This keeps coming up and while at first I thought of it as being used appropriately. People strictly arguing for realism while others reminded the players that this game is nto about realism. However the more I read the mroe I notice people start using "This is not meant to be realistic" as more of a "I don't have anything to say" rather than something important. Example Argument.(I will use artillary) "We should make artillery able to fire at high angles and hit very far, this would allow for a more realistic feel to it while allowing Artillery to be less vulnerable." first reply "It is not about realism" Simply put, It seems that rather then commenting on the possible overpoweredness of the new artillary (if that was implemented) they simply wrote the entire thing off opposing realism rather than thinking of the other things mentioned. I am nto tyring to start some heated arguement with people (regardless of the title =D) and if it determined that this be locked or obliterated that is fine I just wanted to put forward that I think we should read into what is being said and not oppose realism simply because it is, which seems to be the case. Also I am not supporting realism for the sake of realism in the game by any means, only that the statement should be used more carefully and not simply because realism is there. I hope this whole thing makes sense to people. Also please post your thoughts on this (in a happy rainbow filled manner) I would like to read them =D.
Realism is necessary to make it make sense, if you didn't want realism then we'd have BE rifles shooting bunnies and mines nourishing the troops with cookie nutrients, find problems witht he suggestion, not with it's realism, and just stop saying realism, it's not necessary unless someone suggests realistic bullet physics or bunny rifles.
Lol kind fo what I was saying. If the word realistic or real, or realism appears in a suggestion it is pretty easy to find somewhere in the first 2 pages say "This game was not meant to be realistic" regardless of the topic. That is where the frustration comes from really. I would just like to see people read the suggestion portion of it and decide if it fits the Empires universe or if it doesn't. if it doesn't cite why not, if it does cite why it does.
I really don't mind realism, but I do care when things become excessively unrealistic. e.g. Vehicles that go faster than rockets.
Vehicles going faster then rockets has never really bothered me. I assume you mean 3 phase jeeps outrunning missile turrets. It is more entertaining than anything. However It would be nice to see missiles fired from said turrets faster but with worse guidance.
I think consistency is more important than realism. Its ok to have rifles that shoot bunnies as long as your entire mod is based around such ideas (think RocketCrowbar's scientist shotgun). However, throwing a bunny rifle into the existing game would just be silly.
Well yes that does explain it best I think. but in a game like thsi.. REALISM HAPPENS!!! Dun Dun Dunnnnn More importantly though, I just realized there are a few more copy and paste arguments I didn't notice before.. ARGGG
The problem is when lack of realism has a negative effect on gameplay. For example, 3-phase jeeps outrunning missile turrets encourages people to make more 3-phase jeeps.
if this game wasn't meant to be realistic to some degree then we might as well just shoot gum popsicles and rainbows out of our fingertips, and everyone would look like pink mathematical shapes floating in a sea of green goo with flower patterns everywhere, not limited by a commander in charge but rather driven by unconditional free love for everyone! the problem is more finding the "amount" of realism desired for a great game
The game is required to obey videogame conventions to a degree, but other than that I see no reason for 'realism' to be a factor.
I have to agree with simon. If a real tank was hit with a missile or a HE shell, it probably wouldn't be moving. It would probably be heavily damaged at the very least. We don't do that in Empires. And there's a reason. It's no fun.
never mix realism with immersion. Team Fortress 2 isn't real, but it's certainly immersive. all the gameplay and classes fit with the scenario, and you believe you're there. so empires doesn't have to be "realistic" by making it "like today", but immersion is very important for me. I don't want to feel like i'm sat in front of a monitor. i want to be in the middle of a warzone. gameplay comes first, but shouldn't sacrifice immersion. immersion shouldn't sacrifice gameplay.
well realism depends uppon which world you set your game in. empires is not set on earth. ( at this time at least) so you have to look at what is realistic for that world. so logically there are only a few things you have to follow all the time. the laws of physics. for example. they control the entire universe so for a game to break them you have to give a logical explanation why ( a because its awesome argument actually suffices for some games to the breaking of physical laws) . also realism in the conventional sense only exists in games set in the present and past. you cant have a realistic future it hasn't happened yet. ergo you have nothing to compare its realisticness to. to make a game have immersion you have to have coherency and logic. those two alone will give you a good game if you apply your gamplay to it. but the 3rd factor to make any game seem like your there is tapping in to human survival instinct. very few games ( talking about fps/action games if you havent figured that out yet but some of the better rts's can do it aswell) do it, see condemed for a good example of survival instinct tappage, once a game makes you want to survive rather than just rack up kills it will start to shine. and thats all really the realismists and the nonrealismists want but its the internet so they fight over it.
It's fun to watch brenodian repair crews at work on escort, second flag, it's just fun to watch the activity away from the fight, where tanks are getting repaired and rearmed, but I think I'm just crazy
For example, fragment grenades can explode 3 meters away from you without hurting you. None of the shrapnells hit you, pure luck, happens in real life. If you do that in a video game that insinuate people that it is realistic they would feel cheated "because a grenade is a deadly weapon bla bla" realsim =/ what people believe is realistic
That's what somebody answered to one of my suggestions. My problem is that such arguments are coming all the time. It seams that many people think that realism is something bad which must be avoided. I totally agree that there are much more important things than realism and sometimes realism MUST suffer to make the game better... but generally REALISM IS GOOD and if there aren't any important disadvantages, things should be done to make it more realistic.
This is basically how I see it. The game doesn't have to be realistic, but it should be as logical as possible -- when you shoot a gun at someone, they should die instead of getting stronger; when you step on a mine it should explode instead of acting as a springboard; etc, etc, etc. But usually, when people shoot down an idea as 'too focused on realism', what they mean is that it's an idea that serves no purpose but to satisfy a desire for realism. It's all right to try and make things more intuitive, but if your sole reason for a suggestion is realism, it probably isn't a suggestion worth implementing.
