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

[JFSOCC]

 

I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism.

Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game.

Not to nit-pick, but I am curious as to your opinion on how a game could accomplish retaining the ability to be engaging without being fun; if said game isn't enjoyable, are you still going to play it?

 

A game like Spec-Ops the line, or Papers, please, is decidedly unfun. they are bleak, dystopian, and confronting.

Yet these games are engaging because of it.

 

Games as a medium for art are beginning to grow up. But if you look at a different medium, Film, you can clearly see that a film does not have to be fun to be engaging. Some films are downright horrifying. You have thrillers, tragedies, film-noire, horror, you have films in which you see people suffer the way through, and it doesn't put a smile on your face.

 

Yet many of these films are decidedly engaging.

 

We need to move away from the childish notion that games are just for children, are just a means of entertainment and that fun is the only way to engage the player.

Luckily the medium is, slowly but steadily, growing up.

 

No, you don't need something to be fun to be engaging.

[Felonious]

 

 

I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism.

Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game.

Not to nit-pick, but I am curious as to your opinion on how a game could accomplish retaining the ability to be engaging without being fun; if said game isn't enjoyable, are you still going to play it?

 

A game like Spec-Ops the line, or Papers, please, is decidedly unfun. they are bleak, dystopian, and confronting.

Yet these games are engaging because of it.

 

Games as a medium for art are beginning to grow up. But if you look at a different medium, Film, you can clearly see that a film does not have to be fun to be engaging. Some films are downright horrifying. You have thrillers, tragedies, film-noire, horror, you have films in which you see people suffer the way through, and it doesn't put a smile on your face.

 

Yet many of these films are decidedly engaging.

 

We need to move away from the childish notion that games are just for children, are just a means of entertainment and that fun is the only way to engage the player.

Luckily the medium is, slowly but steadily, growing up.

 

No, you don't need something to be fun to be engaging.

 

Why does something have to put a smile on my face or be childish to be "fun"?  Perhaps we are defining "fun" differently and, in that, lies the problem.  To me, fun means enjoyable; perhaps it carries a quite different definition for you.  If I don't enjoy something, I don't find it fun, therefore I am not going to continue with it.  Perhaps we are just debating semantics, a misunderstanding of our positions in this conversation.

[Amentep]

 

how much do i need to know? how much Rule is there needed to knowing before breaking is ok?

More than your target audience does.

 

So its okay to write things wrong if you're writing for stupid people?

 

Also its now nearly impossible to target a Doctor Who story that could be appreciated by astronomers, physicists and historians.

 

As for doing real life research to create a setting...of course it's necessary!

 

You guys brought up Star Wars as an example of not doing research, really? Then why the congregation of representatives of planets are called Senate? Why the congregations of democratic planets and worlds are called Republic, and the came congregation ruled by one guy is called Empire and the ruler Emperor?

 

You know why? Because being accurate on real life reference is important! Because if Lucas named the ruler of the Empire a King it would be met with "What? This is bull*** King is a ruler of Kingdom not Empire! He should be called Emperor". Even though the story takes place in a galaxy far far away.

Isn't this the same Star Wars where the duly elected leader of Naboo was called..."Queen"? Can't tell if sarcasm or not.

 

I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism.

Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game.

 

En verder wil ik er geen woorden meer over vuil maken.

Realism isn't the opposite of fun, its a tool in a toolbox of storytelling. I think the issue is, ultimately, not whether realism is "fun" or not but whether from a storytelling perspective limiting yourself to only that tool is worth the limitations to storytelling applied (even if its just the primarily tool used).

 

If you create a game element that accurately reflect Hindu philosophy and cosmology and the player only sees a bare minimum of it - lets say 10 minutes worth in a 50 hour game - does the adherence to the "truth" actually matter from the perspective of the game player?

 

There was a big flap when the first PE map was released about the rivers not flowing geographically correctly. Okay, I can understand wanting to do it geographically like reality world...but in a fantasy world were things don't work the way the real world does, is it really something the average player is going to notice?

 

Would the threads after release for PE be about how the rivers flowing the wrong way broke the gamers' "immersion" and ruined the game for them? Without regard to the other gameplay elements?

[Gromnir]

every time you post, we gets more confused as to what you wants. first time we spoke o' the theoretical game with complete fantastical elements you ask for an example and we gave. then you somehow lift ""cRPG developers' opinions" and "decades worth of cRPG development"" we used to indicate that in many respects, developers has pulled back from reality as computer capacity has increased. and is now somehow using this language as validity for demanding specific examples o' the complete fantastic game.  

 

*puzzled* 

 

those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns.

 

" that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun"

 

which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. 

 

am also gonna note that fact that a cartoony game may have basis in real world physics and settings, nobody in their right mind is gonna be looking for or criticizing the realism o' the physics or environments in such games. can be totally looney tunes, as long as is internally coherent. 

 

am not even gonna try and deal with emergent ai. we got no knowledge o' such stuff and as it is not a here-and-now kinda issue, we feels our near absolute ignorance is hardly limiting in a discussion o' complexity and realism in crpgs.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[JFSOCC]

Realism isn't the opposite of fun, its a tool in a toolbox of storytelling. I think the issue is, ultimately, not whether realism is "fun" or not but whether from a storytelling perspective limiting yourself to only that tool is worth the limitations to storytelling applied (even if its just the primarily tool used).

 

If you create a game element that accurately reflect Hindu philosophy and cosmology and the player only sees a bare minimum of it - lets say 10 minutes worth in a 50 hour game - does the adherence to the "truth" actually matter from the perspective of the game player?

 

There was a big flap when the first PE map was released about the rivers not flowing geographically correctly. Okay, I can understand wanting to do it geographically like reality world...but in a fantasy world were things don't work the way the real world does, is it really something the average player is going to notice?

 

Would the threads after release for PE be about how the rivers flowing the wrong way broke the gamers' "immersion" and ruined the game for them? Without regard to the other gameplay elements?

The balance would have to be determined by the game designer, but generally, the more you get right, the less problems you can expect.

I don't know what the threads after release would say, but since they're now flowing the right way, I guess it won't come up.

 

I don't know if the 'average' gamer will notice x or y, but if you get it right, then if they do notice, I imagine it'll be appreciated.

 

But that's not why I think research is good for game design, I think research is good for game design because the more you learn, the more you have to draw from for inspiration. That's really the core of my argument. There is no such thing as too much knowledge.

 

Based on the time constraints, there might be "too much research", but you do what you can in the time allotted to you.

[PrimeJunta]

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Zippy the Pinhead.

[JFSOCC]

those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns.

 

" that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun"

 

which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

You seem to be under the impression that research is only done for realism, and that realism is the ultimate goal that the developers are trying to achieve.

I don't think that's the case. Research is done so you have a solid basis, which you can diverge from.

It's like an anchor point. You can't build a house on quicksand, no matter how solid the house, it'll sink.

Doing research gives the designer real world knowledge to draw from. In no way does this force a strict adherence to reality at the cost of gameplay or engagement.

[Nonek]

Personally I wouldn't mind playing a purely fantastical game, something like one of those great old Yes album covers brought to life, all stream of consciousness and striking imagery, almost a dreamlike meditation upon a theme. Something say a little like Journey, though obviously that still is shackled by reality, the scarf people walk, slide and jump according to ordinary physics, the architecture though sweeping and embellished is still recognisable and the lanscape and the mountain are seemingly as mundane as anything else on earth, until the use of the glyph/sound magic is introduced anyway.

 

To be honest however it's beyond my limited comprehension as to how one would go about making everything purely fantastical, and then again not making that mundane through repeated use, I do believe there are talented developers out there who might be capable of this however.

 

Either way I don't believe Eternity will be anything like that however, seems that Mr Sawyers wishes to make a virtual other earth, and then add a spice of the otherworldly to garnish it.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Nonek

[Amentep]

The balance would have to be determined by the game designer, but generally, the more you get right, the less problems you can expect.

I don't know what the threads after release would say, but since they're now flowing the right way, I guess it won't come up.

 

I don't know if the 'average' gamer will notice x or y, but if you get it right, then if they do notice, I imagine it'll be appreciated.

 

But that's not why I think research is good for game design, I think research is good for game design because the more you learn, the more you have to draw from for inspiration. That's really the core of my argument. There is no such thing as too much knowledge.

 

Based on the time constraints, there might be "too much research", but you do what you can in the time allotted to you.

But if your only problem with a game - story is great, combat is great, character generation is great, NPCs are great - is the rivers flow in the wrong direction on the map...is that really enough to make the game "bad"? I'd argue it'd only be the case if the game was "river flow simulator 2.0" not the average fantasy RPG.

 

Its nice that they corrected it, makes sure to remove that complaint from the internet "pile of complaints" division. And I'm not saying they shouldn't - they're trying to create a world and they want to make it a "living and breathing" thing I'm sure.

 

But it's importance is probably more in pushing the "reality" of the setting than what the player experiences directly in the gameplay.

[JFSOCC]

But if your only problem with a game - story is great, combat is great, character generation is great, NPCs are great - is the rivers flow in the wrong direction on the map...is that really enough to make the game "bad"? I'd argue it'd only be the case if the game was "river flow simulator 2.0" not the average fantasy RPG.

Absolutely agreed.

 

Its nice that they corrected it, makes sure to remove that complaint from the internet "pile of complaints" division. And I'm not saying they shouldn't - they're trying to create a world and they want to make it a "living and breathing" thing I'm sure.

 

But it's importance is probably more in pushing the "reality" of the setting than what the player experiences directly in the gameplay.

You're right, the risk is irrelevancy. But that's a question of what topics to focus your research on.

If you give importance to the societies depicted in your game/film/book, then you research societies, or language, or both. Not Geography.

Edited August 27, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Nonek]

You know purely as a thought experiment i've just tried to imagine something purely fantastical and with no basis in mundane matters, for the life of me I can't, must be the old noggin failing me.

[Tale]

So its okay to write things wrong if you're writing for stupid people?

Yes? I feel like that's a trick question, but I'm not seeing it. Plenty of books have been written for what you may consider stupid people. And while there's a moral objection to writing that way to take advantage, there's a long and proud tradition of writing that way under the label of philosophy, self-help, spirituality, or metaphysics. Even conspiracy theories.

 

Also its now nearly impossible to target a Doctor Who story that could be appreciated by astronomers, physicists and historians.

In their own subjects? Probably. That's why you focus on some other thing that you might know more than they about. You teach the historian a bit about astronomy or the astronomer about history.

[mcmanusaur]

every time you post, we gets more confused as to what you wants. first time we spoke o' the theoretical game with complete fantastical elements you ask for an example and we gave. then you somehow lift ""cRPG developers' opinions" and "decades worth of cRPG development"" we used to indicate that in many respects, developers has pulled back from reality as computer capacity has increased. and is now somehow using this language as validity for demanding specific examples o' the complete fantastic game.  

 

*puzzled* 

 

those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns.

 

" that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun"

 

which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. 

 

am also gonna note that fact that a cartoony game may have basis in real world physics and settings, nobody in their right mind is gonna be looking for or criticizing the realism o' the physics or environments in such games. can be totally looney tunes, as long as is internally coherent. 

 

am not even gonna try and deal with emergent ai. we got no knowledge o' such stuff and as it is not a here-and-now kinda issue, we feels our near absolute ignorance is hardly limiting in a discussion o' complexity and realism in crpgs.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No............... I'm asking for further examples of this movement away from realism, since "decades of cRPG development" is a decidedly vague citation. For me, the realistic mechanics that you mention have largely been removed for the sake of accessibility, which is sort of a competing drive at times. Also, things like food, sleep, and wound care have never moved beyond the hyper-abstraction stage, so I think you could consider this a trend towards re-evaluating mechanical abstraction bloat, rather than a departure from realism.

 

Such things suffer from an uncanny valley of sorts as their implementation doesn't constitute realistic simulation, and neither do they tend to be supported by other realistic aspect's of the game's simulation (such as nutrition, degradation over time, poison, disease, and so on in the case of a food mechanic). I will admit that realism can be a bit of a slippery slope; as you introduce realistic elements you oblige yourself to include certain other realistic elements as support, but I don't think that this is a reason to dismiss the potential for fun with more realism.

 

You seem to identify the cRPG genre with the conventions of their execution, such as a reliance on abstractions and a certain way of controlling combat, but I'm more interested in the genre's intended purpose, whether it be interactive storytelling or full-on roleplaying (which is where it gets its name from, after all). I guess that we will have to simply disagree about what defines the RPG.

 

Realistic combat is complex, and potentially fun; it's just a different kind of fun and complexity than the typical abstraction-based approach (which you seemingly inexorably associate with the RPG genre).

 

I'm not going to bother responding from the rest (as I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself), other than mentioning that in fact reality is precisely where we get our precious definition of internal consistency from.

[mcmanusaur]

 

And the straw man argument of the year award goes to... never mind, I can't choose.

 

Yourself? Sounds like it from your long winded and straw man argument.

 

 

We really need to get away from this idea of "realism for realism's sake"; in fact, this is one of the most common rhetorical tricks that I see those with an agenda against realism use.  

 

So I have an agenda and using rhetorical tricks? That's a classic case of misrepresentation and the usual straw man tactics of people who can't debate the issue.

 

Keep up the straw man tactics and long winded posts with no substance mcmanusaur.

 

Now that's just petulant, immature ad hominem. Your assertion that my argument constitutes a straw man has no weight given that you apparently can't be bothered to identify what the offending aspects are. We all have an agenda, so I didn't mean anything particularly nefarious by that. Are you denying the fact that you're arguing against "realism for realism's sake" when there's no one arguing for it? Because I'm calling that a rhetorical trick, and your cry of misrepresentation is a rather transparent defense. I'm sorry that you're not able to glean the substance from my "long-winded" posts, but I assure you that it's there.

[mcmanusaur]

You know purely as a thought experiment i've just tried to imagine something purely fantastical and with no basis in mundane matters, for the life of me I can't, must be the old noggin failing me.

 

That's exactly a point that I've been hoping to make in this discussion. The best one can do is fool oneself into thinking that something one has imagined is purely fantastical via ignoring the inevitable subconscious pervasion of reality.

[Amentep]

 

So its okay to write things wrong if you're writing for stupid people?

Yes? I feel like that's a trick question, but I'm not seeing it. Plenty of books have been written for what you may consider stupid people. And while there's a moral objection to writing that way to take advantage, there's a long and proud tradition of writing that way under the label of philosophy, self-help, spirituality, or metaphysics. Even conspiracy theories.

 

I was just asking because we were always told to write for ourselves and not worry about writing for an audience. And if you start out writing for stupid people you're not really saying much about yourself.

 

 

Also its now nearly impossible to target a Doctor Who story that could be appreciated by astronomers, physicists and historians.

In their own subjects? Probably. That's why you focus on some other thing that you might know more than they about. You teach the historian a bit about astronomy or the astronomer about history.

 

Or perhaps tell a ripping good tale that everyone enjoys and let the science and history sort itself out?

 

That's exactly a point that I've been hoping to make in this discussion. The best one can do is fool oneself into thinking that something one has imagined is purely fantastical via ignoring the inevitable subconscious pervasion of reality.

I think that's why fantasy worlds are the real world with some unreal constructs (that still act like concepts we understand). You can't really move outside of yourself so totally as to create the truly foreign (and arguably if you could it'd be so foreign to the reader they would be put off by it).

 

That said, I'm not sure the slavish recreation of reality in fantasy is desirable, either.

[Tale]

I was just asking because we were always told to write for ourselves and not worry about writing for an audience. And if you start out writing for stupid people you're not really saying much about yourself.

I've always been told to know your audience. Write what you know, write what you like, yes, but also be aware of what the market is currently interested, be aware if you're writing for young adults, and if you write for just yourself, then you're liable to have an audience of one.

 

Or perhaps tell a ripping good tale that everyone enjoys and let the science and history sort itself out?

How do you know if everyone will enjoy it if you were only writing for yourself?

 

I really don't know how to parse "ripping good tale that everyone enjoys" in a way that has meaning to me, I'm sorry. Unless we're talking about going for LCD and making a tale full of explosions. Because everyone loves explosions. That's like a call to Michael Bay. Which is fine, but it doesn't balance wider appreciation against something meaningful or interesting.

[Sarex]

I was just asking because we were always told to write for ourselves and not worry about writing for an audience. And if you start out writing for stupid people you're not really saying much about yourself.

 

If writers wrote for themselves no one would read them. Writers always bear in mind the audience/readers when writing a story. What is a point of a story which only you would understand. It's pretty simplistic to view it in that way. As for your last statement, I don't really know where you got that from, and I must say that is a pretty arrogant and snobbish statement to make.

[Amentep]

 

I was just asking because we were always told to write for ourselves and not worry about writing for an audience. And if you start out writing for stupid people you're not really saying much about yourself.

 

If writers wrote for themselves no one would read them. Writers always bear in mind the audience/readers when writing a story. What is a point of a story which only you would understand. It's pretty simplistic to view it in that way. As for your last statement, I don't really know where you got that from, and I must say that is a pretty arrogant and snobbish statement to make.

 

Hmmm, I expect that I didn't make my joke very well then.

 

I was making a joke on the old line when getting students interested in writing they should please themselves - this is writing as recreation (not on selling to the market in which case, as Tale mentions above you need to understand the market and what it wants) and the idea that if you're writing something for yourself and you're expecting the audience to be dumb, you're expecting you to be dumb.

 

It was a joke that apparently fell flat on its face and I apologize.

 

 

Or perhaps tell a ripping good tale that everyone enjoys and let the science and history sort itself out?

I really don't know how to parse "ripping good tale that everyone enjoys" in a way that has meaning to me, I'm sorry. Unless we're talking about going for LCD and making a tale full of explosions. Because everyone loves explosions. That's like a call to Michael Bay. Which is fine, but it doesn't balance wider appreciation against something meaningful or interesting.

 

My point is that a good tale is a good tale, having good science or good history or good political theory isn't going to make a bad tale good and have bad science or bad history or bad political theory isn't going to make a good story bad (unless you get stuck on the bad science or bad history or bad political theory in which case your problem isn't with the story).

 

That Shakespeare takes liberty with some of his history in his plays doesn't diminish the power of the play itself. A good story will overcome such "factual shortcomings".

[Gromnir]

 

every time you post, we gets more confused as to what you wants. first time we spoke o' the theoretical game with complete fantastical elements you ask for an example and we gave. then you somehow lift ""cRPG developers' opinions" and "decades worth of cRPG development"" we used to indicate that in many respects, developers has pulled back from reality as computer capacity has increased. and is now somehow using this language as validity for demanding specific examples o' the complete fantastic game.  

 

*puzzled* 

 

those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns.

 

" that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun"

 

which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. 

 

am also gonna note that fact that a cartoony game may have basis in real world physics and settings, nobody in their right mind is gonna be looking for or criticizing the realism o' the physics or environments in such games. can be totally looney tunes, as long as is internally coherent. 

 

am not even gonna try and deal with emergent ai. we got no knowledge o' such stuff and as it is not a here-and-now kinda issue, we feels our near absolute ignorance is hardly limiting in a discussion o' complexity and realism in crpgs.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No............... I'm asking for further examples of this movement away from realism, since "decades of cRPG development" is a decidedly vague citation. For me, the realistic mechanics that you mention have largely been removed for the sake of accessibility, which is sort of a competing drive at times. Also, things like food, sleep, and wound care have never moved beyond the hyper-abstraction stage, so I think you could consider this a trend towards re-evaluating mechanical abstraction bloat, rather than a departure from realism.

 

Such things suffer from an uncanny valley of sorts as their implementation doesn't constitute realistic simulation, and neither do they tend to be supported by other realistic aspect's of the game's simulation (such as nutrition, degradation over time, poison, disease, and so on in the case of a food mechanic). I will admit that realism can be a bit of a slippery slope; as you introduce realistic elements you oblige yourself to include certain other realistic elements as support, but I don't think that this is a reason to dismiss the potential for fun with more realism.

 

You seem to identify the cRPG genre with the conventions of their execution, such as a reliance on abstractions and a certain way of controlling combat, but I'm more interested in the genre's intended purpose, whether it be interactive storytelling or full-on roleplaying (which is where it gets its name from, after all). I guess that we will have to simply disagree about what defines the RPG.

 

Realistic combat is complex, and potentially fun; it's just a different kind of fun and complexity than the typical abstraction-based approach (which you seemingly inexorably associate with the RPG genre).

 

I'm not going to bother responding from the rest (as I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself), other than mentioning that in fact reality is precisely where we get our precious definition of internal consistency from.

 

clearly at an impasse. you not see food consumption and realistic gold weight as necessarily being attributes o' realism. is no good reason why you think realism is good if oft noted items to include in aspects o' more realistic approach is discounted by you as bloat. your notion o' realistic seems very personal and is more o' a chinese menu approach. you like certain features and others you do not. if you don't think a feature is improving game, then it don't deserve to be included in penumbra o' realistic features.  that ain't going for realism so much as it is including stuff in games that You like. likewise, you has chosen a seeming non-definition of crpg such that we has absolutely no notion what you means. you tell us that a sp role-play game don't have to be as we described, and thus our analysis is wrong. you do not however offer any alternative... and use "role-play" to define role-play is... well, am not gonna be rude.

 

"but I don't think that this is a reason to dismiss the potential for fun with more realism."

 

yet again. this were never said by us. scroll back up and find. like most folks, we like some aspects o' reality in our games and is happy to do without. is not necessarily that more realism is good. is surely not that more realism is offering more complexity. conversely, You said, 

 

"the thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. " 

 

HA!

 

food consumption, weighty gold, wound tending and a host o' other largely anachronistic crpg features mainstays o' pnp games is aspects o' an attempt to infuse reality... and regardless o' you wanting to dismiss such features as largely irrelevant to the present topic, we is thinking you is on a very lonely island with this one.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

those comments you lift from us is kinda like lifting a comment by us in which we says "our favorite flavor o' ice cream is vanilla. vanilla is most popular and that is what people want most bast on statistics and manufacturer production," and inserting underlined portion into a thread to damn us for suggesting crpg developers is making vanilla. developers has pulled back from reality in many ways. weight of gold. wound care and management. food consumption and sleep. previous stuff woulda' been commonplace 15 years ago, but is now so rare as to be virtual unicorns.

 

" that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun"

 

which is again, complete unresponsive and misses earlier point. first, you keep seeming to ignore that we is talking crpg. we has noted this aspect a few times. crpg combat is taking at least some o' the control o' the avatar outta your hands... is the point o' having abilities and attributes. if is avatar that is fast and has some kinda lightning double uppercut ability, then it not matter how fast you can hit buttons or if you know how to lands uppercuts. also were sympathy o' realism and complexity you were belaboring. we noted that realistic combat were not particularly complex, particularly in crpg scenario. but all those abilities (akin to magic powers) one gives avatar is making potential complexity limited only by developer whim. can combat in a virtual environment be fun? sure it can, but that ignores Your earlier points. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

You seem to be under the impression that research is only done for realism, and that realism is the ultimate goal that the developers are trying to achieve.

*groan*

 

 

"keep in mind we has said that first-hand knowledge o activities and serious scholarship may improve writing where author uses details to makes more evocative."

 

 "we never claimed that josh or some other poster argued specifically that reality should be a goal"

 

"but again we feels the need to repeat as it keeps getting lost by folks with short attentions spans or those who is intentional obtuse. we is not arguing against research and first-hand knowledge. personal experience may add to flavor o' writing. sadly, some writers/developers get lost in the details, particularly if they genuine believe in the "super-duper" importance of such details."

 

etc.

 

half such responses is directed at you, so am not knowing why you is being so darn obtuse.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

[Sarex]

Hmmm, I expect that I didn't make my joke very well then.

I was making a joke on the old line when getting students interested in writing they should please themselves - this is writing as recreation (not on selling to the market in which case, as Tale mentions above you need to understand the market and what it wants) and the idea that if you're writing something for yourself and you're expecting the audience to be dumb, you're expecting you to be dumb.

 

It was a joke that apparently fell flat on its face and I apologize.

 

That went completely over my head. I apologize for my comments.

[Amentep]

Yeah I did a bad job on it, apparently. Sorry again.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

And the straw man argument of the year award goes to... never mind, I can't choose.

 

Yourself? Sounds like it from your long winded and straw man argument.

 

 

We really need to get away from this idea of "realism for realism's sake"; in fact, this is one of the most common rhetorical tricks that I see those with an agenda against realism use.  

 

So I have an agenda and using rhetorical tricks? That's a classic case of misrepresentation and the usual straw man tactics of people who can't debate the issue.

 

Keep up the straw man tactics and long winded posts with no substance mcmanusaur.

 

Now that's just petulant, immature ad hominem. Your assertion that my argument constitutes a straw man has no weight given that you apparently can't be bothered to identify what the offending aspects are. We all have an agenda, so I didn't mean anything particularly nefarious by that. Are you denying the fact that you're arguing against "realism for realism's sake" when there's no one arguing for it? Because I'm calling that a rhetorical trick, and your cry of misrepresentation is a rather transparent defense. I'm sorry that you're not able to glean the substance from my "long-winded" posts, but I assure you that it's there.

 

 

 

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.