I don't think "mushroom taco" was thinking about the realism when talking about lava as a heat source as imbalanced, but I could be wrong. I don't find realism to be too interesting in itself, but I wouldn't mind some changes to how we handle or use lava. Removing the use of buckets, pumps, pipes, etc, is fine, but it must be replaced with an equal amount of interesting mechanics.
EE2
- Thread starter Yosomith
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
I don't think "mushroom taco" was thinking about the realism when talking about lava as a heat source as imbalanced, but I could be wrong. I don't find realism to be too interesting in itself, but I wouldn't mind some changes to how we handle or use lava. Removing the use of buckets, pumps, pipes, etc, is fine, but it must be replaced with an equal amount of interesting mechanics.
>Minecraft
>Realism
>You can slam 154.4 tons of gold into an apple and get health benefits
Therefore, argument invalid.
>Realism
>You can slam 154.4 tons of gold into an apple and get health benefits
Therefore, argument invalid.
No, missing the point. Minecraft SHOULDN'T be based around realism - fun in games does not have a direct relation with realism. Take Dota 2, TF2 or XCOM: Enemy Unknown. They're not dictated by realism, yet they are more fun than Arma 2.
Should a game take inspiration from real life? Yes, that's how Portal's mechanics work. They're not 100% realistic, yet they feel realistic due to the fact it's logical considering physics.
But games shouldn't run on the idea that "more realism is better". I use games to run away from reality, to set me in a different universe. If I wanted realism, I'd go play this game called Real Life.
That's entirely subjective. Some people (such as myself) find realism to be more fun. To use your example, I can't stand LoL or DOTA but I love ArmA2.
That's because the games themselves are different. That was a bad choice, and I like Arma2. But the point is "100% realism" isn't always the best way to go when designing a game or a mod.
That applies to board games, even.
Or are you going to tell me that Bohnanza is realistic?
Okay, a better example: chess.
Chess is not realistic, yet it is one of the most strategic games with considerably simple rules. It's not dictated by realism in any way, yet it is highly considered fun. My point is that fun is not connected to realism. Immersion is, depending on what is trying to be immersive. Mechanics? Possibly. But not directly enjoying a game.
Why so many indie games are good (IMO)?
Because they aren't trying to be 100% realistic.
FTL, Thomas Was Alone, Game Dev Tycoon, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Earthworm Jim, World of Goo...
Why are Nintendo games fun (IMO, again)?
Because they distinctly aren't realistic.
Metroid, LoZ, Mario, Pokemon...
They're fun to me, yet they feel distinct and from another universe, simply because they aren't trying to be realistic.
Actually, I wanna hear you guys' opinions on this.
Does realism make a game better?
Chess is not realistic, yet it is one of the most strategic games with considerably simple rules. It's not dictated by realism in any way, yet it is highly considered fun. My point is that fun is not connected to realism. Immersion is, depending on what is trying to be immersive. Mechanics? Possibly. But not directly enjoying a game.
Why so many indie games are good (IMO)?
Because they aren't trying to be 100% realistic.
FTL, Thomas Was Alone, Game Dev Tycoon, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Earthworm Jim, World of Goo...
Why are Nintendo games fun (IMO, again)?
Because they distinctly aren't realistic.
Metroid, LoZ, Mario, Pokemon...
They're fun to me, yet they feel distinct and from another universe, simply because they aren't trying to be realistic.
Actually, I wanna hear you guys' opinions on this.
Does realism make a game better?
I think realism is stupid, you play games for fun, realism doesnt make it "fun"
If i cared about "realism" Vineacraft woudnt exist.
I said this a while ago about Gregtech when he started using the chemical formulas as a basis for what you could gain from various resources "not really possible but close enough for gameplay" for myself that is the a good level of realism. As long as there is some logic to it (internally consistent is fine by me, lava hot = lava fuel works for a game) I'm happy to suspend disbelief.
It's not a bad thing to take ideas from the real world and mold the rules to create game play elements. Realism is not a curse word in game design, neither is doing the exact opposite. The discussion about realism is stupid. The only interesting thing is how it feels like when playing the end result.
Making it impossible to carry lava in a bucket might seem like dumb idea, but for all we know the alternative might be both more logical AND more fun. I do, however, think it's stupid to suggest making things more realistic for the sake of realism. The primary motivation for any change must be to improve game play in some way. Realistic or not.
Making it impossible to carry lava in a bucket might seem like dumb idea, but for all we know the alternative might be both more logical AND more fun. I do, however, think it's stupid to suggest making things more realistic for the sake of realism. The primary motivation for any change must be to improve game play in some way. Realistic or not.
I find it more fun to do things that I can't do IRL but that are actual things that are possible. I can suspend disbelief and have fun with things like Vineacraft but, honestly... I don't get as much out of that kind of thing.
This world is full of all sorts of people.
FTB is a decent balance for me for the most part. I can't go out and dig crap up, and build all kinds of machinery out of it - but FTB lets me do this while abstracting a lot of the nitty-gritty away. I don't want perfection (hmm, chemical spill cleanup simulator? nah) but I do appreciate things not being completely off the wall.
That entirely depends on the type of game it is.
I prefer Arma II over any of the counterparts. CoD, Battlefield, TF any of those games, I would much rather play Arma II, or Arma III when it is finished as I have already bought it.
I also find theHunter extremely enjoyable. It is much closer to realistic than any other Hunting game and I find it extremely fun.
Racing games are another game type that I much prefer to be as realistic as possible over any arcade type of gameplay.
Sports games in general, football,baseball,basketball,soccer......, are also much better as realistic as possible.
So YES, in some instances realism does make games better, but in general No.
Minecraft isn't even a game that should have any type of realism in it. The entire premise of the game isn't based around reality.
Any type of RPG type game(talking DnD type RPG games) shouldn't have any type of realism in them because they are based on Fantasy types of things, in general. There can always be exceptions to that but for the most part RPG games are based on Fantasy.
As you mentioned, Super Meat Boy, Earthworm Jim, World of Goo..., no they shouldn't have realism in them, they aren't games based around any type of realism.
Of course they are fun.
Realism being needed in games is entirely dependent on the type of game it is.
Unfortunately this is too black and white. Realism isn't 'fun' or 'not fun', it completely depends on the context. For example; I like tubes transporting stuff around because I like the physical realistic notion of stuff being transported. For me it's more fun than how routers work, they use 'magic' to teleport stuff into inventories. I do use routers sometimes but I like pipes / tubes better.
However, I would not like stuff to take a realistic amount of time, nor would I like minecraft to be even close to realistic in what you can and cannot carry (a single cubic meter of rock weighs more than your car, and you can't carry stacks of 64 cars around).
So this whole discussion is becoming more and more useless because people are not listening to each other and try to understand what the other means, but instead just keep voicing their own opinion over and over again in some kind of kindergarten shouting match.
Realism can add to minecraft. I personally would love it if thermal power would work a bit more like IRL, same with solar power, because it poses engineering challenges and that's the part of the game I like best; creating cool factories. I personally would love it if we could build a 'real' geothermal power plant that takes water as input and uses the heat of lava (that stays in it's place) to turn it into steam. Realism can also take away from the game, because it can turn a 'challenge' into 'tedious grinds'.
And that's just nonsense. Like I said; realism isn't bad or good, it depends on the context. Realism doesn't mean it's a 100% duplication of how stuff works IRL, realism is a fun simulation of the fun parts or real life without the tedious of real life. That's what game realism should be about.
To be honest, I said it kinda wrong, i meant that realism shoudnt take over everything, like when they go full 100% when they follow real life.
I believe in gameplay not realism, but meh
To be honest, I said it kinda wrong, i meant that realism shoudnt take over everything, like when they go full 100% when they follow real life.
I believe in gameplay not realism, but meh
Real life is boring, that's why we play games
That is very dependent on the realism. When you deal with realistic looking things, you find yourself near the Uncanny Valley. You can be entirely realistic, or a fantasy with realistic qualities. Once you start getting realism with unrealistic qualities, things get.. erm.. sketchy in a way.
Say you make a perfect replication of electricity in Minecraft with generators that contain all true point of realism including a tech tree based on how humans had advanced. Being so realistic and hard to implement, that'd be phenomenal and an entertaining simulator to play with.
On the other hand, you have some realistic qualities that are in vanilla Minecraft such as height, "physics", animals, ores, and so on and so forth. The rest of the world isn't particularly realistic giving it a sense of fascination. It makes people want to explore it causing you to see similarities, but still extreme differences.
When you try to replicate realism but dont' do it good enough, things get hairy. They're not particularly fun to play with nor are they that interesting of a concept in a video game. This is kinda where GregTech lands right now. It tries to be realiistic, but it still falls short in most of its concepts making itself less attractive than it could be. Sure, some people might like it, but the vast majorit will never care for it.
Realism is good, it's just to what extent of realism you're going to.
Honestly I'm not a big fan of realism. One of my favorite games when I was younger was the Time Splitters series. A game featuring time travel, monkeys and an illogically large arsenal that somehow managed to fit in your pocket. It was one of those truly fun old school shooters. Now in comparison nearly every FPS made now has a 2-weapon cap. Why? Because realism. There are very few shooters that use a health bar or health pickups anymore. Yet again thanks to realism. Sure realism works on occasion, but in truth its just a limiting factor and I'd rather people used more original ideas for limiting aspects of a game.
So because I said it with less wording, it is nonsense.
Let me quote you on what I meant.
Even pumping around items in pipes isn't even close to realistic. The closest would be something like conveyor belts. Or as in the factory I work in, Robots move items from machine to machine. Sure you have pneumatic tubes at banks and some very very old office buildings but that's about it.
I personally can think of nothing Realistic that I would like to see in MC. I can also think of nothing that IS realistic.