PSA - Realism VS Awesome

Actually seven minutes is how long it took the NASA Curiosity Rover To go from Orbit around Mars to the Surface of Mars, it's 100% realistic because it happened not too long ago....

Mike

Without Science!, awesome will always be unfulfilled.

This discussion has been done before. The general consensus is that "sound is artificially injected into space to promote combat awareness".

Perfectly realistic and doesn't sacrifice a single bit of awesome. That's why it pays to do your homework.

Sounds in space. Include them, and just have a check-box option in the settings to disable them.

Everyone is happy that way.

Sorry to necro a three-month-old topic, but I had to get my opinion in here.

Immersion is not broken by unrealistic mechanics - it's broken by inconsistent mechanics that violate expectations.

Take Minecraft, for example. When you're exploring a dark cave, you know that there will be monsters spawning the dark. This is completely unrealistic. No creature in the known universe reproduces by appearing out of thin air in the dark. But that doesn't make the game any less immersive. It doesn't stop you from jumping out of your skin when you hear that SSSSSSBOOM. When you're immersed in Minecraft, mob spawning becomes part of reality.

In fact, in a lot of cases, maintaining realism will break immersion more than "shooting for awesome". Take sound in space. If I zoom out and I stop hearing explosions, my brain "skips a tick" as someone here said. The absence of sound is not a part of everyday life and I'm not expecting it. I have to stop and analytically realize "Oh, right, there's no sound in space. It's being scientifically realistic, isn't that cool?" which actually distracts from the game and will continue to distract for a long time until I finally adapt to the game-reality that there is no sound in space.

Now imagine that there is sound in space. I zoom out and nothing changes - the explosions get a bit quieter, but that's just because I'm further away. This is the way that I'm used to reality and I don't think twice about it while I'm busy trying to survive the game. The scientific inaccuracy becomes nothing more than Fridge Logic.

Units in Supreme Commander 2 do not clip through each other, not even in confined spaces. For that to happen you need rather special circumstances (and that can rarely happen in Supreme Commander or Forged Alliance as well).

A far better example would have been air units in Supreme Commander, Forged Alliance (and to some extent also Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander 2). Air units can go through each other, they don't use path finding and it often happens during battle, that multiple air units are within the same spot.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES sound in space is a MUUUUUUUUUUUST (even though I know it's impossibleeeeeeeeeeee)
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=43918&hilit=2.1+audio

It's like you have some kind of ability to totally miss the point.

Mike

What did I ever do to you ? I made my own point, you're not the master of points. go pick on someone else.

I don't think Scathis was being touched by god and seeing the bigbang and the entirety of space and time when he conjured up a ten word phrase to sumarize all that he saw so that this revelation would not go to waste, that your thesis would help to understand.

I think he was quite litterally staying in contex ; he wanted there to be sound in space for the game which is not real. period.

as for your thread here's my two cents : Yes Awesome and Realism arn't mutally exclusive and this game should pack both, I've voiced this oppinion on other threads. As an example : I do think meteorites hurling towards a planet should make ridiculous amounts of noise because it's FUN! even though it's the furthest thing from realism. I would even be taken out of the experience if I watched the rock move noiselesly towards the target and I felt a lull in action as I waited for it to come down without a noise to occupy my attention.

While I know both concepts are not mutually exclusive, if I were forced to pick one or the other, I would definitely pick "realism" over "awesome".

That's because I think the more realistic RTS games look/play, the more they're designed for serious RTS players (e.g. the Company of Heroes series, TA, SCFA, etc.). When RTS games look a little too "fantastic" and cartoonish (e.g. WoW, some of the Command & Conquer games, etc.), then I can't help but think that this game was designed for children primarily.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

Wait. You are saying that TA and SCFA look realistic, but C&C is cartoonish? Really? The only thing that is not cartoonish in SupCom is textures. Everything else both in visual design and gamplay is not real at all. Not even trying.

I just want to butt in and say i really like that phrase.

I feel kinda sorry for Omega now. He can only see games with SRSGRITTYREALISM aesthetics as being any good or remotely serious/competitive.

All that matters is that an event has some kind of explanation. The answer could be to satisfy gameplay, lore, or science. It doesn't matter how, only that you can get back to the game!

This...

...and this.

Chess isn't realistic.

When was the last time anyone saw a Bishop move diagonally?

Well how many Bishops have you seen?

Checkmate.

And on topic, Thanks Uncle Mike for an awesome post. It is realistic AND awesome.

I made this post in another thread, and I feel it is relevant to this discussion:

To summarise, as long as something doesn't run afoul of these three rules, realism is entirely optional.

What part of "some of the C&C games" do you not understand. Some does not equal all, at least when I learned English.

I wasn't saying that C&C games (some of them) aren't cartoonish. I said that SupCom games are.

Also, reading your reply before what you are replying to is inconvenient. Can you please, put quotes above your own text, like it's usually done?