Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Realistic Violence?  (Read 23119 times)
sporky
Artisan

Posts: 987


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2012, 01:58:17 pm »

Sorry, that's a bit of a downer for a game thread.
Logged

People were always getting ready for tomorrow. I didn't believe in that. Tomorrow wasn't getting ready for them. It didn't even know they were there.
CORMAC MCCARTHY, The Road
old_school_gamer
Apprentice

Posts: 50



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2019, 02:32:55 am »

To me "realism" isn't very interesting as a goal as "human intuition". "Intuitive" often aligns with "realistic" since our intuition of what we expect to happen is shaped in large part by reality, but this is one case where it's not, at least for those of us who aren't combat veterans (many of whom might be suffering PTSD -- apparently some research I've encountered suggested the psychological impact of taking other human beings' lives is more devastating psychologically to most individuals than most of us expect). To the contrary since fights in, say, Hollywood films and practically all video games are so unrealistic and stylized, that becomes what's "intuitive", and I prefer "intuitive" over "counter-intuitive".

Besides that, we're dealing with a virtual medium. No matter how fancy graphics get, they cannot get close to simulating reality. You'll never feel a punch landing on your face, the pounding of your heart, the sweat and blood dripping from your forehead, the feeling of flesh and bone against your fists. Aiming for realism in this medium as the ultimate goal is going to fail to take these limitations in account and adapt to them accordingly. It's like if a game wants to deliver a most "visceral" combat experience, that's not going to come from trying to be as realistic as possible in terms of, say, very realistic sound effects and animations. It's going to come from exaggerating the sound effects and animations. Things have to be exaggerated and stylized a bit due to the limitations of the medium or else it'll tend to feel stiffer and less responsive than ever before.

For paralyzing fear, that could have the risk of becoming a mechanic that just obstructs player control, since the virtual medium reaches this awkward middle often where one part of the game is modeling the idea that you are controlling a character, and the other that you are the character. It could highlight this awkward gap which feels so annoying because you are losing control over a character because he is a coward, even though the player feels no fear.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 02:55:51 am by old_school_gamer » Logged
GloriousRuse
Neophyte

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2019, 10:45:55 pm »

There is a significant issue with "realistic" portrayals of violence, and that is the there is almost always a cultural, social, and situational context to violence, and that is even assuming that a single human is consistent in similar situations- which we demonstrably know they are not. This tends to lead to lots of broad assumptions based on data points that are directly contravened in other situations - and that is assuming the research is accurate, which it often is not.

For example, it is a well documented item that  "normal" US units in WWII were willing to commit to the last fifty yards of an assault  - where it turns into hand grenades and bayonets - only about twenty percent of time. Yet this number is more than doubled for volunteer units like the Airborne, and tripled or more with elite units like the Rangers. So, what causes it? Better unit dynamic? Different discipline? Better leaders? More aggressive men? Is it that "only psychopaths", as one book says, want to fight hand to hand? Is it that fifty yards is about the range where bullets really start finding targets even when they're in cover, and people are justifiably scared of death?

If you have the answers, now you have to figure that North Koreans, five years later, were famous for close assaults. Closing was so routine for them that there are few, if any, accounts of them being stopped unless And I've never seen a historical example of a Roman Legion breaking off an attack before contact, though there are cases of them running when surprised before the enemy closed. In converse, we have these tribal societies where all of war was a long distance ritualized spear chucking contest. At the same time we have different tribes in the same technological range where brutal ethnic cleansing was a thing.

So which is "human and realistic?" In what context?

And what happens when the soldier we just theorized faces a mugger away from his group and leaders? With his wife? Without her? On a Chicago street, in the Old West, in Mogadishu, in medieval Bohemia?

So...given you have an entirely fantasy culture and world, you can pretty much program any sort of violence you want and can probably find a human parallel vindicating you somewhere in history.

-----------------------------------

As far as mechanics, I only have one comment:
 
 1) Suppression is more than just "Cowards hunker down while brave people stand up and aim"...one of the reasons suppression works is because, in fact, standing up into a veritable cone of flying bullets (or into the waiting sights of a shooter) actually can end very poorly - this is one of the great contributions of rapid firing weapons to combat. It's not just an emotional thing, it is an actual physical thing where even a level headed response might be to stay put and return sub optimal fire. this doesn't translate well to turn based systems. Right now in a turn based system, once you've been missed, the danger is over. After the man with machinegun puts twenty rounds your way and misses, there is nothing stopping you sprinting to the next piece of cover, or lining up a long shot with a scoped rifle. In the real world, standing up at bullet ten, or trying to draw a sight picture between bullets fifteen and twenty - and do you really know when the shooting will stop - can still get you knocked back down.  Not so in most systems, and since you, the player, are fearless you can either act optimally or have character morale matter. To balance between the two,  if you want to simulate the effects of suppression without getting into the "character morale" dilemma, you could create a system where essentially previous "missed" shots still have a chance to hit you if you expose. Basically every shot is compared against you in full hunker-down-and-don't-die mode...and if you decide to go beyond that on your turn, you have a retroactive chance to be hit, base don the exposure of the action. Say you were missed by a 10% THC because you were in heavy cover by the man plinking away with an assault rifle(you don't know this, maybe just a graphical rep showing when things are close), but you decide to sprint into the open. The shot now gets re-evaluated, not against a fully covered you, but against you in the open THC. Down goes Johnny...and up goes players making fearful choices without character fear.


   



   

   
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: