Gameplay vs Realism

testpilot_bg

 

 

This is something that keeps my interest for a long time and I want your opinion (the gamers) on this!

So, my question is: Do you think that realism should suffer in order to have a better and playable game mechanics? I'll make two examples. Which occasion do you prefer:

1. Counterstrike - a single shot with a gun can kill the character (realistic enough, although the character has a hitpoints and armor at maximum)

or

2. Jedi knight - your character has a hitpoints and shieldpoints and can take a lot of damage before it dies.

This is just a simple example of weapon damage. The other one is:

1. Independence war - in space you have inertion and your spaceship is flying almoust realistic (just like in Babylon 5)

or

2. Freespace - in this game there is no inertion (or just a little) and your fighter is flying like a plane in the atmosphere (like the Star Wars space battles)

So, what do you think? Is it fun for you to play more realistic games that bring you near the real world and that needs more precise thinking of almoust every danger situation, or you like to be almoust an invincible hero?

XaroX

For me, realism means close to nothing. Same goes for visuals - although they are a plus.

 

Gameplay >> all.

trev9999

Well since COD4 & 5 multiplayer are the best thus far that answers your question on realism. Yes trap us all in an arena with infiniate number of lives. counter strike is full of cheats and everyone knows it. eve online is really gay, flying games suck. Jedi Knight or Ninja games is just an adventure game with puzzles, more suck. All the good games have good mechanics and graphics. The only game with descent mechanics with sucky graphics left is Diablo 2 LOD.

Phallas

Counterstrike is realistic in the same way supermario was

 

you cannot penetrate bodyarmour and a  helmet with a smg or a pistol in real life,  the 9mm rounds simply dont generate enought velocity.

An ak-47 can penetrate any armour, a single shot in anybody part is enough to kill you 5 times over.

these are facts so do not counter them with oppinoins.

Cereberus

depends.

 

realism is just a style a game aims for it has nothing to do with how fun it is, a realistic game can be just as fun as a fantasy game for example - operation flashpoint

Nizur

If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose gameplay. If a game is über-realistic but the gameplay sucks, it will die. No one will want to play it if it's not fun/challenging/rewarding/etc.

Man1ac

Hmm, I think both gameplay and realism have been implemented very well at times but I must say, I'm all for gameplay after I played GTAIV. They put in so much more realism in that game that it wasn't even that fun like the other GTA games.

NakedFury

Gameplay. I have enough realism in my life to last me decades.

 

From the examples you made:

Halo/COD/MoH/007/etc type of "realistic" game, I have Counter Strike but I have no "lucky skill" to play the game, it only involves crazy lucky gun fights from 1 corner to the other. It would be a better game if it had other game types with more lives.



For a space game it would depend. It could be a pain to control a spaceship and every time you made a turn it would be an infinite kind of turn unless you stopped it turning in the other direction, so a more earthlike flying controls for me.

testpilot_bg

 

 

Thank you all for joining the conversation!

Yeah, Counterstrike is not quite realistic but my point was that just like in the real life you could be killed by a granade or a single shot, no matter the body armor or helmet you are wearing! And sometimes in such games that kind of chance is little annoying and not balanced, don't you think?

ninja33284

O
An ak-47 can penetrate any armour, a single shot in anybody part is enough to kill you 5 times over.
these are facts so do not counter them with oppinoins.

 

Here is where u are wrong. an AK -47 being a powerful gun can penetrate most body armour to date, but there is a new form of armour that came out in the make i dont know when either last year or some time between then and the present that cant take a Frag gernade point blank and not be penetrated its called dragonScale or something along those lines, look it up if you dont believe me

Fortenc

To add to this semi-interesting topic;

 

When it comes to 'realism' of combat, would you prefer your MMO to have each 1v1 fight be short and decisive or longer?

 

So for example two swordmen clash.  Should successful hits, rare as they are, finish a character pretty quickly?

Or should it be longer fights with hp slowly decreasing?

 

This is considering two similar gameplay systems, which do you prefer?  Short bursts of combat or longer fights?

 

2 hits to kill a boar or 20?

30 hits to kill a dragon or 300?

 

5 hits to kill a player or 50?

outfctrl

IL2 is not only the best WW2 flight sim, it's in a class of it's own and doesn't really have any competition. This game is so close to real flying in the war, it's scary.

That's the good news ... but also the bad news.

It is fiendishly difficult. If you are not prepared to put in some serious time, it may not turn out to be such a bargain, but once you get into it (and - believe me - that may take quite a while) you may find yourself getting up at the crack of dawn on a Saturday to play it.

This is a simulation, not an action game, meaning you actually have to fly it like the real thing. Meaning you need to manage your energy properly, correct for the massive torque of your engine on takeoff/landing, learn proper gunnery, etc.

The damage graphics are sweet. During a dogfight, you can see holes in your aircraft, sometimes a piece will be shot off, Oil splatter on the cockpit windshield or even the screen turns red when you are hit.

There is no "completing" it. Even if you do every mission, every static campaign, you've still got an unlimited number of dynamic campaigns. Even then, the best content is online using Hyperlobby against other players, where there is no "completion" event either, naturally.

I am totally addicted to this sim now.

 

Einherjar_LC

Gameplay without a doubt.

demonDOTshad

Originally posted by Fortenc


To add to this semi-interesting topic;
 
When it comes to 'realism' of combat, would you prefer your MMO to have each 1v1 fight be short and decisive or longer?
 
So for example two swordmen clash.  Should successful hits, rare as they are, finish a character pretty quickly?
Or should it be longer fights with hp slowly decreasing?
 
This is considering two similar gameplay systems, which do you prefer?  Short bursts of combat or longer fights?
 
2 hits to kill a boar or 20?
30 hits to kill a dragon or 300?
 
5 hits to kill a player or 50?

Thats a great question,

As it really depends on gameplay in a better environment.

Wow would be horrible for some if you could get two shotted as you'd never get the chance to use half your skills

if any depending on which class attacks you.



If the game had a Fable like combat system where you blocked when you wanted, and attacked when you wanted

without that dice feel of wow. Then i would love it, as if i pull off a succesfull strike and it hits your ribs, in all reality you'd die almost instantly depedning on distance. This would require more skill to play as one messup = your life vs button mashing.

 

Granted you could just block and block in a no magic environment. However most of fables magics could break the block while

others would slow time down, so you could get around them and so on. Some would possess the target.



So i would love this fast kill in a realistic fable like environment, But in a wow environment id get annoyed with the unbalanced pvp this would add.

StevieHmself

 well i think as we have seen with WWII online, too much realism can be a bad thing ie: you probaly should go to flight school if u want to fly a plane, but there is defiantly a place for games like this