-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
"More realism equals better game" is FALLACY - Change my mind
- Thread starter FBohler
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Didn't you end this discussion with your old thread?
Let the battle begin.
Let the battle begin.
Obviously boredom reigns supreme here. This is just about as worthwhile a thread as dual-wielding and magic potions. Good job and thank you for your contribution to this community.
Next!
Next!
Bjorn The Baker said:
Roccoflipside said:
Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
Good input so far, guys.
I'm sure FBholer will now completely reconsider his position on this issue, as will anyone who agrees with him.
I, for one, love realism where it benefits gameplay, especially as it can aid in immersion. But it's a game, not a reality simulator. Realism for realism's sake is worthless.
fadohacolu said:Bjorn The Baker said:
Roccoflipside said:
Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
Good input so far, guys.
I'm sure FBholer will now completely reconsider his position on this issue, as will anyone who agrees with him.
I, for one, love realism where it benefits gameplay, especially as it can aid in immersion. But it's a game, not a reality simulator. Realism for realism's sake is worthless.
You're right, none of these replies are helpful. I can only explain my actions, but I feel that these replies were based on the fact that we have had pages long discussions across many threads with various minutiae being talked about and at this point we know that no one will change either side's mind. I actually agree with you, no one is actually asking for super-realism simulator, but I believe part of the draw of M&B is it's basis in historical and realistic ideas. Factions have ties to real life historical cultures, and the combat, aesthetics, and diplomacy/npc interactions reflect real life historical time periods, so there is a certain level of "realism"* to be expected.
*Realism expressly not being "plagues where your character dies, having to take a piss or ****, dying from minor wounds in battle, etc."
Edit: Check out Lolbash's tag under his name. That was earned in the great Fun>Realism wars of the 2018's.
578 said:
It depends on which game you are playing. I consider these fun for KCD but sure this kind of micromanagement for Bannerlord would not be fun for me.
I don't think anyone is actually claiming what the title proposes.
Most games are realistic to some degree because that synergizes with our experiences/knowledge of life. I.e. some level of realism helps our overall immersion and raises accessability () because the gameplay makes sense to us. (Get hit by weapon -> receive damage. Go under water -> Drown. No food -> Starve) There are some notable exceptions, certainly, but a deep disconnect from reality is rare (and hard to achieve in a fun manner). What is much more common is the use of abstraction suitable for a given game (think survival vs. grand strategy), which doesn't necessarily make it less realistic.
It may be that the discussion is not so much realism vs. fun but level of detail vs. scope of gameplay.
Most games are realistic to some degree because that synergizes with our experiences/knowledge of life. I.e. some level of realism helps our overall immersion and raises accessability (
) because the gameplay makes sense to us. (Get hit by weapon -> receive damage. Go under water -> Drown. No food -> Starve) There are some notable exceptions, certainly, but a deep disconnect from reality is rare (and hard to achieve in a fun manner). What is much more common is the use of abstraction suitable for a given game (think survival vs. grand strategy), which doesn't necessarily make it less realistic.It may be that the discussion is not so much realism vs. fun but level of detail vs. scope of gameplay.
Why are fans endlessly moaning about graphics? Total immersion is impossible without suspension of disbelief. We all want to see assets and scenes that reinforce our dreams. For that to work in a medieval context, they must conform to our expectations or they break our experience. However, everyone is different. An expert in archery in real life will find it hard to ignore the compromise grip & arrow position used by M&B ( https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,381762.0.html ). While a fan of fantasy has no problem with flying dragons, magic, impractical weapons and armour. Taleworlds have to make an impossible compromise to carry as many of us with them as possible. For most fans whose understanding of history is based on video games and Hollywood films TW will get the balance right. For others whose interest in the game comes from a deeper interest in medieval or military history this becomes more problematic. The ignorant don’t know what they are missing so they don’t care and dismiss other people’s points of view. The informed want features that may be impossible to incorporate or may make the game tedious for others. So who’s right? Technically, no one, making this thread pointless.
More realism doesn't make a better game, better realism does. M&B is delivering a very special, gritty, magicless fantasy of being a brutish warlord using the chaos as a ladder. Some forms of realism support this fantasy, such as weapons, armor, being able to devastate the countryside,etc. Other forms of realism would not, such as most casualties being caused by starvation or disease or you only being able to campaign in the short window between planting and harvest.
I'm a history buff, so I say the best kind of realism is the educational kind. Things that make you consider and understand history, even though you're playing a fantasy game. I don't mind stuff that's technically wrong but makes the game more entertaining, like the aforementioned huge amounts of arrows for archers or the exploding firebombs that we saw the defenders use in that one siege video. All that is just nitpicking.
I'm a history buff, so I say the best kind of realism is the educational kind. Things that make you consider and understand history, even though you're playing a fantasy game. I don't mind stuff that's technically wrong but makes the game more entertaining, like the aforementioned huge amounts of arrows for archers or the exploding firebombs that we saw the defenders use in that one siege video. All that is just nitpicking.
Easy enough: the statement in your thread title is an opinion, which has no truth value and thus cannot be fallacious. In other words, the perceived quality of a game is subjective and cannot be quantified across all players, so there is no universal "better" or "worse." With that out of the way, your PS is meaningless and only serves to preemptively demean & dismiss any opinion you disagree with. That's hardly constructive.FBohler said:
Here's an alternative: creating troll threads is against the rules. Change my mind.
So we're clear, we have threads for all kinds of things where the desired degree of realism is openly debated. You don't need to grandstand with your own thread. Locked.
- Status
Similar threads
