Accurate representations of real world military equipment

[Steelpoint]

Why don't we change tactics for a while?

HWP, tell me what you wish to see change. By that I mean how all weapons will function and be balanced in game, as well as how weapons work in terms of damage and effectiveness (Accuracy, ammo, weight and range of engagement).

I honestly want to know how you would approach this situation.

The weapons the Xenonauts are using (M16, M14 or any other weapon of choice), maybe we have to accept that even Earth's most deadly infantry weaponry are just not effective enough at killing Aliens. We can't assume that our puny ballistic weaponry can remain effective against an Alien superpower that can employ deadly Plasma weapons and UFO's that can survive almost relativity intact after being shot down. As well as the fact that their personal Armour materiel may simply be an order of magnitude above any Human technology or measurable standard.

I think you have been approaching this from the angle that the Aliens should be compared to Humans, in terms of how many bullets it takes to kill them. Yes I would imagine that a Non-combatant Sebillien would die to one or two bullets, but an Elite Sebillien or even a standard Andron is a lot more deadlier than a Technician and would also be wearing actual combat Armour.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Steelpoint

[HWP]

HWP, tell me what you wish to see change.

I described it on the last few pages. You're a bit late to the lemonparty.

The weapons the Xenonauts are using (M16, M14 or any other weapon of choice), maybe we have to accept that even Earth's most deadly infantry weaponry are just not effective enough at killing Aliens.

In that case, humans should be using the most powerful infantry weaponry available.

This means you aren't going to see anything smaller than .50 BMG in the game at all ever. Mostly you'll be using explosives. For marksmen, 20mm API and 14.5mm carbide core. Maybe an occasional 6P62 or KPB-12.7 held as a close assault weapon. But usually just explosives.

[Steelpoint]

But if we fall back to the origin of this topic, the Accurate representations. We know that these kind of weaponry that you are suggesting were not standard issue. Soldiers were not issued with high powered snipers and that was impractical. Assault Rifles and Machine guns all have their uses on the battlefield, where no single class or type of weapon is dominate over every other class of weaponry. If so then the armies of today would all be using these single kind of weapons.

However back onto a more relevant discussion. Let's not forget that the game has four tiers of weaponry the player can research into.

Ballistic -> Laser -> MAG -> Plasma.

So if we make the Ballistic weapons extremely effective then the remaining three tiers of weaponry become redundant and a waste of time. Which takes away a key element of the game of the player starting with somewhat ineffective weapons and slowly getting better weapons.

[HWP]

We know that these kind of weaponry that you are suggesting were not standard issue.

Last I checked, the game was called "Xenonauts", not "2nd squad of 3rd platoon of 8th company of 1st battalion of 5th brigade of 9th division of completely random dudes".

Special operations forces are completely or partially free to procure whichever weapons they consider optimal for their mission. Not to mention that Xenonauts aren't even part of any national military, so there isn't any "standard issue" for them to begin with.

If so then the armies of today would all be using these single kind of weapons.

Are you acting? Like I said before, small caliber firearms are used because they are sufficient against their intended targets. If they were not, as in your "aah uberaliensuperpowers" scenario, they would not pass the tests and would not be adopted. It's very simple.

[Steelpoint]

As I said before, what if even the best weapons humanity has is not very effective at killing Aliens. I meant EVERY weapon, including your .50 BMG weaponry, so that even the .50 BMG did not pass the test, then we would be using weapons that are simply not good enough.

However I think we should focus more on balancing Ballistic weapons with the other tiers of weapons. Because the suggestion you are giving would make Lasers, MAG's and Plasmas a waste of time if Ballistic weapons were the be all and end all.

I agree that the Aliens should not become massive Bullet Sponges but at the same time I see that the starting weapons should very quickly become ineffective against the Aliens, as they may simply not do enough damage to even wound an Alien, forcing the player to upgrade to Lasers and beyond.

[HWP]

As I said before, what if even the best weapons humanity has is not very effective at killing Aliens. I meant EVERY weapon, including your .50 BMG weaponry, so that even the .50 BMG did not pass the test, then we would be using weapons that are simply not good enough.

Possibly.

But these would still be the most powerful weapons available. Because something that isn't even killed by .50 BMG or 14.5x114 API is going to shrug off 5.56mm rounds like airsoft pellets. There won't be any reason to even carry them.

(Actually, we would be using mounted weapons. Up to MBTs with 120mm APFSDS. And, if even that isn't enough, what exactly do you expect a squad of infantry to do? Unless they have a Davy Crockett.)

[StellarRat]

Are you acting? Like I said before, small caliber firearms are used because they are sufficient against their intended targets. If they were not, as in your "aah uberaliensuperpowers" scenario, they would not pass the tests and would not be adopted. It's very simple.

While I agree with most of what you're saying. I think the current gunpowder weapons are sufficient against level 1 Cesarians and Sellbians. Further down the road I'd say that the best solution is:

1. Since you don't know that your standard military weapons aren't going to be effective until after at least an an encounter with the lizards, a second level of firearms that becomes available after one of the Sellbian aliens has been researched. "Oh, crap these guys are built like rhinos! We need to order some .458 mags for our troops."

AND\OR

2. "Oh, crap these guys are built like rhinos! We need to get laser weapons researched ASAP because our gunpowder weapons aren't going to be effective if anything tougher comes along."

3. Since it's a game we really can't expect the designers to provide us with every type and size of gunpowder weapon. Yeah, in real life there are hundreds of choices in varying power levels and dozens of types of ammo to choose from, but you really can't expect that in the game.

4. We are potentially getting a myopic view of the importance of the whole subject of gunpowder weapons because we don't have the whole game to play through yet. Once we can play it all the way through we may find the gunpowder weapons are only a small piece of the whole experience and having a "perfect" system for those may not seem that important anymore.

5. Someone is going to mod in a ton of gunpowder weapons.

I'm always going to get lasers researched ASAP because I know what's coming. I really don't think the game ought to encourage players to continue upgunning their gunpowder weapons. Hypervelocity weapons are the next level of gunpowder weapons really. That's why there is a research element in the game. If there was a path to win using only gunpowder weapons that would change the character of the game potentially making it less interesting for some players. My main problem is the mechanics of burst fire (as I've expressed numerous times) and that applies to all burst fire capable weapons including the later types.

Edited December 27, 2012 by StellarRat

[Steelpoint]

I can understand where you are coming from, and it also does make logical sense to bring in better weapons if the standard issue weapons don't cut it.

But, when we think of games such as this, we imagine squads of soldiers equipped with Assault Rifles, shotguns with a sniper or two at the back with the RPG. Yes it might make more realistic sense to bring in the bigger high caliber rifles for when the Assault rifles prove ineffective. But from a game makers and players point of view, having a squad equipped solely with snipers and RPG's does not seem very fun and exciting, especially when we are now ignoring over a dozen other unique weapons and equipment, for realism's sake.

Ultimately I feel that realism must be sacrificed in some respects in order to maintain a suspension of disbelief, a false reality where even Assault Rifles can compete with Snipers, but with the Snipers being far more accurate and damaging, and the Rifles being more effective at all ranges.

I am fully prepared to concede the weapons caliber debate to you, as you are mostly correct. However I do maintain my argument and points raised. Also I still feel that every weapon should be useable, and not punish the player for bringing the wrong caliber weapon.

[Gorlom]

What other genres are still alive?

RPG - ah, right, the new Deus Ex. One melee attack, 1 or 2 kills. One shot, with good weapons, one kill.

TBT... let's take XCOM 2012. Early game they only need one hit, later on your soldiers shoot twice per turn and carry plasmas, so it's one turn, one kill. For snipers can be two kills.

TBS... Haven't played anything recently. And shooters is all you hear about, I haven't even played COD, but know about it. Not the case with other genres.

Deus EX isn't a RPG. it's a stealth simulator with RPG elements and all the bosses are damage sponges.

Haven't played either XCOM2012 or COD.

Spiderman, Batman, Mass effect series, Torchlight 2, Diablo 3, most MMOs, Darksiders 2, Darkness 2, Ledgend of grimrock, Tekken, Streetfighter. There

There are still plentiful amounts of games that does not do the first shot wins / execution kill gameplay.

I'm not arguing about what it should be in Xenonauts because tbh I can't be arsed to have that discussion. But the argument that the industry as a whole is embracing the "one hit one kill" ideology is a point of view I do not share.

It seems to me that you are simply noticing the games that appeal to you (because of the degree of verisimilitude in them?) and ignore the rest. I do that myself. I ignore the BattleField and CoD frenchises...

[HWP]

2. "Oh, crap these guys are built like rhinos! We need to get laser weapons researched ASAP because our gunpowder weapons aren't going to be effective if anything tougher comes along."

TBH my position is that lasers shouldn't really do considerably more - or more at all - damage than ballistic weapons. That would make little sense: it's quite easy to make a ballistic weapon exactly as powerful as you need it, and if damage was the issue, you'd be adopting heavier firearms.

On the other hand, lasers have a massive advantage in accuracy. With a properly constructed laser weapon, hit probabilities of less than 90% will be exceedingly rare. A laser weapon always hits exactly where you are aiming; no windage, no drop, no lead time to compensate for. You can only miss by jerking it or pulling the trigger mistakenly.

I fear that making the game damage-centered can result in all four weapon tiers being faceless and indistinguishable; little more than simultaneous linear progression of hit points and damage, making them just chores to research.

[ Range could come into it: laser effectiveness decreasing in proportion to range. So the range is unlimited, and accuracy drops very little with range, but damage at long range drops to almost nothing. At close range being more powerful than ballistics, at medium about par. ]

3. Since it's a game we really can't expect the designers to provide us with every type and size of gunpowder weapon.

Yes. That's why it should simply provide the best. The best for your particular purpose, at least. Omit the inferior ones.

Although intermediate "tier 1.5" ballistics - requiring only alien alloys, as opposed to lasers requiring alien power sources - could be a great idea.

Not railguns, just new ballistic weapons. Based on 70s-80s prototypes that failed IRL, and which you presumably managed to fix by employing alloy parts. Some RL prototypes are just awesome.

Ultimately I feel that realism must be sacrificed in some respects in order to maintain a suspension of disbelief, a false reality where even Assault Rifles can compete with Snipers

I believe in fixing this issue by creating an environment where assault rifles can compete with sniper rifles. Same as they do in the real life.

This isn't post-apoc fiction. Aliens still haven't won. World's industrial capacity is yet to be destroyed. You don't have to save humanity with a toothpick.

[HWP]

This is kinda off the topic. But I'll reply.

See on-topic reply on the prev.page.

Deus EX isn't a RPG. it's a stealth simulator with RPG elements and all the bosses are damage sponges.

If Deus Ex isn't a RPG, then the RPG genre is dead. You can't seriously consider a genre life-supported solely by 2D remakes of 20 year old 2D games to still be alive.

A game's status as RPG is not determined by employing D&D or another P&P derived character advancement system. It's enough that there is one. A more important factor, and one really unique to RPGs, is their quest-based gameplay structure. And finally two key factors are the presence of interactions other than combat and the presence of a non-linear world, usually with a "town-dungeon" dichotomy.

DX:HR has character advancement. It certainly has quest-based gameplay, with plenty of optional quests. It even has "town" and "dungeon" areas, the former, traditionally for RPG, giving out quests and including merchants. And the dialog system actually presents a challenge you can win or lose, depending both on your actions and on a character stat.

All in all, HR is no less of a RPG than the original Deus Ex. And if you say neither is a RPG, then what is? Certainly not Skyrim. That leaves the genre dying with the last Icewind Dale.

Bosses in HR were outsourced to a bunch of Indian college students sadly, they were outsourced to a "reputable" company, the employees of which have never played Deus Ex series and didn't bother to even try.

Haven't played either XCOM2012 or COD.

I think I've been labeled just about #1 EU'12 hater, but seriously?

Spiderman, Batman,

Oh.

I think one should set their expectations a certain way when playing a game based on a superhero comic book.

It seems to me that you are simply noticing the games that appeal to you (because of the degree of verisimilitude in them?) and ignore the rest. I do that myself. I ignore the BattleField and CoD frenchises..

You are free to ignore them. But we are not free to choose our own reality; and in the one we share, these two are by far the best-selling shooter franchises. There are others: OFP, ArmA, CS; I used BF and cod examples because they're as mainstream as they get.

So even if the shift from 10-weapon inventory and bullet sponge enemies to plausible or borderline-plausible combat doesn't win by the number of titles, it certainly seems to be winning by the sales.

[Gorlom]

This is kinda off the topic. But I'll reply.

See on-topic reply on the prev.page.

If Deus Ex isn't a RPG, then the RPG genre is dead. You can't seriously consider a genre life-supported solely by 2D remakes of 20 year old 2D games to still be alive.

A game's status as RPG is not determined by employing D&D or another P&P derived character advancement system. It's enough that there is one. A more important factor, and one really unique to RPGs, is their quest-based gameplay structure. And finally two key factors are the presence of interactions other than combat and the presence of a non-linear world, usually with a "town-dungeon" dichotomy.

DX:HR has character advancement. It certainly has quest-based gameplay, with plenty of optional quests. It even has "town" and "dungeon" areas, the former, traditionally for RPG, giving out quests and including merchants. And the dialog system actually presents a challenge you can win or lose, depending both on your actions and on a character stat.

All in all, HR is no less of a RPG than the original Deus Ex. And if you say neither is a RPG, then what is? Certainly not Skyrim. That leaves the genre dying with the last Icewind Dale.

Oh come on, I mentioned both torchlight and diablo. Borderlands too if you want. There are countless MMOs that fit the RPG genre, FPS shooters and 2D nostalgia trips aren't the only RPGs being made.

Despite all its RPG elements the main focus in Deus Ex HR is the stealth approach (or at least the possibility to go through the game completely undetected) which just doesn't work if you need multiple hits to finish off an enemy. Any RPG that doesn't cheapen itself by putting check points every 5 seconds/meters/kills needs to stay away from the execution gamestyle.

The easier it is to dies the easier and less punishing it needs to be to restart.

Bosses in HR were outsourced to a bunch of Indian college students sadly, they were outsourced to a "reputable" company, the employees of which have never played Deus Ex series and didn't bother to even try.

I had actually forgotten that little tidbit of information. but we don't know what would have been in it's place. If anyone would have found a Deus Ex game full of bosses that die to one hit to be more fun than proper bulletspunge fights where you need to abuse some kind of tactic or enviroment to kill them rather then just treating them like another enemy.

I think I've been labeled just about #1 EU'12 hater, but seriously?

What? I don't find the mechanics that interesting and the game to be too expensive to bother with just because it has the XCOM name. TBH I'm more interested in the FPS than the Firaxis.

Oh.

I think one should set their expectations a certain way when playing a game based on a superhero comic book.

What is this supposed to mean? You are going to have to elaborate. Are you trying to patronize or something? who are you patronizing? me or the games?

You are free to ignore them. But we are not free to choose our own reality; and in the one we share, these two are by far the best-selling shooter franchises. There are others: OFP, ArmA, CS; I used BF and cod examples because they're as mainstream as they get.

So even if the shift from 10-weapon inventory and bullet sponge enemies to plausible or borderline-plausible combat doesn't win by the number of titles, it certainly seems to be winning by the sales.

You got me there glad we have come to an agreement.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Gorlom

[StellarRat]

Well, I have no problem with the higher level aliens being able to take multiple hits from gunpowder weapons. But, my hope is that that is not solely how the game will be balanced. I'm hoping that the game will derive it's balance more from the number of aliens, their weapons, their accuracy, their TUs, AND how well the AI uses good tactics, just like the Xenonauts. To balance the game using solely "hit points" would suck. That discourages using good tactics and turns the game into a hack and slash dungeon crawl IMO. The key to this whole question is how good the AI is. We can't make any judgments about how or what type of balancing to apply until we've seen how well the AI executes. If it uses cover well, knows how to setup good firing arcs, has some ability to flank, etc... we aren't going to have to make the aliens really tough for them to have a chance in any battle. On the other hand, if it isn't much better than what we have now (I think Gjjis-Jan is way better than this though) they'll need to be very tough to give us a go.

[HWP]

Oh come on, I mentioned both torchlight and diablo. Borderlands too if you want.

Diablo isn't really a RPG, it's a Hack'n'Slash click-em-all game in RPG style. Got the elements - controls etc - but none of the substance behind them.

Borderlands isn't even borderline semi-RPG, it's not even RPG-style, but a pretty clean shooter. Not that there's something wrong with being a shooter.

MMO comprise their own genre completely separate from everything else.

There are countless MMOs that fit the RPG genre and despite all its RPG elements the main focus in Deus Ex HR is the stealth approach (or at least the possibility to go through the game completely undetected) which just doesn't work if you need multiple hits to finish off an enemy.

You can also tank your way through the game. And it's actually easier at times - some stealth sequences are quite tough to pull off, while cover-shooting makes it reasonably simple. Or you can tank half the game, sneak the other half. Sometimes you have to tank either way.

Any RPG that doesn't cheapen itself by putting check points every 5 seconds/meters/kills needs to stay away from the execution gamestyle.

What do you mean? DX:HR has a traditional PC save/load system, there are no checkpoints.

The easier it is to dies the easier and less punishing it needs to be to restart.

I believe in an extended roguelike approach, personally. If you die, all your saves should be erased, a permanent record in the game account made so that the same character can never be played again, and the game locked for the day.

Not that it shouldn't be optional, to accommodate the casuals, but give them a black mark that blocks most achievements, player ranking, good MP servers, etc until they go into proper mode.

Surprisingly, it doesn't seem like I'm the only believer. In Flashpoint, you die from one good hit. And the whole mission is over. No respawns in multiplayer, you die, you're out, and there's usually just one battle per day. Missions, SP and MP, can span hours with long chains of changing objectives. The record I've had to deal with was 26 hours (not continuous, spread unequally over the course of 4 days). One hit could have ended it.

There is no casual mode. Well, there is, but it just means things like crosshairs, ammo counter, and your position marked on the map.

I had actually forgotten that little tidbit of information. but we don't know what would have been in it's place. If anyone would have found a Deus Ex game full of bosses that die to one hit to be more fun than proper bulletspunge fights where you need to abuse some kind of tactic or enviroment to kill them rather then just treating them like another enemy.

In the original Deus Ex, one of the bosses could be killed simply by obtaining and saying a certain phrase.

In Quake, key bosses couldn't be killed with your weapons at all - you had to just survive their attacks and trigger a special mechanism.

So there's certainly plenty of alternatives to simply requiring you to shoot 10,000 bullets at the boss.

What is this supposed to mean? You are going to have to elaborate. Are you trying to patronize or something? who are you patronizing? me or the games?

Games of course. Games that don't attempt suspension of disbelief (by design) don't call for realism.

[Gorlom]

Diablo isn't really a RPG, it's a Hack'n'Slash click-em-all game in RPG style. Got the elements - controls etc - but none of the substance behind them.

I'm confused, what substance did Dues Ex have that diablo doesnt? a personalized story?

Borderlands isn't even borderline semi-RPG, it's not even RPG-style, but a pretty clean shooter. Not that there's something wrong with being a shooter.

I havent actually played borderlands, so I'll have to trust you on that.

MMO comprise their own genre completely separate from everything else.

They do slap on the RPG label on everything nowadays don't they So the MMO genre is defined by how many that play it at the same time rather then the actual genre it is?

You can also tank your way through the game. And it's actually easier at times - some stealth sequences are quite tough to pull off, while cover-shooting makes it reasonably simple. Or you can tank half the game, sneak the other half. Sometimes you have to tank either way.

Selling point and achhivements REQUIRE you to be able to stealth through the game with the exception for bosses. That you can tank takes a back seat to the stealth simulator. While it may fill the requirements for a RPG for you, it is defined by its stealthsimulator system for me. the same way diablo or WOW is defined by it's hack and slash and MMO gameplay for you.

(Not sure if this is universally accepted definition, but I personally think different classes and party systems are required for RPGs )

What do you mean? DX:HR has a traditional PC save/load system, there are no checkpoints.

Even easier then (Doesn't it have an autosave slot? I could have sworn... oh well)

I believe in an extended roguelike approach, personally. If you die, all your saves should be erased, a permanent record in the game account made so that the same character can never be played again, and the game locked for the day.

Not that it shouldn't be optional, to accommodate the casuals, but give them a black mark that blocks most achievements, player ranking, good MP servers, etc until they go into proper mode.

Not really sure what you are talking about here but as long as it is optional it does sound kind of interesting.

Surprisingly, it doesn't seem like I'm the only believer. In Flashpoint, you die from one good hit. And the whole mission is over. No respawns in multiplayer, you die, you're out, and there's usually just one battle per day. Missions, SP and MP, can span hours with long chains of changing objectives. The record I've had to deal with was 26 hours (not continuous, spread unequally over the course of 4 days). One hit could have ended it.

Not saying you are the only believer but I don't think the industry as a whole is moving towards that. I don't think it is always the most fun / best option. Mainly because I don't find it very appealing at all. I think it is a tired mechanic that was fun when it was novel in delta force (I think) and counterstrike but is overused and is in danger of becoming cliche/ a coop out for when developers can't be arsed to balance health/resistance mechanics properly.

In the original Deus Ex, one of the bosses could be killed simply by obtaining and saying a certain phrase.

In Quake, key bosses couldn't be killed with your weapons at all - you had to just survive their attacks and trigger a special mechanism.

So there's certainly plenty of alternatives to simply requiring you to shoot 10,000 bullets at the boss.

OFC there is. If you can make a boss in portal you can make a boss in a shooter that isn't a bulletsponge (you mention that some of the bosses weren't bullet sponges. that means some of them were right?). Question is if it would be fitting or fun. As you said the game needs to appeal to those that wants to tank too, so you cant only have hidden self destruct switches on the bosses.

Why did they outsource in the first place? If they wanted bosses you could use the stealth approach on they would have specified that in the job, not outsourced in the first place or at least not outsourced to those guys...

Games of course. Games that don't attempt suspension of disbelief (by design) don't call for realism.

So my point that not every game is moving towards the execution kill style gameplay is valid, yes?

Just like your previous point about popularity and number of sales of the "realism" games is also valid.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gorlom

[HWP]

I'm confused, what substance did Dues Ex have that diablo doesnt? a personalized story?

I don't have Diablo 3. But I've played the first one, and from what I know of the 3rd...

Diablo is styled like a RPG, but the elements don't come together to a whole:

* Quests: a mandatory linear sequence

* Non-combat interactions: just a few stores to buy/sell loot

* Game world: almost entirely dungeons

You can call it an "Action-rpg", but never without the "action" part.

Diablo is similar to Caves of Moria or to Rogue itself - but these games weren't quite RPGs either, only their successors were.

They do slap on the RPG label on everything nowadays don't they So the MMO genre is defined by how many that play it at the same time rather then the actual genre it is?

The focus in MMO games is on social interaction of varying quality, from schoolyard gangs to sophisticated virtual corporations. They have more in common with one another than with the genres they take their underlying mechanics from.

Why did they outsource in the first place?

Time and money. The game wasn't even finished in the end, they rushed it and had to cut about half the planned content.

Selling point and achhivements REQUIRE you to be able to stealth through the game with the exception for bosses. That you can tank takes a back seat to the stealth simulator. While it may fill the requirements for a RPG for you, it is defined by its stealthsimulator system for me.

I don't see how it matters.

Like said above, the real defining elements of a RPG are those of role-playing. In a more narrow sense, they include the ability to influence your character; a quest-based narrative, with quests that can be taken or not; combination of non-combat and combat interactions.

How exactly combat interactions and non-combat interactions are implemented is a partly technical choice. Non-combat includes dialogs and trading, it can include additional features (inns, taverns, information gathering, etc).

Combat can be done with swords, it can be done with fists, with bows, with magic, and, yes, with guns.

Combat can have varying tactical depth, from simple terrain-less "fist fight" to complex tactical battles with stealth, ambushes and terrain use.

Combat can be fully turn-based, initiative turn-based, step-time, real-time, real-time paused.

Combat can use type-in, key-action, click-action, first-person WASD, speak-action or any other type of interface.

Stealth is simply one of the tactical elements, part of the way you do combat. It's also a big part of gameplay in Fallout 3 and NV, for instance; really it has to be involved in any game with guns. Once "Colt made them equal", it's just how you have to do your combat, if you are to stand a chance at beating numerically superior opposition.

Not saying you are the only believer but I don't think the industry as a whole is moving towards that. I don't think it is always the most fun / best option. Mainly because I don't find it very appealing at all. I think it is a tired mechanic that was fun when it was novel in delta force (I think) and counterstrike but is overused and is in danger of becoming cliche/ a coop out for when developers can't be arsed to balance health/resistance mechanics properly.

Realism is not a fad. It's never a fad. Realism is a fundamental direction in which games have been moving ever since their earliest days. You don't oppose realistic graphics, do you? I don't mean exact 3D art; I mean even having pictures of environment and characters, instead of an ASCII representation as in roguelikes, or even a sheet of values as in PnP.

But you can't just have realistic graphics and nothing else. Further immersion requires realistic sound, realistic character motion, and these require appropriate improvements in gameplay realism.

Hit points were an abstraction introduced into pen and paper RPG, combining all the various factors that go into whether one is scratched or cut apart, and whether he then lives or dies. Anything more detailed was impossible.

Balancing health/resistance mechanics properly is balancing them towards a more accurate approximation of the properties and events they represent.

Strange as it may sound, games are not actually about hit points. Games are about characters and events. There are multiple ways to approximate them.

The earliest approximation was simply hit-kill; you can see it in Chess and Backgammon. In board games it was replaced by a probabilistic die roll. Hit points are a very recent invention that came about around 1970. With computer games more advanced approximations became possible - actual hits or misses, hits on various body parts, effect of hits on combat ability.

[Gorlom]

I don't see how it matters.

Ugh, no I guess you never will. But for some reason the difference between Torchlight/Wow and RPG games matters?

If I cared enough I'd look up the definition of hypocrite... but meh, I can't be arsed.

Realism is not a fad.

I never mentioned realism. I mentioned a specific game mechanic that I don't think is fun. I don't know if it is because I'm tired of it and would like some new innovation or because game developers can't use it correctly and rely on "realism zealots" to push their games.

It's never a fad. Realism is a fundamental direction in which games have been moving ever since their earliest days.

Are you overgeneralizing or misrepresenting the part you are interested in as the whole industry? Either way could you please stop that already?

You don't oppose realistic graphics, do you? I don't mean exact 3D art; I mean even having pictures of environment and characters, instead of an ASCII representation as in roguelikes, or even a sheet of values as in PnP.

My favorite game aesthetically/graphically is The curse of monkey island. I find 3D art and ASCII about equally appealing.

But you can't just have realistic graphics and nothing else. Further immersion requires realistic sound, realistic character motion, and these require appropriate improvements in gameplay realism.

That is a personal opinion. I don't share it. I require intriguing game mechanics more than realism. I will always value how the mechanics are balanced against each other within the game universe rather than constantly comparing it to real life.

I don't know if I require other conditions than you to be immersed or if I just don't give a crap about immersion. But I require none of what you listed to enjoy a game.

Balancing health/resistance mechanics properly is balancing them towards a more accurate approximation of the properties and events they represent.

See above.

Strange as it may sound, games are not actually about hit points. Games are about characters and events. There are multiple ways to approximate them.

Yes and evidently you and I do not prefer the same ways. Edited December 28, 2012 by Gorlom

[StellarRat]

Gorlom - But in Xenonauts we can have both realism and balanced elements without a lot of trouble. That way everyone will be happy (well maybe not everyone but most.) Because we can alter the aliens in any way we want it will much easier to balance the game than say a historical wargame. You probably won't notice the realism because you don't care, but you'll still be happy with the balance.

[HWP]

Ugh, no I guess you never will. But for some reason the difference between Torchlight/Wow and RPG games matters?

I see the distinction of the RPG genre from others to be in what they add - that is role-playing, extensive non-hostile interactions, quests, etc - not in the specific way their combat mechanics are implemented (stealth/tactical/tanking/moves/automatic).

Are you overgeneralizing or misrepresenting the part you are interested in as the whole industry?

I'm generalizing, but without the "over" part. Early games were completely abstract. There was no connection to reality at all.

As time progresses, the average game becomes less abstract. Crude groups of pixels started to represent something. Then they got replaced by almost pictures. A revolution in computing - the CGA display adapter - made unthinkable possible...

And today the majority of games, PC games at least, offer believable 3d images, often even set in believable worlds. A far cry from tic-tac-toe it all started with.

That is a personal opinion. I don't share it. I require intriguing game mechanics more than realism.

You misunderstood me. My point was that if you are introducing photorealistic graphics, you better make the rest up to snuff as well. Otherwise, at best these graphics are merely wasted; worse, the dissonance actually detracts from the game.

You can't just have raytraced stereoscopic rendering of engineering-detailed gun models shooting at photorealistic motion-captured people, tearing anatomically correct organs out of them, which fly away with exact physical accuracy... and then have these people walk around happy as if nothing happened, because it was only 3hp and they have 4. Well, you can, but it will suck. Unless you're going Postal.

I don't know if I require other conditions than you to be immersed or if I just don't give a crap about immersion.

The latter it seems.

[crusherven]

SWTOR is an MMO and also clearly an RPG by your own definition, HWP. Being an MMO does not exclude RPG. Actually, most MMOs are RPGs.

[Gorlom]

Gorlom - But in Xenonauts we can have both realism and balanced elements without a lot of trouble. That way everyone will be happy (well maybe not everyone but most.) Because we can alter the aliens in any way we want it will much easier to balance the game than say a historical wargame. You probably won't notice the realism because you don't care, but you'll still be happy with the balance.

StellarRat: thank you for your input but you read things into the discussion that isn't there. I'm not discussing realism elements to be or not to be in Xenonauts. I'm reacting to HWPs almost outlandish claims about the evolution of games. That the pinnacle for all games is to be photo realistic with Newtonian physics.

(wasn't there some space game where the sequel was actually worse off with Newtonian physics? or did I misunderstand that)

I see the distinction of the RPG genre from others to be in what they add - that is role-playing, extensive non-hostile interactions, quests, etc - not in the specific way their combat mechanics are implemented (stealth/tactical/tanking/moves/automatic)

But since the discussion is about execution style gameplay isn't it more relevant to separate them according to mechanics thatforce such gameplay for this particular discussion?

DE:HR has more in common gameplay wise with Assassins Creed or Mark of the Ninja (2d sidescroller) in that sense than Mass effect or Torchlight (And Tourchlight 2 and Diablo 2 (and presumably Diablo 3 as well) both fill your criteria for RPGs the same way DE:HR does.)

You can categorize them in a number of ways and for this discussion it made more sense for me to define it by the mechanic that requires the game to have the execution gamestyle than for its RPG properties. That's why I called it a stealth simulator rather than a RPG.

I'm generalizing, but without the "over" part. Early games were completely abstract. There was no connection to reality at all.

As time progresses, the average game becomes less abstract. Crude groups of pixels started to represent something. Then they got replaced by almost pictures. A revolution in computing - the CGA display adapter - made unthinkable possible...

Speaking of nothing in particular, what the "#%"#¤&" is up with Warioware btw?

And today the majority of games, PC games at least, offer believable 3d images, often even set in believable worlds. A far cry from tic-tac-toe it all started with.

Believable = realism? Have you been using realistic as in "makes sense within the laws placed in that particular game world" rather than "accurate representation of the real planet earth"?

You misunderstood me. My point was that if you are introducing photorealistic graphics, you better make the rest up to snuff as well. Otherwise, at best these graphics are merely wasted; worse, the dissonance actually detracts from the game.

Do you have anything to support this? Someone linked me a PDF about realism and immersion that seems to be suggesting this correlation is in fact not true. (Still trying to struggle through it. Not linking anything I haven't read yet)

Edit: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/087/897/behaviour_realism_and_immersion_in_games.pdf

Not exactly what I initially thought but still does not agree with you on the correlation between realism and immersion.

You can't just have raytraced stereoscopic rendering of engineering-detailed gun models shooting at photorealistic motion-captured people, tearing anatomically correct organs out of them, which fly away with exact physical accuracy... and then have these people walk around happy as if nothing happened, because it was only 3hp and they have 4. Well, you can, but it will suck. Unless you're going Postal.

That is one very specific scenario, isn't mortal kombat kind of successfully using that concept? well excluding the guns.... Edited December 29, 2012 by Gorlom

[HWP]

Crusherven: Sure. But they are extremely distinct, with their own element, player interactions, dominating everything. RPG players don't appear to have any more crossover with MMO players than for instance shooter players. MOBA genre is actually closer.

I'm reacting to HWPs almost outlandish claims about the evolution of games. That the pinnacle for all games is to be realistic.

It's the general direction in which games have been evolving from their creation until today and hopefully into tomorrow.

General direction certainly doesn't mean every game made in 2003 will be more realistic than every game made in 2002.

It's like how cars are generally evolving to be larger, safer, faster (1900-2000), more fuel-efficient (1970s+) - but that certainly doesn't mean there won't be outliers: Smart or Caterham 7 (size), Pinto or anything from China (safety), Hummer or International CXT (efficiency).

So don't worry. The effort required to make visually rich, realistic, high-immersion games remains much greater than that for making games that rely on arbitrary mechanics and a few quirks. So there will always be plenty of simpler games. We've seen a major resurgence in this subgenre with the advent of smartphones. Even though they're evolving as well, mobile gaming restricts any immersion by its very nature, shifting priorities towards gameplay.

[HWP]

DE:HR has more in common gameplay wise with Assassins Creed or Mark of the Ninja (2d sidescroller) in that sense than Mass effect or Torchlight

Mass Effect being another game that is completely unlike traditional RPG in its mechanics. Total auto health regen, zero penalty for character death, reliance on environment shape and cover? That's not what D&D preaches.

Though, seriously speaking, anything made for consoles first has to stay away from high-precision gameplay.

That's why I called it a stealth simulator rather than a RPG.

You seem to be too focused on the combat side of things. Yes, if it was 99% crawling around and 1% cutscenes - like stealth games are - it would be one. If it was 99% crawling around and cutting throats, like a stealth-action game - it would be a stealth-action game.

As it stands, DX:HR is 20% choice of crawling around, punching people out, rallying hacked robots or blowing heads, 10% same with option of talking them down, and 70% talking, reading, trading, taking quests. There's simply too much beside combat to make it a RPG.

And again I don't see the reason to discriminate between stealth-combat, tac-combat and tank-combat RPG - not only that, but I've played in real stealth-based RPG (that is real, not computerized); but even if you do discriminate, see above.

Believable = realism? Have you been using realistic as in "makes sense within the laws placed in that particular game world" rather than "accurate representation of the real planet earth"?

There are escalating degrees of realism, that can be sorted for instance as:

- pure abstract

- elements...

...Oh, wait. I know who loves to sort things into categories! Tvtropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfRealisticVersusFantastic

No, wait, that's not the right one. The right one is this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

1. Science In Genre Only: The work is unambiguously set in the literary genre of Science Fiction, but scientific it is not. Applied Phlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the Nonsensoleum kind, Green Rocks gain New Powers as the Plot Demands, and both Bellisario's Maxim and the MST3K Mantra apply. Works like Futurama, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, The DC and Marvel universes, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fall in this class.

2. World Of Phlebotinum: The universe is full of Applied Phlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like EE Doc Smith's Lensman series, Star Trek: The Original Series, and StarCraft fall in this category.

3. Physics Plus: Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of Applied Phlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with real and invented natural laws — and these creations and others from the same laws will turn up again and again in new contexts. Works like Schlock Mercenary, David Weber's Honor Harrington series, David Brin's Uplift series, and the 2003-2009 Battlestar Galactica fall in this class.

4. One Big Lie: Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. Most works in Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth series, the Mass Effect series, and Robert A Heinlein's Farnhams Freehold fall in this category.

This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we call One Small Fib, containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FTL Travel), but for which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Hal Clement novels (e.g. Mission Of Gravity, Close to Critical), Freefall, and the Alien series fall within the subclass.

5. Speculative Science: Stories in which there is no "big lie" — the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible. Early works in Larry Niven's Known Space series, the first two books in Robert L. Forward's Rocheworld series, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Robert A Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress fall in this class.

A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is Futurology: stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, Zeerust is common in older entries.) Gattaca, The Machine Stops by E. M. Forster, and the more Speculative Fiction works of Jules Verne fall in this subclass.

Real Life (aka Fiction in Genre Only): A Shared Universe which spawned its own genre, known as "Non Fiction". Despite the various problems noted at Reality Is Unrealistic, it is almost universally agreed that there is no other universe known so thoroughly worked out from established scientific principles. The Apollo Program, World War II, and Woodstock fall in this class.

I use believability as a distinct term for the degree of realism in fiction. Specifically, you could describe it as "makes sense within a set of laws as we know them from science, added or overwritten by laws explicitly placed in that particular game world".

Emphasis on "explicitly". If your guns can't shoot in space, but nothing suggest they wouldn't - it's a blunder, not "creative license". If your guns grow on bushes, but they don't look like our guns, you explained how they can, and it's one of the defining elements of your universe - then it's potentially believable. Can fall under One Big Lie or Physics+ in tvtropes' classification above.

Edited December 30, 2012 by HWP

[Gorlom]

You seem to be too focused on the combat side of things.

Yes, because that is what I consider to be the most relevant to the discussion at hand. You brought it up as an example of a game that has execution style gameplay. In regards to that the mechanic that makes it possible to play it as a stealth game is the most important, just like you consider the social interaction the deciding factor to the discussion wheter or not World Of Warcraft is an RPG.

And again I don't see the reason to discriminate between stealth-combat, tac-combat and tank-combat RPG - not only that, but I've played in real stealth-based RPG (that is real, not computerized); but even if you do discriminate, see above.

Because you brought it up as a trrend in games. The game is trying to be something differeent than most RPGs. It is still a RPG in a sense and definition not relevant to this particular discussion. But when we are discussing 1 hit 1 kill gameplay and combat mechanics it is a stealth simulator.

There are escalating degrees of realism, that can be sorted for instance as:

- pure abstract

- elements...

...Oh, wait. I know who loves to sort things into categories! Tvtropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfRealisticVersusFantastic

No, wait, that's not the right one. The right one is this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

I use believability as a distinct term for the degree of realism in fiction. Specifically, you could describe it as "makes sense within a set of laws as we know them from science, added or overwritten by laws explicitly placed in that particular game world".

Emphasis on "explicitly". If your guns can't shoot in space, but nothing suggest they wouldn't - it's a blunder, not "creative license". If your guns grow on bushes, but they don't look like our guns, you explained how they can, and it's one of the defining elements of your universe - then it's potentially believable. Can fall under One Big Lie or Physics+ in tvtropes' classification above.

Did you answer the question? You explain what you mean by "believability", but I asked what you meant by the term realistic, realistically realism or whatever... Is it the same as you mean by believability? Or is it "mimics real life down to the last detail" as I (possibly mistakingly) assumed you did?

[HWP]

Because you brought it up as a trrend in games. The game is trying to be something differeent than most RPGs. It is still a RPG in a sense and definition not relevant to this particular discussion. But when we are discussing 1 hit 1 kill gameplay and combat mechanics it is a stealth simulator.

Can agree with this - DX is a RPG employing a stealth-action hostile interaction system.

Notable then, at least, that there are RPG employing such systems.

Although I remember plenty of one-burst and even one-shot kills in Fallout 2... enemies, party members, PC. But stealth was underplayed there. In FO3 on high difficulty and especially with any good mod (Arwen, FWE, even lesser ones) it becomes more essential to winning - you want to one-shot these muties from a distance,

But it's not really a thing about Fallout. It's just a thing about guns - they are very, very effective at killing things. So effective that any combat with them has to come down to shooting first and not getting shot; there isn't any room for "soaking it up".

Did you answer the question? You explain what you mean by "believability", but I asked what you meant by the term realistic, realistically realism or whatever... Is it the same as you mean by believability?

I use "realism" as a general term encompassing its various facets in various degrees.

Or is it "mimics real life down to the last detail" as I (possibly mistakingly) assumed you did?

"Mimics real life down to the last detail" is, by far, not the definition of "realistic". If you used this definition, then there would be no realistic games ever - even SAMsim (exactly what the name implies, down to pressing specific buttons) has a few inaccuracies and simplifications. Nor any realistic movies, except for CCTV footage. Nor any realistic books, ever; even engineering reference manuals would have to be deemed unrealistic.