"Realism" and a fine line between fun and it being too much.

[Nibashe 52]

Just to be clear, I didn't help develop a massive MMO. I just worked for the company and was involved with different departments in which I had to translate technical terms into layman's terms.

No, I am not afraid that the game will be too complicated for ME. I am not afraid that I will have no understanding about what is going on any more. However, all I am saying is that adding too many realistic features might change the fun into annoying real fast. That's all. I might be wrong, and I really hope so. We just have to wait and see. It is merely a suggestion.

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

A fine line between realism and too much not being fun? Pfft. I get my fun from DayZ being a challenge and generally not pandering to the mainstream gamers by offering medpacks and weapons in every room and I believe that if DayZ is to be the authentic survival simulator it is touting itself as, it really needs to head further into the rabbit hole of realism and to fuck with people who disagree because it's not what they consider 'fun'. 

 

But, on this subject, let's not get realism and authenticity muddled here. Some things should be realistic because, if they weren't, it would spoil the game. Weapon behaviors and ballistics being a prime example of this. However, other things need to be authentic where realism would be ridiculous. Breaking your leg, for example, should neither be instantly fixable by tying two sticks to your legs and/or shooting yourself up with morphine, but it also shouldn't prevent you from playing the game for 6 weeks whilst it heals. Instead, to be authentic, a compromise should be met. I suggested elsewhere that breaking a leg should mean that you need to splint it up to walk on it again, take morphine to suppress the pain (lest you scream every time you walk) and have you mobility hampered for 2-3 in game days. This would be somewhat representative of the massive ballache breaking your leg would be in real life (and, let's not forget, if you actually break your leg in an actual apocalypse scenario, you're pretty fucked unless you have someone else to look out for you) but without making the game tedious for long periods of time.

[Nibashe 52]

@ OP.  Not every game is going to made for "you".  Not everything is going to be enjoyable for the "masses"(simpletons).  Maybe you should have done some research on what DayZ is about before buying the pre-alpha. 

 

If you could read, I know what Day z is about. I am just suggesting some things which could be considered. If you refer to the masses as "simpletons", you might want to get off your pedestal. Just because you look at a game in a different way than others doesn't make you special. I try to look at it differently and try to put up a decent discussion. It seems quite impossible though as people just seem to sperg before putting down anything constructive without assumptions regarding another person.

 

I already told you, I love the game. I loved the mod. I just want to add my 2 cents. I keep on playing no matter what. For me the good and fun things always outweigh the things I don't like so much. I Love this game and will eagerly await it's future development.

[crazykage 1063]

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/175621-open-lettersuggestionrequest-to-the-devs-do-not-implement-nudityscatpiss/

[soulfirez 901]

Just to be clear, I didn't help develop a massive MMO. I just worked for the company and was involved with different departments in which I had to translate technical terms into layman's terms.

No, I am not afraid that the game will be too complicated for ME. I am not afraid that I will have no understanding about what is going on any more. However, all I am saying is that adding too many realistic features might change the fun into annoying real fast. That's all. I might be wrong, and I really hope so. We just have to wait and see. It is merely a suggestion.

Now your posting in a manner fitting being respected (ps as for the developer part the person i replied to auto thought you were a developer and i pointed out you cant believe everything you read in a forum,, id call that sound advice). Now is it possible to cross a line of to much realisim sacrificing fun the answer is depends what you consider fun, but in general yes but to make a huge post on the topic based on what the idea of upcoming features without even having tested such features id call that irrational..

 

The game was aimed by the devs as being an anti game now one has to make some assumptions on what they mean by this please give me yours.. For me i believed that to be the intent that it wasnt fun in the classical way eg easy rewards that are given to you by playing more and more of the game ( such as one would find in a mmorpg) no the fun was to be had in a harsh gritty game designed to kick your butt give you freedom to do as you pleased but face the consequences of those actions.. Its rewarding in that you develop skill with the game..

 

But to me you sound like a long winded git full of your own importance but i wouldnt have said  that but as you feel free to insult based on opinion ill give you mine....

Edited February 20, 2014 by SoulFirez

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

If you could read, I know what Day z is about. I am just suggesting some things which could be considered. If you refer to the masses as "simpletons", you might want to get off your pedestal. Just because you look at a game in a different way than others doesn't make you special. I try to look at it differently and try to put up a decent discussion. It seems quite impossible though as people just seem to sperg before putting down anything constructive without assumptions regarding another person.

 

I already told you, I love the game. I loved the mod. I just want to add my 2 cents. I keep on playing no matter what. For me the good and fun things always outweigh the things I don't like so much. I Love this game and will eagerly await it's future development.

Then why did you even bother making this thread?  And yes simpletons is the perfect word to use.  EA/Activision/Blizzard make games for simpletons.

[Nibashe 52]

A fine line between realism and too much not being fun? Pfft. I get my fun from DayZ being a challenge and generally not pandering to the mainstream gamers by offering medpacks and weapons in every room and I believe that if DayZ is to be the authentic survival simulator it is touting itself as, it really needs to head further into the rabbit hole of realism and to fuck with people who disagree because it's not what they consider 'fun'. 

 

But, on this subject, let's not get realism and authenticity muddled here. Some things should be realistic because, if they weren't, it would spoil the game. Weapon behaviors and ballistics being a prime example of this. However, other things need to be authentic where realism would be ridiculous. Breaking your leg, for example, should neither be instantly fixable by tying two sticks to your legs and/or shooting yourself up with morphine, but it also shouldn't prevent you from playing the game for 6 weeks whilst it heals. Instead, to be authentic, a compromise should be met. I suggested elsewhere that breaking a leg should mean that you need to splint it up to walk on it again, take morphine to suppress the pain (lest you scream every time you walk) and have you mobility hampered for 2-3 in game days. This would be somewhat representative of the massive ballache breaking your leg would be in real life (and, let's not forget, if you actually break your leg in an actual apocalypse scenario, you're pretty fucked unless you have someone else to look out for you) but without making the game tedious for long periods of time.

 

 

I agree with you here. Maybe authenticity is a better word in some cases. However I think when people have to wait too long with certain major aspects such as running, they will just drop their stuff, suicide and pick up their stuff again. Same as they are doing with the current spawn locations.

 

It's a difficult task to find a way to implement the right things. Everybody has a different opinion as is clearly visible in the topic, and that's good. It keeps things interesting for everybody :D

[Admiral_69 78]

I think part of the challenge with realism and authentic is that, unlike in real life, you do not feel what your character feels, AND you cannot improvise like you can in real life.

Easy example.

In real life I eat until I am full. If I over eat, I can FEEL it and then choose not to do strenuous activity.

In game, I eat / drink until my stomache is stuffed. I did that and then puked because I drank too much after they added the green bars. Now I drink a bit, and then check my inventory to see if the hydration bar is green. Again, this is an approximation of real life.

Another example Rain:

IRL - you bring a rain coat with you or you can improvise one from a garbage bag / other waterproof material. You wear this over your clothes.

In Game - you have to carry a rain coat in your backpack, which then replaces your shirt.

Another example - Can openers

IRL - Smash the top of the can against something hard. OR as mentioned in another post, you can scrap the lid off by pushing it back and forth on a rough hard surface (like a road). If you spill some on the ground, you can still eat it.

In game: you starve.

Broken leg is a good example of authenticity while maintaining the fun of the game. Hopefully they add some way to improvise a crutch from a forest with no tools (so you can walk while looking for the mhine / splint)

[Window Licker 504]

*Light bulb* your a genius I've got some testing to do today

[libertine 351]

It all depends on how well the realism is done. I find that many realistic games simply don't go far enough to be meaningful or rewarding or add to immersion and it is so sparce it becomes an arduous, repetitive barrier you must climb over to get back to the gamey bits of the game. I think they're on the right track and i would recommend going even farther. Although I have to be honest, i have zero desire too poop in a game unless the game looks as cool to live in as the movie "Legend".

Edited February 20, 2014 by Thane

[elbrian 4]

Well, this is an extreme survival simulator. The closer they can make it to the real deal, the better.

 

I'm not trolling when I say I think the game is too easy right now.

[JackinatorLP 21]

@OP:

I think that your proposal of first getting to dayz mod level and then starting to add new mechanics, features etc. has benefits for dayz mod veterans. They would get used to the SA very fast -> more fun?

But: Imho this would make development more difficult, because DayZ SA's elements are not just copypasted from the mod's code. There's really almost nothing left of the mod in SA. 

Let's just wait and see, at the end (release) it won't matter which way they chose.

 

Btw I really liked your post, as it seems you can express constructive criticism without getting angry or insulting anyone.

This is how you do it, folks!

Edited February 21, 2014 by JackinatorLP

[Mdogg2005 447]

Could have just renamed this thread to "Why are they adding pooping?" - which I agree with.  Seems a little odd to me.

[Mdogg2005 447]

Well, this is an extreme survival simulator. The closer they can make it to the real deal, the better.

 

I'm not trolling when I say I think the game is too easy right now.

Agreed.

[Nibashe 52]

@OP:

I think that your proposal of first getting to dayz mod level and then starting to add new mechanics, features etc. has benefits for dayz mod veterans. They would get used to the SA very fast -> more fun?

But: Imho this would make development more difficult, because DayZ SA's elements are not just copypasted from the mod's code. There's really almost nothing left of the mod in SA. 

Let's just wait and see, at the end (release) it won't matter which way they chose.

 

Btw I really liked your post, as it seems you can express constructive critizism without getting angry or insulting anyone.

This is how you do it, folks!

 

Thank you! I was just disappointed with the tone of others though, but I guess I can't expect anything from anyone else, not even the basic decent way of communicating with another. But that's absolutely fine.

 

Maybe it would have an unfair advantage if mod players would adapt really quick to the SA, however I do feel like the game is possessing the capabilities to be picked up by anyone now. I'm 32 myself and I did encounter an 11 year old last week and I've helped him gear up and send him on his way. It is a sort of accessibility that I like since it creates a very diverse base of players.

 

It's the same with every game though. There will always be people who feel they are the "elite" and think that the game they play should only be accessible to people who are hardcore and there is a casual base who logs in at night or in the weekend for a few hours to play. I am just simply too busy with work, however I do love this game for what it is and I really anticipate what it will bring next. Maybe I am getting worried about nothing. I hope so. If they do decide to throw in some ultra realistic features, I just would love to see that these features would be implemented with more options to survive (as in storage which will be there after server restarts).  I know this is going to happen, so I will sit back and wait and enjoy the game for what it is now.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Nibashe

[Window Licker 504]

Well, this is an extreme survival simulator. The closer they can make it to the real deal, the better.

 

I'm not trolling when I say I think the game is too easy right now.

I would agree with you but some people piss their pants in rage if you say this is a survival simulation and not COD end of the world edition.

 

yes the game is on the easy side right now, I survive fine on a 40/50, but I now know what the edible berry bushes look like.

[Irish. 4886]

DayZ took a sandbox shooter and mated it with a survival game. As long as it sticks close to its roots it will be fine. 

 

The real problem, as far as numbers and population go is if they make the game too directed at survival and not at the core shooter theme. People will leave in droves to go play Rust or whatever is new out there. The game will die off slowly if that ever happens and they dont quickly fix it. You cannot have DayZ without KOS, or with some diluted version of it where no one has guns and everyone has a crossbow. It fills a particular niche that not many other games can, and if it starts feeling like another game out there.. no more reason for people to stay. 

 

I mean.. you add in heart attacks and illness from the cold rain, stuff like that. Fine. Guess how I will play? Ill kill myself and start over if I need too. Ill metagame. Ill do what I need to continue to enjoy the game until I cannot any longer. I dont play to just eat food and loot. If they make that the sole main focus, its bye bye for me.

[WolfgangErikson 127]

Dean has a vision for this game, if that vision doesn't match your's, I don't know what to say.

 

I don't think when Dean set out making DayZ he didn't do it to make the game other people wanted, he did it to make the game he wanted.

 

His vision might not be the same as everyone's, but for everyone who doesn't like as much realism, there are other who would prefer more. I for one am looking forward to whatever decisions he makes, and relish the challenge. 

[Whyherro123 2283]

This game will never be realistic. Authentic, maybe, but never realistic.

 

1) You break a leg in the woods in the real world, better hope you have several friends nearby and a hospital within driving distance. You just don't throw a splint on a snapped leg and YOLO it. You have to put it under traction, which I would guess 90% of the playerbase has no idea how to do safely. I've been trained in how to achieve traction in the field, and I still probably wouldn't do it unless I absolutely had to. Bone chips in the bloodstream/cutting up a muscle/punching through a nerve would definitely only make a bad injury worse.

 

    As an aside: I am rather leery of the current BSA policies concerning 1st Aid. In the Scout Handbook, they tell you to do all these things, like splinting, stretcher-building, etc, that you really shouldn't do unless you absolutely have to. In a survival situation, I would 1) send someone for help (GROUPS ARE YOUR FRIEND), and 2) shelter in place, unless a life is in danger by staying. It is giving the kids the wrong idea, unfortunately.

 

2) You get a heart attack, unless you have a hospital/ medical attention to go to, you are fucked. Capital F.U.C.K.E.D, even if you survive the initial attack. Even a defibrillator will only treat the symptoms (ie, establish a more "normal" heart beat) In order to "fix" a heart attack, you either need surgery, or a complete lifestyle change, which, as is noted, requires a lifetime to work.

 

3) You get shot, at best you will have reduced limb function due to tissue/ligament damage from the bullet. You (again) don't just slap a bandage on it and YOLO your way through the woods. The bullet should be removed in a sterile setting, then you will need physical therapy to ensure you retain limb function. Don't get me wrong; bullet wounds are very survivable, IF  you have modern medical treatment available. Which is practically the only reason I think having skills in-game would be interesting. Have a medic? They are valuable. Very valuable indeed...

Granted, Day Z is a game, not real life, so there has to be a certain YOLO factor in injury treatment. I just get irked when it is referred to as "realism"

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Dean has a vision for this game, if that vision doesn't match your's, I don't know what to say.

 

I don't think when Dean set out making DayZ he didn't do it to make the game other people wanted, he did it to make the game he wanted.

 

His vision might not be the same as everyone's, but for everyone who doesn't like as much realism, there are other who would prefer more. I for one am looking forward to whatever decisions he makes, and relish the challenge. 

I wholeheartedly agree.  Too many gamers have been pampered with the BF's and CoD's gameplay style for too long that they feel it's the norm.  Hell even mmorpg's can't break away from the supposed standard of needing X features if it wants to compete.  

[TwinSpire 49]

I would agree if "Hear Attacks" are some random thing...

 

But it if fits with other mechanics already spoken about...  Where if you do one thing you risk the other.  Eat rotten fruit due to starvation you could get sick.  You run for a 1/2 mile then get shot, loose x blood... heart attack.  Always soaked and no rain gear... get sick.

 

As long as there is a fairly specific way to get the effect and a way to resolve the effect then I have no problem.

 

Yes having to take a dump is a bit too realistic imo.   Also if you only ate cereal you have higher risk of heart attack... that is imo getting a bit too complicated.

[Wolfguarde 108]

However, all I am saying is that adding too many realistic features might change the fun into annoying real fast. That's all. I might be wrong, and I really hope so. We just have to wait and see. It is merely a suggestion.

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum... I feel that what sets this game apart is its complexity and attention to detail. The fact that a person has to do a little digging to work out everything about a system in the game, to me, is a good thing. Too many games oversimplify things and present cookie cutter systems that are easy to swallow and offer no real value in terms of mental stimulation or concept depth. The abundance of fast-food-style games on the market is... well, kind of annoying for people like me.

In all honesty, I want to see them flesh out the medical system as much as possible - and the vehicle repair system, the building system, and whatever other major content branches they add. It is one very effective way to ensure that you have to have people specialising in certain roles, and therefore eventually grouping together once they know the game. There's nothing keeping them from playing exactly how they want, playing solo - but different situations will require different tools, and if each system is sufficiently complex, a full toolkit for one system will take up most of your inventory space.

It also ensures that people are going to start taking more care about who they decide to shoot in the face once they've hit the end of the gear-based progression chain. They know exactly how much crap they needed to complete their chosen toolkit, and losing that to a bad decision or surprise attack means they have days or weeks of farming to do to get it all back - assuming they don't get shot during the gathering process again. Base storage will mitigate this somewhat, but not completely, as I'm assuming that tool storage will be somewhat limited to balance the ability to store at all.

The complexity of this game is one of its most attractive features to me, and a lot of others. It is what gives the game so much potential - yes, ultimately, those systems are still not going to be realistic. But they will be a long step closer to it than most of the overly basic mechanic systems in other games on the market. Game developers need to stop treating us like idiots and start catering to our need for intellectual stimulation over our need for quick gratification. We've got plenty of the latter kind of game on the market to glut those who want it - games like DayZ are rare, and for so long as they remain so, they're holding a niche that's going to see a massive return for the effort they've put in. Even if they somehow run the game into the ground - which I doubt, as it's sprung from the mind of a modder, possibly without the academic conditioning that sets the rules for so many other games - the concept itself sets a precedent and shows just how popular this sort of game will be.

Time will tell if it remains so, of course. You may be right; people may just decide they want the easy versions and stick to the mod, or go find something else more to their tastes. But I don't think it's going to happen. DayZ is popular for a lot of the reasons Dark Souls is popular... one of which being that we're not just being handed everything we need to know - and have - to complete the game on a silver platter. We actually have to work for it, think for it, and struggle for it. Not a lot of games really incorporate that anymore.

[Wolfguarde 108]

 

Even mmorpg's can't break away from the supposed standard of needing X features if it wants to compete.  

The sad thing is, the early MMOs - particularly WoW - are responsible for this, not only on the developers' side of things, but also in how MMO gamers have been conditioned by them.

Take a look at Aion. There were a number of mistakes that led to it falling apart here in the West, but probably the main reason was because its core element was PvP; PvE was given a token nod and thrown into the rag bucket where it belongs in such games. Presented to an open audience, it would have boomed. It would have been massive. And after its marketing run, it was - for about a month or two.

Then it crashed. Because people are so used to the PvE-based progression system used in earlier MMOs that they couldn't adjust to Aion's progression system. People complained about the levelling speed, about the open-world PvP, about the PvP events, about the lack of PvE gear, about the difficulty obtaining either set of gear... you get the picture. It was a game designed to be progressed through slowly, and the usual group of MMO drifters came into it, steamrolled their way to the level cap and started bitching that they had nothing to do. They set the tone for the game's reception to everyone else, and it crashed and eventually fell apart over time, forced to become a generic and go free-to-play in order to stay on the Western market.

They did try to break away from convention - they might have with others, but I can't name any off the top of my head - all the other MMOs I've played aside from Guild Wars 2 have pretty much had the same 'feel' as WoW did, and thus been completely dead to me in entertainment value from the moment I started playing my first character on them. But despite having a system that was unique in a lot of respects - had many non-related flaws, but was still very much playable for a newly made MMO - very few people liked it. Developers branching out from convention don't simply have to deal with the difficulty navigating the academic standard of the gaming market - they have to work around and break down more than a decade of heavy conditioning by their predecessors in order to reach the same sort of resonance value those developers reached with their players. It's not an easy thing to do.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Wolfguarde

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

I did encounter an 11 year old last week

Eleven?! What in shit's name is an eleven year old doing playing a game like this?!

 

I would agree with you but some people piss their pants in rage if you say this is a survival simulation and not COD end of the world edition.

Aye. A lot of people will be pissing in their pants at future updates (and already are despite barely even scratching the surface). I just hope that Rocket and the rest of the crew of BI don't pander to the carebear we-want-it-easy gamers.

 

Dean has a vision for this game, if that vision doesn't match your's, I don't know what to say.

Yep! I have an idea for a game that I'd like to implement and I'm currently looking into how I might go about it as it'll likely require a custom engine. If I can get it started though, it will be fucking insane in the authenticity department and would likely put off a large portion of the gaming community.

 

Also, what Wolfguarde said 100% (Edit: Not the most recent post, the one before that. Damn post sniping.)

Edited February 20, 2014 by Monkfish

[Wolfguarde 108]

Post was getting a bit long, figured I should split it before it became unreadable lol.

I recognise your name from somewhere... Dungeon Realms?

Edited February 20, 2014 by Wolfguarde