What would a game be like with annoying levels of realism and would you still play them?

[pulse2]

So, you've been playing GTA5, but upon buying houses, you find that what you paid was only the deposit, you need to pay the mortgage and bills as well as your taxes. FF15? Everything you buy has hidden VAT and can only be delivered to you over time, shipping price included, you can forget that sword you were waiting to buy ¬_¬. Gran Turismo? You've crashed your car and injured your driver, there may be a chance he won't recover from that head injury and wake up from that coma, game over unless he does....no you can't load. Mario has fallen off a cliff and broken his leg....game over until he recovers, try playing the game again next week. Modern Warfare 4, depending on where you get shot, instadeath, bullet proof armour? So? It still hurts, your avatar will be crippled for the rest of the match :/ Not to mention the blood trikling down the screen from that head graze, yeah it might obscure your vision, but its better then being dead, you'll just have to use the trigger buttons to wipe the blood away.

So after reading all that, would you still find games enjoyable?

What other examples ca you think of?

 

[black_knight1337]

Minecraft - punching trees will make you lose health. if you die your save is deleted.
and no i would NEVER play again with these levels of realism.

 

[Thaliur]

Are we talking total realism here? Every single Science Fiction game I can think of would be extremely boring without FTL drives.

 

[Phishfood]

RPGs where you can't carry 7 suits of armour, 12 weapons and 50 gallons of potion. Even stalker allows a rediculous ammount of weight and still lets you run.

Stalker always annoyed me making me drag all the loot everywhere in several runs. Never had enough money. Rest of the game was awesome though and it was nice to actually have to manage inventory not just carry everything.

 

[Merkavar]

Oh, and no one would play ANY multiplayer FPS because once they die - its over.

oh really? so you dont think super competitive one life multiplay would have an appeal to some? it would be good if you were good and very very bad if you were bad


OT: all MMOs you have to take off your armour before swimming and cant carry it with you cause you will just sink to the bottom. is that hat this thread is about? adding realism to games that break gamplay and enjoyment?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

They'd be like Far Cry 2 - and I'd probably not play them.

 

[EOD Tech]

Well, a lot of people call the first Hitman game "broken" because there were literally no saves. Once you died or failed, game over, period. I actually loved it...it forced you to really plan out your routes, really observe the guards' movements rather than just trial-and-error-load-quicksave over and over like most games. To this day I'm the only person I know who beat it.

 

[Merkavar]

Hmm, never thought about it that way. That would be kind of fun to watch. But then wouldn't you have to bay a new game every time you died. EA/Activision would have a field day.

yeah the whole buying a new game each week thing wouldnt work. but i could see having like a weekly tournament where you have one life. so each week depending on skill and luck you might play for 30 min or 30 hours.

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/asdasasd.png/]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us [http://imageshack.us]
What the hell is that captcha?

 

[madster11]

Could be worse.

Oblivion, most other RPGs set in the past...
Carry around 800 gold coins with you everywhere you go. Go ahead.


It would make Halo much, much more fun though. If you've read the first book, you'll understand how underpowered the suit is in the game itself. It's basically a walking tank you can strap yourself into, moving as fast as human thought.
You could walk through all the levels and just punch all the enemies, with no effort at all.

 

[octafish]

Rainbow Six: Raven Shield would be exactly as it is, and it would be glorious.

 

[pulse2]

Oh, and no one would play ANY multiplayer FPS because once they die - its over.

oh really? so you dont think super competitive one life multiplay would have an appeal to some? it would be good if you were good and very very bad if you were bad


OT: all MMOs you have to take off your armour before swimming and cant carry it with you cause you will just sink to the bottom. is that hat this thread is about? adding realism to games that break gamplay and enjoyment?

Yeah, but then you have the decision....stay on the side you are on WITH the armour you painstakingly collected and go in search of a boat (which you may never find or find you have to pay for with money you may or may not have) or swim and leave your armour and weapons, find a boat on the other side (repeat process), return and get the stuff you left on the shore......if it hasn't been stolen already

 

[Jordi]

So, you've been playing GTA5, but upon buying houses, you find that what you paid was only the deposit, you need to pay the mortgage and bills as well as your taxes. FF15? Everything you buy has hidden VAT and can only be delivered to you over time, shipping price included, you can forget that sword you were waiting to buy ¬_¬. Gran Turismo? You've crashed your car and injured your driver, there may be a chance he won't recover from that head injury and wake up from that coma, game over unless he does....no you can't load. Mario has fallen off a cliff and broken his leg....game over until he recovers, try playing the game again next week. Modern Warfare 4, depending on where you get shot, instadeath, bullet proof armour? So? It still hurts, your avatar will be crippled for the rest of the match :/ Not to mention the blood trikling down the screen from that head graze, yeah it might obscure your vision, but its better then being dead, you'll just have to use the trigger buttons to wipe the blood away.

So after reading all that, would you still find games enjoyable?

What other examples ca you think of?

As long as we're not talking "total realism", but just the realistic additions you mention, I think the extra money things are not so bad, because you can usually get money easily in those games.
I don't know if I would mind the MW4 scenario so much if they would also adjust the accuracy of guns to be more realistic. And downtime shouldn't be too long (either because matches are not so long, or because you respawn). It seems like it would add a lot of strategy to the game.

A realistic addition that could be annoying, but that I'd still play is probably requiring the player in a game like the Elder Scrolls to eat, drink and sleep enough. And given that your character is still the biggest badass to ever walk the earth, I wouldn't mind if combat was a lot more realistic in terms of damage and strategy as well. A lot of mods actually exist to accomplish these things.

I think a lot of things that seem annoying at first can actually be made to work, but it might take a lot of effort (and sacrifice). For instance, not letting the player play is usually bad (although a penalty can add to the excitement because of raised stakes), so if you are going to have instadeath in a shooter, you should probably let players respawn quickly. Or if the player character is realistically fragile, he probably shouldn't be "surprised" by the AI from behind, because not seeing what killed you would just be incredibly annoying.
I thought I would think not being able to save (except to stop playing) would be a dealbreaker for me, but Mount and Blade showed me that as long as being defeated isn't so bad, it can work.

 

[F'Angus]

RPGs where instead of killing a leopard with your fists you get mauled to near death and dragged up a tree for days to bleed to death. (not sure if leopards drag people up trees)

Hmm. Might think twice about playing those, I don't even play realism mode on games.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Alone in the Dark, where they tried too hard to make it very realistic but didn't actually spent the time necessary to make it work.

And no, I don't like playing "realistic" games. Games are supposed to be fun, putting you in a position where you can do things you'd normally only dream of, not depict a situation that you could get into easily in real life.

 

[viking97]

Oh, and no one would play ANY multiplayer FPS because once they die - its over.

oh really? so you dont think super competitive one life multiplay would have an appeal to some? it would be good if you were good and very very bad if you were bad

it would encourage camping on a massive scale, i think. epic sniper battles set up all over the map. THAT, i think, would be pretty interesting to watch.

 

[kelevra]

Are we talking total realism here? Every single Science Fiction game I can think of would be extremely boring without FTL drives.

Hey, FTL drives might not be impossible- all you need to do is modify your frame of reference a la the Alcubierre drive- and BOOM! That way you bypass all kinds of problems, you know, like relativity (DAMN YOU EINSTEIN). It's just way beyond our current level of technology.

More on topic though: any FPS with a real-world wound system. Get shot, okay- you're wearing a ceramic plate. Broken rib- you're breathing hard and slowing down. Get shot again, this time through a gap in your plate. Game over screen- OR- 6 months later, you press W repeatedly as you relearn how to walk and/or use your arms. Or you step on a mine. Or you get typhoid in a WW2 game.

Could be kinda interesting though, if you had a bunch of avatars and played a war through their eyes- it'd be interesting to see who lives.

 

[Angry Camel]

Time Crisis: Your cover would be blown out, enemies would reach over, bosses would not survive 80 machine gun rounds to the head, and no Crisis sightings. Oh, and reloading would not be instant and the recoil would really knock you about. I probably wouldn't play it (except for the recoil, that'd be painfully awesome).