Jandau said:
...you didn't really read my post, did you?
Of course there's such a thing as too realistic, I said that already. Getting your weapon stuck on corners would likely fall into such a category. Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation of these "awesome" gameplay mechanics that just can't be done realistically or at least a reason why realistic gameplay mechanics can't be fun or challenging.
And again with extreme generalizations. "Either it's a simulation or it's fun"? Really? There are only those two options in your limited imagination? And you pigeonhole everyone/everything into those two categories?
Can't some games have more realistic mechanics and cater to people who consider such things FUN? And then have some games with less realism for those who like that? And in the end, it's all just games and all game mechanics are precisely that - GAME mechanics. They are nothing but approximations of how the world works. Wether they try to mirror the existing world or make their own is largely irrelevant and simply a matter of taste.
You know, personal taste, that thing you seemed to have overlooked...
As a matter of fact, I did read your post and responded accordingly.
Realism has been used in many games. Prince of Persia was imagined as a "realistic" platformer and earned a mighty place in the annals of gaming history but one can hardly call anything about the game realistic; rather it is simply less unrealistic than it's peers. This is precisely what most games toy with when they speak of realism - an arbitrary adherence to reality, and that is precisely what I expect to see.
Reality has no great virtue to speak of. If you point to most any game on the shelves you'll find countless instances where gameplay breaches known physical law. The reason such violations are made is quite simple - since games are tools of entertainment designers will ignore the petty restrictions of reality if they believe they gain a measure of enjoyment in the exchange. This is why your average shooter would demonstrate a remarkable capacity to absorb gunfire without hindering the, in all other ways, superhuman performance of the player character.
There are of course other games where enjoyment is built upon the premise of simulated reality. Flight Simulators, driving games and at least one survival game indicate there is a place for dogged adherence to the laws of the universe. In these games, violations of reality, if noticed by the player, are interpreted as a failing in the design.
Thus the reason for my closing statement. If your aim is simulation, then you must conceed to the restrictions of reality. In any other situation, reality simply provides a known place from which to build the rules of the world. If reality dictates a certain action that diminishes the objective of the game, then sticking to that rule set is foolish.
Of course, were I to be as snarky as you I would gladly point out that even simulations conceed to technical limitations on a regular basis, and in many cases outright ignore the laws of the universe. In the most overt cases you'll find that running a GSX-R 1000 into a wall at 200 miles an hour in Tourist Trophy, a game that attemps to simulate motorcycle racing, does not result in the end of a career or even an end of the race.
