NOTE: This is a general response to people who are against realism in games, its not addressed to any one person so don't take it personally.
The original Total Annihilation's weapon effects were more realistic, I still haven't forgotten how it plays.
"Strategy" isn't an excuse for unrealistic effects.
Its a piss-poor excuse for not willing to spend the effort in making something better, because while there has to be a certain amount of unrealism in a game due to obvious physical, technical and interface-based restrictions, but a game is more solid if its firmly rooted in reality.
Arcadey effects should remain in arcade games. I don't care about how much license game designers take in arcade games because they're frickin' arcade games (which I also enjoy mind you).
Supcom, realistic? No, I don't think so. If anything, Supcom is even more unrealistic than TA.
It has some of the most impractical-looking designs i've seen, while they look fantastically sci-fi, I wouldn't want to be driving or piloting anything like them IRL.
The effects are not bad but still not as impressive as CoH as KDR pointed out, or even WiC which actually were all the better because of a higher degree of realism.
CoH's strengths are little details like infantry 'realistically' reacting to enemy units. For example, infantry will go "oh shit! Tank!" when they see a Tiger tank, but an M10 would go "Tiger tank! Let's get em' boys!". They also realistically run for cover when under fire.
So tell me is realism a bad thing? If its a bad thing, then people should stop moaning about poor AI that don't act realistically, about shitty, unrealistic graphics (because its all about gameplay!), and about a thousand other things that gamers like to bitch about.
And if nobody noticed, games today are striving for realism, always have been and always will.
The entire graphics industry's stupendous growth over a relatively short span of time is largely due to demands from game developers and gamers who want to make graphics more realistic. Even Halo has taken full advantage of modern graphics hardware to make Master Chief more believable.
Ever wondered why WW2/modern warfare FPS games have such a huge market despite being done to the death? Yeah, because they have a more or less higher degree of realism.
Realism only becomes bad when it overcomplicates the control system and making it cumbersome to play, case in point the Battlecruiser space sims.
I'm sure everyone here has drooled over the awesome, more realistic looking graphics in upcoming games, or exclaimed or were impressed by the realistic behaviour of enemy AI be it in an FPS or RTS.
So, to re-emphasise, is realism really bad? Ask yourself this next time you want to say "lol but its a game, if u want realism play X game instead".
Need Healp... your opinions matter.
Moderator: Moderators
-
HildemarDasce
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 13 Nov 2005, 12:06
Well, I want immersion when I play a game, and as such, I like plausibility (don't know if you can exchange that for realism).Wolf-In-Exile wrote:The stuff he said.
I liked OTA so much because it felt so much more plausible than other RTS games at the time. Planes behaved like planes. Artillery shells soared in arcs for miles before hitting their targets. And the design felt at least somewhat functional.
I don't think immersion and plausability comes primarily from the graphics engine itself; it is firmly rooted in the design (as Wolf also acknowledged).
If it feels like the units and structures look the way they look for a reason, the scenario feels a lot more plausible, and hence you get more immersion. I think this is one of the main reasons why sci-fi movies like Aliens and Bladerunner are so good.
Then again, all this is firmly rooted in the fact that I really love narratives in gaming, something that I construct in my head when the game itself doesn't spell it out for me in the form of a story. And ascribing a narrative to events in for example a multiplayer game becomes hard when the setting doesn't feel plausible.
(And yes, I do mainly play World Domination :)
Good effects, everywhere.
About supcom: The units are sometimes ugly, very ugly. I know TA has the CAN and stuff, but its nicer than the looks of supcom. In addition, all the weapons (except cool bombers) look to have the same krappy lazer effect. Dont go that way. I see it coming, but the splash effects nicen it up.
About supcom: The units are sometimes ugly, very ugly. I know TA has the CAN and stuff, but its nicer than the looks of supcom. In addition, all the weapons (except cool bombers) look to have the same krappy lazer effect. Dont go that way. I see it coming, but the splash effects nicen it up.
Wolf, the trouble is when people complain that you didn't include factor X from realism. That simply doesn't fit, a part of reality that's not in the game probably was left out for a reason.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said a very important thing: Realism in a game is not how closely it follows the real world but how closely it follows the world it depicts and how internally consistent that world is.
I don't see people complaining that anything in Kernel Panic is unrealistic (outside of maybe the Trojan love beam), that's because the world Kernel Panic depicts is a completely different world from ours.
Shigeru Miyamoto once said a very important thing: Realism in a game is not how closely it follows the real world but how closely it follows the world it depicts and how internally consistent that world is.
I don't see people complaining that anything in Kernel Panic is unrealistic (outside of maybe the Trojan love beam), that's because the world Kernel Panic depicts is a completely different world from ours.
-
HildemarDasce
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 13 Nov 2005, 12:06
-
Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
KDR: I agree as well, I understand you perfectly as i've had (the misfortune of) playing one of the aforementioned Battlecruiser AD games which is the epitome of overcomplication, and i've also tried games like Armed Assault where the extreme emphasis on 'realism' made the control interface a tad too cumbersome for me to enjoy playing it much.
Miyamoto's quote is indeed very true, and i'll get to that later.
But for things like I suggested, are perfectly reasonable for adding effects and increasing projectile speeds because essentially XTA does try to depict the 'real world' in a sense, albeit a sci-fi one.
People do expect a reasonable degree of realism from games modelled (however loosely) upon the real world.
The more a game like that takes more 'liberties' on realism, more "red flags" in the person's mind go up due to its inconsistency with the world it tries to depict.
The case for a healthy degree of realism in games that are set in the 'real world' is that, the more consistent it is with things you'd expect because you've seen it in the real world. The more realism, the higher the plausability and believability, which in turn increases immersion (as HildemarDasce pointed out).
When that is achieved, elements that are more 'imaginary' are further emphasised, and add the "coolness" factor to a fictional world.
This explains why sci-fi universes such as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, The Matrix (plus Aliens and Blade Runner) and fantasy ones like Lord of The Rings are so successful despite being fictional. I mean come on, who doesn't like the Jedi, their fancy lightsaber-ing and Force powers?
Legions of SW fans fantasise of being able to do 'cool stuff' like that, because it is made to feel plausible by the movies, which again, had a healthy degree of realism in the sense that things 'worked' like you expect they should, and the world was more or less consistent (and the ton of backstory and fluff developed thus far seeks to enhance its believability).
Kernel Panic is indeed completely different, it doesn't look or feel like it depicts the 'real world' which is why you get more creative license as there is a very clear distinction from the art style alone (a very nice one btw, reminds me of those good old retro games), which allows you to define its internal consistency.
HildemarDasce: Indeed, i'll clarify that the graphics engine in itself does not create plausability or immersion; but its a platform which enables developers to create more graphical realism (like effects such as bloom, HDRI, AA, soft shadows, dynamic lighting, normal/parallax/relief mapping etc).
Miyamoto's quote is indeed very true, and i'll get to that later.
But for things like I suggested, are perfectly reasonable for adding effects and increasing projectile speeds because essentially XTA does try to depict the 'real world' in a sense, albeit a sci-fi one.
People do expect a reasonable degree of realism from games modelled (however loosely) upon the real world.
The more a game like that takes more 'liberties' on realism, more "red flags" in the person's mind go up due to its inconsistency with the world it tries to depict.
The case for a healthy degree of realism in games that are set in the 'real world' is that, the more consistent it is with things you'd expect because you've seen it in the real world. The more realism, the higher the plausability and believability, which in turn increases immersion (as HildemarDasce pointed out).
When that is achieved, elements that are more 'imaginary' are further emphasised, and add the "coolness" factor to a fictional world.
This explains why sci-fi universes such as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, The Matrix (plus Aliens and Blade Runner) and fantasy ones like Lord of The Rings are so successful despite being fictional. I mean come on, who doesn't like the Jedi, their fancy lightsaber-ing and Force powers?
Legions of SW fans fantasise of being able to do 'cool stuff' like that, because it is made to feel plausible by the movies, which again, had a healthy degree of realism in the sense that things 'worked' like you expect they should, and the world was more or less consistent (and the ton of backstory and fluff developed thus far seeks to enhance its believability).
Kernel Panic is indeed completely different, it doesn't look or feel like it depicts the 'real world' which is why you get more creative license as there is a very clear distinction from the art style alone (a very nice one btw, reminds me of those good old retro games), which allows you to define its internal consistency.
HildemarDasce: Indeed, i'll clarify that the graphics engine in itself does not create plausability or immersion; but its a platform which enables developers to create more graphical realism (like effects such as bloom, HDRI, AA, soft shadows, dynamic lighting, normal/parallax/relief mapping etc).
Well, this is only my opinion, and applies to TA-based games. I enjoy immersive games too, sure, but TA isn't one.
Think of chess, it somewhat represents two medieval armies. It is much simplified but still elaborate. It isn't meant to be immersive. I think TA is somewhere between the 'real' world and chess-like simplicity, and that's just the way I like it.
In a real battlefield there's usually lot of confusion, be it smoke/dust or just uncertanity wheather a distant figure is an enemy or not. I don't want to search my gators in the middle of smoke, and then send them forward hoping they don't shoot allies as enemies and spot true enemies before they get shot down. I want TA, not an immersive battlefield with confusion and gore.
About the supcom, I think the model and effect scaling is more 'realistic' (ever seen a real plasmacannon?
) than TA's but looks messy. I just couldn't see the whole picture with those tiny flycrap-sized models.
Think of chess, it somewhat represents two medieval armies. It is much simplified but still elaborate. It isn't meant to be immersive. I think TA is somewhere between the 'real' world and chess-like simplicity, and that's just the way I like it.
In a real battlefield there's usually lot of confusion, be it smoke/dust or just uncertanity wheather a distant figure is an enemy or not. I don't want to search my gators in the middle of smoke, and then send them forward hoping they don't shoot allies as enemies and spot true enemies before they get shot down. I want TA, not an immersive battlefield with confusion and gore.
About the supcom, I think the model and effect scaling is more 'realistic' (ever seen a real plasmacannon?
) than TA's but looks messy. I just couldn't see the whole picture with those tiny flycrap-sized models.
A realistic weapon projectile would hit instantly, you can hardly hear a lot weapons and the impact is mostly smoke, dust and rubble.
Anyway, the plasma shots' explosions remind me of fireworks a bit which isn't exactly good. Overall as wolf said a tad too much like arcade games.
BTW I spent an hour or two on BC3000 AD. It's good that certain games never hit the shelves... was about as interesting as this real life moon lander simulation game which consists of a 500 page handbook and way too many buttons,
Anyway, the plasma shots' explosions remind me of fireworks a bit which isn't exactly good. Overall as wolf said a tad too much like arcade games.
BTW I spent an hour or two on BC3000 AD. It's good that certain games never hit the shelves... was about as interesting as this real life moon lander simulation game which consists of a 500 page handbook and way too many buttons,
Um, as for the general arguments about aesthetics:
1. One guy's "realistic" is another guy's "cartoony". Different artists are going to interpret different, fantastic events, such as plasma cannons, in different ways.
2. I think it's unwise and unhealthy to tread upon people's artistic license, and expect all games to look like WWII sims, when even IRL explosions and weapon effects have astounding variety in terms of light, color, dirt, etc.
The only real critique I have to offer you, noruas, is a technical one- cegspawn events are very, very CPU-hungry. You seem to be using them everywhere in that video. This is not likely to lead to good performance in real games. Just my opinion.
1. One guy's "realistic" is another guy's "cartoony". Different artists are going to interpret different, fantastic events, such as plasma cannons, in different ways.
2. I think it's unwise and unhealthy to tread upon people's artistic license, and expect all games to look like WWII sims, when even IRL explosions and weapon effects have astounding variety in terms of light, color, dirt, etc.
The only real critique I have to offer you, noruas, is a technical one- cegspawn events are very, very CPU-hungry. You seem to be using them everywhere in that video. This is not likely to lead to good performance in real games. Just my opinion.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Realism is bad whenever it prevents a design goal from being realized.
TA was NOT realistic. Giant subsonic orange plasma balls that float majestically through the air is the farthest thing from realistic military weaponry I can think of. I have no problem with realism, nor realistic graphics, however, gameplay should come first. The entire debate about realism is dumb, realism is simply a tool to an ends, and shouldn't be arbitrarily dismissed any more than it should be arbitrarily promoted. If a realistic solution to the problem is preferable, use it, if a realistic solution is less preferable, don't use it.
In this case, I like the effects. I wouldn't call them "cartoony" and I wouldn't call them explicately unrealistic... (your giant plasma ball is already enough of an affront to plausible weaponry, making it flashier does not make it less realistic)
The effect being used gives the impression of a fairly large amount of heat and energy cast off in the plasma balls, like they are burning up all the air around them. I like the effect for the most part. The missles are a little overdone, however, they are slow moving, so there is nothing wrong with them looking like dragging along heavy yield rockets. It's a waste of time arguing they are any less realistic that way, they just fit a different role and are being represented on a different scale with a different style.
TA was NOT realistic. Giant subsonic orange plasma balls that float majestically through the air is the farthest thing from realistic military weaponry I can think of. I have no problem with realism, nor realistic graphics, however, gameplay should come first. The entire debate about realism is dumb, realism is simply a tool to an ends, and shouldn't be arbitrarily dismissed any more than it should be arbitrarily promoted. If a realistic solution to the problem is preferable, use it, if a realistic solution is less preferable, don't use it.
In this case, I like the effects. I wouldn't call them "cartoony" and I wouldn't call them explicately unrealistic... (your giant plasma ball is already enough of an affront to plausible weaponry, making it flashier does not make it less realistic)
The effect being used gives the impression of a fairly large amount of heat and energy cast off in the plasma balls, like they are burning up all the air around them. I like the effect for the most part. The missles are a little overdone, however, they are slow moving, so there is nothing wrong with them looking like dragging along heavy yield rockets. It's a waste of time arguing they are any less realistic that way, they just fit a different role and are being represented on a different scale with a different style.
-
HildemarDasce
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 13 Nov 2005, 12:06
True. Everything, in the end, is in the eye of the beholder. Setting up 'rules' for aesthetics is never a good idea.Argh wrote:Um, as for the general arguments about aesthetics:
1. One guy's "realistic" is another guy's "cartoony". Different artists are going to interpret different, fantastic events, such as plasma cannons, in different ways.
2. I think it's unwise and unhealthy to tread upon people's artistic license, and expect all games to look like WWII sims, when even IRL explosions and weapon effects have astounding variety in terms of light, color, dirt, etc.
Although I'd still say that _generally_ a universe that sticks to its own premise in terms of plausibility tends to be aesthetically pleasing to more people (Taking a unit from Kernel Panic, and one from World Domination and putting them in eachother's contexts probably wouldn't appeal to anyone, but that doesn't mean that either is better or worse, in terms of aesthetics, than the other).
I think SwiftSpear is the only person to mention....
Making Purple Laser like a lance.
Many people say different things about smoke, staying too long or too short, so I guess i will leave it.
Fixing the smoke gaps on small missiles and shrinking the cruise missiles missile trail because its too large in comparison to nuke.
Removing the Guardian and Pop-Up Effect.
Are you referring to the nuke or the raven rockets or missiles on the dragging effect SwiftSpear?The effect being used gives the impression of a fairly large amount of heat and energy cast off in the plasma balls, like they are burning up all the air around them. I like the effect for the most part.
Making Purple Laser like a lance.
Many people say different things about smoke, staying too long or too short, so I guess i will leave it.
Fixing the smoke gaps on small missiles and shrinking the cruise missiles missile trail because its too large in comparison to nuke.
Removing the Guardian and Pop-Up Effect.
Exactly.SwiftSpear wrote: TA was NOT realistic. Giant subsonic orange plasma balls that float majestically through the air is the farthest thing from realistic military weaponry I can think of. I have no problem with realism, nor realistic graphics, however, gameplay should come first. The entire debate about realism is dumb, realism is simply a tool to an ends, and shouldn't be arbitrarily dismissed any more than it should be arbitrarily promoted. If a realistic solution to the problem is preferable, use it, if a realistic solution is less preferable, don't use it.
Noruas, have you thought of redoing the disintegrator effect? Now it's just a series of small explosions.
I don't know what your purple laser lance is going to look like, but somekind of a lance effect might fit the dgun, too. The effect should look really dangerous - it is the most powerful weapon in the game.-
Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
SwiftSpear: I meant 'more realistic' in a comparative sense, and in the aspect of projectile behaviour and speed but yes, you summed up what I was trying to say better than I could, only I don't agree with you on the current behaviour of the projectiles.
Heavy rockets with enormous payloads are mostly ballistic, i.e. ICBMs so their flight characteristics and trajectory are different from short-ranged missiles like Sidewinders. Seeing a heavy rocket slowly flying across the field -without- dropping like a rock does feel wrong, because it is depicted to be flying in the atmosphere which is bound by terrestrial laws of physics.
Spring has already shown that projectiles can be given a ballistic trajectory, so i'd recommend implementing that for the big missile.
Search through Youtube, there's alot of cool videos of real-world weapons.
here's one showing the Tomahawk missile, and a reference for muzzle flares from the CIWS minigun.
Just watch the Tomahawk video, it clearly shows it flying pretty fast, and you can almost feel the impact when it hits a target, and looks suitably epic.
Now, i'd like to make it clear that I don't think the missiles to fly that fast, since it'd be over in a second or less, but also not as slow as it is now; or the muzzle flash disappearing after a few nanoseconds, but it shouldn't remain for so long either.
While I confess i'm no philosopher and I have an elementary grasp of the realm of philosophy and debate, i'll do as best as able to carry an intellectual discussion with you.
But in case my position wasn't clear i'd like to reiterate: just because I say the effects should be more realistic, doesn't mean I want it to be realistic down to a T. I base my opinions on the most moderate and balanced viewpoints as I can find. Try looking up Aristotle's philosophy on the Golden Mean sometime. Absolutes are idealistic at best, and dangerous at worst.
This is why I explained what I meant by 'realism' in such detail so I won't be misunderstood.
Think about it. We all know killing is bad. But even in a court of justice, a person accused of murder is put on trial because the circumstances have to be investigated and judged whether a person should be punished for killing another or not, and that is why there are defences in court when you kill someone in the process of self-defence (i.e. protecting your home). In the real world absolutes rarely, if ever, apply.
I've seen the arguments for and against realism a fair deal, and depending on the case, I have supported the case for more realism in certain aspects and less realism in others, because 'realism' is too general a term as there are many aspects to it, so one must look at it critically on a case-by-case basis.
Let me give you an example. I also play an indie game called Mount & Blade, which is an awesome medieval combat game that has freeform gameplay. In the earlier builds, people were debating over adding effects like ragdoll physics so horses and people don't just keel over in a stiff manner when you knock them down or kill them.
There were a number of people who didn't like the idea (look through this thread) but surprise! no one complained after ragdolls were added. Why? Because it added another degree of realism to the game and made it more awesome.
Anyway, do what you like, advice was sought and it was given, and i've presented my case, keep it in mind or forget as you will.
Heavy rockets with enormous payloads are mostly ballistic, i.e. ICBMs so their flight characteristics and trajectory are different from short-ranged missiles like Sidewinders. Seeing a heavy rocket slowly flying across the field -without- dropping like a rock does feel wrong, because it is depicted to be flying in the atmosphere which is bound by terrestrial laws of physics.
Spring has already shown that projectiles can be given a ballistic trajectory, so i'd recommend implementing that for the big missile.
Search through Youtube, there's alot of cool videos of real-world weapons.
here's one showing the Tomahawk missile, and a reference for muzzle flares from the CIWS minigun.
Just watch the Tomahawk video, it clearly shows it flying pretty fast, and you can almost feel the impact when it hits a target, and looks suitably epic.
Now, i'd like to make it clear that I don't think the missiles to fly that fast, since it'd be over in a second or less, but also not as slow as it is now; or the muzzle flash disappearing after a few nanoseconds, but it shouldn't remain for so long either.
I do not contradict myself, because my views take into account the fact that overemphasis on either extreme, be it realism or fantasy, is bad. Arguments fail according to socratic method due to illogical assertions. If you wish to engage me in a socratic debate at refuting my discourse, by all means create a new thread and i'll oblige you.lbctech wrote:wolf, I am afraid you have phailed in your socratic argument. You contradict yourself.
While I confess i'm no philosopher and I have an elementary grasp of the realm of philosophy and debate, i'll do as best as able to carry an intellectual discussion with you.
But in case my position wasn't clear i'd like to reiterate: just because I say the effects should be more realistic, doesn't mean I want it to be realistic down to a T. I base my opinions on the most moderate and balanced viewpoints as I can find. Try looking up Aristotle's philosophy on the Golden Mean sometime. Absolutes are idealistic at best, and dangerous at worst.
This is why I explained what I meant by 'realism' in such detail so I won't be misunderstood.
Think about it. We all know killing is bad. But even in a court of justice, a person accused of murder is put on trial because the circumstances have to be investigated and judged whether a person should be punished for killing another or not, and that is why there are defences in court when you kill someone in the process of self-defence (i.e. protecting your home). In the real world absolutes rarely, if ever, apply.
I've seen the arguments for and against realism a fair deal, and depending on the case, I have supported the case for more realism in certain aspects and less realism in others, because 'realism' is too general a term as there are many aspects to it, so one must look at it critically on a case-by-case basis.
Let me give you an example. I also play an indie game called Mount & Blade, which is an awesome medieval combat game that has freeform gameplay. In the earlier builds, people were debating over adding effects like ragdoll physics so horses and people don't just keel over in a stiff manner when you knock them down or kill them.
There were a number of people who didn't like the idea (look through this thread) but surprise! no one complained after ragdolls were added. Why? Because it added another degree of realism to the game and made it more awesome.
Anyway, do what you like, advice was sought and it was given, and i've presented my case, keep it in mind or forget as you will.
Last edited by Wolf-In-Exile on 20 Dec 2007, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
You can't just start doing stuff like that, Wolf. Speed of projectiles is a fairly critical game design issue- real-world physics be damned. Don't sweat that kind of stuff very much- you're working on a project that depicts nothing less ridiculous than 50-foot armored mecha in a world without realistic ATGMs, so tread lightlySpring has already shown that projectiles can be given a ballistic trajectory, so i'd recommend implementing that for the big missile.
Also i think you need to understand Wolf-In_Exile, many people can only do about 20 frames on AVERAGE, so a nano second to render all that may never be seen, and will give no cool result to those who do not have a strong pc for nano seconds.
There is no point to do nano seconds if not everyone can see it.
There is no point to do nano seconds if not everyone can see it.