Random thought: What makes Vintage Story great is satisfying mechanics, not "realistic" mechanics.

[Vexxvididu]

I was thinking...  a major commonality in suggestions for the game that I find very disagreeable, is that they maybe take the idea of realism too far.  There seems to be a popular belief in the community that Vintage Story is all about realism, and if a mechanic isn't realistic, then that means it's wrong!

I think this whole line of thinking is flawed at it's core and should be talked about. If you take the idea of realism too far, you reinvent the real world.  If you want hyper realism, just go outside!

Now, obviously there is some relationship between a bit of realism and what can make a mechanic satisfying, but I don't think it's nearly as strong as some people seem to think it is.  The real world can certainly give good inspiration for fun mechanics, but it should generally not be the sole driving force behind why something should change.  In short, games are supposed to be FUN first and foremost.

[LadyWYT]

I think it's both, really. Vintage Story has realistic mechanics that are also satisfying, in part because they are realistic. Eating a variety of food makes you stronger, wildlife will flee or fight back, monsters will flatten targets that don't take them seriously, etc. Essentially, the player has to earn their spot in the world, rather than the world bending to accommodate the player. 

3 hours ago, Vexxvididu said:

I was thinking...  a major commonality in suggestions for the game that I find very disagreeable, is that they maybe take the idea of realism too far.  There seems to be a popular belief in the community that Vintage Story is all about realism, and if a mechanic isn't realistic, then that means it's wrong!

I also suspect this may be due, in part, to many players having a background in Minecraft, or otherwise comparing Vintage Story to Minecraft when it comes to realism and overall gameplay. It's understandable why such comparisons happen, but the two really aren't the same kind of game.

 

3 hours ago, Vexxvididu said:

Now, obviously there is some relationship between a bit of realism and what can make a mechanic satisfying, but I don't think it's nearly as strong as some people seem to think it is.  The real world can certainly give good inspiration for fun mechanics, but it should generally not be the sole driving force behind why something should change.  In short, games are supposed to be FUN first and foremost.

Overall, I think many players mistakenly equate realism and fun as the same thing. In some cases, that's true, but as you've already noted, there comes a point when the game is no longer worth playing because it's just a copy of reality without the tangible benefits. As for hardcore realism as a challenge, there is a time and place for it, but I think that most players don't really enjoy that level of challenge all the time. 

For me, the current game balance on Standard feels pretty good. It's fairly challenging and I can easily push my limits if I so choose, or play it safe. I've never really gotten the impression that I've been forced to play very specific ways to avoid punishment.

[regex]

I always find the use of the word "satisfying" to be frustrating because it tends to be very personal, while "realistic" tends to be a better descriptor so long as it is tempered by a realistic expectation grounded in an understanding of how a video game works and the genre (if you don't reductio ad absurdum the word "realism" because you're a little bad faith bitch, IOW).

Like I don't find the weather cycle to be a satisfying mechanic (it can be hostile to certain activities) but I leave it enabled because it is realistic and provides that part of the experience. Meanwhile, I turn off temporal storms because they serve no purpose beyond being hostile to the vast majority of active gameplay while not being realistic. Decimating a forest for a pit kiln is something I find quite satisfying while cranking out thirty-two 3l jugs one by one because there isn't a 4x recipe for something so basic is extremely tedious and provides no joy in the finished product (also making metal plates manually).

Edited January 17 by regex

[Vexxvididu]

37 minutes ago, regex said:

I always find the use of the word "satisfying" to be frustrating because it tends to be very personal, while "realistic" tends to be a better descriptor so long as it is tempered by a realistic expectation grounded in an understanding of how a video game works and the genre (if you don't reductio ad absurdum the word "realism" because you're a little bad faith bitch, IOW).

I'd argue that "realism" in video games is also in practice very subjective and personal since people are generally so selective over when they do or don't care about the "realism."  That's my point.  Nobody wants actual realism, they just want enough of it to feel engaged and feel immersed in the game.

I've seen many games go south because of poorly applied attempts at realism.  One famous example from my youth was when Twisted Metal 3 came out (a video game where you drive cars and shoot rockets at each other) they bragged about how they had a super realistic physics engine this time!  ...it mostly annoyed people because you'd get hit hard then your car would just roll over again and again forever.

Poorly applied realism has also ruined many role playing games that I've seen. ...such as an heavy handed legal system that makes it too hard to be adventurers!

[regex]

6 minutes ago, Vexxvididu said:

Nobody wants actual realism, they just want enough of it to feel engaged and feel immersed in the game.

Yeah, we have a mismatch of definitions. "Satisfying" means absolutely nothing to me, it's so personal that it really can't be applied to anything without a lengthy description of what is actually satisfying. For example, I see this in tabletop RPG spaces all the time, where someone asks for a game with "satisfying combat" and then I find out their idea of that is completely anathema to what I enjoy and find satisfying in a game. How the hell can I actually help them find a game without that extra explanation?

"Realistic", to me, at least implies something that many people react to as a touchstone and that's probably why you see people use it as a descriptor, despite the inaccuracy (the same goes for TTRPG spaces, when someone asks for a "realistic game" there are many "standard" answers which are generally agreed upon).

11 minutes ago, Vexxvididu said:

I've seen many games go south because of poorly applied attempts at realism.

No argument here, but is that what we're talking about right now or about this definition of "satisfying mechanics"?

[LadyWYT]

14 minutes ago, Vexxvididu said:

such as an heavy handed legal system that makes it too hard to be adventurers!

Honestly I think that could make for a great, if niche, RPG. Evil actions don't usually have proper punishments since it makes the game unplayable for evil characters, but I think an RPG that had stiff punishments could be very interesting. I think it would mean evil characters would need to start off with petty crimes and build their skills up before they can expect to be true villains, making an evil playthrough a proper challenge.

[Vexxvididu]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

No argument here, but is that what we're talking about right now or about this definition of "satisfying mechanics"?

It's a very subjective concept but one that matters a lot.

So much of why I find VS satisfying is just the right amount of toil and struggle to get the desired reward.  It's fundamentally similar to why I loved the Dark Souls games.  Dark Souls is barely even fun, but it's very satisfying when you overcome something that was very challenging.

I agree "realism" is easier to write a definition for that many people would agree with, but do want to point out how in practice, people care about realism in very different ways.

[Thorfinn]

5 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Evil actions don't usually have proper punishments since it makes the game unplayable for evil characters

That's not a bad thing. It's vastly simpler to wreck something than to create something. People choose a life of crime because it's easy. PCs are by definition exceptional. In most systems, anyway. And all they are trying to do is outsmart commoners and NPCs? That's beyond boring. Give the PCs stats in the 3-8 range, commoners 12-16, and NPCs the 15+ across the board that PCs often show up with and maybe it would be a bit of a challenge, assuming the PCs had to play their stats.

4 hours ago, Vexxvididu said:

So much of why I find VS satisfying is just the right amount of toil and struggle to get the desired reward.

Very much this! Making fire clay requires making charcoal, and each takes time away from other actions. You balance your fireclay usage on how much effort it takes. Maybe just get by with the one oven instead of the 4-6 you used to use. Maybe not everything needs to be made of iron, and you should carefully consider how much steel you really need. Is using that steel axe to split firewood really the best use of all the charcoal that went into it, when you could either knap something or cast a bronze axe with a trivial outlay of charcoal?

Before it was too easy to have it all. Now, you have to increasingly look at development of your homestead and equipment as tradeoffs. Personally, I'd rather see more of this.