I rarely read game design thread, but if I see something on the front page, I usually go and see what the thread is all about. It seems that 99% of game design corner involves the "realism" questions. "How do I make a realistic RTS", "how do I make a realistic fighting game", better yet "how do I make a realistic RPG". IMO a realistic RTS is just as stupid as a realistic RPG. Think about it. Warcraft, Starcraft, Ground Control. How close is a real war to any of those games? If any of those games had a 5% similarity with a real war, real strategy, etc. nobody would want to play them, because they would lose all the fun. Same thing with a fighting game. Create a fighting game with one million combinations, and assign some function to every key on the keyboard. Who on earth would play that? The only doable combination is CTRL-ALT-DEL. Out of all those posts I vote for "how do I make a realistic RPG", because that one takes the cake. Ok, may be the post like that doesn''t exist, but it very well illustrates my point. Also, it''s the same thing with algorithms. "How do I make realistic snow" - "Well, you should simulate the snowflakes falling on a mountain with a certain slope, certain snow density, and certain air humidity, run this algorithm on 100 sparks, and build it right before you do lightmap generation". For crying out loud, just make the damned snow texture that will look just as good! Anyway, I''m sorry if I offended anyone, I am just pissed.

I can see your point, but there is something to say about realism as in consistancy. We''ve talked about that a lot. Then another point is that there is a difference between the actual game''s mechanics being realistic and the effects being more realistic.

Like for fighting, the actual action of fighting may not be realistic, but it may produce results that are more realistic. Like broken bones or the fact that one guy can''t fight 10 opponents at one time. While the actual fighting mechanics may not be realistic at all.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I''m afraid I have to agree with kill. Consistency and realism are two different things. Consistency is necessary. Realism is not.

Yes, there is value to having items the user can relate to - the familiarity can help establish the illusion. And yes, there are some gamers (historical wargamers, for example) who demand that the game is a reasonable representation of reality. But for the actual gameplay, realism should take a back seat to balanced mechanics, IMO.

Yeah, I actually meant that consistancy and realism are different as well. I just did not really expand on that very well.

That''s what I get for trying to post while I am at work.



"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

quote: Original post by kill

Also, it's the same thing with algorithms. "How do I make realistic snow" - "Well, you should simulate the snowflakes falling on a mountain with a certain slope, certain snow density, and certain air humidity, run this algorithm on 100 sparks, and build it right before you do lightmap generation".

Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I am just pissed.

You're offending me kill, and you know it. Why are you dredging this out of the depths of your mind? The point of realistc snow, (and you know what I am talking about) is to enhance the immersive quality of the game. If you know about snow, and you understand how snow behaves, especially in a mountain environment, then it behoves you to put forth the effort to model it effectively, as everything simulation wise is moving in that direction. If you can't model it effectively or choose not to, then your only choice is to choose a 'stylistic' algorithm that makes it pretty. Either way, research will ultimately be spent on it. There is no escaping this. It is the basic dynamic of simulation and technology and competition.

Let me repeat that again. It is the basic dynamic of simulation and technology and competition.



Edited by - bishop_pass on October 28, 2000 9:06:40 PM

The point is that our goal is to create a fun & immersive game. Whatever method we use to attain that (if it does effectively produce an immersive game) is a good thing. If the realism gets in the way, then it's too much. It's not fair to make such a generalization as realism is bad because if the rest of the game is balanced to accomodate this realism then it can work well.

It's so easy to think about what all other games are like then try to imagine some idea someone proposes, and say it won't work when you don't know what the rest of the game is like. If the rest of the game is designed to work w/ this idea, then it just may work.



"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 28, 2000 9:19:42 PM

I will tell you why I think people try and go for realism. It is because we live in our world and therefore we understand (at lest partially) the rules and laws that govern us. These physics can be implemented into a game because we understand them better. It is harder to invent something that is not realistic. To keep consistency in games, people resort to modelling our physical world.

I am not saying it is right, but to peoples imaginations - it is easier...

You do need consistency, and if you need to use realism to model it, then why oppose it?

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

you are right, dwarf.

I still think though that the most seemingly alien concept someone comes up w/ is based upon reality ''cause that''s all we humans know. No matter how abstract an idea is, it''s based on reality in some way.

Reality is relative anyway. Think about it. Reality is just what we perceive from our 5 senses.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I read somewhere that you shouldn''t bother making your game too realistic cuz the player is wanting to escape into something unreal. After all, if real life was all that fun, than who would want to play a video game. But on simulation and sports games, I think realism is a little more important. But it''s kinda contradictory to make a game that has magic and spells, but then try to make it realistic. This is where consistency comes in. If your going to make your game fantasy like, than be consistent and don''t bother making things too realistic. No time to go into great detail. L8er.


"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka

Realism in games, (and anything you can relate to) makes games more fun because it makes you more interested in it.