To what extent should one try to achieve realism in a game?

[aaammmsterdddam]

I mean, at what point is the transition between fun gameplay and too hard to play?
I don't have a clue how far I should pursue this noble goal of realism, as a developer I would probably find it easier to use whatever feature I make, since I know how it works.
So basically, does anyone have tips on BAD gameplay features?

[REDDemon]

There is no best answer to that question. Something can work and something almost identical can also be a big failure. Test test test. Your gameplay design should allows for quick changes and need to be flexible so that you can always adjust parameters/controls etc. Is almost impossible knowing in advance how gameplay feels after you finished.
Before starting making a game you shoul try to figure several (not one or two) gameplays that you can easily achieve. Then be critique on all your gameplays and spot out strong and weak points. A good strong points may suffice but also not. Don't overload yourself with over complicated gameplays and think to get something ready in few months maximum. Don't get frustated with project lasting years.

Fun gameplay means also (but not only or limited too) simple mechanics that are hard to master. ==> easy for all player, challengin for hardcorders.. but achieve that is really hard.

[ACE247]

Realism doesn't work with a Keyboard and a Flat surface Monitor. Learned that a long time ago. So, don't bother, just make something fun!

[aaammmsterdddam]

you have given me a lot to think about...
thanks!

[Mel]

As much as desired, within the posibilities of the engine you use

[fmx]

As much as desired, within the posibilities of the engine you use

I would say "as much as looks good without going overboard"

Never make a game too difficult, otherwise players will put off.
Ofcourse an easy game will not last long either
So consider having different levels of difficulty, each with own balance on realism and challenge

[ACE247]

If you asked me, learn from Valve, their realism is defined by their Game Universe. Don't make a game that people can apply common everyday knowledge of their environment to. Make it a new one.
Realism isn't what everyone thinks it is...

[aaammmsterdddam]

As much as desired, within the posibilities of the engine you use

I would say "as much as looks good without going overboard"

Never make a game too difficult, otherwise players will put off.
Ofcourse an easy game will not last long either
So consider having different levels of difficulty, each with own balance on realism and challenge

ah yes, but then where is that all too fine line between overboard and perfect?

If you asked me, learn from Valve, their realism is defined by their Game Universe. Don't make a game that people can apply common everyday knowledge of their environment to. Make it a new one.
Realism isn't what everyone thinks it is...

That is indeed an interesting idea, I never thought of it through the perspective of defining a new reality... but then how would one make it believeable, Valve has made a lot of GREAT games, and they seem to be mostly in the same reality, one which I don't know a lot about (my assumption of the same reality is due to portal referencing half life ), but there are too many gaps for me to really see how the reality makes sense, but I know it does... then again, the half life and portal series are basically our reality... well... in the future... a bad future ^^

for example, should I add that the cahracter has to blink, that each breath moves the body noticeably, that the character can hold his/her breath temporarily, that a broken leg will severely impair your walking, or perhaps /../ (You get the point. no?)

[ACE247]

^^ Mentioned items can be incorporated via animation system. Besides they're barely noticeable, focus on the big parts first that are needed to make the game work then add the little things. Just like building a house, make the foundation, then the walls then the roof thats held up by the walls and THEN paint it and fill it with furniture. Parts of a game are needed to make the details work. You cant have furniture standing on its own in a yard it's gonna to get nicked!

Think about it. Ok?

[aaammmsterdddam]

yeah, well part of the foundation is to have a good concept (which I am almost done with thanks to all your help) as well as the base stuff such as physics, graphics, working movement system /../ (you get the point)

I basically already know a lot of good mechanics, which I know work. but I don't know what would be a bad idea ^^" (probably going to have to do a lot of experimentation and testing for this point though)
and then again, pgotorealism might not be what I should go for...

well, thanks!

[ACE247]

Just as an example of defining your own reality/realism.
What would be cool to make would be a planet where there are two suns and another planet in rotation with your own world. Then there will be lots of shadows for everything, weird season and sun cycles, hence weird plant growth and animals. Gravity is never fixed, I.e.: 2x as strong when the other planet would be below you in its orbit and non existent/ very weak when its above you. That would make a cool world, and you've already then defined your own worlds realism that challenges the conventional we expect to see on our planet when we go outside.

[mongoose7]

Der, gravity is not constant. Or to put it another way, since the Sun is about a million times more massive than the Earth, why don't we all just float off the Earth and plummet to the Sun?

Reminds me of the guy who said the Earth looks brown from space because blue is absorbed by the atmosphere <tee-hee>.

[ACE247]

What are you trying to say mongoose? I don't quite know in what way to interpret what you said.
But what I am saying, gameplay realism a sort of a character building experience. You've got to bring alternate explanations or events to explain obviously unrealistic things in ways people haven't thought about it. Sort of like surprise and astonishment. Bring things in a way hardly anyone has looked at it before, that's were truly great game play is found in. I.e: make a game that represents the world from a Bugs Eye view (maybe a dragonfly) minus the pixely vision. Where you have to hunt for food(other little flies mosquitos, bugs etc). Escape the Weather to find shelter. Maybe cruise through peoples gardens(everything looking huge with more smaller details visible than we humans can see.) Escape from the Cat, that's out looking for a toy Would make quite an awesome and maybe even educational game. Oh and maybe include the dragonfly's life cycle as it grows up in a pond as an aquatic insect that has to hunt there too and escape other predators etc? Make it different, because shooting people is just lame. We've had it for over two decades already its just got to be 'phased out'.
PS: we dont plummet towards the sun because like a satellite in orbit is kept up by moving at a high enough speed, the earths centrifugal force as it orbits around the sun counteracts its gravitaional and the earths centripetal force and we stay relative to earths gravity because the earth also spins around its own axis which produces its own centripetal force which together with earths mass gravitation counteracts the centrifugal force produced by its slow spin . And many other things keep us here too, but those are the most important. An object could in fact spin fast enough to spin material off of it. But it would have to hit by a massive impact at a very specific angle to cause that(or achieve ridiculous levels of gravitaion. Would maybe be cool to create such an event in a video game.

[mongoose7]

WTF! Reads like an acid trip.

Anyway, you can't leave reality too far behind or it just becomes stupid. People really do insist that fantasy is anthropomorphic. If you make a game about bugs, then the bugs must behave like people. It may be limiting, but it's the rule.

[ACE247]

If a person is controlling the bug, it already behaves like a person.. How much extra work do we have to worry about there?
I dont really mean that realism is left behind, but the fact is inside a computer were not outside the computer, so don't bother with realism. All of the Call of Duty gamers these days anyway have no idea what realism is, ask them to explain it and they blank.

Anyway I'm not trying to provide acid trip reading. That's just a byproduct
Just providing some food for thought, I mean why just leave the thread empty with only opinions like most threads end up.

Ok, now you can declare me Insane.