Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

"Good" Realism VS "Bad" Realism

141 replies to this topic
Racecarlock
  • Racecarlock

    The floor here will kill you, try to avoid it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009

#1

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:00 AM

Recently, a lot of topics have popped up with the subject of "Fun Vs. Realism" as though the two are like oil and water, so I decided to reframe this debate. It's not a question of realism or fun, but good realism and bad realism. What follows are what I define as such.

Good realism is pretty simple. Have the environment feel like a real environment. Do things like (Copy paste) have peds use taxis and public transportation. Public transportation will have all forms open this time, this means a bus system. You can have peds checking out clothing in malls and even clothes going over metal bars in dressing rooms. You could have packed movie theaters with peds getting popcorn and you could also be able to get popcorn. Hell, have some movie parodies in there you could watch. Working amusement park, anyone? Peds getting food, buying their roller coaster photos, getting on roller coasters, complaining about long lines. Hell, have peds get on their laptops in the streets or playing a game/using an app on their smart phone. Be able to sit anywhere you want. Have celebrity red carpet appearances at various vinewood theaters with paparazzi and everything.

Then there's bad realism, which is a bit harder to pin, but I think I've got it down to things that limit what the player can do or how long he can free roam before doing a timed thing. These range from hunger, to injuries, to traffic laws, to fuel. I think if these are added, they should be optional. Because these are things that not everyone enjoys. I feel that fuel and hunger would just be mindless chores, traffic laws would have me being pulled over every minute, and injuries would just punish everyone who enjoys doing stupid stunts. I know these people might not matter to you, but forcing people to role play would remove that element of being able to choose your own play style that's been a core part of GTA since the top down games. This is why these features should be optional if implemented. Otherwise, they interfere with people who don't necessarily want to play hyper-realistically.

That's what I think anyways. What do you guys think?
  • aragond, xXGst0395Xx, vanrosss101 and 2 others like this

meson1
  • meson1

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2010

#2

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:43 AM

It may be possible to identify good and bad elements depending on the following criteria:
  1. Does it alter the pace of the game?
  2. Does it interrupt the play by forcing a menial and/or unimportant task?
  3. Is it entertaining?
  • GúnZinEss, Outplug, Gigabomber and 1 other like this

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#3

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:47 AM

Agreed 100% I'm all for realism as long as it adds something to the game, and isn't just a chore I have to deal with in real life.
  • Blennerville likes this

Shadowmew
  • Shadowmew

    The Average Person

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2010

#4

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:52 AM

Per All smile.gif

J32T3R
  • J32T3R

    Stone Free

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2012

#5

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:55 AM

Okay.

RussianFreak
  • RussianFreak

    Russian Patriot, PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2012

#6

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:55 AM

QUOTE (Racecarlock @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 02:00)
Recently, a lot of topics have popped up with the subject of "Fun Vs. Realism" as though the two are like oil and water, so I decided to reframe this debate. It's not a question of realism or fun, but good realism and bad realism. What follows are what I define as such.

Good realism is pretty simple. Have the environment feel like a real environment. Do things like (Copy paste) have peds use taxis and public transportation. Public transportation will have all forms open this time, this means a bus system. You can have peds checking out clothing in malls and even clothes going over metal bars in dressing rooms. You could have packed movie theaters with peds getting popcorn and you could also be able to get popcorn. Hell, have some movie parodies in there you could watch. Working amusement park, anyone? Peds getting food, buying their roller coaster photos, getting on roller coasters, complaining about long lines. Hell, have peds get on their laptops in the streets or playing a game/using an app on their smart phone. Be able to sit anywhere you want. Have celebrity red carpet appearances at various vinewood theaters with paparazzi and everything.

Then there's bad realism, which is a bit harder to pin, but I think I've got it down to things that limit what the player can do or how long he can free roam before doing a timed thing. These range from hunger, to injuries, to traffic laws, to fuel. I think if these are added, they should be optional. Because these are things that not everyone enjoys. I feel that fuel and hunger would just be mindless chores, traffic laws would have me being pulled over every minute, and injuries would just punish everyone who enjoys doing stupid stunts. I know these people might not matter to you, but forcing people to role play would remove that element of being able to choose your own play style that's been a core part of GTA since the top down games. This is why these features should be optional if implemented. Otherwise, they interfere with people who don't necessarily want to play hyper-realistically.

That's what I think anyways. What do you guys think?

You have no idea how much I agree with you; I'd say you nailed it. Beyond 100%. It's essentially environment realism vs. player realism. Indeed I love having a realistic environment and a movie theater is a great idea...the closest we've gone was a TV and a cabaret show I think. And it's true, as much as we'd love to have smart cops, it would turn the game into real life a bit too much and then...well...I don't have to pay $60 to go out and play life. Well, maybe I need a little gas money, but that's all. So yeah, that's a great way to strike a balance, however Rockstar should be careful since if the player can do sh*t that's a little too crazy, it might break the atmosphere.

Eulogy
  • Eulogy

    The Man Who Comes Around

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2012

#7

Posted 27 September 2012 - 03:01 AM

Yeah, this is pretty much spot on. But I don't know why this is even an issue. Most people who enjoy this kind of stuff ("bad" realism) are probably the kind of people who play games like The Elder Scrolls (which I do). So they already know how to role play.

A big part of role playing is using your imagination. Want to get pulled over if your driving is bad? Then just try driving like a normal person, and use the raise wanted cheat. Want to make Niko eat to survive? Then periodically go to a diner or cluckin' bell.

It's not hard. And i've done all of these things. We don't need to force everyone to play a certain way. The tools are already there to play as you please. So no more of this "x feature should have an on/off switch."

Racecarlock
  • Racecarlock

    The floor here will kill you, try to avoid it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009

#8

Posted 27 September 2012 - 06:37 AM

QUOTE (meson1 @ Wednesday, Sep 26 2012, 19:43)
It may be possible to identify good and bad elements depending on the following criteria:
  1. Does it alter the pace of the game?
  2. Does it interrupt the play by forcing a menial and/or unimportant task?
  3. Is it entertaining?

You know, I just saw a post perfect for this.

QUOTE
•Does it alter the pace of the game?

QUOTE
Lower than 25% = red. Your health will slowly decrease over time just as before, this time however, eating does nothing to slow the rate of decrease and health kits have no effect. The only way to recover is by visiting a hospital.


Because that sounds fun, right? Constantly having to drive to the hospital every damn time your health gets low because you don't want to die instead of just eating a damn hotdog and not having all kinds of mobility restriction. Makes total sense.

QUOTE
•Does it interrupt the play by forcing a menial and/or unimportant task?

QUOTE
The only way to recover is by visiting a hospital.


Sounds pretty menial to me.

QUOTE
•Is it entertaining?

QUOTE
Lower than 25% = red. Your health will slowly decrease over time just as before, this time however, eating does nothing to slow the rate of decrease and health kits have no effect. The only way to recover is by visiting a hospital.

Doesn't sound very entertaining. Fixing a broken rib with a ball park frank? That's entertaining.
  • Blennerville likes this

BlackNoise
  • BlackNoise

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • None

#9

Posted 27 September 2012 - 08:28 AM

Just adding refueling would suck in my opinion, but what if you could pay someone to always keep the vehicles in your garage full? What if the game's use of fuel was exactly like it is in the real world? What if the fuel was actually a liquid that is very flammable?

When most people say realism, they're talking about a very specific feature or mechanic, but actual realism has much more depth and actually has the ability to make the game much more fun. All you need to do is think about the real world, and imagine everything is the same, except with GTA consequences. You never feel pain and if you die, you just walk out the hospital good as new, and if you're arrested you lose a little cash and you're good to go. What kind of stuff would/could you do? Would refueling or eating really bother you if you could do whatever you want?

The biggest problem is GTA is still just a game, so the type of realism I'm talking about isn't possible yet. I just don't want to deal with chores in a game right now. I want stuff like a realistic zoo with realistic animals, which I can set free and watch them cause realistic mayhem. I want realistic houses with realistic windows/doors, so I can break in and steal realistic valuables. I want realistic cars with realistic tuning shops, so I can modify my cars and enter realistic street races. I want realistic weapons that cause realistic damage to people, vehicles, and objects etc.

I just want realism in the fun/visual areas for now.

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012

#10

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:22 AM

I want a game where you actually feel like you immersed in the world they created. In GTA IV you felt like were inside the New York criminal underworld and in RDR you felt like you were in the old west. I also want it to look very real but I want it to play like a video game and I don't want to have refuel every few hours and take all the fun out.

ivor1977
  • ivor1977

    TAFF HOOLIGANS crew

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2012

#11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:29 AM

When it comes to realistic AI doing realistic things I can't help thinking the NPC's in GTAIV are good enough and don't really need changing that much. At the end of the day, you will only notice them when your on some kind of psychotic rampage. The same for the road traffic and traffic laws. Running over someone or bumping a cop car to start a chase is good enough. We all know R* like to inject a bit of comedy into every pixel, and to be honest it wouldn't be GTA without it. It's things like eating, exercise and fuel that could interrupt the fun. Things like management and role play could be a good thing, as long as it stays GTA. I'm confident R* will nail it once again no matter what they do, I just wish we knew WHEN THE FUK WE GET A CHANCE TO PLAY THE BASTARDING THING!

mirmihir
  • mirmihir

    Jerichoholic

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008

#12

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

@OP: You nailed it! It's environment realism vs player realism.

Slave Boy
  • Slave Boy

    Big Homie

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 May 2008
  • Finland

#13

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:17 AM

Quite well put out, can agree mostly.
The more of that good realism You have, the more variety to mindless goofiness for player it offers. It's a win-win situation.

HeliWolf420
  • HeliWolf420

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2011

#14

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:44 AM

If it's something that annoys me about the real world, I don't want it in my videogames. Any videogame.

I play videogames to escape from this crapsack society we live in, I don't want to be bogged down by gameplay mechanics like hunger, traffic laws, petrol etc that's sh*t I deal with in the real world.
  • Blennerville likes this

Lewligan
  • Lewligan

    Bell End

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 May 2012

#15

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE (Racecarlock @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 02:00)
Recently, a lot of topics have popped up with the subject of "Fun Vs. Realism" as though the two are like oil and water, so I decided to reframe this debate. It's not a question of realism or fun, but good realism and bad realism. What follows are what I define as such.

Good realism is pretty simple. Have the environment feel like a real environment. Do things like (Copy paste) have peds use taxis and public transportation. Public transportation will have all forms open this time, this means a bus system. You can have peds checking out clothing in malls and even clothes going over metal bars in dressing rooms. You could have packed movie theaters with peds getting popcorn and you could also be able to get popcorn. Hell, have some movie parodies in there you could watch. Working amusement park, anyone? Peds getting food, buying their roller coaster photos, getting on roller coasters, complaining about long lines. Hell, have peds get on their laptops in the streets or playing a game/using an app on their smart phone. Be able to sit anywhere you want. Have celebrity red carpet appearances at various vinewood theaters with paparazzi and everything.

Then there's bad realism, which is a bit harder to pin, but I think I've got it down to things that limit what the player can do or how long he can free roam before doing a timed thing. These range from hunger, to injuries, to traffic laws, to fuel. I think if these are added, they should be optional. Because these are things that not everyone enjoys. I feel that fuel and hunger would just be mindless chores, traffic laws would have me being pulled over every minute, and injuries would just punish everyone who enjoys doing stupid stunts. I know these people might not matter to you, but forcing people to role play would remove that element of being able to choose your own play style that's been a core part of GTA since the top down games. This is why these features should be optional if implemented. Otherwise, they interfere with people who don't necessarily want to play hyper-realistically.

That's what I think anyways. What do you guys think?

Spot on. Agree 100%... and that rarely happens.

I'm all for upping the realism in GTAV, as long as it doesn't adversely affect gameplay & "enjoyability" (think that's a made up word).

You gave the perfect examples - hunger & fuel.
Why?
They are just unnecessary, time consuming chores that most people would dislike.
Just affects how much people enjoy the game, as they're forced to do something completely boring & pointless.

mdr279
  • mdr279

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2012

#16

Posted 27 September 2012 - 11:05 AM

Totally agree with you Racecarlock. Cannot agree more.

THEBIGZED
  • THEBIGZED

    For an annoying dick, you really are an annoying dick.

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 May 2007

#17

Posted 27 September 2012 - 11:21 AM

QUOTE (Racecarlock @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 02:00)
Recently, a lot of topics have popped up with the subject of "Fun Vs. Realism" as though the two are like oil and water, so I decided to reframe this debate. It's not a question of realism or fun, but good realism and bad realism. What follows are what I define as such.

Good realism is pretty simple. Have the environment feel like a real environment. Do things like (Copy paste) have peds use taxis and public transportation. Public transportation will have all forms open this time, this means a bus system. You can have peds checking out clothing in malls and even clothes going over metal bars in dressing rooms. You could have packed movie theaters with peds getting popcorn and you could also be able to get popcorn. Hell, have some movie parodies in there you could watch. Working amusement park, anyone? Peds getting food, buying their roller coaster photos, getting on roller coasters, complaining about long lines. Hell, have peds get on their laptops in the streets or playing a game/using an app on their smart phone. Be able to sit anywhere you want. Have celebrity red carpet appearances at various vinewood theaters with paparazzi and everything.

Then there's bad realism, which is a bit harder to pin, but I think I've got it down to things that limit what the player can do or how long he can free roam before doing a timed thing. These range from hunger, to injuries, to traffic laws, to fuel. I think if these are added, they should be optional. Because these are things that not everyone enjoys. I feel that fuel and hunger would just be mindless chores, traffic laws would have me being pulled over every minute, and injuries would just punish everyone who enjoys doing stupid stunts. I know these people might not matter to you, but forcing people to role play would remove that element of being able to choose your own play style that's been a core part of GTA since the top down games. This is why these features should be optional if implemented. Otherwise, they interfere with people who don't necessarily want to play hyper-realistically.

That's what I think anyways. What do you guys think?

I agree with most of the points you made entirely. Fuel might be a feature that could add something to the game. Just a little touch of randomness. It would be important, though, that it would be a very, very rare occurance that fuel would run out. Just like in real life.

Anyways, what I'd like to add to your good realism part is realistic physics all around and especially when it comes to driving. Now, I don't think GTA should be a hardcore driving sim as it still has to be pretty easy to pick up (afterall, GTA is not played with a steering wheel), but the more depth there is to driving the better. If there is an illusion that driving is realistic then that's just fine. GTA4 was definately a step into right direction in this regard and I hope they'll continue this with GTA5.

Another aspect where realism could add to the game is the health system. Again, nothing too radical like one shot kills, that'd be way too restrictive gameplaywise, but a better and grittier system for healing yourself than health packs. Some sort of quick health boost option should remain in the game for sure, but also a way that would take more time and, thus, be more riskier, one you could operate on yourself. Something similar to Far Cry 2 and carving a bullet out of your arm, or snapping a dislocated limb back in place.

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#18

Posted 27 September 2012 - 11:47 AM

Yes, player realism is generally a bad idea. Places where such realism had gone awry in IV are:
  • Niko's animations, especially when climbing over things. I don't want a mini cutscene showing me the character climbing a fence in real time. The animation should be fast, yet maintain the illusion of being realistic in the fluidity of the movement.
  • Ammunition count. Being stuck with a max 600 rounds for the assault rifles and 8 rockets for the rocket launcher was ridiculous. All that did was make it more of a hassle to restock ammo frequently without making the game anymore challenging. I'm not calling for infinite ammo, but the maxes should have been twice as much in IV.
  • Dying from a 3 or 4 story fall. I don't understand how this was supposed to make things more challenging instead of just annoying. For one, there were barely any missions which involved the risk of falling. A lot of GTA is about screwing around and trying to get to all sorts of places, but that immersion is broken when I miss a jump and end up at the hospital. In VC you could fall 15 stories and still survive so long as you had full health. I could understand scaling it back some, but they went too far in IV.
However, there are plenty of ways in which player realism can be a good thing:
  • Learning skills - Things like fighting, weapon reloading times, picking locks, hacking security codes, etc. are all things that would realistically enhance the player's abilities.
  • Improving stamina - The more you run around the map, the more the character should develop improved stamina and be able to sprint and swim fast for longer.
  • Increasing strength - maybe having the character start off with slow poke animations when climbing fences would be a good thing so you will see improved speed as you gain strength the more you climb sh*t. I'm not necessarily calling for a return of gyms from SA, but having the character's strength noticeably increase the more you do things without altering his physique would be a good thing.

  • Blennerville and Wavesittich like this

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Tainted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Antarctica

#19

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:21 PM

Just give me a believeable enivironment like in GTA IV and a heap of things that aren't retarded like in the Saints Row games and I'll be happy.

I love GTA IV, but I agree there should be more while still being believeable such as car mods, more clothing, property etc.

mvega0422
  • mvega0422

    educated, dedicated, underestimated

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2012

#20

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:37 PM

@Racecarlock - you did a fantastic job defending your argument in the other thread... but that doesn't mean that the exact same issue deserves its own thread with you as the OP. If I made a thread to repeat every strong argument I made in response to other threads, I'd have probably been banned long ago for spam.

I'm in favor of leaving a lot of things the same as GTA IV. I liked it, I thought they did a good job. Also I thought Red Dead Redemption did a good job. A tiny part of me does kinda want for vehicles to have a fuel gauge -- it'd be cool to go fill up your car before a mission or something like that. Figure a vehicle gets 400 miles to each tank of gas, and figure the map is 4 miles by 4 miles (16 sq mi). You could drive the entire perimeter of the map over 25 times before running out of gasoline, which is a lot. This keeps the realism and also keeps the fun factor.

Also, about hunger, it could be done too. Every in-game day that goes by without eating, your stamina is reduced by 5% and your recoil gets 5% worse. Wasted/Busted automatically resets your hunger. It would be kinda cool to say, "lemme grab a bite to eat to make sure I'm at my best just in case I get in a sticky situation".

I'm honestly indifferent to hunger/gasoline - I wouldn't notice if they left it out, and as long as they don't let it interfere with the game and become the Sims, I'm fine with them including it.

thatstupidbug
  • thatstupidbug

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2011

#21

Posted 27 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

the debate here is about features that ADD "bad" realism (fuel, food, friends...), but what about those features that are cut for the sake of a realistic feeling? where are the funny clothes? the over-the-top weapons and cars? crazy cheats?

Good realism, for me, is the ability to play the way I want. as long as the game don't FORCE me to play as a complete crazy in a crazier world (like Saints Row III), I hope those features are back. Airplanes are in, but I expect a lot more from the game icon14.gif

Zee
  • Zee

    Shut up, sit down, relax.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2002
  • United-Kingdom

#22

Posted 27 September 2012 - 02:17 PM

gta4's realism fails when you go to the cabaret club and suddenly people are just being randomly stabbed and mutilated on stage and the next act starts in a completely unrealistic way. f*ck I hate that cabaret club. f*ck the Incredible Kleinman. Wow a dude abusing his wife is so funny, thanks R*!

Hopefully gta5 dosnt have anything as stupid as that f*cking horrible cabaret club.

GTALegacy
  • GTALegacy

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2012

#23

Posted 27 September 2012 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 11:47)
Yes, player realism is generally a bad idea.  Places where such realism had gone awry in IV are:



  • Niko's animations, especially when climbing over things.  I don't want a mini cutscene showing me the character climbing a fence in real time.  The animation should be fast, yet maintain the illusion of being realistic in the fluidity of the movement.

  • Ammunition count.  Being stuck with a max 600 rounds for the assault rifles and 8 rockets for the rocket launcher was ridiculous.  All that did was make it more of a hassle to restock ammo frequently without making the game anymore challenging.  I'm not calling for infinite ammo, but the maxes should have been twice as much in IV.

  • Dying from a 3 or 4 story fall. I don't understand how this was supposed to make things more challenging instead of just annoying. For one, there were barely any missions which involved the risk of falling.  A lot of GTA is about screwing around and trying to get to all sorts of places, but that immersion is broken when I miss a jump and end up at the hospital.   In VC you could fall 15 stories and still survive so long as you had full health.  I could understand scaling it back some, but they went too far in IV.


Do you know what this is?

PROCEDURAL REALISM

This is what the whole "realism" debate is really about as far as GTA games are concerned:

ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM vs. PROCEDURAL REALISM

I think ALL Grand Theft Auto fans agree we don't want a procedure accurate game because then it becomes a simulator.

For example, if our avatar is shot, or severely injured we must get him to the hospital because that is how it is done in real life. No more "magic hot dogs" that miraculously heals all. As an extension of this, if we get shot in the arm, it effects our aim when using a weapon. If we get shot in the leg, we limp and move much slower than normal. The ultimate extension would be if we don't seek medical attention (get our ass to a hospital!) we will bleed out and die.

All the above are examples of procedural realism because every element has a real life procedure the game is trying to mimic in some regard and one is dependent on another.

However, as you can see, this is also very RESTRICTIVE because it becomes tedious, and tedium = boring, or not fun.

One of GTA IV's biggest complaints: Having to take your "Friends" on dates.

This was another example of procedural realism being forced on the player if they wanted in-game perks like Jacob's Weapons car, Packie's Car Bomb, etc. The reason it was tedious was because just like in real life you had to take time out of your busy schedule, drive all the way across the city, drive to the activity, do the activity and then drive the friend back to wherever they wanted (not necessarily their home). R* tried to make a lot of the dating elements optional by allowing players to skip the activity once you got there, but by that point you might as well go through with it since you've already taken the time to pick up the friend, drive all the way to the activity, etc. Again, this is a perfect example of forcing procedural realism on the player when R* didn't have to.

So, what is the solution for Procedural Realism moving forward in GTA games?

Don't design the game play around procedures. Design the game play around real life and make slight adjustments for the desired outcome.

What's the difference?

The difference is real life has certain parameters, but there is a lot of freedom within those parameters, too. R* should not force the player to do anything they don't want to do (outside the story missions) unless they can do it in a way that mimics the freedom real life provides within the virtual game world. Again, no forced procedural realism, just greater immersion realism. Basically, keep a lot of unrealistic stuff, but maybe tweak it so it isn't as unrealistic, but still not tedious, or simulator-like.

This is why a lot of other games are very restrictive in the broad sense. They design the game around artificial limits to ensure proper game balance when they should have designed the game around real life parameters and just tweaked those parameters for the desired outcome the developers were going for.
  • Blennerville and Wavesittich like this

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    I pushed the red button!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#24

Posted 27 September 2012 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Zee @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 14:17)
gta4's realism fails when you go to the cabaret club and suddenly people are just being randomly stabbed and mutilated on stage and the next act starts in a completely unrealistic way. f*ck I hate that cabaret club. f*ck the Incredible Kleinman. Wow a dude abusing his wife is so funny, thanks R*!

Hopefully gta5 dosnt have anything as stupid as that f*cking horrible cabaret club.

What's wrong with the cabaret club? I thought it was awesome until the redhead comes up talking sh*t. They should have put her in the strip club.

Edit: Ohh wait you're the Zee I've been hearing about.

mvega0422
  • mvega0422

    educated, dedicated, underestimated

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2012

#25

Posted 27 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

QUOTE (GTALegacy @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:04)
The reason it was tedious was because just like in real life you had to take time out of your busy schedule, drive all the way across the city, drive to the activity, do the activity and then drive the friend back to wherever they wanted (not necessarily their home).

Isn't this basically a generalization of every single GTA mission? The only difference being that you insert a gunfight or a vehicular chase into the equation most of the time?

Zee
  • Zee

    Shut up, sit down, relax.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2002
  • United-Kingdom

#26

Posted 27 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

QUOTE (DarkKingBernard @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 11:12)
QUOTE (Zee @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 14:17)
gta4's realism fails when you go to the cabaret club and suddenly people are just being randomly stabbed and mutilated on stage and the next act starts in a completely unrealistic way. f*ck I hate that cabaret club. f*ck the Incredible Kleinman. Wow a dude abusing his wife is so funny, thanks R*!

Hopefully gta5 dosnt have anything as stupid as that f*cking horrible cabaret club.

What's wrong with the cabaret club? I thought it was awesome until the redhead comes up talking sh*t. They should have put her in the strip club.

Edit: Ohh wait you're the Zee I've been hearing about.

I'm guessing you're a teenager, most adults dont find the humour in the cabaret to be at all funny.

B Dawg
  • B Dawg

    I pushed the red button!

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2008
  • Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

#27

Posted 27 September 2012 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:13)
QUOTE (GTALegacy @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:04)
The reason it was tedious was because just like in real life you had to take time out of your busy schedule, drive all the way across the city, drive to the activity, do the activity and then drive the friend back to wherever they wanted (not necessarily their home).

Isn't this basically a generalization of every single GTA mission? The only difference being that you insert a gunfight or a vehicular chase into the equation most of the time?

Shootouts and car chases were fun. I liked taking friends out and listening to the conversations. Last time, got drunk with Jacob, drove around on the Zombie, accidentally hit traffic and sent him to the hospital XD

GTALegacy
  • GTALegacy

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2012

#28

Posted 27 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:13)
QUOTE (GTALegacy @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:04)
The reason it was tedious was because just like in real life you had to take time out of your busy schedule, drive all the way across the city, drive to the activity, do the activity and then drive the friend back to wherever they wanted (not necessarily their home).

Isn't this basically a generalization of every single GTA mission? The only difference being that you insert a gunfight or a vehicular chase into the equation most of the time?

The difference is the missions are a required part of the game players automatically accept if they want to play through the story... And the biggest difference is you are given a lot more freedom DURING the missions vs. taking someone out on a date, or activity. They are not tedious because this is the reason you are playing the game in the first place.

Sure, the biggest flaw that EFLC addressed was there was no check point system, so you had to repeat the ENTIRE process even if you were killed where the mission took place... But again, a majority of the missions allowed you to tackle things the way you wanted unless you had an A.I. partner with you e.g. Phil, Jacob, etc.

However, my main point is a lot of people don't know the difference between Environmental Realism and Procedural Realism (like the OP addressed) and Procedural Realism is what can kill the underlying fun in a game a lot faster rather than making it feel more "real" like a lot of players erroneously think.

mvega0422
  • mvega0422

    educated, dedicated, underestimated

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2012

#29

Posted 27 September 2012 - 05:24 PM

QUOTE (GTALegacy @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 17:14)
QUOTE (mvega0422 @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:13)
QUOTE (GTALegacy @ Thursday, Sep 27 2012, 16:04)
The reason it was tedious was because just like in real life you had to take time out of your busy schedule, drive all the way across the city, drive to the activity, do the activity and then drive the friend back to wherever they wanted (not necessarily their home).

Isn't this basically a generalization of every single GTA mission? The only difference being that you insert a gunfight or a vehicular chase into the equation most of the time?

The difference is the missions are a required part of the game players automatically accept if they want to play through the story... And the biggest difference is you are given a lot more freedom DURING the missions vs. taking someone out on a date, or activity. They are not tedious because this is the reason you are playing the game in the first place.

Sure, the biggest flaw that EFLC addressed was there was no check point system, so you had to repeat the ENTIRE process even if you were killed where the mission took place... But again, a majority of the missions allowed you to tackle things the way you wanted unless you had an A.I. partner with you e.g. Phil, Jacob, etc.

However, my main point is a lot of people don't know the difference between Environmental Realism and Procedural Realism (like the OP addressed) and Procedural Realism is what can kill the underlying fun in a game a lot faster rather than making it feel more "real" like a lot of players erroneously think.

Very well said, I understand your point. if you don't mind, I'm going to switch directions a bit and ask you to address another concern with respect to "procedural" and "environmental" realism...

In my humble opinion, sometimes GTA IV (including EoLC) was too easy. I mean, I don't think I've ever lost a gun fight, all you have to do is hit R1 > R2 > Repeat as fast as you can and your character will kill everyone within his field of vision. With such a simplistic combat system, it feels necessary to include realism to make easy things a little more difficult.

What's even worse is that I play GTA IV with no hands, using a PS3 controller, with zero modifications or assistance. I'm constantly fumbling with the controller and can't even click more than 2-3 buttons at a time, and yet I consider many parts of the game to be ridiculously easy... I couldn't imagine how simple it is for most other players. How would you feel about removing auto-aim for the sake of 'realism' and 'difficulty'?

GTALegacy
  • GTALegacy

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2012

#30

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:10 PM

^I've played GTA IV on both the Xbox 360, and PC using a Xbox 360 wired controller -- the same one for both systems -- And on the 360 and PC versions they have a Free Aim option you can select when configuring your controls. I always choose this because I don't like how auto-aim decides my targets for me. It locks on to the nearest target, but that isn't always the BEST target.

So, I have no problem with how somebody choose to play the game physically (controller), or with any kind of aim-assists. Those aren't things that effect procedural realism anymore than using keyboard buttons to drive vs. using analog triggers on a controller to accelerate and brake. It makes little to no difference from a procedural perspective.

By the way, I agree 95% of the missions in IV are too easy... But this is because of the simplistic A.I. that is too slow and doesn't even attempt to flank you as well as some of the mission designs that favor the player if they have a more powerful weapon at their disposal. In my opinion, the main thing that makes some of the missions overly hard is the exaggerated physics the game uses. So, you can be chasing after somebody, hit a small pebble, the car flips onto its roof and the target gets away. You only failed the mission because of things you can't control, not because of how the mission itself is setup.

To continue on with our discussion...

The PC version of GTA IV has a ton of Mods that actually alter the procedural realism of the game.

So, if Niko is shot in the leg, he will limp (move slower) and bleed out if he doesn't get to a health pack in time. That's just one example of what we're talking about in altering the procedural realism of the game.

There are also mods that reduce how fast Niko can move depending on how many weapons he is carrying. There are even mods that give Niko an actual backpack he stores his weapons in that also limits his movement dependending on the type of weapon he is carrying. So, he can move faster if he has the short barrel shotgun and pistol, but moves slower if he has the combat shotgun, or M4. And he can only carry the RPG by itself since that is a very large weapon. Again, procedural realism where one element relies on, or is determined by another.

This is also why I (and other PC players) may have a unique perspective because we CAN play the game like a lot of people are suggesting... And I for one don't think it is that fun, or immersive. It becomes tedious a.k.a. a chore to have to find a health pack (hot dogs no longer heal) that are already scare in the game every time Niko gets seriously injured. It takes the fun out of playing the game, IMO, and turns it into a pseudo-simulator. That's not why I play GTA.
  • Wavesittich likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users