Where should modifications mainly focus on?

[TimVK]

Hey,

I'm kinda wondering, where a modification on the Source engine should focus on, to gain interest of the community. Please vote, and give arguments.

TimVK.

EDIT:
I voted for Realism and Terrain. I think realism is a great feature to have, it gives you more the feeling that you're actually in the game, and it brings the game closer to reality, a must for me. I think terrain is a good second option. Not that there's anything wrong with the, so far, released source engine based modifcations, but like CS:S, the maps are great, without a doubt. But there's a limited area to go. If you look at Battlefield Vietnam or good ol' Operation Flashpoint, you can see, playing big maps is fun. Kind of hard to explain.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Fun, although not neccesarily simple fun. It trumps all the other categories. A mod can have everything else, but be boring as hell, and nobody will play it. Conversely, the mod could be made out of brightly coloured squiggles - but if the gameplay works, and people find it fun, then they'll play it.

Other than that, AI.

Realism is overrated in games, though. I find excessive realism dulls a lot of mods.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Ti133700N]

Since when "Fun" means easier and fast gameplay?

 

[jmjneary]

fortress forever be the best mod for a while

 

[Raeven0]

Missing option: "Fixing Valve's mistakes."

 

[Hazar]

fun and realism here (dont' think your description is apt though for fun )

 

[lemmingzappa]

In my opinion....a realistic game is a fun game

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Wrong. There's a line between realistic and fun.

Would you enjoy a game in which, when you die, you never get to play it again?

Would you enjoy a combat game in which you were so untrained with a weapon, you couldn't shoot the broad side of a barn?

Thought not. Realism has it's limitations.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[TimVK]

Wrong. There's a line between realistic and fun.

How can you say that it's wrong, it's his opinion. And I'm sure, nobody would enjoy a game in which you die and then never be able to play it again. But that's not the only aspect of realism, there are loads of other things to mix up with elements of fun. And that mix will bring you a good game. So who's wrong now?

 

[Trefall]

So who's wrong now?

lol! @ TimVK

So what you are saying is realism is not realism, it is a blend between realistic gameplay and what is fun gameplay, thus it is not realistic gameplay in any way

I think your gun backfired there.

 

[TimVK]

I'm just saying, that you shouldn't take one small feature of realism in a game, like Angry Lawyer is doing. Getting killed once and never play a game a again is impossible of course, there's no fun at all. But mixing realistic models, textures, etc. with better gameplay, quicker spawns will give you a good game.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Realistic models and textures is not 'realism' in games. That's just art style.

Realism in games is wobbly hands with guns, poor accuracy, not being able to run very far, lack of crosshairs, lack of huds, and having the most generic AI opponents match your skill and be able to kill you.

Most people think realism, and think of movie physics. Let me assure you, very few games are 'realistic'.

I'm never wrong, so don't argue.

-Angry Lawer

 

[Overwatch]

I think that realism in games is about taking some of the real life stuff that'll be fun in a game (like having weapons you can recognise or using real life tactics) and leaving out the stuff that wouldn't be fun (like permament death, poor accurancy).

To me, realism means having to use real-life tactics to counter an opponent. For example, running around an opponent spraying the SMG while constantly jumping is not a real life tactic (not a useful one anyway).

Crouching and taking potshots at an enemy however is a real-life tactic however. Therefore, CSS is much more realistic than hl2dm.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

But is it?

Players bunnyhop all over the place, they conjure weapons out of thin air, everyone looks the same, and accuracy is still super-good, no matter how long you hold your arms in the same place.
It's still very unreal, just not as much as DM.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Mad Dog]

But is it?

Players bunnyhop all over the place, they conjure weapons out of thin air, everyone looks the same, and accuracy is still super-good, no matter how long you hold your arms in the same place.
It's still very unreal, just not as much as DM.

-Angry Lawyer

Dude, you're just splitting hairs. When people mention "realism" they rarely mean absolute, total realism.

Making people hit the "r" key to reload when the weapon runs low, that can be considered added realism in games, seeing as you're litterally connecting with the player character in a logical way to manipulate his/her gameworld surroundings. According to you, this is not fun. SCRAP THE RELOAD KEY, GAME DEVS, CUZ ANGRY LAWYER AIN'T HAVING NONE OF THAT SHIT.

I think real the problem is you must like totally suck at "realistic" games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon(which, incidentally, are totally unique and fun gameplay experiences, especially online), and the mere mention of the word "realism" casts you into a ritalin-starved frenzy. That's a shame and all, but you hardly speak for everyone, because few things are more subjective than what is considered "fun gameplay."

 

[Angry Lawyer]

What the hell? If the whole of that attack was instigated by 'Im'm never wrong', then you seriously need to learn what sarcasm is.
People these days push for more and more realism, and I think we've hit the point of most fun realism already. Most mod teams that promote realism are stating 'We're aiming for the most realistic FPS ever concieved!!' More realism past the current point in games is folly, and will slow games down even further. And if you actually listened, you'd see that my points are aimed against the idea of 'realism' being the most important aspect of gameplay.

'Where should modifications mainly focus on?'

You really think that 'realism' should win over general fun? It'll be a sad day when graphics and 'realism' are more important than gameplay.

And I'd appreciate if you'd lay off the personal attacks.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Mad Dog]

More realism past the current point in games is folly, and will slow games down even further.

In your honest opinion, you mean.

And if you actually listened, you'd see that my points are aimed against the idea of 'realism' being the most important aspect of gameplay.

Stressing realism over fun is a mistake, I agree, but your post reads more like like you're just against realism in general.

You really think that 'realism' should win over general fun?

Quote me and show where I've actually suggested this somehow, and I'll respond in kind.

It'll be a sad day when graphics and 'realism' are more important than gameplay.

It's already a sad day, now that "fun" and "realism" have apparently been deemed mutually exclusive by the arbiter of knowledge himself.

It's worth noting, however, that some people out there find some elements of heightened realism in games to be positive additions to the gameplay; some people might even describe it as "fun."

Some elements of realism have slowly integrated themselves into mainstream, "arcade-action" type games, such as player leaning, iron sights, stamina and more. While it seems second nature to need to hit "r" to reload your weapon in a FPS, the first game game to do that had to seem unnecessarily realistic to people who knew in their bones that Doom got it right from the beginning.

Games are getting more and more immersive, both in terms of simple aethstetics and in regards to player control and funtionality. Adding realism is just another way of sucking you into the game world, not to mention a handy way of adding challenge and, yes, more gameplay. It's the way of the future, IMHO.

That doesn't mean there won't still be Quakes and UT2KX's and Serious Sams and any number of totally fun, totally unrealistic games, but I do think it means that there will probably be less clones of the like. Time will tell, but the trend I'm seeing is more real-world settings and constraints.

And I'd appreciate if you'd lay off the personal attacks.

-Angry Lawyer

Perhaps I should have used a smiley to note that while my ribbing was intentional, it wasn't mean-natured, and certianly not personal. Unless by "personal" you mean aimed squarely at your online persona of Angry Lawyer, wherein you roleplay a comically grumpy old fogey, diametrically opposed to progress and forever shaking his fist at the demons of "technology."

So, to avoid that misunderstanding in the future, allow me to display the new universal forum smiley standard in "I ain't meaned it like dat, dawg", the Frankenstien head flanked by monkeys.

:monkee: :bonce: :monkee:

 

[Angry Lawyer]

SCRAP THE RELOAD KEY, GAME DEVS, CUZ ANGRY LAWYER AIN'T HAVING NONE OF THAT SHIT.

I think real the problem is you must like totally suck at "realistic" games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon(which, incidentally, are totally unique and fun gameplay experiences, especially online), and the mere mention of the word "realism" casts you into a ritalin-starved frenzy.

have apparently been deemed mutually exclusive by the arbiter of knowledge himself.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but I've had a bad day at the office, and little things are stressing me out.

If taken in the context of the thread's question - which is 'what should mods focus on mainly', all I said is that realism should NOT be the focus of mod-teams, because realism can only be made fun to a limit. And the thing is, flying stright into the face of this, mod teams are still trying to outdo each other on being as 'realistic as possible'. I can't really pull up any links right now, but they're out there, deliberately making their games as realistic as possible, and turning out crap, just to spite me. Mod teams are like that.
To reiterate my thoughts on realism:
"Movie" realism is fun. "Real life" realism isn't. I much prefer a game in which frantic firefights take place, with lots of dashing behind boxes and stuff, jumping out of the way of shots, and being actually able to shoot a gun accutately, as opposed to walking really slowly, then suddenly

BAM! Black screen. Text saying 'you are dead'.

You just got killed by a stray bullet from the other side of the map.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[mlk]

To the "realism is key" side, if smell-hardware existed, would you want the stench of decay as you go "over the top" in a world war 2 MOD?

Edit: I voted
Single player, Multiplayer, Artificial Intelligence & Fun.
Why? Well
Graphics:
My card can't handle HL2 all that well, and it still looks great
Physics:
The current physics tis great. Unless it is key for your mod, why bother?
Realism:
I think HL2 has the right mix of fun & realism. Again, unless key for your mod, your'll start eating into "fun".
Terrain:
Maps are big enough.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

After a few basic fixes to the current physics engine (I.E. proper collisions between models), the next step of realism in a physics engine is fluid physics. I've yet to work out where this would help a game.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Fluffy Kitten]

Well, if you could have fluid physics... why not ?
I can't off hand think of any in-game function for realistic water, but if you were to make a map on a sinking ship, it'd be nice to have the water realisticly flooding the level, rather than being a textured func_train.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Have to agree with you there, but unless large portions of a game are set on a sinking ship, it's wasted effort.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[ComradeBadger]

Yep, it'd be neat to have fluid physics, but pointless

Oh, and most important factor in any game is fun, duh

Realism bites. To me, it's boring

 

[Argyll]

Gameplay (Fun?) is the most important.

There really should be an article defining what 'realism' in games is. Everyone has their own opinion on to what is considered 'realistic' or not. Someone qualified should end some senseless debates on what is realistic and write an article defining 'realism' in games.

*opens up Word*

 

[Cole]

You wanna know what we should focus on.
Fun.
Rather than saying "My mod should be realistic" You should try and see if realistic works. If it dosn't try something else that works and is alot funner. Imbue what you can to make the game fun like physics. If physics distract the gameplay don't overly use them.
Give the mod alot of atmosphere. Something that can draw you in.

Now AI matters.
With singleplayer AI should be almost imbued with gameplay. Cuz stupid AI can easily ruin the gameplay.

Now with multiplayer I'd still make AI a small focus, just not he largest focus. Make the AI at least decently smart and good and not totally stupid.

Terrain really deals with atmosphere. Having a simple plain landscape in a time of war and bombs aint gonna cut it. Having holes in the ground and things really make a diffrence in the atmosphere of the game and how it hooks you.

Gameplay is what they should focus on. What is fun not what is real or what is cartoony. Simply alter there mod to make it fun. Fun and gameplay go hand in hand.

AI matters if it's singleplayer or multiplayer.

Atmosphere is next...it is what grabs the player in.

Physics go hand in hand with atmosphere and gameplay. Though as gameplay does come first, if physics don't work well with gameplay don't overly use them. If they do use them and make sure they make your game funner or if they don't make it better or worse use them for atmosphere.

Singleplayer or Multiplayer. We will have are mix no matter what.
I mean look at Bethseda still making The Elder Scrolls not multiplayer. They make solid RPG's and breathtaking ones. It may not have anything to do with HL\HL2 but it just shows that even in the real world..sometimes the less there are of things the better the few that are there are.

There are less Single Player focused RPG's but the ones that are there are breathtaking.

 

[Dario D.]

Dude, you're just splitting hairs. When people mention "realism" they rarely mean absolute, total realism.

+1. It's more what people "mean" than what they say.