I think 'realism' as a word is so misunderstood it shouldn't be used in a generalized sense, because TO THIS DAY I am not away of any game that have been made with the intent on showing 'realism' per se. So instead 'realism' becomes this metaphor of things being more real, or realistic. Two very different things imo.
'Realism' is known from art history, where a painter would have the intent of wanting to try paint something without distorting what would be thought of as looking real.
"Realism, sometimes called naturalism, in the arts is generally the attempt to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, or implausible, exotic, and supernatural elements. Realism has been prevalent in the arts at many periods, and can be in large part a matter of technique and training, and the avoidance of stylization."
I think discussions that pretend to be about "fun vs realism" like iirc Star Citizen devs, is disingenious and seems fake to me, as if really just wanting to simplify things and coming up with an excuse saying "wouldn't it be nicer if we thought of this as simple fun, instead of complicated reality?" And so, no wonder games are made to be simplistic with such an attitude.
A real concern of mine for sake of game development ideas, would be gamedesign that appear to be wasting the player's time, by having game mechanics that act like time sinks, but without a purpose that enhances gameplay for the better.
When convenience and realism collide, I say fuck real life. Excessive attention to detail makes for bad gameplay (caugh Rockstar caugh).
A game reviewer made the point that Rockstar did not do enough with their design, so it was sort of half assed when things expected to make sense, didn't.
Admittedly, I haven't played Red Dead Redemption, so I can't say if I would have gotten this feeling of things being like a waste of time. Having looked at video recordings of the game, it doesn't seem bad to me, as in, it doesn't look like things drag on. What instead might be weird imo, is if maybe having to repeat certain things, so that the accumulative time spent doing something in particualr, seems like a waste of time.
If I have to get on my horse, and spending a little bit of time, I think that would be totally ok, because I wouldn't be hopping on and off my horse probably.
Reloading weapons, spending some time doing that, all ok, as it enhances gameplay when it makes sense, but ofc, if you don't take much damage and also is expected to singlehandedly shoot 10-20 bandits, then things get weird I think, making reloading seem like a waste of time, but still, not the game's fault per se.
Worse, would be things that one is encouraged to repeat over and over, if say having to open a menu and it takes too much time for that to happen.
It's true that good ideas can be poorly implemented and/or executed.
And even bad ideas can seem cool at first if the presentation and graphics are of high enough quality.
Do you mean that weapons & armor should only need to be replaced every 20 levels? (In the kind of game I'm thinking of, there wouldn't be class/character levels. Though there would be attribute points as well as skill, ability, and talent levels. However, I think @Wizardry made a good point in a recent post that skill levels should be raised through practice/training/use rather than simply applying earned points every so often. After all, it makes no sense to be able to raise a magical ability if all your character has been doing is swinging a club or hammer around.
Encumbrance doesn't imply that our characters will be forced to constantly go back and forth to town. They could be able to own wagons, pack mules, & even eventually hire retainers to follow them around and carry their stuff in wagons or on horseback. Though these NPCs would probably have to be hidden from view usually (so as not to crash the game). Could even have an NPC (NPCs) whose job it was to guard your character's campsite outside a dungeon and collect items from you at the entrance if your bags got too full. There's also no reason why a mercenary/hireling/soldier/adventurer under your command couldn't accompany you into the dungeon and help carry things for you.
Encumbrance would prevent people from gathering every material in sight, that's for sure.
I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at game companies/studios. But you're right. Only skilled artists can produce beautiful art. Make a better game and more people will play. There's a limited number of people in the world who enjoy Skinner Boxes. Appeal to a wider audience and revenues will be increased. I think Subscription without cash shop is the way to go. Trying to squeeze every nickel possible out of every single player who downloads the game is probably not the best business model. In any case, I don't believe it will be sustainable too far into the future. People who want to pay usually already pay. Why? In the case of F2P, it's because they have jobs and thus are required to pay in order to progress within a reasonable amount of time. People who don't pay usually have more free time than they do money. But they perform a service anyway. By helping to provide content for the people that do pay to play.
Well, I suppose that F2P is isn't going away. And maybe that's not a terrible thing. However, it's my belief that F2P games, especially those with any kind of PVP, should be "pay to progress faster/accomplish goals more quickly" rather than "pay-to-win/pay-to-succeed". If a game is P2W, players will figure it out fairly quickly. In-game chat, forums, and other websites will inevitably become full of gamers advising other gamers that this or that game is P2W. And eventually, player population will decrease dramatically.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Yes. I actually want an MMORPG to be made in which things are more realistic. The other games can stay the way they are, of course. I would just like one game to be made this way and see what happens.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
It's true that good ideas can be poorly implemented and/or executed.
And even bad ideas can seem cool at first if the presentation and graphics are of high enough quality.
Do you mean that weapons & armor should only need to be replaced every 20 levels? (In the kind of game I'm thinking of, there wouldn't be class/character levels. Though there would be attribute points as well as skill, ability, and talent levels. However, I think @Wizardry made a good point in a recent post that skill levels should be raised through practice/training/use rather than simply applying earned points every so often. After all, it makes no sense to be able to raise a magical ability if all your character has been doing is swinging a club or hammer around.
Encumbrance doesn't imply that our characters will be forced to constantly go back and forth to town. They could be able to own wagons, pack mules, & even eventually hire retainers to follow them around and carry their stuff in wagons or on horseback. Though these NPCs would probably have to be hidden from view usually (so as not to crash the game). Could even have an NPC (NPCs) whose job it was to guard your character's campsite outside a dungeon and collect items from you at the entrance if your bags got too full. There's also no reason why a mercenary/hireling/soldier/adventurer under your command couldn't accompany you into the dungeon and help carry things for you.
Encumbrance would prevent people from gathering every material in sight, that's for sure.
I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at game companies/studios. But you're right. Only skilled artists can produce beautiful art. Make a better game and more people will play. There's a limited number of people in the world who enjoy Skinner Boxes. Appeal to a wider audience and revenues will be increased. I think Subscription without cash shop is the way to go. Trying to squeeze every nickel possible out of every single player who downloads the game is probably not the best business model. In any case, I don't believe it will be sustainable too far into the future. People who want to pay usually already pay. Why? In the case of F2P, it's because they have jobs and thus are required to pay in order to progress within a reasonable amount of time. People who don't pay usually have more free time than they do money. But they perform a service anyway. By helping to provide content for the people that do pay to play.
Well, I suppose that F2P is isn't going away. And maybe that's not a terrible thing. However, it's my belief that F2P games, especially those with any kind of PVP, should be "pay to progress faster/accomplish goals more quickly" rather than "pay-to-win/pay-to-succeed". If a game is P2W, players will figure it out fairly quickly. In-game chat, forums, and other websites will inevitably become full of gamers advising other gamers that this or that game is P2W. And eventually, player population will decrease dramatically.
Ya, On second thought the armor and weapon REPLACEMENT is bad no matter how you look at it.
However Vanilla WoW did have a good % damage system that had a good purpose. So like eventually if you try something that you have no business trying, you would eventually have to stop..... It's like the game is cutting you off and have to quit and go repair.
Have you ever been in a group and you fail over and over ?.... Well the game is made to stop you by doing 100% damage.
Again REPLACEMENT is a bad idea.
The latest Zelda game (can't remember the name) supposedly is a big hit.
But people are hating, the quick weapon replacement that is constant through the game...... where developers are insisting it's to keep players on their toes and remain flexible with weapon swap.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
How can you PROPERLY design a game not knowing what players will do to change it?
Furthermore ,what is the purpose of trying to design a game if all your going to do is change it either via the GM or by the players?
GM,aka DnD is NOT am immersive design.If i walk up to a door,i expect that door to be there all the time unless there is a good reason it is not.If i walk a path 50x,i do not want to turn around and that path is now a hole of burning acid.
If i enter a dark room 150x and all of a sudden there is 3 goblins in there,i want a darn good reason as to why they are all of a sudden in there.
I have yet to see a single game that can bring me a more immersive feeling than Atlas and it's only a cheap survival game.Know why,it offers everything realistic,just like how we would expect to see it.Temperate zones,splashing water,deep seas,sailing ships,survival,building,creatures that act like they really would or how i would expect them to act.
So what we need to see is not more DnD outdated crap,we need a game that brings the likes of Atlas and deep characters designs,deep combat designs and more plausible quests that feel like quests and not errands.It is most certainly doable just nobody wants to go the whole nine yards.
Just look at The New World,Amazon has LOADS of money,they don't want to make a real game,too costly,too much risk,they want to make a half baked survival game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
How can you PROPERLY design a game not knowing what players will do to change it?
Furthermore ,what is the purpose of trying to design a game if all your going to do is change it either via the GM or by the players?
GM,aka DnD is NOT am immersive design.If i walk up to a door,i expect that door to be there all the time unless there is a good reason it is not.If i walk a path 50x,i do not want to turn around and that path is now a hole of burning acid.
If i enter a dark room 150x and all of a sudden there is 3 goblins in there,i want a darn good reason as to why they are all of a sudden in there.
I have yet to see a single game that can bring me a more immersive feeling than Atlas and it's only a cheap survival game.Know why,it offers everything realistic,just like how we would expect to see it.Temperate zones,splashing water,deep seas,sailing ships,survival,building,creatures that act like they really would or how i would expect them to act.
So what we need to see is not more DnD outdated crap,we need a game that brings the likes of Atlas and deep characters designs,deep combat designs and more plausible quests that feel like quests and not errands.It is most certainly doable just nobody wants to go the whole nine yards.
Just look at The New World,Amazon has LOADS of money,they don't want to make a real game,too costly,too much risk,they want to make a half baked survival game.
Did you have some bad DMs or GMs? Any game can be ruined by bad control.
"How can you PROPERLY design a game not knowing what players will do to change it?"
As to this question, you can design it so they simply can't do the things you don't want. Or so that they face enough risk that they won't do it except in the few instances that you actually want to allow.
That doesn't mean you can't allow them to do things you want them to do. However, I wouldn't want to put my trust in most of the designers I've seen to date. I'll give you that.
And it's not just for immersion. If you never handed a new player a ton of copper pieces, whose enormous weight instantly stuck them to the ground like a lawn dart, you missed out.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I've yet to experience "immersion" in any game, ever. At least, I've yet to experience immersion as it is usually defined. So, whether it is realistic or not has never made a bit of difference to me on that front - it all fails to immerse me.
So, when it comes to convenience vs realism, I will always come back to the most important factor: gameplay.
Does adding realism to the game improve the gameplay?
In almost all cases, I have found the answer to be "no", because most of the gameplay surrounding realistic things (like eating, sleeping) is terrible. It just acts as bloat, a pointless time sink and so I'd rather get rid of it in favour of convenience.
The exception to that is fast travel.
If your game does not have fast travel, then my connection to the game world increases a lot and I gain a real appreciation, and love, for the world that I'm playing in. I gain a better sense of how large (or small) the world is and I become a lot better at recognising landmarks and navigating my way around the world.
The instant fast travel is introduced, that all seems to go out of the window. Even though I have the option to walk/ride, I just take the path of least resistence and fast travel everywhere. This lessons the importance of the world and my focus then shifts fully to progression and interesting content, rather than exploring or roleplaying.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
And it's not just for immersion. If you never handed a new player a ton of copper pieces, whose enormous weight instantly stuck them to the ground like a lawn dart, you missed out.
You can totally do this in FO76, hand a level 2 just out of the vault a full kit of gear, weapons and mats, wave them a friendly goodbye, then port away leaving them to agonize over what to drop to leave behind.
For extra credit, toss in a few level 50 legendary weapons, (War drums, Super Sledges, miniguns etc) heavier the better.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Immersion is not just effected by the "convenience" issue but it is a major factor in gameplay coming before immersion. Much of what the OP talked about can be summed up as being down to the difference between those who want to play like they are living in a MMORPG or those who just want to play a MMORPG.
Immersion is not roleplaying (many say that it is) but this has an effect for role players too, as far more has to be imagined rather than seen. But then I think that's a plaster you have to pull of quickly, you do so much in roleplaying that is not depicted in a graphic way, not seeing avatars eating is the least of it. You have to use your imagination so get started early.
All elements of a game's lore, theme, story, realism etc, have to be balanced against gameplay its a tricky one and I don't think it is possible to do that perfectly. But in MMO's we have certainly seen a "streamlining" of content which in real terms means the removal or successive dumbing downs of much of what made MMOs living worlds. But the streaming extends beyond removing visible features. Todays MMOs are seemingly built by designers who think we need social isolation in games, stay on your own, don't talk strangers...hell anyone. Talking, grouping, community that's content too you know.
I've yet to experience "immersion" in any game, ever. At least, I've yet to experience immersion as it is usually defined. So, whether it is realistic or not has never made a bit of difference to me on that front - it all fails to immerse me.
So, when it comes to convenience vs realism, I will always come back to the most important factor: gameplay.
Does adding realism to the game improve the gameplay?
In almost all cases, I have found the answer to be "no", because most of the gameplay surrounding realistic things (like eating, sleeping) is terrible. It just acts as bloat, a pointless time sink and so I'd rather get rid of it in favour of convenience.
The exception to that is fast travel.
that's the thing, what you've pointed out is that "one's mileage may vary."
As I've said before, my friend who only plays Elder Scrolls games (when they come out and once he's done he doesn't pick up another video game) complains that sickness, food, sleep doesn't' matter.
So you like "no fast travel" while others would never be able to play a game without it.
Some like the fact that one has to eat (I do) while others don't.
That game play, positive or negative, varies among so many players. For me, games like Conan Exiles kind of nail it. "kind of."
I spent the whole weekend playing Morrowind and not only did I revel in the fact that I actually died during combat, I was also very much appreciating the attribute drains that some enemies put on me. Where they made it so I had to drop my gear, find a shrine or a healer for potions, and then "fix myself."
to me that IS game play. And good game play. But that's not going to be for everyone.
That's why I'm a believer that games should know their audience, cater to their audience and screw everyone else. If they do it "right" they will have success.
But, they also have to know their audience, realistically know if it's a large part of the pie or not.
edit: I should add, I've yet to see someone actually define "immersion" that's the same as others. I think it means different things for different people.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I've yet to experience "immersion" in any game, ever. At least, I've yet to experience immersion as it is usually defined. So, whether it is realistic or not has never made a bit of difference to me on that front - it all fails to immerse me.
So, when it comes to convenience vs realism, I will always come back to the most important factor: gameplay.
Does adding realism to the game improve the gameplay?
In almost all cases, I have found the answer to be "no", because most of the gameplay surrounding realistic things (like eating, sleeping) is terrible. It just acts as bloat, a pointless time sink and so I'd rather get rid of it in favour of convenience.
The exception to that is fast travel.
I spent the whole weekend playing Morrowind and not only did I revel in the fact that I actually died during combat, I was also very much appreciating the attribute drains that some enemies put on me. Where they made it so I had to drop my gear, find a shrine or a healer for potions, and then "fix myself."
Agreed, and in this example I would be reloading and replaying the battle until I obtained the optimal outcome.
Which explains why all four of my Fallout 4 playthroughs, had over 1400 unique save games each, not counting those I quick saved or saved over.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If your game does not have fast travel, then my connection to the game world increases a lot and I gain a real appreciation, and love, for the world that I'm playing in. I gain a better sense of how large (or small) the world is and I become a lot better at recognising landmarks and navigating my way around the world.
The instant fast travel is introduced, that all seems to go out of the window. Even though I have the option to walk/ride, I just take the path of least resistence and fast travel everywhere. This lessons the importance of the world and my focus then shifts fully to progression and interesting content, rather than exploring or roleplaying.
My connection to the gameworld vanishes the moment where I simply ride through everything to reach the place I was going to. At that point just give me fast travel so I can spend those 15 minutes travel time on something that's more interesting.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Not that it couldn't work, but ideally, if the Company needs to hire a bunch of staff to keep the masses in line, like police, it would quickly become a question of the value of having those features exist in the first place. This also has an effect on size and complexity as well, the more the Devs build, the less fluid the game becomes and less they can respond to what Players do.
I would think, that if they planned to open the doors and let players "Do what you will" they would be far better off just giving them the tools to do whatever, and then step back and watch the insanity unfold.
I mean, given want went down with New World, when veteran devs were surprised to find gank squads formed in their open world PvP Game, I don't think any of them are really ready for a truly open world shit storm that players could unleash.
I mean ideally the smaller scale the game the better this would work, like Emulators, but that also means that the smaller scale the game, the less profitable they are, so less money, to be a solid AAA game, and more a "Labor of Love" by a small team.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If your game does not have fast travel, then my connection to the game world increases a lot and I gain a real appreciation, and love, for the world that I'm playing in. I gain a better sense of how large (or small) the world is and I become a lot better at recognising landmarks and navigating my way around the world.
The instant fast travel is introduced, that all seems to go out of the window. Even though I have the option to walk/ride, I just take the path of least resistence and fast travel everywhere. This lessons the importance of the world and my focus then shifts fully to progression and interesting content, rather than exploring or roleplaying.
My connection to the gameworld vanishes the moment where I simply ride through everything to reach the place I was going to. At that point just give me fast travel so I can spend those 15 minutes travel time on something that's more interesting.
And that's part of the schism between types of players. For him, being a part of the world noticing the details, perhaps something happening, is immersive.
For you, the major moments are what bring immersion.
Have you ever tried walking in, say, Skyrim or a similar game? For long distances? It's an amazing experience but not for everyone surely.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If your game does not have fast travel, then my connection to the game world increases a lot and I gain a real appreciation, and love, for the world that I'm playing in. I gain a better sense of how large (or small) the world is and I become a lot better at recognising landmarks and navigating my way around the world.
The instant fast travel is introduced, that all seems to go out of the window. Even though I have the option to walk/ride, I just take the path of least resistence and fast travel everywhere. This lessons the importance of the world and my focus then shifts fully to progression and interesting content, rather than exploring or roleplaying.
My connection to the gameworld vanishes the moment where I simply ride through everything to reach the place I was going to. At that point just give me fast travel so I can spend those 15 minutes travel time on something that's more interesting.
And that's part of the schism between types of players. For him, being a part of the world noticing the details, perhaps something happening, is immersive.
For you, the major moments are what bring immersion.
Have you ever tried walking in, say, Skyrim or a similar game? For long distances? It's an amazing experience but not for everyone surely.
Whenever I go places its to do things or meet people, its never about the place itself. I'm the exact same way when I play games.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Thinking about realism do we ever consider how much we are carrying while we are fighting? I mean most MMOs I have about 10 backpacks full of heavy equipment and other stuff. Realistically there is no way I could fight anything. Some games in the past have tried to do weight limits but as far as Iknow it has never worked.
I've yet to experience "immersion" in any game, ever. At least, I've yet to experience immersion as it is usually defined. So, whether it is realistic or not has never made a bit of difference to me on that front - it all fails to immerse me.
So, when it comes to convenience vs realism, I will always come back to the most important factor: gameplay.
Does adding realism to the game improve the gameplay?
In almost all cases, I have found the answer to be "no", because most of the gameplay surrounding realistic things (like eating, sleeping) is terrible. It just acts as bloat, a pointless time sink and so I'd rather get rid of it in favour of convenience.
The exception to that is fast travel.
If your game does not have fast travel, then my connection to the game world increases a lot and I gain a real appreciation, and love, for the world that I'm playing in. I gain a better sense of how large (or small) the world is and I become a lot better at recognising landmarks and navigating my way around the world.
The instant fast travel is introduced, that all seems to go out of the window. Even though I have the option to walk/ride, I just take the path of least resistence and fast travel everywhere. This lessons the importance of the world and my focus then shifts fully to progression and interesting content, rather than exploring or roleplaying.
Not many but I felt immersion in several games.
Vanilla World of Warcraft I know the game well so not much learning, BUT the people themselves as I play on and off for what 15 years seems to immerse me. The last few years I've been playing about 10 levels at a time (weeks to month because I play slowwww).
I always re-join the same populated Guild and most new faces, some recognize and they remember me too because I'm social. VERY VERY immersive each time because of people I know and learn to respect each time
It's still the perfect game just played it to long and too many years.
My very short and embarrassing time in P1999. Never made it past around level 5. BUT spent weeks learning and logging in figuring things our around the small area of Kelethin. and the lifts.
I talked in detail with so many people and even drew a personal map that took hours to make because each rope section looked the same around the city. When I ventured down the lifts I was a scared child, now sure how far I had the guts to live the view of how to get back...... I was in my own small world with hopes of seeing beyond some day.
LOVED IT SO MUCH..... eventually the hard crude UI got to me and decided not to continue.... But I'll never forget the immersion I felt.
I often think I gave up to early.... But then I realize how crude (very crude) the game was and back off. This is why I NEED a game like Pantheon or SoL.
EQ2 and Vanguard and D&D Online did the same:
Vanguard was great. D&D ONLINE is now a butchered money cash grab pit, and is un-playable. EQ2 will be going back too soon. I can almost find the immersion I find in WoW.
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Not that it couldn't work, but ideally, if the Company needs to hire a bunch of staff to keep the masses in line, like police, it would quickly become a question of the value of having those features exist in the first place. This also has an effect on size and complexity as well, the more the Devs build, the less fluid the game becomes and less they can respond to what Players do.
I would think, that if they planned to open the doors and let players "Do what you will" they would be far better off just giving them the tools to do whatever, and then step back and watch the insanity unfold.
I mean, given want went down with New World, when veteran devs were surprised to find gank squads formed in their open world PvP Game, I don't think any of them are really ready for a truly open world shit storm that players could unleash.
I mean ideally the smaller scale the game the better this would work, like Emulators, but that also means that the smaller scale the game, the less profitable they are, so less money, to be a solid AAA game, and more a "Labor of Love" by a small team.
I agree. Those players aren't in it for RP. They "play to crush" and will find a way if one's available. GMs cannot keep up with them, not even close. The players need the tools, that work, to stop them on a permanent basis, by giving them losses that they feel harshly enough that they will stop.
The game was City of Heroes. I had gone down into the underground sewer system to fight bad guys. You hear insects buzzing, and water dripping and sloshing. Otherwise it is as silent as a tomb. Very creepy.
In real life I was not wearing a shirt ...
As I started down the sewer tunnel, an in game fly buzzed while a real life fly also buzzed and landed on my bare real life back.
I admit it. I screamed. A very unmanly scream at that.
Total immersion.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Are you saying that Game Developers and Game Masters have no power or ability to subtly change the course of a game world (and even individual player actions) through built-in penalties, limitations, and consequences, as well as periodic events? NPCs, mobs, and Game Master-controlled characters (such as deities perhaps) can also be used to maintain balance and keep an online world from spiraling totally out of control.
Not only that, Game Developers can actually <gasp> hire professional gamers and role-players to help maintain order and balance in a persistent, dynamic, virtual world.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
I think there is a middle ground. One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit: I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents." We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game. Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Not that it couldn't work, but ideally, if the Company needs to hire a bunch of staff to keep the masses in line, like police, it would quickly become a question of the value of having those features exist in the first place. This also has an effect on size and complexity as well, the more the Devs build, the less fluid the game becomes and less they can respond to what Players do.
I would think, that if they planned to open the doors and let players "Do what you will" they would be far better off just giving them the tools to do whatever, and then step back and watch the insanity unfold.
I mean, given want went down with New World, when veteran devs were surprised to find gank squads formed in their open world PvP Game, I don't think any of them are really ready for a truly open world shit storm that players could unleash.
I mean ideally the smaller scale the game the better this would work, like Emulators, but that also means that the smaller scale the game, the less profitable they are, so less money, to be a solid AAA game, and more a "Labor of Love" by a small team.
I agree. Those players aren't in it for RP. They "play to crush" and will find a way if one's available. GMs cannot keep up with them, not even close. The players need the tools, that work, to stop them on a permanent basis, by giving them losses that they feel harshly enough that they will stop.
Lets say for discussion we took a game like Trove, the Voxel system lends itself well custom crafting and world building, after all, put in Full Loot Perma Death so that dying has some serious consequences, and as opposed to starting hub, players just get tossed into a massive randomly generated open world, where they can build whatever they want from there on out.
Now this is a simple system, but we are dealing with a foundation game. For the sake of world building, we could add complexity, like putting in skill ranks for weapons/gear. have a whole skill tree and system for casting spells, a whole system of spell crafting, where players can invent their own spells. Since the world is Voxel, all weapons and armor are made up of blocks, so all that is custom made and designed as well. Perhaps a whole complex crafting system of alloys and the like that players can experiment with, as well as put in a whole farming system, animal husbandry, a system to tame or catch animals to raise them... I mean all the rules and systems would be what the Devs work on. So there is really no limit to how far down the rabbit hole of systems we could.
Kinda like how TSR made rules, and let the players go have fun building and interacting with their own worlds.
Ideally, with that kind of game, the Devs would just focus on the systems, making sure they work, perhaps adding to them, maybe tweaking them to make them work better as time went on, etc. But.. the game world itself.. what happens in the world.. is fully up to the players.
The could build vast skyscrapers and cities of light or charred blackened wastelands, that would be up to them.
If we were to make something like that.. how many would want to play.. knowing what your game world would be like going forward is entirely up to the players.
Would you play that game?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
'Realism' is known from art history, where a painter would have the intent of wanting to try paint something without distorting what would be thought of as looking real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)
"Realism, sometimes called naturalism, in the arts is generally the attempt to represent subject matter truthfully, without artificiality and avoiding artistic conventions, or implausible, exotic, and supernatural elements. Realism has been prevalent in the arts at many periods, and can be in large part a matter of technique and training, and the avoidance of stylization."
I think discussions that pretend to be about "fun vs realism" like iirc Star Citizen devs, is disingenious and seems fake to me, as if really just wanting to simplify things and coming up with an excuse saying "wouldn't it be nicer if we thought of this as simple fun, instead of complicated reality?" And so, no wonder games are made to be simplistic with such an attitude.
A real concern of mine for sake of game development ideas, would be gamedesign that appear to be wasting the player's time, by having game mechanics that act like time sinks, but without a purpose that enhances gameplay for the better.
Admittedly, I haven't played Red Dead Redemption, so I can't say if I would have gotten this feeling of things being like a waste of time. Having looked at video recordings of the game, it doesn't seem bad to me, as in, it doesn't look like things drag on. What instead might be weird imo, is if maybe having to repeat certain things, so that the accumulative time spent doing something in particualr, seems like a waste of time.
If I have to get on my horse, and spending a little bit of time, I think that would be totally ok, because I wouldn't be hopping on and off my horse probably.
Reloading weapons, spending some time doing that, all ok, as it enhances gameplay when it makes sense, but ofc, if you don't take much damage and also is expected to singlehandedly shoot 10-20 bandits, then things get weird I think, making reloading seem like a waste of time, but still, not the game's fault per se.
Worse, would be things that one is encouraged to repeat over and over, if say having to open a menu and it takes too much time for that to happen.
On second thought the armor and weapon REPLACEMENT is bad no matter how you look at it.
However Vanilla WoW did have a good % damage system that had a good purpose. So like eventually if you try something that you have no business trying, you would eventually have to stop..... It's like the game is cutting you off and have to quit and go repair.
Have you ever been in a group and you fail over and over ?.... Well the game is made to stop you by doing 100% damage.
Again REPLACEMENT is a bad idea.
The latest Zelda game (can't remember the name) supposedly is a big hit.
But people are hating, the quick weapon replacement that is constant through the game...... where developers are insisting it's to keep players on their toes and remain flexible with weapon swap.
Well, I see you are passionate about this idea you have.
But Here is a Catch 22 for you to ponder.
What is the point of giving players the ability to affect the future of the game if I (The Game Developer) have to continually go and change things to keep the game going in the direction I wanted it to go in to start with.
Ideally, with the game system you want, where players control the future, a Developer would need to be hands off, having no script or direction planned, and ultimately giving players a blanket environment and the tools to work from there.
They would be free to make their own Heaven or Hell as were.
That is really the only real way to make it so that players actions affect the game both large and small.
See, ideally, if things can't spiral out of control by the actions of players, then the players really had no control to start with.
That is the Catch 22.
Now if Gamers were given the chance to make their own Cesspool or Utopia.. what do you think would really happen ?
One where the GMs maintain control but allow the players to make change, sort of rolling with the flow.... but within reason.
Edit:
I do see your point on PvP though. Wide open PvP games will always have this problem unless there are solid rules supporting the "innocents."
We've seen how PvPers take over game worlds by driving others away.
I've always been a supporter of a Justice system that has no work-arounds or escape clauses, something we have never seen in any game.
Such things like "prison, with escapes" don't work.
Once upon a time....
How can you PROPERLY design a game not knowing what players will do to change it?
Furthermore ,what is the purpose of trying to design a game if all your going to do is change it either via the GM or by the players?
GM,aka DnD is NOT am immersive design.If i walk up to a door,i expect that door to be there all the time unless there is a good reason it is not.If i walk a path 50x,i do not want to turn around and that path is now a hole of burning acid.
If i enter a dark room 150x and all of a sudden there is 3 goblins in there,i want a darn good reason as to why they are all of a sudden in there.
I have yet to see a single game that can bring me a more immersive feeling than Atlas and it's only a cheap survival game.Know why,it offers everything realistic,just like how we would expect to see it.Temperate zones,splashing water,deep seas,sailing ships,survival,building,creatures that act like they really would or how i would expect them to act.
So what we need to see is not more DnD outdated crap,we need a game that brings the likes of Atlas and deep characters designs,deep combat designs and more plausible quests that feel like quests and not errands.It is most certainly doable just nobody wants to go the whole nine yards.
Just look at The New World,Amazon has LOADS of money,they don't want to make a real game,too costly,too much risk,they want to make a half baked survival game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Any game can be ruined by bad control.
"How can you PROPERLY design a game not knowing what players will do to change it?"
As to this question, you can design it so they simply can't do the things you don't want.
Or so that they face enough risk that they won't do it except in the few instances that you actually want to allow.
That doesn't mean you can't allow them to do things you want them to do.
However, I wouldn't want to put my trust in most of the designers I've seen to date. I'll give you that.
Once upon a time....
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
For extra credit, toss in a few level 50 legendary weapons, (War drums, Super Sledges, miniguns etc) heavier the better.
Who says PVE'ers can't grief?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Immersion is not roleplaying (many say that it is) but this has an effect for role players too, as far more has to be imagined rather than seen. But then I think that's a plaster you have to pull of quickly, you do so much in roleplaying that is not depicted in a graphic way, not seeing avatars eating is the least of it. You have to use your imagination so get started early.
All elements of a game's lore, theme, story, realism etc, have to be balanced against gameplay its a tricky one and I don't think it is possible to do that perfectly. But in MMO's we have certainly seen a "streamlining" of content which in real terms means the removal or successive dumbing downs of much of what made MMOs living worlds. But the streaming extends beyond removing visible features. Todays MMOs are seemingly built by designers who think we need social isolation in games, stay on your own, don't talk strangers...hell anyone. Talking, grouping, community that's content too you know.
As I've said before, my friend who only plays Elder Scrolls games (when they come out and once he's done he doesn't pick up another video game) complains that sickness, food, sleep doesn't' matter.
So you like "no fast travel" while others would never be able to play a game without it.
Some like the fact that one has to eat (I do) while others don't.
That game play, positive or negative, varies among so many players. For me, games like Conan Exiles kind of nail it. "kind of."
I spent the whole weekend playing Morrowind and not only did I revel in the fact that I actually died during combat, I was also very much appreciating the attribute drains that some enemies put on me. Where they made it so I had to drop my gear, find a shrine or a healer for potions, and then "fix myself."
to me that IS game play. And good game play. But that's not going to be for everyone.
That's why I'm a believer that games should know their audience, cater to their audience and screw everyone else. If they do it "right" they will have success.
But, they also have to know their audience, realistically know if it's a large part of the pie or not.
edit: I should add, I've yet to see someone actually define "immersion" that's the same as others. I think it means different things for different people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Which explains why all four of my Fallout 4 playthroughs, had over 1400 unique save games each, not counting those I quick saved or saved over.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I would think, that if they planned to open the doors and let players "Do what you will" they would be far better off just giving them the tools to do whatever, and then step back and watch the insanity unfold.
I mean, given want went down with New World, when veteran devs were surprised to find gank squads formed in their open world PvP Game, I don't think any of them are really ready for a truly open world shit storm that players could unleash.
I mean ideally the smaller scale the game the better this would work, like Emulators, but that also means that the smaller scale the game, the less profitable they are, so less money, to be a solid AAA game, and more a "Labor of Love" by a small team.
For you, the major moments are what bring immersion.
Have you ever tried walking in, say, Skyrim or a similar game? For long distances? It's an amazing experience but not for everyone surely.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Vanilla World of Warcraft I know the game well so not much learning, BUT the people themselves as I play on and off for what 15 years seems to immerse me. The last few years I've been playing about 10 levels at a time (weeks to month because I play slowwww).
I always re-join the same populated Guild and most new faces, some recognize and they remember me too because I'm social. VERY VERY immersive each time because of people I know and learn to respect each time
It's still the perfect game just played it to long and too many years.
My very short and embarrassing time in P1999.
Never made it past around level 5. BUT spent weeks learning and logging in figuring things our around the small area of Kelethin. and the lifts.
I talked in detail with so many people and even drew a personal map that took hours to make because each rope section looked the same around the city. When I ventured down the lifts I was a scared child, now sure how far I had the guts to live the view of how to get back...... I was in my own small world with hopes of seeing beyond some day.
LOVED IT SO MUCH..... eventually the hard crude UI got to me and decided not to continue.... But I'll never forget the immersion I felt.
I often think I gave up to early.... But then I realize how crude (very crude) the game was and back off. This is why I NEED a game like Pantheon or SoL.
EQ2 and Vanguard and D&D Online did the same:
Vanguard was great.
D&D ONLINE is now a butchered money cash grab pit, and is un-playable.
EQ2 will be going back too soon. I can almost find the immersion I find in WoW.
The players need the tools, that work, to stop them on a permanent basis, by giving them losses that they feel harshly enough that they will stop.
Once upon a time....
The game was City of Heroes. I had gone down into the underground sewer system to fight bad guys. You hear insects buzzing, and water dripping and sloshing. Otherwise it is as silent as a tomb. Very creepy.
In real life I was not wearing a shirt ...
As I started down the sewer tunnel, an in game fly buzzed while a real life fly also buzzed and landed on my bare real life back.
I admit it. I screamed. A very unmanly scream at that.
Total immersion.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Now this is a simple system, but we are dealing with a foundation game. For the sake of world building, we could add complexity, like putting in skill ranks for weapons/gear. have a whole skill tree and system for casting spells, a whole system of spell crafting, where players can invent their own spells. Since the world is Voxel, all weapons and armor are made up of blocks, so all that is custom made and designed as well. Perhaps a whole complex crafting system of alloys and the like that players can experiment with, as well as put in a whole farming system, animal husbandry, a system to tame or catch animals to raise them... I mean all the rules and systems would be what the Devs work on. So there is really no limit to how far down the rabbit hole of systems we could.
Kinda like how TSR made rules, and let the players go have fun building and interacting with their own worlds.
Ideally, with that kind of game, the Devs would just focus on the systems, making sure they work, perhaps adding to them, maybe tweaking them to make them work better as time went on, etc. But.. the game world itself.. what happens in the world.. is fully up to the players.
The could build vast skyscrapers and cities of light or charred blackened wastelands, that would be up to them.
If we were to make something like that.. how many would want to play.. knowing what your game world would be like going forward is entirely up to the players.
Would you play that game?