I played a game that offered extreme realism. It was Starquest Online. You had to eat drink s*%t and shower. You would get sick and become contagious if you didn't. Though it served a purpose because you also could be kidnapped. So you either had to escape by trckery, starving or crapping in your space suit until you die of disease. Most people just cried to the admins until they ported them out though. Game was very innovative, but it's in the process of shutting down. Playerbase is completely dead. The same company that hosts Face of Mankind is maintaining the servers, but admins have not been on in almost a year. It was annoying to have to shower, but I was a pirate so I didn't really bother.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Realism simply adds a bit of familiarity to a genre. The violations of what we believe are 'reality', ie speed of light, antigravity, alien sentients, zombies, vampires, steam powered aerial warships, laser/plasma blades etc...are a form of imaginative art, which most gamers possess. Games are a virtual representation of human thoughts and desires. Those vary from human to human, such as the OP and - me, who live at opposite ends of the imaginative spectrum.
The OP votes for realism while I embrace imaginative art in our choice of video games. The sun does not revolve around the earth anymore (realists once were so certain they burned people alive for saying different) and the earth is not flat (tho there are still believers - we do not burn them today tho). Which realism would the OP like to base the video game upon? The 'realism' of the ancient gods, the centuries of the Dark Ages, the 1800s, the last century or the new one? What is real? It changes so much that we decide what is realistic based only upon what we believe to be real.
Enough of the debating philosophy (I was bored). I voted no to more 'realism' in the games. I vote in reality with my wallet. Thats real enough.
Realism simply adds a bit of familiarity to a genre. The violations of what we believe are 'reality', ie speed of light, antigravity, alien sentients, zombies, vampires, steam powered aerial warships, laser/plasma blades etc...are a form of imaginative art, which most gamers possess. Games are a virtual representation of human thoughts and desires. Those vary from human to human, such as the OP and - me, who live at opposite ends of the imaginative spectrum.
The OP votes for realism while I embrace imaginative art in our choice of video games. The sun does not revolve around the earth anymore (realists once were so certain they burned people alive for saying different) and the earth is not flat (tho there are still believers - we do not burn them today tho). Which realism would the OP like to base the video game upon? The 'realism' of the ancient gods, the centuries of the Dark Ages, the 1800s, the last century or the new one? What is real? It changes so much that we decide what is realistic based only upon what we believe to be real.
Enough of the debating philosophy (I was bored). I voted no to more 'realism' in the games. I vote in reality with my wallet. Thats real enough.
You realize...that imagination is grounded in reality, right? That even the dragon flying overhead and breathing fire - there is an amount of realism involved in that. The movie Cowboys & Indans - had realism. The movie Tron - had realism.
It is not a concern with the philosophy of realism. It is not that dogged black & white.
I mount up - the mount appears out of nowhere. There is no explanation in the "game world" for how this happens. It breaks immersion. It is completely unrealistic. Say it is a magic mount - that is summoned by a ring I have in my possession. One would not say that is "real" - but there is a sense of realism. We can accept that in a magical reality, such things would be possible.
In one game out there, a person with a shield can block bleed damage. How the Hell, can a shield - typical round shield - block bleeding? Then you have the person in full plate to begin with - how was the person bleeding in the first place? A desire for greater realism would remove such things that break immersion.
A greater realism can increase our immersion in fantasy...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Realism only really applies to the rules of the world. Safe area means guarded not pvp off. How items are obtained ect...
Character realism only really needs to apply to how an action is applied. Realism is you need reagents that you need to collect or purchase or trade for to cast a spell ect...
It doesnt need to be as extreme as it sounds. It can be rather gentle if you want. You make the world, you make the rules. If people beleive it, it's realism. If not it doesnt mean that much if the gameplay is good.
Depends on my mood . .. I usually play the funner ones a lot longer than I do the more realistic ones but I may enjoy the realistic one more if I turn off the lights and put on headphones without background music and stuff.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I'll agree up to a point. If it goes past that point than it just gets irritating. If a character has to eat it would be more realistic. But it doesnt have to get to the point where a character has to sit around a fire for a half an hour stirring a pot of stew.
If a game has realistic damge with broken bones and bleeding than breaking an arm shouldnt autodrop your sword and leave you defenseless. It should just drop the damage by half. And one hit with a mace shouldnt break an arm.
If combat is realist where you could aim your swings it shouldnt be at speeds where reflexes are more important than thought. If a sword takes five second to connect and the sword you are blocking with is heavier it could absorb more damage. But you have to see the other sword to aim the block correctly. Since it heavier its slower. I'd rather you have to think that if I do block 1 in direction x it'l block 90% of the damage while if I do block 2 in direction y it'll only absorb fifty percent. The only problem is that block 1 takes seven seconds to perform while block two takes three. If its done at realistic speeds it might be too fast for people without excelent reflexes to be able to compete, but if there is a selection of five blocks you can choose for every scenario, enough time to think might give a more even advantage.
That said when it comes to things like magic all i really require is a realistic logic whithin that world. If magic requires reagents I'd rather see a system where different types and quantities of reagents would affect the spell in different ways. Its not very realsitic to say that you could only mix bronze and tin, coke and steel, etc. when in reality you could mix tin and steel [probably wouldnt get very good results though]. Why should it be any different with reagents. If adding carbon to iron makes it more flexible than why shouldnt adding more firepowder to a fire spell increase the fire output.
I'll agree up to a point. If it goes past that point than it just gets irritating. If a character has to eat it would be more realistic. But it doesnt have to get to the point where a character has to sit around a fire for a half an hour stirring a pot of stew.
With how unrealistic games are these days I wouldn't worry about that if someone were wanting to add realism.
You realize...that imagination is grounded in reality, right? That even the dragon flying overhead and breathing fire - there is an amount of realism involved in that. The movie Cowboys & Indans - had realism. The movie Tron - had realism.
It is not a concern with the philosophy of realism. It is not that dogged black & white.
I mount up - the mount appears out of nowhere. There is no explanation in the "game world" for how this happens. It breaks immersion. It is completely unrealistic. Say it is a magic mount - that is summoned by a ring I have in my possession. One would not say that is "real" - but there is a sense of realism. We can accept that in a magical reality, such things would be possible.
In one game out there, a person with a shield can block bleed damage. How the Hell, can a shield - typical round shield - block bleeding? Then you have the person in full plate to begin with - how was the person bleeding in the first place? A desire for greater realism would remove such things that break immersion.
A greater realism can increase our immersion in fantasy...
Geez, and all I'm talking about is allowing the player to drop items on the ground like we use to be able to do in UO. That's like NeXt Generation realism. That's the next level man.
Realism simply adds a bit of familiarity to a genre. The violations of what we believe are 'reality', ie speed of light, antigravity, alien sentients, zombies, vampires, steam powered aerial warships, laser/plasma blades etc...are a form of imaginative art, which most gamers possess. Games are a virtual representation of human thoughts and desires. Those vary from human to human, such as the OP and - me, who live at opposite ends of the imaginative spectrum.
The OP votes for realism while I embrace imaginative art in our choice of video games. The sun does not revolve around the earth anymore (realists once were so certain they burned people alive for saying different) and the earth is not flat (tho there are still believers - we do not burn them today tho). Which realism would the OP like to base the video game upon? The 'realism' of the ancient gods, the centuries of the Dark Ages, the 1800s, the last century or the new one? What is real? It changes so much that we decide what is realistic based only upon what we believe to be real.
Enough of the debating philosophy (I was bored). I voted no to more 'realism' in the games. I vote in reality with my wallet. Thats real enough.
That's not what I meant, I didn't mean scientific realism. Apparently, the way the vote went, looks like the majority thought that's what I meant.
You realize...that imagination is grounded in reality, right? That even the dragon flying overhead and breathing fire - there is an amount of realism involved in that. The movie Cowboys & Indans - had realism. The movie Tron - had realism.
It is not a concern with the philosophy of realism. It is not that dogged black & white.
I mount up - the mount appears out of nowhere. There is no explanation in the "game world" for how this happens. It breaks immersion. It is completely unrealistic. Say it is a magic mount - that is summoned by a ring I have in my possession. One would not say that is "real" - but there is a sense of realism. We can accept that in a magical reality, such things would be possible.
In one game out there, a person with a shield can block bleed damage. How the Hell, can a shield - typical round shield - block bleeding? Then you have the person in full plate to begin with - how was the person bleeding in the first place? A desire for greater realism would remove such things that break immersion.
A greater realism can increase our immersion in fantasy...
Geez, and all I'm talking about is allowing the player to drop items on the ground like we use to be able to do in UO. That's like NeXt Generation realism. That's the next level man.
And agree with you.
Yep, when realism gets brought up - definitely means different things to different folks - and there is a tendency for it to be all or nothing.
Usually when somebody is asking for greater realism - they're just looking for little things. Either a couple of things or possibly taking babysteps with it.
The discussion goes all over the place - it is mind boggling - cause it is usually pretty clear what the person is asking for - yet people feel the need to break out doctoral dissertations discussing philosophy . . . it is jaw dropping at times.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
When it comes to realism I vote NO. Mario Kart is still awesome because its not realistic. Its rainbows and funny characters racing around on go-karts. You dont have to worry about flat tires or actually dieing when you get stuck by lightning.
Look at cartoons for example. No saturday morning cartoon is realistic. Why? Because its not fun. Young or old. Realism is just boring and far too constraining. Would you really want to spend months setting up a launch to go into space. Or do you just wanna click the launch button?
An incredibly small number of players cares about games being ultra-detailed simulations of reality. Everyone else just wants something fun to play.
Realism/immersion can be part of fun, but it has to be pursued intelligently. Blind pursuit of realism is a terrible idea. Blind pursuit of gameplay at the cost of realism can also turn out a bit shaky. Devs who min/max realism by adding it when it doesn't harm gameplay (or even better: when it adds to gameplay) are the ones who experience the most success.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
An incredibly small number of players cares about games being ultra-detailed simulations of reality. Everyone else just wants something fun to play.
Realism/immersion can be part of fun, but it has to be pursued intelligently. Blind pursuit of realism is a terrible idea. Blind pursuit of gameplay at the cost of realism can also turn out a bit shaky. Devs who min/max realism by adding it when it doesn't harm gameplay (or even better: when it adds to gameplay) are the ones who experience the most success.
To an extent, the gist of the debates exists here.
Generally speaking, few people are asking for the ultra real sim when they ask about added realism. Yet, that is inevitably what the opposing side comes out with. Almost nobody's asking for that blind pursuit, but dare you mention additional realism - bam, it's what you're accused of wanting.
It is usually babysteps, where folks want things added - whether it is to correct something or to add something.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Would realism means I have to work 9 hours a day in a MMOG in order to have any kinds of success?
If so, have a nice day
If not, I want to ask why realism?
Games was created as a form of escapism, an entertainment to escape reality. Note your example with flight simulator, while oriented as a game, it is a simulator at heart. Its purpose is to provide a authentic experience to flight control, not as a game of entertainment.
While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design. But if everything needs to feel realistic to be a better game, as cheesy as it sounds, why not just go outside.
I think fun is the most important factor here, if a game isn't fun to play, there is no point for me to try.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Would realism means I have to work 9 hours a day in a MMOG in order to have any kinds of success?
If so, have a nice day
If not, I want to ask why realism?
Games was created as a form of escapism, an entertainment to escape reality. Note your example with flight simulator, while oriented as a game, it is a simulator at heart. Its purpose is to provide a authentic experience to flight control, not as a game of entertainment.
While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design. But if everything needs to feel realistic to be a better game, as cheesy as it sounds, why not just go outside.
I think fun is the most important factor here, if a game isn't fun to play, there is no point for me to try.
Have you ever played Oblivion elder scrolls? In Oblivion you hold the left mouse button down to bring your shield up, while your shield is up and the enemy wacks on it damage is reduced, and the enemy actually has to hit the shield, you can't just face the enemy backwards and block with a shield, and depending on skill level you can prevent yourself from being knocked down, reduce even more damage, or not losing so much stamina.
That's much better than less-realistic games where the shield is just added armor points.
In WOW you fly your flying mount the same velocity up as it goes down. Wouldn't it be cooler, and more realistic to be able to fly faster down, so you can zoom or dive bomb? And even more realistic, wouldn't it be cool if you were able to drop grenades on the enemy, or even swing your damn sword, while riding on a mount?
But hey, different strokes for different folks, you aren't interested in all of that "realism" stuff.
When it comes to realism I vote NO. Mario Kart is still awesome because its not realistic. Its rainbows and funny characters racing around on go-karts. You dont have to worry about flat tires or actually dieing when you get stuck by lightning.
Look at cartoons for example. No saturday morning cartoon is realistic. Why? Because its not fun. Young or old. Realism is just boring and far too constraining. Would you really want to spend months setting up a launch to go into space. Or do you just wanna click the launch button?
If there were a rocket simulator I think I'd prefer designing a rocket with realistic physics, not just "hitting the launch button".
-Is more realism better in RTS games? Do you think Starcraft2 is more fun than World In Conflict?
I think more realism is almost always better, but here you seem to be confusing realism with a real world setting. If you blur that distinction, the whole issue becomes a clouded mess, and almost everyone will say they don't want too much realism.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
more realism is not neccessary better for games. realism in games enforces simulation, where everything happens for a reason. if everything is based on previous conditions, everything can be predicted and simulated. that's not much of a fun.
so, realism as base background, yes. realism as an be-all end-all, no.
I don't play minecraft cause it's sort of unrealistic, but if it were more realistic I would play. I don't like how the ground just floats in places with no structural supports.
It doesn't matter what genre you're thinking of, this question works for all genres.
-Is more realism better in BF3? Or do you prefer your FPS games to be like Quake1.
-Is more realism better in Elder Scrolls Oblivion/Skyrim? Or do you think dropping stuff on the ground and having it stay on the ground is useless, or having dynamic lighting follow glowing objects you place on the ground so you can make your lair glow a useless addition?
-Is more realism better in RTS games? Do you think Starcraft2 is more fun than World In Conflict?
-Is more realism better in flight simulators? Answer should be obvious to that one.
It seems that you have not understood the point of Minecraft. You should try playing it before making baseless assumptions.
Also you're ideas about realism are very wrong and out of proportions. Shigeru has a lot about to say about this in articles from the Wind Waker days!
Also I find your suggestions almost offending. Quake 1 is from 1996 and was a revolution in the FPS demographic. It was a very gothic shooter that was a pillar for all shooters to come since then. BF3 is a 2011 war game heavily inspired by earlier battlefields and call of dutys, which all share roots with Quake and the ID games that became before it.
Flight simulator example does not work. listen to the name of it. SIMULATOR. The very meaning of the word instigates the notion of a simulation of something real, so obviously a real simulation is better. It's like saying, - what's best at cutting bread - a bread knife or a shoe?
RTS games - Has nothing to do with realism either. Those are two different sub genres of RTS games, and they stregnths of either have nothing to do with realism. As another poster said, you're confusing real world setting with realism.
Just because Call of Duty plays out like some childish GI Joe, it does not mean it's immersive or realistic in any way. I spent thirty minutes with Modern Warfare 3 yesterday, and there is little realism in the context of the game. It's not immersive, as for example.. KOTOR, a old game with outdated graphics that I am re-playing now. that game is more outlandish and far away from reality but it feels more realistic through its characters and story, and that immersion does a better job at making you feel that you are in the game.
So to sum up a point that most of us could make a lecture on - technical graphics and real world setting has no bearing on realism, and immersion, which I assume is what you are going for. From my experience, people who tend to favor current era / ww2 war shooters, madden and racing games often seem to be less creative than people who are able to suspend their disbelief in genres like fantasy, horror, scifi, steampunk, anime, and so on, and most of the time, I think it's due to the fact that they have not bene proberbly exposed to good stuff.
you won't learn to appreciate stanley kubrick or kurosawa films by watching michael bay films all day. It does not mean that Michael Bay films are not fun to watch, but one should really "get out more" as the saying goes in terms of their playing/viewing/listenin sphere of creative entertainment.
Would realism means I have to work 9 hours a day in a MMOG in order to have any kinds of success?
If so, have a nice day
If not, I want to ask why realism?
Games was created as a form of escapism, an entertainment to escape reality. Note your example with flight simulator, while oriented as a game, it is a simulator at heart. Its purpose is to provide a authentic experience to flight control, not as a game of entertainment.
While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design. But if everything needs to feel realistic to be a better game, as cheesy as it sounds, why not just go outside.
I think fun is the most important factor here, if a game isn't fun to play, there is no point for me to try.
Have you ever played Oblivion elder scrolls? In Oblivion you hold the left mouse button down to bring your shield up, while your shield is up and the enemy wacks on it damage is reduced, and the enemy actually has to hit the shield, you can't just face the enemy backwards and block with a shield, and depending on skill level you can prevent yourself from being knocked down, reduce even more damage, or not losing so much stamina.
That's much better than less-realistic games where the shield is just added armor points.
In WOW you fly your flying mount the same velocity up as it goes down. Wouldn't it be cooler, and more realistic to be able to fly faster down, so you can zoom or dive bomb? And even more realistic, wouldn't it be cool if you were able to drop grenades on the enemy, or even swing your damn sword, while riding on a mount?
But hey, different strokes for different folks, you aren't interested in all of that "realism" stuff.
I see you did not even bother to read past my joke, so I'll state here again
"While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design."
that includes shield blocking and swinging swords, but does it really make it more realistic? I actually hated oblivion's combat, spell manuver was terrible, sword swinging is just one repeating motion, but the game wasn't about combat so I looked past that.
I guess we should use kinetic for swing motion will be more realistic? Since kinetic is coming to PC, but I don't really like that idea to make it more realistic.
I say Dark souls probably got the closest to realistic combat, the sword swinging actually has weight to it. It isn't about how realistic you are manuvering your weapons, but also the consequences of it, you hit an ally or a passerby, be prepared to be hunted down.
PS: I remember shield holding was right mouse not left mouse? :P
EDIT: just remember Dark souls is a PS3/xbox game, but it is a sandbox rpg that challenges even the hardcores.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Comments
I swear, there should be some sort of license you have to get to make a poll in MMORPG.com, because almost invariably, the polls here are bad.
The idea of realism always being better is silly, and not just because people disagree on what exactly constitutes realism.
Would chess be better with more realism?
How about Tetris?
Perhaps if we made Go significantly more realistic, that would improve it.
Or Scrabble.
I know I like me some significantly realistic Scrabble.
... or Puyo Puyo. That needs more realism. (Should I call it Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine? Does anybody actually call it Puyo Puyo in the US?)
You also can't make a blanket statement that less realism is better, because that's just as weird to say.
I played a game that offered extreme realism. It was Starquest Online. You had to eat drink s*%t and shower. You would get sick and become contagious if you didn't. Though it served a purpose because you also could be kidnapped. So you either had to escape by trckery, starving or crapping in your space suit until you die of disease. Most people just cried to the admins until they ported them out though. Game was very innovative, but it's in the process of shutting down. Playerbase is completely dead. The same company that hosts Face of Mankind is maintaining the servers, but admins have not been on in almost a year. It was annoying to have to shower, but I was a pirate so I didn't really bother.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Realism simply adds a bit of familiarity to a genre. The violations of what we believe are 'reality', ie speed of light, antigravity, alien sentients, zombies, vampires, steam powered aerial warships, laser/plasma blades etc...are a form of imaginative art, which most gamers possess. Games are a virtual representation of human thoughts and desires. Those vary from human to human, such as the OP and - me, who live at opposite ends of the imaginative spectrum.
The OP votes for realism while I embrace imaginative art in our choice of video games. The sun does not revolve around the earth anymore (realists once were so certain they burned people alive for saying different) and the earth is not flat (tho there are still believers - we do not burn them today tho). Which realism would the OP like to base the video game upon? The 'realism' of the ancient gods, the centuries of the Dark Ages, the 1800s, the last century or the new one? What is real? It changes so much that we decide what is realistic based only upon what we believe to be real.
Enough of the debating philosophy (I was bored). I voted no to more 'realism' in the games. I vote in reality with my wallet. Thats real enough.
You realize...that imagination is grounded in reality, right? That even the dragon flying overhead and breathing fire - there is an amount of realism involved in that. The movie Cowboys & Indans - had realism. The movie Tron - had realism.
It is not a concern with the philosophy of realism. It is not that dogged black & white.
I mount up - the mount appears out of nowhere. There is no explanation in the "game world" for how this happens. It breaks immersion. It is completely unrealistic. Say it is a magic mount - that is summoned by a ring I have in my possession. One would not say that is "real" - but there is a sense of realism. We can accept that in a magical reality, such things would be possible.
In one game out there, a person with a shield can block bleed damage. How the Hell, can a shield - typical round shield - block bleeding? Then you have the person in full plate to begin with - how was the person bleeding in the first place? A desire for greater realism would remove such things that break immersion.
A greater realism can increase our immersion in fantasy...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Just watched this and it totally suits the argument here.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley
Realism sucks compared to stylization.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Realism only really applies to the rules of the world. Safe area means guarded not pvp off. How items are obtained ect...
Character realism only really needs to apply to how an action is applied. Realism is you need reagents that you need to collect or purchase or trade for to cast a spell ect...
It doesnt need to be as extreme as it sounds. It can be rather gentle if you want. You make the world, you make the rules. If people beleive it, it's realism. If not it doesnt mean that much if the gameplay is good.
If a game is very realistic it becomes like RL and I dont want to play some kind of rl game, bet real rl would be better :-)
I don't like realism in my video games. I like the feeling of realism, I like depth, immersion, Execution counts for a lot more.
Depends on my mood . .. I usually play the funner ones a lot longer than I do the more realistic ones but I may enjoy the realistic one more if I turn off the lights and put on headphones without background music and stuff.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I'll agree up to a point. If it goes past that point than it just gets irritating. If a character has to eat it would be more realistic. But it doesnt have to get to the point where a character has to sit around a fire for a half an hour stirring a pot of stew.
If a game has realistic damge with broken bones and bleeding than breaking an arm shouldnt autodrop your sword and leave you defenseless. It should just drop the damage by half. And one hit with a mace shouldnt break an arm.
If combat is realist where you could aim your swings it shouldnt be at speeds where reflexes are more important than thought. If a sword takes five second to connect and the sword you are blocking with is heavier it could absorb more damage. But you have to see the other sword to aim the block correctly. Since it heavier its slower. I'd rather you have to think that if I do block 1 in direction x it'l block 90% of the damage while if I do block 2 in direction y it'll only absorb fifty percent. The only problem is that block 1 takes seven seconds to perform while block two takes three. If its done at realistic speeds it might be too fast for people without excelent reflexes to be able to compete, but if there is a selection of five blocks you can choose for every scenario, enough time to think might give a more even advantage.
That said when it comes to things like magic all i really require is a realistic logic whithin that world. If magic requires reagents I'd rather see a system where different types and quantities of reagents would affect the spell in different ways. Its not very realsitic to say that you could only mix bronze and tin, coke and steel, etc. when in reality you could mix tin and steel [probably wouldnt get very good results though]. Why should it be any different with reagents. If adding carbon to iron makes it more flexible than why shouldnt adding more firepowder to a fire spell increase the fire output.
Yeah, I didn't imply graphics in my examples. And I don't mean graphics.
Wut?
With how unrealistic games are these days I wouldn't worry about that if someone were wanting to add realism.
Wut?
Geez, and all I'm talking about is allowing the player to drop items on the ground like we use to be able to do in UO. That's like NeXt Generation realism. That's the next level man.
And agree with you.
Wut?
That's not what I meant, I didn't mean scientific realism. Apparently, the way the vote went, looks like the majority thought that's what I meant.
Wut?
Yep, when realism gets brought up - definitely means different things to different folks - and there is a tendency for it to be all or nothing.
Usually when somebody is asking for greater realism - they're just looking for little things. Either a couple of things or possibly taking babysteps with it.
The discussion goes all over the place - it is mind boggling - cause it is usually pretty clear what the person is asking for - yet people feel the need to break out doctoral dissertations discussing philosophy . . . it is jaw dropping at times.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
When it comes to realism I vote NO. Mario Kart is still awesome because its not realistic. Its rainbows and funny characters racing around on go-karts. You dont have to worry about flat tires or actually dieing when you get stuck by lightning.
Look at cartoons for example. No saturday morning cartoon is realistic. Why? Because its not fun. Young or old. Realism is just boring and far too constraining. Would you really want to spend months setting up a launch to go into space. Or do you just wanna click the launch button?
An incredibly small number of players cares about games being ultra-detailed simulations of reality. Everyone else just wants something fun to play.
Realism/immersion can be part of fun, but it has to be pursued intelligently. Blind pursuit of realism is a terrible idea. Blind pursuit of gameplay at the cost of realism can also turn out a bit shaky. Devs who min/max realism by adding it when it doesn't harm gameplay (or even better: when it adds to gameplay) are the ones who experience the most success.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To an extent, the gist of the debates exists here.
Generally speaking, few people are asking for the ultra real sim when they ask about added realism. Yet, that is inevitably what the opposing side comes out with. Almost nobody's asking for that blind pursuit, but dare you mention additional realism - bam, it's what you're accused of wanting.
It is usually babysteps, where folks want things added - whether it is to correct something or to add something.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Would realism means I have to work 9 hours a day in a MMOG in order to have any kinds of success?
If so, have a nice day
If not, I want to ask why realism?
Games was created as a form of escapism, an entertainment to escape reality. Note your example with flight simulator, while oriented as a game, it is a simulator at heart. Its purpose is to provide a authentic experience to flight control, not as a game of entertainment.
While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design. But if everything needs to feel realistic to be a better game, as cheesy as it sounds, why not just go outside.
I think fun is the most important factor here, if a game isn't fun to play, there is no point for me to try.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Have you ever played Oblivion elder scrolls? In Oblivion you hold the left mouse button down to bring your shield up, while your shield is up and the enemy wacks on it damage is reduced, and the enemy actually has to hit the shield, you can't just face the enemy backwards and block with a shield, and depending on skill level you can prevent yourself from being knocked down, reduce even more damage, or not losing so much stamina.
That's much better than less-realistic games where the shield is just added armor points.
In WOW you fly your flying mount the same velocity up as it goes down. Wouldn't it be cooler, and more realistic to be able to fly faster down, so you can zoom or dive bomb? And even more realistic, wouldn't it be cool if you were able to drop grenades on the enemy, or even swing your damn sword, while riding on a mount?
But hey, different strokes for different folks, you aren't interested in all of that "realism" stuff.
Wut?
If there were a rocket simulator I think I'd prefer designing a rocket with realistic physics, not just "hitting the launch button".
Wut?
I think more realism is almost always better, but here you seem to be confusing realism with a real world setting. If you blur that distinction, the whole issue becomes a clouded mess, and almost everyone will say they don't want too much realism.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
more realism is not neccessary better for games. realism in games enforces simulation, where everything happens for a reason. if everything is based on previous conditions, everything can be predicted and simulated. that's not much of a fun.
so, realism as base background, yes. realism as an be-all end-all, no.
edit: also, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic. what SEEMS realistic or not is entirely subjective.
It seems that you have not understood the point of Minecraft. You should try playing it before making baseless assumptions.
Also you're ideas about realism are very wrong and out of proportions. Shigeru has a lot about to say about this in articles from the Wind Waker days!
Also I find your suggestions almost offending. Quake 1 is from 1996 and was a revolution in the FPS demographic. It was a very gothic shooter that was a pillar for all shooters to come since then. BF3 is a 2011 war game heavily inspired by earlier battlefields and call of dutys, which all share roots with Quake and the ID games that became before it.
Flight simulator example does not work. listen to the name of it. SIMULATOR. The very meaning of the word instigates the notion of a simulation of something real, so obviously a real simulation is better. It's like saying, - what's best at cutting bread - a bread knife or a shoe?
RTS games - Has nothing to do with realism either. Those are two different sub genres of RTS games, and they stregnths of either have nothing to do with realism. As another poster said, you're confusing real world setting with realism.
Just because Call of Duty plays out like some childish GI Joe, it does not mean it's immersive or realistic in any way. I spent thirty minutes with Modern Warfare 3 yesterday, and there is little realism in the context of the game. It's not immersive, as for example.. KOTOR, a old game with outdated graphics that I am re-playing now. that game is more outlandish and far away from reality but it feels more realistic through its characters and story, and that immersion does a better job at making you feel that you are in the game.
So to sum up a point that most of us could make a lecture on - technical graphics and real world setting has no bearing on realism, and immersion, which I assume is what you are going for. From my experience, people who tend to favor current era / ww2 war shooters, madden and racing games often seem to be less creative than people who are able to suspend their disbelief in genres like fantasy, horror, scifi, steampunk, anime, and so on, and most of the time, I think it's due to the fact that they have not bene proberbly exposed to good stuff.
you won't learn to appreciate stanley kubrick or kurosawa films by watching michael bay films all day. It does not mean that Michael Bay films are not fun to watch, but one should really "get out more" as the saying goes in terms of their playing/viewing/listenin sphere of creative entertainment.
I see you did not even bother to read past my joke, so I'll state here again
"While I understand certain aspects needs to feel real, in order to feel immersive, like a human character or relatable world design."
that includes shield blocking and swinging swords, but does it really make it more realistic? I actually hated oblivion's combat, spell manuver was terrible, sword swinging is just one repeating motion, but the game wasn't about combat so I looked past that.
I guess we should use kinetic for swing motion will be more realistic? Since kinetic is coming to PC, but I don't really like that idea to make it more realistic.
I say Dark souls probably got the closest to realistic combat, the sword swinging actually has weight to it. It isn't about how realistic you are manuvering your weapons, but also the consequences of it, you hit an ally or a passerby, be prepared to be hunted down.
PS: I remember shield holding was right mouse not left mouse? :P
EDIT: just remember Dark souls is a PS3/xbox game, but it is a sandbox rpg that challenges even the hardcores.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.