Sir Saladin
Count
Well Jarskull, I agree. I don't even play those magic spell games anymore.
Realism in suggestion threads
- Thread starter Talon68
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Count
Seems like i'm joining this discussion a bit late... But in response to the OP, not only were you arrogant in your approach, but entirely incorrect. I've carried on the realism debate at least a dozen times...but here goes again. Certain things in games are better when kept realistic, such as physics (i think 99% of all gamers share this view). However, gameplay issues are always up for debate on whats better, and Talon...don't be an ass because you have a different opinion. Think man, think...what would you do in most games if you weren't sent on missions(quests)? Especially if things were kept entirely realistic. Oh yeah, thats right...planting and gathering wheat or processing it into flour at the local mill. Or spending several days organizing a party to fight a tiny skirmish, then dying and having your character deleted. Dang...that sounds like a blast! I'll admit, AE fire arrows are a bit over the top, along with bazooka wielding flying turtles (got a laugh out of that one) and magic potions...but come on! Its a game, and no game made today can EVER come even remotely close to real life. Debating about what period a particular piece of armor or weapon in the game is from and then suggesting its removel because its out of place is silly. What i think M&B strives for is an authentic feel, not total realism. That being said i can't see a single reason why you shouldn't be able to recruit prisoners. How exactly is having them join you for a single battle and having it be situation specific at that even fun? If you want proof of what i mean, go mod the game to add friendly fire with melee weapons and watch my point prove itself...
Elias_Maluco
Regular
I agree with DaLagga. Realism is important and I like M&B becouse its realistic. But I also like it becouse its incredibly fun. A lot of stuff in the game could be done in a more realistic way that would probably kill all the fun.
DaLagga said:
Yeah, I'm sure you'd be hopping eager to join the hated enemy if they took you prisoner...
Ships had mutinies even with volunteer crews, and armies had desertion even with volunteer troops. And unless you significantly outnumber a motley crew, controlling them is going to be a headache.
You are completely correct Kissaki. However, you just summed up my entire arguement in your last sentence with the word "headache". Which is exactly what it would be if implemented the way you suggest. Ever tried playing Superpower 2? Or Master of Orion 3? Those games bombed because there was just too much micromanagement/tiny unimportant and boring things to waste time on.
That point makes just as much sense as what i said about melee weapons having friendly fire. You think it would add to the game? Screw realism, the question is, would it be fun? I'm not trying to be overly harsh, its just that i wish people would stop proposing ideas with nothign but realism in mind. IMO you should first ask yourself "would this addition make the game more fun?" then "would it be out of place/affect balance?" and finally a distant last "is it realistic". So if you want to have to quell uprisings among your group and manage an in depth morale system because you think its fun, then great! I dissagree...but hey, its your idea and i respect it. But don't propose something just because its realistic.
DaLagga said:
I like the friendly fire thing, it adds to the chaos of the battlefield. I just wish you could accidentally strike your own men with melée weapons as well, but that's just me. And no, personally I don't think it would be fun to recruit from my former foes. I like to play thinking of NPCs as people, and not just binary commodities. To me, realism is fun (to a point, of course - I don't want to have to worry about infections, gangreene, snow blindness and the like). Recruiting from one's own prisoners is, to me, pushing it.
Talon68
Recruit
I believe that one of the main things this game has to do in the near future is to involve the player more. I'm not talking about storyline, for this removes the point of a free-roaming RPG. What I mean is involve in the conflict more. I mean, an example: What was said earlier about walking up to many different groups and engaging them in battle. Of course this wouldn't happen, unless y9ou are a bandit, which this game doesn't leave room for at them moment. What I think is that (NOT a class system) you should be able to choose your path. Currently you have Veagirs, Swadians and neutral that you can do, and no in between, nothing outside. You could be, in reality, an informant for the Vaegirs whilst maintaining a cover in the swadians. Perhaps the player should fight for a cause, not just to kill an infinite number of the enemy and advance their levels.
One thing about war is that they all end, and that people do not spawn to fight for their country. What I would reccomend is to ask that players can fight for a cause, not just to grow levels and get loot. The loot does definitely need to be redesigned, and the amount of money you get from people. Instead of collecting bags and bags of crap froma battlefield, one could simply cut the purses from dead bodies to get their gold. Things like this, think what you would have done in real life.
All of you saying, "don't just suggest on the basis of realism, what would be fun," think about what you want to do. there are plenty of games that have game-like mechanics that allow for a controlled environment in which to play, whereby the player has set things to do (such as quests) and cannot deviate from this path. Why not think of the small things in the game that will make it worthwhile to play. Things like sieges (which I am sure will be put into the game) would absolutely rock, but think about how this would happen and what effect it would have on the rest of the world.
Perhaps you will have sieged a main recruiting base of the enemy, and this could stop them from having as many people in their armies. Perhaps you could actually turn the tide of the war, even end it with your band of merry men.
After this, who knows. Perhaps it may be an idea for you to have to help in controlling these new cities in your empire. Uprisings and attacks from other lands could happen. All sorts of things, from invasions from distant lands where war is an art, or just living a simple life of thieving or making people pay your toll to cross a bridge. Think of what the player could want and make it possible. I think we should conduct a survey of what people want in this game and submit it to Armagan so he can know what his paying consumers want from their hard earnt $12 that we all paid for this game
One thing about war is that they all end, and that people do not spawn to fight for their country. What I would reccomend is to ask that players can fight for a cause, not just to grow levels and get loot. The loot does definitely need to be redesigned, and the amount of money you get from people. Instead of collecting bags and bags of crap froma battlefield, one could simply cut the purses from dead bodies to get their gold. Things like this, think what you would have done in real life.
All of you saying, "don't just suggest on the basis of realism, what would be fun," think about what you want to do. there are plenty of games that have game-like mechanics that allow for a controlled environment in which to play, whereby the player has set things to do (such as quests) and cannot deviate from this path. Why not think of the small things in the game that will make it worthwhile to play. Things like sieges (which I am sure will be put into the game) would absolutely rock, but think about how this would happen and what effect it would have on the rest of the world.
Perhaps you will have sieged a main recruiting base of the enemy, and this could stop them from having as many people in their armies. Perhaps you could actually turn the tide of the war, even end it with your band of merry men.
After this, who knows. Perhaps it may be an idea for you to have to help in controlling these new cities in your empire. Uprisings and attacks from other lands could happen. All sorts of things, from invasions from distant lands where war is an art, or just living a simple life of thieving or making people pay your toll to cross a bridge. Think of what the player could want and make it possible. I think we should conduct a survey of what people want in this game and submit it to Armagan so he can know what his paying consumers want from their hard earnt $12 that we all paid for this game
Well, first off there have been several polls taken on what people want to see most. Now, you really missunderstand me when i say that realism is a poor basis for a suggestion. If you think that when i say that i prefer fun ideas that i mean linear games where you get locked into quests in a linear progression, you are mistaken. I've posted some of my ideas in the past, and many others have had similar thoughts, but here's how i think the map should work basically. All cities should have a population number, that grows and shrinks depending on a number of factors, all towns should also have an attackable city garrison and be capturable. Now, for the most part i don't think sieges are really possible, the best we can hope for is having a bunch of defenders spawn in a castle and the attackers outside...and maybe a gate with a fixed number of HP to destroy. Don't expect catapults or destructable walls, as i'd be very shocked if these were added. There should also be several smaller villages placed around the map, each providing some benefit to the surrounding town (see knights of honor), all attackable. Armies should not spawn randomly, but be produced in towns based on its population, morale, production, food, etc. In as sense, the world map shoudl resemble something like civilization in a way. If you're a vaegir, you can capture swadian cities turn them vaegir and vice versa. If you're bandit/independant you can raid them to loot gold/resources. So as you can see, i'm all for a freeform non-linear world to play in, with a purpose created by the player. But having optional quests and an optional story would NOT have to interfere with this at all. If a story was included, it could be handled morrowind style, where you don't have to start it or even finish it ifyou don't want too. Or maybe Freelancer style, where you get to play the open game after the stories completion. In any case, my point is that stating that gameplay is above realism does not limit my imagination or creativity in the least bit.
