Realistic Features = Not Fun?

[Psycho]

So Gabe Newell was recently in a documentary about Half-Life and he said this about games: (Pretty much that games don't need to be realistic, and that realistic features aren't fun)
https://youtu.be/GvLZqbZpCEc?si=QeM3vdMf44IaivW8
I really agree with him, do you? For example, in RDR2 you have to eat and drink to maintain your weight, you have to bathe, you have to bathe and maintain your horse's weight... yeah it's all realistic, but it's not fun to do that stuff at all. It's more of a chore

[sfnhltb]

It depends on the game and what it is trying to do. For example in the early Rainbow Six games (not sure about the later more arcade style ones), if you had 4 magazines and you switched when one had 8 rounds left, if you later have switched 4 times as you work through a level you will get back to the one with 8 rounds left in it, rather than "off screen" your character is assumed to combine the remaining rounds into a single magazine (until you have too few left in total).

It seems appropriate to do it this way because the missions are intended to be quick and time sensitive so making it seem as if you are taking breaks between encounters within a level to do chores like that would break immersion, and it creates a different tactical choice of when to reload compared to other games where you just reload every time you have a couple of seconds to spare.

This way of managing ammo makes sense for that particular set of games, but would be annoying in other more action/arcade shooters, so the ideal level of realism depends on the game in question.

[Uncle Sam]

Highly depends in the type of game each person enjoys the most, survival games & simulators are fun imho, however same applies to wizards games & sci-fi games.

[Kargor]

Psycho a écrit :

So Gabe Newell was recently in a documentary about Half-Life and he said this about games: (Pretty much that games don't need to be realistic, and that realistic features aren't fun)

Yeah, I've never needed games to be realistic -- not in their looks, or their mechanics.

Movies, same.

TV-shows, same.

[Good Night Owl]

"realism" is always used as a defense for ♥♥♥♥♥♥ game mechanics. Both by fans of games, and the developers, and I roll my eyes every time. I don't think it's wrong to enjoy such mechanics, but "realism" is a shallow defense when someone says "Hey, this isn't very fun". You're better off reminding the person that it's all subjective, and in the eye of the beholder rather than trying to strong-arm them out of their POV with the "realistic" argument.

[Haruspex]

Gabe's fundamentally right. Fun > realism. However it's not 100% one or the other, and different people play for different reasons. Depending on the game, a little bit of realism can really help sell the illusion and up the immersion factor.

[Phirestar]

I think the issue that some games implement realism mechanics into a game that functions perfectly fine without then, and simply slaps it over top of the existing systems with no consideration for how it negatively impacts the rest of the experience.

Realism mechanics need to be added from the very start, as part of the foundation of the game’s design, and in order to function effectively they need to add to the other gameplay elements as much, or more, as they take away from them.

In your example, Red Dead is a game that’s about being a cowboy outlaw, going around and participating in shootouts, riding your horse across the open plains, and engaging in a deep and meaningful story. The problem with having hunger and hygiene mechanics is that they don’t contribute anything to the primary gameplay loop. Having to eat and bathe does not enhance the shootouts or the narrative, because it’s an entirely separate aspect of the game that exists independently of them. Unless you’re playing RDR2 explicitly as a “roam around in a realistic environment” experience, they offer nothing of value themselves to the main components of gameplay.

[kilésengati]

L1qu1dator a écrit :

Well as I've been saying: GabeN is a false prophet. :P

🚨🚨🚨 Heresy! 🚨🚨🚨 Apostates among us! 🚨🚨🚨 ;P

[Hammer Of Evil]

Psycho a écrit :

So Gabe Newell was recently in a documentary about Half-Life and he said this about games: (Pretty much that games don't need to be realistic, and that realistic features aren't fun)
https://youtu.be/GvLZqbZpCEc?si=QeM3vdMf44IaivW8
I really agree with him, do you? For example, in RDR2 you have to eat and drink to maintain your weight, you have to bathe, you have to bathe and maintain your horse's weight... yeah it's all realistic, but it's not fun to do that stuff at all. It's more of a chore

good thread lol

my personal problem with RDR2 is that its too much fun robbing trains and coaches to progress any further (23k$ and counting 🙄)

that aside though, generally he is right in most situations. you don't want to concern yourself with the tedious day to day busywork, and get to the fun. theres definitely a reason halflife went on to inspire genre-defining mods made from that game and its assets which are now their own games themselves.

few people like the busy work. there's a market for it, but that's not what the majority enjoys.

so if you're interested in game development, these are basically critical lessons for success. let your player make their mark on the world you've created.

[Nightlight]

I mostly agree. What is "fun" for any given person is going to vary, and often there will be people whose ways of having fun will seem odd to you. There are people who get a kick out of realistic features in video games. However, whether said "realistic features" are fun for the general public will ultimately come down to the execution of them and whether they fit the game, and even when done well there'll be people who still can't get into it.

Personally, I've never been one to crave "realistic features" in my games, and hyper realistic graphics just make my eyes glaze over.

Game: "look, you can see the individual pores on characters' faces now!"

Me: "wow, that means absolutely nothing to me."