There's still a sense of realism in games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander: The way ships move, the way how the vehicles buckle and rock as their guns fire, the wrecks of destroyed vehicle, etc. Maybe it is just detail but adds weight to their universe, feels tangible.
Indeed. I think projectile physics is another good example of realism from those games, the bigger weapons have some real weight and heft behind them. You can really feel the power.
I think the relatively believable scale also helps, as realistic as absolutely enormous robots and tanks can get. If you google "Supreme Commander unit scale", there's a good few images out there that showcase how staggeringly consistent the scale of everything is, down to doors on buildings and cars being human-sized. The units aren't artificially oversized and don't feel as such, they're really just THAT huge. And one simply can't overlook the degree of automation the game offers, the constant production economy and its scale, and the distinct focus on macro, which all make it feel like you're actually waging a war of attrition with frontlines and production lines, much unlike most other RTS games where you need to constantly babysit a small handful of units on a tiny map.
@@MarlinHunter673 Yyup, scale is a massive factor in the TA/SupCom style games for me. Not just for length & complexity of game, but as a type of immersion. Once I went back from Red Alert 2 to Total Annihilation I was blown away by stuff like the limited range radar. With ID-ing activity outside your FOV but not revealing the unit type without visual conformation instead of the competitively cheap just enable the minimap mechanic of C&C games. Then Supreme Commander gave another umpf to the scale with artillery and nukes packing a proper punch without being imbalancedly OP. And when I saw Beyond All Reason terrain features interfering with radar coverage... that was another wow moment.
A point, realism is the means, not the goal. The goal is immersion. And in strategy games we have the issue that the larger the scale, the more abstract it becomes, and the the tougher it becomes to get a good grasp on it. Even in total war games, the early battles with a few hundred soldiers where you watch the individual animations are more engaging than the 2 000 vs 3 500 man battles. It is the thing that made Company of Heroes iconic, with cover mechanics, individual soldiers picking up heavy weapons etc. Watching a handful soldiers burn alive due to flamethrowers in Tiberian Dawn or Tempest Rising is harrowing and memorable.
Id say immersion is whats important and some games can achieve that by being realistic, meanwhile others are too unrealistic which breaks the immersion.
Yeah. Some people use argument "game can be either fun or realistic", but I very much don't agree. Realism can be key for immersion and can in fact improve having fun - if you know it somehow relates to what could happen in real life. But there are some things that are just annoying/repetetive, but realistic, so everything needs deep consideration.
I think it's one of those topics where there isn't straight answer either way, it's all very situational and subjective. These are my favourite things to talk about, and I find the actual discussion and consideration of points to be far more interesting than the answer.
You know, sometimes the realism is fun, but sometimes it can be a pain in the ass, however I say the absolute peak is when the game has an amazing soundscape where you do not mind turning off the music.
I found it on a really badly written article about how the "Darkness" inside children makes them want to draw tanks. The quote that accompanied that picture was: Another child from Cizre drew a tank. The weapon on top of the tank is shooting a bird flying in front of it. The child, with this picture, is saying “You are shooting my freedom.”
Regarding the scale of the story, in the original Command & Conquer you are implied to not be the the only commander. And in the final two battles the other frontlines are handled by your collegues.
I again highly suggest the Combat Mission Series for realistic feel. Actual historic tables of organisation highly detailed damage models and effects of each fired round. And maps at a scale, that can fit multiple comapies even up to Battalion size.
I simply think of it as whats my game supposed to represent? Does realism add to the experience like make it better? If so yeah sure It really is the question of do we need this? Or how much we need of this? In the end gameplay comes first and foremost if anything hurts gameplay it must be sacrificed.
Commenting before I've watched. I don't think it can really be a binary answer. It's so context dependent. I think the main thing is at least some sense of internal consistency. If I don't think you're even following your own rules it's gonna be hard for me to suspend disbelief when you don't follow reality or my preferred game conventions
12:28 Indeed I've done that with the Tom Clancy games. Back then characters and groups felt grounded and combined a very healthy blend of the tried and true gear with cutting edge equipment. Nowadays it's every weapon is something that's been around for years while the characters look like they came straight out of an airsoft match.
I like realism in something like foxhole, its like a strategy game but you are only one person, you have to coordinate with real people and build stuff together to achieve your own objectives (like gathering Materials, defending, killing a base with arty or other stuff) or ingame objectives which is capture of victory points, working to achieve either will be directly affecting the status of the war as artying the base with your friends opens up a path for the other friendlies to capture a town hall which in return is used by a Clan to capture a VP or the whole region, i recommend you to check it out if you haven't already.
in my experience it’s good to learn about the real version of whatever you’re making- even if it’s just a bit of surface-level digging. the difference between the two is the Battle for Helm’s Deep and whatever the heck was happening in Game of Throne’s undead siege.
I've recently been playing a lot of Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front, which is less of a strategy game and more of a military command and control simulation. The realism doesn't come at the cost of gameplay because the campaigns don't represent months of fighting, they only represent a couple critical days or weeks. This skips on the waiting and mundane parts of war that wouldn't be appealing in a game made for entertainment, and the overall Battalion(Largest Extent of Scale) -> Battle Group(Strategic Maneuver Units) -> Platoons(Tactical Real-Time Units) -> Squads(Smallest Extent of Scale) works well to allow for a variety of units and reinforcement possibilities without compromising realism/believability. Individual turns represent hours so minor fortifications can be constructed and longer distances travelled all while maintaining an accurate and gameplay-supporting scale. I feel Graviteam maintains an air of respect for the heavy subject of war while still allowing for entertainment value, the realism adding to the weight of an after battle casualties screen; Every cinematic shot of a tank sent up in flames is four or five people dead, every impressive artillery or mortar barrage thins the numbers of a frightened and retreating platoon. This brings me to reflect on the modern era of war on social media, videos coming out of Ukraine of helicopters shot down, grenades dropped from the sky, tank turrets being launched into the air. With Mius-Front(developed by Ukrainian studio Graviteam) depicting the same satellite-accurate steppes and hills being fought over today in Ukraine despite an 80 year difference, the scenes found in our entertainment and games can become all too real. It feels like only some minor adjustments and a change of time period is all that separates this fun combined arms WWII sim from something akin to a training tool. Ultimately the game is not at fault for any of this and the parallels to the actual conflict are a testament to the realism of the game, the game however doesn't handle the presence of civilians of the atrocities against POWs and other hard to swallow subjects. The fact that we as wargamers find parts of conflict enjoyable does not make us wrong or bloodthirsty, it's just interesting that we are able to take very realistic simulations of conflict and separate them from the terrible realities and connect with the strategic and tactical realities while also solemnly accepting the truth of real war.
Imo realism is very important some times other not so much For example games like cmo combat mission or armoured brigade i play beacause i want that extreme level of realism i want to face the real problems faced by real world military commander and be force to use real doctrine and stradgey agaisnt a opponet. Other games i want a high degree of realism but it dosent have to be 100% for balance resons wargame rd or warno are good examples (although when im playing with friends we usally use realism mods) and then there games like battlefield 1 where i just dont care beacuse its fun it feels authentic enough to be fun idc if it all that realisitc or company of heros i more care if its balanced rather then realistic
I have! I almost really liked it, but could never fully get there. The aesthetics were awesome and it had a real Company of Heroes vibe, but I found the storytelling a bit tacky in the single player. I almost really liked the game engine, but felt everything was a little sluggish and underwhelming. This was a long time ago, when it was released, I'm told it's a lot better now.
@@akumaking1 I did a video about scale a few weeks back, I'm thinking of covering stuff like Story and Music too but I'm not sure I have enough interesting stuff to say yet that would fill a video. Perhaps it's time I tried Iron Harvest again, it's been a long while since I played it.
@@kaluventhebritish for music, the idea is that each faction needs to have a certain theme/motif. Music should also help tell a story with complementary themes, show foreshadowing, etc. For example in StarCraft, Terrans mix between bluegrass and military music, Zerg have aggressive rock, and Protoss are orchestral. For Iron Harvest, the developers actually have a dedicated video explaining how they composed the music.
One of the more realistic strategy games I've ever played has definetly been Graviteam: Mius Front. Battles are heavily researched by the dev, he releases documents detailing his research and then adds the battles to his games. Although the graphics leave a lot to be desired and controls can be obtuse at times, it still is quite the solid simulation game.
Considering the realism in games like War Thunder and imagine that, but with hundreds of units. I have a feeling it would be quite well received by most R.T.S. players. No longer pinging down a health-bar, but having to deal with realistic damages.
A load of realism in RTS is a must not only for immersion but also for balance In rather shitty and unbalanced RTS games, why even bother constructing a base ? defense ? logistics ? upgrade ? lol get this crap outta here, rush tanks baby ! 30 second rounds let's go that for me is really soul crushing, realism would mitigate this "rushing" phenomena and make the players take it slower and ... actually play the game !
This is why I'm glad we have a big variety of strategy games. People look for different things in a game, and it's good that there isn't a one-size fits all approach. I also find my own preferences swing back and forward over time - sometimes I like the fast-paced unrealistic games, other times I enjoy the methodical grind of something with a grander scale.
I agree, I think the Napoleon one was the first one I played. Felt really good to have those big ranks and squares of infantry after growing up reading and watching Sharpe.
Did you watch those old documentaries where they used Rome: Total War to show historical battles? And yes, the scale becomes understandable, which is impressive work.
One crucial aspect I think you missed or did not expand on properly from the loose, "believability" part is the levels of abstraction. I can easily imagine humans and two alien factions duking it out in the Koprulu sector. I can accept planetary combat as something important, even though space combat should be the primary form at that point. What I can't accept is a new human coming out of a tiny building every 10 seconds. Tanks that can't shoot while on the move. I can accept it as gameplay, but it hurts the "realism" aspect. It's a layer of abstraction. SupCom, as you well know, has only ONE biological entity on the battlefield per player, the Commander in the ACU itself (disregarding teleported in SACUs now). Everything else is fabricated with the nanolathes. Units more or less move as they move. Shoot as they should. The holotank we see the battle through contains very little abstraction, and those can be viewed as augmented reality because high tech. That's the kind of realism I'm looking for, the less abstraction layers the better. As for your processing power. Starcraft 2, a relatively simple game with relatively few units and relatively primitive 3D models, runs like dogshit on my computer. Sure, it's an old computer, but still, what I see on screen does not warrant the slideshow I get. Starcraft 1 had the 12 units limitation because MUH RESOURCES, even though TA came out the same year, and had none of those limitations, and had 3D terrain and proper physics to boot. So in short, some devs are just really bad at programming, and the wing of Blizzard that did Starcraft is shit. Diablo 3 runs like cream, even though my machine was $500 (INCLUDING the monitor) 11 years ago.
Aoe 4 is a good example of what NOT to do It tries hard to deliver that sense of history but the game design is already born outdated for engagement. No wonder the player count is low as it is, closer to the controversial AoE3 than AoE2
Depends on what your selling. Are you selling realism or fantasy immersion or both? Ex: C and C Red alert 1 opted for fantasy realism While Cand C Red Alert 2 and 3 Opted for Fantasy. While C and C Generals tried realism. Total war franchise Most total war franchise went for realism But Warhammer was fantasy realism. Three kingdoms was both realism with spices of fantasy. Counter strike is realism with a pintch of fantasy Call of duty is selling realism World of tanks realism Fornite is selling Fantasy If you botch realism while selling realism like Battlefield 2042 It will flop. If your selling Fantasy with too much fantasy causing imbalance or too realism it becomes boring to those seeking fantasy will also Flop . It's like buying food you want dessert you expecting a dessert not a meal. You buy a meal your expecting a meal not a snack or dessert.
Realism is a bit like a flavor of games,people are gonna have diffrent preferences,i for one hate seeing a human(no superpowers) get hit and thrown back 90 feet just to get up with 10% less hot points its like noooo you just got hit with he force of at LEAST a hand grenade,yiy are DEAD but i LOOOOVE realism in games i love having to eat and drink in games so i dont die but i realize thats not for everyone.
I think it's about the objectives. I wouldn't like having to eat and drink often in an RPG because I'm there for the story and the experience, but for a survival game like Ark or Rust I'm totally with you. Considering the whole point of those games is to survive, then eating/drinking seems a pretty important part of that situation.
I agree that immersion is more important. But at least for me, realism is the path to immersion. My brain needs logic and plausibility to function, and regularly breaks whenever something is explained away with 'it's magic'.
That argument about most games having some realism base-line in a sense that they at least feature gravity, I find funny. Because many space games do precisely not simulate gravity at all. It is this lack in realism that kills most space games for me.
In my experience a huge amount of games and film have always treated space as either "Air" or "Water". It's all fighter jets or submarines up there. I blame Starwars :)
The one that gets me the most with space games is inertia. In a frictionless environment, my ship shouldn't have a 'top speed', it should only have acceleration- which of course it's very difficult to have a fun game where if you've been accelerating for 2 minutes to get somewhere, to then require that you turn around and start slowing down for 2 minutes so you don't slam into that station at mach 20. Avorion actually handles this really well. All basic ships have top speeds, like you'd expect in most space games. But there's a small upgrade module you can put on your ship called an 'inertial dampener override' that makes it so that you can speed up infinitely. It's nearly impossible to play using that module (but it is very fun to play around with!) but simply the fact that it exists drops a lot of implicit lore into the game's universe and fleshes it out with adequate answers to questions that players may have.
Sometimes when it comes to an RTS, sometimes if realism is being thrown out for hte most part, atleast add onto it like I wished for Age of empire 2, since there are native Americans, I wish with a few upgrades, they get crossbows.
Could save 20 minutes by merely pointing out that the 'realism' focused RTS games are all super niche and have largely dead multiplayer, lol. Why play Gates of Hell and have your multiplayer match ended in an instant by some cheap shotting call in unit that can insta-wipe squads and tanks in one shot from across the map because of 'realism' when I can just play a game that doesn't suck and actually cares about being enjoyable to play for people other than a handful of europeans who build model tanks for their office?
well i can kind of understand why certain asepcts of ww2 games you might have to tread very carefully about how realistic you make certain things for fairly obvious reasons. also iam not quite sure you want to make a ww1 game too realistic. unless you a total sadist.
Realism is an inversion of priorities in GAME design. Games are for fun. Simulation is for realism. To the extent that a game optimizes for realism, it is to that same degree no longer optimizing for fun. Those "games" that you mentioned which emphasize realism are much more correctly categorized as simulation. I'm not interested in RTS sims. I'd much rather an RTS GAME, and so I expect when someone makes a GAME that the GAMEPLAY is first, and not the theme, subject matter, story, tone, but the GAMEPLAY because I want to PLAY a GAME when I PLAY GAMES. On the other hand, if a FUN GAME happens to appear realistic in terms of its aesthetics and tone, but the gameplay is good, who cares? It could look like a cartoon world and be every bit as good. Just look to Diabotical vs Quake.
that’s a wild take. I read an FBI dude’s guide on CQB for Doorkickers and it’s a skill that can translate to fpses like Halo. if anything, that connection to reality makes it _more_ fun when you learn transferrable skills.
@@Диего_де_ла_Вега The problem is not in whether its fun. The problem is It isn't a GAME anymore. I have fun in Assetto Corsa Competizione, a hardcore racing SIMULATOR. I also have fun in GRAN TURISMO. But no one, not one person, not a fan of ACC or a fan of GT would EVER call ACC a "VIDEO GAME". Because it flat isn't. They DELIBERATELY avoid adding game systems to ACC, like track medals or money, or unlocking things... because it IS NOT A GAME SO STOP CALLING SIMULATORS GAMES because that is a false categorization They have utterly different reasons for existing, and thus have utterly different user bases, and thus have no reason to be considered in the same breath when drawing comparisons of whether a SIM makes for a GOOD GAME, because no, a simulator of anything besides a game does not make for a good game because it is by definition NOT A GAME
@@nanthilrodriguez Your distinction between games and sims is completely arbitrary. Where do you draw the line? If people get hurt or die when they're shot? If physics are modeled? Is Total War a sim or a game? What about Rimworld? Arma? What about Warthunder or Battlefield? Your argument about only caring about gameplay because they're called games is about as nonsensical as saying that people should only care about the cinematography when watching a movie, and that everything else takes a backseat. People are going to continue to call simulations 'games', because they are games. Maybe you don't enjoy them, and that's fine. Doesn't make them not games.
@@nanthilrodriguez "a simulator of anything besides a game does not make for a good game because it is by definition NOT A GAME" Racing is a game and ACC simulates racing, so then it's a game isn't it? I do agree that there are simulations that aren't games, but your example isn't one of them.
I don't know where this idea comes from that "immersion" and "escapism" is a goal for game design? I have never once played a game for immersion or escapism. I play games for fun. I play games for the game? Like that's it. Did anyone get immersed by SPYRO the dragon? Mario? Quake? Back in Quake days, games were so abstract because of their models and textures being so simple that no, nobody was getting immersed in Quake. People got immersed in Everquest, Ultima online, and that was considered fringe and wierd even amongst the most hardcore gamers. No one gets immersed in street fighter, or Banjo Kazooie... I blame all the morons who do play games for STORY (read a book) or IMMERSION (get a therapist you have an unhealthy relationship with your life and circusmstances) for ruining all the FUN we used to have playing games, because gaming companies realize that all the fun havers left because all the story and immersion and escapism wanters chased us out of our space a long time ago...
Of course I got immersed by Spyro the Dragon. The controls, the world, the music, the gameplay, everything was so good that nothing distracted me from just enjoying the game.
the most sane comment in this section. games are supposed to be, well, games, that is to be challenging and have a win/lose conditions. i'm not gonna write a wall of text about the modern gamedev, everyone heard all of this a thousand times, but the modern titles can be barely called "games" anymore.
What would you conider games then, all of these have win/lose conditions. RTS games can be incredibly challenging I fail to see where they arent games?@sanyaskillpro
@@braxtongutschke6346 an example: starcraft 2 as an esports, it's a real game. i don't play it but i sometimes watch the pros matches. as a single player game, it's worthless. it's literally a carbon copy of a game that was like 12 years old when they released it, double that now, and there's a reason rts genre was dead for a while because every other rts was trying to be a starcraft/warcraft clone. the things that make it a great esports to watch are the same things that make it bad as a "game". low unit variety(and most units being copies of sc1 units), low unit cap in general (due to technical limitations of starcraft 1 when most people had office pcs with like 128 mb ram but now it's a "feature"). basically it's an example of how instead of coming up with something new, they just printed the same game but you're supposed to consoom product for the "story"?
What makes a game good/Immersive? A good game should captivate you, encapsulate your mind and make you forget everything that transpires in the real world around you. It should make you want to see more, do more and continue on the ingame path. In a great game, the only time you should want to stop, are the times that you have just experienced something so intense, so surreal , so gripping , that you are forced to stop in order to take the time to drink in and contemplate that which you have just survived through/ experienced. I prefer having set objectives, a purpose to what you are doing. I loathe surviving, in order to scavenge and kill, to scavenge in order...just to continue surviving until the point where you look at the game and think ...meh I'm done ... Heralding the meaningless end to a meaningless experience. Immersion is how much you care about what is happening. An immersive game is one that makes you feel like you belong in that world. It doesn't have to be realistic, but it needs it's own boundaries and rules that makes you such a world would exist under fictional circumstances. One of the best ways I enjoy escaping and just relaxing, is to immerse my mind in a different world, especially a world rooted in an interesting time period in our world's history such as an historical shooter or an RTS like Age of Empires. Or a well crafted, creative, imagination rich fantasy world, such as Middle Earth. Factions in games: Factions in any game are of utmost importance. Two games that are made brilliant due to their superb factions are: Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas. Skyrim: The factions in the game are astounding, imaginative, based on historical factions, deep, complex and striking. The Rebel Scum Stormcloaks (From before the idiotic Viking hype train of the past 4 years) are superb, the scruffy, ill educated bandits, the obscure,shunned yet intelligent collage of Winterhold, the wild tribal Forsworn in the iron hills around Markarth, the Imperial legion with uniformity, discipline and military structure, the Orc strongholds on the fringes, the Kajitti traders/thieves just trying to make a living in a province where they are so shunned by the Nords, the Altmer and their bigotry and the guards of each hold, so in depth, believable, grounded and interesting in their mundane everyday objectives, all such superb factions that pull you in, keeps you engaged and are so distinct and memorable, I love it. FONV I loathe being overpowered , I enjoy being at a disadvantage and having to use my brain and ingenuity to improvise, adapt and overcome obstacles ..thus a faction/myself using power armour is so boring to me. Where to be a ‘’nobody’’ , just an average soldier in the NCR armed with only an rusty M16 that jams,a pistol, limited ammo, a knife and 2 grenades ,having to survive the Mohave ...was sensational! Only gaining more power as I climb the ranks in the NCR to become a Sniper with a Hunting rifle and the ultimate ..to gain the .50 cal sniper rifle... that is the peak of the power that I want. Then getting to battle seemingly clear slaver enemies such as ''Caesar's Legion'', ''the Fiends'' and ''the Khans'', only to discover more nuanced sides to them truly elevates NV to lofty hights. My favourite, most immersive games of all time Real world settings: Assassins Creed 1 & 2 & Brotherhood Far cry 1 & 2 Age of Empires DE 1 & 2 & 3 Call of Duty 1 & 2 and MW 1 + 2 + World at War. ua-cam.com/video/TVXamWBanrM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/7zxgN9l2CtI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/OYgZQOSHu7k/v-deo.html Brothers in Arms. Battlefield 1 + Battlefield Vietnam + BF 3 + BF 4 Rising Storm 2 Vietnam Il 2- Combat Flight Sim series Fantasy world settings such as Thief : The Dark Project, the Metal Age & Deadly Shadows Skyrim Witcher 2 + 3 Fallout NV Metro series Amnesia Star Wars Galactic BattleGrounds. CP 2077 A good story,narrative, setting,good factions , engaging/believable characters, feeling, the music, the sound design, environmental stroy telling and proper objectives are paramount in a game. Even a non narrative game such as Rising Storm Vietnam/BF1 MP is brilliant , because even though you can do what ever you want, you still have the overarching objective (To win the battle/war) and more immediate objectives, such as ‘’attack’’ or ‘’defend’’ a certain critical area. Me having to fight tenaciously and having to fight intelligently, accurately to conserve ammunition whilst your squad is pinned down and you are desperately combating numerous enemies , protecting your CO as he calls in airstrikes on your radio … it all supplies clear purpose and in turn immerses your mind in this captivating world. To me one can draw parallels between real life and gaming. A lot of times ,the way people act in games is actually exactly how they would act in reality if given the freedom to do so. Thus I for one , waking up each day or booting up a game, don’t want to survive just for the sake of surviving, I need an objective, I need a deep and exciting story, I need a well crafted, engaging world, I need a purpose. But the truth is, everyone knows that real IMMERSION = Big tiddy statue mods. ua-cam.com/video/vAJgPzqxReY/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/7zxgN9l2CtI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/xwzOfP0hwpc/v-deo.html
There's still a sense of realism in games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander: The way ships move, the way how the vehicles buckle and rock as their guns fire, the wrecks of destroyed vehicle, etc. Maybe it is just detail but adds weight to their universe, feels tangible.
Indeed. I think projectile physics is another good example of realism from those games, the bigger weapons have some real weight and heft behind them. You can really feel the power.
I think the relatively believable scale also helps, as realistic as absolutely enormous robots and tanks can get. If you google "Supreme Commander unit scale", there's a good few images out there that showcase how staggeringly consistent the scale of everything is, down to doors on buildings and cars being human-sized. The units aren't artificially oversized and don't feel as such, they're really just THAT huge.
And one simply can't overlook the degree of automation the game offers, the constant production economy and its scale, and the distinct focus on macro, which all make it feel like you're actually waging a war of attrition with frontlines and production lines, much unlike most other RTS games where you need to constantly babysit a small handful of units on a tiny map.
This is one thing I dislike about Starcraft 2 compared to the original, there is no momentum, the movement feels artificial and fake.
@@MarlinHunter673 Yyup, scale is a massive factor in the TA/SupCom style games for me. Not just for length & complexity of game, but as a type of immersion.
Once I went back from Red Alert 2 to Total Annihilation I was blown away by stuff like the limited range radar. With ID-ing activity outside your FOV but not revealing the unit type without visual conformation instead of the competitively cheap just enable the minimap mechanic of C&C games.
Then Supreme Commander gave another umpf to the scale with artillery and nukes packing a proper punch without being imbalancedly OP.
And when I saw Beyond All Reason terrain features interfering with radar coverage... that was another wow moment.
A point, realism is the means, not the goal. The goal is immersion.
And in strategy games we have the issue that the larger the scale, the more abstract it becomes, and the the tougher it becomes to get a good grasp on it.
Even in total war games, the early battles with a few hundred soldiers where you watch the individual animations are more engaging than the 2 000 vs 3 500 man battles.
It is the thing that made Company of Heroes iconic, with cover mechanics, individual soldiers picking up heavy weapons etc.
Watching a handful soldiers burn alive due to flamethrowers in Tiberian Dawn or Tempest Rising is harrowing and memorable.
Id say immersion is whats important and some games can achieve that by being realistic, meanwhile others are too unrealistic which breaks the immersion.
Yeah. Some people use argument "game can be either fun or realistic", but I very much don't agree. Realism can be key for immersion and can in fact improve having fun - if you know it somehow relates to what could happen in real life. But there are some things that are just annoying/repetetive, but realistic, so everything needs deep consideration.
I think it's one of those topics where there isn't straight answer either way, it's all very situational and subjective. These are my favourite things to talk about, and I find the actual discussion and consideration of points to be far more interesting than the answer.
You know, sometimes the realism is fun, but sometimes it can be a pain in the ass, however I say the absolute peak is when the game has an amazing soundscape where you do not mind turning off the music.
I´m on the opposite side. Realism doesn´t matter for me. Gameplay and spectical is more importend.
Psychiatrist: "Protoss Laser Raynor doesn't exist."
Kaluven:
The 5-Year old drawn tank definitely looked like the Maus.
It is incredibly unfortunate that they are not for hire.
I found it on a really badly written article about how the "Darkness" inside children makes them want to draw tanks. The quote that accompanied that picture was: Another child from Cizre drew a tank. The weapon on top of the tank is shooting a bird flying in front of it. The child, with this picture, is saying “You are shooting my freedom.”
Regarding the scale of the story, in the original Command & Conquer you are implied to not be the the only commander. And in the final two battles the other frontlines are handled by your collegues.
I again highly suggest the Combat Mission Series for realistic feel. Actual historic tables of organisation highly detailed damage models and effects of each fired round. And maps at a scale, that can fit multiple comapies even up to Battalion size.
I simply think of it as whats my game supposed to represent? Does realism add to the experience like make it better? If so yeah sure
It really is the question of do we need this? Or how much we need of this? In the end gameplay comes first and foremost if anything hurts gameplay it must be sacrificed.
Absolutely yeah
@@SuddenStrike_HQ glad we agree brother.
After watching: This was put together very well and I'm glad I watched it. Thanks mate
thanks!
Commenting before I've watched. I don't think it can really be a binary answer. It's so context dependent. I think the main thing is at least some sense of internal consistency. If I don't think you're even following your own rules it's gonna be hard for me to suspend disbelief when you don't follow reality or my preferred game conventions
Looks like you pretty much nailed it before even watching. A good summary!
12:28 Indeed I've done that with the Tom Clancy games. Back then characters and groups felt grounded and combined a very healthy blend of the tried and true gear with cutting edge equipment.
Nowadays it's every weapon is something that's been around for years while the characters look like they came straight out of an airsoft match.
I like realism in something like foxhole, its like a strategy game but you are only one person, you have to coordinate with real people and build stuff together to achieve your own objectives (like gathering Materials, defending, killing a base with arty or other stuff) or ingame objectives which is capture of victory points, working to achieve either will be directly affecting the status of the war as artying the base with your friends opens up a path for the other friendlies to capture a town hall which in return is used by a Clan to capture a VP or the whole region, i recommend you to check it out if you haven't already.
in my experience it’s good to learn about the real version of whatever you’re making- even if it’s just a bit of surface-level digging. the difference between the two is the Battle for Helm’s Deep and whatever the heck was happening in Game of Throne’s undead siege.
I've recently been playing a lot of Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front, which is less of a strategy game and more of a military command and control simulation. The realism doesn't come at the cost of gameplay because the campaigns don't represent months of fighting, they only represent a couple critical days or weeks. This skips on the waiting and mundane parts of war that wouldn't be appealing in a game made for entertainment, and the overall Battalion(Largest Extent of Scale) -> Battle Group(Strategic Maneuver Units) -> Platoons(Tactical Real-Time Units) -> Squads(Smallest Extent of Scale) works well to allow for a variety of units and reinforcement possibilities without compromising realism/believability. Individual turns represent hours so minor fortifications can be constructed and longer distances travelled all while maintaining an accurate and gameplay-supporting scale. I feel Graviteam maintains an air of respect for the heavy subject of war while still allowing for entertainment value, the realism adding to the weight of an after battle casualties screen; Every cinematic shot of a tank sent up in flames is four or five people dead, every impressive artillery or mortar barrage thins the numbers of a frightened and retreating platoon. This brings me to reflect on the modern era of war on social media, videos coming out of Ukraine of helicopters shot down, grenades dropped from the sky, tank turrets being launched into the air. With Mius-Front(developed by Ukrainian studio Graviteam) depicting the same satellite-accurate steppes and hills being fought over today in Ukraine despite an 80 year difference, the scenes found in our entertainment and games can become all too real. It feels like only some minor adjustments and a change of time period is all that separates this fun combined arms WWII sim from something akin to a training tool. Ultimately the game is not at fault for any of this and the parallels to the actual conflict are a testament to the realism of the game, the game however doesn't handle the presence of civilians of the atrocities against POWs and other hard to swallow subjects. The fact that we as wargamers find parts of conflict enjoyable does not make us wrong or bloodthirsty, it's just interesting that we are able to take very realistic simulations of conflict and separate them from the terrible realities and connect with the strategic and tactical realities while also solemnly accepting the truth of real war.
Imo realism is very important some times other not so much
For example games like cmo combat mission or armoured brigade i play beacause i want that extreme level of realism i want to face the real problems faced by real world military commander and be force to use real doctrine and stradgey agaisnt a opponet. Other games i want a high degree of realism but it dosent have to be 100% for balance resons wargame rd or warno are good examples (although when im playing with friends we usally use realism mods) and then there games like battlefield 1 where i just dont care beacuse its fun it feels authentic enough to be fun idc if it all that realisitc or company of heros i more care if its balanced rather then realistic
Have you ever tried the game “Iron Harvest”? It’s a dieselpunk RTS based upon the artworks of Jakub Różalski.
I have! I almost really liked it, but could never fully get there. The aesthetics were awesome and it had a real Company of Heroes vibe, but I found the storytelling a bit tacky in the single player. I almost really liked the game engine, but felt everything was a little sluggish and underwhelming. This was a long time ago, when it was released, I'm told it's a lot better now.
@@kaluventhebritish will you ever give it a review or talk about how certain concepts like scale, music, etc are utilized in RTS games?
@@akumaking1 I did a video about scale a few weeks back, I'm thinking of covering stuff like Story and Music too but I'm not sure I have enough interesting stuff to say yet that would fill a video. Perhaps it's time I tried Iron Harvest again, it's been a long while since I played it.
@@kaluventhebritish for music, the idea is that each faction needs to have a certain theme/motif. Music should also help tell a story with complementary themes, show foreshadowing, etc.
For example in StarCraft, Terrans mix between bluegrass and military music, Zerg have aggressive rock, and Protoss are orchestral.
For Iron Harvest, the developers actually have a dedicated video explaining how they composed the music.
One of the more realistic strategy games I've ever played has definetly been Graviteam: Mius Front.
Battles are heavily researched by the dev, he releases documents detailing his research and then adds the battles to his games.
Although the graphics leave a lot to be desired and controls can be obtuse at times, it still is quite the solid simulation game.
That sounds really interesting, I'll have to check it out, thanks!
Considering the realism in games like War Thunder and imagine that, but with hundreds of units.
I have a feeling it would be quite well received by most R.T.S. players.
No longer pinging down a health-bar, but having to deal with realistic damages.
yeah its called men of war/gates of hell and the series has a very rocky reputation
A load of realism in RTS is a must not only for immersion but also for balance
In rather shitty and unbalanced RTS games, why even bother constructing a base ? defense ? logistics ? upgrade ? lol get this crap outta here, rush tanks baby ! 30 second rounds let's go
that for me is really soul crushing, realism would mitigate this "rushing" phenomena and make the players take it slower and ... actually play the game !
This is why I'm glad we have a big variety of strategy games. People look for different things in a game, and it's good that there isn't a one-size fits all approach. I also find my own preferences swing back and forward over time - sometimes I like the fast-paced unrealistic games, other times I enjoy the methodical grind of something with a grander scale.
Ra2 is the most realistic rts game ever made
I think total war games do well when it comes to capturing scale
I agree, I think the Napoleon one was the first one I played. Felt really good to have those big ranks and squares of infantry after growing up reading and watching Sharpe.
Did you watch those old documentaries where they used Rome: Total War to show historical battles?
And yes, the scale becomes understandable, which is impressive work.
One crucial aspect I think you missed or did not expand on properly from the loose, "believability" part is the levels of abstraction.
I can easily imagine humans and two alien factions duking it out in the Koprulu sector. I can accept planetary combat as something important, even though space combat should be the primary form at that point. What I can't accept is a new human coming out of a tiny building every 10 seconds. Tanks that can't shoot while on the move.
I can accept it as gameplay, but it hurts the "realism" aspect. It's a layer of abstraction.
SupCom, as you well know, has only ONE biological entity on the battlefield per player, the Commander in the ACU itself (disregarding teleported in SACUs now). Everything else is fabricated with the nanolathes. Units more or less move as they move. Shoot as they should. The holotank we see the battle through contains very little abstraction, and those can be viewed as augmented reality because high tech.
That's the kind of realism I'm looking for, the less abstraction layers the better.
As for your processing power. Starcraft 2, a relatively simple game with relatively few units and relatively primitive 3D models, runs like dogshit on my computer. Sure, it's an old computer, but still, what I see on screen does not warrant the slideshow I get. Starcraft 1 had the 12 units limitation because MUH RESOURCES, even though TA came out the same year, and had none of those limitations, and had 3D terrain and proper physics to boot.
So in short, some devs are just really bad at programming, and the wing of Blizzard that did Starcraft is shit. Diablo 3 runs like cream, even though my machine was $500 (INCLUDING the monitor) 11 years ago.
Aoe 4 is a good example of what NOT to do
It tries hard to deliver that sense of history but the game design is already born outdated for engagement. No wonder the player count is low as it is, closer to the controversial AoE3 than AoE2
Depends on what your selling.
Are you selling realism or fantasy immersion or both?
Ex:
C and C Red alert 1 opted for fantasy realism
While Cand C Red Alert 2 and 3
Opted for Fantasy.
While C and C Generals tried realism.
Total war franchise
Most total war franchise went for realism
But Warhammer was fantasy realism.
Three kingdoms was both realism with spices of fantasy.
Counter strike is realism with a pintch of fantasy
Call of duty is selling realism
World of tanks realism
Fornite is selling Fantasy
If you botch realism while selling realism like Battlefield 2042
It will flop.
If your selling Fantasy with too much fantasy causing imbalance or too realism it becomes boring to those seeking fantasy will also Flop .
It's like buying food you want dessert you expecting a dessert not a meal. You buy a meal your expecting a meal not a snack or dessert.
Oh so proto lazer raynor is unrealistic but proto lazer Kerrigan is fine eh? Sexism i say! 😂
A superb video sir.
@@ivanstrydom8417 thanks!
Realism is a bit like a flavor of games,people are gonna have diffrent preferences,i for one hate seeing a human(no superpowers) get hit and thrown back 90 feet just to get up with 10% less hot points its like noooo you just got hit with he force of at LEAST a hand grenade,yiy are DEAD
but i LOOOOVE realism in games i love having to eat and drink in games so i dont die but i realize thats not for everyone.
I think it's about the objectives. I wouldn't like having to eat and drink often in an RPG because I'm there for the story and the experience, but for a survival game like Ark or Rust I'm totally with you. Considering the whole point of those games is to survive, then eating/drinking seems a pretty important part of that situation.
Realism isnt important, immersion is
I agree that immersion is more important. But at least for me, realism is the path to immersion. My brain needs logic and plausibility to function, and regularly breaks whenever something is explained away with 'it's magic'.
That argument about most games having some realism base-line in a sense that they at least feature gravity, I find funny. Because many space games do precisely not simulate gravity at all. It is this lack in realism that kills most space games for me.
In my experience a huge amount of games and film have always treated space as either "Air" or "Water". It's all fighter jets or submarines up there. I blame Starwars :)
@@kaluventhebritish Exactly!
The one that gets me the most with space games is inertia. In a frictionless environment, my ship shouldn't have a 'top speed', it should only have acceleration- which of course it's very difficult to have a fun game where if you've been accelerating for 2 minutes to get somewhere, to then require that you turn around and start slowing down for 2 minutes so you don't slam into that station at mach 20.
Avorion actually handles this really well. All basic ships have top speeds, like you'd expect in most space games. But there's a small upgrade module you can put on your ship called an 'inertial dampener override' that makes it so that you can speed up infinitely. It's nearly impossible to play using that module (but it is very fun to play around with!) but simply the fact that it exists drops a lot of implicit lore into the game's universe and fleshes it out with adequate answers to questions that players may have.
@@adamperdue3178 Yes, avorion is awesome! Despite its lack in realism I must add. :)
Sometimes when it comes to an RTS, sometimes if realism is being thrown out for hte most part, atleast add onto it like I wished for Age of empire 2, since there are native Americans, I wish with a few upgrades, they get crossbows.
Bro sounds like one of those AI narrators from the 2010's
Makes me wonder if gamers even know what they want
What is the game around 16:00 with so many units in there?
That's "Beyond All Reason". I've got an intro vid on my channel somewhere for it, or give it a download - it's free.
Could save 20 minutes by merely pointing out that the 'realism' focused RTS games are all super niche and have largely dead multiplayer, lol. Why play Gates of Hell and have your multiplayer match ended in an instant by some cheap shotting call in unit that can insta-wipe squads and tanks in one shot from across the map because of 'realism' when I can just play a game that doesn't suck and actually cares about being enjoyable to play for people other than a handful of europeans who build model tanks for their office?
well i can kind of understand why certain asepcts of ww2 games you might have to tread very carefully about how realistic you make certain things for fairly obvious reasons.
also iam not quite sure you want to make a ww1 game too realistic. unless you a total sadist.
Tell that gaijin and trud thunder go to the grave.
Realism is an inversion of priorities in GAME design. Games are for fun. Simulation is for realism. To the extent that a game optimizes for realism, it is to that same degree no longer optimizing for fun. Those "games" that you mentioned which emphasize realism are much more correctly categorized as simulation. I'm not interested in RTS sims. I'd much rather an RTS GAME, and so I expect when someone makes a GAME that the GAMEPLAY is first, and not the theme, subject matter, story, tone, but the GAMEPLAY because I want to PLAY a GAME when I PLAY GAMES.
On the other hand, if a FUN GAME happens to appear realistic in terms of its aesthetics and tone, but the gameplay is good, who cares? It could look like a cartoon world and be every bit as good.
Just look to Diabotical vs Quake.
A lot of people find simulation games fun.
that’s a wild take. I read an FBI dude’s guide on CQB for Doorkickers and it’s a skill that can translate to fpses like Halo. if anything, that connection to reality makes it _more_ fun when you learn transferrable skills.
@@Диего_де_ла_Вега The problem is not in whether its fun. The problem is It isn't a GAME anymore.
I have fun in Assetto Corsa Competizione, a hardcore racing SIMULATOR. I also have fun in GRAN TURISMO.
But no one, not one person, not a fan of ACC or a fan of GT would EVER call ACC a "VIDEO GAME". Because it flat isn't.
They DELIBERATELY avoid adding game systems to ACC, like track medals or money, or unlocking things... because it IS NOT A GAME
SO STOP CALLING SIMULATORS GAMES because that is a false categorization
They have utterly different reasons for existing, and thus have utterly different user bases, and thus have no reason to be considered in the same breath when drawing comparisons of whether a SIM makes for a GOOD GAME, because no, a simulator of anything besides a game does not make for a good game because it is by definition NOT A GAME
@@nanthilrodriguez Your distinction between games and sims is completely arbitrary. Where do you draw the line? If people get hurt or die when they're shot? If physics are modeled? Is Total War a sim or a game? What about Rimworld? Arma? What about Warthunder or Battlefield? Your argument about only caring about gameplay because they're called games is about as nonsensical as saying that people should only care about the cinematography when watching a movie, and that everything else takes a backseat.
People are going to continue to call simulations 'games', because they are games. Maybe you don't enjoy them, and that's fine. Doesn't make them not games.
@@nanthilrodriguez "a simulator of anything besides a game does not make for a good game because it is by definition NOT A GAME"
Racing is a game and ACC simulates racing, so then it's a game isn't it? I do agree that there are simulations that aren't games, but your example isn't one of them.
It's called "cognitive dissonance" not "cognitive dissidents".
turns out narration is hard :)
Cognitive dissidence 😅
Suspension of disbelief
I don't know where this idea comes from that "immersion" and "escapism" is a goal for game design? I have never once played a game for immersion or escapism. I play games for fun. I play games for the game? Like that's it. Did anyone get immersed by SPYRO the dragon? Mario? Quake? Back in Quake days, games were so abstract because of their models and textures being so simple that no, nobody was getting immersed in Quake. People got immersed in Everquest, Ultima online, and that was considered fringe and wierd even amongst the most hardcore gamers. No one gets immersed in street fighter, or Banjo Kazooie... I blame all the morons who do play games for STORY (read a book) or IMMERSION (get a therapist you have an unhealthy relationship with your life and circusmstances) for ruining all the FUN we used to have playing games, because gaming companies realize that all the fun havers left because all the story and immersion and escapism wanters chased us out of our space a long time ago...
Well, that's your opinion mate. Thankfully, there's room in the gaming world for plenty more.
Of course I got immersed by Spyro the Dragon. The controls, the world, the music, the gameplay, everything was so good that nothing distracted me from just enjoying the game.
the most sane comment in this section. games are supposed to be, well, games, that is to be challenging and have a win/lose conditions. i'm not gonna write a wall of text about the modern gamedev, everyone heard all of this a thousand times, but the modern titles can be barely called "games" anymore.
What would you conider games then, all of these have win/lose conditions. RTS games can be incredibly challenging I fail to see where they arent games?@sanyaskillpro
@@braxtongutschke6346 an example: starcraft 2
as an esports, it's a real game. i don't play it but i sometimes watch the pros matches.
as a single player game, it's worthless. it's literally a carbon copy of a game that was like 12 years old when they released it, double that now, and there's a reason rts genre was dead for a while because every other rts was trying to be a starcraft/warcraft clone. the things that make it a great esports to watch are the same things that make it bad as a "game". low unit variety(and most units being copies of sc1 units), low unit cap in general (due to technical limitations of starcraft 1 when most people had office pcs with like 128 mb ram but now it's a "feature"). basically it's an example of how instead of coming up with something new, they just printed the same game but you're supposed to consoom product for the "story"?
What makes a game good/Immersive?
A good game should captivate you, encapsulate your mind and make you forget everything that transpires in the real world around you. It should make you want to see more, do more and continue on the ingame path. In a great game, the only time you should want to stop, are the times that you have just experienced something so intense, so surreal , so gripping , that you are forced to stop in order to take the time to drink in and contemplate that which you have just survived through/ experienced.
I prefer having set objectives, a purpose to what you are doing.
I loathe surviving, in order to scavenge and kill, to scavenge in order...just to continue surviving until the point where you look at the game and think ...meh I'm done ... Heralding the meaningless end to a meaningless experience.
Immersion is how much you care about what is happening.
An immersive game is one that makes you feel like you belong in that world. It doesn't have to be realistic, but it needs it's own boundaries and rules that makes you such a world would exist under fictional circumstances.
One of the best ways I enjoy escaping and just relaxing, is to immerse my mind in a different world, especially a world rooted in an interesting time period in our world's history such as an historical shooter or an RTS like Age of Empires.
Or a well crafted, creative, imagination rich fantasy world, such as Middle Earth.
Factions in games:
Factions in any game are of utmost importance.
Two games that are made brilliant due to their superb factions are: Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas.
Skyrim:
The factions in the game are astounding, imaginative, based on historical factions, deep, complex and striking. The Rebel Scum Stormcloaks (From before the idiotic Viking hype train of the past 4 years) are superb, the scruffy, ill educated bandits, the obscure,shunned yet intelligent collage of Winterhold, the wild tribal Forsworn in the iron hills around Markarth, the Imperial legion with uniformity, discipline and military structure, the Orc strongholds on the fringes, the Kajitti traders/thieves just trying to make a living in a province where they are so shunned by the Nords, the Altmer and their bigotry and the guards of each hold, so in depth, believable, grounded and interesting in their mundane everyday objectives, all such superb factions that pull you in, keeps you engaged and are so distinct and memorable, I love it.
FONV
I loathe being overpowered , I enjoy being at a disadvantage and having to use my brain and ingenuity to improvise, adapt and overcome obstacles ..thus a faction/myself using power armour is so boring to me.
Where to be a ‘’nobody’’ , just an average soldier in the NCR armed with only an rusty M16 that jams,a pistol, limited ammo, a knife and 2 grenades ,having to survive the Mohave ...was sensational!
Only gaining more power as I climb the ranks in the NCR to become a Sniper with a Hunting rifle and the ultimate ..to gain the .50 cal sniper rifle... that is the peak of the power that I want.
Then getting to battle seemingly clear slaver enemies such as ''Caesar's Legion'', ''the Fiends'' and ''the Khans'', only to discover more nuanced sides to them truly elevates NV to lofty hights.
My favourite, most immersive games of all time
Real world settings:
Assassins Creed 1 & 2 & Brotherhood
Far cry 1 & 2
Age of Empires DE 1 & 2 & 3
Call of Duty 1 & 2 and MW 1 + 2 + World at War.
ua-cam.com/video/TVXamWBanrM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7zxgN9l2CtI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/OYgZQOSHu7k/v-deo.html
Brothers in Arms.
Battlefield 1 + Battlefield Vietnam + BF 3 + BF 4
Rising Storm 2 Vietnam
Il 2- Combat Flight Sim series
Fantasy world settings such as
Thief : The Dark Project, the Metal Age & Deadly Shadows
Skyrim
Witcher 2 + 3
Fallout NV
Metro series
Amnesia
Star Wars Galactic BattleGrounds.
CP 2077
A good story,narrative, setting,good factions , engaging/believable characters, feeling, the music, the sound design, environmental stroy telling and proper objectives are paramount in a game.
Even a non narrative game such as Rising Storm Vietnam/BF1 MP is brilliant , because even though you can do what ever you want, you still have the overarching objective (To win the battle/war) and more immediate objectives, such as ‘’attack’’ or ‘’defend’’ a certain critical area.
Me having to fight tenaciously and having to fight intelligently, accurately to conserve ammunition whilst your squad is pinned down and you are desperately combating numerous enemies , protecting your CO as he calls in airstrikes on your radio … it all supplies clear purpose and in turn immerses your mind in this captivating world.
To me one can draw parallels between real life and gaming.
A lot of times ,the way people act in games is actually exactly how they would act in reality if given the freedom to do so.
Thus I for one , waking up each day or booting up a game, don’t want to survive just for the sake of surviving, I need an objective, I need a deep and exciting story, I need a well crafted, engaging world, I need a purpose.
But the truth is, everyone knows that real IMMERSION = Big tiddy statue mods.
ua-cam.com/video/vAJgPzqxReY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7zxgN9l2CtI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/xwzOfP0hwpc/v-deo.html
Proto-Raynor is not realistic for that universe, but Kerrigan the almighty giant space queen is okay? Yeah, okay buddy. Poor example.