Realism: does it matter?

[mcmanusaur]

No, realism doesn't matter. Who needs gravity, or conservation of matter? To hell with inertia, and three-dimensional space is right out. Just as there's no such thing as a game that is perfectly realistic, there is no such thing as a game that doesn't try to imitate realism in some way. Of course it matters; our minds our equipped to comprehend the reality in which we've evolved, and every step away from realism is a step away from players being able to understand the game. A more interesting issue is which aspects of a game can be the least realistic while maintaining quality of gameplay experience. Next vacuous question, please.

Edited November 2, 2012 by mcmanusaur

[LadyCrimson]

I tend to like visual consistency. That is, if there are super-duper sized 1H swords, there better be super-duper sized magic staffs, bigger 2H swords, and even daggers should be ridiculously large.

 

 

but if everything is huge...how can you tell?

Tell what? That they're large weapons? Because they're longer than your character is tall, of course.

[Malkin]

I only want the world to be realistic within its own ruleset, as in consistent.

 

I agree with you. I think the game needs to stay consistent throughout in how it treats it's reality. You need to build a world that feels real to be able to immerse yourself.

[sfam]

I need internal consistency, not realism. I especially don't want every aspect of combat to totally mimic our understanding of medieval combat. I like having the option of having an overly enormous 2 hand sword, for instance, with special moves and the like. I don't need my dragons to look aerodynamic - I will believe their wings will allow them to fly even if they weigh too much.

 

But there's clearly a limit which, if surpassed makes us lose our suspension of disbelief. Context matters. So surely someone in a market will have some money worth stealing. Someone should be visible to me if they are going to catch me stealing, for instance. Not all soldiers should suck, or be unbeatable. Its a gray area I think, and slavishly keepin it real doesn't always equate to keepin it fun.

[Attero]

there is no need for realism but for reason. We have certain consciousness of how fantasy world works. Now they need to define the details and give some explanation if they go against common expectations. Like we assume shield is used to block physical attacks (classic medival thing) but they can have shields also being able to block spells and while we can imagine how real attacks are blocked (Fire ice so on) being able to block mental effect (like fear) seems abstract and "unbelivable". But they can say "when mental spells are cast there is link being created between caster and subject, a well placed shield (covered with anti-magic runes) can sever the link preventing application of the effect.

[General Balls]

Yes.

[licketysplit]

^ what he said.

Edited November 2, 2012 by licketysplit

[wjbaird]

I think this is consistent with what a lot of other people are saying - but I'm not at all interested in realism in terms of accurately presenting some period of our history - I'm interested in gameplay first and foremost, and then in internal consistency and believability...

[temporalTemptation]

I want the maximum possible realism without taking away from the fun of actually playing it. That way, those that don't care about realism aren't adversely affected by its inclusion, and those that do care about it can then enjoy it, knowing that the areas that lack realism are acceptable breaks from reality.

 

I'd also like to point out that talking about "realism", like it's one great big, homogenous thing seems a little silly. Realism is so broad it can be to do with anything from societies, to nature, to magic, to technology, to history, to character interaction, to geography, to pretty much just about anything you can think of.

[Joukehainen]

I'm just going to leave this here.

 

"Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.

 

I wanted to give a quick explanation of why this is, explain what role I see realism as having in game design, and then provide a bit of a defense of "realism" as it relates to something I call the "responsibility of expectations" that is placed on any game design."

 

Then again, he left Obsidian, right?

[SpoilerAlert]

Who cares about realism! It's a damned FANTASY RPG!

The only imprtant thing, for me, it's the story. Al the other things are secondary.

[Elerond]

Who cares about realism! It's a damned FANTASY RPG!

The only imprtant thing, for me, it's the story. Al the other things are secondary.

 

Big part of good story is verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Because if you can't empathize to story you don't usually care about it.

[Anaeme]

Yes realism does matter

[Drakxii]

100% realism doesn't matter but good stories need a world that works consistently. In the first few hours you can add many new elements of how the world works but you can't just add a game changing element in the final moments of the games and expect people to enjoy your game. (Look at you ME3)

[Rink]

When discussing realism, this things are important to me:

 

1. Consistency: I also think that realism comes from the world you create. So the world should be explained early on and this rules should be used consistently.

2. Balancing: For the gameplay to be balanced, many things have to be weighted unrealisticly (so weapon-types are comparable in damage, all weapontypes you can specialise in should be found in the gameworld - so not like bastard swords in Baldurs Gate 1 , every armortype has its part to play instead of one type being clearly overpowered etc).

3. Middle ages lore versus fantasy lore: well fantasy did take a lot of stuff from the middle-ages when it was created. But fantasy now has a ruleset of his own that most players want to see in a fantasy game. I think for size of weapons and all there will have to be a comprimise between fantasy coolness and middle-aged realism. It would be strange for everyone to have very short swords just because in our middle-ages ressources where hard to find, swords were very heavy, and people were a bit shorter and didn't have lots of muscles because of food scarceness etc., especially if all this things aren't the case in the setting (see point 1). On the other hand it also would be strange if all weapons were huge and even our small framed mage can wield them like a piece of plastic.

It is easy to use the ruleset we already know for basic things. So having axes not only for chopping wood but also for our dwarfs to chop enemies and stuff like that. We all know many fantasygames already and I think it is easier to explain a world starting with a lot of this knowledge than to create something completely new and having to explain everything to the players. Create new things that are additional to the setting is better than changing the understanding of things we already know. For example someone said some posts ago, that in game of thrones the clothing was like some of them never saw winter: well they didn't, because the last summer went on for about 16 years. So the author took something we knew (summer as a season of the year) and turned it to something differently (heating period over several years) and that seems to confuse some people and made them think the setting world does not work consistently (while it totally makes sense in this aspect).

4. "real" realism: I think nobody wants it, we don't want to have to eat all the time, go to the toilet, we don't want random sickness that we cannot control or heal in any way, we don't want accidental death, we don't always want to have friendly fire (don't mind that for magic area spells though), we don't want to play a game that is as boring as our every day life, we don't want to play a game where the things you decide do not matter for the world around you. Everyone in this topic when talking about "yes I want realism" has his own idea of what he wants, but it are always only some aspects of reality he/she wants to see in the game and never complete realism. So I think this people should clarify what aspects of realism they want to see and why and maybe make their own topic if it makes sense (just like some did for weapons and armor and stuff like that).

Edited November 5, 2012 by Rink

[SophosTheWise]

Who cares about realism! It's a damned FANTASY RPG!

The only imprtant thing, for me, it's the story. Al the other things are secondary.

 

Well, BOY, you are wrong. Even in a fantasy world with its own rules realism, consistency and credibility is important. For example Two Worlds 2, the first desert-ish world. Town had a great famine, people starving. You could go outside of the town and slaughter a whole damn lot of animals just to cook them. It was like a zoo out there with a big "BARBEQUE FOR EVERYONE!" sign on it. Totally broke immersion.

[TrashMan]

When discussing realism, this things are important to me:

 

1. Consistency: I also think that realism comes from the world you create. So the world should be explained early on and this rules should be used consistently.

2. Balancing: For the gameplay to be balanced, many things have to be weighted unrealisticly (so weapon-types are comparable in damage, all weapontypes you can specialise in should be found in the gameworld - so not like bastard swords in Baldurs Gate 1 , every armortype has its part to play instead of one type being clearly overpowered etc).

3. Middle ages lore versus fantasy lore: well fantasy did take a lot of stuff from the middle-ages when it was created. But fantasy now has a ruleset of his own that most players want to see in a fantasy game. I think for size of weapons and all there will have to be a comprimise between fantasy coolness and middle-aged realism. It would be strange for everyone to have very short swords just because in our middle-ages ressources where hard to find, swords were very heavy, and people were a bit shorter and didn't have lots of muscles because of food scarceness etc., especially if all this things aren't the case in the setting (see point 1). On the other hand it also would be strange if all weapons were huge and even our small framed mage can wield them like a piece of plastic.

4. "real" realism: I think nobody wants it, we don't want to have to eat all the time, go to the toilet, we don't want random sickness that we cannot control or heal in any way, we don't want accidental death, we don't always want to have friendly fire (don't mind that for magic area spells though), we don't want to play a game that is as boring as our every day life, we don't want to play a game where the things you decide do not matter for the world around you. Everyone in this topic when talking about "yes I want realism" has his own idea of what he wants, but it are always only some aspects of reality he/she wants to see in the game and never complete realism. So I think this people should clarify what aspects of realism they want to see and why and maybe make their own topic if it makes sense (just like some did for weapons and armor and stuff like that).

 

 

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not really

4. Maybe. you list too many things for me to agree with all of them.

 

I say again - VERSIMILITUDE.

[Dream]

 

 

I say again - VERSIMILITUDE.

 

Was that the word of the day on some poncy website recently 'cause people just love throwing it around on this forum.

 

Also you spelled it wrong.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Dream

[teknoman2]

one thing most people tend to forget, is that realism does not mean simulated reality. it means "be coherent"... no random stuff that are put there with no explanation just cause it would be cool. no horses rating you to the cops when you steal something in front of them like in skyrim. no farmer that works his field without a care in the world, while in the middle of the field there's an oblivion portal spitting demons. no warriors that swing swords that are bigger than them with 3 times the speed a jedi swings his lightsaber. and generally no things that make no sence in the concept of the game

[Giantevilhead]

First of all, you have to define what you mean by "realism."

 

Do you define "realism" as being like the real world? If so, then no, it should not be like the real world. A game should not follow the same rules as the real world.

 

Or do you define "realism" as being logically consistent and making sense? If so, then yes. A game can have a bunch of made up rules but they should have some logic to them and you should keep your made up stuff consistent.

[dukem]

I always considered RPG's as a fantasy simulation with other rules. the ones provided by the game. does magic exist ? does space travel exist ? do parallel universes exist ?

You escape into another world with an rpg and therefore lack of realism is a disturbance. I think it's important. making the world believable within it's given rules is important for a good rpg.

 

examples:

- creatures that drop what they wield

- npc availabity depending on day time or in general go about their business (in the 90's game mags used that as a criteria for the quality of the rpg.)

etc.

[Ignatius]

We've all been playing and enjoying so-called unrealistic games for such a long time, I doubt anyone really cares. If the game is fun, you'll believe anything.

[anubite]

A well-constructed setting is paramount. If it feels real, that is ideal. We don't want any "unbelievable" scenarios or characters. Realism is paramount.

 

It doesn't need to be "real" in relation to our "real" world - just because armor type X doesn't exist in our world, doesn't mean it can't in the fantasy setting. But I should expect things to have similarities to our world, they should not be so totally alien that we cannot accept them or become immersed in the setting.

 

And you can't use fun as an excuse, by the way - a game being fun is a very abstract concept. I think a game becomes fun when you can become immersed in its emergent world. That requires the world be real. If you cannot accept the world, you won't be immersed, you won't have fun. A cartoony world, a crazy zany world, can be accepted - but it has to be presented in a good manner to succeed.

Edited November 7, 2012 by anubite

[Gecimen]

Realism is the kind word for lack of creativity.

[BBMorti]

People who favor a good degree of realism are the kind of people who could never get into games like Final Fantasy, i wager. I never could, but, I know many people loved the games more than a fat boy loves cake. They rate such games very high on the all time best rpg-list in their minds, and so, it likely to a degree shows that realism has little importance to many out there.