Why is it that while most games (especially first-person shooters) are getting much more realistic graphically, but not more realistic with regards to real life? Characters never get tired. They seem to be able to run forever. Maybe they should get tired from running, and gradually slow down. Walking would raise energy levels slowly, and standing still would raise them quickly. Energy levels would also apply to computer players to make things fair. This would make the game more strategic, as you couldn''t just race through all the rooms killing things. Of course, some people want to do that, so maybe the "tiring" thing should be a configurable option (rate of energy drop). Another thing for FPS''s. No game I have played (although that is not many) lets you fall down. I think that if you''re running along, especially if you''re looking upwards, and you run over a bottom stair or something on the floor (body, etc.) you should trip over it and fall flat on your face. Again, it helps make the player have to be more aware of their surroundings and adds to the game''s strategic element. Also, in role-playing or adventure games, characters with lower experience could get "nervous", which would impair aim, so you can''t hit a target as well in combat with a sword/arrow/whatever. This could raise the learning curve, but only if the player is going after advanced enemies near the start of the game, because the lower-level enemies would also get nervous and have bad aim and a shaky defense. Well. This is getting kind of long, but let me know what you think. Scott Lizard Al Productions

1 Reason: Simplicity. It is too complex to insert a tiredness system. The other reason is that, would it be fun? A lot of games span months in which the character doesn''t eat, sleep, or releive themselves. This is because it just isn''t fun to do all of these all of the time... I would like to see some more of this apparent tedium put into RPG''s though

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

2 other things to add to your list:
1. The character can''t hold up a 50lb rocket launcher for hours on end. The character would would have to put it down and rest for a minuite. This resting time could be spaced out at greater intervals as the charater gains experience (builds muscle)
2. The guns never get hot. When a gun gets hot, it is more likely to jam/overheat and burn the person. I have yet to see that in a game. If I ever make a fps or a 3ps, I will be sure to impliment your ideas in it, and maybe my own.

quote: Original post by LizardAl

Why is it that while most games (especially first-person shooters) are getting much more realistic graphically, but not more realistic with regards to real life?

How does magic work in real life? Please explain



I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I think we''ve skirted around this issue before, and it''s all about player skill vs. character skill.
In an FPS, it is really the player skill that determines how good you are in the game. You wiggle the mouse at insane rates, and click those mouse buttons like a madman, and the better you are, the higher your frag rate. Now, if you add some handicapping ( that''s what tiring and strength are, really ), players will start to find it unfair that, just because they started later, their characters will be worse, or more easily tired, or whatever. If there is no handicapping ( i.e., everyone has the same chance of tiring, everyone has the same strength ) these are just mechanics, and it''s not such a problem.

An example from a game I''ve been playing a lot.
In rollcage ( a 3D racing game ), cars have a set of attributes. They are pretty balanced at the beginning of the game - different strengths and weaknesses for each car/driver. Yet, when you get to hard, there''s a new driver/car team with nearly everything at maximum. To me, this is cheating. The computer is getting an unfair advantage in order to raise the challenge level. This would be just as unfair if it was a human player who simply had played more hours.


Always, ALWAYS keep the playing field level.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

My idea of a cheating computer (that ends goblin genocide ) is such that if a player attempts to attack a goblin, the goblin will allow a hit or two and then run away, the player follows. This continues (sucking the player in) until the player gets swarmed by lots of goblins. Not a cheat so much as a tactic. Is that cheating or is it fair? Players can already do this in FPS I know, I''ve tried

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

How does magic work in real life? Please explain

Let me show you. Turn around...




*argh* dang teleport spell! Ok, I''ll show you later...


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Heck, forget about falling or eating in a FPS. I just want feet! When am I gonna get feet?! Or a body, for that matter?

Games like this are really about distilling what''s fun out of a situation, so anything that''s not fun gets (or should be) cut.

I thought Quake II would have been a little bit more exciting, BTW, if, when you were hit by the Fiend, he could have knocked your weapon out of your hand. In some cases, your trusty nailgun could have soared right over a cliff. But then I realized that if it was your last weapon and unreachable, that feature would have sucked.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

My idea of a cheating computer (that ends goblin genocide ) is such that if a player attempts to attack a goblin, the goblin will allow a hit or two and then run away, the player follows. This continues (sucking the player in) until the player gets swarmed by lots of goblins. Not a cheat so much as a tactic. Is that cheating or is it fair? Players can already do this in FPS I know, I''ve tried

I think for FPS, arcade games and RPGs, all bets are off wrt cheating. Strategy games and races are supposed to be an even and fair contest. But FPS, arcade games and RPGs are allowed to swarm you because it''s part of the hero motif!



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

another little example:

It''s midnight, you can barely see the world around you. You''re racing through the level at nightmare difficulty, seeing the eyes and claws of all the nightmarish creatures glisten much-too-close for comfort as you fly past them. You are just fast enough to evade them all, and you''re through the final, huge, brass doors to face the evil of all evils, the One you have to defeat in the Final Challenge.
The door behind you slams shut, cutting off the pursuing monsters. You press 8 for your trusty BFG 25Million. The system bleeps and you get the message "You''re too tired to carry that gun right now, please rest a while." An instant later, the One splatters your intestines all over the bronze door behind you.

THAT''S why you have to be careful with your features

Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.