[Tim]

We have a lot of threads about 'realism' in the game. here's the bottom line on realism: We Can't Die.

That's the end of realism right there. Want 'real' pirates? Then we have to be able to die. That's the _only_ deterrent to a pirate: dying. In a video game, you can't die, so piracy looks awfully appealing. In the real world, where the game can end, actions really do matter. That's real.

How many times have people complained that being rich makes death meaningless? Poop on that. Death is meaningless by design.. we always come back.

We can't die.

In a game, it's all about fun and marketibility. There can be some sim things, or some fun things, but there can't be real things.

We. Can't. Die. End of realism.

And that's a good thing.. we already have a real world. Games aren't supposed to be real.

[GrimGriz]

Realism is a variable attribute when applied to video games. i.e. The NPCs in Half-Life 2 have more realism than the NPCs in Half-Life.

[Tim]

I hear what you are saying.. but I think this is a case of 'using the same word too many times'.

There is certainly an application for the term 'realism' in which it applies to a sliding scale between real and very, very not real. But wouldn't it be more accurate to talk about that in terms of simulation quality? Can you ever, ever, make something _real_ in a video game? if not, then why do we talk about things as if they are on a scale of realism? Wouldn't that scale be impossible to achieve, by definition?

[GrimGriz]

The better a simulation, the greater it's realism. Everything else is just semantics.

Furthermore, death in a videogame isn't necessarily meaningless just because it's not death in real life. For example the cost of death in jumpgate can be measured in inconvenience.

[ELPIRATA]

That's what I enjoy much of CS, it forces to develop skills so you dont have to be on the 'DEAD' list so much. Quake2/UT you die and spawn right again, which is a different kind of shooter but still, if you have to spend 3 or 4 minutes watching others play you either develop skills or really enjoy others playing a lot.

ELP

[Tritian]

Tim, if this is true, and death is truly meaningless, why do people bitch so much when a pirate PoDs them?

I dont think death in Jumpgate is truly meaningless, because as GG stated, it can be measured in inconvienance. However, I feel the inconvenience of dying is nowhere near what some carebears would have you believe.

[WileE]

That is true Tim, but oversimplified. From a game designer perspective, realism is not the literal term you read it as (e.g. real life == realism and anything else is not). Realism is a perspective within a game which provides a ground or basis to develop from. For example, we, as humans, can understand the concept of flight because most all of us have experienced it. We can understand driving because we do it. Designers build around these concepts to increase the immersion of the game. The more we can intrinsically comprehend without requiring conscience thought, the easier it is for us to get lost in the fantasy.

Logically taking your original point Tim, we do not need to look as far as death to be struck by the fantastic unreality of a game. The ability to fly an individual space ship around a fictional galaxy being chased by seafood is ultimately unreal. Terrorists generally do not run around a small closed off levels being persued by counter-terrorist forces. Games as a rule are not realistic. You cannot buy Park Place for $350. Gorillas do not climb scaffolding with a girl, then throw barrels at you as you try to climb and save her.

To be honest, and back to your gist, realism in a game is not realism as we know it. Many assume that parallel, but it is not, nor has it ever been there. Donkey Kong is utterly unrealistic, but it has real features, like climbing ladders, or the way a barrel rolls down a path. Therefore, Donkey Kong has some measure of realism to it, though no one would ever say Donkey Kong is realistic.

Personally, I am trying to develop a game which has alot of realism to it, because we associate with realism. That is not to say the game will be realistic. Let's face facts, a game can never be real. It will have many mechanisms which are deeply based in the real, otherwise it makes immersion incredibly difficult.

[Tim]

WileE! Dude! where have you been?

And yes, thanks, you got me right where I want to be. Games aren't real. The least real among them? FPS. Closest to real? Simulators.

So why do we keep seeing 'because it's more real' being used as justification for new ideas in Jumpgate? Jumpgate is waaaay closer to the FPS side of life than the simulator side. Real is out the door, and happily. Right?

[GrimGriz]

Because as WileE said, increasing realism increases immersion. Some people think Jumpgate is more space sim and less arcade game, and vice versa. Either way, because it'd be fun, because it's more realistic, and because it's cool are all very valid reasons the devs might add something to Jumpgate.

[Istanbul]

a game is pretty much about taking the fun aspects of the reality of real life, while removing the not fun aspects, and finding a balance between challenge and functionality. For example, FPS take the fun part of firing weapons, and taking out agressive/violent feelings while taking out the non-fun aspects of real life: hiding corpses, going to prison, widows and parentless children, etc. Some more boring/non-fun elements are included in games because the end result, a feeling of accomplishment or overcoming obstacles, is fun in the end. For instance, in jumpgate, making money is a chore, however, once you've made enough to buy a pos and put some stuff on it, it feels worth it to most people because of the sense of accomplishment they feel, as well as the reward of having more functionality in the game for the person. If JumpGate was more like RL and we all had to work 10 hours a day for 8 credits an hour, that would break the balance of fun/boredom.

[WileE]

Originally Posted by Tim

So why do we keep seeing 'because it's more real' being used as justification for new ideas in Jumpgate? Jumpgate is waaaay closer to the FPS side of life than the simulator side. Real is out the door, and happily. Right?

I have been around, just quiet. This is a topic of great interest to me and my goings on, so I thought I would chime in.

That is the ultimate catch-22 of the argument from the gamers perspective. Gamers want things to behave as they do in real life, so they can better associate, understand, and, most importantly, predict what is going to happen. This is only logical, as it is how real life behaves. Look at what happened when the economy was changed and became incredibly mining dependent. The whole game was upheaved, as the core of operation for so long was changed. Now alot of people who had a certain expectation of the game, and a certain playstyle, we suddenly told that everything they know is no more. That is the worst thing a developer can do. Granted, it was done in the best possible way, given the circumstances, and with the best of intentions, but it further hurt the players, as it alienated a group (please note, I do not make this point to tangent the discussion into what happened ad nausium).

The point that I find entertaining in the "more real" discussions are that the ideas are to make a totally unreal occurrence more real, but the occurrence itself is not a real occurrence. Take pirating a spaceship. There is no one on the planet who can even hope to guess what pirating a ship from another ship would be like in the middle of space, but we can all offer up what we THINK would make it more real, even though it is the ultimate display of the unreal. We compare to ship piracy hundreds of years ago, as if that has some measure of guidance beyond the concept itself. If we really want to open up the discussion wide, we should try to cast off as much of our "reality" as possible and dare to dream. It is the ultimate RP. Things like piracy will ultimately be controlled by the mechanics of the game, not the RP. Rather than banter the concept of piracy, our discussions should be on the mechanics of the piracy. THAT is game development.

As is demonstrated above, that is the bad side of the catch-22 of continually misusing terms and concepts.

The most important thing a developer has to grasp is that at the end of the day, no matter what happens, the game is just that. A game. A diversion from a reality filled with commutes to work, cubicals or dealing with the public, asshole bosses, etc. A game is an opportunity for a person to fill out a dream, if only for a moment, and if only in the fictional sense. The chance to save a world, to conquer a foe, to be the ultimate good guy, to be the worst of the bad. All the things we are not able to do on a daily basis. So it is a knife edge that is walked between the realism that is critical to the player immersing his/her self in the game to achieve that escapeism, and the tacit acceptance that it is not, nor will it ever be real.

Ultimately, it is slight of hand at its best.

[Tritian]

i think piracy in Jumpgate gets compared to old naval piracy a lot because people want to RP true pirates. We want to act and talk like those old pirates did, just like some people wanna act like gangstas, and others want to act like business men, or truck drivers.

So the comparision of Jumpgate piracy to true piracy is valid. Since we want to act like old naval pirates, the closer to real piracy the better. Within reason.