Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Collection of useful resources, including forum info and functionality, Dev AMAs and everything else you want to have a quick access to.
User avatar
Cutch
Master Competitor
Posts: 9653
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:45 pm
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby Cutch » June 12th, 2015, 1:25 pm

I've read all the debating, and for me, the answer to the debate is simple:
The Devs have to go along with the MAJORITY of the paying folks,.....the members.
Our game has to be profitable, or it will cease being.

The extremes of those for realism and those for fun, must be ignored, (yet the Devs
must still listen to their suggestions, and reply with reasons why their suggestions cannot be used,
when possible)

So, realism must followed as much a possible, but tweaked so our game is FUN and challenging :!:
The only way a hunting game, (or any other game), will work and survive, imo. ;)
Last edited by Cutch on June 12th, 2015, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A woman's mind is cleaner than a man's:
She changes it more often.
User avatar
Sqwee
Outfitter
Posts: 1104
Joined: August 27th, 2012, 2:24 am
Location: Lutz, Florida, USA

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby Sqwee » June 12th, 2015, 1:28 pm

stancomputerhunter wrote:
Sqwee wrote:
stancomputerhunter wrote:@ Squee..

I can tell you, I'm not a hunter IRL, but I will never forget the sight of that Albino Red Deer Stag crossing the river towards me. Or the Melanistic one, or the 194 Blacktail, or the 1109 Feral Hog, or the 228 Moose with 18 points, or the 266 Ibex, or the 391 Elk that kept me out of the 400 club, or the 86 Red Kangaroo, which was the very first Roo I ever shot. Or the huge NT WT that I happened upon just a couple of days ago. I vividly remember every one...because I'm not a real life hunter, and this is my only opportunity to get close. Its fun..but for me it will never get any more real.


First of all, congrats on those awesome kills! But that's exactly my point. You remember those because they're rare and a real achievement when you get kills like those. You know you've accomplished something. And when you're closing in on those types of trophies, you're excited, nervous, adrenaline pumped, and feel a sense of "I can't mess this up." When you get them on the ground, it's amazing and you don't forget those. That is EXACTLY the experience that this game should be striving to give!

I think a lot of people either didn't read my posts or misread them. I never said the game isn't capable of that experience. Like I said, I have many memorable hunts from when I first started. And some of my trophy kills. If the game wasn't capable of those experiences, I would have given it up long ago. This IS a great game. (Side note: I just had a fantastic time hunting with my male chocolate retriever, Ned [named after Eddard Stark. ;)], for the first time.).

A point that is frequently brought up on the other side of the debate is that you can make the game harder on yourself by only pursuing higher-scoring animals. This is true. Most of the time, that's what I do. My point is that nowadays, I feel that I have to wade through a lot of immersion-breaking, unrealistic things to get to those moments. I would just like it a little closer to real life hunting, is all. I don't know. I realize that I am one of the few who want it extremely difficult and realistic; I don't expect them to change it just for me. But I am passionate about the game and what would make me happy, and this is the perfect thread to express that.


Thank you. I wasn't bragging...I have no right to....there are hundreds of better scores every day. What I was trying to say is that to me, a non real life hunter, the randomness of those harvests are what makes me come back again and again. They ARE my hunting experience. I sure wouldn't want to find one every hunt; that wouldn't be real or fun...well, except for a NT Blacktail right now. :lol:


No, I gotcha! I knew what you were saying. I agree! haha
User avatar
DHRifleman
Team Hunter
Posts: 10556
Joined: December 3rd, 2008, 11:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby DHRifleman » June 12th, 2015, 4:18 pm

Knut wrote:
DHRifleman wrote:But the game already has this based on the score of the animals you go after because of the higher AI.

Which is exactly what I was supporting above. Whether based on the difficulty of higher scores or difficulty and diversity in hunting different species is kind of the same concept.


DHRifleman wrote:Also it has this in the comps based on amount of kills for that species,

True. I always forget about the comps. They're in my eyes not a thing that forms the core concept of the game, but something to cater the gaming crowd.
I think balancing or segregating the competitions is an entirely different and mainly independent topic. That's not really an issue of realism or fun (although competing for sure is fun for some, no doubt)

Comps are for me one of these things that are a necessary and good compromise in making this hunting game a game. Because comps are surely nothing really hunting related. Yet, they don't really conflict the realism of the game for me, so if they make others happy, I guess it's live and let live... :D


Well since fun and how much realism makes the game fun is completely subjective to each player, why should any one player, or group of players dictate what the proper amount of realism is. Wouldn't it be great if they made the game exactly like anyone wants just for them. Sqwee could have it as close to reality as possible in a PC game, and some arcade player could have it huge animals on demand.

Unfortunately they have neither the time or the want to create a different game for each of us. Also the comps need to have some semblance of a level playing field, so variable sliders in how realistic are out.

The levels I talk about only affect the spawning of animals, in essence how smart they are in the loading based on the level you picked. The top level would load everything from scrub to Einstein, and the top ones could have an increase in AI, and health, leaning more towards reality, and in turn offer a bigger challenge.

The middle level would be more like what we have now as challenges, but without the top scoring ones on the map. Bottom level is for those that have no experience and still want some feedback from the game.

Reality vs Fun is kind of like being a kid and you can't wait until you grow up (reality aspect) and be able to do all the things the grownup's can. And once you have joined the real world you wished for, you realize you shouldn't have been in such a rush.

Prime example is the .22 rifle, some said it was unrealistic to have it not spooking things over 30 meters, then it was changed to be like the large caliber rifles, and the same ones said that is way to much.

And who's reality is this debate based on? ;)
The above statements are strictly my opinion, and should not be taken as fact, even if I believe them to be true.
Antlercreeklodge.com Tournaments
Permitted Weapons per Reserve By ClemD
User avatar
Knut
Outfitter
Posts: 4847
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 12:08 pm

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby Knut » June 12th, 2015, 5:34 pm

DHRifleman wrote:Well since fun and how much realism makes the game fun is completely subjective to each player, why should any one player, or group of players dictate what the proper amount of realism is.

Despite the fact that I am pretty sure that no player or player base has the chance to dominate anything, as it is still and always will be the company's decision making, I am quite certain that level sliders will be a bad idea that will hurt the feel this game transmits substantially. I think a big chunk of the appeal that this game has on players, is that one has to adjust to it or leave it be. You can't cater it to your needs and that's the challenge as well as the reward, when it's then working.

I am pretty sure that overall, no matter which difficulty players think to want now, they'll not enjoy the one they'd set for themselves as much as they enjoy the variety of difficulties the game offers now.



DHRifleman wrote:Prime example is the .22 rifle, some said it was unrealistic to have it not spooking things over 30 meters, then it was changed to be like the large caliber rifles, and the same ones said that is way to much.

This statement is false. It wasn't changed because people complained about realism. It was changed because it was bugged in the first place.
The .22 was accidentally released with a faulty spook radius that was never intended to be like that (which was lower than crossbow or air rifle - just to give the scope of unreasonable also from a game-balancing point of view). Nor was it changed to be like the large calibre rifles. It always had a substantially lower spook radius.
And actually, only because players from all sides, the fun and the realism crowd, complained do we have the current spook radius (which is both reasonably realistic as well as fun) introduced with the last patch.
If the release accident as well as the subsequent player intervention after the first fix wouldn't have happened, the rifle would've had the same spook radius than any other rifle, I guess, and thus would've been a most definite flop.

So please don't use your way of displaying this incident to blame "the realism party" for ruining the game. That is simply lacking any foundation in this case and could be considered warmongering ;)
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ― Isaac Asimov
bobbyvalentino1
Newbie
Posts: 27
Joined: September 5th, 2012, 9:01 pm

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby bobbyvalentino1 » June 12th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Sorry for the gigantic wall of text. Was meaning to fix it into paragraphs as well but got called away last night as I was editing it. Basically I wrote then went back to edit if not I cant think of what I want to say it either comes out now or not at all.
User avatar
Skybird
Hunter
Posts: 517
Joined: December 17th, 2012, 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby Skybird » June 12th, 2015, 8:00 pm

The current balance between realism and fun has brought The Hunter to where it is, and gave it the number of paying customers that it has. Obviously the current system did some things right. Game content is no longer where it was six years ago. The baby is no longer a baby anymore. Its a big boy now.

Before risking to alienate many players, I'd recommend to not touch this balance and leave it as it is. Continue setting up reserves, maybe do new species, maybe cautiously design new game elements like the dogs (ignoring the patching problems here when saying "cautiously" LOL ), and consider to go for a new version 2.0 of The Hunter with all-new designed gfx engine and reserves, if possible and money allows. Drastically changing the game balance between fun and realism this late in The Hunter 1.0's biography, sounds like a very bad idea to me. Not to mention that it would mess up statistics history as well, and comparability of past results with new ones.

It's not worth it to risk messing all this up. Never touch a stable system. Never change a wining team. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Developing a new Hunter game parallel to The Hunter 1, fine, I'm all for it, Primal is not it, and the engine starts to show its age. Sop starting on a replacement engine and a new game, sounds like the right thing to do. But starting to change the nature of the current one - sorry, I pass.
hours: 880+ / HS score: 7809
User avatar
DHRifleman
Team Hunter
Posts: 10556
Joined: December 3rd, 2008, 11:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby DHRifleman » June 12th, 2015, 10:00 pm

Knut wrote:
DHRifleman wrote:Well since fun and how much realism makes the game fun is completely subjective to each player, why should any one player, or group of players dictate what the proper amount of realism is.

Despite the fact that I am pretty sure that no player or player base has the chance to dominate anything, as it is still and always will be the company's decision making, I am quite certain that level sliders will be a bad idea that will hurt the feel this game transmits substantially. I think a big chunk of the appeal that this game has on players, is that one has to adjust to it or leave it be. You can't cater it to your needs and that's the challenge as well as the reward, when it's then working.

I am pretty sure that overall, no matter which difficulty players think to want now, they'll not enjoy the one they'd set for themselves as much as they enjoy the variety of difficulties the game offers now.



DHRifleman wrote:Prime example is the .22 rifle, some said it was unrealistic to have it not spooking things over 30 meters, then it was changed to be like the large caliber rifles, and the same ones said that is way to much.

This statement is false. It wasn't changed because people complained about realism. It was changed because it was bugged in the first place.
The .22 was accidentally released with a faulty spook radius that was never intended to be like that (which was lower than crossbow or air rifle - just to give the scope of unreasonable also from a game-balancing point of view). Nor was it changed to be like the large calibre rifles. It always had a substantially lower spook radius.
And actually, only because players from all sides, the fun and the realism crowd, complained do we have the current spook radius (which is both reasonably realistic as well as fun) introduced with the last patch.
If the release accident as well as the subsequent player intervention after the first fix wouldn't have happened, the rifle would've had the same spook radius than any other rifle, I guess, and thus would've been a most definite flop.

So please don't use your way of displaying this incident to blame "the realism party" for ruining the game. That is simply lacking any foundation in this case and could be considered warmongering ;)


Knut you are playing this game (debate) like a politician, and taking things out of context ;)
I did say sliders were out, and said 3 levels
"Also the comps need to have some semblance of a level playing field, so variable sliders in how realistic are out. "

Although I stand corrected about the .22 rifle being like the large calibers, it was actually 130 or so meters if I recall the testing I saw reported, my example of that was in reference to the statement right above it. I have them both below in order for clarification.


Reality vs Fun is kind of like being a kid and you can't wait until you grow up (reality aspect) and be able to do all the things the grownup's can. And once you have joined the real world you wished for, you realize you shouldn't have been in such a rush.

Prime example is the .22 rifle, some said it was unrealistic to have it not spooking things over 30 meters, then it was changed to be like the large caliber rifles, and the same ones said that is way to much.


Now if you look at the what Alena posted this debate is about "Topic: theHunter should be developed with the main focus on realism, with fun as a by-product"
I am sorry to say even you can't honestly say that realism should come before fun unless this is to be used as a teaching tool and not a game for entertainment. You have been sandbagged by the orator. :mrgreen:
The above statements are strictly my opinion, and should not be taken as fact, even if I believe them to be true.
Antlercreeklodge.com Tournaments
Permitted Weapons per Reserve By ClemD
User avatar
TundraPuppy
Outfitter
Posts: 2272
Joined: April 30th, 2009, 12:06 pm
Location: Probably on Steam. You should be too!
Contact:

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby TundraPuppy » June 13th, 2015, 1:00 am

Hello again everyone! Sorry for the delay, but I have been extremely busy lately, and wanted to give this proper time. I have a chunk of time now that I can spend, so what better way to do it than to show why Knut, while always well meaning, is wrong, and actually supporting my argument! I still think he's super awesome though, and he's welcome to crash at my place and play with my dogs whenever he wants.

Something to keep in mind here is we're obviously debating fun versus realism, hence the title of the debate. So while we obviously have some room to wiggle around with definitions, we do want to make sure we're keeping to the spirit of the debate, which is - fun versus realism, or rather, which comes first. Keep that idea in mind while we pare down Knut's counterpoints - that "fun comes first".


Seven hours of torture at 35,000 feet

Knut wrote:For me, "realistic" doesn't mean that something has to mimic reality in its wholeness, including every aspect and minor detail. For me, something is realistic, when it is consistent and conform with the general concept of how it works in reality. And when it does not conflict reality.

But it does not necessarily need to include every aspect and detail of the real-life equivalent. Things can be left out. Is a documentary about a person unrealistic, just because it doesn't include all trivial needs like nutrition, digestion or idle times? Is a flight simulator unrealistic because it doesn't include meetings with the boss about your salary increase? Or endless hours at hotel bars in foreign countries?


Absolutely correct! And there is a reason for that - no one would play a game like that because it's just not fun. And as I pointed out - "fun comes first".

No one plays a flight simulator to go to salary meetings. In fact, you could even argue a position of "...well, salary meetings are not "flight" simulation aspects; you don't do that in a plane." And I would totally and completely agree with that - it's not "Pilot Simulator", but I would still point out that flight simulators don't stick you on a crowded tarmac for hours while flight control moves gridlocked planes around, and unruly passengers yell at you from out of your speakers. You don't have to deal with annoying passengers who want to come see the cockpit and shriek in your ear. You don't have a copilot who drones on about his ex-wife and alimony for the seven hours it takes to fly from New York to London (I googled it! Seven hours!). The reason is simple - that stuff may be quite realistic, but it's just not fun.

Because again, "fun comes first".


O fun, fun, wherefore art thou, fun?

Knut wrote:A much better narrative as an example would be "Romeo and Juliet". And outstanding story that will provide a memorable narrative in any kind of setting. It works in the time of Renaissance it is set in. it will work in our modern times. It will work in a Science-Fiction setting and it will work in a fantasy-world. Because it is a narrative based on the realities of human needs and emotions. It is realistic. And this realism, albeit slightly overdrawn and dramatized, does substantially support the narrative. It by no means gets into the way of it.


Romeo and Juliet is also a fantastic story which I like (along with a lot of Shakespeare's writings) - but it's still fiction, as you readily admit. It's more realistic fiction, absolutely, but it's still extremely dramatized and that dramatic story is really essential to how the viewer experiences it. If Romeo and Juliet was real, in the renaissance...well, think of how that would be.

Actually, I'll tell you - it was based on a real couple. This is a brief summary and you can certainly read more about the details with a little googling.

The basic gist of the real Romeo is he is based on a guy named Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. Shakespeare dedicated his works 'The Rape of Lucrece' and 'Venus and Adonis' to Southampton, who was also probably the "Fair Youth" in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Southampton's mother was a woman named Mary Browne who was the daughter of Anthony Browne, the 1st Viscount Montagu. This is where Romeo from the Montagues comes from - Southampton of the Montagu line.

What about Juliet? Well, Southampton (at the time, a courier to Queen Elizabeth) was romantically involved with a young woman named Elizabeth Vernon, but there was a problem - Elizabeth Vernon was one of Queen Elizabeth's ladies in waiting, and a lady-in-waiting could not have relationships without the Queen's permission. The Queen was not about to let Vernon see Southampton because Vernon was descended from the Dacre family (who was related to Southampton's mother!), a strong and famously Catholic family. Should these two Catholic lines marry, it might have proven disastrous for Queen Elizabeth's push for Protestant control.

After Southampton's father died, Southampton became a ward of a man named Robert Cecil, the Lord Privy Seal (pretty much the most powerful guy in England at the time). He wanted Southampton to marry someone else, who Southampton refused.

So right there, we have the basis of the story - two families, each wanting their "child" to wed someone else, and not to see each other. But what about the dramatic poison scene?

Never happened. In fact, after Cecil died, the two married immediately, fueling speculation they promised each other to be married before the death (or perhaps even marrying in secret, then simply making it official "later" on). So, what did Queen Elizabeth do?

She sent them to prison.

But, in reality, the Queen died in 1603, and Southampton was released from prison. He then hooked back up with Vernon, and they lived together until Southampton died in 1624.

Now, why did I tell you all that? To make a point. That's the abridged version, and it's very realistic (I mean, it -is- realistic, that actually happened), but it's still boring! There's no dramatic swordfights, or poetry reading from balconies, or dramatic death scenes of quaffing poison. The real story is basically the religious politics of sixteenth century England, with an ending of "they went to jail, but then they got out". That's interesting from a historical perspective - if that history is something you enjoy reading about - but it's not very interesting from a storytelling perspective. You probably were nodding off while reading it - I certainly was while writing it.

But in the hands of a master like Shakespeare, he can take that mundane reality, and weave it into something interesting, amazing, and standing the test of time. theHunter can do the same thing, in the same way Shakespeare did with Romeo and Juliet - remove the boring, realistic stuff, and deliver an experience that's enjoyable, memorable, and keeps people excited about the retelling of it.

Because again - "fun comes first".


Inspired does not mean realistic

Knut wrote:The process of developing further content for the game always has to start by seeking inspiration from real-life hunting. Then digest the process, find out what is the fun and rewarding part of this specific type of hunting and thy to make that a prominent part of the feature. Then comes the analysis of which parts in contrast aren't adding to the enjoyment, which parts aren't actually enjoyable at all. Can they be left out? Can a narrative shortcut of reality (like Doc) help to avoid those? How can these shortcuts be implemented without compromising the essence of the real-life feature?

Sure, there is such thing as detrimental realism. Plenty of it, actually. And that's why realism cannot be the goal.

But reality should in my eyes be always adhered to as long as it does not conflict the gaming experience.


This is absolutely true. And Knut makes an excellent point which further enforces my position, when he says that this game is "inspired" by realistic hunting. Just as the previous example of Romeo and Juliet were inspired by real families, they are emphatically not the actual reality of real families, just as theHunter is emphatically not the actual reality of hunting. We take the things which slow us down and get us hung up on the "boring bits" and eschew them, choosing instead to focus on adhering to the reality of the game world to provide us with fun - albeit grounded in a semblance of reality - but ultimately, this reality with the boring bits cut out.

Because again - "fun comes first".


The dartboard didn't say to feed the pheasants steroids

Knut wrote:And that's one of the major letdowns for me in the game. Those moments where I experience something unrealistic, especially when it's unnecessarily unrealistic and not properly circumnavigated with a narrative shortcut. Those moments where I simply think "man, this is just wrong."
Those are for me major immersion-breaking moments that severely compromise my gaming experience and fun.
The problem with this is, that it is strongly depending on personal real-life experience, on the personal reality, if you want to say so. The more I know about the topic of hunting, the more this will be an issue. That is why real-world hunters are often more bothered by it than non-hunters that play the game.

These immersion-breaking things should be avoided whenever possible. When there are no arguments for bending or neglecting reality, reality should be adhered to. Because in the end the game's narrative and set of rules are at least strongly influenced by reality. And thus considering realism has to take a front row seat.


This is a great bit of discussion here, and sidetracks a bit into a concept that is always difficult to tackle when games are made that are inspired by real life metrics and statistics. We see it all the time in theHunter, and there is no end to the arguments that this brings about.

The problem is illustrated when Knut says "no arguments for bending or neglecting reality". The reality in game design is that very rarely (if at all), are design mechanics introduced by simply choosing them at random. EW, for example, does not decide randomly how much damage a gun does, or decided randomly how far to space tracking domes. These things - really, all design decisions - are made by looking at how they will interact with the experience of the game by the player. Generally speaking, even if something is or isn't realistic, it's ultimately a moot point - it's been implemented in such a way that it works within the game's world to provide the best experience for the user in general. If it's chosen to go live and it's realistic, then awesome, because it's going to provide the best experience. If it's not realistic, then that's awesome too, because it's still going to provide the best experience. That's the entire point; the end goal!

Realistically, when developers sit down to hammer out design decisions, there are always internal arguments as to why they have chosen a particular choice in the game. It's not like they just shrug their shoulders and say "eh, I dunno. Ralph threw a dart and it hit the 500 damage spot instead of the 200 damage spot, so that's what we went with". We as realistic-focused players can make an argument that pheasants are too large, for example, but making them smaller makes them more difficult and un-enjoyable for average users to hit. The organs in a turkey may be larger than our reality recognizes them as, but for the same reason as above, they are enlarged to make the experience more understandable and enjoyable for the user.

Realistically, there are no scenarios where there are "no arguments for bending or neglecting reality". Designers are always carefully weighing how their game is designed and set up, because users themselves have to play them and enjoy them. Users who are playing the game but not enjoying it because of design decisions not made with the goal of keeping the player happy and having fun will not be playing the game for long.

Because again - "fun comes first".


Why the bullpup argument is bull (Forgive me, I couldn't help myself. My dog even put a paw over his eyes and sighed at me.)

Knut wrote:Because if reality is bent or neglected unnecessarily, that truly harms the narrative.
And now comes the example, Alena was waiting for. The bullpup rifle.

Probably inspired by some hollywood-deformed view on things, a rifle was introduced that isn't really based on something that would generally be used for hunting. Exacerbating, some details like open sights placement were then designed so wrong that it'd be impossible to work in the real world. And for what? What gain was obtained?
Yes, the rifle is surely fun to use. But so would have been a more realistic straight-pull or semiautomatic action rifle in the same cartridge, with the same scope and reload speed as well. No differences in fun whatsoever.
Some might think the bullpup rifle looks cool. While I doubt that they are the majority, I also think that a big proportion of those would have found a more realistic rifle cool-looking if adequately designed. And was there any need to cater the small portion of people that wouldn't have found any other gun as cool-looking?


The bullpup. My precious, precious bullpup...

The bullpup is a great example of what I mean. It looks great, it sounds great. It's unique. And we're all talking about it.

Is the rifle fun to use? You bet it is! It's insanely popular too - people love it.

Is it realistic? Not 100% realistic, and I'll agree with Knut on that. But I'll also point out - there's a reason that the bullpup had such an exciting introduction and acceptance on release. It was absolutely different from what we had before. It helped usher in new players. It showed there was room for more than just "grandpa rifles", as we've heard the expression used. It expanded the possibilities for the game, and let those who wanted fun, excitement, and something different, to have the ability to experience that, while people who simply didn't like the gun still use other guns - other guns, which I would add, are also not 100% realistic in terms of their ammunition choices, load, mechanics, reloading speed, chamber speed (hello shotgun!) or performance.

As said above, from a design perspective, we have to do this. We want to avoid "one gun to rule them all". We want all guns to have good reasons to use them, and introducing a small handful of guns which is "all you need" just throws every other gun in the garbage bin. And to do that, we have to carefully weigh the guns against each other, and when one gun obviously and clearly comes out on top, we have to say "how do we keep this inspired by realism, but make sure that the choice is still fun and not a boring requirement to simply stay competitive?"

Why pick on the bullpup? Because it was the poster child of guns for "unrealistic additions" to the game. But really, all the guns are like that - some just more visible than others. No gun performs exactly the same in-game, in the same way it does in real life. And that's all due to one simple reason, which we've stated above when we talk about allowing player choices and options, rather than shoe-horning players into an obvious "this is better than that" choice, which is boring and bland.

Because again - "fun comes first".


Wrapping it all up

Knut wrote:I think it is vital to provide a range of difficulties and complexities of gameplay. But within the same game. A broad range of differently behaving species and different hunting techniques is in my eyes the way better recipe to do so. Also because what is difficult for one, might be easy for someone else. Some find it easy to get a turkey, but struggle with the bears. For some it is exactly the other way around.
And to build on this strength of variety of gameplay, reality offers a well-filled cornucopia of inspiration.

Inspired by reality - that would actually be a very good slogan to go by for theHunter


Knut, I'm in agreement with you on this. I would love for this game to eschew the "The most realistic hunting game" thing, because I firmly believe it brings false expectations and serves as an easy "go to" for people who are upset about design decisions not being realistic enough. I've often pondered what would be a good replacement, but I like what you say, and I would get behind you on this.

Because ultimately, the game is inspired by reality, and I would never argue against that. But there is a huge difference as we've seen above, from Romeo and Juliet, to the size of pheasants, to airport tarmac gridlock, between "inspired by reality" and "actual reality". And it's a wide, wide berth.

The game simply isn't real, and it would be boring if it was real. We want to look at a game - any game - as something which has familiar settings whether we talk about theme, how you interact with the game's mechanics, the characters, the narrative, but with those attributes as a base, from which we build an enjoyable game which has fun as it's penultimate goal.

Providing ranges of difficulties and complexities, like Knut says, is a fantastic idea, and something we should encourage EW to aspire to reaching, and, as Knut says, within the same game. It's entirely possible to do this as well, while keeping the game fun, by providing different experiences for players, and different opportunities for players to flex their muscles, whether those muscles are physical ones honed by trudging through the real woods in search of prey, or mental ones honed by weekend marathons of Call of Duty. There's room for all of those players in this community and game, because whether we're outdoorsmen, truck drivers, homemakers, or fireball slinging mages in an online RPG, we're all here for one reason - to have fun playing this game.

Because again - "fun comes first".
Am I doing a good job? I thrive on feedback! Please PM me, or my bosses Alena Rybik or Tod1d with comments, criticisms, or accolades!
User avatar
jeff1963
Hunter
Posts: 952
Joined: November 8th, 2012, 12:47 am
Location: Washington State.

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby jeff1963 » June 13th, 2015, 3:04 am

TundraPuppy wrote: There's room for all of those players in this community and game, because whether we're outdoorsmen, truck drivers, homemakers, or fireball slinging mages in an online RPG, we're all here for one reason - to have fun playing this game.

Because again - "fun comes first".



Exactly to the point, and Well said. Thanks TP.
Thanks, ~Jeff

User avatar
ChrisMK72
Outfitter
Posts: 3028
Joined: January 9th, 2013, 11:55 am

Re: Great Debate: Realism vs. fun

Postby ChrisMK72 » June 13th, 2015, 5:56 am

Well written TP.

TundraPuppy wrote:Knut, I'm in agreement with you on this. I would love for this game to eschew the "The most realistic hunting game" thing, because I firmly believe it brings false expectations and serves as an easy "go to" for people who are upset about design decisions not being realistic enough. I've often pondered what would be a good replacement, but I like what you say, and I would get behind you on this.


Agreed. "most realistic" could raise hopes and false expectations. It's a weak point for people to criticize.

TundraPuppy wrote:Providing ranges of difficulties and complexities, like Knut says, is a fantastic idea, and something we should encourage EW to aspire to reaching, and, as Knut says, within the same game. It's entirely possible to do this as well, while keeping the game fun, by providing different experiences for players, and different opportunities for players to flex their muscles, whether those muscles are physical ones honed by trudging through the real woods in search of prey, or mental ones honed by weekend marathons of Call of Duty. There's room for all of those players in this community and game, because whether we're outdoorsmen, truck drivers, homemakers, or fireball slinging mages in an online RPG, we're all here for one reason - to have fun playing this game.

Because again - "fun comes first".


Would be nice to have something like ranges of difficulties. Sometimes it's not the best thing for some, to shoot your way through waves of animals, on your way to find "your" animal, you was searching for. Even in one game for all, where everyone is able to have fun. :-)

Return to “Official Game and Forum Information”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest