Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Edeus

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Edeus

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Edeus

Originally posted by dave6660

 

No, but I have evidence that shows it is something understood by grade 6 schoolchildren.

 

http://letsdoscience.com/content_pdf/Grade6EvidenceInvestigation.pdf

 

Alternatively, if you feel a bit more grown up, you could read the article by Helen Longino in journal Philosophy of Science , Vol. 46 March 1979. pp. 37–42.

Maybe I should just say that my point was to illustrate how un-effective the "Can you prove X with some data" tactic is in an argument.  If you want to disagree with someone's theory, that's fine.  But to insult them by implying: "you're just blowing this out your ass, so I demand you come up with some evidence" is just as immature as actually stating it explicitly. 

 

Having evidence is fine and great, but the moment you say "why don't you prove it," it can easily be turned against you in the very same argument.  And we all know that nobody here is going to spend hours coming up with the statistical data, or waste analytic skills on some fail troll forum thread...  So why bother asking it at all?  Would you prove your argument with statistical objective data if someone pulled the same stunt on you? 

 

And that's why I think "why don't you prove it with objective data" is a pointless argument tactic.  Why not get to the point and say "I don't believe you and I never will unless there is hard data, but since the hard data is unknowable, I'm happy right where I am."

 

PS: back on topic: I personally believe combat/crafting/exploring are all equally fun.

I enjoy taking things out of context to suit my arguments.  I'm more like a politician than I can admit.

Fixed it for you.

I'm all for it.

Personally I still consider immersion to be an actual selling point when buying/playing a game. Why else create zones that actually look like places - deserts or forests or snowy landscapes?

I'd chose a game where running around in below zero actually gives you a temperature related debuff etc. I'd actually like weather in a game and negative effects for being soaking wet, particularly in a colder climate. 

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt
 

Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it.  The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game.  Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).

If you happen to like cardboard should restaurants indulge you?

If a few people a day started ordering cardboard, I'd start stocking it.

Exactly, capitalism working as intended.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by dave6660

That's completely subjective.  I think it would be interesting game play and would not intrude at all.  Judging by the other responses in this this thread, I'm not alone either.

How is it interesting?  As presented, it's merely another form of upkeep.  Players don't play games for upkeep and penalty.  They play games to (a) interact (make interesting decisions), (b) express themselves, and/or (c) as a zen-like relaxation activity.

None of those things are benefitted by arbitrarily adding extra rules unless those rules are crafted in a way which allows for a certain level of skillful mastery.  As presented, equipping cold weather gear is just what you do.  There's no mastery, it's just a requirement to avoid suffering a penalty.

So again, the way for this feature to sound reasonable is when you tie it to other parts of the game, like saying players end up making a choice between cold weather gear or gear which improves some solitary aspect of their character so that in some cold conditions the cold weather gear is better and in others it's better to suffer the cold penalties to pursue the other benefit.

Until that happens, it's realism for realism's sake (or some other poor reason) and therefore bad game design.

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation.  I'm giving my personal opinion on a feature and you're telling me about your arbitrary definition of good game design.

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Axehilt
 

Nobody is arguing that with you, why do you keep repeating it.  The posters here (myself included) are saying we would enjoy certain realistic elements in a game.  Therefore it would not detract from the experience (just the opposite).

If you happen to like cardboard should restaurants indulge you?

If a few people a day started ordering cardboard, I'd start stocking it.

Exactly, capitalism working as intended.

Stocking cardboard is cheap.  Kinda like making tiny flash games.

Stocking enriched uranium (for those who want to eat that) isn't cheap.  Kinda like making MMORPGs.

We're talking about niche tastes which are prohibitively expensive to service compared to the demand.  (Whereas if we all loved to eat uranium the demand would overcome the upkeep costs associated with stocking it.)

Hence: MMORPGs rarely cater to niche tastes (and also: tiny flash games cater to all sorts of tastes!)

Originally posted by dave6660

 

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation.  I'm giving my personal opinion on a feature and you're telling me about your arbitrary definition of good game design.

Well, he is stating a personal opinion too. As you said, people have different preferences. Personally, i think games should be fun first, and real second. Sure you do not agree.

We will vote, with our wallets, on games we like respsectively. It is a free world.

Originally posted by dave6660

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation.  I'm giving my personal opinion on a feature and you're telling me about your arbitrary definition of good game design.

Good game design isn't an arbitrary definition.  It's related to the human mind and where and how it derives pleasure.  Science has proven specific ways that players enjoy games, and it's not by making them needlessly complex with a bunch of incredibly shallow decisions.

Many fundamentals of design have been known and discussed far before the advent of videogames ("the designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away") and reinforced by many of the most successful game designers (Meier's "A game is a series of interesting decisions".)

All of which reinforce my point in this thread, which very much relates to the topic at hand (arbitrarily adding a mechanic purely for the purpose of realism, rather than because it integrates in deep or meaningful ways with the rest of the game.)

Also as noted in my previous post, a trickle of interest doesn't justify providing a prohibitively costly service to a niche group.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by dave6660

 

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation.  I'm giving my personal opinion on a feature and you're telling me about your arbitrary definition of good game design.

Well, he is stating a personal opinion too. As you said, people have different preferences. Personally, i think games should be fun first, and real second. Sure you do not agree.

We will vote, with our wallets, on games we like respsectively. It is a free world.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by dave6660

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation.  I'm giving my personal opinion on a feature and you're telling me about your arbitrary definition of good game design.

Good game design isn't an arbitrary definition.  It's related to the human mind and where and how it derives pleasure.  Science has proven specific ways that players enjoy games, and it's not by making them needlessly complex with a bunch of incredibly shallow decisions.

Many fundamentals of design have been known and discussed far before the advent of videogames ("the designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away") and reinforced by many of the most successful game designers (Meier's "A game is a series of interesting decisions".)

All of which reinforce my point in this thread, which very much relates to the topic at hand (arbitrarily adding a mechanic purely for the purpose of realism, rather than because it integrates in deep or meaningful ways with the rest of the game.)

Also as noted in my previous post, a trickle of interest doesn't justify providing a prohibitively costly service to a niche group.

Sounds like he's trying to say his opinion is fact. Which means there's no use trying to reason because reason has escaped this conversation.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Sounds like he's trying to say his opinion is fact. Which means there's no use trying to reason because reason has escaped this conversation.

In that case let me state MY OPINION.

To me, a game needs to focus on FUN, not being real. If a dev can do both, fine. But do NOT sacrifice fun for some arbitrary realism.

And i will make my purchase accordiningly.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Sounds like he's trying to say his opinion is fact. Which means there's no use trying to reason because reason has escaped this conversation.

In that case let me state MY OPINION.

To me, a game needs to focus on FUN, not being real. If a dev can do both, fine. But do NOT sacrifice fun for some arbitrary realism.

And i will make my purchase accordiningly.

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Sounds like he's trying to say his opinion is fact. Which means there's no use trying to reason because reason has escaped this conversation.

In that case let me state MY OPINION.

To me, a game needs to focus on FUN, not being real. If a dev can do both, fine. But do NOT sacrifice fun for some arbitrary realism.

And i will make my purchase accordiningly.

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Certainly. And it varies a great deal across people. My younger son loves Minescraft but I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. We both play WOW but my elder son only plays shooters and LOL.

So everyone can have different tastes.

Personally, Diablo 3 is the kind of games I like. Unapologetic focus on combat and progression, and wrap some pretty graphics and high production values around the core.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Sounds like he's trying to say his opinion is fact. Which means there's no use trying to reason because reason has escaped this conversation.

In that case let me state MY OPINION.

To me, a game needs to focus on FUN, not being real. If a dev can do both, fine. But do NOT sacrifice fun for some arbitrary realism.

And i will make my purchase accordiningly.

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Just like you are free to chew your cardboard when others enjoy real food. It is all relative. There is such a thing as good game design which produces games that are widely accepted as being good. Just like many people share the taste that cardboard tastes like cardboard and cardboard is not good food.

Ofcourse there are niches but they are just that - niches.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Science is a process.  It can't be wrong.

A theory can be wrong.

But the theory which says "If you make a game this way, the overwhelming majority will enjoy it" accounts for the fact that there are always going to be players with niche tastes.  It just also notes the very important sweet spot of game design which revolves around creating gameplay patterns players find interesting, which makes up the core of why players enjoy playing games.  And even that theory states that patterns get old.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Science is a process.  It can't be wrong.

A theory can be wrong.

But the theory which says "If you make a game this way, the overwhelming majority will enjoy it" accounts for the fact that there are always going to be players with niche tastes.  It just also notes the very important sweet spot of game design which revolves around creating gameplay patterns players find interesting, which makes up the core of why players enjoy playing games.  And even that theory states that patterns get old.

One gameplay pattern, to rule them all.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Science is a process.  It can't be wrong.

A theory can be wrong.

But the theory which says "If you make a game this way, the overwhelming majority will enjoy it" accounts for the fact that there are always going to be players with niche tastes.  It just also notes the very important sweet spot of game design which revolves around creating gameplay patterns players find interesting, which makes up the core of why players enjoy playing games.  And even that theory states that patterns get old.

One gameplay pattern, to rule them all.

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

I was referring to Axehilt, not you, and thats totally fine if you dont like realism. Personally I'm not into hyper-realism myself either.

This thread reminded me of Fallout New Vegas actually. I couldn't stand the "hardcore mode" that forced you to sleep, eat, and drink to remain effective. It just didn't work for me. Others might really enjoy it, though, and thats awesome for them.

To say something so silly as "science says you're supposed to like this" doesn't stop people from liking "that" instead. So obviously science is wrong. What makes a game good/bad is NOT written in stone.

Science is a process.  It can't be wrong.

A theory can be wrong.

But the theory which says "If you make a game this way, the overwhelming majority will enjoy it" accounts for the fact that there are always going to be players with niche tastes.  It just also notes the very important sweet spot of game design which revolves around creating gameplay patterns players find interesting, which makes up the core of why players enjoy playing games.  And even that theory states that patterns get old.

One gameplay pattern, to rule them all.

 

God forbid that any games should offer variety.

We won't find that in this industry, sadly. We'll be forevermore limited to small start-ups lacking funds to make a complete game, limited in quality. We'll always have to accept the "industrial standard" of the "One Ring to Rule Them All" theory.

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

Originally posted by Konfess

Originally posted by mmoDAD

You're just looking for someone to argue with.

There is a BIG difference when it comes to trying to decorate your character with warm gear as opposed to having to sleep for 8 hours to regain your strength.

 

No they are not.  Their point is that everything is relative.  A segment feels discomfort is necessary for realism and immersion.  Others feel it is a step to far.

Not the segment I belong to.  What segment are you referring to?  The harsh death penalty crowd?

 

Originally posted by Robsolf

Having a system like that based on clothing as the OP states could be cool, too, if designed well. If you have to being 8 different outfits with you everywhere you go, that could prove to be annoying

But as I was saying earlier... if it was done in a way that would have you changing clothes every 5 minutes, that would be pretty lame

 

We understand that you find this thing kind of thing cool.  But what we are saying is that any amount of this addedd to a game would be annoying and pretty lame.  It would be on par with adding simulated defecation as a gaming system.

Who is this "we" you're referring to?  From what I've seen, the OP's idea is pretty popular in this thread.  Sure, taken too far it would be "annoying and pretty lame".  Just like ANY game feature.

I made LotRO an example; perhaps you missed it?  It's 5 years old almost to the day and DOES have a discomfort system, called hope/dread, which gives you a buff/debuff in certain situations.  Areas like Rivendell raise your hope.  Certain characters raise your hope, though being too close to Frodo gives you dread.  As were already mentioned, LotRO has environmental buffs/debuffs, as well.

So I don't know about YOUR "we", but MY "we", aka folks that play and love LotRO, are perfectly good with "discomfort mechanics", so long as they don't go overboard and make you feel like you're playing Sims with combat.  I've made that clear, and I don't interpret the OP as requesting such a system, either.