Josh Sawyer on "the importance of real-world knowledge for game design"

[mcmanusaur]

Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

You and others have consistently cited "realism for realism's sake" as something that leads to poor results and thus should be avoided, in response to others' statements of support for realism, as if that is what they are asking for (it's not, which makes your argument a straw man). So no, that's not a straw man argument by me at all, actually. And no, claiming someone else is making a straw man argument when they call out your straw man argument generally doesn't cancel things out.

 

Who's using the ad hominem attacks now? Suggesting I'm petulant and immature? Yep, keep at it mcmanusaur. Attack the person and not the argument.

 

And your argument is a straw man by your very own words which I highlighted. And I'm not arguing against realism for realism's sake. I have said that having realism 'in certain respects' can detract from the game such as item durability which wasn't in the previous IE games. Show me anywhere in this thread where I have argued against 'realism for realism's sake'. You can't!  All you've done is taken what I have said out of context, misrepresenting me, and are STILL continuing to use a straw man argument. Well done. Sounds like you won't admit that you're clearly wrong.

 

 

In all fairness, you didn't give me any argument to address (other than saying my posts were long-winded and "lacked substance"), but if you had I would have gladly addressed that instead. I'm not really inclined to address the rest of your specious rhetorical nonsense, but maybe we can move back on-topic now. That is, unless you're intentionally trolling me, which would be a bit of a surprise but who knows.

Edited August 27, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

You and others have consistently cited "realism for realism's sake" as something that leads to poor results and thus should be avoided, in response to others' statements of support for realism, as if that is what they are asking for (it's not, which makes your argument a straw man). So no, that's not a straw man argument by me at all, actually. And no, claiming someone else is making a straw man argument when they call out your straw man argument generally doesn't cancel things out.

 

Incorrect and completely off the mark. You're still using a straw man argument citing me as saying "realism for realism's sake". And yet you haven't shown where I have said this. Stop and think for a moment on what I just wrote. You're saying I said this and I didn't. You're completely wrong.

 

Taking what I have said out of context, mispreresenting me by saying I said "realism for realism's sake" when I didn't. And the worse part is you're keeping up this strawman argument.

 

 

 

In all fairness, you didn't give me any argument to address (other than saying my posts were long-winded and "lacked substance"), but if you had I would have gladly addressed that instead. I'm not really inclined to address the rest of your specious rhetorical nonsense, but maybe we can move back on-topic now. That is, unless you're intentionally trolling me, which would be a bit of a surprise but who knows.

 

 

Well they are long winded and lacked substance because you start off with a strawman argument, misrepresented and taken out of context what I said and then proceeded to take apart what I didn't say with paragraph after paragraph. Note what I said? You made up stuff that I didn't say and then proceeded to argue against that. That's the very definition of strawman and a post without substance.

 

And now you're suggesting I'm trolling you? Yep, another ad hominen attack. The stance of someone who knows they're losing and are in the wrong.

[Lephys]

Show me anywhere in this thread where I have argued against 'realism for realism's sake'. You can't!

*ahem*... u_u:

 

So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

The bolded portion even shows where you specifically cite Mcmanusaur as arguing that very thing.

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

You and others have consistently cited "realism for realism's sake" as something that leads to poor results and thus should be avoided, in response to others' statements of support for realism, as if that is what they are asking for (it's not, which makes your argument a straw man). So no, that's not a straw man argument by me at all, actually. And no, claiming someone else is making a straw man argument when they call out your straw man argument generally doesn't cancel things out.

 

Incorrect and completely off the mark. You're still using a straw man argument citing me as saying "realism for realism's sake". And yet you haven't shown where I have said this. Stop and think for a moment on what I just wrote. You're saying I said this and I didn't. You're completely wrong.

 

Taking what I have said out of context, mispreresenting me by saying I said "realism for realism's sake" when I didn't. And the worse part is you're keeping up this strawman argument.

 

In all fairness, you didn't give me any argument to address (other than saying my posts were long-winded and "lacked substance"), but if you had I would have gladly addressed that instead. I'm not really inclined to address the rest of your specious rhetorical nonsense, but maybe we can move back on-topic now. That is, unless you're intentionally trolling me, which would be a bit of a surprise but who knows.

 

Well they are long winded and lacked substance because you start off with a strawman argument, misrepresented and taken out of context what I said and then proceeded to take apart what I didn't say with paragraph after paragraph. Note what I said? You made up stuff that I didn't say and then proceeded to argue against that. That's the very definition of strawman and a post without substance.

 

And now you're suggesting I'm trolling you? Yep, another ad hominen attack. The stance of someone who knows they're losing and are in the wrong.

 

I can't really see you making a case that "realism for realism's sake" and "realism for the sake of realism" mean different things, so... yep, clearly trolling. Why, I honestly don't know... Any decent troll knows not to troll just for the sake of trolling. Inb4baitedstrawmanaccusation

 

My rule of thumb is usually that when people start framing a discussion in terms of "winning" and "losing", it's lost any potential for value, so I'm simply not going to humor or feed this any longer.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Show me anywhere in this thread where I have argued against 'realism for realism's sake'. You can't!

*ahem*... u_u:

 

So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

The bolded portion even shows where you specifically cite Mcmanusaur as arguing that very thing.

 

 

Nope. It seems it's really hard for you to understand what my post is and you're trying to take it out of context. I'll break down my post so you can understand it.

 

1. So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game?

 

Did you understand that point Lephys?

 

2. Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more.

 

This part refers to some respects like item durabitly. You understand that Lephys?

 

3. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration.

 

This refers to balance and being more cautious. I'd rather have things out of the game like item durability than have it in. Much like the IE games. You understand that Lephys?

 

4.  It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

This part you seem to have difficulty understanding and just focusing on this part alone and taking it out of context in reference to the previous 3 points. This refers to *certain respects* to realism which I have stated in previous points like item durability. Since you quoted my entire post, it should be kept in context.

 

But that's okay Lephys. Maybe I should have emphasized my words!

Edited August 27, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I can't really see you making a case that "realism for realism's sake" and "realism for the sake of realism" mean different things, so... yep, clearly trolling. Why, I honestly don't know... Any decent troll knows not to troll just for the sake of trolling. Inb4baitedstrawmanaccusation

 

My rule of thumb is usually that when people start framing a discussion in terms of "winning" and "losing", it's lost any potential for value, so I'm simply not going to humor or feed this any longer.

 

 

You admit that you couldn't find myself making a case *realism for realism's sake". Yep, caught you out.

 

And now you're using ad hominen attacks calling me a troll. It's not about winning or losing. It's about forming a well thought out post addressing the points, not attacking the person. And when people such as yourself resort to ad hominen attacks, then clearly you'll just say anything and accuse others.

[mcmanusaur]

You admit that you couldn't find myself making a case *realism for realism's sake". Yep, caught you out.

Yep, you're totally not the one looking like an idiot here. Mhmm.

 

And now you're using ad hominen attacks calling me a troll.

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are trolling here.

 

It's not about winning or losing. It's about forming a well thought out post addressing the points, not attacking the person.

And yet when someone does this, they're being "long-winded". Hmmm... very consistent.

 

And when people such as yourself resort to ad hominen attacks, then clearly you'll just say anything and accuse others.

For the record, it's ad hominem.

[Lephys]

2. Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more.

 

This part refers to some respects like item durabitly. You understand that Lephys?

I think so. Having item durability as opposed to no item durability, because it's more realistic, for the sake of realism (but just with respect to item durability) would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more? So... you're not arguing against detracting from the whole experience and frustrating players more?

 

3. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration.

Wait... you'd rather do that than what other option? Oh, right... leaning toward realism (in some respect, like item durability) for its own sake, which detracts and frustrates. But you're still not arguing against it, right? I mean, how could you be? You said you weren't.

 

4.  It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

This part you seem to have difficulty understanding and just focusing on this part alone and taking it out of context in reference to the previous 3 points. This refers to *certain respects* to realism which I have stated in previous points like item durability. Since you quoted my entire post, it should be kept in context.

I've taken it out of context? So, you started with realism for realism's sake (whether it's just certain things, or everything in the universe is completely irrelevant, since the reason is still the reason; for realism's sake), and then talked about how you'd rather go with something other than realism for realism's sake, and now, at point #4, you've said that it seems Macmanusaur would go the other way "just for realism." The way you were going was not simply toward realism (it was a balance), and it doesn't make much sense that you'd be suggesting Macmanusaur would rather go AWAY from realism "just for realism" (crazy, right?), so that only leaves the suggestion that Macmanusaur would rather lean toward realism, again, "just for realism."

 

If I'm not mistaken, that means "for no other reason than realism."

 

Shall we recap? You claim you've never argued against realism for its own sake, and even challenged anyone to present evidence as to the contrary. What I've presented is your pointing out how "having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism" is a negative thing. You then specifically point out how you would go the other way, in relation to the option of more realism for realism's sake. Following this, you claim that Mcmanusaur would go the "other" way, in relation to your stance, which is already the "other way" in relation to more realism for realism's sake. Thus, this puts Macmanusaur pointed directly toward realism for realism's sake.

 

I'm not sure what the fact that you were referring to "certain respects" (like durability) has to do with anything, since more realism for realism's sake is the same goal with the same reasoning, regardless of whether or not you're applying that goal in an item system or a movement system or the graphics, etc.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Yep, you're totally not the one looking like an idiot here. Mhmm.

 

 

Again with the ad hominem attacks. Mhmm.

 

 

 

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are trolling here.

 

 

More ad hominem attacks suggesting I'm trolling. Good form mcmanusaur. How about sticking to the topic instead of attacking the person?

 

 

And yet when someone does this, they're being "long-winded". Hmmm... very consistent.

 

 

 

No, clearly I've shown you've made long winded strawmen arguments. Hmmm. very consistent.

 

 

For the record, it's ad hominem.

 

 

Okay, thanks for the spell check. Nothing else to add I see.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I think so. Having item durability as opposed to no item durability, because it's more realistic, for the sake of realism (but just with respect to item durability) would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more? So... you're not arguing against detracting from the whole experience and frustrating players more?

 

You think so? So you're not sure? Wow, just wow. You can't understand what I'm saying in my original post.

 

 

 

Wait... you'd rather do that than what other option? Oh, right... leaning toward realism (in some respect, like item durability) for its own sake, which detracts and frustrates. But you're still not arguing against it, right? I mean, how could you be? You said you weren't.

 

What the hell are you on about? I've said repeatedly I'm against item durability because it's not in the previous IE games. Are you for item durability?

 

 

I've taken it out of context? So, you started with realism for realism's sake (whether it's just certain things, or everything in the universe is completely irrelevant, since the reason is still the reason; for realism's sake), and then talked about how you'd rather go with something other than realism for realism's sake, and now, at point #4, you've said that it seems Macmanusaur would go the other way "just for realism." The way you were going was not simply toward realism (it was a balance), and it doesn't make much sense that you'd be suggesting Macmanusaur would rather go AWAY from realism "just for realism" (crazy, right?), so that only leaves the suggestion that Macmanusaur would rather lean toward realism, again, "just for realism."

 

If I'm not mistaken, that means "for no other reason than realism."

 

Shall we recap? You claim you've never argued against realism for its own sake, and even challenged anyone to present evidence as to the contrary. What I've presented is your pointing out how "having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism" is a negative thing. You then specifically point out how you would go the other way, in relation to the option of more realism for realism's sake. Following this, you claim that Mcmanusaur would go the "other" way, in relation to your stance, which is already the "other way" in relation to more realism for realism's sake. Thus, this puts Macmanusaur pointed directly toward realism for realism's sake.

 

I'm not sure what the fact that you were referring to "certain respects" (like durability) has to do with anything, since more realism for realism's sake is the same goal with the same reasoning, regardless of whether or not you're applying that goal in an item system or a movement system or the graphics, etc.

 

 

Wow. Where do you get me saying I went the other way for realism? Talk about about a confused post. Just wow.

[Lephys]

Wow. Where do you get me saying I went the other way for realism? Talk about about a confused post. Just wow.

I'd actually like to know where I get you saying that, so I'm right there with you. You've depleted the benefit of the doubt. You're either so wrapped up in your own superiority of understanding that you're not even reading and attempting to comprehend others' posts (hence the "confusion"), or you're intentionally pretending to misunderstand in an attempt to facilitate frustration.

 

Either way, a lack of effort on your part means a lack of purpose to any further effort on mine. I hope, at least, that your delusions of surpassing comprehension help you sleep better at night, so as to grant at least a modicum of purpose to your posts.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I'd actually like to know where I get you saying that, so I'm right there with you. You've depleted the benefit of the doubt. You're either so wrapped up in your own superiority of understanding that you're not even reading and attempting to comprehend others' posts (hence the "confusion"), or you're intentionally pretending to misunderstand in an attempt to facilitate frustration.

 

Either way, a lack of effort on your part means a lack of purpose to any further effort on mine. I hope, at least, that your delusions of surpassing comprehension help you sleep better at night, so as to grant at least a modicum of purpose to your posts.

 

 

 

You said it here:

 

You then specifically point out how you would go the other way, in relation to the option of more realism for realism's sake.

 

And I honestly think you're just arguing for arguments sake and not trying to have a proper debate. It seems it's a personal thing with you that started in the Production thread and has flowed into this sub-forum. I say it's personal because you're now attacking the person and not the argument, much like mcmanusaur has done. 

Edited August 28, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Failion]

Well obviously you want real world knowledge for constructing things like player fortresses. But for buildings more fantastical in nature like the facebook backed dungeon it doesn't really matter. You are not going to have players question why the design of "X" dungeon floor is goofy and stone age for the games world.

[mcmanusaur]

Mhmm. I'm trolling. Nothing else to add.

 

Edited August 28, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Sargallath Abraxium]

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Lephys]

Well obviously you want real world knowledge for constructing things like player fortresses. But for buildings more fantastical in nature like the facebook backed dungeon it doesn't really matter. You are not going to have players question why the design of "X" dungeon floor is goofy and stone age for the games world.

Well, obviously there are times when it's not very useful. But, it really comes into play when you've got this world full of people and various cultures behaving and commenting on things. I mean, take cultural architecture. It's not about the player being able to identify which culture, in reality, that came from. It's about having a more developed understanding of actual, functional architecture, and the types of differences cultures have shown in their architectural styles, and what contributed to those differences. When you understand basic engineering, and the various materials and techniques people used and why, you can better build a virtual world in which even fictitious people build things certain ways because of the materials available to them or the environment in which they live.

 

In other words, if the fictitious snow people build cities into the ice, and they (and other aspects of the game) actually reference and comment on the way in which they've adapted to the location and climate, as opposed to how another culture does it (out on some plains or something), then it starts falling apart really quickly when you just make a bunch of crap up. Sure, a bunch of made up stuff might work, but you're much more likely to start running into disconnects. Or, worse, if you just leave all that out, then you miss out on all the effects of cultural variation. If not the architecture and smithing and the general way in which they approach tasks/processes, and their reasons for this, then what makes them different from any other culture/people in the game world? Whereas, with a little real-world knowledge as a foundation, you can build a whole bunch of variations upon that, and they all already make sense and interconnect like Voltron. Flawlessly.

 

Reality is a good example of how things effect other things, from physics to society. So, even when you start making up stuff, it fits nicely into the grand scheme of other things.

 

It's hard to make a coherent game based hardly at all on realistic knowledge without it suffering in the depth department.

 

"How did that guy get in here? We had the whole place covered!"

"Because he's super stealthy!"

"Yeah, but there wasn't even a crack to slip through or anything!"

"Uhh... magic?"

"Yeah, but we KNOW about teleportation magic. Why haven't we researched a way to disrupt such things in an area, or placed magical sentries who can take care of such threats, instead of simply assuming that regular dudes will be sufficient to stop someone from teleporting in here?"

"Erm... because this is fiction?"

 

I think being able to understand how, realistically (or verisimilitudinously?) someone got past all defenses to steal something or kidnap someone, in the context of the world, is much more effective in a narrative than "Oh man, this guy is so good, and he just got past everything and kidnapped the princess, because he's just that good." I mean, that makes me think "What's to stop him from just taking over the entire world, then? No one can stop him, apparently." Then you have to make up some way for him to be stopped, instead of it being more emergent and apparent from the situation.

 

It's valuable to study the sort of glue of reality, so that you can better mix up a glue that holds together your fictitious reality. It's not about making fiction just like reality, but about making fiction work as well as reality works.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Lephys

[Giantevilhead]

This isn't really an issue of "realism" or making a game "realistic." It's about using real world knowledge to craft a fictional world that has logic and consistency.

 

As for realism and gameplay, that just depends on the type of game. In some games, it's tedious to have weapon durability but in other games, having weapons break down can help enhance the atmosphere. Plus you can maintain a sense of verisimilitude within a game without needing the gameplay to match it. You don't need to have item durability to have the players believe that things in the game world break down over time and use.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Okay, thanks for the spell check. Nothing else to add I see.

 

 

 

The classic case of changing my text to suit your agenda. Poor form.

[LadyCrimson]

Could we knock of the "petty bickering?" You don't have to like/agree with someone's debate style, but when it becomes a continual focal point of the entire thread, I start frowning. Points in that direction have been made, let it lie now, please?

[Longknife]

If he went camping in the Mojave desert & partying in Las Vegas for Fallout: NV, what adventures has he gotten up to for Project Eternity?

 

 

Personally I just wanna see a photo of Urquhart's face when Sawyer told him Obsidian funding his parties in Vegas was an important part of the game development process.

[Leferd]

 

If he went camping in the Mojave desert & partying in Las Vegas for Fallout: NV, what adventures has he gotten up to for Project Eternity?

 

 

 

Personally I just wanna see a photo of Urquhart's face when Sawyer told him Obsidian funding his parties in Vegas was an important part of the game development process.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/1257-darren-monahan-and-chris-avellone-lost-1050-to/?hl=poker&do=findComment&comment=36996

[Monte Carlo]

I would pay money, like real folding stuff, to see a documentary of Sawyer wandering around Caesar's Palace. Especially when Cleopatra and her honour guard sashay past the $15 buffet on the hour.

[Gromnir]

well, see now this makes more sense.

 

"faergus, send me to Rome. i need to get the feel of the Sistine Chapel for that next game we are doing."

 

"c'mon, send me to machu pichu. there is no way i can know enough about incan architecture and culture without experiencing it."

 

"that trip to the south pole Is necessary. i will bring you back a souvenir t-shirt, i swear."

 

"now try to stay open-minded.  Richard Garriott has already been to space..."

 

etc.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps there actually is a gift shop that sells t-shirts at the south pole. 

Edited August 28, 2013 by Gromnir