I just want to clear up what I percieve to be as a little confusion about my idea running around the board. My stance on adding lots of realistic elements, for example making soldiers more like people that have to eat, IS micromanagment = bad. Just like everyone has been saying. I agree with you. I did in fact state that a feature should be made as uncomplicated as possible. And I provided an example of how that would work. It was kind of like what people told me. My stance is that much realism can add more fun to the game, and I really like it.

"So not really how it is implemented, just its use in gaming."

That was supposed to mean that in this thread, I am asking about the general concept of realism, not how it should be implemented correctly(cause as I found out, I thought the same as most people on that). I did not mean implementation does not matter in real development. Quite the contrary.

Thanks to all those who responded. Especially those who got what I was saying. Not that I don't appreciate those who didn't. I may not have been clear before.

hmm.. it's something that can't be 'expanded' forever.. there has to be a limit to realism (in games). Otherwise, you can't call them 'games' anymore. I mean, what purpose does reality have if you substitute it with an alternate kind. Scary.

I think the confusion is in thinking that it's an either or decision. It's alot like the graphics vs. gameplay question that often arises. When asked which is more important most around here will say gameplay while others will often respond graphics. The answer is both are important. It's not an either or thing where you can only have graphics or gameplay. In reality you can have both.

It's a similar situation with the realism vs non-realism question. Some say we need as much realism as possible, others counter that it's a game and we should dump it. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The acid test should not be whether adding a particular game play feature adds realism or not. The question should be does adding the particular gameplay feature improve gameplay and untimately make the game more fun.

My point is that *some* realistic gameplay features will make the game more fun while others will not. Consider a potential gameplay feature where you could shoot another player in a particular area of the body and hence affect what they can do. For example if you shoot them in the leg then they cannot run, or if you shoot then in the arm then they cannot wield weapons in that hand. Does this make the game more realistic? yes, but that's not the important question. The big question is does it make the game more fun: again most people would say yes. Consequently if such a gameplay feature could be added within the technological and time contraints then it should be considered.

Alternately consider making what i like to call the "9 to 5 work simulator". Imagine a game where you play a person who goes to work: you get up when your alarm goes off, get up, shower, use the bathroom, shave, dress, eat breakfast, start the car, stop for gas, wait in traffic, walk to your office, and so on. Is this realistic? definitely! Would it be any fun? absolutely not! Just like the first case you have added realism, but unlike the first scenario you haven't made the game anymore fun.

Again the critical question from a gameplay standpoint when looking at gameplay features should be "does this make it more fun?" not "does this add realism?".

When i looked at gameplay features i've often noticed that the realistic features that tend to be unfun are often tedious in nature. Another poster called it micromanagement. Tedious and/or highly repetitive behaviors are not fun. Anything that can by easily replicated by a bot or a keyboard macro is all but guaranteed to be boring (can anyone say nearly all MMOs with their bottable/macroable gameplay?!?!).

The bottom line realism is good *if* it adds to the gameplay.

I say realism blows, because (a) our perception of what is 'real' is based on a very limited experience of the world (one and a bit planets out of a probably infinite universe) and (b) if I wanted realism I'd go outside.

That's probably not very helpful but it's 1:30am.

*ahem*

Considering your initial example.. I wouldn't call that 'realism.' I'd call that "gameplay elements which are based around concepts that the player is familiar with." Things like eating and sleeping - the player knows what that is, knows the effects, and so is given an innate understanding of what that course of action entails. You can stray a fair way - control alien creatures that must return to their glorp-holes to flargwangle every once in a while - and players will happily see that and go "hey, it's kinda just like sleeping."

Say you want a gameplay mechanic which means units must enter a particular type of building and remain there for a period of time in order to recharge their attributes. You can decorate that mechanic using one of a number of dramatic explanations. "Sleep" is one. "Recharging power cells" is another; though if your units are not robots and do not have power cells, it will confuse the player. "Religious worship to avoid being squooshed by the finger of God" is yet another, though it's going to be less accessible to your audience because people aren't as familiar with the squooshy finger of God as they are with sleeping. Etc.

The main problem i see with realsim in games is that certain aspects will seem very gimmicky. For instance all the WW2 war games that have been so big latly. They is very little difference between the games beyond some graphic quality and perhaps some interpertation of the areas.

You start to lose control of being original, because you have certain expectations to statisfy in order to maintain realism.

Take the vital hitpoint system and ragdolls. Physics i being added to more games now. In fact any A title will have some sort of physics engine for added realism. It dont matter that if someone gets hit by a rocket they would explode into a million pieces (well maybe not depending on the where the blast is because of vacuums that are created during explosions can actually prevent the body from flying apart thus keeping it stationary and intact). Instead you see the character flying and bouncing around like a ragdoll. Sure it looks cool, but its not realistic. Yet its being sold as realism. Why? Simple, players dont want realism. They only think they want realism in games. Players want an exgerated sense of the physical world. They dont want to care about the little things nor even want it to enter their mind that their avatars may have to do the same thing the player does in real life. Would you enjoy a game where you could be killed with one or two bullets? Counter-strike is considered realistic, however the comabt is far from it. Players can be hit by plenty of bullets before they go down. Players in cs can jump much higher then in real life.

Assuming the gameplay could be taken care of without burden to the player, you will still have issues. If the soldiers eat and sleep, when do they go to the bathroom? These will merely add fluff designed tomake the game seem better then it is. The first few times see some realistic stuff in a game, players will be amazed. They will say "wow I never thought i would see THAT in a game". Then they ask "why the hell is this in the game, it dont do anything for me".

Look at the grav gun in HL2. Physics were a mere gimmick in that game. Doom3 has a physics engine pretty close to what HL2 has (in fact a gravgun was made into a mod for doom3, and there will be a gravgun in the expansion pack). iD decided not to use physics as a gimmick for gameplay (though they did use lighting, or lack of it as a gimmick, heh). valve though they could make there game better with the gravgun. personally I never say uch use for the physics beyond "let me solve this OBVIOUS physics puzzle so I can move on". Sure at first it was awsome, but the physics was not used well at all.

Please dont mention how garys mod makes use of the physics, making it cool. Garys mod is not a game, more of an art creation tool. Also please dont turn this into a doom3 vs HL2 battle. I merely used them because they both have equal physics engines, yet HL2 decided to play the gimmick role. Now iD will do that in there expainsion pack (not for sure, but they did add a gravgun).

Also I perfectly understand the discussion you want to have, but you cannot completely ignore implementation even if you talk about this on a high and generic level. Added realism for the sake of realism is pointless and wont help the game at all. There is a reason you can break open every cabinet you come upon in zelda, because there is no reason for it except realism and confusion for the player. Add too much realism and you could cause your focus to be lost.

Quote:

Original post by Texas Brigade I just want to clear up what I percieve to be as a little confusion about my idea running around the board. My stance on adding lots of realistic elements, for example making soldiers more like people that have to eat, IS micromanagment = bad. Just like everyone has been saying. I agree with you. I did in fact state that a feature should be made as uncomplicated as possible. And I provided an example of how that would work. It was kind of like what people told me. My stance is that much realism can add more fun to the game, and I really like it.

'Realism' falls pretty low on the list of important features in a game. Gameplay is what matters the most.

When considering whether to model a feature, such as eating and drinking in an RTS game, there's a couple of questions you should ask yourself.

1. Does this feature contribute anything at all to the gameplay?
2. If the answer to 1. is 'yes', is it interesting, and more importantly, is it fun?

If the answer to both questions is 'yes' by all means include it. Otherwise, it's irrelevant, and probably better off being cut out altogether or reduced to a graphical nicety (e.g maybe one of the idle animations for your troops has them sitting down eating MREs)

I beg to differ, I don't think too much realism kills games. There is proof in this in the Rainbow Six series. The games are highly realistic and they are a lot of fun. Flight simulators seek to model reallity to great extent. The greatest racing series of all time, Gran Turismo, seeks to model reallity with minute detail (the latest version even includes modelling of tourque forces on the deforming of the car frame).

more stuff, but I'm pressed for time. There are a lot of hyper-reallistic games, and they do very well in sales.

There's a big difference in the realistic games you mention, modelling realistic physics, or realistic weapon damage, than modelling stuff like soldiers needing to eat. What's next? Having to build porta potties for your soldiers to crap in?

Many RTS games already do this(food), though much simpler, by costing food resources or something in order to maintain a standing army, or requiring houses to be built to build more of them. It is implied that the soldiers are getting the food or are somehow using the housing because if they didn't, the game won't let you build more.

It would be retarted to have to pull your troops from the front line to send them through the cafeteria, and it would also be retarted to let them run to the cafeteria automatically, which is likely why most games do it on simpler terms.

Input has been great. Thank you! Well, I am going to go into my example and theory a little deeper. The example I am using is from one of my first game designs I thought of. All about base-building in a modern setting. You know, like building an Andrews Air Force Base (DC) or Fort Sam Houston (TX) or something. The concept I thought of is food being something manifested on the map after being harvested, rather than a number at the top of your screen. The food to be eaten could be carried by the soldiers of course, or delivered by supply trucks, or soldiers could go to a mess tent. The real reason I want to have tangible food, rather than a number, is to create a more in-depth supply system. Like troops that are surrounded could still get food in most games. But here, it would be more real, because food couldn't get to them like in a real siege, unless the siege is broken. Thanks again!

Quote:

Original post by Texas Brigade Input has been great. Thank you! Well, I am going to go into my example and theory a little deeper. The example I am using is from one of my first game designs I thought of. All about base-building in a modern setting. You know, like building an Andrews Air Force Base (DC) or Fort Sam Houston (TX) or something. The concept I thought of is food being something manifested on the map after being harvested, rather than a number at the top of your screen. The food to be eaten could be carried by the soldiers of course, or delivered by supply trucks, or soldiers could go to a mess tent. The real reason I want to have tangible food, rather than a number, is to create a more in-depth supply system. Like troops that are surrounded could still get food in most games. But here, it would be more real, because food couldn't get to them like in a real siege, unless the siege is broken. Thanks again!

OK, so your gameplay mechanic is one about resource movement, which is perfectly validn (and could lead to some great strategising - cutting off enemy supply routes is a well-known military strategy). But such a mechanic shouldn't be pursued because it's "realistic", but because it's fun. You could say "You need to get food to your troops so they can eat," or you could say, "You need to get Game Resource Type #2 to your units to prevent their attack points from decreasing as per the rules of the game." The latter is what's really important in terms of gameplay; the former is just window-dressing, because talking to players about "game resource type #2" is not very engaging. If it's not fun, don't hesitate to scrap it.