Realism or Arcade

[Rend]

I completely disagree that removing the crosshair for archery would make it more realistic.
Like Recel said, the point of having a crosshair is for it to serve as a reference point when you aim. Real life bows naturally provides a reference point that you aim with. You dont just shoot blindly from the hip.

The crosshair is a good way to implement a reference point without it cluttering the screen etc.

It's the same with 1st vs 3rd person view.
IRL your vision is much wider than what you have on a computer screen in 1st person view. 3rd person view gives you split vision and a much better feel for your surroundings, where your body is etc.
Because your monitor is quite a limited tool for showing a virtual reality, you need theese kind of UI reference points to get a realistic feeling of your character.
Same with hp bar etc.

IMO the feeling is more important than looks, as far as realism goes.

 

[omzdog]

So you would say that a crosshair (thats what I was thinking of!!) is more realistic then looking down the sight?

Additionally, when you wear a full helmet or even one which covers the cheek a majority of your peripherals are taken. Most players wear helmets so its completely unrealistic to be in 3rd person with a helmet, that makes little sense and plays into the arcade style.

I would agree that the monitor doesn't allow for a good peripheral sense and there is little we can do about that. But if you wear a visually hindering helmet, the vision should be impaired severely.

 

[nanotaz]

Im not quite understanding the difference you are trying to make between a "sight" and the current "crosshair", unless you are referring to when the reticle does not completely close when shooting a more powerful bow at low weapon proficiency?
I own a modern recurve bow with a sight and ignoring the physical requirements of drawing and holding, there isnt much to it other than lining up the sight on the target, which is really no different than placing a crosshair on the target. So Im not quite sure what you are trying to get at here.
In terms of older ranged weapons without sights, the archer learns to sight off some other point (such as the arrow head) and compensate according to the range and pull of the bow. Since the character you are playing as presumably has several years of experience with their weapons, they would know how to sight the bow properly and hence a "crosshair" still makes sense

 

[Sour Cream and Onion]

Not only that. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play archer, wearing a helmet.
I'd say about half the people playing archer now would stop.(And there are only so many archers ingame)

 

[Archonsod]

Again, I think people have simply grown accustomed to having the cursor, but it doesn't give the true essence of archery. Its simply just point and click with a cursor.

If I wanted the "true essence" of archery, I'd go out and practice archery. I don't, because I find the prospect about as appealing as immersing my testicles in hot lava.

As I said before, if you want realism then have half of all players joining a server die on spawn due to dysentry. If not, then you're not arguing for realism, simply different abstraction models, and as usual the only thing that becomes apparent when reading these sorts of things is that while people might think they know a lot about history or reality, they know **** all about game design. Removing the crosshair is not realistic in the slightest, nothing you do to the interface will enhance realism, because people don't see the world through a 2D monitor, nor is the world actually composed of individual phosphorent blocks with dodgy clipping detection and a fixed FoV. It will however make ranged weapons far less fun, far more confusing and far less accessible to the average gamer, and as a result detract from the game as a whole.

 

[omzdog]

appealing as immersing my testicles in hot lava.

... 

I'm getting a lot of heat for making such a suggestion as expected, but this is coming from people who are comfortable with the current form of combat and aren't willing to try a form which puts the skill on the player instead of automatic know-how from the avatar. The point is not that it will not be fun or that less players will play because it would be difficult, its the emersion into true medieval combat. I'm not trying to force players to play in such a way or for servers to conform to such combat settings. Simply asking devs to consider making Warband a very realistic game instead of focusing on its (very fun) arcade aspects. I'm asking them to remember the true essence of medieval combat not simply just a simple game with easy going archery with crosshairs and no need to actually aim a bow.

Additionally, its not a concept of frustration because that would imply that the game is made easy already. If you don a helmet which covers the head (ie great helmet) your vision should really be impaired. Lets say you then pick up a xbow and you can see the whole plain? That makes no sense what-so-ever.

I understand that some of the parameters of having this as a game prevent us from true reality, but we shouldn't be scared to approach that direction. If anything, we should spearhead right into it.

 

[Viper_22b]

Omzdog, you suggest the option of having the actual weapon's sights replace the crosshair, yet you want to keep 3rd person view? Can I ask how you see the combination of the two working?

I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you could possibly give the player an effective 3rd person reference point that doesn't amount to basically a crosshair.

More fundamentally, I find it a little odd that you're happy for the developers to provide a 3rd person view as a gameplay substitute for real-life spatial awareness regarding your body, but refuse to accept a crosshair as a gameplay substitute for real-life spatial awareness regarding your aim when using a bow.

Surely you have to come down on one side of the line or the other?

 

[omzdog]

Very true. And I had noticed that it would not be possible to have both 3rd person and looking down the sight when posting earlier. The only problem I have with 1st person is that it does not give enough peripherals. If the devs increased the angle both horizontally and vertically, I would have no problem with it. As it is, I'd keep 3rd person. That is why I said that. Additionally, 3rd person makes up for the lose of senses.

However, realistically speaking, 1st person is much more realistic. If I were to truly back my statements I would definitely need to say that 3rd person would be removed. I don't like the bobble head that 1st person gives however. For the most part, objects don't move as much when you move your head side to side. So like I said, with the current system it would be difficult to implement complete realistic aspects. They could definitely still change that however.

 

[FDEL]

Good games?
As in what makes a game good is the number of players it holds?
I doubt it. Perhaps you can quantify it that way, but a good game is one which achieves artistic goal.
Art is short for artifice and has roots in the human emulation of reality. A game is simply a manifestation of physics. So a good game will do this properly.

Art can be defined in a million ways. I personally believe good and true art to be down to earth and practical things that can be appreciated by the masses. The number of people who can appreciate a piece of art is a large factor on how good that piece of art is.

A game is not simply a manifestation of physics. A game does not have to adhere to real-world physics in order to be a good game. There's nothing wrong or inferior with people's willing suspension of disbelief if it results in enjoyment. A game is defined by an environment, a set of rules, and possibly a goal. There are many different kinds of games and enjoyed in many different ways. Saying "A game is a manifestation of physics" is a horribly narrow definition. Heck, how do you critique Tetris then? A bad game because the blocks fall at constant velocity?

That aside, I'm up for more realistic fighting as long as the end results in more fun. Real life is not the best of all possible worlds, so any "realism" implements that results in a less enjoyable experience is to be avoided. As for archery without crosshair... I'd imagine an easy workaround is to figure out where on the monitor the would-be crosshair is located, and put a sticker there every time you play M&B. So, unless the mechanics change drastically (e.g. random camera shifts or something), you can't force people to play without crosshair. However, I don't see a problem with an option for turning the crosshair off for people who don't want it. Does such an option already exist?

(Aside) If you've got money to spend, you can always buy one of those curved monitors or go for an eyefinity setup for first person with peripheral view. I heard they work pretty nicely with M&B.

 

[Gorath]

I'm getting a lot of heat for making such a suggestion as expected, but this is coming from people who are comfortable with the current form of combat and aren't willing to try a form which puts the skill on the player instead of automatic know-how from the avatar.

You'll come to expect and accept this from the majority here.  Any time something is hard or a proposed idea is suggested that would make the game more skill intensive then the flames will come shooting forth like the gates of hell were thrown open.  Some people just like things simple and without high learning curves.

 

[doomsayer]

It's impossible to visualize the trajectory of a weapon realistically with computer graphics. If a archery reticule is disabled for everyone, that would make the archery unrealistically useless. There's always the option for people to turn it off if they want, it shouldn't be forced.

I soon started using the bow without crosshairs in the original M&B, for greater immersion and also because the crosshairs obscure things sometimes, and quite quickly became adept. After a while in Warband, I ditched the crosshairs for the crossbow as well, and am pretty good with it. I can hold my own with either weapon, though undoubtedly my aim is less reliable sometimes, but also I don't have the problem of crosshairs occasionally obscuring things that I want to see and the game feels much better.

I feel the same way as Omzdog about realism and the direction I would like M&B games to go in.

Same for me.
I've not gotten used to crossbows (they  should have a "ironsight" 1st person view imo), but with bows I'm usually able to get a positive K without crosshair. For assessing arrow drop the crosshair is not needed, since you can quickly learn to use the bow as reference.
The only situations where I miss a crosshair is for mid-/longrange "sniper shots" ... bad idea anyway when shooting into a melee since arrow speed is slow enough for your teammate to run in. Or when hiding behind corners aiming in 3rd person already to jump out with a headshot on the way ... talk about lame.

 

[omzdog]

@FDEL
Tetris is an interpretation of physics in its own right. Note interpretation. In the Tetris manner of things, solid blocks fall at constant rate. Its simply a manifestation (perhaps interpretation is a better word) of physics as we know it. Things don't usually just randomly happen in games without rhythm or reason which is what makes a good game. Tetris is a good game because blocks won't just randomly transform or fall upwards or do random bull**** that players won't understand. Similarly MnB looks to simulate Medieval combat. If we would like the game to be better at simulation, then why not make it a model of Earthly physics, implying of course that the game would need to become more realistic.

@Gorath
Yes indeed. I can agree that a reduced learning curve should be offered for the masses. But for the few who actually want the game to look and feel like a simulation combat why not develop in the ways I'm talking about, you know?

 

[Archonsod]

The point is not that it will not be fun or that less players will play because it would be difficult, its the emersion into true medieval combat.

The problem you have is that the number of players who want to be immersed in medieval combat is in the minority. People play the game for all kinds of reasons, there are even those who forego combat altogether and play it purely as a Patrician style trading game.

I'm not trying to force players to play in such a way or for servers to conform to such combat settings. Simply asking devs to consider making Warband a very realistic game instead of focusing on its (very fun) arcade aspects. I'm asking them to remember the true essence of medieval combat not simply just a simple game with easy going archery with crosshairs and no need to actually aim a bow.

If you go into the options screen now you can deactivate your crosshair, so if all you personally want is a more immersive experience then it's already in there. If on the other hand you want the crosshair removed from the game entirely, then yes, you are forcing players to play in the way you're asking, which funnily enough is going to result in a sod off response from most players who quite like the way they play now.

I understand that some of the parameters of having this as a game prevent us from true reality, but we shouldn't be scared to approach that direction. If anything, we should spearhead right into it.

Why? The vast majority of players really couldn't give a flying **** if archery does not conform to a realistic model. They're not looking for an archery sim, they're looking for a game which is sufficiently different from the current crop of shooters to be interesting while retaining the core concepts to be understandable.
Key note there is "simulation" rather than "game". You could theoretically code a much better simulation of medieval combat, but only by losing the game, or the "fun" element. While there is likely a market for such things, there's a reason you never see fishing sims topping the gaming charts; the vast majority of people simply do not find them appealing.

Things don't usually just randomly happen in games without rhythm or reason which is what makes a good game.

Depends entirely on the game. In fact, I would point to the output of Icepick Lodge for example and suggest that you can make an equally good game if you deprive the player of reason. In fact, some games can be far more effective when you let the player's own imagination fill in the blanks. See virtually every game released in the eighties, when we didn't have time or space for full blown worlds

But for the few who actually want the game to look and feel like a simulation combat why not develop in the ways I'm talking about, you know?

For the few who want a theological government, why not implement one?

Generally, a game becomes successful by appealing to the masses, not the few.

 

[FDEL]

@FDEL
Tetris is an interpretation of physics in its own right. Note interpretation. In the Tetris manner of things, solid blocks fall at constant rate. Its simply a manifestation (perhaps interpretation is a better word) of physics as we know it. Things don't usually just randomly happen in games without rhythm or reason which is what makes a good game. Tetris is a good game because blocks won't just randomly transform or fall upwards or do random bull**** that players won't understand. Similarly MnB looks to simulate Medieval combat. If we would like the game to be better at simulation, then why not make it a model of Earthly physics, implying of course that the game would need to become more realistic.

Did Taleworlds state anywhere that M&B is intended to be a medieval combat simulator? If so, then an argument can be made that if TW said the game is something, and it is not, then the game should be changed to fulfill the claim in order to avoid dishonesty. However, it would then put into question whether TW should've made the claim in the first place, for realism does not always make for a better game.

If Taleworlds never made such a claim, then naturally the game should develop towards providing a more enjoyable experience for as many people as possible. Aiming for realism often makes a game more fun, but not always, and fun should come before realism. This is all I'm saying, and it's my answer to your "Realism or Arcade." (You said in your OP that Arcade = fun). There's a reason why video games rarely made you go to an in-game toilet every once in a while, after all.

Tell me, why should a game be realistic? The only reason I can think of is that it might be more fun if it is realistic. Suppose that every instance of realism in video games made the said video game more tedius, boring, and a pain to play, and that the more realistic a video game is, the less enjoyable it is. Under such circumstances, would there be any good reason to opt for realism? If so, what are they? If not, then doesn't this show that the value in video game realism mostly comes from the enjoyment it adds?

 

[omzdog]

For the last time Arch, I'm not asking to force realism on all the players. I never said that. In fact I want their to be arcade aspects to it all. But I would equivocally ask the devs to consider making a better realistic version of the game. Quite arguing if your just going to bring mute points for the simple and ignorant sake of arguing with your rolled eyed smilie and 'Patrician style trading game' example.

I think a lot of people, being a good majority of forumites, would appreciate a very realistic version of WB instead of the arcade that we see in Multi.

FDEL,
I'm not asking for the small tedious things like going to the bathroom for realism. I'm asking for greater player control instead of automatic reliance and intuition. Distance the game from simple point and click. Obviously, when you give the example of an extremity it won't sound appealing at all.

 

[FDEL]

I'm not asking for the small tedious things like going to the bathroom for realism. I'm asking for greater player control instead of automatic reliance and intuition. Distance the game from simple point and click. Obviously, when you give the example of an extremity it won't sound appealing at all.

It seems to me that either you want to opt for full realism, or some realism. My question is, where do you draw the line? What will influence your decision for wanting crosshairless archery and yet rejecting a bladder system?

Their "Appeal" to you? So ultimately fun is the deciding factor, right?

I'm starting to think that we're not really in disagreement, just that you worded your OP a little inaccurately.
It's not really "realism or fun" but rather "some realism is fun so let's have a more realistic game." Either that or "Immersion vs Number-crunching"

 

[Archonsod]

For the last time Arch, I'm not asking to force realism on all the players. I never said that.

So removing the crosshair would not in any way be forcing realism on the players? Have you thought that one through?

I think a lot of people, being a good majority of forumites, would appreciate a very realistic version of WB instead of the arcade that we see in Multi.

There's only around four people who constantly go on about it outside of yourself. Out of 77,000 members. Do you perhaps work for the Iranian electoral commission?

Hell, there's umpteen threads on people wanting the crosshair removed ever since the beta, and in every single one you got around six pages of people calling them idiots. That's not what I'd generally call popular support. Like I said, if you want to play without crosshairs the option is there and nobody is going to stop you from using it. The rest of us happen to like them.

 

[omzdog]

Again this is classic Archonsod denaturing the argument of others. I would never force the crosshair to be completely removed, nor would I force any aspect of realism on the community, but I believe more people than you think would appreciate a more realistic Warband instead of one that is engineered for arcade style play.

 

[ProjectAngel]

If they made it any more "realistic" it would be unplayable.

 

[Night Ninja]

There's only around four people who constantly go on about it outside of yourself. Out of 77,000 members. Do you perhaps work for the Iranian electoral commission?

Omzdog, you may be misinterpreting Archonsod's points.

Realism in a game shouldn't come at the cost of fun or playability, it should enhance it. Removing the crosshair, to put it bluntly, is an imbecilic move. As many other posters have stated, there's no real way to aim your weapon in-game. Even in first person, judging the arc of the projectile is a massive pain because of the way it's represented. If you remove the crosshair you might as well get the archers to play the medieval adaptation of Battleships.

Additionally, any game is by necessity an abstraction. It's less of a scale of accuracy and more of a scale of inaccuracy: something is either accurate or it isn't, but you can get fairly close to accuracy by using game mechanics that preserve the aspects that you want from reality.

You'll come to expect and accept this from the majority here.  Any time something is hard or a proposed idea is suggested that would make the game more skill intensive then the flames will come shooting forth like the gates of hell were thrown open.  Some people just like things simple and without high learning curves.

How exactly does conflating 'skill intensive' and 'excessively twitchy' help your little campaign to defend the fastest speed setting?