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".