This is going to be a bit short, that's a lie, it's long.

I just want to know what's the main point of adding realism into a video game, especially in a game like Fallout 3 where you can carry thousands of rounds of ammo for your guns, without it weighing you down anything.

For the life of me, while I respect people who makes mods, I just don't see the point.

I'm not saying it's a waste of time. It's not.

It just to me, and my possibly irradiated brain, it doesn't seem logical.
If I'm violating some rule, please let me know. If my paragraphs drive you crazy, I apologize.

I guess it does boil down into fun, right? If someone wants to make a realism based mod, and it's fun for them. Why not? Right?
Now that I agree with. If you enjoy doing it, make it.

However, maybe I'm missing the entire point of making the mods in the first place, but, why put realism in a game? There are over 9000!(Not really) games out there that have realism already in them. Sam Fisher games are one, Tom Clancy games. Etc.

So, why add the "alien" concept of realism to a game like Fallout 3?

Thank you all for being patient with my insanity.

Well, some of the realism mods make the bullets add weight, so that is a moot point.

Its a way to make the game more challenging.

"It's a gaem!!" arguments are wearing thin, really. I like "realistic" games, and it seems to me an rpg is the best place to have "realism", rather than some half-baked FPS.

Regardless, the whole idea of mods is being able to change a game to suit your tastes. We have entirely different tastes, it seems - I won't force realism down your throat if you don't rip it out of mine

You said it yourself, didn't you? Not sure what kind of answer you are expecting other that some people like it, me included. The first things that come to my mind why I like it are:
- Immersion & Atmosphere & Gameplay expierience
- Challenge, in the sense of difficulty, forced pauses and generally slower game progress so you can't rush through everything.
- (Edit) And I forgot: Finding/adding plausible uses for stuff that's already in the game but has no purpose yet

I could just equally ask you: Why do weapons require ammo at all? Why player health? Why crippling of body parts? If you don't care for realism, would you mind if these elements were removed?

For me (as FWE's developer) I like to add "realism" to serve two purpose. One is to make the game more "immersive" . . . which is to say believable, logical, captivating, etc. Carrying's 1000's of rounds of 10 different types of ammo, which would weigh 100's and 100's of pounds in real life breaks the immersion for me. It isn't logical or believable.

Secondly, "realism" inducing changes are often geared towards improving the challenge of the game and adding depth and/or new gameplay dimensions. Let's continue with the ammo example. With ammo having weight, suddenly I have to make CHOICES (heaven forbid) about what weapons I'm going to carry, how much ammo I need, the trade-off between more ammo or more of other equipment. That's introducing a new gameplay element and something to think about. It also makes the game more challenging, since you actually stand a chance to run out of ammo, which adds a futher dimension to gameplay.

I think most changes that fall under "realism" (ammo weight, primary needs, more believable damage, etc...) all works to improve immersion + challenge. But, not everyone wants to be challenged to the same degree or wants to "think" more. Getting people to "think" more is really difficult in general, which is why the game industy caters to the lowest common denominator and continues to dumb down games more and more.

Thank god for modding. I would've stopped playing games about a decade ago =)


EDIT: Not to bash console's at all, but one thing I dislike about the gradual merging of console + PC game development, is that the console interface (i.e. controler, no keyboard) absolutely limits the potential complexity and interactivity of a game. That isn't to say console's are doing it wrong, they are just different and cater to a different style of gamer.

One reason (mine) is that FO3 is a role-playing game, not an FPS. Yes, OK, it's an "action" RPG, but it's still an RPG. If I'm playing an FPS (something I rarely do, but that's another tale), you betcha I want ammo up the wazoo, health packs a-poppin' and so forth (mostly because I'm not very good at FPS games).

But one of the underlying concepts of RPG games is that you're supposed to "live" the character, and that's kinda hard when you only eat to regain health after being shot, and indeed when being shot, and bludgeoned, and sliced has no lasting effect 1) on your ability to complete the battle and 2) that can't be solved by a swig of cola and some Cheesy Poofs (or whatever they're called), or failing that, with one or more of the insane number of stimpacks that can probably be found two steps from your (not really) bleeding and broken body. Yeah, because 200 years on, there's still mad numbers of stimpacks all over the place-- nobody's used them almost up or nothing, and even if they had, apparently the aliens or somebody are doing airdrops every month or so, so that we don't run out and all die off. Maybe that's it-- if we all died, then there'd really be nothing on Alien TV.

But whatever. I'm always on the lookout for "realism" mods, because they put a little of the RP back in the RPG and make the "action" a bit more worthwhile to me. After all, if I wanted to just go shoot stuff for no particular reason, I'd just play Crysis or whatever. In FO3, if my "role" is supposed to be a sheltered person suddenly expelled into a harsh and merciless world where it's hard to survive even for the experienced, then I'd like to feel that, and realism mods help to a great extent.

If I have to eat, but it's hard to find food, or I get shot or sick, but it's hard to find medicine (or survive to get to a doctor, preferably with some loot to sell so I can pay him to treat me), then I have a better chance to "fill the shoes" of my character, which is kinda the point of a role-playing game. Which this is supposed to be, kinda sorta, ultimately.

Hope this helps you understand one perspective on the issue, anyway.

The main reason: Most people don't understand game design.

Most games these days are too easy for actual gamers, to broaden their appeal, stop people getting frustrated with them and so on, understandable but annoying. So people decide they want mods to make the game more challenging, to add more choice and risk, and to expand on underused mechanics. Early game you're hurting for ammo, you keep having to make choices about drinking to heal and upping your rad count or just risking it, choices and challenges that get lost at higher levels but whilst they're around provide significant challenge and interest.

People want that back. They can't think of a way to describe it, so they call it 'realism', because superficially gameplay being more challenging and more unforgiving, more fast paced, with more resource management is more like real life in a very abstract sense. And so, we get 'realism' mods that have very little to do with realism but use the name as a descriptor for 'challenging, fast paced & intelligent gameplay'. The best example I can think of was a Morrowind mod that touted adding 'realistic' mana regen, compared to another mana regen mod- it sped up combat but didn't make it too easy or forgiving, and had precisely jack all to do with real life.

Then people start confusing 'realism as challenge' with 'realism as simulationism' and start asking for or making worthless busywork mods- for example, a couple of weeks ago someone asked for a mod where you had to shave periodically or take interaction penalties. It certainly adds realism, but doesn't actually add any challenge or gameplay beyond tapping the 'Shave beard' button before you talked to anyone, they were simply used to the idea that 'realism = challenge = good'.

Great points, I totally agree.

All of these changes I feel also create a far more memorable experience. I remember playing the Pitt with FWE for the first time. I wasn't totally prepared for the quest, and ended up getting captured when I was already hungry and I had a broken arm and a concussion. I had to go through the entire Pitt DLC with a broken arm + head because I couldn't find a medical brace and surgical supplies. Now, some might get pissed off and frustrated. But for me it created a totally novel experience. Fighting troggs and not being able to aim until they were 5 feet away, and then have the concussion black out effect kick . . . OMFG!!! It was wonderful and refreshing and challenging, and totally would never have happened without a "realism" mod.

I wish Beth would read this Great discussion.

DOUBLE POST
...
Might as well make use of it to rant more
...

I still feel that, despite Oblivion's many improvements, it was actually a worse game design than morrowind. A lot of that was in part due (I feel) to it being developed simultaneously for a console market and/or appealing to as wide of an audience as possible (as TTT describes). What are some examples:

1) introduction of fast travel - which meant that a lot of people "skipped" the journey of getting from point A to point B. The "journey" is what makes an RPG's memorable in my opinion.

2) No skill/stat requirements for guild advancement - what a stupid decision. In morrowind, it took some concentrated effort to practice skills and become the head of a guild . . . that was removed allowing a low level character to lead a guild if they wanted. Terrible game design decision.

3) Introduction of hand-holding POI markers for quests. In morrowind you actually had to READ modest amounts of text (oh wait, we can't read that much text on a TV) and use your "reading comprehension" skills to determine what you had to do. You had to follow (often crypic) descriptions to find quest locations. Well, this could lead you to become lost or sidetracked, and that added value and challenge to the game.

Anyway, those are some examples of the kind of "dumbing down" that's occuring in general. Similar trends exist in other game types too. Take Counter-Strike for example. In the earlier pre-source versions of the game, the way aiming + movement worked allowed players who were skilled to really excell. Incremental changes ended up "narrowing" the skill gap artifically to make the game more appealing to a broader audience when it was commercialized, so new players could stand a chance. The net result was that it watered the experience down and actually gave new players "less to aspire to" in competative terms.

Anyway . . .

Ha, you're telling me. First playthrough of the Pitt with FWE I ended up getting a little too close to a grenade and crippling every limb. I had no stimpaks, but I did have several stealthboys. Boy, that was a fun escape - laying mines then drawing people in, almost entirely invisible, and almost entirely unable to attack.

Current playthrough is going down a similar route. Almost just started, got shot, crippling my right arm. I've been running from everything for about an hour! I might not be attacking, but it's still very fun figuring out how the hell to get past a bunch of raiders before the slavers chasing me get me!

It's a matter of all else being equal, realism is better than something that strains credibility. I certainly didn't set out to add realism, but given that I wanted two things: 1) Healing to be less accessible. 2) Food to feel valuable to the player - why not achieve those things in a way that's grounded in the real world? With that in mind I gave stimpacks some downsides based on the actual effects of epinephrine and added starvation effects based on real-world starvation timelines. The point wasn't realism, but that while I was making changes for the purpose of gameplay, it was just as easy to do them in a realistic fashion as an unrealistic one.

I guess I'm somewhere between the OP and Mezmorelda.

I like realism mods that don't make too cumbersome to play the game.

A lot of the realism in realism mods I think is unnecessary. Take ammo weight mods, for example. I always figured the most simple solution would be not carry as much ammo if you find it too unrealistic for your tastes. Same thing with healing items. If you feel it is too unrealistic to get back a good portion of your life by drinking some old soda, then don't do it.

I do like having to have medical braces and surgical supplies to take care of crippled wounds. But I don't like being able to not fast travel. It is fun to have to navigate the maze of subways to get from one objective to another, but it takes too long to have to fight my way out of the downtown ruins every time I want to go back to my house or unload a bunch of equipment I've looted. Perhaps if I had more time to play the game I would, but I like feel like I'm accomplishing things while still being able to maintain a good GPA in school.

One nice thing about realism mods is that most of them are modular and allow you a great deal of control in customizing your game experience. Take FWE, for example. Before I decided to forgo FWE because of compatibility issues with FOOK2, I was happy with how much control you had over the game. It might have took some digging around in the various readmes and Fallout3Nexus, but I was able to take out the parts I didn't like. For example, ammo weight was taken out, sneak messages put back in, and fast travel was still allowed.

Realism mods are about each individual finding the level of play that works for them. You should try some and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Well, too much Epi gives you a heart attack. I'll grant that.

However, I have to thank everyone for keeping it clean, and not trying to burn the heretic, me.

I wasn't expecting having to reply to 11 replies. So, bare with me if I missed something.

The bullet weight was just one tiny thing, and the only thing at the time I can think of. Also, the whole realism of bullets weighing things is horribly negated by the Force Actor Value command. Now you can carry a harriet jet in your inventory with the Force AV.

Yes, it's a RPG, a role playing game. However, wmi, the definition of RPG, is role Playing game. You play a role.
Realism doesn't really need to be added to qualify as a RPG.
Which is kind of what I got from your post earlier. I apologize if that's not what you intended.

Another thing about realism being added, artificial difficult ramping. Now, this isn't going to make me popular, but
a game like Fallout 3 doesn't really need added realism to make it slightly more difficult.

There's a whole range of games, from Easy, to Wow, this makes I wanna be the guy, played by Helen Keller(I'm aware she's been dead for a while) look easy.
Fallout 3 may go towards Easy, but some of the arguments for realism to me, ramp it up towards the other side of the scale.

I suppose it boils down to a simple statement.

I play games to have fun. If you play games to have fun by making the difficulty really high, that's fine too. I just don't see the point. I can go and get shot in the face in real life, but I don't see the point in that either.

After all, since I play games to have fun, why can't you? The answer is yes you can.

However, I understand and I appreciate the hard work into mods, I do, but some ideas for realism, just don't mesh with how I play games, and that kind of makes me go, Lol, wut, when people like it.
I apologise for that, because I have made some people angry on this forum over my stubborn refusal to accept certain things.

For that, I apologize.


Your argument against It's a game arguments is flawed, because it's a game, Phoshi.

I'm being silly here, by the way.

RPGs are good for realism, however, every game I gave an example of in my first post, is an FPS game.
The penultimate Action/RPG series of games, System Shock and Dues Ex, those were the perfect games designed for realism. IMO.

Fallout 3 doesn't strike me as the type of game that needs realism though. But again, that's just me.
As I've said, don't take anything I say as offensive, I don't mean it.


I guess, to boil it down simply, I play games to relax and have fun, not have massive heart failure because of lots of high damaging attacks, and instant killing tricks and traps. (not to be confused with map 08 of Doom 2, Tricks and Traps)
After all, I'm not playing a game where one hit kills you.
That to me, ruins the fun out of things. Again, that's just me.

Oh, if any of you have taken a look over a certain couple threads I've posted in, you'd realize that sometimes I say things that aren't taken well, and it leads to miscommunications. Which leads to hatred against me.


I agree with the first part, however, I seriously doubt I'll ever find a realism mod that works for me.


One final note: I would probably enjoy the concept and use of realism mods more, if I didn't get attacked by some people over my views. Which has happened here on this forum. No one likes being called a troll. Even Trolls...

Edit for mouse0270.
Good points, but I don't see the reason for playing on ultra hard in the first place. That's just me though.

To me, I am an ultra realist. I have been since I played morrowind. I have always looked for mods, that add sleeping, eating, weight, and health. Sometimes even the take a bath mods. I like this because not only does it make more since because, it adds more Role playing to me, but it makes the game so much harder then simply run around and shoot anything. It takes a great game to an even greater game.

The realism mods to me makes fallout basically impossible on ultra high, I do have the Help of FWE, FOOK2, and MMM to help as well. To me it being basically impossible is what has me reply this game over and over and over, and Its what is going to keep my playing this game and like you said



You answered your own question.

Your welcome! There isn't anyting at all wrong with not-liking "realism" as we're discussing it . . . and people who get hostile of the subject should probably just be ignored



For many people, even playing on VERY HARD difficulty (i.e. artifical difficulty ramping) still doesn't really make the game fundamentally more challenging. All it does is means you take more damage (negated by the 100's of stim-paks you'll have anyway in vanilla) and you deal less damage (negated by the incredible abundance of ammo in the vanilla game). The result, in my view, is that the game doesn't get harder, it gets more boring. It's cool pumping 20-30 bullets into a super mutant to kill it, but not standing there pumping 100-200 bullets into it. I find it just . . . boring. And at that point, I'd rather play some other FPS-oriented game.

So, the realism mods make it "fundamentally" more challenging rather than artificually more challenging at the expense of balance, and fun in my opinion.



I think Deus Ex was a GREAT game, and actually I always kept it in mind when working on FWE. In a lot of ways, I'm trying to make Fallout more like those games, since there were good game designs.

The other thing, is that most "realism" mods I feel also enhance the the RPG aspects of the game, by making choices in character advancement (skills + specials + perks) actually MATTER more. To be honest, your skills and specials do not have a profound affect on your character in the original game, and by the end, you'll basicallyhave all skills / SPECIALs's maxed anyway. The "realism" so to speak of "ROLE-PLAYING" is enhanced by mods that limit skills, force you make your thoughtful character progression decisions, and ultimately leads to greater differences in the types of builds you can make. This in turn increases the replay-ability of the game immensly.

Well, I do find the more "realistic" difficulties fun. I really enjoyed far-cry on "realistic", where one or two bullets killed you and you occasionally faced a helicopter with a great big machine gun. Facing one or two opponents, if you see them first, is a trivial experience. Gun out, aim, shoot them a few times, take phat loot. (Of course, it works both ways - best not to get seen), but facing larger mobs becomes almost a puzzle. I can see how it could be frustrating, but if you take a step back and start thinking about different strategies you can use, it's actually quite calming. ("Right, I have a 10mm pistol, how the hell am I going to take down this overlord. Rush him? That went well Draw him near a car, then blow it up? Damn, so close! Hide behind this car and take potshots? Well that was stupid. Try again. Shoot the gun out of his hands? That's a start!", and so on). The physics commanding the world I play in are realistic - the way I play is far from it. I do, of course, try not to die (And my ironman run which ended VERY swiftly when I met a deathclaw matriarch was fantastic fun), but if you don't take having a bullet lodged in several vital organs as frustrating, I find it to be a very fun experience. Plus it's makes the whole game a lot more suspenseful when I know a super mutant heavy gunner could take me out in seconds, if it catches me off guard!

Well, it really is one of those situations where I just have to say I don't think high difficulty is fun.

I've been that way since I was playing Blue Max on the Commodore 64, so, eh, 21 years? I'm almost 28 now.

I don't doubt that it's exciting to play with the blood pumping in your ears, and your "life" being on the line, but it's not for me.

I'd prefer not needing heart surgery. Which is what is required if I played the game like you.
Will you pay for it? Be about $40,000.

I really can't complain about realism to be honest, and I want to make it clear I'm not. I just was confused, and I dare say this thread helped me figure out all the missing puzzle pieces.

So, again, thank all of you.

I've been modding my mororwind game lately (having never really modded that one).

I came across dozens of threads where people asked for more live action/oblivion based combat and were usually met with a chorus of dissenters who claimed morrowind was some lost gem of pure role playing. http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=1025807&view=findpost&p=15712303.

I think that pure Role playing in video games will never really exist. I think that what some hail as pure role play in morrowind was not intended design but the result of limits of what was available.

Video game bespeaks action and player skill.
Role play usually indicates character skill that the player (if they are good at roleplaying) will obey.

The merger of the two really, and completely this just my opinion, should be a merger of player and character skill.

Realism and immersion ... maybe 'emergent gameplay' ... then are attempts to provide more rules for the game for both player and character.

that's the way I see it.

I am looking at this NPC in the GECK, trying to figure out what her daily schedule should be like: when does she go 'work', where does she 'work', what idle marker should she use while she's at 'work', when does she break for meals, where does she go to 'eat', when should she sleep, where's her bed, how far does she have to travel from that cell to the cell where she her bed is...?

Why?

Why does any of this matter? Why does a composition of graphic pixels need rudimentary AI routines to simulate a sense of being 'alive', need dialogue lines, voice, as if she's ever going to sound or feel like, be, a 'real' person? She doesn't really eat, nor would she die if she didn't perform the eating animations. She doesn't need sleep, nor would she collapse if she never uses a bed object. So why does every NPC in the game have some kind of routine? She's a 'nobody NPC' who has 3 lines of dialogue, and none of them quest-related, so why bother going to such lengths to create so many of them? Why not give these routines just to the NPCs who deliver quests and information? In fact, why not just get rid of all the other 'useless' NPCs and have only the NPCs that deliver quests and information? Think of the performance improvement to your game when the engine no longer has to render all these ( R)AI's who are, in some sense, "weighing down" your game. Why not have information and quests delvered through journals instead, so that only hostile, 'shoot it if it moves' NPCs are in the game?

If you can explain why such a game would be much less than the game we have, I think you might find an explanation of why there are certain compulsions for varying degrees of 'realism' and 'immersion' on behalf of some RPG gamers.

With me Roleplaying comes first, realism comes second. I like to have my actions matter in a game and not the "cut it out" npc comments type of matter, and being able to interact with the environment even if it means being killed by it if your careless. I do agree though that making the game difficult by extraordinary means is not fun at all. I'm a roleplayer, my son who has played fallout3 is a not and gets a glazed look in his eye when I start to talk about another mod I've found that adds to the roleplaying aspect of my game. I love fallout3 and Oblivion, my one and only complaint about them is they are both too shallow.

You're conflating realism and verisimilitude. A world in which NPCs stand in one place 24/7, or where there are houses with no people, is not a believable world. One in which NPCs perform eat packages and wander around in a reasonable pattern is a believable enough world/has verisimilitude in that in your interactions with it you will rarely see anything that is unbelievable. One in which Beth's full original RAI was implemented and NPCs must eat, must go get food from shops or cafes, must fulfil need X and react in manner Y would be realistic. However, a realistic world contains vast amounts of pointless content that exists only to satisfy realism- to the player it doesn't appear any different to the 'best needed approximation'.
If it does, it's due to the player sabotaging their own immersion by metagaming and complaining the NPCs don't follow the same rules as them when the end result would be no different.

E: The following isn't so much directed at the posters in this thread, as at the general attitude that Realistic = Better Roleplay that seems to pervade the Fallout/Oblivion community in general.

Anyway, to further the whole 'roleplaying' bit I'd like to bring in an argument from tabletop roleplaying. In the transition from D&D 3e to 4e, some of the skills were stripped out- the Craft and Profession ones, the stereotype being Craft(Basketweaver). The skills were mechanically useless; they were never rolled, never used, utterly pointless but still people complained and said it was removing roleplaying from the game, that without the skill Craft(Basketweaving) you couldn't roleplay a basketweaver, that so many character backgrounds had been removed. There was effectively no mechanical change though, skills that were never rolled simply stopped being skills so existing 'Basketweavers' never saw any change in game. It only stopped you roleplaying if you couldn't think beyond the mechanics and didn't have the creativity to call yourself a basketweaver and behave as one on your own initiative.

That's why arguing that more mechanics and more realistic mechanics are pro-RP is wrong. RP is inherently creative and imaginative, your character exists independently of the mechanics and you could play their role in any system, whatever the rules. Sure you can argue needing to drink every ten minutes helps your immersion but the way you roleplay The Lone Wanderer's personality and intentions doesn't change one jot.

But my point is that 'realism mods' (which I think is a very general category that encompasses too many mods that can claim to 'not fit') aim to simulate certain kinds of experiences. For example, not all CRPGs provide a sandbox 'free roaming' environment to simulate the experience of exploration. Many CRPGs are more linear, structured as mission/level based or merely opening up small areas for limited exploration. I can see how, for some players, part of that experience of sandbox 'free roaming' exploration entails running out of ammo because ammo has weight and the character can't carrying an infinite amount of them, of having to plan out an exploration trip by deciding how much food or liquids to bring because going for a certain number of hours wthout them can cause my character to weaken or health to decrease. Being able to cook food, for example, can become part of the desire to make that experience well-rounded (even though it can also be an attempt to 'push' the mechanics of the game engine, and this is where I think some mods can claim to 'not fit), much in the same way that the experience of visiting an inhabited town cannot be believably simulated unless there are NPCs actually inhabiting it. I actually don't use most of the 'realism mods.' I don't really care that my character doesn't need to sleep, but I do care that NPC enemies are often dumb and can benefit from improved AI. I don't know where individual players draw the line between 'enhanced experience' and 'too much realism.' I don't even know where exactly I draw the line.

I think its because to people adding realism makes the world feel less alien and more familiar. Still alot of realism mods tend to go overboard and make the flaws of the game which were unnoticeable before glaringly stand out which kills the immersion factor they are trying to create.

Bethesda did an amazing job balancing fun with just enough realism to keep things believable. They kept it simple yet full of detail. While realism mods or even just stuffing the game with too many different mods makes things feel cluttered with a lack of harmony.

At the moment am playing with no mods with my main character and theres just this "It feels right" quality that isnt there with my other heavily modded game character.

So realism mods deserve respect with the major tonnage of work which goes into them but if its not your thing dont feel like your missing anything. Enjoy the game the way you want with or without realism mods as Modders enjoy doing their thing modding it.

I usually install "realism" mods to make games harder.

I like the extra difficulty.