Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editorial Realism vs. What Designers Care About

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,602
Location
Deutschland
Tags: Obsidian Entertainment

<p>..., Verisimilitude, and the Responsibility of Expectations. Obsidian's Nathaniel Chapman <a href="http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?s=b4b7fdfa42d477ee8ac9975c2f6efbf2&amp;automodule=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=139" target="_blank">ponders the issue</a>.<a href="http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?automodule=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=139" target="_blank"></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality. <br /><br />Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.<br /><br />I wanted to give a quick explanation of why this is, explain what role I see realism as having in game design, and then provide a bit of a defense of "realism" as it relates to something I call the "responsibility of expectations" that is placed on any game design.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com/#15627">RPGWatch</a></p>
 

Archibald

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,869
As a very basic example, take armor in Fallout: New Vegas. Wearing Light Armor has strengths (you move faster) and weaknesses (you absorb less damage). Wearing heavy armor has the opposite effects. Heavy armor does not dominate Light Armor, even though it performs better at its core functionality, because there are cases in which moving faster is more important than absorbing damage.

I admit that i don`t know shit but doesn`t his example show how realism and game design can work together?

For a more complex example, because the game uses subtractive DT, low DAM weapons are disproportionately affected by DT. So, for instance, if a creature has 5 DT, going from a 6 DAM weapon to a 7 DAM weapon doubles your damage (your actual damage goes from 1 to 2). Whereas, if that same creature had 0 DT, going from a 6 to a 7 DAM weapon is only a 1/6 increase. This is an example of how you can encourage the player to make "smart plays" - when fighting an enemy in light or no armor, you are encouraged to use your highest DPS weapon regardless of its DAM. Whereas, when fighting an enemy in heavy armor, you want to select a weapon with enough DAM to significantly overcome its DT while still having enough DPS to deal substantial damage over time. When combined with the other properties of weapons (range, rate of fire, spread, etc.) you end up with an interesting matrix of choices in which players are encouraged to find the optimal weapon for any given situation. No weapon is dominant, players can select from a group of weapons they like based on their own personal playstyle, and there are opportunities for players to maximize their effectiveness through smart play.

Same? As far as i know nobody executes prisoners with rocket launchers in real life too.

The problem with realism is that, in reality, there are strongly dominant options. Catch 22's exist. I can't imagine ever wanting to bring a knife to a gunfight. If I was going to be venturing into the Mojave wasteland, you bet your ass I'd want to only wear the heaviest power armor I could find and only use the biggest gun I had... plus I wouldn't have an invisible backpack full of other weapons I get to choose to optimize my damage in other situations.

Is he retarded?

As two examples, I'll use Civilization and Power Armor. First - in Civilization, one of the most common complaints has been the situation where 1000 spearman defeats a tank. It seems ridiculous that something like that would even be possible. Yet, in the game rules, it is clearly an outcome that is possible, and tailoring the rules to avoid that outcome could have deleterious effects on the actual gameplay, in which case it may not be worth it. In fact, allowing lower-tech units beat higher-tech units helps avoid over-rewarding players that fast-tech and start off isolated - if tech was as dominating in Civ as it is in the real world, the game would not be much fun, even though it would be more realistic.

Or you know they could make a decent AI which wouldn`t be stuck with spearman when everyone is rolling with fucking tanks.
 

SoupNazi

Guest
Banal, shit, boring blog post. There wasn't even anything about it interesting - hell it wasn't even stupid enough to be entertaining. How did it make the front page of RPGWatch and consequently the most prestigious RPG webzine on the internet is beyond me.
 

ChristofferC

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,515
Location
Thailand
Realism is boring but resemblance to reality is engaging. Nobody wants to play a war game with blue blocks and red circles or a trading game with spreadsheets.
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
Nickless said:
But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?
I don't see why one couldn't, in perfect circumstances. The game is just adding a layer of abstraction to the complex battle in question, it's not like the tank and the spearman are actually duking it out in a gentleman's duel.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,923
Location
Flowery Land
Nickless said:
But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

If by no other method than having more bodies than the tank has bullets at minimum, though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction and flanking it so the other guys can get on it from behind and kill the guys inside with their spears would be the better choice.
 

Turisas

Arch Devil
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
9,934
deuxhero said:
If by no other method than having more bodies than the tank has bullets at minimum, though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction and flanking it so the other guys can get on it from behind and kill the guys inside with their spears would be the better choice.

More like the tank would kill a few dozen and rest would run in terror as the fearsome metal beast destroys everything in its path. You can't assume a modern level of knowledge from some archaic spearmen so they would have no idea how to attack a tank.

The power balance between the units in Civ games was always whacked; mods do it much better (ie., older units have virtually no chances against newer ones. In my last game I conquered Ethiopia, who were still with spearmen and the like, with a handful of infantry units. They must've had 50+ total units in defense and I annihilated them :smug:)
 

acolyte

Educated
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
107
Nice post overall. What did you guys expect, a revelation? Those come far and few between.
Nathaniel Chapman said:
it's important that you respect the fantasy in your game and not violate it through the game mechanics.
hear hear
 

bhlaab

Erudite
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,787
Archibald said:
As a very basic example, take armor in Fallout: New Vegas. Wearing Light Armor has strengths (you move faster) and weaknesses (you absorb less damage). Wearing heavy armor has the opposite effects. Heavy armor does not dominate Light Armor, even though it performs better at its core functionality, because there are cases in which moving faster is more important than absorbing damage.

I admit that i don`t know shit but doesn`t his example show how realism and game design can work together?

Uh nnnnno? Because if you get shot in real life it doesn't plink down your HP value os of course you'd want the titanium power suit over the leather vest.
 

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
His armor example is pretty fucking retarded. Since we already know what the core game ie. Fallout 3 is like and that FNV is unlikely to deviate from that core to the degree of invalidating the "popular" TES-trace exploits like gaining absolute domination by maxing out a few stats and going for the best equipment without an alternative, the article just shows how out of touch with reality an average Obsidianite is regarding their own designs.

Likewise with tank vs. spearmen. I never found shit like that "entertaining" or balancing and on the contrary.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
57
And this is where RPGs turned to shit. The minute the so called game designer started spouting inane nonsense and the people who actually did the work became little cogs in the machine with no say in the process.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
I don't understand.

The tradeoff between speed/agility and armor protection isn't just something made up by game designers.

That trade off is really real.

That's why this dork :
2u7rp5e.jpg

Isn't wearing a gorget, a visor, pauldrons, vambraces, greaves, sollerets, gauntlets or even a damn codpiece.

He pretty much just has a helmet and a cuirass, although I believe that a lot of guys go for something a bit longer nowadays, with a groin protector.

It's not unrealistic for lighter armor to be less encumbering than heavier armor...

So what is the point of that example?

Also it's not hard for defending spearmen to kill armor, IRL, they just struggle with 70 ton "Modern Armor".
 

Ruprekt

Scholar
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
1,936
Location
Exploring small rings in 3D
My pet peeve is population growth in space 4x games. You have turns taking weeks or months during which populations grow by billions.

It's not a big deal in civ because turns represent years or decades, and in fantasy 4x you can imagine founding a city means you draw in population from the countryside (that's kind of hard in the voice of space).
 

Lord Rocket

Erudite
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
1,089
Porka Morka: Entirely different requirements dude. First of all, plate armour is far lighter than most people seem to think, and since it was generally custom made for the wearer it was perfectly possible to do shit like cartwheelsand that in it. The main reason is totally replaced chainmail is the fact it encumbered far less (for one thing plate armour's weight isn't entirely carried on the shoulders) while retaining flexibility AND protecting just as well.
Secondly, your foot soldier there would probably wear something far better if he could afford it. It's disingenuous to compare olde timey knights with your average 124235th platoon goon since a knight was part of a warrior elite in charge of supplying his own weapons and armour. Compare the foot soldier with this character here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EenKCVBzXjI/S22Q6k5gpWI/AAAAAAAACqM/ZiVHA-eAmZo/s1600-h/IMG_5554.JPG

and you've got something a little more accurate. Our friend here isn't wearing his padded jacket because he feels mobility is more vital than sheer protection. Well actually he's wearing it because he wants to show off his handiwork but imagine he's an actual guy drafted into a levy and you'll see what I mean.
Thirdly, modern armour is bulky. It needs to be in order to disperse energy - olde time armour only needed to deflect blows. That's why it's generally quite nicely polished and has rounded off corners and things, and why weapons technology eventually became a matter of applying as much force as possible in a small area (see: warhammers), because that was harder to turn away. And obviously it increased penetration.
Lastly, see here.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
57
PorkaMorka said:
I don't understand.

The tradeoff between speed/agility and armor protection isn't just something made up by game designers.

That trade off is really real.

That's why this dork :
2u7rp5e.jpg

Isn't wearing a gorget, a visor, pauldrons, vambraces, greaves, sollerets, gauntlets or even a damn codpiece.

He pretty much just has a helmet and a cuirass, although I believe that a lot of guys go for something a bit longer nowadays, with a groin protector.

It's not unrealistic for lighter armor to be less encumbering than heavier armor...

So what is the point of that example?

Also it's not hard for defending spearmen to kill armor, IRL, they just struggle with 70 ton "Modern Armor".

The comment is on the fact we listen to what this idiot has to say in the first place. The game designers of today are all the same idiots from the mod communities of yesterday who go hey guys I gots a cool idea with BLAH BLAH BLAH RETARD SHIT.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
Lord Rocket said:
Porka Morka: Entirely different requirements dude. First of all, plate armour is far lighter than most people seem to think, and since it was generally custom made for the wearer it was perfectly possible to do shit like cartwheelsand that in it. The main reason is totally replaced chainmail is the fact it encumbered far less (for one thing plate armour's weight isn't entirely carried on the shoulders) while retaining flexibility AND protecting just as well.

That's all true,and the point about plate vs chain is well taken, the classic D&D based conceptions of armor encumbrance are almost totally wrong, but a full suit of armor still significantly encumbered and slowed you down.

That's why armored cavalry started discarding pieces as firearms became more prevalent, until they ended up with the classic cuirassier (wearing just a plate cuiriass and possibly a helmet) that hung around until WW1.

The first cuirassiers did not appear very different from the fully armoured Late Medieval man-at-arms. They wore three-quarters armour that covered the entire upper body as well as the front half of the legs down to the knee. The head was protected by a close helm, burgonet or lobster tail pot helmet, usually worn with a gorget for the neck. The torso was protected by a breast and back plate, sometimes reinforced by a 'placate'. The arms and shoulders were fully armoured with pauldrons, rerebraces, elbow couters and vambraces. Armoured gauntlets were often abandoned, particularly for the right hand, as they interfered with the loading of pistols. Long tassets, instead of a combination of short tassets with cuisses, protected the front of the thighs and knees, Riding boots were substituted for lower leg armour (greaves and sabatons)

..

By the mid 17th century the fully armoured cuirassier was becoming increasingly anachronistic. The cuirassier lost his limb armour and entered the 18th century with just the breast and backplate.

...

The Austrian cuirassiers attempted to trade protection for mobility by wearing only the half-cuirass (without back plate) and helmet.


Lord Rocket said:
Secondly, your foot soldier there would probably wear something far better if he could afford it. It's disingenuous to compare olde timey knights with your average 124235th platoon goon since a knight was part of a warrior elite in charge of supplying his own weapons and armour.

Eh, not really. Nobody is really wearing anything heavier than a vest, trauma plate, groin protector and helmet (with the rare exception of some stuff that is only used for SWAT style "entry" or bomb disposal).

The elite units where money is no object aren't significantly more heavily armored than the regular line units, because while heavier armor exists, it just slows you down too much for use outside of rare "entry" situations.

A trade off between armor and speed is very much realistic, not strictly limited to game design. Although realistically, some pieces would be strictly inferior to others, being both less protective and more encumbering, which may make for less interesting gameplay
 
Self-Ejected

ScottishMartialArts

Self-Ejected
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
11,707
Location
California
Nickless said:
But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

Highly unlikely. The main gun on an M1A1 Abrams can range out to about 4000m. The .50 caliber machine gun can range out to about half that, and the 2 7.62mm machine guns to about 1000m. In even vaguely open terrain, a tanks would destroy spearmen before they could ever get close enough to cast a missile. Should the spearmen get in close and swarm the tank, the crew would just need to button up and drive away. The spearmen's only hope would be to disable the tank and force the crew to ditch it, leading to a 4 pistols + 1 rifle versus 1000 spears confrontation. Still, to disable a tank would require munitions well in advance of a spear. It would just never happen to be honest.
 
Self-Ejected

ScottishMartialArts

Self-Ejected
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
11,707
Location
California
deuxhero said:
though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction

Commander and loader machine guns are generally cupola mounted and would have no difficult swiveling to engage rear and flank attackers.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
M1A1 is "Modern Armor" not "Armor".

Anyway, the standard scenario for spearmen to defeat tanks is a bunch of fortified spearmen sitting in a city.

1000 spearmen dug in close/urban terrain could easily destroy some WW2 style tanks, using molotov cocktails and various mechanical means to immobilize them.

It's not like the spearmen are much worse off than riflemen who weren't supplied with anti tank weapons in this regard...

Attacking with unsupported tanks into urban terrain is a nightmare for the tanks in terms of spotting.

Ethiopians in the 1930s famously defeated Italian tanks by rolling boulders on them to immobilize them, prying open the hatches and/or pouring gasoline on them and setting them alight.

But in a built up city you'd just need the gasoline.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom