Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Still, a world with a lack of logical holes suck. I've mentioned this before, but starting area in Two Worlds 2. A desert/savannah-type crossover with LOTS of flora AND fauna. Still, people 10 meters away are suffering a famine. What the hell?

 

Heh, I had a problem with this in Lothering in Dragon Age: Origins. "There's no food! People are starving!" "Hey, here's a quest to go kill 3 giant bears just outside of town . . ." HELLO. BEARS. U CAN EAT DEM. (I would have laughed my ass off if you could have suggested solving this problem by having the townies eat the bandits you also killed, though.)

 

One of the biggest verisimilitude errors for me comes from these kinds of context problems. When you have something, anything, that has no connection to something else 5' away, you exit realism and enter surrealism. That's one of the reasons why I liked Gothic so much. If you go in people's houses, they yell at you and chase you out. If you draw your sword in a peaceful area, people shout at you and if you don't put it away they draw and attack you. Even if everything in the game isn't perfectly implemented, a few details like this can make a BIG difference in whether it feels like a world or a like a colorful painted backdrop.

 

I'd like to see good day/night implementation. I'd like to see at least a nod at the changing seasons. I like going into a house and finding that they have a freakin BATHROOM. I like it when there are children, and they're not all just copies of the same 10-year-old. I'd like to see some pregnant women and some BABIES.

  • Like 1

Grand Rhetorist of the Obsidian Order

If you appeal to "realism" about a video game feature, you are wrong. Go back and try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see good day/night implementation. I'd like to see at least a nod at the changing seasons. I like going into a house and finding that they have a freakin BATHROOM. I like it when there are children, and they're not all just copies of the same 10-year-old. I'd like to see some pregnant women and some BABIES.

Which bespeaks another issue: placing modern sensibilities in a medieval setting. Why would they have a bathroom without plumbing?

 

But yeah, a variety of kids and some pregnant women would be good, as would repercussions for breaking into somebody's home just to look around. In fact I'd like to see a door greeting system in place: rather than just opening a door and walking inside, the player should knock and be greeted at the door.

Edited by rjshae

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, they are not, albeit very similar.

 

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.

 

Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar

 

Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)

 

The same word.

 

No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.

To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.

 

I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.

 

You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.

 

Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they have a bathroom without plumbing?

 

Plumbing isn't a NEW invention, you know. Some of London's drainage system dated back to the Romans.

  • Like 1

Grand Rhetorist of the Obsidian Order

If you appeal to "realism" about a video game feature, you are wrong. Go back and try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, they are not, albeit very similar.

 

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.

 

Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar

 

Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)

 

The same word.

 

No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.

To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.

 

I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.

 

You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.

 

Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo

 

 

What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitude is connected to critical rationalism and exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it.

 

That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them.

Elan_song.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, they are not, albeit very similar.

 

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.

 

Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar

 

Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)

 

The same word.

 

No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.

To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.

 

I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.

 

You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.

 

Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo

 

 

What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitudeis connected to critical rationalismand exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it.

 

That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them.

 

So the reason realism is important is because it's realistic.

 

Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, they are not, albeit very similar.

 

For real, bro? This is what I'm talking about, people don't even understand they aren't sounding smart when they use it.

 

Verisimilitude - Something verisimilar/the quality or state or being verisimilar

 

Verisimilar - depicting realism (as in art or literature)

 

The same word.

 

No, it's not the same as realism. The question is: what constitues reality (in the sense of the concept of radical realism), and reality is also constituted by - for example - physics. For something to be verisimilar, it simply has to follow an inherent logic. Or to make it a bit easier to apply: if you have two (false!) concepts of reality, you choose the one that is the nearest to the actual reality. If we assume that "our" reality in which we live is the "objective reality" then we'll get beaten by constructivists and we have to chose between two fictive concepts, the one being closest to the predefined reality makes the most sense.

To apply it to the aforementioned Two Worlds 2-blooming-flora-and-fauna-famine-problem: of course you can say that maybe there is a spell on every starving citizen to prevent him eating everything around him or some other absurd thing. The problem with fiction is, that you have endless possibilities to just invent ANY solution for ANY problem, but it gets very, very, VERY difficult not to mess up the whole logic of the gameworld, because creating more and more "solutions" also creates more and more problems based on a solution and so on and so forth. To not have this argument about words that get thrown around by game designers, we could simply agree that we mean *something* in the verge of plausibility or credibility. Which is still not the same.

 

I may be wrong, that's just the way I learned that stuff in my journalistics class, but that whole reality-concept-thingy was quite brief.

 

You can attribute whatever meaning you want to the word, but the reality (har har) is it's the exact same word. Saying it's not doesn't make it so.

 

Synonyms: literalism, naturalism, realism,representationalism, verismo

 

 

What you seem to forget is, that the word verisimilitudeis connected to critical rationalismand exactly means, what I said it does.You can use it in a similar way, but there are many ways of describing reality and many ways to say "describing reality" with an entirely different mindset behind it. So verisimilitude is realism with the thought of critical rationalism behind it.

 

That's what I meant when I first said that there are different approaches to a topic and philosophy was one of them.

 

So the reason realism is important is because it's realistic.

 

Got it.

 

I suppose it's not worth arguing with you.

Elan_song.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

people saying they want things to resemble middle ages europe don't seem to be able to understand that if magic, gods, psychics and 4 other alien races had lived side by side with humanity during that time we'd have a completely different notion of what is "realistic".

And...? Conceivably random differences in evolutionary history- that might have brought about different races of sentient beings- don't change the way that physics operates (which is ultimately the reason why high fantasy armor and weapons are impractical) or which traits are selected for (which are the cause of what we consider realistic behavior). The point is, just because a game makes sacrifices in some ways doesn't mean it has to forgo realism in every aspect (and in fact that would make for a ****ty game). Personally I like low-magic settings, but I'm alright with a bit of magic and fantasy races if the game is otherwise realistic.

 

Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart.

 

On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart.

 

On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay.

 

I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable.

Edited by Dream
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart.

 

On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay.

 

I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable.

 

The only problem with that is that the majority finds Skyrim most enjoyable. This game is aimed at a minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what bugs me: people using fancy words to try and sound smart.

 

On topic, don't sacrifice any gameplay or fun for the sake of realism.

Fun is completely subjective, and realism is one of those things that makes a game fun for many people. It's also subjective whether realism ever becomes a trade-off with gameplay.

 

I'm glad we agree. I guess the question then is what the majority (not the vocal minority of the forums, mind you) finds more enjoyable.

 

The only problem with that is that the majority finds Skyrim most enjoyable. This game is aimed at a minority.

 

Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE.

Here's what bugs me: people who don't seem to get, that there are different ways of approaching a topic and that certain "fancy words" have a right to exist.

 

No one used that word until Sawyer said it, and now people are throwing it around like they actually speak that way.

Actually, I distinctly remember first reading it when discussing F3 on the Bethesda forums back in those days - 2007 I think.

  • Like 1

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE.

 

Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game.

 

Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one used that word until Sawyer said it, and now people are throwing it around like they actually speak that way.

Actually, I distinctly remember first reading it when discussing F3 on the Bethesda forums back in those days - 2007 I think.

I think that reason lack of use of word versimilitude before Sawyers post is because majority of people commenting on these topics are not native english speakers so they often use first right sounding word from dictionary and they correct themeselves when someone who have better vocabulary of the subject takes part to conversation, because it is just silly not use words that tell better what you want to say.

 

To me functional and coherent design in enviroment, items and world overall make fantasy and scifi worlds more fun and believable. Deus ex machinas, illogical magic and item design where more ridicilous looking items are better gameplay wise are just plain stupid things that lower funfactor of the games usually for me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one used that word until Sawyer said it, and now people are throwing it around like they actually speak that way.

Actually I used it in english essays in high school, don't make assumptions.

 

I used the word because it has a more subtle meaning than realism - from the wiki page it means that a setting has a "likeness or semblance" of truth in a literature or art context; whereas realism to me is attempting to mimic directly the real world. To clarify, the setting should have verisimilitude (akin to, but not directly copying) in terms of governance, in game literature, social issues, culture, geography of a region and lots of other more factors that are lore intensive; but it should have realism (mimicry) in terms of things that have a practical and physical basis in real life for being as they are - i.e. ship design, weapon design, basic architecture, etc. So you need both verisimilitude and realism in a game to give a setting polish IMO, and though the meanings are similar they are not the same. You're not coming from a position of strength when you're arguing against proper use of the english language, and though I do love to argue semantics all day long I'd rather get this thread back on track.

 

i don't care much for so called "realism" in my fantasy; that goes for armor, buildings, wealth and the like...

 

people saying they want things to resemble middle ages europe don't seem to be able to understand that if magic, gods, psychics and 4 other alien races had lived side by side with humanity during that time we'd have a completely different notion of what is "realistic".

 

all i want out of realism is for the npc's to behave according to their customs and common sensibilities.

This is the thing though, the A Song of Ice and Fire series is dramatically popular - and I'd say that the main reason this is for beyond the compelling characters is its high levels of realism and verisimilitude. People like the setting because they find it relatable and not too abstract as can be the case in some fantasy settings. I know that the series of books is perhaps lighter on fantastical elements then say Lord of the Rings, but they are hardly thin on the ground either. My point is having a fantasy setting does not mean that things do not need to be realistic; and honestly even if we did have magic, gods, psychics and 4 other alien races I believe in broad strokes civilisation would have developed in a pretty similar way to what it did do in our world - fantasy elements do not radically alter human nature or the natural progression of technology or society. Even the other races will have ideologies that are relatable to us otherwise no one would be able to get a handle on them or want to play them, so they'll likely develop in a similar fashion or they'll remain undeveloped (e.g. tree hugging elves who hate industrialism) - yet that is still similar to bronze age societies.

 

Ergo, realism and versimilitude are not necessarily irrelevant to a fantasy setting. I'd go so far to say the more similar a setting to our own the more the fantastical differences are thrown into sharp relief and the more interesting they become.

Edited by Jojobobo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE.

 

Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game.

 

Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook.

That's limiting the creative process in a way that no other artist would stand for. Personally I trust the developers to take certain liberties and break away from the old games because they clearly have a philosophy against many of the things that have hurt modern RPG's. I'd rather them not "answer to the fans" between now and release because the simple fact is that- as much as you may think otherwise- this community is as diverse as any other one, and no one person can pretend to speak for the rest of the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the majority of the people that funded this project did so because of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, and those are hardly paragons of realism (especially Torment).

I would even go so far as to saying that Torment is an intentionally surrealistic game. But I don't think that's what the devs are trying to accomplish with PE.

 

Which is an issue in and of itself. The devs have said that one of the advantages of kickstarter is they don't have to answer to a publisher, but shouldn't they answer to the fans? Sure they're making the game, but we funded it with certain expectations and the devs own personal desires for what they want in the game should come a distant second to what the fans desire (a game similar to BG, PST, and IWD in both mechanics and style). I know I didn't fund it because I trusted the names of the people, but because they promised a modern infinity engine game.

 

Or maybe since they already have our money they feel they can do what they wish, but I'd rather not take such a jaded outlook.

That's limiting the creative process in a way that no other artist would stand for. Personally I trust the developers to take certain liberties and break away from the old games because they clearly have a philosophy against many of the things that have hurt modern RPG's. I'd rather them not "answer to the fans" between now and release because the simple fact is that- as much as you may think otherwise- this community is as diverse as any other one, and no one person can pretend to speak for the rest of the fans.

 

While the community may be diverse the reasons for their backing are not; the IE games, and as long as their philosophies aren't against things that were present in those games it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Also the creative process in pretty much all art is limited. Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel for ****s and giggles you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While the community may be diverse the reasons for their backing are not; the IE games, and as long as their philosophies aren't against things that were present in those games it shouldn't be an issue.

 

I don't think that if you're against handling certain things like they were done in IE (like stealth) makes you any less of a backer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While the community may be diverse the reasons for their backing are not; the IE games, and as long as their philosophies aren't against things that were present in those games it shouldn't be an issue.

 

I don't think that if you're against handling certain things like they were done in IE (like stealth) makes you any less of a backer.

 

Except the front page of the kickstarter specifically states the game is going to be a modern version of the IE games. Don't buy a roadster and then get mad when it can't haul **** like a pickup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As many before me have stated: the most important realism lies not in action, but in reaktion.

For characters to respond in accordance with their allience, alignment, background and current situation to every given action is enough to give the game a sense of realism.

 

Also, to respond to certain previous comments, I do not think it relevant to be focused on realism relation to our world in ways such as "A human could never lift a sword five times his own size", but would direct attention more towards consistency; if X, then Y, and not Z.

Consistency, complemented with reasonable explanation is often what matters most.

 

On a very personal note I particularly enjoy consistency in magic;

If a person has a spell which allows him to put opponents to sleep he should be able to use that ability on his companions for them to be able to rest even where the game might deem it unsuitable.

I'm sure you can think of a thousand such examples where magic could be used in a much more intelligent way.

Perhaps the possibility to create/modify your own spells to a certain extent?

 

Also, I believe in the power of communication; a character with high intelligence and charisma (and mayhap points spent on a "persuasion/rhetoric/communication-skill?) should be able to sway nearly anyone, nearly any way.

 

As an RPG, the question is often whether the power should lie with the character or the player; should the player have to figure things out for himself even when his character has a high intelligence or should the game then point out which point of action that would most likely lead to which result?

I feel that a good thing is to categorize actions after the attributes they follow; in a dialogue you might then have an option mayorly based on charisma, one based on intelligence, one based on chaos, while another on order, etc. which will require from the player the judgement to see which alternative the recipient is most likely to respond too, while the game gives him the possibility to weigh his judgement against his stats, as well as to play in accordance with a character not his own.

 

Ex: Character has super-high intelligence and average charisma. He meets an NPC who is moderately receptive to flattery, but despises people whom are controlled by their intellects.

Hence in an attempt to persuade this character, my judgement tells me that charisma is the best way to go, and the game allows me to see clearly which dialogue-option is controlled by charisma, and weigh it against for example my intelligence; "am I intelligent enough to outsmart him without him even realizing it?", and in that decision giving the final power back to the player.

 

"Power to the Player" is what I personally prefer on account of me as a rule playing in accordance with myself; if the dialogue is well made I know which dialogue-option is controlled by what and it's plausible effect without being told, but for the sake of diversity and possibility to act in accordance with your characters actual stats when not playing in accordance with your "actual self"* I will speak for the above mentioned idea in spite of personal preferences.

 

*Meaning playing as hyper-intelligent when one is not, as passive-aggressive despite that not actually being the case and so on, in a consistent manner.

This of course to increase replay-value.

 

It's darn late here, so if this post is blurry, poorly organized, lacking of visible red-thread and ill-formulated I beg pardon.

"Just one last comment before bed!" You now how it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this game is just a simulation with a limited budget. There's no way they can approach the level of realism that will leave you believing such a place exists. Corners will be cut, some level of simplification will be applied, and there are always going to be actions you'd like to be able to do but can't because it wasn't implemented. At most you can hope for a good level of grittiness, plausibility, and attention to detail.

 

Well thank you for that information, Captain Obvious.

You're quite welcome. Now do you actually have anything constructive to say on the topic? Thus far it appears not.

 

Well thank you for that information, Captain Oblivious

  After my realization that White March has the same XP reward problem, I don't even have the drive to launch game anymore because I hated so much reaching Twin Elms with a level cap in vanilla PoE that I don't wish to relive that experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...