I know some people like it but i don't want modern day real life simulators in my video games. Key word "modern-day". You can give me all the medieval you want, but if you pull a gta on me i'm out.
I am also a huge fan of rediscovering lost martial arts and portraying them with more realism in movies. Western martial arts have made huge leaps and bounds over the last few years as they were lost in time more so than eastern arts due to how technology and society progressed.
Even high fantasy benefits greatly from as much realism in it in order to connect the viewer/reader to the story. Good acting and story telling sure helps too. GoT and Vikings are shows I dreamed of seeing on TV when I was a kid but my personal favorite historical drama is The Last Kingdom. It relies the least on fantasy (much like Vikings) and is not required which is why low fantasy in general is more my taste.
At the other end of the spectrum I greatly prefer hard sci-fi/futurism and by far my favorite is The Expanse. Other than pretty open ended space exploration games there isn't much in the way cultural hard sci-fi on the market. I guess Star Citizen is attempting to do it but I'm not yet sure how much so beyond a majority flight sim game.
It's no different than in Scifi or fantasy books or movies. You have to walk a fine line between realism and make believe in order to have readers or viewers feel comfortable suspending their disbelief.
There's also very much a personal preference, or tolerance I suppose, but the key is the author's ability to sell it and what often separates the good from the bad.
One of the best scifi novels I've ever read is Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward. It's a novel about intelligent life and the development of a civilization on the surface of a neutron star with 67 billion times the gravity of earth. Outlandish as hell but he totally sold it by mixing in just the right amount of science fact.
Certainly one's own personal interests reflect heavily. I watched The Expanse with the lady and even though she enjoys it, the first run through (and season 1 is rather complicated story wise) I could tell she just didn't see the things I did ... the things only a geek pulls from the show.
I kept having to describe the science behind it which quite frankly flew over her head. Not that the shows completely nails realism at all times but it certainly is about the best to attempt it while still being heavily science fiction. She simply doesn't have the background interests as me and knowledge gained from those interests over time.
I am also a huge fan of rediscovering lost martial arts and portraying them with more realism in movies. Western martial arts have made huge leaps and bounds over the last few years as they were lost in time more so than eastern arts due to how technology and society progressed.
Even high fantasy benefits greatly from as much realism in it in order to connect the viewer/reader to the story. Good acting and story telling sure helps too. GoT and Vikings are shows I dreamed of seeing on TV when I was a kid but my personal favorite historical drama is The Last Kingdom. It relies the least on fantasy (much like Vikings) and is not required which is why low fantasy in general is more my taste.
At the other end of the spectrum I greatly prefer hard sci-fi/futurism and by far my favorite is The Expanse. Other than pretty open ended space exploration games there isn't much in the way cultural hard sci-fi on the market. I guess Star Citizen is attempting to do it but I'm not yet sure how much so beyond a majority flight sim game.
It's no different than in Scifi or fantasy books or movies. You have to walk a fine line between realism and make believe in order to have readers or viewers feel comfortable suspending their disbelief.
There's also very much a personal preference, or tolerance I suppose, but the key is the author's ability to sell it and what often separates the good from the bad.
One of the best scifi novels I've ever read is Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward. It's a novel about intelligent life and the development of a civilization on the surface of a neutron star with 67 billion times the gravity of earth. Outlandish as hell but he totally sold it by mixing in just the right amount of science fact.
Certainly one's own personal interests reflect heavily. I watched The Expanse with the lady and even though she enjoys it, the first run through (and season 1 is rather complicated story wise) I could tell she just didn't see the things I did ... the things only a geek pulls from the show.
I kept having to describe the science behind it which quite frankly flew over her head. Not that the shows completely nails realism at all times but it certainly is about the best to attempt it while still being heavily science fiction. She simply doesn't have the background interests as me and knowledge gained from those interests over time.
The expanse was awesome. I totally geeked out on that too. I love aliens that are, umm, alien as opposed to the usual space opera bipedal humanoids.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
In ancient times a real sword fight would last three to five blows and one would be dead and the other would be maimed with a good chance of death later on. On a large close quarter battlefield many deaths were from a cheap one shot to the back while someone else has the opponents attention. Longer fights were simply chasing someone down or around a tree. One would most likely have a stick anyway.
You practiced fighting and stances, yet the real fight looked like two scared kids fighting.
Armor and weapon crafting (almost non existent), Every town didn't have that stout guy up on the hill working a forge like in the movies. Very few know how to work steel, IF ANY. They used wooden sticks rocks and pokers and most trained themselves. If you seemed good they put you on the front line to die first.
If you were a farmer and an Army came across your field, they would rape and kill your wife and tell you to grab something sharp and come with us. You trained at night with very little sleep. By day you walked, everyone walked, NO MOUNTS ! Many didn't even know why they were recruited, but they knew if they ran they would get beat up.
No news paper or internet telling that a war was going on, many didn't even have a clue, most didn't even care. The "king" was just the asshole that collected taxes.
If a video game simulated real life you would be a farmer for 20 years, and a fighter for 2 weeks.
I get a kick out of people that want a realistic simulator.
You need to "not be literal", too black and white.
This is a huge problem with some players (Looking at you Wizardry).
When people say they want a more realistic simulator they want a gamified simulator.
They are still looking for a game but they are looking for details that help immersion (which again does not mean forgetting you are playing a "video game" over real life).
So instead of a weapon "floating and spinning" where it lies, just have it lie on the ground.
Instead of visual cues that "take you out of the game" things are more "natural", fluid, less "gamey".
Hope that helps.
Good post. I just wanted to expand it a little. "Realism" concepts come in ranges. For some it's simply not having giant weapons that break immersion, for others it's expanding the game into "realistic" game play and surroundings such as farms and food meaning something.
One of the biggest breakers of "realism for immersion" over the years is the "go here next" forced direction via level requirements. Look at Balder's Gate years ago. There were many complaints about not being able to go where you wanted to or else you ran into instant death level content. And see how gamers were happy to the extreme with the Morrowind/Skyrim game designs that allowed such freedom.
There are some who do want extreme realism, but most want a "more" realistic game world within a fantasy setting. And mostly they want the immersion not to be broken as well as expanded design into a more fleshed out world. It's just fun to do things in these games. Many players like fishing, and the better it's done the more entertaining it is. It's a break from the basic game play, an option to relax with (if done well), can give the player some extra needed coin, and even be "challenging" to a small degree without huge risk.
Entire game systems can be affected by "realism" to the better. Economies that are nothing more than an auction houses are pretty bland compared to player-to-player contracts and supply and demand.
"Realism" can make a game much more fleshed out and interesting to spend time in.
Fantasy and reality are not goals in and of themselves. Mostly they are about telling a good story, so being entertained. Documentaries and tech manuals are usually the best places to go for realism. Ask ten people what's real and you're get ten different answers.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
When people say that want something real, what they mean most of the time but cannot articulate is they want something that makes sense. Given a set of assumptions, this is true. Most humans cannot get away from this, because we crave consistency.
If you create a world or game where there is a set of assumptions, but the details totally ignore it and nothing makes sense, the game becomes whimsical and silly. That's only fun for how long something silly is fun.
Fantasy and reality are not goals in and of themselves. Mostly they are about telling a good story, so being entertained. Documentaries and tech manuals are usually the best places to go for realism. Ask ten people what's real and you're get ten different answers.
True, but adding some realism in fantasy have advantages. For one thing do the actual fantasy elements become way more fantastic then if everything is over the top.
For instance do GoTs dragons inspire way more awe then any dragon in a dragonlance book and a wizard in a Conan book feel way more fantastic then a Aes sedai in wheel of time.
Fantasy books have become more grittier and realistic the last 15 years, GoT certainly helped that trend and it have gone to most medias but not much into MMOs. Mixing realism and fantasy can make the world feel more alive then if you make up everything.
See it like this: If you want to make a city for your MMORPG you could just make everything up on the spot but if you study how historical cities actually were made, maybe even visit a place like Valetta or Wisby and base your city on that instead, which city do you think would feel most alive?
However there is a limit where you get too much realism as well, adding more realism to melee combat is really not a bad idea but you might want to go from 5% realism (about where most MMOs keep it) to 50% realism. Adding 100% realism is probably not even possible and even if it is I have a feeling few people would enjoy it.
Fantasy and reality are not goals in and of themselves. Mostly they are about telling a good story, so being entertained. Documentaries and tech manuals are usually the best places to go for realism. Ask ten people what's real and you're get ten different answers.
True, but adding some realism in fantasy have advantages. For one thing do the actual fantasy elements become way more fantastic then if everything is over the top.
For instance do GoTs dragons inspire way more awe then any dragon in a dragonlance book and a wizard in a Conan book feel way more fantastic then a Aes sedai in wheel of time.
Fantasy books have become more grittier and realistic the last 15 years, GoT certainly helped that trend and it have gone to most medias but not much into MMOs. Mixing realism and fantasy can make the world feel more alive then if you make up everything.
See it like this: If you want to make a city for your MMORPG you could just make everything up on the spot but if you study how historical cities actually were made, maybe even visit a place like Valetta or Wisby and base your city on that instead, which city do you think would feel most alive?
However there is a limit where you get too much realism as well, adding more realism to melee combat is really not a bad idea but you might want to go from 5% realism (about where most MMOs keep it) to 50% realism. Adding 100% realism is probably not even possible and even if it is I have a feeling few people would enjoy it.
Now you're talking story telling styles. Like a singer wants to do their own rendition of a song putting their unique slant to it.
It's also about the target audience, devs tend to want to please the largest amount of people to increase popularity. Then there's the people who have read the book vs the people who haven't and care little about the details that only those who read the books could tell you why they put something odd in there like that. There's also the experts in the field who can pick apart something very easily.
I think as far as fantasy books go, many have origins from folk stories designed to scar children from wondering outside the camp or village so they wouldn't become food for predictors. The original telling of those stories were pretty brutal and graphic.
I agree that balance is the key. That balance depends on your audience and the concerns of the times. Someone once said, it's all been done before, now we can only redo it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
if you want some form of realism to the game, how about this on http://store.steampowered.com/app/412450/The_Black_Death/ black death, at moments its very early alpha, and its about as close as iv played to what it could be like in the middle ages. You can start as a lowly peasant, or even a swordsman... it actually good turn out a 'fun' game but the scenery / colours etc are all grim.
Finally (not a direct accusation on anyone) BUT FOR LOVE OF GOD DONT CALL IT THE DARK AGES.. as an archaeologist i can categorically deny that any period happened.
Now you're talking story telling styles. Like a singer wants to do their own rendition of a song putting their unique slant to it.
It's also about the target audience, devs tend to want to please the largest amount of people to increase popularity. Then there's the people who have read the book vs the people who haven't and care little about the details that only those who read the books could tell you why they put something odd in there like that. There's also the experts in the field who can pick apart something very easily.
I think as far as fantasy books go, many have origins from folk stories designed to scar children from wondering outside the camp or village so they wouldn't become food for predictors. The original telling of those stories were pretty brutal and graphic.
I agree that balance is the key. That balance depends on your audience and the concerns of the times. Someone once said, it's all been done before, now we can only redo it.
What is a RPG world but storytelling?
And the game mechanics should reflect the gameworld and make the feeling and athmosphere of it become more alive. That is why slapping Wows mechanics on top of other genres then fantasy makes so terrible games.
Books or no books, you do want your game to feel as similar to the actual IP yolu use as possible. The IPs fans are your biggest possible playerbase so don't screw them over.
If you for instance would make a GoT MMORPG it needs rather different mechanics then a Forgotten realms MMORPG, you can't just use Wows, Esos or GW2s mechanics pasted over a GoT game because they don't fit the IP. The same mechanics would work far better on a Forgotten realms based game since you can come very close to the IP with them even if Wows taunting tanks is a bit of stretch and you would have to modify the classes and spells a bit. Still, it would work excellent with little work.
We seen a lot of MMOs using mechanics so far from their original IP that you get very little of what they should be and annoying the fans. Having a trinity combat based car game for instance (thanks NC soft). Most Warhammer fans were rather upset with WAR as well (besides Altdorf that were well made but only because GW forced them to remake it). And STO have a lot more hack'n slash then the IP would suggest.
Basically: If you want to make something similar to Wow or another game don't pick an IP too far from that. If you pick an odder IP you need to tweak the mechanics so it fits the IP. And don't screw your IPs fans if you can avoid it.
And yes, many of the early fantasy stories were based on tales and mythology. Conan is based on Irish & Welch mythology & stories. Tolkien is based on Norse mythology & stories... And so on. You could even call Homers stories and the Gilgamesh tale fantasy as well, if they had been written today they certainly would be sold as such.
Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sparta, Mongolia, etc all had professional armies. Vikings didn't conscript soldiers. You volunteered to raid. And sure as heck were not fighting 1v1... seriously? I'm not sure what this post is about.
Also should be said, the staple of most ancient armies was a spear/pike/javelin to thrust at enemies behind the shield wall.
Romans legions would carry two javelins, a sword and a dagger. The would attempt to throw both javelins before engaging. Then use the sword behind their massive shield walls. Does this sound like a poorly equipped barely trained peasant?
A 101 history course would teach you war is about columns of men trying to outflank their enemies using strategy. Or just outright overpowering them with superior weapons.
And... um there were definitely horses used in war throughout the history of warfare - it was the bane of footmen and archers. Horses quickly covered terrain and could outflank enemies. That is not a hollywood made myth.
But yeah, medieval times were not a great time to be around. But, that is small part of history, and certainly not ancient...
Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sparta, Mongolia, etc all had professional armies. Vikings didn't conscript soldiers. You volunteered to raid. And sure as heck were not fighting 1v1... seriously? I'm not sure what this post is about.
Also should be said, the staple of most ancient armies was a spear/pike/javelin to thrust at enemies behind the shield wall.
Romans legions would carry two javelins, a sword and a dagger. The would attempt to throw both javelins before engaging. Then use the sword behind their massive shield walls. Does this sound like a poorly equipped barely trained peasant?
A 101 history course would teach you war is about columns of men trying to outflank their enemies using strategy. Or just outright overpowering them with superior weapons.
And... um there were definitely horses used in war throughout the history of warfare - it was the bane of footmen and archers. Horses quickly covered terrain and could outflank enemies. That is not a hollywood made myth.
But yeah, medieval times were not a great time to be around. But, that is small part of history, and certainly not ancient...
See.... Here's a good example of watching too much TV.
Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sparta, Mongolia, etc all had professional armies. Vikings didn't conscript soldiers. You volunteered to raid. And sure as heck were not fighting 1v1... seriously? I'm not sure what this post is about.
Also should be said, the staple of most ancient armies was a spear/pike/javelin to thrust at enemies behind the shield wall.
Romans legions would carry two javelins, a sword and a dagger. The would attempt to throw both javelins before engaging. Then use the sword behind their massive shield walls. Does this sound like a poorly equipped barely trained peasant?
A 101 history course would teach you war is about columns of men trying to outflank their enemies using strategy. Or just outright overpowering them with superior weapons.
And... um there were definitely horses used in war throughout the history of warfare - it was the bane of footmen and archers. Horses quickly covered terrain and could outflank enemies. That is not a hollywood made myth.
But yeah, medieval times were not a great time to be around. But, that is small part of history, and certainly not ancient...
See.... Here's a good example of watching too much TV.
Totally depends on your outlook on life. On the one hand, it's just grammar, so as long as the core message is conveyed who gives a shit right?
That only works so long as enough still understand proper grammar there is a good chance someone will come along to decipher the core message so it retains meaning.
The more widespread and significant the collapse of proper grammar becomes, the less often and likely someone will be able to provide that bridge of understanding.
Without that level of understanding, cooperation on a massive scale will become difficult if not impossible. Extensive cooperation is required to maintain societies at the level we enjoy today, and to continue to develop them to meet the needs of the future.
So, I suppose the question is, does civilization matter?
lol you do understand that someone along the lineage made up this grammar and that not all countries care about other languages and some cultures rely on very little language.There is ancient languages that nobody can decipher,what if their culture said our language is BS and doesn't deserve to be there?
Simple example read and read,using the exact same spelling says to me some people messed up along the way,there is no perfection in the world ANYWHERE.So when people start talking about grammar as they learned from someone who learned out of some book and by another person that just made the shit up,they need to get a grip on the MUCH bigger picture that is the world. The entire world does not revolve around American or British literature or language or ethics or beliefs and who is to say what is right and wrong,some teacher or some book or some "accepted"ideals? I like to use the phrase"plausible realism" and that is what i expect in my games.I feel that often people just don't "get it" and would need to see far fetched examples to then understand that if not using plausible realism,things just look dumb/stupid whatever term you want to throw at it.
On the subject of HISTORY...lol so often flawed in every manner possible,people are so naive.Keywords "propaganda",manipulation,control,power etc etc.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I knew someone had almost zero time to dedicate to gaming. He taught chemistry. But he still had a copy of microsoft flight simulator. You don't spend days on a sim, you spend YEARS. YOu don't pick it up and discard it soon after. You read manuals and do lots of practice. It's slow and hard climb. The reward is finally flying the plane. Or at least knowing someday you might.
Rome, Greece, Egypt, Sparta, Mongolia, etc all had professional armies. Vikings didn't conscript soldiers. You volunteered to raid. And sure as heck were not fighting 1v1... seriously? I'm not sure what this post is about.
Also should be said, the staple of most ancient armies was a spear/pike/javelin to thrust at enemies behind the shield wall.
Romans legions would carry two javelins, a sword and a dagger. The would attempt to throw both javelins before engaging. Then use the sword behind their massive shield walls. Does this sound like a poorly equipped barely trained peasant?
A 101 history course would teach you war is about columns of men trying to outflank their enemies using strategy. Or just outright overpowering them with superior weapons.
And... um there were definitely horses used in war throughout the history of warfare - it was the bane of footmen and archers. Horses quickly covered terrain and could outflank enemies. That is not a hollywood made myth.
But yeah, medieval times were not a great time to be around. But, that is small part of history, and certainly not ancient...
Actually, there were viking conscriptions in Denmark for the raids against great Britain and both in Denmark and Sweden for war against eachothers. Huskarls were professional soldiers.
When they fought 1 Vs 1 it was for holmgång (a kind of duel where you put 2 guys on a small island and one comes back but they certainly didn't do that in wars (or if they did it was rare, a few Icelandic sagas mentions it).
The Roman army was the best in the world, a 100% . The pilums they wore could be called "javelins" but they were a bit more advanced, breaking on a hit so they couldn't be used back against you. They also have heavy weapons squad equiped with scorpions. Professional army and the only uniformed and truly well trained cavalary until the crusading orders.
And yes, Alexander proved the value of horses with his companion cavalery. The earliest horses used in battles were not for riding but to pull war chariots though. However Alexander also showed the value of phalanxes against horses (but only from straight ahead).
I would argue that being smart is more a matter of being knowledgeable than anything. Regardless someone who is smart isn't always nice and someone who is ignorant or dumb isn't always mean. In fact, a lot of people who are the most knowledgeable and intelligent are asses who use it to gain the advantage over others. I'd argue that is even more prevalent today with the internet and lots of knowledge being available. People are quick to put others down for not knowing this or that or acting this way or that way. This is a society that is supposed to be about freedom of choice.
Some of my favorite movies like Star Wars OT, Indiana Jones, and Oh Brother where art though contain fairly dumb characters, but their adventure and camaraderie is fun to watch IMO. One can argue Luke is fairly whiny and ignorant, Han is a sexist ass, Leia is a know it all, but it matters little. The characters in O Brother Where Art Thou are ignorant idiots, but great fun to watch and are also better people (of course this is relative as some Greeks would say) than their more intelligent counterparts.
Star Wars prequels are probably not the best place to make judgments on how to live your life.
I think I figured out the problem. You're talking about the pre-Greek bronze age circa 1000 BC, and everyone here is responding as if you're talking about the last 2,000 years of history. Nothing else can explain why you think that people were sent into battle with sticks and that most injuries were caused by attacks to someone's back while they were distracted. Although your ideas are still fairly erroneous, they aren't as wrong as they would be if you were talking about a more recent era.
However, I'm still foggy on why you decided to post about realism in a 1000 BC-era game when the vast majority of people asking for a realistic game want the High Middle Ages, around 2000 years after that.
I would argue that being smart is more a matter of being knowledgeable than anything. Regardless someone who is smart isn't always nice and someone who is ignorant or dumb isn't always mean. In fact, a lot of people who are the most knowledgeable and intelligent are asses who use it to gain the advantage over others. I'd argue that is even more prevalent today with the internet and lots of knowledge being available. People are quick to put others down for not knowing this or that or acting this way or that way. This is a society that is supposed to be about freedom of choice.
I would say that there are just horrible people out there, smart or "not so smart" and that these people use the best tools at their disposal to wreak havoc according to their natures.
Go and hang around MIT some time and you will find the largest group of "nice people" you will ever come across yet also incredibly smart to brilliant.
of course, that's superficial and "sure" there are many brilliant people I would gladly trade for even just one average or below average "nice" person.
The internet just makes it easy for horrible people to inflict themselves on others without any repercussions. I don't think they are any more horrible people today over 200 years ago nor do I think they are predominantly "intelligent".
there are just some very "damaged' people out there who are very vocal and feel they need to inflict themselves on others because of whatever issues they have. Internet just makes that easy.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think I figured out the problem. You're talking about the pre-Greek bronze age circa 1000 BC, and everyone here is responding as if you're talking about the last 2,000 years of history. Nothing else can explain why you think that people were sent into battle with sticks and that most injuries were caused by attacks to someone's back while they were distracted. Although your ideas are you still fairly erroneous, they aren't as wrong as they would be if you were talking about a more recent era.
However, I'm still foggy on why you decided to post about realism in a 1000 BC-era game when the vast majority of people asking for a realistic game want the High Middle Ages, around 2000 years after that.
Remember a 70's TV show called Bonanza, it was a show about the wild west. Every thing was clean and nice, even the dirt roads were nice. And everyone had a shiny Perl handled revolver. And everyone had their very own horse
Speaking of the wild west, Another show was called the Wild Wild West... Same thing.
Comments
I'm just answering to the title of the thread.
I kept having to describe the science behind it which quite frankly flew over her head. Not that the shows completely nails realism at all times but it certainly is about the best to attempt it while still being heavily science fiction. She simply doesn't have the background interests as me and knowledge gained from those interests over time.
You stay sassy!
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I just wanted to expand it a little.
"Realism" concepts come in ranges. For some it's simply not having giant weapons that break immersion, for others it's expanding the game into "realistic" game play and surroundings such as farms and food meaning something.
One of the biggest breakers of "realism for immersion" over the years is the "go here next" forced direction via level requirements.
Look at Balder's Gate years ago. There were many complaints about not being able to go where you wanted to or else you ran into instant death level content.
And see how gamers were happy to the extreme with the Morrowind/Skyrim game designs that allowed such freedom.
There are some who do want extreme realism, but most want a "more" realistic game world within a fantasy setting.
And mostly they want the immersion not to be broken as well as expanded design into a more fleshed out world.
It's just fun to do things in these games. Many players like fishing, and the better it's done the more entertaining it is. It's a break from the basic game play, an option to relax with (if done well), can give the player some extra needed coin, and even be "challenging" to a small degree without huge risk.
Entire game systems can be affected by "realism" to the better. Economies that are nothing more than an auction houses are pretty bland compared to player-to-player contracts and supply and demand.
"Realism" can make a game much more fleshed out and interesting to spend time in.
Once upon a time....
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
When people say that want something real, what they mean most of the time but cannot articulate is they want something that makes sense. Given a set of assumptions, this is true. Most humans cannot get away from this, because we crave consistency.
If you create a world or game where there is a set of assumptions, but the details totally ignore it and nothing makes sense, the game becomes whimsical and silly. That's only fun for how long something silly is fun.
For instance do GoTs dragons inspire way more awe then any dragon in a dragonlance book and a wizard in a Conan book feel way more fantastic then a Aes sedai in wheel of time.
Fantasy books have become more grittier and realistic the last 15 years, GoT certainly helped that trend and it have gone to most medias but not much into MMOs. Mixing realism and fantasy can make the world feel more alive then if you make up everything.
See it like this: If you want to make a city for your MMORPG you could just make everything up on the spot but if you study how historical cities actually were made, maybe even visit a place like Valetta or Wisby and base your city on that instead, which city do you think would feel most alive?
However there is a limit where you get too much realism as well, adding more realism to melee combat is really not a bad idea but you might want to go from 5% realism (about where most MMOs keep it) to 50% realism. Adding 100% realism is probably not even possible and even if it is I have a feeling few people would enjoy it.
It's also about the target audience, devs tend to want to please the largest amount of people to increase popularity. Then there's the people who have read the book vs the people who haven't and care little about the details that only those who read the books could tell you why they put something odd in there like that. There's also the experts in the field who can pick apart something very easily.
I think as far as fantasy books go, many have origins from folk stories designed to scar children from wondering outside the camp or village so they wouldn't become food for predictors. The original telling of those stories were pretty brutal and graphic.
I agree that balance is the key. That balance depends on your audience and the concerns of the times. Someone once said, it's all been done before, now we can only redo it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
black death, at moments its very early alpha, and its about as close as iv played to what it could be like in the middle ages.
You can start as a lowly peasant, or even a swordsman... it actually good turn out a 'fun' game but the scenery / colours etc are all grim.
Finally (not a direct accusation on anyone) BUT FOR LOVE OF GOD DONT CALL IT THE DARK AGES.. as an archaeologist i can categorically deny that any period happened.
This post is all my opinion, but I welcome debate on anything i have put, however, personal slander / name calling belongs in game
where of course you're welcome to call me names im often found lounging about in EvE online.
Use this code for 21days trial in eve online https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=d385aff2-794a-44a4-96f1-3967ccf6d720&action=buddy
Stick the phrase "In my opinion" before every sentence you write and you will no longer become the victim of the grammar police.
Trust me, people aren't going to judge your statements with any less credibility than they already do.
And the game mechanics should reflect the gameworld and make the feeling and athmosphere of it become more alive. That is why slapping Wows mechanics on top of other genres then fantasy makes so terrible games.
Books or no books, you do want your game to feel as similar to the actual IP yolu use as possible. The IPs fans are your biggest possible playerbase so don't screw them over.
If you for instance would make a GoT MMORPG it needs rather different mechanics then a Forgotten realms MMORPG, you can't just use Wows, Esos or GW2s mechanics pasted over a GoT game because they don't fit the IP. The same mechanics would work far better on a Forgotten realms based game since you can come very close to the IP with them even if Wows taunting tanks is a bit of stretch and you would have to modify the classes and spells a bit. Still, it would work excellent with little work.
We seen a lot of MMOs using mechanics so far from their original IP that you get very little of what they should be and annoying the fans. Having a trinity combat based car game for instance (thanks NC soft). Most Warhammer fans were rather upset with WAR as well (besides Altdorf that were well made but only because GW forced them to remake it). And STO have a lot more hack'n slash then the IP would suggest.
Basically: If you want to make something similar to Wow or another game don't pick an IP too far from that. If you pick an odder IP you need to tweak the mechanics so it fits the IP. And don't screw your IPs fans if you can avoid it.
And yes, many of the early fantasy stories were based on tales and mythology. Conan is based on Irish & Welch mythology & stories. Tolkien is based on Norse mythology & stories... And so on. You could even call Homers stories and the Gilgamesh tale fantasy as well, if they had been written today they certainly would be sold as such.
Also should be said, the staple of most ancient armies was a spear/pike/javelin to thrust at enemies behind the shield wall.
Romans legions would carry two javelins, a sword and a dagger. The would attempt to throw both javelins before engaging. Then use the sword behind their massive shield walls. Does this sound like a poorly equipped barely trained peasant?
A 101 history course would teach you war is about columns of men trying to outflank their enemies using strategy. Or just outright overpowering them with superior weapons.
And... um there were definitely horses used in war throughout the history of warfare - it was the bane of footmen and archers. Horses quickly covered terrain and could outflank enemies. That is not a hollywood made myth.
But yeah, medieval times were not a great time to be around. But, that is small part of history, and certainly not ancient...
See.... Here's a good example of watching too much TV.
The more widespread and significant the collapse of proper grammar becomes, the less often and likely someone will be able to provide that bridge of understanding.
Without that level of understanding, cooperation on a massive scale will become difficult if not impossible. Extensive cooperation is required to maintain societies at the level we enjoy today, and to continue to develop them to meet the needs of the future.
So, I suppose the question is, does civilization matter?
Simple example read and read,using the exact same spelling says to me some people messed up along the way,there is no perfection in the world ANYWHERE.So when people start talking about grammar as they learned from someone who learned out of some book and by another person that just made the shit up,they need to get a grip on the MUCH bigger picture that is the world.
The entire world does not revolve around American or British literature or language or ethics or beliefs and who is to say what is right and wrong,some teacher or some book or some "accepted"ideals?
I like to use the phrase"plausible realism" and that is what i expect in my games.I feel that often people just don't "get it" and would need to see far fetched examples to then understand that if not using plausible realism,things just look dumb/stupid whatever term you want to throw at it.
On the subject of HISTORY...lol so often flawed in every manner possible,people are so naive.Keywords "propaganda",manipulation,control,power etc etc.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
We're not all the same what we're lookin for.
When they fought 1 Vs 1 it was for holmgång (a kind of duel where you put 2 guys on a small island and one comes back but they certainly didn't do that in wars (or if they did it was rare, a few Icelandic sagas mentions it).
The Roman army was the best in the world, a 100% . The pilums they wore could be called "javelins" but they were a bit more advanced, breaking on a hit so they couldn't be used back against you. They also have heavy weapons squad equiped with scorpions. Professional army and the only uniformed and truly well trained cavalary until the crusading orders.
And yes, Alexander proved the value of horses with his companion cavalery. The earliest horses used in battles were not for riding but to pull war chariots though. However Alexander also showed the value of phalanxes against horses (but only from straight ahead).
Some of my favorite movies like Star Wars OT, Indiana Jones, and Oh Brother where art though contain fairly dumb characters, but their adventure and camaraderie is fun to watch IMO. One can argue Luke is fairly whiny and ignorant, Han is a sexist ass, Leia is a know it all, but it matters little. The characters in O Brother Where Art Thou are ignorant idiots, but great fun to watch and are also better people (of course this is relative as some Greeks would say) than their more intelligent counterparts.
Star Wars prequels are probably not the best place to make judgments on how to live your life.
However, I'm still foggy on why you decided to post about realism in a 1000 BC-era game when the vast majority of people asking for a realistic game want the High Middle Ages, around 2000 years after that.
EDIT: Fixed typo.
Go and hang around MIT some time and you will find the largest group of "nice people" you will ever come across yet also incredibly smart to brilliant.
of course, that's superficial and "sure" there are many brilliant people I would gladly trade for even just one average or below average "nice" person.
The internet just makes it easy for horrible people to inflict themselves on others without any repercussions. I don't think they are any more horrible people today over 200 years ago nor do I think they are predominantly "intelligent".
there are just some very "damaged' people out there who are very vocal and feel they need to inflict themselves on others because of whatever issues they have. Internet just makes that easy.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Remember a 70's TV show called Bonanza, it was a show about the wild west. Every thing was clean and nice, even the dirt roads were nice. And everyone had a shiny Perl handled revolver. And everyone had their very own horse
Speaking of the wild west, Another show was called the Wild Wild West... Same thing.
To much TV