Realism in these primitive video games.

Do you agree with my opinions?

  • I agree with most of them, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I agree with some, about half maybe.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I disagree with the majority of your statements.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I completely disagree with everything you said.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

Obviously you need to read this before you vote. If you disagree, please state your reasons. Now, it is my belief that even the most modern games with the latest graphics and effects are still VERY primitive when compared to real life, or even compared to what games will be like in 15-20 years. Lets face it, no matter how a game looks today it does not even begin to look or play like real life. Characters look like a smattering of polygons, no matter how well done they may be, terrain looks fake and often times patternish. Objects pass through other objects as though they aren't even there (walk up to a wall on just about any game with a weapon out and watch the tip of it go through the wall, just one of a million examples that could be used). On almost any game an uber rocket launcher or cannon cannot even scratch a blade of grass, much less a wall (and those few that do have fully destructible environments are poorly done and looking nothing as it would in real life). And a final point is how scripted so many events are, from enemies spawning to walls being destoryable (EA games for example play like a movie by using a million scripted events, and are thus exactly the same each time you play them). So...all that being said, games are nowhere near achieving real life realism, graphically or gameplay wise. If i were to rate a game based on how realistic it was, a 1 being space invaders, and a 1000 being real life, here's how most games would rank IMO.
Space Invaders--------1
Original Doom----------3
Doom 3-----------------6
Unreal Tournament----6
Halo---------------------6
Counterstrike----------12
Medal of Honor---------15
Rainbow 6--------------16
Brothers in Arms-------20
Real Life----------------1000
Just to a name few. This is just how realistic i believe games to be, and why i think gameplay is key because no game even comes close to true realism. Most of the reason why is because you know it is a game, and that if you die you simply respawn (there is no fear of death). Even a game like paintball (in real life) is nowhere near being similar to a real combat situation, because you know if you get hit you simply walk off he field...you don't lay their coughing up blood thinking of your family as everything becomes cold and dark. I recall someone stating not long ago that "realism is the ultimate balancer". Which i have to say is just simply not true in modern day video games. Now, i'll go even further to say that some features that are technically realistic do not always make the games themselves more realistic. One issue for example is friendly fire. I believe most games with FF are actually LESS realistic. This is because in real life you generally have some kind of battle plan, you know where your troops are, and coordinate some kind of attack. In a game, specifically online, what it basically is, is a big free for all, except you don't shoot people of your color (on your team). So what happens at the start of the round is, everyone runs to the best spot and/or gets the vehicles, and just charges out randomly by themselves to attack. Obviously, this leads to mass confusion and thus, tons of friendly fire. The only exception would be a VERY well organized clan match, and even then you don't have the same kind of perception on a game that you have in real life, so FFs still more likely to occur. Battlefield 2 is a good example. I could list other examples, but this post is long enough as is. So, unless we're in the holodeck on the enterprise, video games on a 2D screen will NEVER EVER be even remotely realistic. So all that trying to make them so does is add frustration and damage gameplay. Generally the people who prefer this type of style are those who actually think that they could do in real life what they do in games (yes...i've known several people like that, and yes...the DO prefer games that claim to be more realistic). Now, i don't want to see Mount and Blade with magic or healing potions, as i like the authentic feel of the game. I believe armagan is a very bright person, and that he realizes it would be foolish to attempt to make this game uber realistic. So unless armagan screwed up horribly (which i seriously doubt), this game is NOT intended to be a realistic sim. It is meant to be a fun and engaging game with an authentic feel possessing certain elements of realism, but with gameplay being the key.
Agree or disagree?
 
Agree with some, why, because as YOU said realism is a relative concept, I agree with what you said about Friendly Fire and Respawning/Fear of death, these things alone don't make a game more (or less) realistic, it can make the game more frustrating or more fun depending on a number of factors, but realism is an overall concept, not a set of two or three individual features.

You definition is correct, for the simple fact our interface is FAR from realistic games cannot be even 50% realistic, for instance, it will NEVER be realistic to "aim" a weapon with a mouse, that's not how it works, in real-life Rifle you usually use two arms, a bunch of muscles and joints, you look at the sight with one or two eyes open, may control your breathing, it's a process involving your entire body and you may be affected by ALOT of stuff, for instance, if you step in the wrong place and loose your balance it will be impossible to fire an accurate aimed shot, NO GAME affects your aim according to the enviroment, you can aim proning on top of pointy hard rocks that should be perfurating your torax or with your arms sinking in muddy ground or with a thick bush in your face which would be sticking in your eyes, none of this is simulated, aiming with a mouse involves only a handfull (get the joke?) of muscles, it doesn't matter how you breathe unless you are in a panic attack, you are comfortably sitting in a chair, the enviroment doesn't affect neither yourself nor your virtual avatar.

So, you are correct, unless we are in a holodeck, games will be unrealistic by many degrees.

So, the best games can do is "simulate", the points I mentioned and the points you mentioned can be simulated to some degree, but it will never match real-life with the current available technology.

However, some of the games you mentioned are not aimed towards realism, but pure gameplay and the elements you picked are there just to satisfy a few people who want to believe the game they are playing is "realistic", while it's not. And that's why I don't agree fully with you.

WWIIOL is a game geared towards realism simulation, Flight Simulator is a game geared towards realism, both of these games are MUCH more realistic than the games you listed, however, they are still far, far away from real-life, the difference is WWIIOL for instance simulates some stuff that Counter-Strike does not, for example:

Valuable limited supplies, every unit is worth it, when you loose something, depending on what you loose, it COULD affect the entire war! If an attack fails and 10 tanks are destroyed but the enemy counter-attacks with 10 of their own tanks you can get overwhelmed and loose a town! So keeping those tanks alive is IMPORTANT! You FEAR DEATH! But not enough, not as real-life, you can still respawn with no problem, no hard feelings, even if you are partially responsable for the loss of an FB or an entire town.

With the future system of TOE's and flexible ranks in WWIIOL this effect WILL be increased, the more you "waste" equipment the more battles you are probably going to loose due to short supplies and the less rank you will have to spawn the most valuable vehicles.

If you are a good player, if you kill stuff instead of getting killed without doing any damage, not only will you personally contribute to the victory, but you will also retain your rank and be able to always spawn the valuable stuff.

So this example is an attempt to simulate the value of life in a game, it is NOT ENOUGH! WWIIOL could be ALOT more realistic! But it is far, FAR more realistic than Battlefield 1942, Counter-Strike and other of those "Arcade" games.

So, I'd say Mount&Blade is a pretty realistic game, it's far from reality, but the fact it doesn't have instant healing potions, magic and other crap makes it a game much more realistic than, say, Diablo, for the lack of a better example.

In conclusion, I agree with your point, I agree a simple "realistic setting" doesn't necessarily make a game more realistic AT ALL, the very basic fundamental concept of the game will decide if it's realistic or not, it doesn't matter if it has friendly-fire or not, so for instance if we had Friendly Fire in M&B it wouldn't make the game more realistic, because we can only swing our weapons in a few ways, we would hit alot of our troops with FF while in Real Life we would have more control over our weapons and more ways to swing them without killing our friends. If you wanted to add FF to M&B first you would need a revamped interface to simulate the real brain of a warrior that wouldn't swing a weapon against a friendly unit just because his view is slightly to the wrong side (selecting the wrong swing).
 
Welcome to the forums McPa! Thankyou for your detailed response. I haven't played WW2OL, so i can't really comment on it, but it sounds interesting. It was not my intention to list the most realistic games out there, i just named a few popular/well known ones off the top of my head.
 
agree with you, ALTHOUGH i gotta say that Space Invaders is damn realistic. thats what an invasion from space would look like.
 
1. "Realism is the ultimate balancer." I don't know who said this, but I think you are dismissing it too quickly. Ranged weapons are horribly unbalanced in M&B because you never get tired or trip while sprinting backwards. If you didn't REALISTICALLY have to carry a limited supply of ammo, one man with a bow could kill an army, given enough time. Realism is the perfect method of balance because there are no loopholes in real life - entropy will always reign things in. How much better did FPS games get when reloading became standard, and then the arsenals started shrinking?

2. WE ARE REAL, and therefore realistic media experiences are more evocative for us. Does the glowing "ouchyness" in Soul Calibur ever make you cringe? Realism is the best way to get psychological and emotional satisfaction in a game. Did you not freak out the first time you were near a shell explosion in call of duty, you fell down, your vision blurred, and you went temporarily deaf? How awesome is that?

3.We have knowledge of real things, and we make interpretations and decisions based on our real-life knowledge. In M&B I am starving, and I know my horse is made of meat, so I slaughter it. Dude! All games involve some sort of strategy, and many of the most satisfying game experiences come from making decisions based on our personal real-life knowledge INSTEAD OF an artificial game-knowledge. This makes us feel more involved, makes the game more natural and intuitive. "What would I do if I were in his shoes?" can never happen in more abstract games.

But, I really think we should get away from this word, "realism" that so many people love to harp on. I think the two issues are historical accuracy and believability. Many game experiences derive their fun factor from an enjoyment of a given source material and -- forget White Wolf and Star Wars - history is THE source material. All games should decide how faithful they want to be, or at least how plausible they want to be. Certainly, Gettysburg is as valid a game as is backgammon.

I think the real issue is BELIEVABILITY. I enjoy a game more if I can accept what is going on. Even then, it's really a matter of consistency. It doesn't bother me that Link never stops to take a crap, but the game feels silly when nobody minds me robbing them blind. Generally, if we expect or want the game to react to our input in a certain way, and it does, that's a good thing.

"Realism" is a word tossed around much too often, usually very poorly defended, but it's not the bugaboo you make it out to be.
 
I see it silly of a person to think that we'll ever soon be able to completely recreate the universe and its intricate laws. Even today, I would put our knowledge of the universe at rudimentary. After all, we've only had "advanced" technology for about a century.

However, this doesn't mean that I believe that we should just give up and stop with our technological development altogether- we should keep pushing for what we want, and if realistic worlds-that-don't-really-exist (strawberry fields... nothing is real) are what we want, then we should go for it. Personally, I'm fine with just a spiffy physics engine like that of Half-life 2. What it all really comes down to is if a game is fun and the player is interested in the subject material.

Now to your paragraph- I agree with most of it, like most games can't mimic real life (and they shouldn't be expected to) and that Armagan shouldn't try and make this some ultra-realistic piece of **** that falls short by a mile. Though, bells and whistles are fun you crazy pantless fiend! Ahem, anyways- the only thing I don't agree with is that friendly fire makes things less realistic. Shooting at your teammate and seeing no effect goes against almost every physics law in the known universe not to mention that I hate games that give little freedom of what the player can do. In addition, I just like friendly fire because it's fun and very interesting scenarios play out- like I'll be my paranoid self and accidently cap a few of my buds in the face. Now that is funny and I love just the idea that those types of things can happen.
 
Actually who cares? The games are good or bad. The good game is a game which is a pleaseure to be played. Everyhting else is a bad game.
 
While I agree with the gist of what your saying, I disagree on a few points.

1. There are a number of realistic games out there. As a pilot, I can say that there are several Flight Simulators that are as close to actual flying as it is possible to get without actually being in a plane.
2. Gameplay does play a part in realism, but not necessarily in the way you intended. There are some ultra-realistic games out there, but they tend to become niche quite quickly. How much appeal would M&B have if, for example, you had to worry about going to the toilet or getting enough sleep?
3. In vietnam something like 3 out of every 5 American troops killed died from so called 'friendly fire'. Although the problem is more prevalent in modern times, when troops have literally less than a second to act. However, in medieval times friendly deaths were still caused, sometimes intentionally.
4. Realism = Balance is quite possible, although not with M&B's engine. Given the way we can now model physics, it is quite possible to give an arrow a weight, model the effect of wind etc. If armour is modelled in the same style then the only problem we have is that you cannot allow for the strength of the player on pulling the bow (without some form of new peripheral anyway). Unfortunately, since M&B lacks a true physics engine this isn't going to happen.
5. The final problem is that the game is set in the past. I can tell you with 100% certainty your not going to find any 100 year war veterans willing to impart their wisdom and expertise these days. To paraphrase my old history lecturer, we cannot say they didn't fight wars with pillows, we can only say we have no evidence to say they did.
 
Games exist, therefore they are real. Things that are real are realistic. :razz:

But on a serious note, this is a bit of an odd topic. It almost seems like, by the tone of your post, that you're mad perhaps? At "realistic" games? The fact that games will never be 100% realistic (or by your definitions there will never be a game that scores 1000) is obvious, because of the fact that they are games... games are designed as a distraction from reality.

Those games that strive to be realistic attempt to provide a way for someone to experience something that they otherwise couldn't. For example, any war games or FPS's give people the opportunity to get at least a glimpse of combat, without actually having to risk their lives. These games aim to model accurate physics and the inherent lethality of combat, but since shooting their clients is both illegal and bad for business they have to settle for killing digital avatars. And I think most clients are thankful for that.

And the machine provides a limit to how "realistic" a game can be. Often you cannot accurately blow up whatever you want just to have realistic particles fly all over the screen and realistic smoke form, moved by realistic winds controlled by realistic weather models influenced by realistic events on a realistic planet, simply because there are NO machines that could possibly run such a simulation. Perhaps with time (and yes, I see that you also implied this point in your post).

So, to summarize, I disagree with your ultimate point. I do see M&B as a realisitc simulation, limited simply by the constraints of the machine, which itself is in turn limited by reality. You mention that a key aspect of M&B is its gameplay, but keep in mind that it has one of the most accurate cavalry models in a video game (and of course "most accurate" does not imply 100% realistic), and it is this aspect that sells the game and keeps people interested (this point I can't prove, and I don't have a source, but I can attest it's true at least for myself and close friends).

Ultimately a game is not enjoyed because it is real, but rather because a user is willing to accept the game's reality, i.e. suspension of disbelief.
 
You sound like you just want to piss off everyone who thinks M&B is realistic, no offense. But it is, especially relative to all the other medieval games out there, which all have magic, or some lame crap like that.
 
First of all, thanks for starting a pool with, unlike mine, options being unbiased.


I disagree with the majority of statements.

I agree with comparison between current games and real life - nowhere close.

However, that does not mean that we should not strive to become more realistic. Currently, it is possible to make games more realistic than iit was 5 years ago and the progress goes on and on.

Eventualy, I would like to have M&B 7654987 where I can put on a helmet and my mind would be transfered to a battlefield. I can feel the weight of an armor on me and the sword in my hand. My horse will listen to my comands and I would see anxiety on my soldiers' faces. Here come the enemy. A bloody melee ensues and I thrust my sword through the eye opening of the enemie's helmet. When I withdraw the sword, I see his friend striking me with a mace. I block it with a shield and feel pain in the shield hand. I try to return the strike, but then I am couched by a lance. It comes in my side, goes through the chainmail and exots on atother side. My spine is crushed. In agonizing pain, I fall down, only able to scream. A friend runs to help me, but he is knocked down and I see him die. Then, I see a knife glittering in tha air and a second later it enters my throat. 5 seconds later, my mind returns is the real world and I say "wow :shock: "

By making the games more realistic, we will get there. A point by point, we can get to 1000. Yes, we have covered only a tiny fraction so far, but we are still moving forward and I do not see a reason why we should stop! In 100 , 1000 or 10000 years, we can get there!

Second, "realism" in games is relative. Compared to ral life, CS is unrealistic. Compared to doom, it is realistic.

Some of us would like more realistic, some of us like less. Since most of us, fortunately, live in capitalist societies, demand creates supply. Therefore, we will always have both gameplay-oriented and realism-oriented games.

As for M&B, it is way more realistic than most medieval games. It has already gone this way when healing potion and their equivalents were banned (which is a HUGE step). Realism gives M&B an edge over the mass-produced crap filling our markets. Why go back? The game is manageable for a player, different tactics can be used.

Infantry will be better once AI is improved and we can order our guys to get tight. Having a team of Swadian Sergeants, sharpshooters and dismounted Men-at-arms and myself unmounted, I have destroyed Vaegir Scout group (horsemen and knights) twice my size. We just stayed close and, once they came, chopped them to death.
 
with an improved AI, one can suppos that those pesky scout won't came piecmail to get salughtered, but either skirt your group with hit-and-run pases, or get in a tight pack of couched lances and play the party crashers to break your formation, then switch to one-handers to finsih the job. With the non-lancers playing wolfpack around, ready to pounce and trash anyone who gets alone.
 
Realism is not a balancer in games, it means you have game with a very small fanbase. Imagine walking into your local games store, picking up a game, reading the back, and see the following as "features."

-You have only one life in this game if you die, you must buy another copy.

-If you character is blinded, welcome to the worlds first and only "blind-man sim"

-Lose both arms, tough luck, better learn to shoot with your feet.

-Kill a friendly? Enjoy you 20 year real-time stay in prison, with options shower/soap minigames.

-Step on a mine? Enjoy the special olympics mini-games.

-Does realism suck? You can bet your sweet ass it does.

Would you buy it?
 
You forgot to mention that before character creation you have to wait 9 months. Your character is a newborn child that has a high chance of dying in the first year (crappy medieval medicine) and you will have to wait 18 years till you can leave your family and start playing. :lol:

Now, a serious reply:

We are talking about realism during a gameplay not actions in game transfered to yuor real life, though real life imprisonments for using hacks in Counter Strike would be cool :twisted:

We are talking about a game getting you in a pecific situation in a non-realistic way (heck, that situation exising in the first place makes a game "non-realistic!") and once you are in that situation, everything is real. So, getting hit in the eyes and being blinded should be the end of the game and a reason to load a savegame.
 
For true realism, logic dictates that you can't do the 'exit & reload' fix - either you keep going with the handicap or your start a new character (or maybe spends a ot of time/money/whatever to have a possible fix or mititgation of the problem).

Which would chase away all but the most hardcore gamers (and limit the game to those who have a natural knack at it or a patience bordering on masochism)

This would laso mean healing times countign in full days or weeks (maybe even month for serious injuries), a real chance of dying from infection no matter what, and that going after anything more than a few ennemies would almost automatically translate as a messy death.

Defintively not fun in my book.
 
Handel said:
The games are good or bad. The good game is a game which is a pleaseure to be played. Everyhting else is a bad game.

Actually, for me, a good game is more than just "fun". Let's compare it with a movie here:
Watching a mindless action flick is maybe fun, but I'd never ever consider such a movie a good one. For me, good movies are something that make me think, or more or less art. Or, to say it in other words: "The longer you don't move after the credits, the better the movie is. " That's what imo good movies are.

And it should be the very same in the computer game genre. Too bad that movies and games suffer from the same fate, but the movie genre had more time to get some good "art" movies out. All the creativeness has now vanished and we have Hollywood, bringing out one after the other product which is as mass-appealing as possible. Again, it's the very same with game products, the big companies have taken over the market, creating the same games over and over. Well, of course, this is not all they do. One should not forget they also put increasing numbers behind the game names.
 
I voted 'disagree'

The superstition that realism ruins gameplay, is being repeated over numerous gaming forums. You keep saying that too, but that's groundless.

First there's no general recipe for a game being playable. What you find fun, can be found plain boring by someone else, and vice versa.

Second - most people can't tell what's realistic and what not, and most important, they cant come into agreement what the game ralism really is.
For sure it is not an attempt to simulate the whole Universe - but it's adversaries often try to reduce it to an absurd.

The game realism is just a design approach, as opposed to designs based on other games (The game X has experience levels, so we gonna implement them too, somewhat modified maybe). The latter approach caused that many of today's game features is the legacy of tabletop or old computer games, which implemented them in order to overcome human, or computer limitations.
The realistic way is: hey, it works in real life like this, are there any reasons we should solve the problem differently?


You seem satisfied with games as they are - and that's fine! I got nothing against mindless hack and slashes. They are needed as there is the audience who wish to play them. But there's also audience who would like to play something more complex and realistic, so why are you trying to deny attempts to make realistic games? Play and let play, I'd say.

that's why I find your point invalid.

The way this particular game will go is only up to it's developers, it can be made somewhat niche, but briliant product (like OFP), or it can be dumbed down to target 'general' audience in hopes to sell more copies. It's gonna be their independent decision and deserve respect nevertheless. I only hope it will stand out against those thousands of crappy games out there.
 
I think the best a developer can do is make the game realistic enough that you can get immersed in the game. And not so realistic as to frustrate the gamer. This is a tricky line to traverse, especially since every gamer is different.

I think the developer of M&B is doing a rather good job on the combat side. Mind you, I don't fight people with lances on a horse on a daily basis (as in..never) but it feels right in M&B somehow. Like someone already mentioned Operation Flashpoint also had that special "realistic" vibe to it. It's extremely rare.
 
Back
Top Bottom