Things missing in Medieval-Fantasy games (dirt, sewage, tanneries,…)

Apart from the artistical question if we even want more "dirt" in our games, it's also a more mundane question of complexity and effort.
Lets take the example with a marketplace, where there could or should be more stuff on the ground, including, but not limited to dirt. That's not easy.

I many years ago had a talk with a 3D artist who said that's it's a simple thing to make a scene, e.g. a set coffe table with a cloth, some cups, a pot, and a fruit bowl.
But now if you want to add a drop of coffe that's sliding down the pot, a coffee stain on the cloth, a small crack in a cup, and some dark spots on the not-so-fresh fruit, it get's complex.

I guess it's similar for "dirt in a medieval world" in general.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I remember the sewers in The Witcher and TW3 looking pretty much like I'd expect a sewer to look minus actual turds in the water. I think the devs have better things to do than render turds.

Now hiring: 3D Artist and Turd designer

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Now hiring: 3D Artist and Turd designer

I'm cooking up a model for you right now

Wonder what Andy Serkis' going rate will be for turds?

I even find it quite annoying when films/shows do medieval settings and don't include things you expect to see in those environments. And when the sets look way too clean, and the actors as well. Takes me completely out of the setting every time.

The latest Bard'sTale reincarnation is the only game that looks *really* dirty on the surface - I mean the surface of the town in the beginning.

Plus, it is the only game I know of in which alcohol really plays a role within the party.

Originally Posted by Hastar
Kingdom Come: Deliverance was pretty muddy and gritty looking. I also liked that you had to wash up and clean your clothes in it. Could have even been grittier with sewage and animal hides.

This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind when I read the title of this thread. KCD is the best depiction of what was actually medieval life I have ever seen in a game. Cleanliness is a part of it. When you want to influence noblemen, negociate prices, or court women, you better be clean!

Originally Posted by vanedor
This is exactly the first thing that came to my mind when I read the title of this thread. KCD is the best depiction of what was actually medieval life I have ever seen in a game. Cleanliness is a part of it. When you want to influence noblemen, negociate prices, or court women, you better be clean!

Does KCD have any fantasy elements though?

If the title is "things missing in medieval fantasy games", then why would you immediately think of KCD?

I'm genuinely curious as I haven't played it, but I thought the whole deal with that game was that it wasn't a fantasy game?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Does KCD have any fantasy elements though?

If the title is "things missing in medieval fantasy games", then why would you immediately think of KCD?

I'm genuinely curious as I haven't played it, but I thought the whole deal with that game was that it wasn't a fantasy game?

It's not fantasy, but the depiction of dirt is what he's vanedor is referring to.

lackblogger is a true master of splitting hairs.

Kingdom come doesn't really have many fantasy elements per se, and that's what drew me to it, in a large part. I eschew finger-wagglers for the most part in game unless they're absolutely required, and this game plays that right up to the hilt.

Originally Posted by Pladio
It's not fantasy, but the depiction of dirt is what he's vanedor is referring to.

Un-huh. But it's surely no surprise that a non-fantasy game would have more realism and less fantasy?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
If the title is "things missing in medieval fantasy games", then why would you immediately think of KCD?

I'm genuinely curious as I haven't played it, but I thought the whole deal with that game was that it wasn't a fantasy game?

Because Fantasy games usually depict a medieval world? (with a few extra, yes).

But honestly, anyone who hasn't tried that game should play it. The story is gripping, the world feels so alive and realistic. Combats are challenging but when you get the hang of it, they are pretty fun.

Added bonus : You learn a lot concerning the medieval history of the Czech Republic which I knew little about and is pretty interesting. It's different from the english or french medieval history I read more often about.

Originally Posted by JDR13
lackblogger is a true master of splitting hairs.

I don't see how it's splitting hairs.

The thread is asking why fantasy games don't have more realism.

When the answer is surely… because they're fantasy?

A regular cRPG does have a Body Odour mechanic, it's called the Charisma stat. If the game goes for 'realism' like KCD, then what you've done is converted the static Charisma stat into a variable timer bar, similar to a food bar or stamina meter.

Originally Posted by vanedor
Because Fantasy games usually depict a medieval world? (with a few extra, yes).

Well, kinda and kinda not. A lot will depend on the quality of the devs.

It's more akin to a medieval knight being transported to alternate dimensions than them being specifically set in a medieval world.

It's like, your home base is a comfort zone, a pre-modernity fireplace and hearty beer etc, that you get extracted from and go to all kinds of different environments.

References to to any real world items or structures or what have you are merely comfort tools so that the player doesn't feel completely alienated when they're fighting a mimic in a lava pit with acid spray.

A bit like with futuristic cRPGs where everyone is still using guns for some unknown reason, or laser guns, or whatever, when, in the future, in reality, they'd probably have devices that immediately immobilise living things or mechanical incarnations with the touch of a remote button. It has to have elements that ground the player in something understandable and relatable while it shoots them across the galaxy.

None of it is meant to be 'realism' in a sense of historical accuracy, quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Well, kinda and kinda not. A lot will depend on the quality of the devs.

It's more akin to a medieval knight being transported to alternate dimensions than them being specifically set in a medieval world.

It's like, your home base is a comfort zone, a pre-modernity fireplace and hearty beer etc, that you get extracted from and go to all kinds of different environments.

References to to any real world items or structures or what have you are merely comfort tools so that the player doesn't feel completely alienated when they're fighting a mimic in a lava pit with acid spray.

A bit like with futuristic cRPGs where everyone is still using guns for some unknown reason, or laser guns, or whatever, when, in the future, in reality, they'd probably have devices that immediately immobilise living things or mechanical incarnations with the touch of a remote button. It has to have elements that ground the player in something understandable and relatable while it shoots them across the galaxy.

None of it is meant to be 'realism' in a sense of historical accuracy, quite the opposite.

It's not about historical accuracy per sé but about creating a realisitc living world. Even in fantasy settings you would have what would count as realism within the setting.

Greedfall for example has magic, yet they do not have teleportation in the game world, so they need to use ships to travel from one area to the next. As such, it is not such a strange question to ask about "realism" in fantasy settings. In this case, the question is about dirt, or sewage or other visual elements which should be realistic in those settings or games.

In other words, if the game setting has cows to eat, there should be a butchers with cows hanging and potentially some intestines on the floor, etc. You could say it's all magicked away, but then you're missing the point.

Because you could say that about everything then. Well, where is this crazy villain ? I'll just magick him here and kill him with a bolt of lightning - THE END.

Originally Posted by Pladio
Greedfall for example

I'm afraid I've never played that one. *shrug*.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
I don't see how it's splitting hairs.

The thread is asking why fantasy games don't have more realism.

When the answer is surely… because they're fantasy?

I don't think the answer is that simple. Being fantasy doesn't mean such details wouldn't be worthwhile or appreciated.

I think what Morrandir mentioned has a lot to do with it. Making things look dirty in a convincing manner is probably a lot more work than we realize.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think the answer is that simple. Being fantasy doesn't mean such details wouldn't be worthwhile or appreciated.

I think what Morrandir mentioned has a lot to do with it. Making things look dirty in a convincing manner is probably a lot more work than we realize.

Well, that would probably explain a game where there was an intention for realism in the first place. Yes, I guess we hope the devs spend their time on stuff more meaningful to gameplay, if time is limited.

However, in most cases wouldn't it be an intentional design choice to avoid realism?

Take King's Bounty: The Legend:



Who on earth would play that game and take from it "Gee, I wish this game had more medieval realism!" ?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
However, in most cases wouldn't it be an intentional design choice to avoid realism?

It depends on the game. For something like King's Bounty, where the clean and cartoony aesthetic is a major part of its style, yes, that's obviously a design choice.

But I think realism in the context of adding to immersion is what's being meant here… not realism just for the sake of being more realistic.

So when something is supposed to look dirty, like the sewers in a first/third person game, I can understand how it might add to the immersion if they looked more like how we imagined them to.