Gameplay/Realism balance -a message to the developers

[Arman616]

Gameplay is secondary in a game?


...

With these realism mods, yea. These kind of mods are for history buffs and people in love with how the ancient world really was. It brings a sense of greater sense of immersiveness and authenticity.

This is where the word "sim/simulator" comes into play with computer games.

Operation flashpoint is a modern day infantry combat simulator, and in that game, gameplay does come second.

[LorDBulA]

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

[Arman616]

No its not secendory.
I and propably most of EB members thinks that REALISM = GAMEPLAY.
So more realism more gameplay for me.
I for example love 1st person shooters in witch 1 bullet in head or chest kills you. And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you. But yea i like realism.

That's another way to put it. And yea, I follow the project reality mod for Battlefield 2.

[Mr Jones]

i hav found that the added realism in EB is what makes it such a fantastic mod. i mean, look how much better the gameplay is in EB when all they were really trying to do is make the most realistic game possible using the engine. as far as i am concerned gameplay is directly proportional to realism.

[CyberRaptor]

And i hate shooters in witch you run with minigun in your hands and 50 bullets wont kill you.

Well I believe there needs to be a balance between realism and gameplay, in any game. I agree that it's ridiculous for fifty bullets not to kill the player, but on the other hand the player should not usually be instantly killed by a single bullet either unless it's in the head. If it's from a high-powered rifle, that makes sense if it's anywhere in the torso or head, since a rifle shot will typically penetrate all but the heaviest body armor. If shot in the arm or leg, it should cause some sort of handicap. But a couple rounds in the chest from a pistol, SMG, or even a shotgun should not kill someone wearing body armor. That isn't realistic either. Even if it was, it would be extremely frustrating in a singleplayer game, and probably multi too.
For instance, I enjoyed playing MOHAA online because I found it to have a perfect balance between realism and gameplay. You can get shot a few times and survive, but it doesn’t take a whole clip to kill someone either, especially at close range. Also, the frag grenade damage radius was quite realistic too. I’ve often found grenades to be nearly useless in multiplayer, but that wasn’t the case in MOHAA. They were quite lethal when used in the right situations.

[fallen851]

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

[Big_John]

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

haha, that would be a funny game.. i'd play it once at least!

[QwertyMIDX]

Well if you take realism to the extreme its not fun, you wouldn't play a FPS where when you got shot in the stomach you lie on the ground for 30 minutes bleeding to death until you finally died would you? That wouldn't be fun, but it would sure be realistic, right?

Never forget we play games because reality is lacking something...

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

[Mr Jones]

I think I'd rather play that than a Rambo-style FPS, but I suppose that's why I'm an EB member.

ditto qwerty, only i'm not an EB member. the shooter i had most fun with was ghost recon. the reason: if you got shot, you died, or at least were injured and unavailable for a little while. it actually required sound tactics to make it through a mission with your squad alive, unlike other games where as long as you can handle a rocket launcher decently enough you could dominate the game.

[Malrubius]

America's Army was good in this respect. A head shot = you're dead, but you might survive some other things, at least a couple of times. You died, you had to sit around and watch everybody else. Takes teamwork and tactics to win, not bunny-hopping and launching infinite rockets.

[Ludens]

So realism clearly doesn't enhance gameplay in all cases.

I agree. It would be dreadful if we really had to wait three months for a turn to pas. However, I like to play this game because I want to experience the kind of dillemas a Roman (or Seleucid or Briton or whatever) commander faced. It has to stay a game, but within that game I like realism, because for me it improves the immersion. An EB feels far more realistic than R:TW ever did.

[CyberRaptor]

Alright, enough of this. I'm just going to ask what I really want to know. Are there Onagers in EB or not? That's all I care about.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

No. I honestly don't know what will make it into the final version though.

[the tokai]

Alright, enough of this. I'm just going to ask what I really want to know. Are there Onagers in EB or not? That's all I care about.

Aren't you the same guy that kept spamming the RTR forums with your whining about onagers?

[RandyKapp]

Operation flashpoint is a modern day infantry combat simulator, and in that game, gameplay does come second.

Flashpoint also quite conveniantly has the best gameplay ive ever seen in a fps =P