Traveller! Thank goodness you found me! I've been standing in this exact spot, motionless, doing literally nothing, for 100 years waiting for someone to save me! I'm on the brink of death! Only a space dragonborn like yourself can save me by killing some pirates in a mine 400 light years away! You must hurry! but also take your time i'll still be here: www.patreon.com/ArchitectofGames Nothing makes the real world seem more immersive, and the grass you touch seem greener than having to spend a short time on twitter dot com no I won't call it X that's a stupid name: twitter.com/Thefearalcarrot
That "Guten dag" wasnt bad and the "und" nether. The rest I couldnt understand anymore. Try it again nexttime. In case your translation is wrong here is the right one : "Guten Tag und herzlich wilkommen zur geheim Nach dem Video Sequenz, wo ich über Künstler berichte die eh viel talentierter sind als ich." That is your howl catchphrase mor or less translated with a couple rough edges but devenetly presentebal
I really want you to look at the game Rebel Galaxy, i think the realism scaling inverse to idealism is a bit of a false dichotomy. While it remains mostly true because authors rarely thing through the full implications of an idealized element enough to make their fiction feel realistic that is more a failing of the author if the goal is realism. I believe idealism only increases the difficulty of achieving realism, with each element of fantasy requiring a full exploration and integration of its implications and effects. This is why star wars is so immersive, it rarely leaves anything it introduces fully unexplained or explored...until disney showed up and flipped the table for kathlene kenedy to have her therapy IP
I hate how some people will always defend an internally inconsistent, incoherent game with "but it has magic it's not realistic". Yes bit that doesn't mean the game should just break its own rules constantly!
That's one the main reasons people get mad when the "lore" is not respected, because it makes no sense, breakers the sense of immersion, imagine if in avatar suddenly people were able to learn 2 elements, or that the air nomads were never murdered and survived isolated for over 200 years, that would be too stupid and could ruin lots of stories.
My beef with Starfield is more like a lack of "cause and effect". Like I don't care if the water in Minecraft is unrealistic but it has a clear set of rules it follows. Same is true for any Mario game or RDR2. This is not at all the case in Starfield. Stuff floats for no reason. You get arrested for picking up a glass in a bar. Alien life, biomes, resources all appear random with no apparent rules. There are human built structures on every spot of the planet despite being pretty much in empty unexplored space. How does any of this make sense?
Regarding the structures (because I’ve also heard a lot of “the planets are too empty”): they might simply be leftovers from mining efforts. Like fuel tanks, gas storage, and so on, abandoned for various possible reasons (the Colony War, Spacers, pirates, not enough profit). Same with settlements, they are small, composed of a small amount of hab units and workspaces, because if there’s little to no atmosphere air is an incredibly valuable resource. Over time, they might grow or be abandoned
@@jasutinborchert4418 That still doesn't track. The number of abandoned pirate, infested outposts outnumber civilian outposts by 10:1 or more, throughout the entire explorable galaxy, and yet there are less than ten colonized planets with anything resembling civilization. Fallout had the excuse of post apocalypse radiation, skyrim had the excuse of daedric shenanigans, but what's Starfields excuse? Some civil-ish war 20 years ago that started over a stupid contrivance and ended in an equally contrived fashion? That somehow caused both countries involved to lose or pull back 90% of their territory, industrial capacity, and military projection throughout the galaxy? And yet all cities are completely untouched by bombings or attacks of any kind? If I can build a fighter that can single handedly defeat every pirate in key for less than 60k credits, that can also jump halfway through the explored galaxy on a single tank of gas, why are there all these settlers and miners wandering around unarmed and helpless because "Oh, pirates don't come out this far."
@@Anergyne Pretty sure the reason they did that is because back in the Oblivion games players managed to steal stuff by picking up items and moving them out of view of the shopkeeper so they could put them in their inventories with no one seeing them.
Play some old classical games at 30+ FPS ;-) Also, great old game + mods = fantastic time! Want to try? Heroes of Might and Magick III + HD Mod + Horn of the Abyss
you missed the point and confused realism of the mechanics with graphics fidelity. Look at some examples from the video, like Papers Please or Factorio.
I kind of wish every developer would scale back to the graphics of 10 years ago. 90% of people would barely tell the difference (because they don't play on a high end gaming monitor in a blacked-out room to see every last detail), and those that do notice won't care if a horses balls don't shrink when it's cold. The benefits would be a radically cheaper cost to develop games, so we could get more of them faster. It would also free up resources to put towards developing better narrative and mechanics that have a much bigger impact on how fun a game is. On top of that, it would make gaming way cheaper, not requiring $1000+ to be spent every 5 years to keep up with new games. Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what non-AAA games (not just indy, but also medium sized studios) are doing, and why there are often amazing games to be found in the weeds. But it will never happen to AAA titles, because shiny graphics is the easiest thing to market to a large audience that isn't interested in looking deeper.
I have a conspiracy theory that big game dev studios and publishers have some sort of agreement with GPU/CPU manufacturers to keep pushing graphical fidelity to justify the continual production and purchasing of new, more powerful computer components. If the video game industry largely switched to lower fidelity graphics then nobody would have a reason to upgrade their PCs or buy new consoles and businesses like Nvidia and AMD would be in serious trouble.
I find Cyberpunk much more immersive then any Bethesda game, because in Cyberpunk you are V, merc, you do odd jobs from fixers and you just so happen to have a terrorist in your head, when V walks around and talk to someone, they dont need to know who you are, because you dont matter in the larger world, however, if someone knows who you are, its because you have worked job from job to slowly build up your reputation. While in Bethesda games, you are simultaneously a stranger, as well as the God reincarnate, leader of all major factions, a royal in all the courts, a murderer, thief and a hero, and as such, guards both do and do not know who you are, when you supposedly are both really famous, their direct superior and an enemy of the state. Both Cyberpunk and Bethesda game TM have really intricate worlds and many many small details, Bethesda expects you, and wants you to have it all, they want you to have the cake, eat it and get the whole god deam bakery as well, while as Cyberpunk is content with keeping you a no name merc, or let you rise trough the underworld, but you dont get to become say the mayor of NC, or the CEO of Arasaka, or someone everyone is expected to know, you are just V the merc, nothing more, nothing less.
You put into word somthing I was staying to express about cyberpunk77- when it makes you the center of the world it somehow seems less forced than in any bethdesa game. And you suddenly explained why. V is Him-this is the man that killed Adam smasher after all-but he’s not a major play in the same was as say, Saborou-and the game never pretends you’re anything more than an especially talented merc, while bethdesa games want you to think you’re the leader of the theives guild despite being the one taking requests from them. Probably also helps that cybered punks is as much about learning to deal with your impending death as merc work, and per the settings themes, you can’t save the world-it’s all you can do to save yourself.
Ending spoiler for both Cyberpunk and Starfield. In my perspective, Cyberpunk is trying too hard on the story. The story removing the protagonist at the end is one of the worst tropes for an ongoing franchise. It makes me don't want to replay the game after the ending because there is no point anymore. Now they have a new protagonist for version 2. Meanwhile, Starfield is the never-ending life of a wanderer in a closed multiverse. The player can do anything they want with that universe. There is no attachment, and its replayability is more fun and meaningful than Cyberpunk.
@@DraconicA5 Well, i cant say i disagree with your point, but i think its the other way around. Since Cyberpunk has an end in sight, you wont live forever, you either die a legend of go away in the quiet life, that is the dilemma Dexter gives you at the beginning, and that is the dilemma you have to solve by the end. In such it builds its fantasy with care, having a much easier time having it believable in the end. Now i havent played Starfield, but i have played other Bethesda games, and i dont like the never ending story, where you will live on forever with no end in sight, almost like a purgatory, and it does an immeasurable harm to the fantasy they are going for. Where as both the games have their flaws, bugs and jank, and at the launch and high point of Cyberpunks activity, they both had the same concentration of bugs, the fact that Cyberpunk has a shorter life span, and as such a shorter story, the odds of an endless barrage of bugs braking the illusion is a lot smaller, where as in Todd Howard fashion, its not a bug, its a feature, is constantly pulling you out with floating mammoths and broken quests for hours upon hours. In that sense i perfect Cyberpunk (also am a sucker for the cyberpunk ganra, and its a fun game to play, am just a Cyberpunk fanboy honestly), since all the things that hurt those two games, does not compile in Cyberpunk.
@@Super-BallSharp Scary stories makes life seem less scary i suppose. The fact that Cyberpunk is an history future (since the world was made in the 80's), that looks so bleak and hopeless, it makes all the horrible things going on today seem less bleak, since i can tell myself "well its not as bad as Cyberpunk".
What the?! It's odd to be featured in someone else's RUclips video, especially since I've been watching your shtuff for... I think 1.5-2 years now? Thanks for the shout out, mate. Love your stuff!
there was a gdc talk about "cursed problems in game design", and what you seem to be getting at is that there is one of these cursed problems at the core of starfield
Im most interested with the problem of how to combine an infinite mostly desolate procedural universe with an RPG game, or even if you can. It should be the first thing you investigate before embarking on such a project. Star Field bizarrely did not seem to think about this till the very end of development.. or surely they would have come up with something better than cut and pasting the EXACT same base around. It would not be hard to add decent procedural variation even if only having a few variations of rooms and different junk lying about. This implies to me they just did not pay any attention to that problem initially.
I will say that even demons and magic can be highly realistic. Yes we dont have demons and magic in real life, but we do have many myths about them. Myths that many people believed, and often still believe, to be true. If you make the demons/magic in your game adhere to a strong mythological basis, and actually make sure that basis is well explained through the narrative, the demons/magic can actually become very realistic. As long as the origins and execution of the concepts make logical sense, and have some sort of identifiable link to the real world, you can make even unrealistic concepts feel very real.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is NOTHING realistic about demons, or magic. You can try to explain how they work in material terms, but then you're just writing sci-fi with a fantastical coat of paint.
Great video. Regarding World Design (and the finite resources of virtual worlds), the Archmage Rises developer once mentioned how, during development, they were simulating the actual travels of each of the various merchants/bandits/characters wandering around the world, for realism's sake; however, after experiencing performance issues, it then occurred to him that since players never actually perceive all of that traveling, the game doesn't need to simulate it at all. They can merely generate it upon request and backfill histories at the moment the information actually becomes relevant to the player in order to save on memory/performance while still presenting a realistic-FEELING "living" world. 😀
@@mishagaming1075 .... you are aware that Rain World is far less resource intensive at base? Like it's really impressive but... the game is specifically about that and has far less base resource usage, so of course it will work better.
Honestly, my biggest problem with Starfield is that the factions seem pointless. You can become the saviour of the UC and it is pretty much never brought up again (not even during the other faction quests can you bring up that you are already a high ranking member of one faction). If they didn't want to weave the factions into the main plot, they could at least have gone the Mass Effect: Andromeda route and have all the allies you made along the way show up to assist you in the final battle, but no, the most we can get is one of the two new guys that we have been introduced to 5 minutes ago.
This all comes back to Bethesda's refusal to allow players to miss main content. Most of the faction questlines should 100% be mutually exclusive or at least be heavily altered depending on which you do first. It makes zero sense for a Freestar Ranger to become a UC Vanguard captain or to work with SysDef or an employee at Ryujin. It's one of the many things that makes Starfield's world and characters feel so incredibly artificial. They exists for and around the player and only the player.
@@amysteriousviewer3772 Wait, why shouldn’t they? Mutually exclusive factions make sense when the factions are opposed to each other, but when they’re not I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to join them.
Thank you. There was something that felt “off” when playing Starfield and I think it’s the conflict between the world trying to be “realistic” in terms of its vast emptiness headbutting with its campy story and world.
How is the world campy ? And by story do you mean the main quest ? Cause most of the stories in Starfield are in the side content. Also I don’t understand why you can’t be realistic in one way and not realistic in another.
I would say the most important part is consistentsy, when you know what gonna happen and the game just work as expected is when the gane just fade away and suck you in, but when you constantly get whiplashed because of bugs or stuff work different than expected
Star Citizen is one of those games that pushed so hard into realism that it's just not a game anymore. Like EVE Online, the only real stories to be told in it's persistent universe are ones told by the players' actions, and the people who will play it most are those who treat it as part of their life or at least a full time job (and some people may even make playing it their full time job). Because of that, it's never going to be something that most gamers can just get into.
I'm always left scratching my head at some of Star Citizen's design choices, like... ok, simulating a realistic world is one thing, but when you're forcing the player to go through the same daily tediums in-game as they do in real life, hasn't something gone wrong? Why do I need a commute to get to my spaceship?
Below Zero also has another issue in that it feels like the game doesn't really know what story it wants to tell, where the main questline almost ends up becoming an optional side quest by the end So not only is there less of that feeling of isolation and hostility, but also the story they DID try to focus on feels like it kind of doesn't entirely work anyways
Its probably a result of the original writer leaving Unknown Wolrds, i played Early Access before the shift and the story that was there was pretty different, when the shift happened it was like a story built on the remnants on the stuff they had before
Al-AN speaking every X minutes probably the most immersion breaking I have in that game. I felt so bitter on buying Subnautica below zero and find the only similarity of it and the original game is some water with scalable fishes in it.
The worst is, you can see how the game could have been really good - the building blocks are there! Robin as a protagonist doesn't work, she's too much "Boss Babe TM" and quite frankly a terrible xenobiologist. It doesn't help that there are two better options: Samantha or Margerit Meda. Heck, Margerit's story (that we only get through PDA) would have been a fantastic survival focused game from a different perspective. It made me so mad, that I didn't get to play that! If they wanted to go with the main story anyway, they should have moved Al-An to the very depths of crystal caves. Let the player solve the mystery of Sam's death and the aftermath first. Then, when all your energy would be focused on finding a way FROM the planet, should the next part begin - looking for technology and resources, finding alien artifacts, getting hints that there may be a precursor (no, I won't call them architect) still hidden somewhere, finding it and figuring out you'll have to make it a body... and no alien mind-meld! I don't want answers forced into my head, nor a well of information that just so happens to not want to communicate those, or only on their own terms. Because nothing is so thrilling as reading a mystery book, where the protagonist tells you they know the ending, but won't tell you to keep up the "suspense". Sooo, yes, long post is long (and could be muuuuch longer, but I'm going to cut myself off here), cause I had a lot of time to stew in all the missed oportunities.
I think a large part of it is the "uncanny valley" effect. The harder something tries to mimic a thing we're intimately familiar with (such as reality), the easier things stand out that don't quite fit in. This isn't just a visual thing, it's also a narrative thing and a mechanical thing. And for the most part, these can have separate visions on what they want to be like. Having a realistic narrative in an unrealistic-looking world is fine. The problem arises mainly when there are inconsistencies. For example, a game might have people in it whose animations have a lot of care put into them to make them seem very human. But if the moment they die they turn into a ragdoll, that doesn't mesh at all with the experience the game has provided thus far, and it can really take you out of the experience. And weird jank in a game like Skyrim just feels more off-putting than having similar jank happen in The Sims, because the former tries to present a realistic simulation, whereas the latter provides a simplified one.
Starfield's emptiness comes not from harsh realism, but from half-assed, boring terrain generation. Just look at the "barren rocks" in our own solar system, and observe the intricate and fascinating contours of that lifeless terrain. Canyons, craters, lakes of hydrocarbons, cryogysers, chaos terrain, and many other unique and interesting features exist in reality. Starfield falls far, *far* short of realism.
Goddamn it if I don’t WANT to like this game. I can tell that so much love was put into crafting its worlds, stories, and characters. There are a multitude of guns, planets, builds, quests. The design of it, at a glance, LOOKS fun and immersive. I was genuinely excited when it first came out, as I could play it free day 1 with Xbox game pass. I’ve restarted starfield so many times, only playing each build for a couple hours. Each time I restarted, the same problem would occur; I would genuinely enjoy my experience for the first couple of hours, but just as I was getting my footing in this sci fi world I would become bored and begin dreading my next few sessions. Despite this, I kept going, because I desperately hoped that if only I could just find a build I liked I could enjoy the game. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case, no matter which faction I joined, crew members I invited, or spaceship I used. I stopped trying around a month ago, because I became tired of trying to work with a game that just doesn’t work for me. However, my original excitement of the game never vanished; every time I see its concept art, or snippets of its gameplay in a video, I am filled with sadness and a strange eagerness to try just one more time. To all of you that could find joy in starfield: good for you! I wish I could be that person. I hope you have fun and experiment in its incredibly impressive world. I wish you only the best :)
I didn't expect RDR2 to be place towards the idealistic side of the scale when all I can remember is how the attempts of being too faithful too reality hurt the gameplay and my enjoyment of the game
In some places they tried to be so realistic that it was unrealistic. Like why the hell can't I sprint while at my camp? That's hardly realistic. Also I hate unresponsive gameplay. One of the reasons I never finished the game.
RDR2 was waaaay too slow and boring. There is a reason why movies make a cut between "Bond enters taxi" -> "Bond exits Taxi" and not make us Ride along for 10 minutes. I hated how my Life was wasted while waiting to Ride into the Camp and slooowly ride out into the world again...
@@256shadesofgrey It always bothers me when games add so much friction to things that they would literally be easier in real life. Even when the other 90% of the game is already made of things that are way easier than real life. Heck, maybe especially then. Because it feels so much more like the game saying "You can't do that, because we said so" or even "You can't do that, because we couldn't figure out how to make it properly balanced if you could."
Fair point but that’s why I love it. It’s insanely therapeutic, you can just ride for hours and fish and do stuff. Move around hay and milk the cows. It’s cool once you’re over 30 imo.
Ever since playing a mid-2000s indie RPG, I've always wanted to see games (specifically RPGs) that reward focusing on one task at a time. E.g. are you sent out on an urgent quest to find a kidnapped NPC? Start a hidden timer that determines whether you find them alive, dead (recently or otherwise), and define different dialogue/rewards from the quest giver depending on how you found them. Heck, I have a lot of unusual takes on common game mechanics and tropes I would love to build a game around (such as an achievement-like character experience/leveling system) but I'm not at a point where I can actually, meaningfully build that.
I'd also add that video games as a medium kind of have to lean more idealist than realist, because having a player interacting with the medium necessarily pushes the limits in a way that a film or novel doesn't. The actors in a film can't decide to go poke the camera or mess around with the edges of what's visible unless that's part of the story being told.
Your argument feels to me actually like a proof for the very opposite of what you believe: Not being interactive, you give the example with the actor who can break the 4th wall to potentially not break the 4th wall, makes movies necessarily more idealized versions of reality. - While driving or flight simulators, with their potential frictions, in comparison can indeed be highly realistic (and unforgiving) . Or, to give an example: The movie Gran Turismo, " Boy, this is the reality, not just some video game!" , actually provides pretty much an idealized version of said video game. 😛
To add to this, specifically on the samey barren planet problem that are interesting the first time but never again, I think there is an inherent problem to trying to make individual things in large scale games matter after you've been playing them for a while and that inherent problem isn't in the game, it's in the skull of any potential player. Humans simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with a big universe full of unique fine details. Or a planet. Or... really anything beyond their immediate surroundings. How do we deal with the fact that we live on a whole ass planet in a whole ass universe? abstraction and generalisation. Even in a perfectly developed evenly detailed game eventually people will reach a point where they can only care about the big scale stuff or box themselves in somewhere small and care about the little scale stuff. So if its an inherent problem with the audience, can you still design around it? Kind of. Essentially you have to have the "small" details scale up with the player's sense of scale to the point that the environmental storytelling isn't finding someone's lost sandwich, but instead finding a planet full of rare resources that evidently sparked a war between two long-dead civilisations, that kind of big picture stuff. Planets can't just be covered in interesting rocks. Star systems have to be full of interesting mineral distributions suggesting the nebula they formed from had an unusually high proportion of heavier elements, possibly from a neutron star collision in the past (ergo, to make non-nerds care about that, loads of radioactive fuels worth setting up base there for). Companions at some point have to become battalions and haggling with a shopkeeper to offload crap and kit out your party has to give way to dealing with wholesalers outfitting your fleet. Or stuff like that anyway, whatever fits the game's loop. Alternitively just scale the game back to a size where the details you want people to care about matter. There's no shame in being a small, focused game and some of the most interesting worlds are small.
@@henryfleischer404 yeah. that game runs into "well I've landed on a desolate world for the 400th time" problems too at the moment. In theory what they're trying to do with 2 should change things but at the moment all they've managed is to make a game that cleans up its own attempts at destroying the windows registry.
I wasn't sure I was onboard with you in the first half but as you went on I couldn't agree more. Rather than waste time making preset generic locations with some small repeated story they should have focused on the big picture. What's the story of this star system and the planets in it? They have a pretty decent amount of assets and creatures and honestly had they thought of each system as being its own 'dungeon' with stories to tell the player instead of what they did exploration would have been more fun.
People want different things from their games. Perfect example is you compared Factorio to Satisfactory. I don't want to play tower defense in my Automation game. I want the challenge of coming up with the most efficient method of solving logistical problems. The challenge of resource management in Factorio is you are constantly running out, while Satisfactory it's about how you are going to convey the limited number of nodes to where those resources are needed. Both are viable takes with different ways of applying friction to the player.
I suppose another good example is Cities Skylines 1 and 2. The first was a great 'chilling game' where you could just relax and build a city, the second is way more complex and realistic, with you having to deal with things like cims not making rent. Which one is the best? Depends on what experience you're after.
I mean, you can play Factorio without enemies if you want, the game gives you the option when you create the world IIRC, I've never done it though, so I don't know how much depth the game loses by doing that.
@@repli2991 I've almost never played Factorio with enemies. Peaceful mode is a gentle game of endless tweaking and tinkering and expanding. I've sunk hundreds of hours into Factorio, doing nothing but that. It's like bonsai for nerds, and is perfectly enjoyable that way.
There is always a point in Adam's videos where I roll my eyes at him conflating personal opinion with game design critique and the Satisfactory vs Factorio example was that moment for me. Satisfactory is the vastly better game for me, but that's entirely due to personal preference. Both are excellent examples of building mechanics, worlds, and systems that work together to create a highly immersive experience.
Oooh finally an explanation on my views on gaming. Especially invisible walls or similar arbitrary restrictions often break me from immersion. Borderlands had a great opportunity to nick those with their out of bounds deathlasers, but nothing in the game acknowledges their existence and so they are back to immersionbreaking, had they have some creatures or people die by their weapons, or people living close complain about their oppressive nature they'd actually be a cool addition. I have a way higher tolerance for bugs and technical limitations than for any barriers trying to hide them from me. Sure they break suspension of disbelieve some, yet the nature of them clearly not being part of the intended snippet of the world the developers tried to present me leaves me able to return to the previous state of disbelief suspending I had before much faster. Only when such instances pile up, do they chip into that suspension with more permanence. Also I never learned to like scaling enemies.. Mostly of the tonal disconnect of the game clearly stating that I were more powerful (level up) and still having the same trouble if not more to stay in the area I am fighting foes. Always love the level 100 mega hero who eats worldending threats for breakast running into a pack of wolves and still being hugely inconvenienced by them. oh and regular NPCs still living in the area like.. If I call down a meteor on a creature and they shrug it off as if it were a pebble, why is that random traveling merchants still travel around with no escort? Why do I, the genetically enhanced uber human who even powered up beyond that base state, have to have nailbitingly close fights with the local zombie population, while the random 16year old guard whose highest strength power up is lifting some weights at a gym just casually stands guard, ouside the walled of perimeters of the rest of civilization? There is ways to mitigate these disconnects with writing (see the Borderlands example), yet so rarely are the disconnects addressed. Even "Gothic" paid heed to try and mitigate most of these disconnects. The world barrier was an integral part of the story and was a threat to the populus same as it was to you (though that game had a level of detail that few games have done right since. The controls are very clunky, but it's a game I'd absolutely recommend any gamedesigner to play. There apparently is a switch release, which had some launch problems, but seemingly those seem to mostly be fixed now. I still can't believe how far ahead of their time those games were.
12:36 I love that in a video about realism vs idealism you managed to fit Red Dead Redemption 2, a game which is either praised or despised because of all the fiddly elements that slow down gameplay, into the idealism side of the spectrum.
The thing with RDR2 is that it doesn't go halfway. The level of realism is mostly consistent. Starfield wants to have it both ways, making some aspects realistic and others completely unrealistic which makes the world feel extremely inconsistent and artificial.
@@MindinViolet As someone who put over a hundred hours into it, it is far from unplayable. Yeah it’s slow and many systems aren’t obvious, but once you figure out how something works it’s perfectly usable.
I think this is the only interesting critical take on Starfield I've seen. It also explains the somewhat common opinion that the survival modes added to Skyrim and Fallout 4 dramatically improve the experience of playing those games.
not the only, the game is just bad, plenty of critique vids on its issues its interesting a video no whats the limit to "immersion" in a game, over focus on realism or on making the player happy over logic
@@marcusclark1339The game is not bad, most of the critique are just « I don’t like it so it’s bad » or people who say the game has problems so it must be bad.
In New Vegas I added the ones to make water more important, but you can also bottle water with all those bottles lying around. Delay level up until you sleep etc. Healing not instantaneous from food or drugs. Eating animations.. also the one that delays all those BLOODY DLC POPUPS just as you step out of Doc's house :) (edit: oh, and portable campsite and bed etc) Another one I really like would be if they could do away fast travel screens and perhaps have some sort of cinematic transition to show passage of time when you are just walking down a road.
I wonder how a game like X4 would fit into this. It's not a big or popular game, but it does a amazing job at building a reactive world, while also somehow empowering you? like the factions participate in the same market that you do, they require all the same resources that you do and if they don't get resources, then they don't get ships and that can affect them in the wars that they fight between each other. this also makes things interesting because at the start of the game, there's not enough to go around and so there's not a lot of ships or fighting going on. as you as a player make money by fixing all of these market deficiencies, suddenly the AI has enough resources in order to build ships and start going to war a whole lot so right as you are prepared to participate in these kinds of dynamics, the AI is actually doing that. there's also very little that only you as the player can do, and yet somehow you also get empowered by turning into a trade mogul or a pirate unlike anything that the Galaxy has seen yet. but you still get all of those feelings even though the AI also builds stations, the AI uses the exact same weapons shields and ships that you do, etc.
I'm not specially fan of Anime but Idealism and realism in is something that anime do very well most of the time. Animes first episodes start setting an absolute crazy and unrealistic premise as a starting point and then, fluctuate all the time between realism and idealism in a masterful way. Great video!
Major Correction from a Game Design Art major: Realism actually started with the Romans. Impressionism started in the 1800s with the likes of Monet and Renior, who believed we could capture realism without the need of immense detail. Correction aside, great video. Edit: Van Gogh was a post-impressionist painter, not impressionist like I originally stated.
Starfield really made it clear to me that Bethesda games are Sandboxes with a veneer of rpg elements. They can have cool lore and interesting ideas, but its all in service of letting the players run around in a theme park and do their own thing, which is why “you can ignore the main story quest” is a feature, not a bug. What makes Starfield (and tbh the rest of their games) feel like two different games tripping on each other is that it’s never really willing to forego its claim of just being a big empty universe to explore while never giving the players much in the way of meaningful choices or a sense that they’re changing the setting besides a few very isolated ways. I seriously think that Bethesda should consider just double down on being themed playgrounds and remove the stilted “main story” that is hardly the selling point of their games for most people. Just drop the player into the world and let them go ham.
This video actually makes me appreciate The Outer Worlds over the top silliness and more bespoke narrative it really hit all the right notes for me as far as a fun space adventure goes
I love videos like this that give me a completely new perspective. I hadn't at all thought about the idealism vs realism dichotomy you brought up. Great food for thought.
Seems like Starfield sits in a kind of uncanny valley of realism vs idealism. Though when it comes to balancing having a realistic world with player convenience I think the best approach is to simply give the player options, which ironically Bethesda did really well until now. Both Fallout and Skyrim featured convenient fast travel, but the worlds were designed in such a way that walking on foot and exploring was worthwhile and fun, so both choices were always valid. As far as I understand in Starfield you can't walk 7 steps without hitting another loading screen though and fast traveling is pretty much mandatory.
@@onlysmiles4949 Yes that is true, and in the end, she couldn't even land on that planet (it was Pluto), it was just a low res model smaller than the real planet in the game, to land you still hate to go inside the ship and fast travel to it from the ship menu.
Exploring cities and settlements in Starfield is worthwhile and fun, going to new star system and discovering new unique locations is worthwhile and fun. Was Starfield supposed to be star citizen but with 100hours of RPG content ? Cause that’s just impossible to make.
@@ni9274 It's not fun even if you have played only Bethesda game, there is nothing unique to discover and exploring is not rewarding at all, what are you talking about? IF a game like that was impossible to make, they shouldn't have marketed Starfield as such type of game.
"A nuanced world of sci-fi political intrigue that awkwardly exists right alongside a story all about the magic space-friends explorer club and their mystical, infallible, chosen one leader." ...That sound suspiciously similar to Skyrim...
I think most of Starfield's weirdness just comes down to the way Bethesda develops games - they develop the game engine completely separately from the content in it, likely even before they even have any idea what game is going to be run on it. The developers of the engine probably had no idea it'd be used for Starfield (probably intended more for TES6), and by the time Starfield started, they were already done. Then the artists and writers that make content for their newly developed engine just have to deal with its limitations, and do their best with what it offers, with no real ability to make changes to the base game and how it works, to make it work better with a more realistic setting. Basically, they try to make games without game devs This is kinda speculation but it's evidenced by their creation kits, which usually release alongside the game, and seem to clearly be the tool they gave to their writers and artists to build everything we see. As a dev, I think it's really obvious with the way their engines never do anything good, it just does a lot of things that can be applied in a lot of situations, even if none of it is ever quite a perfect fit for that thing or situation. It was made to be generically usable for all situations, and when you try to do that, you can't handle specifics, or even tailor the engine for a particular game or design decision
Oh god I think that's it. Fawkeds in fallout 3 refusing to save the day, that's the moment that permanently broke my suspension of disbelief. From that moment on, I could never see videogames as anything other than groups of mechanics meant to be overcome.
Drawing and driving home the difference between Realism and Idealism is an excellent perspective. I particularly resonate with the points that decisions in games that skew too closely to idealism feel less meaningful (GTA, Satisfactory), but games that skew too far realistic introduce busywork for its own sake without narrative or emotional payoff.
My problem with Starfield is that it doesn't feel like it has any reason to exist and also it's a Bethesda game. And somehow, despite being a space-age sci-fi game, it has less interesting character diversity than either Fallout or Elder Scrolls
It's so weird that there's plenty of really nice micro-stories in starfield but all the main ones, including named side quests are pretty bland and badly thought out
really well said at the end, at first all the inconsistencies you pointed out bugged me a bit, as if its fair to point out that something which I clearly knew wasn't real isn't functioning in an utterly real way, it is a narrative many people actually hold, complaining about the fact that fiction doesnt act the way real life would. but as stated at the end, maybe the problems are not the games themselves or whichever path they use to give the player satisfaction, but rather the problem is our relationship with fiction. expecting something completely unreasonable. expecting something that forgets the whole point of fiction and art to begin with, becoming obsessed with being utterly immersed in a world which we know doesnt exist to begin with, critiquing it for being exactly what it is, merely a simulation life's many possibilities, and in our meaningless obsessions, losing the point and the fun which brought us to these forms of entertainment to begin with. good video!
Huh, this makes loads of sense. I was thinking about a similar related thing recently with Football Manager - it's kinda weird how accurate they're making it in terms of the gameplay, whilst there's always that nagging problem that pretty much any human manager in game can do better than any real world manager could, and you can achieve the impossible (or highly improbable) without too much of an issue
I only understood “Guten Tag und willkommen” which means “Good day and welcome” and is fine apart from some weird intonation, but I’m also the child of two German teachers, who are also the children of teachers, so I’m just being a little picky. Also, I wanted to watch a Starfield Let’s Play, but just in the first hour, the game felt so weird, somehow. Full of details yet empty, traveling gets you nowhere, and the lifeless horror that is space is disrupted by how many people and bases are everywhere. It’s too full and not empty enough, which ends up being boring. It’s also a problem that the game wants you to be everything instead of letting you choose -- be a vagabond wandering through space with your rag-tag crew, or become the hero saving the galaxy? I get that both at the same time is interesting, but being able to choose your path makes more varied gameplay, an ending that feels unique. I don’t need the game to be “like reality” I need the game to deliver the genuine, sincere feeling of fun and enjoyment that it was created with. Even games with heavy themes are fun, because there is a story, an interesting environment, details that make you think, good music, comforting and relaxing little routines... That’s my opinion as someone who likes watching and observing a lot. Also, your videos are very interesting, a little similar to Daryl talks Games (i think that’s his name) who has a bit more psycho-analysis (if you wanna call it that). Very fun to watch, I learned something new today :)
He tried to say "Guten Tag und willkommen zum Nach-dem-Video-Teil". Both judging from me hearing a lot of broken german from my american boyfriend and that he normally says "Welcome to the after--the-video segment". ^w^
Excellent video. I find this tension between flavors of realism and idealism shapes so many aspects of modern games, as well as movies and books. Personally I prefer more realism in games because it makes them feel less contrived, somehow more authentic-but too much grindy realism will lock me out too.
i think starfield was meant to have multiple storylines and events depending the player's choice and exploration but was cut, which made them rely on a single line and the result is what we got. it could've been way better for it if they removed a lot of friction from it, just like what outer wilds did. Outer wilds is an excellent example tbh of removing friction, planets are way smaller which made them more interesting and easier to explore, traveling through space is as easy as robbing a bicycle in san andreas, even landing is forgiving (sometimes😂), gravity impact is reduced to further increase the speed of exploration. all of this combined literally made an excellent space exploration game (i loved it so much) starfield could've benefited a lot by literally copy and pasting these into its own design but oh well, maybe they will learn someday.
There isn’t a « single storyline » in Starfield. Maybe Starfield is just not for the people who can’t support some loading screen and can’t immerse themself in a world that isn’t realistic in every single aspect. I personally really love Starfield for the attention to details, the very good worldbuilding and the fact that it’s the first space game with some good RPG content coupled with real planets and many additional systems like outpost and shipbuilding. All that is perfect for roleplay.
20:05 -- The trick with Outer Worlds' supernova mode is to play it as a lone wolf after already beating the game once normally with companions. It got me approaching things in a totally different way from how I did my first playthroughs. Stealth, negotiation, and picking your battles are all way more important when you are weak, alone, and unable to savescum. Plus, the "meter management" really isn't so bad, especially if you actually use food buffs as a regular part of gameplay and don't just hoard everything. Solo supernova was the most invested I felt in my 100%ing of that game, the added security that comes with selling out to the corporations is way more tempting when you feel just a little extra disempowered.
If starfield was an Iceberg, it would be a raft with some snow on top. There is no gameplay depth, no mythos, no story depth, heck, its also insanely empty, and mechanically reductionist. Feels emptier than 76 even did. The game drops the concept of unreliable narrator completely, which in a world of exploration, is essential. The messaging in the story is also.... anti-human in nature.
This has me thinking about the FPS I'm working on, and how I'm going to be figuring out an inventory system soon. In it, every weapon will be one-handed, and the player will be duel wielding. This brings up the question of how the player switches weapons. I've been thinking of using a system similar to Half-Life 2, where the player selects a weapon with the number keys or scroll wheel, then clicks fire to equip it, but with one fire button for each hand. I've also been considering using a grid of items that each take up multiple spaces. I'm not sure which one to use. The game is supposed to be a movement shooter, but with a sort of stop-and-stop pace like Halo or Metro Exodus, but without regenerating health or crafting mechanics.
Cool :D I like the wheel and shoot to equip idea. Mind that I'm not an FPS player so take that with all the salt that could exist in the universe But why not both? Grid to manage what to carry at all, wheel for tacticool swap mid fight
Maybe holding down a mouse button locks your camera angle, and aims the weapon all GoldenEye 007 style; releasing the mouse button stops aiming it. For melee, drag the mouse to strike; for range, release the mouse to fire. Alternatively, aim the weapon down to sheathe it. A movement shooter with such wonky controls would have to have *extremely* forgiving weapons. Like... if a weapon can't wipe out 7 guys with a fireball or 30 pellets, don't bother giving it to them. You know how in DooM 2, you got the Super Shotgun in the second level? Super easy to aim with, super easy to use, instantly solves your problems, slow enough for you to comprehend its power? Try that for your first ranged weapons. Then, once people are ready, hand out the precision weapons.
Ahhh did you already finish your short ahh cyberjunk dlc? Im so sad for you... Maybe the spiderboi game will keep you for an hour or two so we dont have to read your goofy bs
While overall I totally buy your point, I think you do often get magic from combining realistic narrative with idealistic mechanics or vice versa. Disco Elysium wants to paint a largely-grounded ("realistic" if not "realist") world about a guy going through a really tough point in his life with almost entirely disconnected mechanics; Pathologic 2 tells a story about a pretty fantastical world that you are forced to interract with through extremely arduous mechanics and both are stronger for it. It's one of the reasons I will always go out to bat for Fire Emblem as a narrative series: coupling this largely silly world and largely abstract mechanics to the notion that, if you don't take care, your guys and gals are not coming home after the war just gives such incredibl weight to the franchise, in my opinion.
HELL YES - one major reason why I'll never pick up Red Dead Redemption 2 is because it goes _way too far_ to be "realistic". Other games don't have the player character physically open cupboards or pick up random supplies, as other games correctly and intelligently realise that this is animation that can be safely skipped past in order to not drag down the pace of the game; in other games, looting dead bodies just takes one or two button presses, allowing the player to continue fighting or adventuring or questing in a snap. Here? In order to be "realistic", the PC physically opens cupboards or leans down to loot bodies or pick plants - WHY? Also, if you go hunting in RDR2, you have to pick up the carcass and haul ass over to a shop after. Why? Because, just like in real life, meat rots in this game. Again, this didn't need to be programmed in for the experience to be engaging and fun - I can go out and hunt animals in Assassin's Creed Origins, and along with instantly harvesting the corpse, any resources gained go into separate counts in the menu. That's not at all "realistic", but boy is it way more FUN, as it allows me to continue playing the damn game much faster. Fuck right off, "realism", we don't need too much of you.
games keep trying to simulate reality through scope and graphical fidelity but players couldnt care less about that stuff and just want a game that is consistent, functional, and interesting if i wanted to experience a massive, sprawling open world at hd graphics quality and realistic physics interactions, i'd go outside and buy a pair of glasses
For me it's not a matter of realism vs non realism. It's a matter of how much the player is considered in terms of mechanical reactivity. For example: Into the Radius VR is not really a "realistic" game, you're fighting ghosts in a post apocalypse where things float. But after every excursion, I have to clean my gear if I don't want weapon jams and manually sort my inventory into neat cabinet spaces, and that's something *I do* not the game. I could make the choice to just throw my inventory around in that game and live in a pigsty, or never clean my stuff so my weapons jam after every bullet, the game won't stop me. But it's on the player to take the world seriously, and if they don't, they face consequences.
I don't think he's referring to realism as "it could happen", more that the internal logic of the world you are in retains consistency. that can be having the players toolset be the same as the enemies, or like your example, requiring you to maintain your gear. i think you mean the same thing, just aren't using the same terminology
@@opiumskittles Perhaps, yeah. Either way, I just think too many people conflate "wanting realism" vs "wanting reactivity and considered interactivity"
One game that really clicked with me is Swat4 where you just play a more realistic gritty experience as a Swat team, the friction is kind of enjoyable as you need to let enemies get the first shot and try to take them down non lethally, vs the more idealistic CoD games which are popular with a wide crowd just letting you play as soldiers in a small maze or an over the top single player story. I also feel all games give the advantage to the player but realistic design implies you need to strategize to gain that advantage while idealist implies you're Batman and beating up the enemies is effortless once you have the right rhythm. It's fun to be the center of attention just as much as being one man against the world or building up to something that can be the center of a conflict. Too many games add rpg mechanics that are there as a hard cap or part of a theme related to realism but they over clock them to just be a chore or they just get in the way as a meaningless distraction. Minecraft has a slow hunger meter to make survival difficult but also rewarding when you have a farm going or otherwise make exploring a bigger task when a part of your inventory is made up of food, as well as the relief when you find a stock of apples when you ran out. Tossing that into Fallout New Vegas is more a challenge mode to make sure you're gathering the otherwise minor food items and managing sodas correctly with fresh water. It would be inappropriate for GTA since the goal is to just drive cars and simulate a crime life, though I kind of wish you got better buffs for eating well while your character can always eat between missions, starvation is never a factor but enhances the choices that are relevant. Persona isn't perfectly free but for an on rails life sim with expected responses in dialogue it's very nice, while also letting you live a less than grounded life for one reason or another. Bethesda seems focused on idealistic roleplaying but really want to add realism thinking it's like polish, like how Hollywood animated movies want to be photorealistic but really just need to be stylized in an interesting way. If you pick up a fork that isn't yours the town can't tell that from a murder half the time so it aggros everything or in more advanced games will signal unarmed civilians to flee home (or open the 100 lock box for a rocket launcher). If you play along with Skyrim and Fallout it tends to work, but you really need to put thought into it to keep that emersion for when you stray away from the intended paths. Honestly, BG3 is amazing but I also get frustrated when I can't complete a task through straight combat and need to back up, or I'm punished for planning a sneak attack only to get sucked into a dialogue or I'm already surrounded by people I really should talk to.
I'm not sure this is as much of a problem with games as with the marketing around them. In my personal experience wacky immersion breaking things happening in games like starfield and cyberpunk didn't detract anything from my experience because from the start I had no expectations of them being deeply immersive games. I think this is the reason people are often the most upset with the games that are the most heavily market around concepts like immersion as whatever concepts you can imagine a game having are ALWAYS going to outstrip a developers ability to create. The scale of cost to make a large open world immersive game is so absurd that it is unlikely we will ever have one without significant changes in the tools that exist to create games. The reason I say this is that I think it would be helpful for people to avoid buying into any marketing about immersive gameplay in general. The next impressive game we will have in this area is likely over a decade away and playing games that come out in the meantime with elevated levels of hype will only ever make you enjoy those games less. Getting excited about upcoming games is wonderful, but make sure to only get excited about things that really exist within them.
More communities in full plabets and bodies of Ice water or lava or other threats like acid rain or other similar stuff, sand storms and snow storms. Ash snow. All would be helpful, and survival difficulty would be nice.
Starfield is most besthesda game of them all Starfield is most of times surface level game but moment you want more of it There is just almost nothing too deep within in it Its not bad game Bethesda just wants people fix their own game by providing mod support Just like with skyrim Skyrim and Starfield shares alot of things Looks nice, huge world, alot of non meaningfull sideguests, geberic story, hollow structure Mod support so mod scene fixes their shiet in their behalf That is why Starfield is most Bethesda game of Bethesda games
I think there's pretty interesting parallel to draw from your elaboration upon artistic idealism and philosophical idealism (think Kant) in terms of the theme of protagonism, if you will. Idealism can be viewed as yet another step in the direction of furthering individualistic world-views perhaps born in ancient Greece, recovered during the renaissance and elaborated upon by say Descartes and Kant, the second being the vague focus of my comment. Now, I'll have to put up the disclaimer that I am no expert in Kant, but as I gather he was the first philosopher to make the acknowledgement of the world, its constituents, ways of working (mechanics in his Newtonian world-view) radically dependant upon the individual observing. This seems to have been a move from the world being open and already disclosed, so to speak, to the world being a mystery of phenomena only open to interpretation from the imperfect angle of the individual - our consciousness being causal to our experiences and thereby world-view. This is also a world-view which I find deeply rooted in current, Western culture The connection to your video is that I think this conceptualisation of the world and our ways of knowing the it pretty closely aligns with your defining points of idealist worlds. This rather individualist world-view, as I think it should also be considered, was somewhat of a shift in focus from generalities beyond the individual and a move away from considering the features of the world as in themselves having an effect on us regardless of our conscious, reflective acknowledgement of them. To make the radicalness of this divide in thinking more explicit, one could counter the above world-view from evolutionary, materialist/marxist and existentialist angles and wonder whether or not there is a real world affecting us regardless of our appreciation of it? Has our consciousness not had some very real structures both enabling and limiting it rather than it being free-floating? Have we not been genetically equipped through millions of years in the crucible of survival of the to broadly speaking act in certain ways? Do we not find ourselves in a world with very real economical conditions and relations by which we will have to abide in order to survive and are thus shaped by? Are we not born into a world of countless values and expectations by which we are taught to behave, think and feel and thus live our lives, however contingent they may be? Philosophical idealism, Hegel's as well I think, seems to assumes the reality of rationality in a sort of free-form, pure, quasi-religious spirit, but we have to grapple with whether or not we believe in that foundation, before we can accept everything built upon it.
It is an important and interesting topic onto itself, realism vs idealism that is. But Starfield's is not a very good game, not because of the conflicting design philosophies, but because implementation of those design philosophies wasn't very good. It kinda doesn't have anything going for it, sure you can play like you would fallout 3 and fallout 4 or skyrim for that matter, mostly aimlessly wondering around hoping you gonna find something, and sometimes you can stumble over something that picks your interest, but then it's back to routine slog and that's about it. But to be fair f3 and f4 are not very good games on their own right and mostly driven by recognizable title and game universe. Unlike skyrim, which is part of recognizable brand as well and which is probably the simpler game compared to the rest that is mentioned above, but it still feels like that of "your adventure". Not because of fantasy elements or the fact that you play as a chosen one, let's be honest main story sucks... and exploring surely gets boring after few dozen hours, but it's still the one I'm willing to return to. Oh and starfield just look bad okay, and having plain and boring graphics doesn't really make it realistic and having bad performance doesn't help either ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Probably the best way to explain the dichotomy is actually rather simple. The clash between real and Realism. Just because it's real doesn't mean it's realistic, because realism is, in reality when it is mostly used, a sense that it could happen in the world something is set in, like IRL. And that is the big problem, because a well built world can make aspects that would otherwise be immersion breaking fit, but at the same time, something that is realistic in the sense we believe it could happen IRL could be immersion breaking by the simple fact, that the world in game is different in a way that makes it just not make sense in context. Or basically, Just like how 'realistic fanfiction' could end up even more unrealistic than the base material due to injecting IRL stuff in without regards about how such could fit in the setting, games could by making things more realistic, harm the sense of realism by clashing with the way the world was built. Or basically, Immersion is hard.
A new Architect video and it's about one of the games I've been into lately? Right before I should go to bed, so that my mind will now be filled with thoughts on the made arguments? Splendid!
Now that I'm finished with the vid and don't just rudely throw my comment during the first three minutes, I agree. Starfield is weird. I have to actively hold myself back from drawing my gun in a crowded city. I wouldn't normally draw my gun randomly, but ever since I tested it once and found that NPCs care about exactly as little like the NPCs in Hogwarts Legacy, I stop myself from that just because I'm trying to preserve some of my immersion. Which constantly makes me think about it. Thereby ruining my immersion almost as much as if I just shot a cardboard cutout silhouette of someone. On the other hand, take RDR2; I almost never pulled a gun there on random people, because I would feel incredibly bad for ruining that pixel person's day/life when they, like you'd expect, beg for their life and such. It's quite frustrating and I really, really, hope that Starfield will become a fresh moddibg playground so they can make the game truly shine.
Great video! Gives me a way to look at Starfield and games overall from a different view that I didn't think of. A lot about Starfield is also subjective, like with all art. Lots of people do enjoy realism over idealism and some don't. Interesting to think about where one would fall on the spectrum, because that may or may not change one's decision to play or even buy a game.
One thing I noticed right away while playing starfield is that Bethesda only did the broad strokes when it comes to world building For example, there are *no* TVs in the game. Not a single one. Not even in the builder. Everyone just stopped using visual media
There are computers and tablets everywhere in Starfield, there are posters for movies and popular movies are mentioned by many NPC. It make sense that there isn’t any « classic tv » in the Starfield world since even jn today’s world more and more people totally stop watching TV and only watch movies or TV shows on their smartphones and computers. Even if it was really the case and that there wasn’t any mention of any visual media in starfield this wouldn’t say anything on the quality of the worldbuilding. It’s impossible to address every possible details when you craft a fictional world for a video game, sometimes it’s better to concentrate on what matter the most. Please don’t say the worldbuilding is bad if you didn’t pay attention to anything in the world, since it’s one of the most hated game ever most people don’t even take time to think before criticizing it.
Reminds me about what Gabe once said: ruclips.net/video/MGpFEv1-mAo/видео.htmlsi=4oIynOKkKgy5WYhP "Fun isn't about realism. It's about having a world that's interactable and consistently responds to your actions."
This video felt like Goldilocks rationalizing her feelings about porridge temperature for 25 minutes. "I like it not too hot, not too cold, but just right."
Superdude showed up in my recommendations a few weeks ago and his Fire Emblem video was so good that it got me to go back and finish Engage. Definitely gonna blow up soon.
Realism as a category implying a "copy of the real world" is awful, not even the realistic movements in arts defend such a thing, since there's an awareness in these type of artistic creations of their own artificiality. That's why so many people becomes frustated when a "realistic" game breaks the immersion, since they expect the game to simulate real life rules (and not the diegetic rules of its universe). It's real refreshing to see "realism" defined less by its more obvious (and deceitful) definition (that of a 1:1 mimesis of reality) and more as a question of complexity or "atriction", as well as of the degree of focus and protagonism of the game's character, as you put it. Kudos to you!
The whole _"realism for it's own sake"_ thing was brilliantly satirised (in the context of films, not games) by Mitchell and Webb a couple of decades ago: ruclips.net/video/HtQNULEudss/видео.html
Oh, and since there's a clip of it in this video - BotW and TotK. Why add limited stamina? Why make shields and weapons brittle and fragile? Previous Legend of Zelda games, games that actually _live up to_ and _deserve_ their name of Legend of Zelda, understood full well that the main joy of exploring the compact worlds present in each one was discovering what was in a certain area, where the next proper dungeon is or where the next Heart Piece or other useful collectible is - NOT frustrating the player by limiting how quickly they can run or climb, or limiting how far they can swim, or by making combat an active drain on resources. I've just played through Twilight Princess HD again, after torturing myself with TotK, and Twilight Princess HD was such a _welcome relief_ from the tedious, aimless disaster. Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, even Ocarina of Time (the first 3D Zelda) - they all knew what made them fun, and capitalised on it, instead of forcing arbitrary and frustrating mechanics onto the player to slow them down or ruin combat (or disregarding proper dungeon design, for that matter).
For me immersion in a game is being part of a functioning gameworld.That Respects its Rules and Consequences for Player agency. Its hard to get immersed into a game when the world gives you the feeling that it is just waiting for you. And games that revolve around the player can quickly break the immerson. In Skyrim you just have made your character and shit hits immediatly the fan. Youre given no time to actually embrace the world. Be part of it. The same was with oblivion. Emperor dies and you got a Task of Highly importance. Contrast it with morrowind: You get a letter you need to deliver. To a guy thats intructed to give you some work. And if you do that early he even says: ok now got an do something else. Morrowind in Comparison gave you time to acclimate yourself with the world. You did not enter a ride from the start that swept you away. Yes you could always choose to abandon the main quest in Oblivion and Skyrim. But that is exactly whats breaking immersion in those games. Because there is no consequnce to it. Theyll wait paitently for years of ingame time just for you to arrive. Skyrim is a bunch of themepark rides that you can take more than it is a world where you / your character can be part of.
Bethesda saying that space was meant to be boring for the sake of realism was just a cover for lazy “Bethesda” design. They have selectively applied the “realism” aim. Want to carry 50 weapons, and all their ammunition, without being encumbered? You got it! Want the places where you might use said weapons to be interesting? Sorry, we want to be realistic.
I mean, perhaps we could try and appreciate the moments that Todd Bethesda's grand vision shines through or we could take a step back and realize that their grand vision is the same grand vision they've had for the last 15 years and go play a game that doesn't try and retread the same old ground
I think the frozen world of Skyrim was the #1 thing I disliked about it most. Nothing happens unless you _make it_ happen, and nothing is ever time-sensitive. Wish it would've had more dynamic events like wars and whatnot in addition to the scripted stuff. Also, great vid.
Doom 2016 has had a great balance of being mostly a grounded universe, with YOU, the Doom Slayer, being an in-universe anomaly feared by Hell itself. Doom Eternal failed to keep that balance, as it went over the top in every aspect possible, becoming less of a world and more of a theme park.
Anybody who works in foley can tell you that a feeling of immersion comes more from expectations and imagined realism than actual realism. If you've ever watched boxing or MMA, you know the sound of a person being punched, even being punched really hard by a trained fighter, does not sound anything like the loud, meaty, crunchy, slappy punching sound effect we all expect from movies and games.
Yes, beyond real and ideal, immersion works both way. It's game to you, also you to the game. The second one is personal belief, and the first one is also personal.
I realized that many of us just ranting about stuffs because things became frustrating to play rather than the lack of something. Though I have to realize that some vocal minority with spaceship level of PC just want to rant because they need external validation. There are many cool folks with spaceship level of PC of course, but some rich kids just being too loud. I think realism is merely superficial thing to reference when the word "fun" is more subjective and hard to use as a point. That's why striving for realism is not really a good idea unless you're simulation kind. The rest of us should rather make "fun" games than trying to be the next big thing. I explicitly use the word "fun" for the fact that everyone have their own opinions and perspectives.
I belieieve the word you may be looking for is verisimilitude (maybe misspelled). It means an internally consistent world within a given story. Look it up if you have any doubts
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Traveller! Thank goodness you found me! I've been standing in this exact spot, motionless, doing literally nothing, for 100 years waiting for someone to save me! I'm on the brink of death! Only a space dragonborn like yourself can save me by killing some pirates in a mine 400 light years away! You must hurry! but also take your time i'll still be here: www.patreon.com/ArchitectofGames
Nothing makes the real world seem more immersive, and the grass you touch seem greener than having to spend a short time on twitter dot com no I won't call it X that's a stupid name: twitter.com/Thefearalcarrot
cool vid bw
you're a very funny guy
I love this I wonder if star citizen would have this same problem. It tries to be so realistic
That "Guten dag" wasnt bad and the "und" nether. The rest I couldnt understand anymore. Try it again nexttime. In case your translation is wrong here is the right one : "Guten Tag und herzlich wilkommen zur geheim Nach dem Video Sequenz, wo ich über Künstler berichte die eh viel talentierter sind als ich." That is your howl catchphrase mor or less translated with a couple rough edges but devenetly presentebal
I really want you to look at the game Rebel Galaxy, i think the realism scaling inverse to idealism is a bit of a false dichotomy. While it remains mostly true because authors rarely thing through the full implications of an idealized element enough to make their fiction feel realistic that is more a failing of the author if the goal is realism. I believe idealism only increases the difficulty of achieving realism, with each element of fantasy requiring a full exploration and integration of its implications and effects.
This is why star wars is so immersive, it rarely leaves anything it introduces fully unexplained or explored...until disney showed up and flipped the table for kathlene kenedy to have her therapy IP
A game can achieve immersion by respecting the rules of its world. Those rules do not have to mirror the rules of the "real world"
It's all about global coherence of the game. Like in any art and artisan production.
I hate how some people will always defend an internally inconsistent, incoherent game with "but it has magic it's not realistic". Yes bit that doesn't mean the game should just break its own rules constantly!
This post explains what went wrong in the second half of "Game of Thrones" in one sentence
Totk:
That's one the main reasons people get mad when the "lore" is not respected, because it makes no sense, breakers the sense of immersion, imagine if in avatar suddenly people were able to learn 2 elements, or that the air nomads were never murdered and survived isolated for over 200 years, that would be too stupid and could ruin lots of stories.
My beef with Starfield is more like a lack of "cause and effect". Like I don't care if the water in Minecraft is unrealistic but it has a clear set of rules it follows. Same is true for any Mario game or RDR2. This is not at all the case in Starfield. Stuff floats for no reason. You get arrested for picking up a glass in a bar. Alien life, biomes, resources all appear random with no apparent rules. There are human built structures on every spot of the planet despite being pretty much in empty unexplored space. How does any of this make sense?
Regarding the structures (because I’ve also heard a lot of “the planets are too empty”): they might simply be leftovers from mining efforts. Like fuel tanks, gas storage, and so on, abandoned for various possible reasons (the Colony War, Spacers, pirates, not enough profit). Same with settlements, they are small, composed of a small amount of hab units and workspaces, because if there’s little to no atmosphere air is an incredibly valuable resource. Over time, they might grow or be abandoned
@@jasutinborchert4418 That still doesn't track. The number of abandoned pirate, infested outposts outnumber civilian outposts by 10:1 or more, throughout the entire explorable galaxy, and yet there are less than ten colonized planets with anything resembling civilization. Fallout had the excuse of post apocalypse radiation, skyrim had the excuse of daedric shenanigans, but what's Starfields excuse? Some civil-ish war 20 years ago that started over a stupid contrivance and ended in an equally contrived fashion? That somehow caused both countries involved to lose or pull back 90% of their territory, industrial capacity, and military projection throughout the galaxy? And yet all cities are completely untouched by bombings or attacks of any kind?
If I can build a fighter that can single handedly defeat every pirate in key for less than 60k credits, that can also jump halfway through the explored galaxy on a single tank of gas, why are there all these settlers and miners wandering around unarmed and helpless because "Oh, pirates don't come out this far."
"You get arrested for picking up a glass in a bar"
I mean, it *is* a Bethesda game.
@@Anergyneand the “things floating” i think those are bugs lol
@@Anergyne Pretty sure the reason they did that is because back in the Oblivion games players managed to steal stuff by picking up items and moving them out of view of the shopkeeper so they could put them in their inventories with no one seeing them.
as someone who uses a $300 walmart laptop as a gaming pc, the answer for me is a definite yes
I had the same old laptop for a decade and played many a great game in glorious 12 fps...
Play some old classical games at 30+ FPS ;-)
Also, great old game + mods = fantastic time! Want to try?
Heroes of Might and Magick III + HD Mod + Horn of the Abyss
lol
holy cruncks same, except my walmart laptop was 100 dollars and it can hardly boot up steam. i can get the sonic adventure games to work though lol
you missed the point and confused realism of the mechanics with graphics fidelity. Look at some examples from the video, like Papers Please or Factorio.
That’s the thing, isn’t it?
Immersion isn’t about graphics and scope; it’s about mechanics and their consistency.
I kind of wish every developer would scale back to the graphics of 10 years ago. 90% of people would barely tell the difference (because they don't play on a high end gaming monitor in a blacked-out room to see every last detail), and those that do notice won't care if a horses balls don't shrink when it's cold. The benefits would be a radically cheaper cost to develop games, so we could get more of them faster. It would also free up resources to put towards developing better narrative and mechanics that have a much bigger impact on how fun a game is. On top of that, it would make gaming way cheaper, not requiring $1000+ to be spent every 5 years to keep up with new games.
Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what non-AAA games (not just indy, but also medium sized studios) are doing, and why there are often amazing games to be found in the weeds. But it will never happen to AAA titles, because shiny graphics is the easiest thing to market to a large audience that isn't interested in looking deeper.
I have a conspiracy theory that big game dev studios and publishers have some sort of agreement with GPU/CPU manufacturers to keep pushing graphical fidelity to justify the continual production and purchasing of new, more powerful computer components.
If the video game industry largely switched to lower fidelity graphics then nobody would have a reason to upgrade their PCs or buy new consoles and businesses like Nvidia and AMD would be in serious trouble.
I find Cyberpunk much more immersive then any Bethesda game, because in Cyberpunk you are V, merc, you do odd jobs from fixers and you just so happen to have a terrorist in your head, when V walks around and talk to someone, they dont need to know who you are, because you dont matter in the larger world, however, if someone knows who you are, its because you have worked job from job to slowly build up your reputation.
While in Bethesda games, you are simultaneously a stranger, as well as the God reincarnate, leader of all major factions, a royal in all the courts, a murderer, thief and a hero, and as such, guards both do and do not know who you are, when you supposedly are both really famous, their direct superior and an enemy of the state.
Both Cyberpunk and Bethesda game TM have really intricate worlds and many many small details, Bethesda expects you, and wants you to have it all, they want you to have the cake, eat it and get the whole god deam bakery as well, while as Cyberpunk is content with keeping you a no name merc, or let you rise trough the underworld, but you dont get to become say the mayor of NC, or the CEO of Arasaka, or someone everyone is expected to know, you are just V the merc, nothing more, nothing less.
How any person could even stomach, let alone enjoy such a horrific simulation that presents such an awful bad future is completely beyond me.
You put into word somthing I was staying to express about cyberpunk77- when it makes you the center of the world it somehow seems less forced than in any bethdesa game. And you suddenly explained why.
V is Him-this is the man that killed Adam smasher after all-but he’s not a major play in the same was as say, Saborou-and the game never pretends you’re anything more than an especially talented merc, while bethdesa games want you to think you’re the leader of the theives guild despite being the one taking requests from them.
Probably also helps that cybered punks is as much about learning to deal with your impending death as merc work, and per the settings themes, you can’t save the world-it’s all you can do to save yourself.
Ending spoiler for both Cyberpunk and Starfield. In my perspective, Cyberpunk is trying too hard on the story. The story removing the protagonist at the end is one of the worst tropes for an ongoing franchise. It makes me don't want to replay the game after the ending because there is no point anymore. Now they have a new protagonist for version 2. Meanwhile, Starfield is the never-ending life of a wanderer in a closed multiverse. The player can do anything they want with that universe. There is no attachment, and its replayability is more fun and meaningful than Cyberpunk.
@@DraconicA5 Well, i cant say i disagree with your point, but i think its the other way around.
Since Cyberpunk has an end in sight, you wont live forever, you either die a legend of go away in the quiet life, that is the dilemma Dexter gives you at the beginning, and that is the dilemma you have to solve by the end.
In such it builds its fantasy with care, having a much easier time having it believable in the end.
Now i havent played Starfield, but i have played other Bethesda games, and i dont like the never ending story, where you will live on forever with no end in sight, almost like a purgatory, and it does an immeasurable harm to the fantasy they are going for.
Where as both the games have their flaws, bugs and jank, and at the launch and high point of Cyberpunks activity, they both had the same concentration of bugs, the fact that Cyberpunk has a shorter life span, and as such a shorter story, the odds of an endless barrage of bugs braking the illusion is a lot smaller, where as in Todd Howard fashion, its not a bug, its a feature, is constantly pulling you out with floating mammoths and broken quests for hours upon hours.
In that sense i perfect Cyberpunk (also am a sucker for the cyberpunk ganra, and its a fun game to play, am just a Cyberpunk fanboy honestly), since all the things that hurt those two games, does not compile in Cyberpunk.
@@Super-BallSharp Scary stories makes life seem less scary i suppose.
The fact that Cyberpunk is an history future (since the world was made in the 80's), that looks so bleak and hopeless, it makes all the horrible things going on today seem less bleak, since i can tell myself "well its not as bad as Cyberpunk".
What the?!
It's odd to be featured in someone else's RUclips video, especially since I've been watching your shtuff for... I think 1.5-2 years now? Thanks for the shout out, mate. Love your stuff!
No problem at all! Your stuff is great!
there was a gdc talk about "cursed problems in game design", and what you seem to be getting at is that there is one of these cursed problems at the core of starfield
I remember that one, it's a classic.
Im most interested with the problem of how to combine an infinite mostly desolate procedural universe with an RPG game, or even if you can. It should be the first thing you investigate before embarking on such a project.
Star Field bizarrely did not seem to think about this till the very end of development.. or surely they would have come up with something better than cut and pasting the EXACT same base around. It would not be hard to add decent procedural variation even if only having a few variations of rooms and different junk lying about. This implies to me they just did not pay any attention to that problem initially.
I will say that even demons and magic can be highly realistic. Yes we dont have demons and magic in real life, but we do have many myths about them. Myths that many people believed, and often still believe, to be true. If you make the demons/magic in your game adhere to a strong mythological basis, and actually make sure that basis is well explained through the narrative, the demons/magic can actually become very realistic.
As long as the origins and execution of the concepts make logical sense, and have some sort of identifiable link to the real world, you can make even unrealistic concepts feel very real.
Someone's having a Carl Jung moment (don't look him up if you don't want your brain destroyed by an existential crisis)
Yes, immersion is not limited to realism. That's DnD in a nutshell
What the fuck are you talking about? There is NOTHING realistic about demons, or magic. You can try to explain how they work in material terms, but then you're just writing sci-fi with a fantastical coat of paint.
@@leithaziz2716 That's even the principle of fantasy as a whole genre.
bro thinks demons arent real lmfaooo
Great video. Regarding World Design (and the finite resources of virtual worlds), the Archmage Rises developer once mentioned how, during development, they were simulating the actual travels of each of the various merchants/bandits/characters wandering around the world, for realism's sake; however, after experiencing performance issues, it then occurred to him that since players never actually perceive all of that traveling, the game doesn't need to simulate it at all. They can merely generate it upon request and backfill histories at the moment the information actually becomes relevant to the player in order to save on memory/performance while still presenting a realistic-FEELING "living" world. 😀
Ohhh nice, another person who likes Archmage Rises!
And yep, it's how most games do it (with some exceptions being stuff like DF or CoQ)
Realism ≠ simulation.
Rain world simulates all creatures in an area and isn't very laggy for me, those developers just have a skill issue.
@@mishagaming1075 .... you are aware that Rain World is far less resource intensive at base?
Like it's really impressive but... the game is specifically about that and has far less base resource usage, so of course it will work better.
@@lithrandil290Yeah good point. Also yes i am aware :(
Honestly, my biggest problem with Starfield is that the factions seem pointless. You can become the saviour of the UC and it is pretty much never brought up again (not even during the other faction quests can you bring up that you are already a high ranking member of one faction). If they didn't want to weave the factions into the main plot, they could at least have gone the Mass Effect: Andromeda route and have all the allies you made along the way show up to assist you in the final battle, but no, the most we can get is one of the two new guys that we have been introduced to 5 minutes ago.
even then i think if your are nice to the geth for example someone will comment on it, especially char that are opposed to the geth like tali.
This all comes back to Bethesda's refusal to allow players to miss main content. Most of the faction questlines should 100% be mutually exclusive or at least be heavily altered depending on which you do first. It makes zero sense for a Freestar Ranger to become a UC Vanguard captain or to work with SysDef or an employee at Ryujin. It's one of the many things that makes Starfield's world and characters feel so incredibly artificial. They exists for and around the player and only the player.
@@amysteriousviewer3772 Wait, why shouldn’t they? Mutually exclusive factions make sense when the factions are opposed to each other, but when they’re not I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to join them.
@@AedraRisingWell being a Freestar Ranger and UC Vanguard does seem a bit ridiculous.
Thank you. There was something that felt “off” when playing Starfield and I think it’s the conflict between the world trying to be “realistic” in terms of its vast emptiness headbutting with its campy story and world.
How is the world campy ? And by story do you mean the main quest ? Cause most of the stories in Starfield are in the side content.
Also I don’t understand why you can’t be realistic in one way and not realistic in another.
Adam says "shatter our suspension of disbelief":
*Proceeds to show Prey glass breaking sequence*
Really clever
I would say the most important part is consistentsy, when you know what gonna happen and the game just work as expected is when the gane just fade away and suck you in, but when you constantly get whiplashed because of bugs or stuff work different than expected
Star Citizen is one of those games that pushed so hard into realism that it's just not a game anymore. Like EVE Online, the only real stories to be told in it's persistent universe are ones told by the players' actions, and the people who will play it most are those who treat it as part of their life or at least a full time job (and some people may even make playing it their full time job). Because of that, it's never going to be something that most gamers can just get into.
I'm always left scratching my head at some of Star Citizen's design choices, like... ok, simulating a realistic world is one thing, but when you're forcing the player to go through the same daily tediums in-game as they do in real life, hasn't something gone wrong? Why do I need a commute to get to my spaceship?
It's in the tonal uncanny valley. Too fiidly to be breezy fun, to lackadaisical to feel grounded.
I feel like it has a lot to do with that fact that the game needs mass appeal.
Below Zero also has another issue in that it feels like the game doesn't really know what story it wants to tell, where the main questline almost ends up becoming an optional side quest by the end
So not only is there less of that feeling of isolation and hostility, but also the story they DID try to focus on feels like it kind of doesn't entirely work anyways
Its probably a result of the original writer leaving Unknown Wolrds, i played Early Access before the shift and the story that was there was pretty different, when the shift happened it was like a story built on the remnants on the stuff they had before
Al-AN speaking every X minutes probably the most immersion breaking I have in that game. I felt so bitter on buying Subnautica below zero and find the only similarity of it and the original game is some water with scalable fishes in it.
The worst is, you can see how the game could have been really good - the building blocks are there! Robin as a protagonist doesn't work, she's too much "Boss Babe TM" and quite frankly a terrible xenobiologist. It doesn't help that there are two better options: Samantha or Margerit Meda. Heck, Margerit's story (that we only get through PDA) would have been a fantastic survival focused game from a different perspective. It made me so mad, that I didn't get to play that!
If they wanted to go with the main story anyway, they should have moved Al-An to the very depths of crystal caves. Let the player solve the mystery of Sam's death and the aftermath first. Then, when all your energy would be focused on finding a way FROM the planet, should the next part begin - looking for technology and resources, finding alien artifacts, getting hints that there may be a precursor (no, I won't call them architect) still hidden somewhere, finding it and figuring out you'll have to make it a body... and no alien mind-meld! I don't want answers forced into my head, nor a well of information that just so happens to not want to communicate those, or only on their own terms. Because nothing is so thrilling as reading a mystery book, where the protagonist tells you they know the ending, but won't tell you to keep up the "suspense".
Sooo, yes, long post is long (and could be muuuuch longer, but I'm going to cut myself off here), cause I had a lot of time to stew in all the missed oportunities.
I think a large part of it is the "uncanny valley" effect. The harder something tries to mimic a thing we're intimately familiar with (such as reality), the easier things stand out that don't quite fit in. This isn't just a visual thing, it's also a narrative thing and a mechanical thing. And for the most part, these can have separate visions on what they want to be like. Having a realistic narrative in an unrealistic-looking world is fine. The problem arises mainly when there are inconsistencies. For example, a game might have people in it whose animations have a lot of care put into them to make them seem very human. But if the moment they die they turn into a ragdoll, that doesn't mesh at all with the experience the game has provided thus far, and it can really take you out of the experience. And weird jank in a game like Skyrim just feels more off-putting than having similar jank happen in The Sims, because the former tries to present a realistic simulation, whereas the latter provides a simplified one.
Starfield's emptiness comes not from harsh realism, but from half-assed, boring terrain generation. Just look at the "barren rocks" in our own solar system, and observe the intricate and fascinating contours of that lifeless terrain. Canyons, craters, lakes of hydrocarbons, cryogysers, chaos terrain, and many other unique and interesting features exist in reality. Starfield falls far, *far* short of realism.
Goddamn it if I don’t WANT to like this game. I can tell that so much love was put into crafting its worlds, stories, and characters. There are a multitude of guns, planets, builds, quests. The design of it, at a glance, LOOKS fun and immersive. I was genuinely excited when it first came out, as I could play it free day 1 with Xbox game pass.
I’ve restarted starfield so many times, only playing each build for a couple hours. Each time I restarted, the same problem would occur; I would genuinely enjoy my experience for the first couple of hours, but just as I was getting my footing in this sci fi world I would become bored and begin dreading my next few sessions. Despite this, I kept going, because I desperately hoped that if only I could just find a build I liked I could enjoy the game. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case, no matter which faction I joined, crew members I invited, or spaceship I used.
I stopped trying around a month ago, because I became tired of trying to work with a game that just doesn’t work for me. However, my original excitement of the game never vanished; every time I see its concept art, or snippets of its gameplay in a video, I am filled with sadness and a strange eagerness to try just one more time.
To all of you that could find joy in starfield: good for you! I wish I could be that person. I hope you have fun and experiment in its incredibly impressive world. I wish you only the best :)
I didn't expect RDR2 to be place towards the idealistic side of the scale when all I can remember is how the attempts of being too faithful too reality hurt the gameplay and my enjoyment of the game
In some places they tried to be so realistic that it was unrealistic. Like why the hell can't I sprint while at my camp? That's hardly realistic. Also I hate unresponsive gameplay. One of the reasons I never finished the game.
RDR2 was waaaay too slow and boring.
There is a reason why movies make a cut between "Bond enters taxi" -> "Bond exits Taxi" and not make us Ride along for 10 minutes.
I hated how my Life was wasted while waiting to Ride into the Camp and slooowly ride out into the world again...
@@SimuLord now that's an interesting take! +1 , wish more comments were like this instead of spouting the obvious and getting 1k likes.
@@256shadesofgrey It always bothers me when games add so much friction to things that they would literally be easier in real life. Even when the other 90% of the game is already made of things that are way easier than real life. Heck, maybe especially then. Because it feels so much more like the game saying "You can't do that, because we said so" or even "You can't do that, because we couldn't figure out how to make it properly balanced if you could."
Fair point but that’s why I love it. It’s insanely therapeutic, you can just ride for hours and fish and do stuff. Move around hay and milk the cows. It’s cool once you’re over 30 imo.
Ever since playing a mid-2000s indie RPG, I've always wanted to see games (specifically RPGs) that reward focusing on one task at a time. E.g. are you sent out on an urgent quest to find a kidnapped NPC? Start a hidden timer that determines whether you find them alive, dead (recently or otherwise), and define different dialogue/rewards from the quest giver depending on how you found them.
Heck, I have a lot of unusual takes on common game mechanics and tropes I would love to build a game around (such as an achievement-like character experience/leveling system) but I'm not at a point where I can actually, meaningfully build that.
I'd also add that video games as a medium kind of have to lean more idealist than realist, because having a player interacting with the medium necessarily pushes the limits in a way that a film or novel doesn't. The actors in a film can't decide to go poke the camera or mess around with the edges of what's visible unless that's part of the story being told.
Your argument feels to me actually like a proof for the very opposite of what you believe: Not being interactive, you give the example with the actor who can break the 4th wall to potentially not break the 4th wall, makes movies necessarily more idealized versions of reality. - While driving or flight simulators, with their potential frictions, in comparison can indeed be highly realistic (and unforgiving) . Or, to give an example: The movie Gran Turismo, " Boy, this is the reality, not just some video game!" , actually provides pretty much an idealized version of said video game. 😛
To add to this, specifically on the samey barren planet problem that are interesting the first time but never again, I think there is an inherent problem to trying to make individual things in large scale games matter after you've been playing them for a while and that inherent problem isn't in the game, it's in the skull of any potential player. Humans simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with a big universe full of unique fine details. Or a planet. Or... really anything beyond their immediate surroundings. How do we deal with the fact that we live on a whole ass planet in a whole ass universe? abstraction and generalisation. Even in a perfectly developed evenly detailed game eventually people will reach a point where they can only care about the big scale stuff or box themselves in somewhere small and care about the little scale stuff.
So if its an inherent problem with the audience, can you still design around it? Kind of. Essentially you have to have the "small" details scale up with the player's sense of scale to the point that the environmental storytelling isn't finding someone's lost sandwich, but instead finding a planet full of rare resources that evidently sparked a war between two long-dead civilisations, that kind of big picture stuff. Planets can't just be covered in interesting rocks. Star systems have to be full of interesting mineral distributions suggesting the nebula they formed from had an unusually high proportion of heavier elements, possibly from a neutron star collision in the past (ergo, to make non-nerds care about that, loads of radioactive fuels worth setting up base there for). Companions at some point have to become battalions and haggling with a shopkeeper to offload crap and kit out your party has to give way to dealing with wholesalers outfitting your fleet. Or stuff like that anyway, whatever fits the game's loop.
Alternitively just scale the game back to a size where the details you want people to care about matter. There's no shame in being a small, focused game and some of the most interesting worlds are small.
Sounds a lot like Kerbal Space Program.
@@henryfleischer404 yeah. that game runs into "well I've landed on a desolate world for the 400th time" problems too at the moment. In theory what they're trying to do with 2 should change things but at the moment all they've managed is to make a game that cleans up its own attempts at destroying the windows registry.
I wasn't sure I was onboard with you in the first half but as you went on I couldn't agree more.
Rather than waste time making preset generic locations with some small repeated story they should have focused on the big picture.
What's the story of this star system and the planets in it? They have a pretty decent amount of assets and creatures and honestly had they thought of each system as being its own 'dungeon' with stories to tell the player instead of what they did exploration would have been more fun.
People want different things from their games. Perfect example is you compared Factorio to Satisfactory. I don't want to play tower defense in my Automation game. I want the challenge of coming up with the most efficient method of solving logistical problems. The challenge of resource management in Factorio is you are constantly running out, while Satisfactory it's about how you are going to convey the limited number of nodes to where those resources are needed. Both are viable takes with different ways of applying friction to the player.
Same, I'm not a big fan of Factorio but I love Satisfactory and have put tons of hours in it.
I suppose another good example is Cities Skylines 1 and 2. The first was a great 'chilling game' where you could just relax and build a city, the second is way more complex and realistic, with you having to deal with things like cims not making rent. Which one is the best? Depends on what experience you're after.
I mean, you can play Factorio without enemies if you want, the game gives you the option when you create the world IIRC, I've never done it though, so I don't know how much depth the game loses by doing that.
@@repli2991 I've almost never played Factorio with enemies. Peaceful mode is a gentle game of endless tweaking and tinkering and expanding. I've sunk hundreds of hours into Factorio, doing nothing but that. It's like bonsai for nerds, and is perfectly enjoyable that way.
There is always a point in Adam's videos where I roll my eyes at him conflating personal opinion with game design critique and the Satisfactory vs Factorio example was that moment for me.
Satisfactory is the vastly better game for me, but that's entirely due to personal preference. Both are excellent examples of building mechanics, worlds, and systems that work together to create a highly immersive experience.
Oooh finally an explanation on my views on gaming. Especially invisible walls or similar arbitrary restrictions often break me from immersion. Borderlands had a great opportunity to nick those with their out of bounds deathlasers, but nothing in the game acknowledges their existence and so they are back to immersionbreaking, had they have some creatures or people die by their weapons, or people living close complain about their oppressive nature they'd actually be a cool addition. I have a way higher tolerance for bugs and technical limitations than for any barriers trying to hide them from me. Sure they break suspension of disbelieve some, yet the nature of them clearly not being part of the intended snippet of the world the developers tried to present me leaves me able to return to the previous state of disbelief suspending I had before much faster. Only when such instances pile up, do they chip into that suspension with more permanence.
Also I never learned to like scaling enemies.. Mostly of the tonal disconnect of the game clearly stating that I were more powerful (level up) and still having the same trouble if not more to stay in the area I am fighting foes.
Always love the level 100 mega hero who eats worldending threats for breakast running into a pack of wolves and still being hugely inconvenienced by them. oh and regular NPCs still living in the area like.. If I call down a meteor on a creature and they shrug it off as if it were a pebble, why is that random traveling merchants still travel around with no escort? Why do I, the genetically enhanced uber human who even powered up beyond that base state, have to have nailbitingly close fights with the local zombie population, while the random 16year old guard whose highest strength power up is lifting some weights at a gym just casually stands guard, ouside the walled of perimeters of the rest of civilization?
There is ways to mitigate these disconnects with writing (see the Borderlands example), yet so rarely are the disconnects addressed. Even "Gothic" paid heed to try and mitigate most of these disconnects. The world barrier was an integral part of the story and was a threat to the populus same as it was to you (though that game had a level of detail that few games have done right since. The controls are very clunky, but it's a game I'd absolutely recommend any gamedesigner to play. There apparently is a switch release, which had some launch problems, but seemingly those seem to mostly be fixed now. I still can't believe how far ahead of their time those games were.
12:36 I love that in a video about realism vs idealism you managed to fit Red Dead Redemption 2, a game which is either praised or despised because of all the fiddly elements that slow down gameplay, into the idealism side of the spectrum.
The thing with RDR2 is that it doesn't go halfway. The level of realism is mostly consistent. Starfield wants to have it both ways, making some aspects realistic and others completely unrealistic which makes the world feel extremely inconsistent and artificial.
Red Dead Redemption 2 is a clunky, borderline unplayable mess. As flawed as Starfield is, at least it doesn’t go that far.
@@MindinViolet As someone who put over a hundred hours into it, it is far from unplayable. Yeah it’s slow and many systems aren’t obvious, but once you figure out how something works it’s perfectly usable.
I think this is the only interesting critical take on Starfield I've seen.
It also explains the somewhat common opinion that the survival modes added to Skyrim and Fallout 4 dramatically improve the experience of playing those games.
not the only, the game is just bad, plenty of critique vids on its issues
its interesting a video no whats the limit to "immersion" in a game, over focus on realism or on making the player happy over logic
@@marcusclark1339The game is not bad, most of the critique are just « I don’t like it so it’s bad » or people who say the game has problems so it must be bad.
In New Vegas I added the ones to make water more important, but you can also bottle water with all those bottles lying around. Delay level up until you sleep etc. Healing not instantaneous from food or drugs. Eating animations.. also the one that delays all those BLOODY DLC POPUPS just as you step out of Doc's house :)
(edit: oh, and portable campsite and bed etc)
Another one I really like would be if they could do away fast travel screens and perhaps have some sort of cinematic transition to show passage of time when you are just walking down a road.
I wonder how a game like X4 would fit into this. It's not a big or popular game, but it does a amazing job at building a reactive world, while also somehow empowering you? like the factions participate in the same market that you do, they require all the same resources that you do and if they don't get resources, then they don't get ships and that can affect them in the wars that they fight between each other. this also makes things interesting because at the start of the game, there's not enough to go around and so there's not a lot of ships or fighting going on. as you as a player make money by fixing all of these market deficiencies, suddenly the AI has enough resources in order to build ships and start going to war a whole lot so right as you are prepared to participate in these kinds of dynamics, the AI is actually doing that. there's also very little that only you as the player can do, and yet somehow you also get empowered by turning into a trade mogul or a pirate unlike anything that the Galaxy has seen yet. but you still get all of those feelings even though the AI also builds stations, the AI uses the exact same weapons shields and ships that you do, etc.
I'm not specially fan of Anime but Idealism and realism in is something that anime do very well most of the time. Animes first episodes start setting an absolute crazy and unrealistic premise as a starting point and then, fluctuate all the time between realism and idealism in a masterful way. Great video!
Major Correction from a Game Design Art major: Realism actually started with the Romans. Impressionism started in the 1800s with the likes of Monet and Renior, who believed we could capture realism without the need of immense detail.
Correction aside, great video.
Edit: Van Gogh was a post-impressionist painter, not impressionist like I originally stated.
Yeah as you can probably tell I cut a LOT of corners with that explanation because I wanted to rattle through it as fast as possible!
Starfield really made it clear to me that Bethesda games are Sandboxes with a veneer of rpg elements. They can have cool lore and interesting ideas, but its all in service of letting the players run around in a theme park and do their own thing, which is why “you can ignore the main story quest” is a feature, not a bug. What makes Starfield (and tbh the rest of their games) feel like two different games tripping on each other is that it’s never really willing to forego its claim of just being a big empty universe to explore while never giving the players much in the way of meaningful choices or a sense that they’re changing the setting besides a few very isolated ways.
I seriously think that Bethesda should consider just double down on being themed playgrounds and remove the stilted “main story” that is hardly the selling point of their games for most people. Just drop the player into the world and let them go ham.
This video actually makes me appreciate The Outer Worlds over the top silliness and more bespoke narrative it really hit all the right notes for me as far as a fun space adventure goes
Far too many people don't understand that realism =/= immersion
I love videos like this that give me a completely new perspective. I hadn't at all thought about the idealism vs realism dichotomy you brought up. Great food for thought.
Seems like Starfield sits in a kind of uncanny valley of realism vs idealism.
Though when it comes to balancing having a realistic world with player convenience I think the best approach is to simply give the player options, which ironically Bethesda did really well until now. Both Fallout and Skyrim featured convenient fast travel, but the worlds were designed in such a way that walking on foot and exploring was worthwhile and fun, so both choices were always valid. As far as I understand in Starfield you can't walk 7 steps without hitting another loading screen though and fast traveling is pretty much mandatory.
Someone tried to go between 2 planets in Starfield without fast travel and apparently it took 7 hours
If you want the "immersive" and "emergent" quests to trigger, you can't use the fast travel.
@@onlysmiles4949 Yes that is true, and in the end, she couldn't even land on that planet (it was Pluto), it was just a low res model smaller than the real planet in the game, to land you still hate to go inside the ship and fast travel to it from the ship menu.
Exploring cities and settlements in Starfield is worthwhile and fun, going to new star system and discovering new unique locations is worthwhile and fun.
Was Starfield supposed to be star citizen but with 100hours of RPG content ? Cause that’s just impossible to make.
@@ni9274 It's not fun even if you have played only Bethesda game, there is nothing unique to discover and exploring is not rewarding at all, what are you talking about?
IF a game like that was impossible to make, they shouldn't have marketed Starfield as such type of game.
"A nuanced world of sci-fi political intrigue that awkwardly exists right alongside a story all about the magic space-friends explorer club and their mystical, infallible, chosen one leader."
...That sound suspiciously similar to Skyrim...
I think most of Starfield's weirdness just comes down to the way Bethesda develops games - they develop the game engine completely separately from the content in it, likely even before they even have any idea what game is going to be run on it. The developers of the engine probably had no idea it'd be used for Starfield (probably intended more for TES6), and by the time Starfield started, they were already done. Then the artists and writers that make content for their newly developed engine just have to deal with its limitations, and do their best with what it offers, with no real ability to make changes to the base game and how it works, to make it work better with a more realistic setting. Basically, they try to make games without game devs
This is kinda speculation but it's evidenced by their creation kits, which usually release alongside the game, and seem to clearly be the tool they gave to their writers and artists to build everything we see. As a dev, I think it's really obvious with the way their engines never do anything good, it just does a lot of things that can be applied in a lot of situations, even if none of it is ever quite a perfect fit for that thing or situation. It was made to be generically usable for all situations, and when you try to do that, you can't handle specifics, or even tailor the engine for a particular game or design decision
Oh god I think that's it. Fawkeds in fallout 3 refusing to save the day, that's the moment that permanently broke my suspension of disbelief. From that moment on, I could never see videogames as anything other than groups of mechanics meant to be overcome.
Drawing and driving home the difference between Realism and Idealism is an excellent perspective. I particularly resonate with the points that decisions in games that skew too closely to idealism feel less meaningful (GTA, Satisfactory), but games that skew too far realistic introduce busywork for its own sake without narrative or emotional payoff.
My problem with Starfield is that it doesn't feel like it has any reason to exist and also it's a Bethesda game. And somehow, despite being a space-age sci-fi game, it has less interesting character diversity than either Fallout or Elder Scrolls
It's so weird that there's plenty of really nice micro-stories in starfield but all the main ones, including named side quests are pretty bland and badly thought out
really well said at the end, at first all the inconsistencies you pointed out bugged me a bit, as if its fair to point out that something which I clearly knew wasn't real isn't functioning in an utterly real way, it is a narrative many people actually hold, complaining about the fact that fiction doesnt act the way real life would. but as stated at the end, maybe the problems are not the games themselves or whichever path they use to give the player satisfaction, but rather the problem is our relationship with fiction. expecting something completely unreasonable. expecting something that forgets the whole point of fiction and art to begin with, becoming obsessed with being utterly immersed in a world which we know doesnt exist to begin with, critiquing it for being exactly what it is, merely a simulation life's many possibilities, and in our meaningless obsessions, losing the point and the fun which brought us to these forms of entertainment to begin with. good video!
Huh, this makes loads of sense. I was thinking about a similar related thing recently with Football Manager - it's kinda weird how accurate they're making it in terms of the gameplay, whilst there's always that nagging problem that pretty much any human manager in game can do better than any real world manager could, and you can achieve the impossible (or highly improbable) without too much of an issue
I only understood “Guten Tag und willkommen” which means “Good day and welcome” and is fine apart from some weird intonation, but I’m also the child of two German teachers, who are also the children of teachers, so I’m just being a little picky.
Also, I wanted to watch a Starfield Let’s Play, but just in the first hour, the game felt so weird, somehow. Full of details yet empty, traveling gets you nowhere, and the lifeless horror that is space is disrupted by how many people and bases are everywhere. It’s too full and not empty enough, which ends up being boring. It’s also a problem that the game wants you to be everything instead of letting you choose -- be a vagabond wandering through space with your rag-tag crew, or become the hero saving the galaxy? I get that both at the same time is interesting, but being able to choose your path makes more varied gameplay, an ending that feels unique.
I don’t need the game to be “like reality” I need the game to deliver the genuine, sincere feeling of fun and enjoyment that it was created with. Even games with heavy themes are fun, because there is a story, an interesting environment, details that make you think, good music, comforting and relaxing little routines...
That’s my opinion as someone who likes watching and observing a lot.
Also, your videos are very interesting, a little similar to Daryl talks Games (i think that’s his name) who has a bit more psycho-analysis (if you wanna call it that). Very fun to watch, I learned something new today :)
He tried to say "Guten Tag und willkommen zum Nach-dem-Video-Teil". Both judging from me hearing a lot of broken german from my american boyfriend and that he normally says "Welcome to the after--the-video segment". ^w^
Excellent video. I find this tension between flavors of realism and idealism shapes so many aspects of modern games, as well as movies and books. Personally I prefer more realism in games because it makes them feel less contrived, somehow more authentic-but too much grindy realism will lock me out too.
i think starfield was meant to have multiple storylines and events depending the player's choice and exploration but was cut, which made them rely on a single line and the result is what we got.
it could've been way better for it if they removed a lot of friction from it, just like what outer wilds did.
Outer wilds is an excellent example tbh of removing friction, planets are way smaller which made them more interesting and easier to explore, traveling through space is as easy as robbing a bicycle in san andreas, even landing is forgiving (sometimes😂), gravity impact is reduced to further increase the speed of exploration. all of this combined literally made an excellent space exploration game (i loved it so much)
starfield could've benefited a lot by literally copy and pasting these into its own design but oh well, maybe they will learn someday.
There isn’t a « single storyline » in Starfield.
Maybe Starfield is just not for the people who can’t support some loading screen and can’t immerse themself in a world that isn’t realistic in every single aspect.
I personally really love Starfield for the attention to details, the very good worldbuilding and the fact that it’s the first space game with some good RPG content coupled with real planets and many additional systems like outpost and shipbuilding.
All that is perfect for roleplay.
20:05 -- The trick with Outer Worlds' supernova mode is to play it as a lone wolf after already beating the game once normally with companions. It got me approaching things in a totally different way from how I did my first playthroughs. Stealth, negotiation, and picking your battles are all way more important when you are weak, alone, and unable to savescum. Plus, the "meter management" really isn't so bad, especially if you actually use food buffs as a regular part of gameplay and don't just hoard everything. Solo supernova was the most invested I felt in my 100%ing of that game, the added security that comes with selling out to the corporations is way more tempting when you feel just a little extra disempowered.
Props for using the Hardspace Shipbreaker music, that soundtrack is incredible.
If starfield was an Iceberg, it would be a raft with some snow on top.
There is no gameplay depth, no mythos, no story depth, heck, its also insanely empty, and mechanically reductionist. Feels emptier than 76 even did. The game drops the concept of unreliable narrator completely, which in a world of exploration, is essential.
The messaging in the story is also.... anti-human in nature.
the horse in the witcher 3 is an example of realism.
but it was so annoying that most of the time i was just running on foot.
I think jiggle physics are like desert, there's always room for it in my suspension of disbelief stomach.
This has me thinking about the FPS I'm working on, and how I'm going to be figuring out an inventory system soon. In it, every weapon will be one-handed, and the player will be duel wielding. This brings up the question of how the player switches weapons. I've been thinking of using a system similar to Half-Life 2, where the player selects a weapon with the number keys or scroll wheel, then clicks fire to equip it, but with one fire button for each hand. I've also been considering using a grid of items that each take up multiple spaces.
I'm not sure which one to use. The game is supposed to be a movement shooter, but with a sort of stop-and-stop pace like Halo or Metro Exodus, but without regenerating health or crafting mechanics.
Cool :D I like the wheel and shoot to equip idea. Mind that I'm not an FPS player so take that with all the salt that could exist in the universe
But why not both? Grid to manage what to carry at all, wheel for tacticool swap mid fight
Maybe holding down a mouse button locks your camera angle, and aims the weapon all GoldenEye 007 style; releasing the mouse button stops aiming it. For melee, drag the mouse to strike; for range, release the mouse to fire. Alternatively, aim the weapon down to sheathe it.
A movement shooter with such wonky controls would have to have *extremely* forgiving weapons. Like... if a weapon can't wipe out 7 guys with a fireball or 30 pellets, don't bother giving it to them.
You know how in DooM 2, you got the Super Shotgun in the second level? Super easy to aim with, super easy to use, instantly solves your problems, slow enough for you to comprehend its power? Try that for your first ranged weapons. Then, once people are ready, hand out the precision weapons.
We’re gonna need 16 times the realism
"You see that moon with absolutely nothing on it? You can visit it! All of this stuff just works! Who's laughing now?!"
Cope harder, you gaystation fanbot goof
Ahhh did you already finish your short ahh cyberjunk dlc? Im so sad for you... Maybe the spiderboi game will keep you for an hour or two so we dont have to read your goofy bs
@@CHRIS-fs4qyimagine being this angry someone criticized Bethesda
20:48 that smoke is magical, it upgraded the engine!
I recommend playing X4: Foundations, it feels like the part that's missing in starfield. The game feels like a single player star citizen.
While overall I totally buy your point, I think you do often get magic from combining realistic narrative with idealistic mechanics or vice versa. Disco Elysium wants to paint a largely-grounded ("realistic" if not "realist") world about a guy going through a really tough point in his life with almost entirely disconnected mechanics; Pathologic 2 tells a story about a pretty fantastical world that you are forced to interract with through extremely arduous mechanics and both are stronger for it. It's one of the reasons I will always go out to bat for Fire Emblem as a narrative series: coupling this largely silly world and largely abstract mechanics to the notion that, if you don't take care, your guys and gals are not coming home after the war just gives such incredibl weight to the franchise, in my opinion.
HELL YES - one major reason why I'll never pick up Red Dead Redemption 2 is because it goes _way too far_ to be "realistic".
Other games don't have the player character physically open cupboards or pick up random supplies, as other games correctly and intelligently realise that this is animation that can be safely skipped past in order to not drag down the pace of the game; in other games, looting dead bodies just takes one or two button presses, allowing the player to continue fighting or adventuring or questing in a snap. Here? In order to be "realistic", the PC physically opens cupboards or leans down to loot bodies or pick plants - WHY?
Also, if you go hunting in RDR2, you have to pick up the carcass and haul ass over to a shop after. Why? Because, just like in real life, meat rots in this game. Again, this didn't need to be programmed in for the experience to be engaging and fun - I can go out and hunt animals in Assassin's Creed Origins, and along with instantly harvesting the corpse, any resources gained go into separate counts in the menu. That's not at all "realistic", but boy is it way more FUN, as it allows me to continue playing the damn game much faster.
Fuck right off, "realism", we don't need too much of you.
games keep trying to simulate reality through scope and graphical fidelity but players couldnt care less about that stuff and just want a game that is consistent, functional, and interesting
if i wanted to experience a massive, sprawling open world at hd graphics quality and realistic physics interactions, i'd go outside and buy a pair of glasses
I guess you could say between idealism and realism, Starfield is the worst of both worlds.
It's so easy to tell if someone hasn't watched the video to the end. Calling something "the worst" isn't the way to go.
@@DraconicA5it’s mandatory to say something bad about Starfield in a RUclips comment section
For me it's not a matter of realism vs non realism. It's a matter of how much the player is considered in terms of mechanical reactivity. For example: Into the Radius VR is not really a "realistic" game, you're fighting ghosts in a post apocalypse where things float. But after every excursion, I have to clean my gear if I don't want weapon jams and manually sort my inventory into neat cabinet spaces, and that's something *I do* not the game. I could make the choice to just throw my inventory around in that game and live in a pigsty, or never clean my stuff so my weapons jam after every bullet, the game won't stop me. But it's on the player to take the world seriously, and if they don't, they face consequences.
I don't think he's referring to realism as "it could happen", more that the internal logic of the world you are in retains consistency. that can be having the players toolset be the same as the enemies, or like your example, requiring you to maintain your gear. i think you mean the same thing, just aren't using the same terminology
@@opiumskittles Perhaps, yeah. Either way, I just think too many people conflate "wanting realism" vs "wanting reactivity and considered interactivity"
Not a fan of that Outer Wilds Puzzle Spoiler
One game that really clicked with me is Swat4 where you just play a more realistic gritty experience as a Swat team, the friction is kind of enjoyable as you need to let enemies get the first shot and try to take them down non lethally, vs the more idealistic CoD games which are popular with a wide crowd just letting you play as soldiers in a small maze or an over the top single player story. I also feel all games give the advantage to the player but realistic design implies you need to strategize to gain that advantage while idealist implies you're Batman and beating up the enemies is effortless once you have the right rhythm. It's fun to be the center of attention just as much as being one man against the world or building up to something that can be the center of a conflict.
Too many games add rpg mechanics that are there as a hard cap or part of a theme related to realism but they over clock them to just be a chore or they just get in the way as a meaningless distraction. Minecraft has a slow hunger meter to make survival difficult but also rewarding when you have a farm going or otherwise make exploring a bigger task when a part of your inventory is made up of food, as well as the relief when you find a stock of apples when you ran out. Tossing that into Fallout New Vegas is more a challenge mode to make sure you're gathering the otherwise minor food items and managing sodas correctly with fresh water. It would be inappropriate for GTA since the goal is to just drive cars and simulate a crime life, though I kind of wish you got better buffs for eating well while your character can always eat between missions, starvation is never a factor but enhances the choices that are relevant. Persona isn't perfectly free but for an on rails life sim with expected responses in dialogue it's very nice, while also letting you live a less than grounded life for one reason or another.
Bethesda seems focused on idealistic roleplaying but really want to add realism thinking it's like polish, like how Hollywood animated movies want to be photorealistic but really just need to be stylized in an interesting way. If you pick up a fork that isn't yours the town can't tell that from a murder half the time so it aggros everything or in more advanced games will signal unarmed civilians to flee home (or open the 100 lock box for a rocket launcher). If you play along with Skyrim and Fallout it tends to work, but you really need to put thought into it to keep that emersion for when you stray away from the intended paths. Honestly, BG3 is amazing but I also get frustrated when I can't complete a task through straight combat and need to back up, or I'm punished for planning a sneak attack only to get sucked into a dialogue or I'm already surrounded by people I really should talk to.
3:23 "oooooo that reminds me of- oh hell yeah my man Maruki😎"
Nice use of that OST lmao
I'm not sure this is as much of a problem with games as with the marketing around them. In my personal experience wacky immersion breaking things happening in games like starfield and cyberpunk didn't detract anything from my experience because from the start I had no expectations of them being deeply immersive games. I think this is the reason people are often the most upset with the games that are the most heavily market around concepts like immersion as whatever concepts you can imagine a game having are ALWAYS going to outstrip a developers ability to create.
The scale of cost to make a large open world immersive game is so absurd that it is unlikely we will ever have one without significant changes in the tools that exist to create games. The reason I say this is that I think it would be helpful for people to avoid buying into any marketing about immersive gameplay in general. The next impressive game we will have in this area is likely over a decade away and playing games that come out in the meantime with elevated levels of hype will only ever make you enjoy those games less.
Getting excited about upcoming games is wonderful, but make sure to only get excited about things that really exist within them.
It's funny cause you've made a video about it before, but this is the best video essay I've seen regarding the subject of game immersion
starfield should make the refuse to join the star cult thing to end the game, just roll the credit!
More communities in full plabets and bodies of Ice water or lava or other threats like acid rain or other similar stuff, sand storms and snow storms. Ash snow. All would be helpful, and survival difficulty would be nice.
Starfield is most besthesda game of them all
Starfield is most of times surface level game but moment you want more of it
There is just almost nothing too deep within in it
Its not bad game
Bethesda just wants people fix their own game by providing mod support
Just like with skyrim
Skyrim and Starfield shares alot of things
Looks nice, huge world, alot of non meaningfull sideguests, geberic story, hollow structure
Mod support so mod scene fixes their shiet in their behalf
That is why Starfield is most Bethesda game of Bethesda games
PSA: MAJOR OUTER WILDS DLC SPOILERS from 16:30-16:38.
All jokes aside Star Citizen is honestly some of the most fun I’ve had in a video game ever lol
that German sentence was not too bad. Gut gemacht Adam 😀
I think there's pretty interesting parallel to draw from your elaboration upon artistic idealism and philosophical idealism (think Kant) in terms of the theme of protagonism, if you will.
Idealism can be viewed as yet another step in the direction of furthering individualistic world-views perhaps born in ancient Greece, recovered during the renaissance and elaborated upon by say Descartes and Kant, the second being the vague focus of my comment.
Now, I'll have to put up the disclaimer that I am no expert in Kant, but as I gather he was the first philosopher to make the acknowledgement of the world, its constituents, ways of working (mechanics in his Newtonian world-view) radically dependant upon the individual observing.
This seems to have been a move from the world being open and already disclosed, so to speak, to the world being a mystery of phenomena only open to interpretation from the imperfect angle of the individual - our consciousness being causal to our experiences and thereby world-view. This is also a world-view which I find deeply rooted in current, Western culture
The connection to your video is that I think this conceptualisation of the world and our ways of knowing the it pretty closely aligns with your defining points of idealist worlds.
This rather individualist world-view, as I think it should also be considered, was somewhat of a shift in focus from generalities beyond the individual and a move away from considering the features of the world as in themselves having an effect on us regardless of our conscious, reflective acknowledgement of them.
To make the radicalness of this divide in thinking more explicit, one could counter the above world-view from evolutionary, materialist/marxist and existentialist angles and wonder whether or not there is a real world affecting us regardless of our appreciation of it?
Has our consciousness not had some very real structures both enabling and limiting it rather than it being free-floating?
Have we not been genetically equipped through millions of years in the crucible of survival of the to broadly speaking act in certain ways? Do we not find ourselves in a world with very real economical conditions and relations by which we will have to abide in order to survive and are thus shaped by? Are we not born into a world of countless values and expectations by which we are taught to behave, think and feel and thus live our lives, however contingent they may be?
Philosophical idealism, Hegel's as well I think, seems to assumes the reality of rationality in a sort of free-form, pure, quasi-religious spirit, but we have to grapple with whether or not we believe in that foundation, before we can accept everything built upon it.
was “smoke and mirrors” and that background footage really necessary 😭 (20:50)
It is an important and interesting topic onto itself, realism vs idealism that is. But Starfield's is not a very good game, not because of the conflicting design philosophies, but because implementation of those design philosophies wasn't very good. It kinda doesn't have anything going for it, sure you can play like you would fallout 3 and fallout 4 or skyrim for that matter, mostly aimlessly wondering around hoping you gonna find something, and sometimes you can stumble over something that picks your interest, but then it's back to routine slog and that's about it. But to be fair f3 and f4 are not very good games on their own right and mostly driven by recognizable title and game universe. Unlike skyrim, which is part of recognizable brand as well and which is probably the simpler game compared to the rest that is mentioned above, but it still feels like that of "your adventure". Not because of fantasy elements or the fact that you play as a chosen one, let's be honest main story sucks... and exploring surely gets boring after few dozen hours, but it's still the one I'm willing to return to. Oh and starfield just look bad okay, and having plain and boring graphics doesn't really make it realistic and having bad performance doesn't help either ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Probably the best way to explain the dichotomy is actually rather simple.
The clash between real and Realism. Just because it's real doesn't mean it's realistic, because realism is, in reality when it is mostly used, a sense that it could happen in the world something is set in, like IRL. And that is the big problem, because a well built world can make aspects that would otherwise be immersion breaking fit, but at the same time, something that is realistic in the sense we believe it could happen IRL could be immersion breaking by the simple fact, that the world in game is different in a way that makes it just not make sense in context. Or basically, Just like how 'realistic fanfiction' could end up even more unrealistic than the base material due to injecting IRL stuff in without regards about how such could fit in the setting, games could by making things more realistic, harm the sense of realism by clashing with the way the world was built.
Or basically, Immersion is hard.
A new Architect video and it's about one of the games I've been into lately? Right before I should go to bed, so that my mind will now be filled with thoughts on the made arguments? Splendid!
Edit: Many thanks for not throwing in spoilers!
no problem!
Now that I'm finished with the vid and don't just rudely throw my comment during the first three minutes, I agree. Starfield is weird. I have to actively hold myself back from drawing my gun in a crowded city. I wouldn't normally draw my gun randomly, but ever since I tested it once and found that NPCs care about exactly as little like the NPCs in Hogwarts Legacy, I stop myself from that just because I'm trying to preserve some of my immersion. Which constantly makes me think about it. Thereby ruining my immersion almost as much as if I just shot a cardboard cutout silhouette of someone. On the other hand, take RDR2; I almost never pulled a gun there on random people, because I would feel incredibly bad for ruining that pixel person's day/life when they, like you'd expect, beg for their life and such. It's quite frustrating and I really, really, hope that Starfield will become a fresh moddibg playground so they can make the game truly shine.
Great video! Gives me a way to look at Starfield and games overall from a different view that I didn't think of.
A lot about Starfield is also subjective, like with all art. Lots of people do enjoy realism over idealism and some don't.
Interesting to think about where one would fall on the spectrum, because that may or may not change one's decision to play or even buy a game.
One thing I noticed right away while playing starfield is that Bethesda only did the broad strokes when it comes to world building
For example, there are *no* TVs in the game. Not a single one. Not even in the builder. Everyone just stopped using visual media
There are computers and tablets everywhere in Starfield, there are posters for movies and popular movies are mentioned by many NPC.
It make sense that there isn’t any « classic tv » in the Starfield world since even jn today’s world more and more people totally stop watching TV and only watch movies or TV shows on their smartphones and computers.
Even if it was really the case and that there wasn’t any mention of any visual media in starfield this wouldn’t say anything on the quality of the worldbuilding.
It’s impossible to address every possible details when you craft a fictional world for a video game, sometimes it’s better to concentrate on what matter the most.
Please don’t say the worldbuilding is bad if you didn’t pay attention to anything in the world, since it’s one of the most hated game ever most people don’t even take time to think before criticizing it.
Reminds me about what Gabe once said: ruclips.net/video/MGpFEv1-mAo/видео.htmlsi=4oIynOKkKgy5WYhP
"Fun isn't about realism. It's about having a world that's interactable and consistently responds to your actions."
This video felt like Goldilocks rationalizing her feelings about porridge temperature for 25 minutes. "I like it not too hot, not too cold, but just right."
Superdude showed up in my recommendations a few weeks ago and his Fire Emblem video was so good that it got me to go back and finish Engage. Definitely gonna blow up soon.
Realism as a category implying a "copy of the real world" is awful, not even the realistic movements in arts defend such a thing, since there's an awareness in these type of artistic creations of their own artificiality. That's why so many people becomes frustated when a "realistic" game breaks the immersion, since they expect the game to simulate real life rules (and not the diegetic rules of its universe). It's real refreshing to see "realism" defined less by its more obvious (and deceitful) definition (that of a 1:1 mimesis of reality) and more as a question of complexity or "atriction", as well as of the degree of focus and protagonism of the game's character, as you put it. Kudos to you!
Already subbed to superdude! Praise the algorithm!
The whole _"realism for it's own sake"_ thing was brilliantly satirised (in the context of films, not games) by Mitchell and Webb a couple of decades ago: ruclips.net/video/HtQNULEudss/видео.html
Oh, and since there's a clip of it in this video - BotW and TotK.
Why add limited stamina? Why make shields and weapons brittle and fragile? Previous Legend of Zelda games, games that actually _live up to_ and _deserve_ their name of Legend of Zelda, understood full well that the main joy of exploring the compact worlds present in each one was discovering what was in a certain area, where the next proper dungeon is or where the next Heart Piece or other useful collectible is - NOT frustrating the player by limiting how quickly they can run or climb, or limiting how far they can swim, or by making combat an active drain on resources.
I've just played through Twilight Princess HD again, after torturing myself with TotK, and Twilight Princess HD was such a _welcome relief_ from the tedious, aimless disaster. Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, even Ocarina of Time (the first 3D Zelda) - they all knew what made them fun, and capitalised on it, instead of forcing arbitrary and frustrating mechanics onto the player to slow them down or ruin combat (or disregarding proper dungeon design, for that matter).
For me immersion in a game is being part of a functioning gameworld.That Respects its Rules and Consequences for Player agency.
Its hard to get immersed into a game when the world gives you the feeling that it is just waiting for you. And games that revolve around the player can quickly break the immerson. In Skyrim you just have made your character and shit hits immediatly the fan. Youre given no time to actually embrace the world. Be part of it. The same was with oblivion. Emperor dies and you got a Task of Highly importance.
Contrast it with morrowind: You get a letter you need to deliver. To a guy thats intructed to give you some work. And if you do that early he even says: ok now got an do something else.
Morrowind in Comparison gave you time to acclimate yourself with the world. You did not enter a ride from the start that swept you away.
Yes you could always choose to abandon the main quest in Oblivion and Skyrim. But that is exactly whats breaking immersion in those games. Because there is no consequnce to it. Theyll wait paitently for years of ingame time just for you to arrive. Skyrim is a bunch of themepark rides that you can take more than it is a world where you / your character can be part of.
23:00 waaay ahead of you on the super dude thing, his video on knowledge based unlocks was great! (I still prefer "metroidbrainia" though 🤷)
Excellent video. Subbed
Bethesda saying that space was meant to be boring for the sake of realism was just a cover for lazy “Bethesda” design.
They have selectively applied the “realism” aim. Want to carry 50 weapons, and all their ammunition, without being encumbered? You got it!
Want the places where you might use said weapons to be interesting? Sorry, we want to be realistic.
Love the Rick Astley transition at 16:38.
I mean, perhaps we could try and appreciate the moments that Todd Bethesda's grand vision shines through
or we could take a step back and realize that their grand vision is the same grand vision they've had for the last 15 years and go play a game that doesn't try and retread the same old ground
I think the frozen world of Skyrim was the #1 thing I disliked about it most. Nothing happens unless you _make it_ happen, and nothing is ever time-sensitive. Wish it would've had more dynamic events like wars and whatnot in addition to the scripted stuff.
Also, great vid.
Doom 2016 has had a great balance of being mostly a grounded universe, with YOU, the Doom Slayer, being an in-universe anomaly feared by Hell itself.
Doom Eternal failed to keep that balance, as it went over the top in every aspect possible, becoming less of a world and more of a theme park.
Very interesting video, great job. 18:45 , i think that's it
Anybody who works in foley can tell you that a feeling of immersion comes more from expectations and imagined realism than actual realism. If you've ever watched boxing or MMA, you know the sound of a person being punched, even being punched really hard by a trained fighter, does not sound anything like the loud, meaty, crunchy, slappy punching sound effect we all expect from movies and games.
Yes, beyond real and ideal, immersion works both way.
It's game to you, also you to the game.
The second one is personal belief, and the first one is also personal.
I realized that many of us just ranting about stuffs because things became frustrating to play rather than the lack of something. Though I have to realize that some vocal minority with spaceship level of PC just want to rant because they need external validation. There are many cool folks with spaceship level of PC of course, but some rich kids just being too loud. I think realism is merely superficial thing to reference when the word "fun" is more subjective and hard to use as a point. That's why striving for realism is not really a good idea unless you're simulation kind. The rest of us should rather make "fun" games than trying to be the next big thing. I explicitly use the word "fun" for the fact that everyone have their own opinions and perspectives.
Honestly I've heard some of these patreon supporters' names so many times they're iconic by now. Especially Chao.
The fact you don't mention Kenshi makes me sad D=
I don't mention it directly but it's in the video!
I belieieve the word you may be looking for is verisimilitude (maybe misspelled). It means an internally consistent world within a given story. Look it up if you have any doubts