Quote:Original post by Edtharan
Actually this is done all the time. Designers sacrifice playability for realisms. It is not as balck and white as was stated about the soldier bleeding to death. That would be an extreme case and no designer (at least decent designer) would do such a thing unless it did add to the fun. But instead of that extreme, what about a situation where the soldier moves slower because of the injury?

It is less realistic to have the soldier not effected by their injuries and so it doesn't effect gameplay. But, the light realism of an injury effecting a soldier's movment can create a tension and enhance the fun of the game.

Ok, Lets say that injured soldiers do move slower. Without some game mechanic to restore them to full health, this becomes a loss/loss situation for players useing such soldiers. So you add a medic unit, designed to restore injured soldiers health...this in turn adds another layer of micromanagement to the game, players must generate enough medics and order them to action, which takes thier focus off other more game goal oriented tasks.

But lets say that medic units are generated automaticly, and the game AI orders them to act without player input...this in turn clutters the battlefield with essentialy useless information...in a high tension situation players may accidently order medical units to take out tanks/base instalations...something they arn't equiped to do, and something that takes them away from thier designed task of healing soldiers.

So...remove medics and have soldiers heal themselves automaticly over time. Less realistic, less player info overload, but the overall net result is the same...and you don't have soldiers breaking ranks to return to base to heal, or essentialy useless battlefield traffic of medics running about distracting the player.

And the time, energy, design, and art resources used to develop and fine tune such a realisic medic unit system could then instead be applied to something like realtime deformable terrains which could greatly contribute to the gameplay dynamics.

In the end, the very nature of games is abstraction. We don't play "cops and robbers" with real guns and ammunition. Baby lions don't play fight by really ripping the flesh from each other. Early on in the game design process you define the gameplay focus, and every design decision much contribute to and reinforce that focus..."more realisiam" is a easy no, brainer and lazy design pursuit...bad designers all too often get carried away with it, loseing the game focus, forgetting or ignoreing that games are by nature an abstract form of entertainment.

Quote:Original post by BBHudson
I feel there is a line that needs to be drawn. Games must be unrealistic by nature in order to be fun, but there are some unrealisms that really get on my nerves and serve no purpose for the gameplay. For instance, I cringe every time I see a fighter dual-wielding bastard swords in NWN; even if you were the strongest man in the world you could not fight even remotely effectively with such a setup. Yeah, a bastard sword can be wielded in one hand, but only when the offhand is free for balance. You'd never use two at once. Removing a stupid thing like this doesn't make the game any less fun and stops characters looking completely rediculous.

Given the fantastical setting and fictious creatures the characters must fight in NWN...I'd think it more than a bit anal to expect such a slavish devotion to earthly realisam on such a small scale as dual-wielding bastard swords.

Thats kinda like expecting a Shakespearian level of writeing talent out of an episode of the Power Rangers.

Quote:Original post by BBHudson
Yeah it's being anal, but my point is that removing such things would not remove any aspects of gameplay. So why include them? I don't believe that everything should be uber-realistic, but things should be proportional. I'm fine with allowing magical abilities and the like, as these add different options and strategies and make the game more fun. If say a character was only allowed to dual-wield very small or highly balanced weapons, would this make the game any less fun?

proportional? You are fighting creatures with no reproductive capabilites, no source of food or any other explanation for thier existance in a completely made up setting with completely made up magical attacks...and your personal sense of fun playing this game is ruined by characters who dual-wield bastard swords?

If you really need an explanation then why not just pretend those are small or better balanced swords? After all you are already useing tons of imagination just being immursed in such a fantastical game world...if that is unexceptable then don't equip your characters with them.

I play games for the fun, not the realism which makes things really annoying...

I'd choose Gameplay over realism, but that's just my opinion.

-Stenny

I don't think this topic is a black and white issue. You can have fun and useful realism that adds to gameplay. In many games, troops stand around and do nothing even if they get shot at, which isn't very realistic. The game that automatically has soldiers defending themselves is probably more fun, and also more realistic. I'd chose gameplay over realism if I had to, but I don't think things are that easy to judge. I think it also depends on what the scope and genre. I feel a civilization or simulation game would need more realism than a single battle style game. Command and Conquer wouldn't be as fun if they made it more realistic. Civilization and SimCity probably would.

Quote:Original post by BBHudson
It doesn't spoil the game or anything, it just gets on my nerves. If the horde of goblins you're fighting have to occasionally stop to take a leak or a smoke it would alter the gameplay and hence could make the game less fun, but making weapons an appropriate size wouldn't affect the game at all other than to add realism and stop it looking stupid. Of course you must take gameplay over realism, but on an issue that doesn't really affect the game you should try to make it as realistic as possible. Don't you think?

No...dual-wielding bastard swords fits the style of the game...a game where characters arn't always dressed appropriately for thier enviroment, where characters can wear cumbersome restrictive armor and not have thier combat mobility compromised, where monetary denominations of 10/200/30000 can all be carried in the same small bag, a game where one size armor, shoes and clothing fits all...there are thousands of elements in NWN that do not effect gameplay, look stupid and are totaly unrealistic, yet they fit neatly into the style of the game world.

imagine characters carrying around half a million gold coins, in real life they would need a huge sack/bag/chest to do so. It would look quite stupid for them to loft such a treasure as effortlessly as wielding a helium balloon. but to encumber said characters modility while carrying his/her treasure would drasticly effect gameplay. But within the game world it makes sense that such a large treasure of gold coins can be carried unencumbered by a single character...it fits the style of play, and no one complains about it...the seemingly over the top dual-wielding of swords is no different.