Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lord Chris wrote:
Whilst I can see this argument going on across a number of threads between here and the END OF TIME, suffice it to say that you're wrong.
Whilst I find it difficult to agree with Craster, YOU'RE WRONGER.
I fear you have started a feud, sir. A feud that will be handed down from generation to generation, until THERE IS ONLY ONE.
The disagreement I thought we're having is that I'm complaining about things that are ruining the verisimilitude (this is also an awesome Teenage Fanclub song) and you're apparently taking a "well, respawning is unrealistic so stop complaining" tack - I've been interpreting your comments on this as meaning that I shouldn't be complaining about any inaccuracies as there are bigger ones there already. However, your quotes below do clarify things a bit, and I don't think we're actually in disagreement, ultimately:
Quote:
Games don't need realism, they need to be fun;
Of course, the realism can be part of the fun, and the lack of realism can ruin the fun. So this is a bit of an odd (and WRONG) thing to say. Subject to the below...
Quote:
they need enough verisimilitude[1] so that you are not bugged by the things that are wrong ("hey, why does my Japanese soldier have an American rifle?") but not so much that the fun is drained out ("hey, why do I have to do 16 hours of boot camp mini games before I can fight in the war?").
This bit is entirely true and I wholeheartedly agree. Enough so that I can forget the silly first sentence in this paragraph.
Which means that our two positions can be easily reconciled - I get utterly pissed off by the lack of realism in games that are selling themselves as being set in a particular era or theatre of operations or whatever. If you're setting a game in WW2, the enjoyment of that game can be broken by anything that is obviously incongruous, as it kills what little suspension of disbelief one needs in order to enjoy a game set in that place/time. For instance, if you're playing Close Combat: Invasion Normandy and once you get into the bocage country the Germans suddenly unleash a horde of robots. That might be fun if you're playing a WW2 game billed as some sort of "Nazi '46" alternate history game, but in a straight WW2 game it's game breakingly silly. See also - boxes of dogs in COD5.
Conversely, while the game ending every time you die would be realistic, this would be annoying in a multiplayer setting as you're then sat waiting for the next match to start - which is tedious and pointless. This is a concession to "reality" that would be game breaking. But most things done to make a game more historically accurate would
add to the game, rather than break it - unlike death ending things completely.
Quote:
The one exception to prove my rule[2] I can come up with is MS Flight Sim, which of course is doing its damndest to completely represent reality. But I believe this only underscores my point, because frankly, it's barely a game any more.
See also - most flight sims. You can dial down the realism if you're frightened by it, but you play something like Jane's F-18 and it's bonkersly complicated. It's a complete simulation - or as complete as one can get on a PC.