quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
Reality can be very interesting to gameplay choice. Afterall, how can you make a player truly feel fear if he knows he can always hit the Load button? Sure, many will say being able to Load over and over is fun,

---

Saving and the ability to replay and correct mistakes in great, but it is a "problem" if the choices want to be taken really seriously. I find that games provide choices, but it is so often possible to reload and do the level another way.. which reduces their emotional impact.

I''ve often thought of games where you can replay the levels as much as you like, but once a choice has been made - you cannot change it through replay.

That sounds a lot like a checkpoint system (as in Sonic the Hedgehog etc.)

The thing that annoys me most about "realism" in games is that I seem to keep coming across people saying "Do X because it''s more realistic" or "Don''t do Y because it''s unrealistic" thereby bypassing the entire debate on whether it''s a useful addition to the game, whether it adds anything to the player''s experience, whether it makes the game easier or harder, or even whether it makes the game completely unplayable. It doesn''t matter - it''s a _realism_ issue!

In my opinion, the question of realism should, at best, be subordinate to considerations of playability, fun, comprehensibility, etc. I have no objection to adding realistic features to a game, but not when the sole criterion employed to judge whether or not to add a given feature is "realism". Yet, time and again, I come across posts here that act as though there isn''t even any possibility that a given "realistic" feature could be undesirable (well, apart from the usual example of crippling damage).

/rant

Anyway, an idea inspired by Ketchaval''s last post: rather than having save/reload restore your previous game state in every detail, have some sort of limited "time jump" or similar that lets you return to play at your last save location, but superposed upon your previous actions - in simple form just having the world continue as though you hadn''t reloaded at all, but in a more complicated system, actually having your previous self still moving around and doing the things you did last time. Of course, this sort of approach means a little more thought needs to go into game design to put more emphasis on puzzles and less on brute force combat, and you also have to consider the effects of player actions affecting what the previous avatar can do - maybe better to use the past self as a "ghost" - able to pass through obstacles though still able to interact normally with objects that are still there (watch for crossing your past self''s line of fire!). Intelligent monsters may well recognise the ghost''s nature, and change their behaviour accordingly (making the ghost''s attacks ineffective), or (if you''re really prepared to sacrifice performance) generate ghosts of their own...

On the other hand, there are also people who automatically dismiss any attempt to add realism solely because it is a game.

Of course, certain types of game do suffer from having too much detail or realism (such as arcade games), but others are intended to be at least slightly representative of the real world (such as simulations, strategy and RPGs) and adding realism often makes them more of a challenge and adds to the sense of immersion.

For example, it might make life easier to be able to carry 6 suits of plate armour and 5 halberds (at once) in a CRPG, but it hardly adds to your suspension of disbelief.

I think there are more advocates of the Playability over Realism, than Realism over Playability camps. Afterall, the days of an abundance of high quality air war sims is over.

Reality for reality''s sake is not a good thing though. However the reason it''s not necessarily good is because at its essence, computer programs are models of a situation. And the entire purpose of having a model is to capture the most important essence of something while discarding the least essential. However, what is essential and what is not essential depends on what you are trying to evoke.

I tend to prefer having models which are more faithful to lifelike situations. I believe they make a player have to think more about what they are doing. Those in the playability camp say that realism only brings about mundanity, tedium and takes the focus away from being larger than life. I think that as long as realism is kept in mind with the notion that it is there to make the player aware of its impact on his choices, then I think it''s fair game to put it in.

quote:

---

Original post by ParadigmShift
Reality is boring. Nobody wants to simulate reality and make it a game.

But fantasy is based on reality, it''s reality with a few tweaks. A world that is very close to our own but slightly different is very compelling, whereas one that is totally unrecognizable makes it harder to draw the player in. My mother, for instance, will never learn Chess because it''s too abstract.

While an older generation (my grandparents) had to occasionally use their imaginations to play such abstract games, the younger generations spend much more time in front of a screen and require more intuitive, detailed and elaborate games.

That''s my opinion, anyway. I enjoy hearing others.

---

COUGHsimsCOUGH
COUGHrezCOUGH

Now, when you say your mother will never play Chess, are you offering that the purpose of Chess is to "draw the player in" through use of its "totally unrecognizable" universe? Chess is not a top-selling game, to be sure-- or is it? You can''t follow these numbers because Chess isn''t a license. Thousands of companies release Chess games. I''ll wager that there''s a Chess game (or chatranj or shogi) sitting somewhere in half-- yes, half-- of people''s homes worldwide. Collecting dust, but still...

Now, I know it''s just an example, but think about the fact that Chess does not require you to be immersed in any sort of "alternate reailty". Chess players don''t suspend disbelief that some breeds of horses have rounded pedestals instead of bodies. You''re talking about INFINITE gameplay variations. And I''m not exaggerating, because theoretically a Chess game can be of infinite moves(not regarding FIDE guidelines). The horrible truth is that the average Joe does not play Chess because it''s too hard to remember how all the pieces move.

So we keep coming back to this "gameplay" thing. I''ll give you another example. Rez for DC and PS2 is a shooter-on-rails. You play the part of a hacker trying to break into a supercomputer''s mainframe. Your character is represented by a Tron-like pixellated human, a glowing orb, or a black satellite-looking thing. You shoot(or "hack") spaceships(or viruses) and also shoot at large lego-like constructs(or "firewalls"). Weird, and a little hard to "get" the first time through. BUT... the game has amazing visuals, a very trippy "living cyber-organism" theme, a audio/visual synchronicity that is unrivaled, and an overall shine that assures you that each person that developed this game is a true artist. In short, this game is fantastic. People are looking for this game. Collectors take up 2 or 3 copies of this game "just in case". Used copies are disappearing from stores. Online auctions still advertise this game at full price.

So, if you''re trying to compare reality simulators like The Sims and reality-squashers like Rez, then there''s no telling who will come out on top. As far as what we as designers are attempting, well... that''s an individual effort.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Also Known As:
The Number 2 Mind
He Who Enjoys Bread
Able to End Interesting Threads w/a Single Inane Post

quote:

---

Original post by I Like Bread
You''re talking about INFINITE gameplay variations. And I''m not exaggerating, because theoretically a Chess game can be of infinite moves(not regarding FIDE guidelines).

---

Yes, you can play a game of infinite duration, but there are only a finite number of possible board positions (fewer than 2*12^64), with only a finite number of possible moves from each (fewer than 27*64=12^3) so there are (much, much) fewer than 2*12^67 possible moves. Once you exhaust them, you must find yourself repeating moves, and, while you may insist on considering different sequences of moves through familiar positions as different, most people would regard them as repeating known gameplay. Yes, you can play a game indefinitely with just the two kings and play a never repeating sequence of moves with each king just moving between 3 squares, but the positions will recur, and the individual moves will repeat.

quote:

---

So, if you''re trying to compare reality simulators like The Sims and reality-squashers like Rez, then there''s no telling who will come out on top. As far as what we as designers are attempting, well... that''s an individual effort.

---

Just so I''m not posting purely to quibble, I''d like to say that I agree on this. It just sets me off when people assert that a given (usually disadvantageous) feature is more realistic and behave as though that settles the issue. Apart from anything else, there are some highly unrealistic (disadvantageous) constraints on the player that should (in my opinion) be balanced by some unrealistic advantages - the fact that the player can only interact with the game-world through a limited number of buttons, joy-sticks and 2-D pointing devices puts unrealistic limitations on what the player can do - for instance, even with my glasses, I have an effective field of view nearer 270 degrees than 90 - admittedly, I''m not directly aware of all of it at any given moment, and most of it is peripheral vision, and when I focus in on something, my effective field of view becomes much narrower, but much of the time I have an automatic subconscious awareness of visual stimuli well beyond the edge of a typical FPS viewscreen - OK, a multiple monitor surrounding setup (assuming the game can cope with rendering the additional images) can give the extended peripheral vision effects, but there are several related limitations (when''s the last time you fired a few blind shots over your character''s shoulder in an FPS to discourage pursuit?) which are inherent to the medium, and, as far as I can see have no real solutions with current tech (until home-use VR becomes feasible) since any control system that allows you sufficiently fine control of your avatar rapidly becomes so complicated that even standing still is a minor triumph, and walking is a minor miracle - or else the entire detailed interface remains unused in favour of the usual control system...

The big advantage of realism is that it allows the player to "learn" the rules of very complex systems without even realising because they are the same rules that apply to his normal life - so the range of available interactions is understood quickly and easily, while in a game where, for instance, gravity changes every time you throw a grenade, you''d be expected to explain that in the documentation, while no-one expects you to include an explanation of the elasticity coefficient of the grenade with various surfaces in "realistic" games.

quote:

---

Original post by rmsgrey
I have an effective field of view nearer 270 degrees than 90 - admittedly, I''m not directly aware of all of it at any given moment, and most of it is peripheral vision

---

Are you sure? Most documents I''ve seen seem to give a range of 160 to 210 degrees for humans.

Either way, a larger screen would fill more of your field of view, which is hardly something game developers have any control over.

What you seem to be asking for is to be able to turn the character''s head (rotate the camera) independantly, as in GTA III, Max Payne etc. which is a feature first implemented in flight sims.

quote:

---

Original post by ParadigmShift
Reality is boring. Nobody wants to simulate reality and make it a game.

---

Someone tell the folks over at EA that this is a law. Once again people pay no attention to history. The Sims is firmly based in reality and it is one of the largest selling games of all time. Clearly people think reality, if done right can be fun.

Getting a job, getting to work on time every day, eating meals each day, watching TV, going to the bathroom and finding time to sleep are all core gameplay elements of The Sims. Based on your statement The Sims should have never sold a copy let alone be the success that it is.

Kressilac




[edited by - Kressilac on January 9, 2004 12:05:36 PM]