in jumping down a rabbit hole. Sometimes limits just are and most gamers don't even think twice about them.

Wouldn't players limit themselves in such a case? Really, that's the kind of thing you seal off because no one's going to get to that boundary anyway. You place limits of that nature so that people don't go too far off the deep end. However, that's not the type of mechanism at hand. That limitation defines the boundaries of the world - it's not a road block in the middle of an otherwise rational set of actions. Besides, isn't it realistic to expect that a character can't possibly keep track of people under their command? I think there IS a logical reason why your ability to command people shouldn't be unlimited.

The second paragraph becomes an aiming for perfection type of argument. You cannot achieve perfection - but you aim for it so that you will at least achieve your best. You don't want to remove all limitations. You just want to try and keep the unrealistic and particularly outlandish ones down to a minimum. I'm pretty sure that most people will agree that you want your games to be as fair as possible - but it seems that in a lot of cases, they don't put their money where their mouth is.