RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - Realism in CRPGs
View Single Post


September 21st, 2013, 16:47
Originally Posted by Ihaterpg View Post
Do you really think that the strongest immersion is generated by the higher realism?
You're taking my statements and try to quantify them, but that's not really what I said. I said that the parts of a game that have obvious realism tend to make players go on; btw, this isn't really congruent with the term immersion, because immersion has nothing to do with the quality of the gameplay. At any rate, I never said "moar realism = better".

It's not true arguing, but it's what I noticed from my gameplay. When I played too long games sessions it was never because of the suspension of disbelief mechanism and realism level, but more because of competition, or action capture, or problem solving concentration. To temper I'd say that there's perhaps rather different categories of gamers and it's perhaps linked with RPG players that roleplay and identify to the character and RPG players that control and watch a character, I'm in second category.
The question is: why do you feel competitive about a game? Are games with a semblance of realism thrown in more likely to evoke competition than games that are entirely abstract? I guess so. There's a reason why many succesful shooters feature soldiers as protagonists.

The problem with realism isn't that it's a pointless element in games, it's that it is too over-evaluated. There's three elements: [LIST][*]The suspension of disbelief isn't purely link to higher realism, it's a subjective element that requires a strong cooperation from the player or reader.

I mean suspension of disbelief is important but it doesn't involves better realism to work.
I'd say that's wrong. The very fact that you have disbelief in players stems from the lack of realism, starting with the fact that you're playing a game, which is the point mentioned above (that no game can claim to be entirely realistic). Therefore, we can assume that the more realism you feed a player via the game, the more likely he will believe in the events as they unfold. Or IOW, if you have a world with realistic physics where realistic mammals act in a way that's psychologically plausible, the less suspension of disbelief the player has to actively come up with.

Higher realism put more focus on all the work around realism and remove the focus on gameplay design and adds a lot of difficulty and constraints to gemaplay design. This tends make games less deep and less fun.
I'm not going to argue what's fun and what isn't, but depth is hardly a result of simply being unrealistic. There's a whole genre of fiction out there that dwells on imaginary people or events, but isn't fantasy.
Of course you limit your options in game design if you strive for realism, but the market doesn't seem to favor one over the other. People are usually content to not to be able to fly when they're playing a human character; in fact, they may see this as a plus.

Higher realism skyrocket budgets costs by increasing constantly the amount of details. This tends make games smaller or with with much more fillers, and less deep.
This would imply that there is only one kind of realism, which isn't true. There are varying degrees of it. To what degree realism is suited to your game, and your budget, may vary. It certainly doesn't cost more to develop a game where plate armor is stronger than leather armor rather than the other way round.

The problem is that immersion doesn't make a game and that realism involves a lot of very strong design constraints. My bet is many game genres lost a lot of gameplay depth and diversity because of a higher ambient barrier of the acceptable level of realism for an acceptable suspension of disbelief level.
As I said above, the problem here isn't realism in itself. Food mechanics are realistic, and they are cheap to implement, and they can add more depth to a game, but they are hardly ever seen in games.




Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)