Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
- Lapehunter
- Outfitter
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: December 19th, 2011, 4:14 pm
- Location: Koppartorp
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
Great posts from both!
After reading both texts as well as I can, I could tell my opinion in a nutshell:
This game should stay realistic in a way to be fun, and stay fun in a way to be game. Meaning, it should never become either hardcore realistic or arcade animal shooting game.
Edited the nutshell
After reading both texts as well as I can, I could tell my opinion in a nutshell:
This game should stay realistic in a way to be fun, and stay fun in a way to be game. Meaning, it should never become either hardcore realistic or arcade animal shooting game.
Edited the nutshell
Last edited by Lapehunter on June 8th, 2015, 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
- HooCairs
- Champion Hunter
- Posts: 23426
- Joined: March 4th, 2011, 7:30 pm
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
Very good opening statements from both Knut and TP!
I believe that Knut is comparing apples to pears though when making his point. "Realistic" is not the opposite of "easy". Sure, fast traveling is totally unrealistic, yet makes the game easy. But a 15x zoom adjustable scope is extremely realistic, but it would make the game too easy. In this case, realistic equals easy and is not the opposite.
The reasoning from TP logically builds up in order to show that a game must be fun (always).
I don't hunt IRL. I play the game because of the fun it offers, and not surprisingly those least realistic aspects are more fun for me: many animals, rather dull behavior and a chance to shoot many during a session, carrying many weapons and other equipment, not having to deal with shot animals, endless running, etc., etc.
I enjoy diving into unrealistic words as long as they are in adherence, as TP describes it, and if they are fun to play. theHunter is that for me. Realistic enough to have a "believable setting", yet a great deal of simplicity in many aspects that avoids the non-fun parts of it.
My scores
I believe that Knut is comparing apples to pears though when making his point. "Realistic" is not the opposite of "easy". Sure, fast traveling is totally unrealistic, yet makes the game easy. But a 15x zoom adjustable scope is extremely realistic, but it would make the game too easy. In this case, realistic equals easy and is not the opposite.
The reasoning from TP logically builds up in order to show that a game must be fun (always).
I don't hunt IRL. I play the game because of the fun it offers, and not surprisingly those least realistic aspects are more fun for me: many animals, rather dull behavior and a chance to shoot many during a session, carrying many weapons and other equipment, not having to deal with shot animals, endless running, etc., etc.
I enjoy diving into unrealistic words as long as they are in adherence, as TP describes it, and if they are fun to play. theHunter is that for me. Realistic enough to have a "believable setting", yet a great deal of simplicity in many aspects that avoids the non-fun parts of it.
My scores
Spoiler:
- Ravenousfox
- Outfitter
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: August 14th, 2014, 2:34 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
The opening statements were well done.
I think the game is already balanced good.
If you want the game to be more realistic go on hunts with the Longbow and no camo clothing/sprays that way animals can see, smell, hear you really far away as they should do in RL.
The Longbow is set nice for the bow penetration (gotta make those shots count not much penetration at all) easy to mess up shots so you do have to position yourself for each shot.
As just purely for fun go on a hunt with Compound bows and camo on.
Compound bows for the crazy penetration they have so it's more easy to kill things = more fun out of the hunt.
There you have it, it's already in the game. A more realistic approach to the game or a more fun relaxed approach to the game.
Players choice.
Same for rifles!
I think the game is already balanced good.
If you want the game to be more realistic go on hunts with the Longbow and no camo clothing/sprays that way animals can see, smell, hear you really far away as they should do in RL.
The Longbow is set nice for the bow penetration (gotta make those shots count not much penetration at all) easy to mess up shots so you do have to position yourself for each shot.
As just purely for fun go on a hunt with Compound bows and camo on.
Compound bows for the crazy penetration they have so it's more easy to kill things = more fun out of the hunt.
There you have it, it's already in the game. A more realistic approach to the game or a more fun relaxed approach to the game.
Players choice.
Same for rifles!
I have over 1337 kills with my Longbow at 100% kill rate.
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPHtNC ... RQ3X3b0TjQ
My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/rav_fox
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPHtNC ... RQ3X3b0TjQ
My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/rav_fox
- ronMctube
- Chat Logger
- Posts: 17444
- Joined: March 14th, 2009, 9:49 pm
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
the real tricky thing is pigeon holing terms and relating them to this game. any could be marketed or shown represented wrongly.one thing i hate about surveys.most are bias or blatantly rigged.
For eg obviously people want fun but what is fun in theHunter that is personal preference ?
deciphering that can mean many things.many realistic things can be fun
thing is by defining wrongly what peoples preferences are could mean what is " Fun " is nothing theHunter related.just to bring in items that don't bear relevant to this game.
i like certain fps games for eg they are " fun " doesn't mean i want fps related materiel in theHunter to make it more "fun" !
when people making it too realistic or hardcore can be limiting other games manage this and thrive. look at games like EVE . you don't have to dilute to grow or widen your market.
as i asked earlier is this a community thread or feedback for what may happen in the future ?
For eg obviously people want fun but what is fun in theHunter that is personal preference ?
deciphering that can mean many things.many realistic things can be fun
thing is by defining wrongly what peoples preferences are could mean what is " Fun " is nothing theHunter related.just to bring in items that don't bear relevant to this game.
i like certain fps games for eg they are " fun " doesn't mean i want fps related materiel in theHunter to make it more "fun" !
when people making it too realistic or hardcore can be limiting other games manage this and thrive. look at games like EVE . you don't have to dilute to grow or widen your market.
as i asked earlier is this a community thread or feedback for what may happen in the future ?
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
I think there is a balance in the game as far as realism and fun go. What I don't see is a player's ability to set the balance that they would prefer. {IE: the wind and rain noise}. I personally have a bit of a problem with my hearing and at times when I am on speakers, I cannot hear the nuances of the lighter sounds, or the other subtle noises ,like the rustling of the grass by a rabbit or a turkey over the uncontrollable sounds of both wind and rain. I believe there is a need for both fun and realism in the game for people like me, who are not as fast on the keyboard, or who's eyes are no longer as good as they once were, or hands that might contain a tremble of their own, added to the movement of the weapon in game. The game as it is now, is a great one, but then I am biased because I am a former hunter, that hunts no more.
Except for the overpowering volume of both the wind and rain in the game, it is one I will play for a long time.
For me personally I think both sides in this discussion have very valid point's, but if push come's to shove, I have to go with realism, with the ability to not turn off the wind and rain, but instead give us a slider to lower or increase the volume of it, but not shut them down altogether. That would defeat the main purpose of this game, To enjoy a successful hunt, and have a great time with friends. After all, it is not reality, in essence, it its still a game, and an enjoyable one at that. That's my two cents worth as a new guy in here.
Except for the overpowering volume of both the wind and rain in the game, it is one I will play for a long time.
For me personally I think both sides in this discussion have very valid point's, but if push come's to shove, I have to go with realism, with the ability to not turn off the wind and rain, but instead give us a slider to lower or increase the volume of it, but not shut them down altogether. That would defeat the main purpose of this game, To enjoy a successful hunt, and have a great time with friends. After all, it is not reality, in essence, it its still a game, and an enjoyable one at that. That's my two cents worth as a new guy in here.
- ChrisMK72
- Outfitter
- Posts: 3028
- Joined: January 9th, 2013, 11:55 am
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
I think this debate is more complex than realism vs. fun, but in the end fortunately not too complex.
It's real simple after all.
It's not that this guy likes it easy and fast all the time, and that guy like it only very hard and difficult.
- Sometimes i don't have much time and want a fast game. Then i think it's fun when i fast find the animal i would like to find, and when i don't get close i just shoot it from far, collect it and end the game = fun in this case.
- Sometimes i want to "celebrate" the game, when i have much time(i have holidays now ). Then i prepare myself before starting the game, turn off my doorbell, turn off the telephone, maybe i mix myself a tasty drink(like a mojito ), i wear my headphones, and when i press start a game i dive into theHunter-world. This can be for hours, or the whole night.
Sometimes i would like it more complex then, and not running into 3 different kinds of animals after a few meters. More difficult would be more fun to me in this case.
Knut wrote
That's right for me, but i think this own need is different from time to time, and from day to day, maybe from game to game
So i would like some kind of options in the game options, where you can choose like amount of animal spawns and complexity.
Maybe a slider from easy to complex, what would have an effect to the attention and wariness of the animals, how they react to callers(fail calls), and some more options like animal spawns from few to many, maybe many, like we have it inGame now, to few, which would be only 1% from what we have now. And from that a slider from 1 to 100%.
With such options every single player would be able to choose his own current level of complexity and difficulty.
This would only work when you are not in a competition, because in competitions you should have the same chances.
So in competitions you would not be able to choose your level of complexity and animal spawns.
Or competitions would always be in easiest mode, like we have now.
So i would not say "Go realistic!", and i would not say "Focus on how the rules of the game adhere to the game world.", i would say:
Let the player choose how complex he want to play it, every time !
It's real simple after all.
It's not that this guy likes it easy and fast all the time, and that guy like it only very hard and difficult.
- Sometimes i don't have much time and want a fast game. Then i think it's fun when i fast find the animal i would like to find, and when i don't get close i just shoot it from far, collect it and end the game = fun in this case.
- Sometimes i want to "celebrate" the game, when i have much time(i have holidays now ). Then i prepare myself before starting the game, turn off my doorbell, turn off the telephone, maybe i mix myself a tasty drink(like a mojito ), i wear my headphones, and when i press start a game i dive into theHunter-world. This can be for hours, or the whole night.
Sometimes i would like it more complex then, and not running into 3 different kinds of animals after a few meters. More difficult would be more fun to me in this case.
Knut wrote
You only experience fun when your own need for complexity is met by the game's level of complexity.
That's right for me, but i think this own need is different from time to time, and from day to day, maybe from game to game
So i would like some kind of options in the game options, where you can choose like amount of animal spawns and complexity.
Maybe a slider from easy to complex, what would have an effect to the attention and wariness of the animals, how they react to callers(fail calls), and some more options like animal spawns from few to many, maybe many, like we have it inGame now, to few, which would be only 1% from what we have now. And from that a slider from 1 to 100%.
With such options every single player would be able to choose his own current level of complexity and difficulty.
This would only work when you are not in a competition, because in competitions you should have the same chances.
So in competitions you would not be able to choose your level of complexity and animal spawns.
Or competitions would always be in easiest mode, like we have now.
So i would not say "Go realistic!", and i would not say "Focus on how the rules of the game adhere to the game world.", i would say:
Let the player choose how complex he want to play it, every time !
- TedStriker
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: March 26th, 2014, 1:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
Because the game is sold with the claim of being the most realistic hunter game, I assume that those users that spent the most money in the shop (and in turn finance the thehunter-project) are "hardcore ones" who expect a high level of realism. I spent a reasonable amount of time into this game (& money...) because it gives me a more authentic feeling of hunting compared to other (more arcade) games. Sure, you can try to appeal to a broader audience by making it more arcade and I am sure it will increase the user-base in the short run - however, i am not sure how attractive such a game would be for the hardcore-users... and i would be afraid you run into the risk of being a "stuck in the middle" - game. There are others out there in other genres that tried to reach niche-gamer and casual ones at the same time and failed. E.g. within the sim-racing genre; although I would not call it to be "failed" but the game ProjectCars tries to appeal to both, console/arcade gamer and hardcore-simracers. The game came out a couple of weeks ago, so things might change but listening to the community I can say that many of the casual gamers are not very satisfied because it is still to difficult for them, i.e. the learning-curve is still to high for many. The hardcore simracers, on the other side, claim it to be too arcade and stay with their current simulators like iracing or AC.
From my point of view I would recommend to focus on realism and offer in-game assistance where it is needed - i.e. in cases where virtual reality cannot replicate the whole situation - e.g. I play without tracking color as I would like to find traces by myself - but as we cannot replicate smelling it would be helpful to have an extra option for tracking the excrementals of the animals.
Best
From my point of view I would recommend to focus on realism and offer in-game assistance where it is needed - i.e. in cases where virtual reality cannot replicate the whole situation - e.g. I play without tracking color as I would like to find traces by myself - but as we cannot replicate smelling it would be helpful to have an extra option for tracking the excrementals of the animals.
Best
- FumarPorros
- Scout
- Posts: 297
- Joined: May 26th, 2015, 6:18 am
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
+1ChrisMK72 wrote: [...]
So i would not say "Go realistic!", and i would not say "Focus on how the rules of the game adhere to the game world.", i would say:
Let the player choose how complex he want to play it, every time !
I also think this would be great and a wonderful solution.
- Kosanderi
- Tracker
- Posts: 188
- Joined: January 11th, 2015, 7:59 pm
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
This is an awesome topic to debate on and the openings were very nice. After reading them both at this point I'd give my vote to TundraPuppy.
Knut's balancing between realism and easy to me was bit off. Using TunrdaPuppy's chess example one can play chess against a computer and adjust the difficulty level to what ever. Basically it can be set too easy, win always and it's not fun. Or it could be set too hard, lose all the time and again it's not fun. Changing the level of difficulty in a game has nothing to do with reality. Same thing could be said about TH. Making the animals deaf blind would make the game easier and at the other end of the scale they could smell everything from a mile away. Either way the game would be ruined.
I know what you're saying - make the senses of the animals as realistic as possible! Well yeah - that could probably be done or we could find the balance where most of the people would get most fun out of it. That's the ultimate goal, right?
Also complexity can't be directly compared to something being easy or hard. Another twisted example from TundraPuppy: Hitting a nail with a hammer. That's pretty straight forward. But when you start to reduce the size of the nail and the head of the hammer the job starts to get harder even though as a task it's still as straight forward as it was before.
I don't know how it goes for other people, but for me the preparations for a hunt actually take more time than the hunt itself. A lot more. I'm rather happy to skip this(well at least some) in TH. The aftermath can be rather time-consuming too. Also this part could be found not suitable for all players.
I do think realism has a place in this game. I wouldn't been drawn to it as much if it took place in Mars and we'd be shooting aliens. Not saying it couldn't be fun(Primal?) but as TundraPuppy said as a spice realism can be used in a game towards a more interesting and pleasant experience.
Waiting for the rebuttal-phase. I hope there's going to be one.
If so I'd hope that comments from others would be separated to their own thread, so the messages from Knut and TundraPuppy would be easier to find and read as the next phase begins.
Edit. After thinking about this for a moment I think we should have a poll to see where everyone stands. Re-votable so we can change it as the debate goes on...
Knut's balancing between realism and easy to me was bit off. Using TunrdaPuppy's chess example one can play chess against a computer and adjust the difficulty level to what ever. Basically it can be set too easy, win always and it's not fun. Or it could be set too hard, lose all the time and again it's not fun. Changing the level of difficulty in a game has nothing to do with reality. Same thing could be said about TH. Making the animals deaf blind would make the game easier and at the other end of the scale they could smell everything from a mile away. Either way the game would be ruined.
I know what you're saying - make the senses of the animals as realistic as possible! Well yeah - that could probably be done or we could find the balance where most of the people would get most fun out of it. That's the ultimate goal, right?
Also complexity can't be directly compared to something being easy or hard. Another twisted example from TundraPuppy: Hitting a nail with a hammer. That's pretty straight forward. But when you start to reduce the size of the nail and the head of the hammer the job starts to get harder even though as a task it's still as straight forward as it was before.
I don't know how it goes for other people, but for me the preparations for a hunt actually take more time than the hunt itself. A lot more. I'm rather happy to skip this(well at least some) in TH. The aftermath can be rather time-consuming too. Also this part could be found not suitable for all players.
I do think realism has a place in this game. I wouldn't been drawn to it as much if it took place in Mars and we'd be shooting aliens. Not saying it couldn't be fun(Primal?) but as TundraPuppy said as a spice realism can be used in a game towards a more interesting and pleasant experience.
Waiting for the rebuttal-phase. I hope there's going to be one.
If so I'd hope that comments from others would be separated to their own thread, so the messages from Knut and TundraPuppy would be easier to find and read as the next phase begins.
Edit. After thinking about this for a moment I think we should have a poll to see where everyone stands. Re-votable so we can change it as the debate goes on...
Spoiler:
- Raptor02
- Outfitter
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: April 24th, 2013, 12:22 pm
- Location: Niagara county NY
- Contact:
Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun
IMO the realism that should be focused on Ingame is the things that make hunting fun to begin with. Like ballistics, beauty of the animals, Weapons, experiencing nature and tactics. The rest can detract from the fun.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest