I might be posting a lot of questions of advice because I am working on the prototype for my game Mammalian.
I want this game to be the most realistic click game and I do have a few ideas on this.
It has a lot of nice environmental effects, but how realistic should it get? How much is too much?
I need your help for me to make my game enjoyable with all sorts of players!
Thank you!
Hey guys, if you need a spritist or someone to create anything about art:
-Logos
-Cut-scenes
-Sprites
and all sort of other things, then just send me an email or PM me!
It can be too realistic - having things which don't make the game any fun, like a "press Spacebar to breathe" feature. Also the complexity goes up exponentially with realism. You need a lot of new thingies for each tiny feature and you'll have to make it balance out with everything else. Adding one simple formula means adding about 4 or so variables per object. And that formula may relate to other formulas as well.
Being the most realistic click game is not a good objective! One way to look at realism is in layers. Most people will often have a 'set' of realism. As it is, most advanced klik games are using a set of realistic physics. You're going to have to go further than that, perhaps adding wind, adding proper gravity, "jiggle dynamics".
There's not much more you can do than that. Most, most importantly - is it going to be fun?
Here's how you should do it. Games are like movies. Do movies actually resurrect a dinosaur for jurassic park? No, they use a robot. With the latest technology, they use CGI, but are now going back to robots. Sets are constructed. Some actually move the actors and cameras to a location, but could you actually tell the difference?
Point is.. realism should only be on the surface. Make it as realistic as is fun. Think about whether it'll add to the fun or whether it'll just be a side distraction.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Well what I meant by realism is more around the graphics and stuff. Like objects moving in the background and detailed particle effects.
Like, would you prefer a CaveStory game then a game like World of Goo?
Hey guys, if you need a spritist or someone to create anything about art:
-Logos
-Cut-scenes
-Sprites
and all sort of other things, then just send me an email or PM me!
Same goes for graphics, I guess. Most of the realism isn't in textures, it's more of realistic movement and tiny details. I know Blackeye Software used to devote event groups to things like butterflies and stuff and I've only noticed it when I opened up the code.
But hey, who doesn't like graphical effects? Just make sure it doesn't slow down the game
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
You can get a to realistic in graphics as well. When graphics get to a certain point of realism, people start to notice what's wrong with them (like eyes not moving around enough) rather than what's right. It creeps out the audience. Wikipedia calls this effect the uncanny valley.
Although I didn't have a problem with it, some people had this problem with the polar express.
It entirely depends on what you're working on. Realistic bits are very useful for reference, like physics, night/day cycles etc. But making the gameplay too realistic, like having the players jump strength match a real world jump is just being daft.
Play around on GTA: San Andreas and then have a play on GTA IV to see how too much realism breaks games.
For mammalian specifically, I think I liked the old less-realistic style better. It's ultimately up to you, but that's my 2 cents.
On the subject of realism in games in general, sure realistic is neat. But I don't really like that in my games. I tend to prefer cartoony games and then semi-realistic games after that. THEN realistic.
I remember reading an article in PC Gamer UK about where games should draw the line when it comes to realism, and I agree with what was said there, which is pretty much that the more realism the merrier as long as it doesn't effect gameplay in a negative way.
Having a day/night cycle for example is great, it adds a touch of a living world into your game, but if you need to meet some character and you missed the hour of the meeting, and now you need to wait till tomorrow without an option to fast forward, that's already irritating. I'm willing to accept time travel in account of realism.
Also games are about experiencing something fun without the hassles of the real world, if you're giving me a real life simulator with a different character and setting, well I guess I'd rather go outside and earn the fruits of my labor in real life (which is the reason why I'm not much of a fan of the Sims series).
And when it comes to realistic graphics or not, I guess it depends on what kind of game you're making, though I don't think there should be a rule where funny games should have cartoonish, dramatic games should have an artistic world and serious games should be photo realistic.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by -Nick-
