I've been trying to convince people of that for years.

Ironically, the more "real" a game gets, the more people point out things about it that aren't real.

The more real a game gets, the more boring it gets, yes, that's true! But I seriously would question it if someone shot a rocket out of his rectum with lasers, at the same time while carrying a sword five times his size :l

Just asking for clarification here, are you saying combat is boring? Or just that if video games got IRL battle spot on then that would be lame?

I'm still searching for the part where anybody asked for 100% realism. None of us are ignorant enough to expect that in a video game. If that was the case, we wouldn't play video games at all. I'm pretty sure not everyone thinks realism is boring.....many people appreciate it. Smh

My point was, you can't use realism as a n excuse to change or add something in one part of the game, while ignoring it in others, and still expect your argument to be valid.

I could have sworn that somewhere above I said that my comment regarding realism was a sarcastic one. I don't know what argument you think I'm making. Do you actually think developers base whatever game they are working on just ONE thing? I'm pretty sure MOST developers emphasize realism or balance in some parts of a game and not others.

And they are allowed to - it's there game and they design it the way they want to. Designing a game and complaining about its features are 2 separate things.

The compromise between balance and realism, exists because 1) real world parameters and conditions makes for a not-so-fun video game experience, and 2) when there is a conflict between the 2, values are changed to compensate, since unless the game is purposely designed to be as realistic as possible, balance is always more important.

Take the weapons for example - if they truly behaved like their real world counterparts, every weapon would not be a viable choice. There would be really good weapons and really crappy weapons - things need to be changed for balance and to make using the weapons more fun.
Death animations falls in here to. Bodies need to fall and land a certain way, since players can interact with downed players - They all need the same "canvas" to work with.

The reasoning (realism) for why your argument for changing death animations is pointless, is because of the hypocrisy that is built into it. By saying one element should be more real, while ignoring all the other non-realistic elements in the game. If realism is your deciding factor, how can you have "selective realism?"


I don't think you (and others) really care for the death animations to be more realistic, because if you did then you just want bodies to fall over. Most bullets pass right through bodies. Bodies do not fly around, do flips and spins in the air when they are shot - they just drop dead. I think "more visually appealing" is what you want, not "realism."

Neither argument makes total sense. Saying that realism is important and then making up something that would never be put into a game has more holes in it than a wiffle ball. On the same token saying that realism isnt a focus is also not true.

Games need to make sense. Whether that comes from things just acting the way you expect them to (A'la FPS games) or if a whole mythos has to be explained to you (as in many RPG games) once a game makes sense to the player, it becomes immersive. In Sci-Fi games, they often combine the two, making things work conventionally, but explaining any new technology they add (usually explained with unobtainium).

A realistic game is one where nothing has to be explained to the player, everything just makes sense. Brink is mostly realistic. On the other hand, it is not a simulator, which is a game or program designed to perfectly emulate real life. If you want to play a combat simulator, you would be better off with a game like Americas Army that was made to train soldiers.

And while realism IS a goal for Brink, simulation is not.
Is crawling away realistic? yes.
Is it needed to create realism? Not according to many here. Most people don't think twice about an almost dead guy not moving.
Would it create issues for gameplay? I believe so.

So no crawling then. Why can't we just all get along? :banghead:


I'd like to see someone falling on their stomach, and then flipping over. Imagine three people killed by a grenade at the same time, all in the same pose doing the same animation. It would seriously break immersion. So I say a few new animations to keep up variety, but make them distinctive and not too confusing.

how about if lets say, a grenades blast downs you, you will be thrown around and mabey fall on your face but then you get into a position that makes it easy to see that your down and your not still head first with you leg in the floor and your arms twitching uncontrollably, i belive killzone 2 had somthing like this and you would get up and roll to your back.

I've created a monster. This isn't about realism vs balance or rag doll physics.

What I was talking about is that the current downed animation is a guy on his back reaching up and going back down, not when he gets downed, when he is already lying on the floor. I agree that the downed animation should be obvious for medics but that doesnt mean they cant have variation. I'm thinking keep the reaching animation, just vary the length of how long he reaches before he goes back down. and then add some other obvious but different animations like half sitting up and coughing or trying to support himself with one arm then falling. Vary the time and you dont have every downed guy look like some kind of MJ dance routine. Theres plenty of movement so no one is going to mistake you for being dead. And I'm sure the sitting and shooting animation is different from the rest.

Not suggesting anything game changing just some animations.

Ok before someone here busts a nut may I please explain what I meant by "crawl away"

I didn't literally mean crawl away I just meant something like your on your chest, downed gun pointed (or not depending on if you have that ability, however that might create too many variables), groaning in agony. I did not mean, crawling away. Just thought I'd clarify.

Are you kidding me? Getting blasted by a greanade launcher and not dying DOESN'T make sense.....and it will need to be explained to some players. Not everything in realistic games makes sense.....you're absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact, realistic games are the ones that get questioned the most because of the level of preciness people expect out of them. Most people don't think twice about an almost dead guy not moving? It happens in COD Zombies, Army of Two, and Gears of War.....so I think many people expect it because it has been seen/done before. Your argumentt makes less sense than mine and Captain's. I made one sarcastic comment about SD aiming for balance instead of realism and some of you turn your worlds upside down over it. :facepalm:

Yeah but that doesn't make them any less hilarious.
I'd quite like some, but I guess not have bodies fly as far so they dont get stuck in stuff.