next »

[Dacke]

For example, if you'd have to pee and poo every 10 seconds or so (depending on the game simulation speed) then that would be highly realistic but not fun at all.

The Sims is a highly successful survival-game in an urban setting. It successfully added peeing and pooing as a fun feature.

I think it could work great in an island-survival-game as well, where you would let the player progressively build better facilities in order to avoid getting e-coli.

[1982]

For example, if you'd have to pee and poo every 10 seconds or so (depending on the game simulation speed) then that would be highly realistic but not fun at all.

In such case, developer should really think if accelerated game time is wanted feature.

[Eigen]

Okay, yeah, 10 seconds is a really fast paced game which this one probably isn't so discard that part of the comment.

[DustyDrake]

Something to note from what I've observed:
Removing realism is okay, adding it is not.

Key example, from my 3 friends playing Minecraft, we'd all been playing since before the hunger update, and then afterwards one of my friends just about quit Minecraft because he didn't play it for realism, and finds it to be stupid (but won't elaborate as to why it's stupid)

[Geeze]

Something to note from what I've observed:
Removing realism is okay, adding it is not.

Key example, from my 3 friends playing Minecraft, we'd all been playing since before the hunger update, and then afterwards one of my friends just about quit Minecraft because he didn't play it for realism, and finds it to be stupid (but won't elaborate as to why it's stupid)

Although this depends on the game. Especially here, as a sandbox, minecraft's premise is to allow the player to do and create whatever he wants. So here the hunger mechanic adds realism that works against this premise. But if there was added more realism in to creature-creature interactions, the game would be a lot more fun. Currently in minecraft monsters mainly interact with player only, and not with each other.
So I think the key is to add realism that adds to the game amd doesn't work against it. (well duh a bit obvious)

[mirosurabu]

The Sims is a highly successful survival-game in an urban setting. It successfully added peeing and pooing as a fun feature.

I think it could work great in an island-survival-game as well, where you would let the player progressively build better facilities in order to avoid getting e-coli.

Peeing and pooing are some of the reasons why The Sims sucks.

[iffi]

The Sims is a highly successful survival-game in an urban setting. It successfully added peeing and pooing as a fun feature.

I think it could work great in an island-survival-game as well, where you would let the player progressively build better facilities in order to avoid getting e-coli.

Peeing and pooing are some of the reasons why The Sims sucks.

I think they made the system less demanding from The Sims to The Sims 2, and thus less "realistic," but it's better that way because it feels more real to the player to have the time to do something besides going from one bathroom to another and occasionally stopping at the bedroom or the kitchen.

[Dacke]

The Sims was (from a pure gamer point of view) about managing a number of stats that kept going down. By accumulating wealth you could buy stuff that made it easier to keep the stats up, giving you more time to increase your abilities and accumulate wealth.

So from a gameplay point of view, there was hardly any difference between pooing, showering, sleeping, eating etc. Pooing added thematic humour and realism, but the gameplay mechanism was identical to the rest of the gameplay. So it makes very little sense to say that "pooing made The Sims suck".

The game was balanced so that you had to constantly monitor the basic stats. This made it unrealistic, because in real life you can get lots of stuff done between your potty breaks. Even if the in-game-time between bathroom visits was realistic, the time needed to go to the bathroom (several hours) was completely unrealistic.

So I would argue that Sims 2 was more realistic if it reduced the focus on going to the bathroom/eating/showering/etc.

[Dylan93]

Hmm yeah, I never thought about pooping and peeing haha, maybe I can add that too 

Anyway, new problem arises: inventory

I was thinking to kinda keep it realistic, and in the real world you don't have a inventory that can hold 40 items or something so my idea was to have a inventory system based on pockets, bag and you can find a bag. So for things like big logs to make a shelter you need to carry it and take it with you instead of simply popping it in your bag and run around happy ever after.

[Maud'Dib Atreides]

Project Zomboid

Oh my God the status bubbles spamming the screen

[EdgeOfProphecy]

It depends entirely on your goals for the game, because there is not general acceptable level of realism for a game.

If you want the game to be highly approachable to all, a good fun survival romp, then a degree of realism that is tempered with the question "Will this annoy the player?" is a good direction.  There's no shame with shoehorning reality into something that serves your gameplay goals.  I think, when trying to make a realistic game, people sometimes forget that they're still making a game, and that you should not sacrifice the enjoyability of the game on some quest for realism.

However, if you want to make a game that is brutally hard, that makes a statement about how modern man is so ill suited to wilderness survival, then I would not shy away from making the game difficult.  I would make it playable, but it's definitely ok to have a hard game.  Look at Roguelikes, they thrive on their difficulty and chaos (two things a lot of people don't like to put in games).  DayZ, for instance, garnered a lot of attention because it tried to be a difficult, more realistic zombie survival FPS rather than the action based titles like the Left 4 Dead series.

You can go either way with it, and both can yield very good (but different) games.  Really it matters what you want to make.

As for recommendations, I thought the Lost in Blue series did an excellent take on survival games.  Not super realistic, but still really fun.

[baconman]

Under The Garden implements a few of those things you mention, it might be worth checking out. FarmerGnome would hook you right up, and may probably be a good person to talk to about implementing such mechanics.

[Muz]

BTW, take a look at Dwarf Fortress.

Some updates included disease, the possibility of broken ribs puncturing the heart/lungs, and dwarves moving in a parabola-like movement when hit by a fast, heavy minecart.

Nobody's complained about the new updates being too realistic


Of course, if your game is more arcade-like, this kind of thing would annoy them. Yeah, I'd agree that The Sims is more of a people-themed arcadelike game than a people simulation.

[Medevenx]

Well IMO a game can never be too realistic. But it MAY be if the levels of realism of mechanics in the game aren't on the same level.. If one aspect of the game is too realistic compared to another aspect of the game, that's gonna be a tough call. You'll have to either get the other aspects on the same realism level or drop down the most realistic mechanic you have. This is what the Sims does well, balancing the mechanics.

[Maud'Dib Atreides]

Then again, there was the fact that a fair amount of fans of the game Minecraft who protested when they initially found out that food had to be eaten in order to stay alive.

Said fans also protested that said food meter would also decrease as the character either took damage or ran long distances, and that healing no longer was instant, but gradual.

In short, if you're going to make it realistic, do it NOW, before the players of your game become discouraged with an update that seems to make the game generally harder.