RobfromtheGulag said:
When designing a game, the decision that comes up over and over again is whether to favor realism or gameplay, and if you've got sense, you'll go for gameplay every time.
Case in point: Far Cry 3. Why do I have to kneel down and go through a generic 3 second animation every time I want to loot the few bullets/bucks an enemy corpse is carrying? Why is there an animation for getting in a car/boat? I don't want realism, I want more action, and these miniature siestas from the fun add up to a lot after a while.
Tried and true: walk over gun -- ammo and/or gun appear in your inventory.
Click on vehicle -- instantly appear in driver's seat with engine running.
I think in this case, "realism" is part of the gameplay actually: Having to pause and/or do a mildly more complex action than usual to get supplies forces the player to make a choice during combat: do they risk getting shot/giving the enemy the possibility to sneak up on them in order to being able to use their awesome primary weapon a bit longer or do they risk running out of ammunition/having to use a worse/less fun weapon. Supplies become something which concerns the player a bit more than usual, since it's a lot less feasible to gather them on the fly. Additionally, the deaccelerating nature of having to do a short animation to pick up ammo helps create a sense of pacing that supports the intended feeling of the game, in FC3's case the claim to have every battle be a very unique experience which is a noteable event on its own, by incentivizing the player to revisit and examine the battlesite, building a stronger sense of what happened and what consequences it had for the game's environment and its actors (destroyed buildings, bodies, an upside down jeep).
Of course this is a very fine line to tread for the developers, especially since the difference between exciting and boring can lie in a second's difference in the length of an animation and also because, while game mechanic A might work well with the feeling game A might try to evoke it could be completely at odds with that of game B (for example, while having to aim down the sights of your weapon works well for the kind of slower, cover based combat of the Brothers in Arms-series, this limitation is completely at odds with fast paced arena shooters like the Quake-series (excempting Enemy Territory:Quake Wars)).
Only having played Far Cry 2 and a demo of the first one, I can't say however, whether or not the effect I described above actually works (I think it did in Two, giving the player the sense of being mildly fucked in every encounter with the enemy and making it all the more satisfying to wander across the field of destruction you created).