Fantasy vs. fiction and why it matters.

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I made this post over on Steam, but have been locked out of discussing it because Steam puts weird limits on daily posts and I got attacked on about six fronts. Maybe I can carry on a more lengthy - and hopefully more constructive - conversation about it over here.

I see this more on Steam than over here, but at least occasionally everywhere, I see the argument made that "it's fantasy, so who cares if..." in regards to x or y concern. For instance, the degree to which cavalry can often just ignore the density of formations it charges into, or the fact that there are people who want us to reliably be able to kill 27 looters with 27 arrows before they can engage us in melee, as we did in Warband. Really, almost anytime someone argues for realism in game balance, there'll be one or two people who say "It's fantasy, stfu with your realism."

Here's where I'd like to educate folks (and possibly even myself, with regards to what TaleWorlds is trying to achieve, maybe I'm off base) on the matter of the fantasy genre versus fantasy as a general-use noun. By the latter use of the word, all video games are fantasy. Full stop. None of what we're playing is actually happening, and therefore it's a fantasy by definition.

However the media term is quite different.

Fantasy is a genre of speculative fiction set in a fictional universe, often inspired by real world myth and folklore. Its roots are in oral traditions, which then became fantasy literature and drama. From the twentieth century it has expanded further into various media, including film, television, graphic novels, manga and video games.

Fantasy is distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the absence of scientific or macabre themes respectively, though these genres overlap. In popular culture, the fantasy genre predominantly features settings of a medieval nature. In its broadest sense, however, fantasy consists of works by many writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians from ancient myths and legends to many recent and popular works.

Most fantasy uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting. Magic and magical creatures are common in many of these worlds.

An identifying trait of fantasy is the author's use of narrative elements that do not have to rely on history or nature to be coherent.[1] This differs from realistic fiction in that realistic fiction has to attend to the history and natural laws of reality, where fantasy does not. In writing fantasy the author creates characters, situations, and settings that are not possible in reality.

In that regard, Mount and Blade isn't fantasy at all. The "pretend" part of Mount and Blade's setting, lore, and so forth categorizes it as fiction, not fantasy. In media terms, fantasy is a genre of fiction. All fantasy is fiction, but not all fiction is fantasy. Am I making sense?

More accurately, Mount and Blade classifies as realistic fiction. The places aren't real. The events aren't real. The history isn't real. Yet everything conforms to plausibility. It draws from real world history to inform its lore, and it seeks to obey the natural laws of reality. It isn't fantasy.

"But Michael," I hear some of you say. "Being able to break open the gates of a castle with melee weapons in 10 seconds is totally fantasy."

This sort of thought is exactly why it's important that we separate the two. Something like that should, perhaps, not be possible. Now obviously, concessions need to be made to prevent the game from becoming a slog. That's a game designer's job on a project like this; to decide where and when to distort reality for the sake of playability. Some things simply can't be overly realistic. We can't afford to wait months to go from one end of the map to the other. There is, after all, a difference between intentionally suspending disbelief and making something work unrealistically by accident.

However, when it comes to the core of the gameplay - the battlefield - I believe we should want the developers to strive for as much realism as possible without making the game just ridiculously difficult or stripping all the fun out of it. This is why we're playing Bannerlord and not Bladestorm or Dynasty Warriors. We're here for a believable experience. They've built us a believable setting. If we simply handwave every unrealistic implementation of a mechanic with "Oh, it's fantasy," we're doing a disservice to that wonderfully crafted setting.

 

[Lord Militant]

I would say it depends on what sort of fantasy setting and what sort of gaming experience is desired.

If a "low fantasy" or "realistic fiction" experience is what is sought, then the game should adhere to the physics and other natural laws of the real world as much as possible. This seems to be what Bannerlord is intended to be, so in that case I agree with you that cavalry should not be able to ignore the density of infantry formations -- in order to give a more realistic feel, and to allow for better suspension of disbelief/immersion. To ignore these things would mean that the world Bannerlord takes place in does not obey the same laws of physics etc. that we do on earth ... in which case there should be more differences, and if it is good fiction, there will be a plausible/setting consistent explanation as to why those laws don't apply.

In fantasy fiction, any rules can be broken. The question is, should they? And the answer to that question will depend on what sort of world you want to story to take place in and why you want to break that rule. Plus how reasonable is the explanation for why that law of nature doesn't apply. That's not a matter of whether it's fantasy or not, in my view, but whether it's good fantasy and how immersive it can be (for my money, chopping down a castle gate with an axe with no reasonable explanation -- like a super powerful magic axe that is consistent with the world's magic levels -- ruins my ability to suspend disbelief and smacks of poor or lazy storytelling).

All that said, this game in in early release/beta format, so some things may not be realistic because the kinks haven't been worked out yet. So I am NOT levelling any criticism at the game itself right now ... just discussing the philosophical point put forward.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

All that said, this game in in early release/beta format, so some things may not be realistic because the kinks haven't been worked out yet. So I am NOT levelling any criticism at the game itself right now ... just discussing the philosophical point put forward.

Absolutely, me neither. I'm only raising the point to make sure we all have a common idea of how the game should work out the kinks, since they're partially relying on our feedback on that front.

 

[Turbofjes]

I agree several things could be more realistic. Unit collision is one of them. It's most visible when horses cut through a mass of footsoldiers, but applies to footsoldiers in relation to each other too. Warband was on point in this regard IMO. Breaking down the gate with melee weapons quicker than the ram can do it, I'm a bit conflicted about. Do we really want it to take as long as it realistically would?

Speaking of rams though, where are the walls? Archers are slaughtering the ram operators because noone thought of protecting them from the sides, apparently. And spears should break/get stuck, especially on horseback.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I agree several things could be more realistic. Unit collision is one of them. It's most visible when horses cut through a mass of footsoldiers, but applies to footsoldiers in relation to each other too. Warband was on point in this regard IMO. Breaking down the gate with melee weapons quicker than the ram can do it, I'm a bit conflicted about. Do we really want it to take as long as it realistically would?

Speaking of rams though, where are the walls? Archers are slaughtering the ram operators because noone thought of protecting them from the sides, apparently. And spears should break/get stuck, especially on horseback.

You mentioned two things I'd love to see: A chance for lances to break, and the ability to spend extra time to construct a more fortified ram!

 

[eddiemccandless]

I made this post over on Steam, but have been locked out of discussing it because Steam puts weird limits on daily posts and I got attacked on about six fronts. Maybe I can carry on a more lengthy - and hopefully more constructive - conversation about it over here.

I see this more on Steam than over here, but at least occasionally everywhere, I see the argument made that "it's fantasy, so who cares if..." in regards to x or y concern. For instance, the degree to which cavalry can often just ignore the density of formations it charges into, or the fact that there are people who want us to reliably be able to kill 27 looters with 27 arrows before they can engage us in melee, as we did in Warband. Really, almost anytime someone argues for realism in game balance, there'll be one or two people who say "It's fantasy, stfu with your realism."

Here's where I'd like to educate folks (and possibly even myself, with regards to what TaleWorlds is trying to achieve, maybe I'm off base) on the matter of the fantasy genre versus fantasy as a general-use noun. By the latter use of the word, all video games are fantasy. Full stop. None of what we're playing is actually happening, and therefore it's a fantasy by definition.

However the media term is quite different.

In that regard, Mount and Blade isn't fantasy at all. The "pretend" part of Mount and Blade's setting, lore, and so forth categorizes it as fiction, not fantasy. In media terms, fantasy is a genre of fiction. All fantasy is fiction, but not all fiction is fantasy. Am I making sense?

More accurately, Mount and Blade classifies as realistic fiction. The places aren't real. The events aren't real. The history isn't real. Yet everything conforms to plausibility. It draws from real world history to inform its lore, and it seeks to obey the natural laws of reality. It isn't fantasy.

"But Michael," I hear some of you say. "Being able to break open the gates of a castle with melee weapons in 10 seconds is totally fantasy."

This sort of thought is exactly why it's important that we separate the two. Something like that should, perhaps, not be possible. Now obviously, concessions need to be made to prevent the game from becoming a slog. That's a game designer's job on a project like this; to decide where and when to distort reality for the sake of playability. Some things simply can't be overly realistic. We can't afford to wait months to go from one end of the map to the other. There is, after all, a difference between intentionally suspending disbelief and making something work unrealistically by accident.

However, when it comes to the core of the gameplay - the battlefield - I believe we should want the developers to strive for as much realism as possible without making the game just ridiculously difficult or stripping all the fun out of it. This is why we're playing Bannerlord and not Bladestorm or Dynasty Warriors. We're here for a believable experience. They've built us a believable setting. If we simply handwave every unrealistic implementation of a mechanic with "Oh, it's fantasy," we're doing a disservice to that wonderfully crafted setting.

There's plenty of things in this game that are not plausible at all, yet vital for enjoyment of the game. For example, I am running a caravan and I get the money that it makes instantly added to my finances. How are they sending that gold, wire transfer? If we were to stick to realism I should have to meet with the caravan and get the money from them in person, or they should have to leave it somewhere for me to pick up.

Another point, I remember someone praising the fact that you could not see your weapon when swinging because "that is how it would be in the real world and it makes it realistic". Well, perhaps, but in the real world I would be able to know when my arm is by feeling it (the technical term is proprioception). You obviously can not have that in game. Where is realism taking us then?

I am always concerned when someone brings up realism as the most important feature. It is not, gameplay and enjoyment should always come first. There are limits to how much of the former you can have without butchering the latter.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

There's plenty of things in this game that are not plausible at all, yet vital for enjoyment of the game. For example, I am running a caravan and I get the money that it makes instantly added to my finances. How are they sending that gold, wire transfer? If we were to stick to realism I should have to meet with the caravan and get the money from them in person, or they should have to leave it somewhere for me to pick up.

Another point, I remember someone praising the fact that you could not see your weapon when swinging because "that is how it would be in the real world and it makes it realistic". Well, perhaps, but in the real world I would be able to know when my arm is by feeling it (the technical term is proprioception). You obviously can not have that in game. Where is realism taking us then?

I am always concerned when someone brings up realism as the most important feature. It is not, gameplay and enjoyment should always come first. There are limits to how much of the former you can have without butchering the latter.

All fine points. As I said, I don't expect us to stick 100% to realism. Concessions need to be made for the sake of making the game, well, a game. Nor would I call it the most important aspect. But matters like the ones you mentioned are more mechanical than setting-oriented. The money from your caravan generates automatically, but the caravan isn't teleporting around. It's traveling across the map and exposing itself to threats, the same as any party. Lack of realism, to me, would be if the caravan just popped from city to city when they could absolutely do it the way they're doing it now.

In another theoretical example, suppose swordfights were kept more to their fantasy tropes. Rather than riposting and sidestepping to avoid danger, we relied on dramatic sword lock animations and contests of strength to see who could push whose sword back into their throat first. It might be a fun system if implement properly, and certainly dramatic. But wouldn't you agree that the lack of realism would be sufficient to sort of "take you out of" Calradia in that moment? This is more the sort of thing I mean. Being cautious of the overtly fantastical purely because it's a video game.

 

[Bandit Queen Meddy]

I'd love to be able to build a more fortified ram as said above, or extra cover in general for the advance on the walls. Also, it would be great for Lords to bring their own food for their men in an army instead of having me end up divvying my stocks out after the first few days. One would think they would plan for an extended campaign.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I'd love to be able to build a more fortified ram as said above, or extra cover in general for the advance on the walls. Also, it would be great for Lords to bring their own food for their men in an army instead of having me end up divvying my stocks out after the first few days. One would think they would plan for an extended campaign.

Agreed, though I'm hopeful they'll do that in the future. I know earlier dev blogs mentioned foraging parties, which I've yet to see, so I'm hopeful they're holding out on us for food-related features just now.

 

[Ken_Udigit]

Not much to add, just want to say I agree, and this logic applies to a lot of things, including other games, shows, and movies.

I hate when people use "this is just a video game" or "it's not real" as arguments to justify things. With that kind of logic, you could justify anything, no matter how stupid or nonsensical it is.

The whole point of is to be believable and make sense (even in fantasy) in order to draw you into the story/world, off course with video games you also need to take gameplay into account and make it enjoyable to play, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give a crap about anything else.

 

[eddiemccandless]

All fine points. As I said, I don't expect us to stick 100% to realism. Concessions need to be made for the sake of making the game, well, a game. Nor would I call it the most important aspect. But matters like the ones you mentioned are more mechanical than setting-oriented. The money from your caravan generates automatically, but the caravan isn't teleporting around. It's traveling across the map and exposing itself to threats, the same as any party. Lack of realism, to me, would be if the caravan just popped from city to city when they could absolutely do it the way they're doing it now.

In another theoretical example, suppose swordfights were kept more to their fantasy tropes. Rather than riposting and sidestepping to avoid danger, we relied on dramatic sword lock animations and contests of strength to see who could push whose sword back into their throat first. It might be a fun system if implement properly, and certainly dramatic. But wouldn't you agree that the lack of realism would be sufficient to sort of "take you out of" Calradia in that moment? This is more the sort of thing I mean. Being cautious of the overtly fantastical purely because it's a video game.

Well yes, I can definitely agree with that. As in most things, balance and finding a right middle way is key.

Man I am turning into a moderate. I suppose I am officially old now.

 

[xthefreemason]

There's plenty of things in this game that are not plausible at all, yet vital for enjoyment of the game. For example, I am running a caravan and I get the money that it makes instantly added to my finances. How are they sending that gold, wire transfer? If we were to stick to realism I should have to meet with the caravan and get the money from them in person, or they should have to leave it somewhere for me to pick up.

Another point, I remember someone praising the fact that you could not see your weapon when swinging because "that is how it would be in the real world and it makes it realistic". Well, perhaps, but in the real world I would be able to know when my arm is by feeling it (the technical term is proprioception). You obviously can not have that in game. Where is realism taking us then?

I am always concerned when someone brings up realism as the most important feature. It is not, gameplay and enjoyment should always come first. There are limits to how much of the former you can have without butchering the latter.

To be fair, on the money point, they're basically abstracting a truth here which is that barter and credit were effectively common in the medieval period anyway; you would certainly not be paying for everything at the point of purchase. In certain parts of the world letters of credit were common for nobility.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

Well yes, I can definitely agree with that. As in most things, balance and finding a right middle way is key.

Man I am turning into a moderate. I suppose I am officially old now.

Haha, happens to the best of us!

 

[Wehveechen]

At this point, I am wary whenever someone says realism. I feel many people use realism as an excuse for other points (gatekeeping for the sake of it being just one aspect). Ultimately, when people say "it would be realistic if armies collided and horses did not glide through enemy formations" or "it would be realistic if we could build stronger battering rams", what people essentially ask for is always a mirror of what they expect to be able to do.
Interestingly, many of the points raised here eg. collision, battering rams, money - they never even occurred to me in the 70 hours Steam says I got. If I don't expect to actually have realistic physics that force me to consider where I am putting my cavalry, of course it won't strike me as unrealistic that we can slice through like butter. If I expect to be able to commission specific items in a workshop, like the glaive I cannot seem to find anywhere, then of course it will seem unrealistic that I, a noble with more money than I can count, can't pay someone to make one. Or that my children don't spawn in my territories. (The examples are bad because nothing struck me as unrealistic enough to be bothered by it.)

Whatever "breaks" our immersion as unrealistic is, in reality, whatever is discordant with our expectations and beliefs. Hence why some people barely notice issues that others just cannot accept, while noticing things most players do not really even give a second thought (where. are. my. children?) apart from a "huh. weird." without feeling like it genuinely impacts their experience. That's why some other games rarely get a "no thats unrealistic, why would you do that" simply because they approach with another set of expectations.

tl:dr: realism is often whatever we expect and whatever is in tune with what we believe. Not always, but in many cases.

 

[Ichon]

You mentioned two things I'd love to see: A chance for lances to break, and the ability to spend extra time to construct a more fortified ram!

+1 and +1 Not only lances- the weapon tiers should matter more than whatever purpose they serve now.

tl:dr: realism is often whatever we expect and whatever is in tune with what we believe. Not always, but in many cases.

This is an important point- the people who play M&B will rarely be in agreement on more than half of what is "realistic" and that is being generous.