Tholan Tholan

Game play, Realism and Fun

▼

Game play, Realism and Fun

from Sins Forums
I have seen a number of topics that directly or indirectly deal with the game play vs realism debate and whether or not realism needs to be sacrificed in order to keep the game fun. I would like to bring this discussion to the forefront and look at it head on.

My position on the matter is that a certain amount of realism MUST be maintained in order to ensure the game is fun. Creating too many off the wall concepts to get around various game play issues can really hurt the fundamental reason for playing any particular game. That reason being escapism into an alternate reality.

A game expands our imagination and lets us partake in adventures we couldn't normally do in the real world. It could be flying a fighter jet, being a war veteran hero, winning the Indy 500. Other adventures allow us to do things that are not even possible in the real world like casting magical spells or traveling faster than the speed of light.

These adventures, however, all must have a solid basis on what we see and hear in the real world every day. Even in a fantasy MMO, where magic is common place, you will have the wind blowing in the trees, grass under your feet and clouds in the sky. All these worlds need reminders of the real world to allow our imaginations to take this wonderful journey. Without it, the journey is destroyed and so is the fun.

With this in mind, I have to question whether or not some of the choices to sacrifice realism for game play are actually wise. Consider this comment made by Blair in another thread. Here is a link to the thread to ensure I am not taking him out context. Link


Planets are no longer sorted by type (ice on the fringes, volcanic near the star etc) because this led to too much prediction of where certain planets were so if you started far from Terran worlds you got screwed because everyone else had already grabbed them. Ultimately, game play has to win out.


The solution to the problem Blair has outlined here can be solved in a very different and obvious way. If populating a solar system with more than one race forces you to make most planets colonizable and not reflect their distance from the sun, then don't populate solar systems so densely. If this doesn't fit in with the game's back story, then change the back story to make it more believable. This will make the story much more fun to read and the game much more fun to play.

So why not take this approach? Why not allow for things like the back story to be massaged slightly though the beta to help make the gaming experience better overall? The group of people that are beta testing this game seem to be very mature and I would think that using all their insights would be very wise. Open up the possibility to rehash some of the issues that the development team tried to tackle on their own. I am quite confident that you'd get some very innovative solutions. Sometimes, when your looking at the problem so closely for so long, some solutions can easily escape you. I am sure using the community in this way will please both the game creators and the game consumers. It may take some extra work. The question is...

Is it worth it?
15,328 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

I see people complain that the planets are laid out wrong and that there is no orbiting and then later in their post, site GalCiv2 as a good example of how things were done "right" (right being a relative term). GalCiv2 as an amazing game, I loved it. Yet I would hardly call it realistic. The planets aren't always laid out logically. Solar systems are very close together in some cases only taking a week or two to travel between them. Planets are very close together requiring less than a week of travel. Planets closer to the sun are not always the proper type.


What matters though is that the developers have already proven to themselves that the proposed mechanic is flawed. I have seen them answer this in more than one thread.


GalCiv2 is indeed a perfect example.



Bottom Line = game play > (realism + graphics)



+1
Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top
The current explanation of weak areas in space which connect some planets is as realistic as the idea that they could have a jump drive that allows FTL travel. So than I guess we have to lose FTL travel (unless you have a realistic approach? Maybe Subspace, Hyperspace or an Alcubierre drive? I would hardly call those "realistic") and I mean, if were going to be realistic it should at least take afew real life days to get to another plant, maybe a month or so to get to another galaxy even with time acceleration.

I think the game should ship with Super Extra Strength Nyquil to simulate stasis, for that extra real feel. You order your fleet, pop the pill and wake up 19 hours later, your ships approaching the planet.

The concept of space lanes works just as well as any other, since realistically, there is no way to travel FTL.
1. On what do you base the assumption that FTL-travel is impossible? We know certain ways in which FTL doesn't work, but we can't rule it out. It's perfectly valid to assume a transportation-method that allows you to arrive at a destination quicker than light could possibly. Einstein's theory as well as any other known law allow that.
And that's the basic point. A game mechanism has to at least be possible.
2. We're talking about realistic mechanics, not real mechanics. There's a difference.
3. I don't think space lanes are the main point of criticism in this discussion. People wonder why it is impossible to travel from one planet to another by other means than a space lane. Just look at the sky, at night there are a few very bright spots and man-made satellites went there *without* a space-lane. Why can't a ship in SoaSE do that when it is possible even today? That doesn't add up. It may not be practical, but it should be possible.
The point is: Players don't stop thinking just because the game carries 'fiction' in it's genre-name. Adding some astronomic term to a game's title isn't a free ticket to disregard logics.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top
1. On what do you base the assumption that FTL-travel is impossible? We know certain ways in which FTL doesn't work, but we can't rule it out. It's perfectly valid to assume a transportation-method that allows you to arrive at a destination quicker than light could possibly. Einstein's theory as well as any other known law allow that.
And that's the basic point.


I think you are confusing Einstein's theory of Special Relativity with Vain's theory of Special Relativity. Because according to Einstein’s theory, it clearly states:

“it is impossible for any material object to accelerate to light speed.”

The semi-plausible theories which allow FTL or just Light Speed either violate Einstein’s theories or at least circumvent them in some way.

Where as Vain’s theory of Special Relativity states:

“FTL travel is possible and my neighbor Ted Einstein agrees with me”.

So were back where we started, the concept of weakened space allowing for “space-lines” between planets works just as well.

A game mechanism has to at least be possible.


Yah, I loved all those Lord of The Rings games because some day it could really happen.

And I loved GalCiv2 because they have weapons pulled from alternate dimensions as well as weapons that utilized the power of black holes, it was the fact that in we would wield those weapons in the future that held me spellbound.

And Duke Nukem 3D because… well, I think you get the point.

Let me change your quote so that it’s accurate.

“A game mechanism has to at least be fun” Ta Dah!


2. We're talking about realistic mechanics, not real mechanics. There's a difference


No, we’re talking about game play mechanics which are required to be entertaining, neither real nor realistic. Go play Flight Simulator X or another game which is based in… waait for it… reality”

3. I don't think space lanes are the main point of criticism in this discussion. People wonder why it is impossible to travel from one planet to another by other means than a space lane. Just look at the sky, at night there are a few very bright spots and man-made satellites went there *without* a space-lane. Why can't a ship in SoaSE do that when it is possible even today? That doesn't add up. It may not be practical, but it should be possible.
The point is: Players don't stop thinking just because the game carries 'fiction' in it's genre-name.


I agree, I think ships should be able to move from the gravity area, without FTL and it should take so long to get there that this travel method is rarely used if ever, though I think it should be possible. So the question here is, if it will be a form of travel that is never used, should the devs take the time to implement it just to make it feel more "realistic"?


Adding some astronomic term to a game's title isn't a free ticket to disregard logics.


Not sure what you mean here, do you mean the term Solar in the title? If so, then I still don’t know what you mean. If you meant that they add a term to the story that allows them to make use of something unrealistic than I would have to say, your wrong. Movie makers and game developers have been making up terms that allow for unrealistic occurrences that defy "logics" for years, and it works.
Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top
I agree, I think ships should be able to move from the gravity area, without FTL and it should take so long to get there that this travel method is rarely used if ever, though I think it should be possible. So the question here is, if it will be a form of travel that is never used, should the devs take the time to implement it just to make it feel more "realistic"?



today a round trip to mars will take 2 years 6 months there 1 year wait time for earth to get back in the right place and 6 months back.

however according to a former astronaght that time frame can be cut down to 5 months if we use a space train(my name) basically a ship that orbits between earth and mars doesn't land at either

The semi-plausible theories which allow FTL or just Light Speed either violate Einstein’s theories or at least circumvent them in some way.



in all of the sci fi shows where they are going FTL they are all circumventing the theories





Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top
today a round trip to mars will take 2 years 6 months there 1 year wait time for earth to get back in the right place and 6 months back.

however according to a former astronaght that time frame can be cut down to 5 months if we use a space train(my name) basically a ship that orbits between earth and mars doesn't land at either


Exactly, this is why it should take fooorrreeevvveer to move your ships without FTL. And why movement beyond the gravity well, while cool may prove impractical.

in all of the sci fi shows where they are going FTL they are all circumventing the theories


Correct, but that doesn't make them realistic. The two most popular, Star Wars and Star Trek use Hyper-Space and Sub-Space. That is, partially shifting to another dimension where the same laws (present in our dimension) do not apply and thus FTL is possible.

This is by far the least likely method that will be used, albeit it is the coolest for sure thus sacrificing realism for entertainment.

Personally I would rather it be a vague explanation so as to not allow nit picking it to death over why it wouldn’t work.

While games and movies are both similar in that they are telling you a story and the goal is immersion. Games differ in that they allow interactivity whereas shows are completely linear. Because of this a degree of control in the game is required. This is why almost all space-sim games out there use the jump gate mechanic which is what is essentially used in this game, with a bit different explanation. TV shows can use whatever theory for FTL travel they want too and get away with it since they control everything. Games must think differently, it’s not a question of realism; it’s a question of what works and what doesn’t.
Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top
remember voyager took 5? years to get to jupiter

new horizen did it in in less than a year
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top
Without beating a dead horse I have to say I'm firmly in the camp with Paradoxnt and Jams3.

The ideal space sim game for me would be MoO (mechanics and tactics) + Stars! (logistics and scale) + Pax Imperia (platform and weapons design) + Homeworld (multiplayer and visuals) all updated and tweaked out for the latest in HPC with all the options (of course).
Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top
new horizen did it in in less than a year


Close but not quite right.

Probe was launched = January 19, 2006
Probe arrived at Jupiter = February 28th, 2007
A bit over a year, still, very impressive.


The probe travels at 36,260.7373 mph once it reaches top speed, which takes some time. Acceleration of 290 Meters per second.

The speed of light = 670,616,629.384 miles per hour

Distance to Jupiter from Earth = 415,697,327.6067764 Miles (approx and depending on orbit)

Time to reach Jupiter for the probe, a bit over a year.
Time to reach Jupiter at the speed of light, around 40 minutes.

And we're talking about moving at many times the speed of light. The difference in speed should be astounding. This really makes travel without the jumpgates an incredibly lengthy and inadvisable option. Not that I am against having the option there, that would be fine. But if its a big deal to implement, I would rather they work on things that are more worthwhile.
Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top
What about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Hizaed?
Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top
What about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Hizaed?


I think eventually we will have a probes that use this method of propulsion, probably not human piloted versions, for obvious reasons, maybe monkey piloted .

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top
Oh no, don't let the monkeys fly. Common people! Didn't you see Planet of the Apes? If you didn't, let me just say it goes badly for us.

As for realism, I am betting that Ironclad will give us the options and tools necessary for what we want. We will likely be able to mod in open connection maps (multi player might even have an open connection map option). I think we will have massive tools for shaping research trees, abilities, models, effects, scale, and so on.

So, for those of us wanting realism, don't lose faith in Ironclad. Just be sure to buy the game.
Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top
Just be sure to buy the game.


I think most of us have with the pre-order!   

Yes, it's the tools we'll get and how powerful those tools can be. Gotta have faith!
Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top
The probe travels at 36,260.7373 mph once it reaches top speed, which takes some time. Acceleration of 290 Meters per second.


290 meter per second SQUARED is not a very pleasant feeling. I believe the proper term for a crew aboard a ship like that would be "ketchup"


What about Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Hizaed?

For the weight of a dozen nukes and blast and rad shields, you can haul up one mean mother of an Ion-drive.

Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top
AGH!!! DID I MISS A RELATIVITY DEBATE???
AGH AGH AGH AGH AGH AGH AGH
*furiously reads previous posts*
290 meter per second SQUARED is not a very pleasant feeling. I believe the proper term for a crew aboard a ship like that would be "ketchup"

yeah...
The difference in speed should be astounding

yes. because at that speed you move backwards in time (your present emissions affect your future self, its even possible that light that bounced off you before you went FTL could give you cancer when it reaches you after your done traveling... mighty, mighty wierd...)
“it is impossible for any material object to accelerate to light speed.”

completely true, as it would take an infinite amount of energy. however nothing about Einstein's equations forbid going faster than light (oho, the plot thickens) you simply cannot accelerate past it. that would be like trying to get a negative number by constantly dividing something.
Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top
You have to rely on quantum events to accelerate past C. Quantum Mechanics is essentially nothing more than the statistics of atomic particles, we basically make alot of judgements based of observation at how the particles will behave. We can statistically get close enough to cause nuclear reactions and contain them, thats some pretty reliable statistics if you ask me, but it's still no where close enough to predict quantum events to leap matter past the threshold of C.

With M-Theory/String Theory and the idea that all matter in our universe exist on a single "brane" the ideas of wormholes and extra-dimensional travel to get from one place to another in the universe make a whole heck of alot more sense than trying to accelerate matter past the speed of light. Even if you can accelerate past light your going to have to go many many magnitudes faster to get anywhere in any reasonable amount of time. Heck Alpha Centauri the closest star to our sun is some 4 lightyears away. Even at 10x C thats still around 4-5 months of travel time, not to mention the massive space time distortion shield your going to have to create not to turn the ship and the crew into jello. And the energy requirements I've seen thrown around on the shield concept requires something like 2-3 times the energy output of our sun.
Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top
We can statistically get close enough to cause nuclear reactions and contain them, thats some pretty reliable statistics if you ask me,

its reliable because there are so many freaking atoms for us to smash.
Even if you can accelerate past light your going to have to go many many magnitudes faster to get anywhere in any reasonable amount of time.

not nescessarily for you. but for people who aren't in an accelerating innertial reference frame (i.e. they aren't actively accelerating) yeah.
not to mention the massive space time distortion shield your going to have to create not to turn the ship and the crew into jello. And the energy requirements I've seen thrown around on the shield concept requires something like 2-3 times the energy output of our sun.

not to mention the crazy amounts of g your putting on your crew. if space was perfect that would still be an issue.
thats why if tachyon compression is possible (which many Physicist dont believe) its the best option. at least if you can force all of the tachyons to go in one direction.
Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top
Tachyons are a "hole in a theory". Meaning that they could exist if the current theory is completely correct. Of which we have no assurance, although all the measurements correspond.

If you ask me this is a perfect game traveling system, considering that the lower the tachyon energy, the higher the speed. Weird? That's what you get with particles that ALWAYS travel faster than light.

One could argue that surely someone would lower the energy of the tachyons so that the travel would be instantaneus, but the counter-argument is ready.   At energies of the tachyon beam being so low one could not measure it with enough accuracy to assure the exit point would be anywhere near the target. So it is best to use more energy and travel at manageable speeds.

But I don't think tachyon beam travel corresponds with galactic highways or the no-energy-needed jumps. Not that I like either.
Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top
Tachyons are a "hole in a theory". Meaning that they could exist if the current theory is completely correct. Of which we have no assurance, although all the measurements correspond.

hence why many physicists dont believe they exist. be nice anyhow.
If you ask me this is a perfect game traveling system, considering that the lower the tachyon energy, the higher the speed. Weird? That's what you get with particles that ALWAYS travel faster than light.

well it makes some sort of sense. both approach the speed of light at higher energies.
But I don't think tachyon beam travel corresponds with galactic highways or the no-energy-needed jumps. Not that I like either

we have plenty of counterintuitive explanations for those...
Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top
we have plenty of counterintuitive explanations for those...


  Yes, that's what bothers me...   
Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top
LOL. Wow did this thread ever get derailed. I go away for a week on vacation and come back to an in depth discussion of Einstein's theory of relativity when I was rather hoping for a good discussion on some of the original points.

I suppose that may not be possible now .
Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top
yeah, this thread was way too broad to not fall off track.
Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top
And you helped it along its way.

Im so proud of you