More realism in rpgs

[anvi]

King's Bounty did exactly what you describe. Not strictly an RPG though, but very close. Have you tried it?

Yeah kinda but I can't remember it. I gave up because it looked sort of similar to 4x games like Age of Wonders and I was too hooked on those to want to try something similar. Also the one I had got bad reviews :/

 

[Elevrilnar]

absence of implementing basic human needs like eating, drinking, going to toilet...

No need of a toilet if you're wearing a Power Armor. Such a realistic features can make the experience really painful. It's usually fun only in survival games. In RPGs it's often distracting, disturbing and serve no purpose than to extend the gameplay in an uninteresting way.

A group of bandits are at the edge of the hillside, maybe half a mile away, and they see your figure running in the distance. So they band together and come after you. They might lose track of you, but likely they will be able to get to you eventually and try to kill you. The same should be true about cities, guards patrol the walls and there will be lookouts. If you approach an enemy city and they spot you, they will send people to intercept you, so you would have to use invisibility if you wanted to infiltrate it. The only way I think this could work would be in a big game world that is spread out and realistic. Only one game I have ever seen came close to this, Dark Age of Camelot.

This is almost impossible to implement using current technology. Open world by themselves consume a lot of resources. Advanced AI is very burdensome by itself. Those two in combination would kill almost any modern machine. But this is definitely the path which game development should follow. And who knows... Maybe in the future we'll see an open world RPG with such an advanced AI.

Just limit save games to cities or "safe space"(not the 'there is no enemy nearby' kind).

As an optional feature, I think this is a fine idea. But if you want to force players to use it, it's something very bad. People should have an option how to play the game. Not everyone is happy with the outcome of a dialogue/fight/skill check. Some want to try different options without the necessity of starting the game from the beginning. Limiting saves is also a poor option if you have to stop playing for whatever reasons and turn off your computer. This can be resolved with a single save on exit, but this solution is very susceptible for potential bugs and crashes.

Well, cRPG combat is not supposed to be extremely hard. I'm a combatfag myself and I am aware when combat is too easy, but it's not the ease of combat that is usually the issue, the issue is usually that the combat is unsatisfying. A very important distinction. Combat in a good cRPG should straddle the line perfectly between too easy and too hard. It should be average. It should be engaging, offer variety of method and a genuine threat of losing if you're incompetent or needing to work a few things out, but it should NOT be 3D chess just as it should NOT be button mashing the awesome button.

Satisfaction or lack of it is a very complicated matter. Some consider hack 'n slash combat very satisfying, but it's also very easy. You humiliate legions of enemies during single blows. Usually it's very hard to loose your character. On the other side we have soulslike games, which are very hard and demanding, but when you defeat an enemy who you were fighting for the last 3 hours, you get massive satisfaction boost. In real life. You can try to balance the difficulty and find the mythical line between easy and hard, but the reality is that a lot of players will receive this as much too easy or way too hard. In the worst case you'll end up with something like Oblivion, where level scaling is pushed to an insane degree. Rather than average, difficulty level should be customizable, to suit the liking of most players. It's a matter of discussion how this should be achieved (there are a few ways to scale the difficulty on different levels), but if you target only the average a lot of players will be disappointed.

on that last sentence I'd argue you're confusing average with mediocre. The word average has been much maligned over the years & associated with all kinds of negative phrases as a result of wordsmiths being taught not to repeat words when writing essays etc.

I think average and mediocre are synonyms. These basically mean the same. One can have a more negative connotation than the other, but they can still be used interchangeably from what I know.

 

[Viata]

As an optional feature, I think this is a fine idea. But if you want to force players to use it, it's something very bad. People should have an option how to play the game. Not everyone is happy with the outcome of a dialogue/fight/skill check. Some want to try different options without the necessity of starting the game from the beginning. Limiting saves is also a poor option if you have to stop playing for whatever reasons and turn off your computer. This can be resolved with a single save on exit, but this solution is very susceptible for potential bugs and crashes.

Just give the option for the player, that is all. They are allowed to play the game in two modes: save anywhere and save on specific places.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Well, cRPG combat is not supposed to be extremely hard. I'm a combatfag myself and I am aware when combat is too easy, but it's not the ease of combat that is usually the issue, the issue is usually that the combat is unsatisfying. A very important distinction. Combat in a good cRPG should straddle the line perfectly between too easy and too hard. It should be average. It should be engaging, offer variety of method and a genuine threat of losing if you're incompetent or needing to work a few things out, but it should NOT be 3D chess just as it should NOT be button mashing the awesome button.

Satisfaction or lack of it is a very complicated matter. Some consider hack 'n slash combat very satisfying, but it's also very easy. You humiliate legions of enemies during single blows. Usually it's very hard to loose your character. On the other side we have soulslike games, which are very hard and demanding, but when you defeat an enemy who you were fighting for the last 3 hours, you get massive satisfaction boost. In real life. You can try to balance the difficulty and find the mythical line between easy and hard, but the reality is that a lot of players will receive this as much too easy or way too hard. In the worst case you'll end up with something like Oblivion, where level scaling is pushed to an insane degree. Rather than average, difficulty level should be customizable, to suit the liking of most players. It's a matter of discussion how this should be achieved (there are a few ways to scale the difficulty on different levels), but if you target only the average a lot of players will be disappointed.

An interesting point somewhat derailed by the fact that none of the scenarios or games you mentioned are cRPGs...

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[naossano]

Considering many games are shit, having said shit game include shitting simulation might be breaking the fourth wall.

 

[anvi]

A group of bandits are at the edge of the hillside, maybe half a mile away, and they see your figure running in the distance. So they band together and come after you. They might lose track of you, but likely they will be able to get to you eventually and try to kill you. The same should be true about cities, guards patrol the walls and there will be lookouts. If you approach an enemy city and they spot you, they will send people to intercept you, so you would have to use invisibility if you wanted to infiltrate it. The only way I think this could work would be in a big game world that is spread out and realistic. Only one game I have ever seen came close to this, Dark Age of Camelot.

This is almost impossible to implement using current technology. Open world by themselves consume a lot of resources. Advanced AI is very burdensome by itself. Those two in combination would kill almost any modern machine. But this is definitely the path which game development should follow. And who knows... Maybe in the future we'll see an open world RPG with such an advanced AI.

Yeah I think the only chance would be to have the AI disabled until it becomes active. There is a mode in the ArmA games which has you capture villages and there are many. I think the AI only becomes active once you get within a certain range and then they start coming at you and trying to flank you and stuff. It is pretty close to what I'd like to see in an RPG.

The thing that annoys me with Bethesda is that I think they are big enough and have the budget to be able to do stuff like this, or at least close. But they never do because they just keep releasing the same game to screaming fanboys with no standards.

 

[Trashos]

The time limits are ok I think. I am not that far into the game but the few time limited events I've had so far are all like 90 weeks or something. It means you can do a bunch of side quests and things first and then go and sell, and then get around to it when you are ready. The game is a bit shit at explaining itself though, so for example you get a message that there are some trolls causing trouble in your region and you are like ok whatever, and carry on doing your thing. And the next thing you hear the trolls killed lots of people and captured town and are marching on your capitol with an army. It still gives you time to go and fight back, but a lot of people lost the game because they didn't figure it out soon enough.

Thanks for the info. See, the biggest appeal of nonlinear RPGs to me is that they let me confront challenges in the order that I feel like. So there is no "Now I have to do THIS quest, but I really don't feel like doing this quest right now, so I am dropping the game for the foreseeable future." Nonlinear RPGs with time limits shoot themselves on the foot, killing their major advantage for playability.

New Vegas is a huge game with hundreds of quests. Some quests are great, others I am not a big fan of, and lastly my opinion on some quests depends on my mood. But the game lets me choose my timing with every quest, and so I always end up doing them all.

Well, cRPG combat is not supposed to be extremely hard. I'm a combatfag myself and I am aware when combat is too easy, but it's not the ease of combat that is usually the issue, the issue is usually that the combat is unsatisfying.

I agree to an extent, but there is absolutely no reason that RPGs should not be challenging on the highest difficulty level. Sure, some dumbfucks are going to complain that they couldn't beat the highest difficulty with no effort, but so what, such people are always going to complain irrationally about something. At the same time, there are hard games that sell much better than the RPGs that try to dumb themselves down to success (and fail).

 

[Tavernking]

I want a game where you have to shit.

I want a game where you have to piss.

I want a game where you can't run from objective to objective because your character is just as lazy as you are in real life.

I want a game where you have to press a button every hour or so which allows your character to put his hands down his pants to readjust his package from an uncomfortable position.

I want a game where each in game day is 24 hours long. I want a game where you hear your character randomly fart 12-16 times in those 24 hours.

I just want my RPGs to feel alive, damnnit.

 

[Swigen]

I want smoking to be handled realistically in games. None of this “smoking lowers yore hp” or Arthur “take one drag then throw it on the ground, but watch me eat muh beef stew for 40 minutes” Morgan bullshit.

 

[Neanderthal]

Has anybody mentioned shitting in this thread yet?

 

[Frozen]

- killing children
- rape
- -1 penalty to all stats at the beginning if playing as female ( -2 for intelligence and strength )

 

[jf8350143]

yes, because having horse shit every once a while is exactly what devs should spend their resources on.

If a feature is added simply because it's realism and nothing else, it's a feature that should be left out.

 

[Elevrilnar]

Just give the option for the player, that is all. They are allowed to play the game in two modes: save anywhere and save on specific places.

That's an appropriate solution. If someone wants to make his playthrough harder then it should be by standard means, then why not implement it?

An interesting point somewhat derailed by the fact that none of the scenarios or games you mentioned are cRPGs...

That's not the true purpose of this discussion. These were only examples (of RPGs or RPG derivatives) which show that balancing the difficulty levels can't be brought to using average solutions. Even if you don't treat hack 'n slashes and soulslikes as a true genre representatives, this doesn't mean you can't take inspiration from them. Especially when it comes for combat.

Yeah I think the only chance would be to have the AI disabled until it becomes active. There is a mode in the ArmA games which has you capture villages and there are many. I think the AI only becomes active once you get within a certain range and then they start coming at you and trying to flank you and stuff. It is pretty close to what I'd like to see in an RPG

I'm no AI expert, but if it has to function from a few miles away, it's beyond current technological capabilities. Especially if there's a lot of content in a quite small portion of the world. But enabling AI on the go is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[sullynathan]

Red dead redemption 2 has dynamic shitting

 

[laclongquan]

It made every battle edge of the seat exciting, it also meant you had to practice fighting. You had to obsess over every move you would make in combat so that when you are panicking, you do the right things and win, and not hit the wrong buttons and die. It makes everything more meaningful and intense. This was in a game where you can choose your difficulty as you play though, if you don't want a challenge you can just pick easy fights. But if you pick harder fights you get better rewards, but more danger of dying and having a big setback.

That was easy, mang~ You just need a laptop, or worse, a smartphone.
Then you go sitting on the balcony rails, one leg dangling on the outside.
And play your game(s).
I fucking guarantee you that is going to be one exciting game session.
If your laptop or your smartphone fall over the side, that is one FUCKING exciting game session for you.
If you fall over the side, that is one exciting FINAL game session for you.

 

[Cael]

"RPGs should be more realistic!" *casts fireball*

 

[Alkarl]

Only "rpg" thing I ever played where you had to both eat and shit was Digimon World. Leave it to the Japanese.

I think carting around foodstuffs can add fun and immersive quality to a game. As CryptRat and others pointed out, it places certain limitations on resources such as carrying capacity and rest limitations. As long as the main gameplay loop accounts for this, it's fine.

What I hate is starving to death because I went four hours without gobbling down some beef jerky. Or having combat ability decrease because I didn't munch some bread in the last two hours. Push that shit out. But that's usually how games handle food when it's implemented as a need. Hunger should last days with starvation setting in a week later. Emaciation coming from long and frequent bouts of hunger, decreasing ability scores as you slowly wither away into a husk.

As for realism though. Nah. But I would like more systems and more options that have interesting interplays. I love playing and watching people play Dorf Fortress Adventure Mode for this very reason. Where else can you lop a mans arm off and then beat him to death with it? It's certainly not the pinnacle of perfection: terrible ui, nonexistent optimization; but it's pretty damn interesting. I like it.

 

[aeroaeko]

realism is so boring
i play video games to escape real life not simulate it

 

[Neanderthal]

realism is so boring
i play video games to escape real life not simulate it

Could you list a few of these games with no realism? I fancy a spot of escapism in a purely alien, fantastic world.

 

[aeroaeko]

Could you list a few of these games with no realism

hollow knight, alice madness returns (with the short skirt mod), doom, badrats, killer is dead, psychonauts are a few off the top of my head

 

[Neanderthal]

They all have mostly realistic settings, nothing utterly alien.

 

[user]

realism is so boring
i play video games to escape real life not simulate it

You just want to escape from your particular real life script, not reality alltogether. You don't want that trust me.

 

[Yosharian]

Someone mentioned that a two-handed sword would cleave someone in half or whatever. But realistically speaking, these weapons were, and are, terribly impractical for most combat. Being able to cut someone in half means nothing if that person can stab or slash you three times before you've even hit them. You can't have one part of the realism without the other. The approach that D&D takes is simple for a reason - it's exceptionally difficult to realistically simulate combat to that level of detail. In any case, the approach one would take with a weapon would vary dramatically according to the type of armor the enemy was wearing. The attempted semi-realistic approach that the Pillars series has taken felt really unsatisfying to me.

 

[Yosharian]

Basic needs mechanics have the potential to really immerse the player in a game. For example, in one of the Fallout games there's an NPC who's charging people for water, water that should be freely available. If you weren't using a water mechanic, you'd have no reason to care either way about this NPC - who gives a shit if he's charging the poor schmucks in this town for water? Fuck it, let's get in on the action, even.

But if you need access to water because of a basic needs mechanic, suddenly that whole situation changes completely. It gives you a real motivation to solve the problem, e.g. by killing the guy, or intimidating him into giving up the water, or whatever. And if you don't, then you gotta pay him money to get your water. Maybe a character with high Strength can carry enough water around from other sources that it doesn't bother him. Or a character with high Constitution has a dramatically lower thirst rate, so it won't bother him as much.

 

[Angthoron]

Thirst and hunger meters are horrible busywork most of the time. I was once in the opinion that games should have all that realism jazz attached to them and then they actually got it attached and boy oh boy. Try out just about any game with "survival" elements and you'll probably learn to seriously dislike those things. Unless you actually like them, in which case eh, um, you do you, weirdo.

 

[Funposter]

Someone mentioned that a two-handed sword would cleave someone in half or whatever. But realistically speaking, these weapons were, and are, terribly impractical for most combat. Being able to cut someone in half means nothing if that person can stab or slash you three times before you've even hit them.