INERTIA and better physics

[GaGrin]

Well I agree with Radnik's suggestions (and have avoided the last page of pointless debate).

Its all very well saying that gameplay trumps reality (and I would have to agree with you), but its a very black and white way of looking at things.

The horses in Mount and Blade are, I assume, supposed to be representative of real horses in the real world.  Its not unreasonable to see things as not working the way they should if a horse does something very unhorse-like. Like riding into trees. Or off practically vertical cliffs. Or... you get the picture I'm sure.

The reason people bring up the arguement of realism is because the gameworld is pretending to act like the real world. If you see something you regonise you assume certain behaviours from it. Swords cut, bows shoot. If things are different from what you expect, people react - especially when there is no apparent reason for the difference.

I can only point people to Argo in Shadow of the Colossus. That was to me (someone with no personal experience of horses, but a respect for the fact they are different from vehicles in nearly ever imaginable way) perfect. You guide the horse, you don't steer it.

Now admittedly sony had a team of artists and animators working on a grand total of 19 creatures for that game - and i daresay a few exculsively on the horse.  But adding some soft of horse ai - or simply a kind of obstacle recognition so the horse will turn to avoid trees and boulders without explicit player input, would help to make them seem less like fragile motorcycles.

Now shadow of the colossus was not a realistic game. But it felt like it could have been real, because things acted the way you expected them to - the only thing that broke immersion for me in that entire game was falling 60ft and losing less than half my health. I wouldn't have done that if i was making the game, but I know the exact reasoning for that choice and its a very good example of gameplay over realism.

Having stupid horses isn't. Its work and technical capability over the game - which is perfectly valid, but its also totally different.

And taking between 1 and 3 steps to slow down seems about right to me - depending on slope, terrain and speed of course.

Editted: To make grammatical sense

 

[Vaelicus]

thank you for support.
i think that:
If horses are going to crash against things as they do now, then they should crash in a real way.
if horses are going to stop suddenly from full speed to full stop, then i sugest to move properlly as a real horse does.
and so on...
and the behaviour of the rider in a crash (jumping over the heads horse or not), as you said, should depend of the rider's skill, but it should be a option, specially because the horses crash continuously in the game, and if the game is not fully realistic, almost the game should seems to be it. (or then make the horses and riders smarters)

there should be a realism configuration, with more options like these, so each player could configure the game as he wants

the most options the game had, the most atractive will be the game for most people (correct? )

the other point is that the Realism in battles is what makes M&B atractive for me (and make this game revolutionary), in others aspects this is a mediocre game or almost not exceptional (by now)
potentially is the best game is ever seen, but there is a thin line between mediocre and incredible, and details play a real strong point on it.
if talewords don't exploit those factors sure that another company, probably stronger will do it.

As i said in other thread, "speculation turns reality once tested" realism used in a proper way haven't to be bad for playability.
my ideas are clear for me: "Better AI" and "more realism to the game"
that is the core and the idea of this thread (as i understand it), before the useless discussion started.