Discussions
From Boulder-GameDevwiki
Contents |
[edit] Game Dev Chat
I thought last night's game dev went really well. I enjoyed being in the new room with big projectors and more tv's. We'll have to figure out how to work all the equipment, maybe go in early next time. - Cami
[edit] Reality in Games
I'm still a little curious about where people stand as far as how much reality they want in their games. When I was thinking up the presentation for IL-2, I was trying to think up flaws with the game design itself, but the worst thing I could come up with was the complexity that arises from all the realism. Is this really a flaw though? Part of the charm, I think, has to do with the feeling that you're flying (wrestling?) this weighty machine instead of just floating through the sky. The settings can be adjusted to taste, but I find that in many games of this sort, reducing the realism too much trivializes the gameplay. If anyone has played Silent Hunter III, you can set the realism so low that you reduce submarine combat to "clicking when the light turns green." I also found it distracting that the level of realism in the Burnout series tended to fluctuate with each sequel. Burnout 2 used pretty realistic car physics, but the later games let you toss cars around like they're cardboard boxes. It's gotten so outlandish that I'm not sure if the series strikes the right kind of balance for me anymore.
On the other hand, I'm sure that some levels of reality are too much for me. I don't think there exists a space-flight sim that uses an actual Newtonian physics model. Is this because flying in a realistic space environment just isn't fun, or does it have to do with how complex or unknown the environment is? I also tend to have more fun flinging weapons in Mario Kart than Gran Turismo. If I put more time into learning how to drive better in Gran Turismo, would I get more out of it? -- Hagan
Namaste's Thoughts
This discussion brings to mind a couple things I've come across. Back when I was taking the Games4Education course here at CU, we had a discussion about what kind of games are educational in a susbstantial way. I came to the conclusion that simulations are inherently educational, because they teach about some kind of real-world system, just by experiencing the system. As for whether this inherently leads to a fun game is a different matter. Reality is naturally an extremely complex system with a myriad of facets, and a simulation can only ever hope to capture a cross-section of them. That said, I think what determines whether a simulation will be entertaining or not is which elements of the real system are simulated, and which ones are left out. For instance, I don't think that IL2 simulates the pilot needing to go to the bathroom on a long mission, or if they happened to be sick with diarrhea (sp?), or your plane breaking down and you being grounded until it is fixed again, which could take days in real time. Nope, the focus is on realistic flight and combat, which is of course cool. So basically, complex systems can be very interesting and entertaining play environments, if the complexity is utilized in a good game design manner. No bullshit, just make sure every feature contributes to the gameplay. Reality is our ultimate model for complexity and many of the interactions in it are very interesting, so capturing a piece of that in a videogame will lead to a very good game. Succinctly, the more reality which contributes to the gameplay experience (airplane combat in this case), the better, the more reality which adds tediousness or uninteresting decisions, the worse. -- Namaste
[edit] Making Video Games
[edit] Making Board Games and Card Games
On the Making of Boardgame Components (Gamasutra Article)
Dragonshields Ultra Pro (Card Holders)
