I'm thinking one of the of the reasons that there is so much division between those who want realism and those who don't is related to the preference in genres, this is just me theorizing so I could be wrong but...

In the Fantasy(Tolken) realm, realism truly is not as importiant as imagination. To create proper fantasy, you are trying to come up with something that is as fantastic as possible with the explanation being less importiant. It doesn't matter why magic exists, all that matters to the role-players is more of how it was discovered. History of the fantasy world is the key more than the reality of this world.

History... as I was writing that I think I came up with an additional argument what I think the other side of the coin is. The other side is games based on this world. This can be racing games, WWII shooters or futuristic games. While in fantasy it is the job of the creater to produce the history of their world, games based on our reality use some variant of our own history.

I believe in these games based on our own world, reality is more importiant because the game is not based on some fantasy world but on what we know about our own world. So for immersion in the games that claim to be based in our world, fantasy can be a hinderance because it causes the player to say, wait, that doesn't happen.

To sum up my thoughts here... I feel as another poster mentioned somewhere, consistancy is the most importiant. If you base the world from a fantasy idea, remain consistant to that world. If you base the world on our world, stay consistant to our world. This, of course, is only importiant if you are interested in immersion into a game world.

The human experience depends on perception, the cognitive process by which individuals form abstract models of what is called "reality". Realism is a necessary component of human experience for that which is perceived as real or realistic is simply a likeness, or perhaps simply an extreme derivative, of that which is actual. Without realism, the human experience (e.g., the emotional experience of fun, the experience of thought) is impossible. Such things as fantasy are grounded in aspects of reality. If the perceiver cannot relate to an abstract model of what is called "reality", then the perceiver cannot perceive.

Instead of fruitlessly attempting to argue that reality isn't entertaining, discuss the creative application of reality to virtual environments in video games, and how proper implementation immerses players by facilitating the players' ability to relate to the game developer-created virtual representation of an abstract model of a reality.

Quote:

Original post by GemuhDesayinah First of all, I appreciate your well written article. Please don't interprete my response as a flame, but just as constructive criticism. :)

Thanks for your criticisms. :)

Quote:

I think one of the major points in this thread has been this: Unless one is trying to design a simulator or training tool, why should one try to make games "more realistic"? Most gamers couldn't care less about how "realistic" a game is: Fun is King. I think game designers today should focus on making games "more fun/enjoyable", not "more realistic".

I agree with you, fun is definately king. When I said games should be more realistic, I didn't mean that fun should be thrown out of the window and a game should be all realism. What I meant was that by adding little pieces of realism (destructable walls/scenery everywhere, rather than just in special areas, for example) a game can seem to be more polished and well designed.

Quote:

Secondly, I don't see how adding your suggestion to games would make them "more realistic" either. More fun, maybe (in certain cases) - but certainly not more "realistic".

Well, in real life, the way you view your life and the world, can change in a second (for example, you win the lottery, a close friend/relative passes away, etc). In a game with a static storyline, this can't happen, you just have to follow the story as it unfolds. Adding dynamic storylines to a game would make it possible for the way the player views the game world to change, just like in real life.

Quote:

Thirdly, I think your idea is neat! Dynamically changing storylines can certainly add more enjoyment to a game playing experience if utilized effectively. I like your suggestion a lot.

Thanks. If I ever manage to design a game complex enough to justify it, I will definately be implementing it. Just to see if it would work as well as I think. I have a lot to learn before I make it that far though :)

Dave

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus The human experience depends on perception, the cognitive process by which individuals form abstract models of what is called "reality". Realism is a necessary component of human experience for that which is perceived as real or realistic is simply a likeness, or perhaps simply an extreme derivative, of that which is actual. Without realism, the human experience (e.g., the emotional experience of fun, the experience of thought) is impossible. Such things as fantasy are grounded in aspects of reality. If the perceiver cannot relate to an abstract model of what is called "reality", then the perceiver cannot perceive. Instead of fruitlessly attempting to argue that reality isn't entertaining, discuss the creative application of reality to virtual environments in video games, and how proper implementation immerses players by facilitating the players' ability to relate to the game developer-created virtual representation of an abstract model of a reality.

The human mind is hard wired for pattern recognition, its the basies for IQ.

When out rideing my motorcycle, I can sometimes percieve music through the drone of wind noise...there are no cars, houses, sources of music in the area...just the pattern seeking brain tends to decifer musical patterns in the constant onrushing wind noise.

This is how those "magic eye" pictures work, how those inkblot tests work.

Tetris has no gravity, its your pattern seeking brain telling you otherwise. You could rotate Tetris 90 degrees, and without changeing anything else, your pattern seking brain may decifer the pieces are carried down a convayer belt instead of "falling from the sky".

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus The human experience depends on perception, the cognitive process by which individuals form abstract models of what is called "reality". Realism is a necessary component of human experience for that which is perceived as real or realistic is simply a likeness, or perhaps simply an extreme derivative, of that which is actual. Without realism, the human experience (e.g., the emotional experience of fun, the experience of thought) is impossible. Such things as fantasy are grounded in aspects of reality. If the perceiver cannot relate to an abstract model of what is called "reality", then the perceiver cannot perceive. Instead of fruitlessly attempting to argue that reality isn't entertaining, discuss the creative application of reality to virtual environments in video games, and how proper implementation immerses players by facilitating the players' ability to relate to the game developer-created virtual representation of an abstract model of a reality.

Very well said. To put it to an extreme, replace your toon with a triangle and you'll see how a CRPG is ruined. Realism is for triggering the imagination in your brain. Realism often fails to trigger imagination, or even hinders imagination in bad designs.

All in all, it's the bad design, instead of realsim accountable for a game failure. And some games simply dont need realism where previous human experience doesn't have a role, such as Tetris.

While some other games dont even rely on visual realism to trigger your imagination, such as MUDs and PnP RPGs.

Quote:

Original post by MSW The human mind is hard wired for pattern recognition, its the basies for IQ. When out rideing my motorcycle, I can sometimes percieve music through the drone of wind noise...there are no cars, houses, sources of music in the area...just the pattern seeking brain tends to decifer musical patterns in the constant onrushing wind noise. This is how those "magic eye" pictures work, how those inkblot tests work. Tetris has no gravity, its your pattern seeking brain telling you otherwise. You could rotate Tetris 90 degrees, and without changeing anything else, your pattern seking brain may decifer the pieces are carried down a convayer belt instead of "falling from the sky".

IMO, this is also true. Humans tend to recognise patterns. If a cartoony toon is placed into a 3D game with highly photorealistic landscapes, one may quickly notice the odd and find it hindering his imagination.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Quote: if all that chess had was pawns and kings And then it would NOT be chess! You completely miss what I ment...Chess has six standard pieces (pawn, knight, rook, biship, queen, and king)...I suggested ADDING additional new pieces to the standard 6 pieces already present in chess...would that make it a better game?

My point was that they had to add those pieces to the game before it was fun. They started with one piece, and decided that it would be more fun by ADDING additional pieces.

Quote:

There is a famous quote from IIRC Sid Meier that went something like: "Remove everything from the game design until you cannot remove anymore without makeing the game unplayable...then you have designed the game right." And there is another quote from Shigeru Miyamoto when IIRC asked why Link could not jump in Zelda:OoT that went something like: "If players are not required to use it for at least 30% of the game, then they have no reason to master it. No reason to master it, then there is no reason to give players red hering type features."

Those are good metaphorical ideas, but not based in reality in either of their games. Link gets weapons and items in OoT that he uses WAY less than 30% of the time. There are tons of little features and things in OoT that are in no way integral to the game, and could be removed without hurting the overall gameplay. But all those extras are what make the game fun.

Quote:

Quote: So they added a bunch of complex rules and unneccessary pieces, but it made the game better, not worse. Um..NO! More like they mixed a number of different board games together, and threw out what didn't work -like additional pieces, moves, and attacks not found in modern chess...what we know today as Chess evolved over countless years, and sorry but pawns were NOT there from the begining...Chess has an interesting history, filled with facinateing varients, and anyone serious about game design should study it.

Well, I'm no chess historian, but even though it's evolved, I can't believe that it started out as a huge game and that it got smaller. It had to start somewhere, and if throughout it's development people had been blinded with the ideal that "nothing new should be put into it, we can only keep what's proven", then it never would have evolved at all.