on the question of 'realism'

[Alric]

There's the old idea of suspension of disbelief. Much older than computer games but very important to me enjoying them.

A game isn't literally going to convince me that I'm flying a space ship in the far future. I'm not actually going to believe that and nor do I want to. But I also should not be actively thinking that I'm not in the far future flying a spaceship, but am in fact playing a rather implausible computer game. It has to be convincing enough that I don't think about the many ways I can clearly tell that I'm not really a space man.

When I'm playing FIFA I don't really think I'm a footballer, but I'm thinking about it as football. Clearly, I'm not actually kicking a ball, but I don't think about that. If a spaceship descended from orbit, and landed on the pitch, that would ruin the game. Why? Not because I don't believe in spaceships. Not because I don't think spaceships are cool or even because I don't like spaceships in computer games. I do. But it would immediately take me out of the plausible fictional world. I would now be thinking this is not like football, it's like a computer game.

Likewise, if I find myself being boarded by spacewalking Vikings who hack their way through my ships hull with daneaxes, that won't contribute to me enjoying Elite. I'm sure we could come up with a dozen explanations as to why it would make perfect sense, but that wouldn't make it a good addition.

There's clearly a fiction element in a science fiction game. But it has to be consistent and somewhat plausible. Just throwing everything that seems fun in and saying well, it's not a sim doesn't make for a good game any more than throwing every ingredient I like in to a bowl and giving it a stir makes for a tasty dish.

 

[laforge]

The risk with defining the quality of science fiction by today's science facts are that you cannot be certain that your facts are in fact, facts.

Almost every theory has some sort of assumptions. In case of the most basic theories it is quite clear what their limits are, and that they work well within these limits. Good sci-fi always recognize these limits and play around with, while bad sci-fi simply ignores these limits, often because the author is unaware of it. Only then will it start to get inconsistent.

 

[Ref Minor]

So long as it keeps it real like The Clangers did, I am all good.

 

[metatheurgist]

The risk with defining the quality of science fiction by today's science facts are that you cannot be certain that your facts are in fact, facts.

Of course you can, just don't watch FOX news.

 

[SAB380]

I like it in Elite because it separates it from other sci-fi.

I also hope it makes EVA really interesting in both ship interior and space station design.

 

[Gelbrock]

The whole point of playing games like this is that it is not at all real.... if there was something like Elite in reality we would be doing that instead....


That and of course the fun part of it.

 

[Oss133]

Perhaps we should just demand that FD stop faffing about with computer games and build us some actual spaceships and stations and send us all into actual space. Virgin are doing it.

 

[Nagual]

Perhaps we should just demand that FD stop faffing about with computer games and build us some actual spaceships and stations and send us all into actual space. Virgin are doing it.

Considering Bransons numerous attempts at round the world ballooning... I'll pass.

 

[DarthLuca]

2p worth

E is, or will be, a 'game'. So I think the question should be one of 'believability' as opposed to realism. The cold, deadly reality of space and space travel as we understand it presently and the vast (mind boggling) distances involved must give way to playability and fun.
It will be as real as we believe it to be

 

[Viking]

It's not easy to discuss a subject that isn't defined. OP says it himself. "'realism', whatever that means ...". Are we supposed to bring our own definition, based on personal opinions, when there are so many different opinions on what realism is?

The most common error people do, IMO, is to weight the definition with their opinion of how they want it to be, or not, and how they like it, or not. IMO one should separate the definition from the opinion of value to you personally.

 

[jedt]

It's not easy to discuss a subject that isn't defined. OP says it himself. "'realism', whatever that means ...". Are we supposed to bring our own definition, based on personal opinions, when there are so many different opinions on what realism is?

this is a fair point. the reason i said 'realism, whatever that means' is because i am not sure what it means in the context of a game. i am quite happy for someone to provide a definition. i think DarthLuca makes an excellent point in the post above yours when he says use believable rather than real. i suppose that the best we can hope for is consistency in the way the game (any game, not just this one) is put together.

 

[Oss133]

Michael Brookes preferred the word Plausible to Realistic. As has been said before, as long as the fiction is plausible and consistent, belief can be successfully suspended.

The most common gear-grinding scenario for me is the realisation that the AI opponent isn't playing by the same rules that I am.

 

[deMangler]

Consistency is the point of realism in a way - we can make reasonable assumptions about how the universe is going to work and yet still be surprised, and when we are surprised we can think "that makes sense", rather than "That makes no sense".
If in general the game has earned that trust through being consistent then when anomalies do turn up we can have the confidence to follow them up for game-play reasons, to find out what the score is. Otherwise we fall into the zone of when anomalies happen, oh it's another immersion breaking mechanic, or it's another bug, or whatever.
So, yeah - consistency is necessary for good game-play - especially in a sandbox universe. This is what people are arguing for when they call for realism. Not always though. In some cases realism "imported" from IRL into the E:⁠D verse is just going to be inconsistent with the game and so not "realistic" in a game sense. And so not good for game-play.

The most common gear-grinding scenario for me is the realisation that the AI opponent isn't playing by the same rules that I am.

Me too.