Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drifter Bob" data-source="post: 1670681" data-attributes="member: 17723">I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  Yes, the real world is complicated, but that doesn't mean that a simulation needs to be.  Just look at it this way, you can have a simple but realistic model of the solar system in which the planets move as they really do, and thats it, or you can have one which goes into details of micro gravitational distortions, sidereal events, sun spots, comets, and any number of other subtle variables.  One is not necessarily more realistic than the other.  They are both abstractions, one is simply less detailed and one more so.I would draw this example back to the game in that, you have a solar system where jupiter is closest to the sun, and pluto is the hottest planet, and the earth revolves around the moon.  All I'm saying is put the planets in their right place and you can have a system which makes more sense, corresponds with our expectations better, and is more realistic, without changing the level of complexity at all.My approach was to tinker with the methodology and the data, while sticking to the feel of the original system.  For example, one way in which 'realistic' systems have tried to improve things in the past is by concentrating heavily on wounds.  I think it's ok for wounds to be fairly abstracted, I'm more interested in combat mechanics, the strategy and tactics of fighting, than which bones break or which organs rupture or how much blood flows.  At this level of abstraction, differentiating between a moderate injury and a serious (critical) one is enough for me.I'm sorry, I just didn't agree with your premise.  I've written two essays about realism in role playing games, and the crux of the point of both is that realism is not equivalent to complexity.  The example you are reacting to above, replacing cleave with counterstrike, is just making a point about the level of complexity, not what I want or what you want, that is just a (sloppy, in this case) turn of phrase.To one extent, it's a matter of aesthetics and immersion.  I personally think that the real weapons and armor make the game feel more real.  Not everybody feels this way, I understand <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I know some people really like the double headed axes.  I'm the kind of guy who cringes when I see the fireballs flying in the otherwise very promising beginning of "Gladiator".  I may be in the minority, but I don't think I'm alone. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />If they are that similar, we put them in the same category.  The differentiation is made between actual functional differences.  Again, it's not complexity for it's own sake!I'll try to work out another term.  Historical based?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> DB</blockquote>

Verification