How much realism in a survival game is too much?

Just want to discuss

 

Mandatory real life disintegration chambers (a la A Taste of Armageddon) is probably a bit too much.

What kind of realism are you talking about? A physics puzzle to undo your fly every couple of hours to relieve yourself? A setting based on the real world rather than a fictional world?

 

There must always be an exceptionally unreal number of explosions. If at any time there is a realistic amount of explosions, you have failed.

 

What exactly is a survival game anyway? Are we talking like, Resident Evil? DayZ/Left4Dead? or Don't Starve? Minecraft?

EDIT:
Anyway, actually, what about no UI? Is there any survival game with no UI? That'd be pretty realistic which would go too far.

 

Metro 2033 doesn't have a "permanent" UI on either of the Ranger modes. You can temporarily show how much ammo you have by checking your watch, but you can't shoot while doing so. And there's no crosshairs, so you have to rely on iron sights, scopes, or just plain old firing from the hip while a mutant tries to claw your face off. I think it works pretty well.

 

A so general question can only have a very general answer. Soo...:

It's too much when it stops contributing to your design goals.

 

Dayz standalone has too much realism. Afaik they've arrived at the point where ammo can get wet or damaged so shots won't go off first try when you try to shoot your sub-par ammo. And clothes can get wet, I bet you can also get a cold. And there are some unhealthy liquids in the game that still have a drink action associated to them in the inventory and when you drink e.g. a bottle of desinfectant "on accident", you might die.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/221100/discussions/0/648816742855027415/

Dayz as a whole is a depressing excercise in highly questionable gamedesign decisions. I've had some fun with the mod, even as broken as it was. But it feels like 80% of the "gamedesign" in the standalone is making your life harder with tedious and un-immersive bullshit. 7 Days to Die isn't as realistic by far, but they've also managed to pile on so many new mechanics that I would file in the "tedious bullshit" cabinet (warm/cold climates and a need to change clothes is a prime example - who the hell thinkgs that is fun?), that I'm no longer having fun with that game. I used to like it around alpha 8, where everything felt rather well balanced and everything had a purpose, but it has gotten worse imho.

 

You'd be surprised. My bets are on the same people who would enjoy Dwarf Fortress if not for the visuals and controls.

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/11163/?

 

Peeing and pooping seems to be the only line I haven't had to cross yet.

Unless it's rockets. For some reason people don't seem to grasp just how much exhaust you need to get anywhere.

 

I am surprised. I don't play Dwarf Fortress but from what people say about it, it sounds like you are making "interesting and meaningful decisions". I feel like micro managing your clothing to match the climate and every now and then having to sit next to a fire is just boring and meaningless. I simply don't see the appeal. But then again, when reading steam forums of survival games I'm very often surprised by the crap that people request as features. It's as if either they all find fun in very different things than me, or they just have no concept of what "gamedesign" means. I can't always tell.

It's just one youtube search away (I didn't watch the full video):

 

You could turn it into a mini-game where you write words for points.

 

A non-sarcastic answer about when survival goes too far:

• When I have to worry about my character going to the bathroom.
• When the player has to spend time watching their character sleep.

 

I would go with sudoku that never has any 2's in them.

 

Did anyone here play Project Zomboid (aka the most depressing clone of "The Sims")?

 

Whenever a feature is added for realism's sake, without consideration for it's gameplay implications, it's too much realism.

"This would be more realistic, and it strengthens the core gameplay in x and y ways." is what you're looking for.

if skyrim had a "turn the doorknob" minigame every time you went to open a door, it might be realistic, but it would break pacing and take away from the core gameplay of "Explore & kill monsters."
Alternatively, take the same mechanic and put it in say a horror game and you've not only created more realism, but now you have a opportunity to increase tension, create the "fiddling with the stuck doorknob" moment ect.

 

Personally, I want a lot of realism when it comes to survival mechanics, but one of the things I hate in games in general is randomness, especially in multiplayer games.

The case you're describing with wet or damaged ammo is taking it to far, but getting a cold is not to much for me since it adds another dimension of gameplay and interaction between players. - If you're careful, you wont get a cold, but being chased by a group of zombies and then being rescued by a stranger, who gives also gives you antibiotocs for your cold can add alot of wierd "fun".


As for the elder scrolls, Morrowind is the best game of them all and skyrim is probably the worst - An arrow pointing me in the right direction and a spell that shows me the correct way out of a dungeon? common... Heck, i dont even have to read/listen to the F'in dialogues...

What about Inventory management and realism? What is to far there? Wieght/limited space

 

It really depends on the game and the decision-making it involves. In DayZ standalone it seems reasonable but poorly implemented to me (unresponsive and buggy, but not a bad concept if it was better executed). In ARK the carry capacity limit just feels needlessly punishing and un-fun. I can pick up so much stuff that I can no longer walk a single step, but I won't know that happens before picking it up and so I have to go to the inventory, decide what to drop and then I can haul the stuff away finally. I don't like that mechanic at all. It's one of the reasons why I can't get into the game. I strongly prefer the Minecraft/7dtd way of doing things where there are slot and stack sizes and when your inventory is full you just can't pick up more stuff. That essentially leads to the same level of decisionmaking (what to I pick up and bring home, what do I have to leave here), but it is far less annoying.


Jagged Alliance 2 Community Patch v1.13 had the most elaborate system that I know. A single mercenary could have:

- helmet with helmet attachements
- gas mask
- 2 holsters of varying types with sub slots for spare magazines on some
- a shoulder bag
- a backpack
- a vest with many different possible combinations of pockets of different sizes
- a bullet proof vest
- pants
- 1 or 2 items carried in their hands
- 1 rifle carried with a sling
- 1 knife

And all the different slots could carry different types and stack sizes of items and had different action point costs associated with them to access the items during combat. You had pockets specifically for pistol mags, that you couldn't fit an assault rifle mag into. There where ammo boxes (like the cardboard boxes ammo is sold in, not the big metal crates) that stored a large stack of ammo, but you only can reload from them out of combat. The backpack could carry 4 large objects, but it can't be accessed during combat because it takes too long. Also a merc with a backpack can't climb onto roofs with it. But there was a convenient quick-drop button for them and they could be auto-picked-up after combat. Everything involved decisionmaking and was in tune with the theme of the game. It added a crazy amount of inventory micro, but for the one playthrough I did with it, I actually enjoyed it. I wouldn't want/need that level of detail in every playthrough or other tactical game though.


A super hardcore FPS inventory system would involve not knowing what's inside a bag until you look into it. Getting a magazine to reload would involve you keeping track of which mag pouch still has a full mag in it. I'm only aware of one shooter that is trying that kind of stuff and afaik it's not too popular with players. I can see why, even though I wouldn't outright dismiss the idea of raising the skill ceiling by introducing new things to learn and "git gud" at about gun handling and inventory management. But I think the idea of switching "left-click to shoot", to "hold middle mouse button and scroll down to pull the trigger", is really bad, because it get's super reliant on user's hardware (I have MMB on a different button than the scroll wheel) and many players would just use an autohotkey script to get rid of it.

edit:

 

Any time a game's survival elements become more important than the other core gameplay elements, then gameplay tends to suffer. Jim Sterling's video about "Babysitting the Survivor" is an excellent example of this.

Ultra realistic survival elements often ruin gameplay. Is it fun to run around worrying about food, water, heat, etc? I think a lot of developers have slapped these survival elements into place without thinking about their larger gameplay goals and how those goals will be affected by certain survival elements.

In many cases, games are more enjoyable without ultra realistic survival elements. For example, it is fun to quickly run around blasting zombies while looking for health and ammo, because that dynamic encourages action. It is not fun to walk around looking for water, food, a bed, some shade, and so on, because those ultra realistic survival elements end up discouraging action. Worrying about the character getting overheated, hungry, tired, or thirsty is not fun. The Day-Z heat system is yet another reason I vastly prefer to play Left4Dead2 instead of something like Day-Z.

 

Some pretty good points here.

Realism really depends on what your core game loop is.

In a game like KSP I'm managing one ship at a time, with maybe a half dozen on the map. At that level of detail I can focus in on the design and placement of each individual ship.

On the other hand in AI wars I routinely have fleets of over three thousand ships. I don't really care where the engines are placed in each individual ship. Nor do I care for realistic physics conditions. All I need is what type of guns they use.

So the level of realism needs to match the detail level your player is at. If you make a halo style game with thousands of enemies, making the player manage which poker individual clips are stored in is a bad idea. On the other hand if you are managing a single player with less then half a dozen NPCs in the entire game, managing bathroom breaks can work. Check out the sims for an example.

So it all depends, what is your core loop. And what the player is meant to be doing. Realism should always reinforce the core game, never detract from it.

 

Some hints on realistic management of ammo:
Make sure the enemies always yell "I'm reloading" as loud as possible, otherwise it wouldn't be realistic enough.
Also make sure the friendly AI walk in front of your shot and stand in the middle of the road during a firefight.
You also want to create a world space GUI and attach it to the back of the player to show everyone else, but yourself, how much ammo you have left.