I don't get why people talk about realism.



  • I keep hearing people talking about realism, using it as an argument to keep or change something in the game.
    Well, let me just make this clear:
    This game is not realistic, it’s not meant to be realistic, and it’s quite obvious.

    There are many things that point to this fact. I’ll make a quick list.
    1. It’s totally anachronistic. For example, the Vanguard and Agathian knight armours look roughly 200 years apart. Let’s not forget the presence of Roman pila.
    2. There are lots of fantasy items. Short, double headed waraxes, all metal heater shields, etc. Things that never existed in the medieval period.
    3. The combat system. It’s very clear if you compare it to videos of quality reenactors or historical martial arts.
    4. The way armour is handled. Like, chopping a knight’s arm off and stuff. If armour was depicted realistically knights would be almost as agile as MaA, they’d take far more blows, and they’d be virtually immune to many ranged attacks. Basically, it would break the game.

    I’m sure there are more things, but I think this’ll do.

    So yeah, this game is not realistic. And that’s perfectly fine.



  • Indeed I agree, and basically if you look at most of the “realism” comments its just a way of excusing changes which will benefit X against Y. :D



  • No game can be realistic enough actually but the more realistic it is the more I like it. 8-)



  • People like realism because it gives them a link with real life. Something that still binds them in one way or another to the things as they know and perceive them. It’s perfectly natural that some people prefer a somewhat realistic combat simulator over a completely non-realistic one.

    And while there are definitely a lot of unrealistic aspects in this game, as is in every game, there are still a ton of realistic aspects, whether they’re details or not. Often it also provides a decent argument to back up their opinion when it comes to whether or not the game should change and, if so, in which way.

    Something they do forget in the process quite often, is that a game is made for fun, and too many realistic aspects may ruin the balance and therefore the fun of a game.

    Like you said, Chivalry is fine as it is. It has a decent amount of realism to make it viable, but not so much that it’d be bland and boring.



  • I think too much realism would be a bad thing. Like soamd said, knights would be nigh invulnerable. I think the game strikes a good balance and I think balancing should be done with an eye towards what the game needs and not what is most realistic.



  • I think realism should be a strive however if gameplay fun or balance or technical dificulties make it not a good option realism should make way.
    on the matter of realism I think weapon physics could use some more of it.
    So should weapons do less damage the closer to the center point of the swing they get, should the wood on pole arms do less damage, and should the speed of the swing be considered, a swing when you just start swinging should do less damage then when your weapon moves at its top speed. the end of the swing is generally also slower and should thus do less damage.

    Yes you could make different points of armor recieve more or less damage but that would be over complicating things.



  • I’d say the pseudo realism is pretty high. At the least it’s a balanced and deep first person medieval combat game. And that’s actually unique as far as I know.



  • I think when people talk about “realism” what they really mean is “authenticity”. Which is not quite the same.



  • If this game was actually realistic, it would be closer to a simulation and few would want to play it. Simulations are a gaming niche because they’re generally about trading fun for greater realism. There always has to be a trade off when you’re producing something fast-paced and playable, and unless you’re developing a model for a history seminar, it doesn’t really matter about anachronisms or precise measurements.



  • @soamd:

    I keep hearing people talking about realism, using it as an argument to keep or change something in the game.
    Well, let me just make this clear:
    This game is not realistic, it’s not meant to be realistic, and it’s quite obvious.

    There are many things that point to this fact. I’ll make a quick list.
    1. It’s totally anachronistic. For example, the Vanguard and Agathian knight armours look roughly 200 years apart. Let’s not forget the presence of Roman pila.
    2. There are lots of fantasy items. Short, double headed waraxes, all metal heater shields, etc. Things that never existed in the medieval period.
    3. The combat system. It’s very clear if you compare it to videos of quality reenactors or historical martial arts.
    4. The way armour is handled. Like, chopping a knight’s arm off and stuff. If armour was depicted realistically knights would be almost as agile as MaA, they’d take far more blows, and they’d be virtually immune to many ranged attacks. Basically, it would break the game.

    I’m sure there are more things, but I think this’ll do.

    So yeah, this game is not realistic. And that’s perfectly fine.

    AoC was basically as close to a medieval warfare simulator as you could get, that’s why. People expected the same or better realism in the stand-alone.

    Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just telling you how I think it is.



  • @The:

    I think when people talk about “realism” what they really mean is “authenticity”. Which is not quite the same.

    But realism is authentic, yes? So, both are nice, in my opinion, even if not at the same time.

    At the bare minimum, whatever X is, X has to be plausible, and preferably not a stretch.

    Chivalry is not a cartoon world setting. When you drop an anvil on someone, they die. Period. :P.



  • @The:

    I think when people talk about “realism” what they really mean is “authenticity”. Which is not quite the same.

    Not when they say things like “parrying a maul with a dagger isn’t realistic”. Of course, when they say that they actually mean, “An archer beat me in melee” - since attempting to “parry” something as big as a maul with any weapon would cost you an arm, “realistically”.

    But yes, there is some overlap in people confusing authenticity for realism. But most of them just have a misinformed sense of reality.



  • @soamd:

    4. The way armour is handled. Like, chopping a knight’s arm off and stuff. If armour was depicted realistically knights would be almost as agile as MaA, they’d take far more blows, and they’d be virtually immune to many ranged attacks. Basically, it would break the game.

    You’re completely right. If everything was realistic in this game then the knights would just beat everyone to death. There is a reason why the 2H sword swings so slowly, to balance the game. Sorry to make this reference but in Battlefield 3 if you think you need more than one grenade or missile to kill a soldier… ha.



  • @Matti:

    @soamd:

    4. The way armour is handled. Like, chopping a knight’s arm off and stuff. If armour was depicted realistically knights would be almost as agile as MaA, they’d take far more blows, and they’d be virtually immune to many ranged attacks. Basically, it would break the game.

    You’re completely right. If everything was realistic in this game then the knights would just beat everyone to death. There is a reason why the 2H sword swings so slowly, to balance the game. Sorry to make this reference but in Battlefield 3 if you think you need more than one grenade or missile to kill a soldier… ha.

    Okay, fine, how about from now on we use the phrase “plausible within the setting of the game”?

    Less misleading.



  • @soamd:

    I keep hearing people talking about realism, using it as an argument to keep or change something in the game.
    Well, let me just make this clear:
    This game is not realistic, it’s not meant to be realistic, and it’s quite obvious.

    There are many things that point to this fact. I’ll make a quick list.
    1. It’s totally anachronistic. For example, the Vanguard and Agathian knight armours look roughly 200 years apart. Let’s not forget the presence of Roman pila.
    2. There are lots of fantasy items. Short, double headed waraxes, all metal heater shields, etc. Things that never existed in the medieval period.
    3. The combat system. It’s very clear if you compare it to videos of quality reenactors or historical martial arts.
    4. The way armour is handled. Like, chopping a knight’s arm off and stuff. If armour was depicted realistically knights would be almost as agile as MaA, they’d take far more blows, and they’d be virtually immune to many ranged attacks. Basically, it would break the game.

    I’m sure there are more things, but I think this’ll do.

    So yeah, this game is not realistic. And that’s perfectly fine.

    Just because the game is set in a fictional setting does not mean realism is thrown out the window.

    What you are talking about is historical authenticity. You’re right, this game is not historically accurate. That doesn’t mean it can’t have some degree of realism.

    You’re mistaking the want for realism to a want for a 1:1 simulation of real life. When people talk about a game being realistic, they mean they don’t want to be reminded they are playing a game. The less gamey elements you have, the more realistic the game is, regardless of whether the castle architecture in the game is historically authentic or not. It’s not about replicating the world we know, it’s about making the fictional world feel real.

    When I play this game, I feel like an Agathian Knight charging into a muddy battlefield littered with my banner brothers’ bodies. When I play Battlefield 3 I feel like I’m playing a video game and I’m only thinking about scores and k/d rations and so on.
    Battlefield 3 is more authentic in its protrayal of war in our world, but it doesn’t make it more realistic.



  • I think the best thing to go for is consistency in a game, not realism.



  • @sharkh20:

    I think the best thing to go for is consistency in a game, not realism.

    I think consistency goes without saying, but thanks for saying it, the most obvious things are often missed.



  • It’s cinematic, and that’s how it should be.
    Otherwise, archers would do this:

    2zGnxeSbb3g

    … and that shit would not be fun. :D



  • @Dr:

    It’s cinematic, and that’s how it should be.
    Otherwise, archers would do this:

    2zGnxeSbb3g

    … and that shit would not be fun. :D

    Are you kidding me? That’s freaking pro.



  • @SlyGoat:

    Not when they say things like “parrying a maul with a dagger isn’t realistic”. Of course, when they say that they actually mean, “An archer beat me in melee” - since attempting to “parry” something as big as a maul with any weapon would cost you an arm, “realistically”.

    But yes, there is some overlap in people confusing authenticity for realism. But most of them just have a misinformed sense of reality.

    That is my point that breaks the game’s illusion of reality. There is a valid reason why people use realism to bitch and complain about things that are so retarded like an archer parrying any heavy weapon without taking serious damage when that realism or even the perceived sense of realism is completely broken not to mention making that class over-powered for a range class.

    There is no way to fully make realism, fact. But the closer you can get to it, the better. Armor was defeated in many ways specially through simple exhaustion. The idea that only fully armored classes would mow down people is ignorant. But that is another argument. Point being that stupid choices about the game, simply break it and make people quit playing because some things are so far out of the scope of realism to make it any fun or frustrating beyond playability.


Log in to reply