Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SealyStar]

Also, overgrowth is a game you may want to check out. Its health system is different to most games. You don't actually die from being punched (unrealistic), but if your back or neck is broken, or you get shot/sliced with a sword, you die.
EDIT: Throat slitting apparently kills you, too.

If we're talking about the same Overgrowth,
1. Ew furries.
2. Literally all the races in this concept art (and footage of the game) have digitigrade legs from the looks of it. AFAIK rats are decidedly plantigrade and rabbits are kind of ambiguous. I guess it's just to make them look "wilder".

[itisnotlogical]

The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

I hope this is short enough that I can sig it.

[alexandertnt]

Hmm, I'm sorry for repeating something, I have actually read that whole topic but have most likely forgotten about it being mentioned already.

I diddnt mean it like that, I am just happy to find someone who agrees with me.

Also, overgrowth is a game you may want to check out. Its health system is different to most games. You don't actually die from being punched (unrealistic), but if your back or neck is broken, or you get shot/sliced with a sword, you die.
EDIT: Throat slitting apparently kills you, too.

Overgrowth is a great example of a more intricate health system. I dont actually expect every game to do something like that though (as that would be asking alot), but just something to making becoming injured more interesting (rather than being peppered with bullets/bashed and going from totally-ok to suddenly-dead).

*snip*

It is sort of ironic that a game with such pride in its realistic damage has biologically-dubious animal people. I dont care though, because the damage system (along with everything else) falls into the rule of cool, so realism (for me) has nothing to do with it.

[Darkmere]

I have to chime in on realism.

No game is realistic. You can't get shot in the leg and permanently maimed, ending the game forever in failure. Taking a bullet in the arm doesn't take you out of the fight for weeks and force you to re-learn how to aim.

Gameplay is a conceit; all the "realistic" touches are just varying flavors of that conceit.

Yes, I'm bitter. Get off my lawn. *shakes fist*

[alexandertnt]

"Realism" for me, is just a (sometimes farily accurate) description of certain game mechanics that may or may not be fun. The mechanics are not fun just because they are realistic, neither are they bad, just becaues they are realistic.

I sometimes think "realism" is just a term used by some people to cast certain game-mechanics/games as "superior" to their unrealistic counterparts.

[Darkmere]

I sometimes think "realism" is just a term used by some people to cast certain game-mechanics/games as "superior" to their unrealistic counterparts.

This, too.

Honestly, I can't see "wah wah realism!" Without thinking about Morrowind's poop bucket mod, or the people who complained for years that Fallout 3/NV didn't have authentic WWII weapons when it was a game about mutants and ghouls 200+ years after a nuclear holocaust in an alternate reality.

So yeah, it's hard for me to take it seriously.

[majikero]

The bullet drop mod is kinda awesome though. Makes sniping more than just point at head and shoot.

[Parsely]

If people would just stop arguing for realism "because realism" I would stop hating that word.

[Virtz]

I think a good reason to make anything realistic is cause realism is inherently more intuitive (and sometimes satisfying) than whatever abstract gameplay mechanics are usually used to substitute it. You don't really need a manual for a vanilla learn-by-doing system, a system like SPECIAL, on the other hand, may require some explaining to understand how everything works. Not that one is better than the other (level up systems can be more fun if done right), just easier to understand for someone who's never played a game of that genre before.

Although I'm all for abstracting out certain aspects, like the forementioned poop bucket. There's certain things no fiction in general really needs to touch upon.

[darkrider2]

"Realism" makes a game more accessible. There isn't stupid stuff, "you don't own 20 cats so you can't enter the bank, Mcfluffins just ate the neighbors dog, give him a promotion". It goes towards making games more accessible, you don't have to tell people that the fire plasmid melts those ice area's, they just get it, fire melts ice.

Standard convention goes towards the same thing, most gamers can be assumed to have played a game before the one your making, and should understand its mechanics. If your game has similar mechanics (regenerating health, Aim Down Sight, etc) its more accessible.

As I said earlier, the realism crowd always just uses it as an excuse for arguing towards gameplay that suits them. You'd never see one argue against regenerating health in multiplayer. Most the time they're really just arguing towards standard convention, cause that's what they're expecting.

Now, does realism bring about inherently intuitive gameplay? Well, no, intuitive mechanics create intuitive gameplay. Realism that just gets HAM'd in for the sole purpose of realism, is usually... not so awesome.

[LoSboccacc]

I think that what realism advocates really want is emergent gameplay out of complex rules, as opposed to sword hitting 80% of the time for 2d4 damage.

[mastahcheese]

You'd never see one argue against regenerating health in multiplayer. Most the time they're really just arguing towards standard convention, cause that's what they're expecting.

But regenerating health in multiplayer is stupid! What's the point in blasting at someone if, the second they get away, it's as if you did nothing? There's no thrill of the chase in these games, anymore.

[miauw62]

Buying more Games while you have a collection of unfinished games that you really should be beating

I have a HUGE collection of videogames that I havn't beat. I also have a really poor tendency to stop playing a game right before the last boss (it is like I have this urge to intentionally not complete a game). Yet I keep buying games. WHY!?!

I've actually started to really try to beat many of the games I have... and yet I still seem to be adding more then I can beat.

I feel you, Neo. Probably 3/4th of the completeable games in my library haven't been completed.

[SealyStar]

Also, overgrowth is a game you may want to check out. Its health system is different to most games. You don't actually die from being punched (unrealistic), but if your back or neck is broken, or you get shot/sliced with a sword, you die.
EDIT: Throat slitting apparently kills you, too.

If we're talking about the same Overgrowth,
1. Ew furries.
2. Literally all the races in this concept art (and footage of the game) have digitigrade legs from the looks of it. AFAIK rats are decidedly plantigrade and rabbits are kind of ambiguous. I guess it's just to make them look "wilder".

I see nothing wrong with anthropomorphic animals. Hell, games I've played have had races that are, basically, anthropomorphic cats, dogs and so on.

Apparently you missed both the sarcasm of #1 and the concurrent irony that I would happen to know #2 assuming #1 were intended to be serious.

Basically, if you assume #2 is serious, it implies that #1 is sarcastic, and if you assume that #1 is true, it implies less directly that #2 is a joke. The intent was that #1 should be sarcastic and #2 should be a serious (to the maximum extent possible in the context) comment.

I have no problem with the notion of a game with anthropomorphic animals. It all depends on the quality of the game proper, but it's not like I actually have the thought process of "Ew furries it must suck" in reality.

Anyway, tangent complete.

[Squill]

I actually like animalistic races. They just seem to make the world more interesting then having just humans, and almost-humans like elves and dwarves. I think that the best example is the Khajiit and Argonians from Elder Scrolls.