Realism, Immersion In a Fantasy World.

Lax

Survivor
I keep seeing these statements made that this feature of the game is not "realistic" or that type of gameplay breaks "immersion" for me.

The gameplay overall is rooted in fantasy. How else would you be able to carry that 4x4 in your backpack or how else could trees grow overnight. Magical candy anyone?

A game like Green Hell aims for realism above all else. If you build a campfire in the open and it rains, yup, rain gonna put it out. You can only carry so much weight in your backpack before you can barely move.

So I'm wondering how much of the gameplay are people expecting to be rooted in "realism" while its ok for the rest of it to be pure fantasy. 50/50? 80/20?
 
I keep seeing these statements made that this feature of the game is not "realistic" or that type of gameplay breaks "immersion" for me.

The gameplay overall is rooted in fantasy. How else would you be able to carry that 4x4 in your backpack or how else could trees grow overnight. Magical candy anyone?

A game like Green Hell aims for realism above all else. If you build a campfire in the open and it rains, yup, rain gonna put it out. You can only carry so much weight in your backpack before you can barely move.

So I'm wondering how much of the gameplay are people expecting to be rooted in "realism" while its ok for the rest of it to be pure fantasy. 50/50? 80/20?
For me, realistic or unrealistic is different from fantasy. I don't mind being able to do unrealistic things like packing a 4x4 into my backpack or carrying a ton of rocks, but I don't like the fantasy of, for example, a magic weapon or a drink or candy that gives you superpowers, so I try not to use them.If I could disable them in the menu, that would be ideal; options for all tastes.
 
I keep seeing these statements made that this feature of the game is not "realistic" or that type of gameplay breaks "immersion" for me.

The gameplay overall is rooted in fantasy. How else would you be able to carry that 4x4 in your backpack or how else could trees grow overnight. Magical candy anyone?

A game like Green Hell aims for realism above all else. If you build a campfire in the open and it rains, yup, rain gonna put it out. You can only carry so much weight in your backpack before you can barely move.

So I'm wondering how much of the gameplay are people expecting to be rooted in "realism" while its ok for the rest of it to be pure fantasy. 50/50? 80/20?
Honestly, when most people say "realism" I gather they mean "immersion," which is a very different thing dependant on suspension of disbelief more so than "this is what you'd actually do in a zombie apocalypse."
 
So I'm wondering how much of the gameplay are people expecting to be rooted in "realism" while its ok for the rest of it to be pure fantasy. 50/50? 80/20?
It's in no way a number; all of it should follow some principle. Chess is a great game with essentially zero immersion or realism. Movies are, for the most part, all about both.

General design of mythical stories usually dictates that the Changes of the world are told; not necessarily explained, but at least shown. Good storytelling then keeps everything else logical with "whatever it changed", with explanations given or not. The reader's real-world logic should still remain perfectly usable in the new world. If a character is able to lift a tank, he shouldn't struggle to lift a car etc.

Add zombies and no living people, you should have an explanation of why this one dude is still there - I don't think 7dtd has that, atm. But the story and bandits will make our lone survivor a lot less special; an explanation isn't no longer That big of a deal, it's mostly just a matter of numbers.

As for "how much immersion for this game"? IMO, all of it. And I emphasize that, in my Opinion. The most defining feature of this game is the fully modifiable world, and getting people to play it and see it as a continuous, logical world should be practically the #1 goal. Anything less is a waste of the engine.

Immersion breakers: UI tasks / UI markers, broken logic with sleeper spawns, broken weather sim at biome borders etc etc. 60 rolls of duct tape for a quadcopter (bicopter?) .. magic candy, mailboxes changing contents depending on what you like to read. List goes on and on. Stuff that makes you feel like the world isn't .. permanent. Solid. When it could be.

Now, since the game is a tower defender, some things like building mats are going to be out of touch with reality. Although, if you gave the zeds realistic abilities, maybe you wouldn't need to be hauling around a cubic kilometer of concrete... but it's fun to build big castles from foamcrete, so I'm kinda fine with that :)
 
I keep seeing these statements made that this feature of the game is not "realistic" or that type of gameplay breaks "immersion" for me.

The gameplay overall is rooted in fantasy. How else would you be able to carry that 4x4 in your backpack or how else could trees grow overnight. Magical candy anyone?

A game like Green Hell aims for realism above all else. If you build a campfire in the open and it rains, yup, rain gonna put it out. You can only carry so much weight in your backpack before you can barely move.

So I'm wondering how much of the gameplay are people expecting to be rooted in "realism" while its ok for the rest of it to be pure fantasy. 50/50? 80/20?
For me, it is being realistic in the game's world. This is a game about zombies, so it is realistic to have zombies in the game. It wouldn't be realistic to have super heroes in this game.

Now, that being said, I think the question is more about how much realism is okay in this game. After all, it isn't a simulation. For me, it needs to at least fit in the world. But it doesn't have to be a simulation. It is okay to have abstraction. It is okay to not see empty jars. I doubt many people would want to wait months for their farm to grow. And although people complain about the amount of meat from animals, would it be good gameplay to only need to kill one deer to have enough meat to last for a couple of months?

Realism to an extent is good. But there is nothing wrong with using abstraction in games to make them more enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
What things about the game make you go, "hey, I don't mind suspending disbelief for a moment because this is fun, but that's just asking a bit much!"
Hmm, worst offender is the triggered zeds that beam down behind you. Like Zeigler residence, the stairs. Three obvious plates in the ceiling, shoot them out, nothing. Walk up the stairs and zeds materialize from thin air while falling. But I don't think that's "fun" either, so dunno if that matches.. :P
 
For me, it is being realistic in the game's world. This is a game about zombies, so it is realistic to have zombies in the game. It wouldn't be realistic to have super heroes in this game....
As Batman swoops in to kill that Feral Wight! 😉
 
I like the distinction between "realism" and "immersion" you guys have pointed out. It's ok to have features considered "realistic" for that particular fantasy world that continue to allow you to be "immersed" in its lore.

Do you think some are attempting to apply "real world" realism to this fantasy world? And if so, is that a wise thing? Acceptable?
 
I like the distinction between "realism" and "immersion" you guys have pointed out. It's ok to have features considered "realistic" for that particular fantasy world that continue to allow you to be "immersed" in its lore.

Do you think some are attempting to apply "real world" realism to this fantasy world? And if so, is that a wise thing? Acceptable?
Depends on the context. For example finding food in cabinets, weapons in gun safes are all realistic and I believe adds to the game more than random loot. I also dislike being immune to fall damage because of magical armor.

Whether something is good or bad is subjective but generally if it adds to the game in a positive way it's good and if not then it's bad. For example having to spend hours fabricating a wall. It would be realistic to need a long time to build a base but it's not conducive to the game design.
 
There are a lot of great comments in this thread so far.... I wish I could put into words how I feel about it, but its basically "does this feel right?".

@grz__ mentioned magic items being something he doesn't like, and I couldn't agree more. Same thing applied to the biome badges.

@theFlu brought up another thing I really don't like and its zombies appearing from the oddest places. I can accept that maybe there were some survivors hiding in a ceiling or in an armoire who died and became zombies.... but in every POI? That just defies logic.

I would prefer that the game had less abstraction and more simulation like it used to, but I long ago accepted that it wasn't the direction the game was going in.
 
Do you think some are attempting to apply "real world" realism to this fantasy world? And if so, is that a wise thing? Acceptable?
Hmm, I guess my main point about storytelling could be summarized as "everything you don't explicitly change in the story should follow real-world logic". The strength of "explicit" there is going to vary; we have zeds, we know that, that's actually explicit - we don't _know_ how they got here, but by "real world logic" we assume they .. got here. From there we can decide "There's a reason, we just don't know it. Yet?" So the reason for the zeds being here isn't explained, but when not breaking other logic, it's been "explicitly" made apparent that there IS a reason.

Is it "wise"? It's .. inevitable. Any reader will fill in whatever gaps with whatever they know. The umpteenth time a Walking Dead character places themselves in an obvious trap for a dubious prize, the viewer will start feeling averse; the character isn't learning like it should. That's just applying real life logic to a fictional character. Maybe the zombie virus made forming new memories difficult, but that was never shown in the show... if it was, it'd be a weird mechanic, making for a weird show. But it'd also now follow the show's actual logic, and viewers could follow along and even predict things based on it.

Are there actual people trying "too hard" to apply logic to this game? Perhaps. But filling those gaps, no matter how small, would make the world more .. immersive? I think the game is erring on the side of discontinuity way more.
 
Sure, the game has zombies, but it isn't set in some made-up fantasy world of swords and sorcery. It's Arizona. Arizona with zombies, but Arizona.

As for immersion and suspension of disbelief...that line is going to be different for everyone. There are plenty of abstractions that I'm willing to tolerate (inventory limits or crop growth times, for example). But in general, I prefer simulations that lean more towards realism even when game balance has to be sacrificed. If a game handles certain things really badly -- especially things that I have lots of personal experience with -- then it's going to instantly break my suspension of disbelief because it's like the game designer reaching right through the Fourth Wall and tweaking my nose.

Some people play games purely to escape and relax. Others play games to experience what it might actually be like to live in a nightmarish post-apocalyptic scenario. The problem with sandbox games is that they tend to attract both kinds of gamers...but those two groups really don't get along with each other at all.
 
Some people play games purely to escape and relax. Others play games to experience what it might actually be like to live in a nightmarish post-apocalyptic scenario. The problem with sandbox games is that they tend to attract both kinds of gamers...but those two groups really don't get along with each other at all.
Yeah, and that's always going to be a problem with games like this. Some want the game to be one thing, while others want it to be something else. In the end, we're going to get whatever the devs choose to give us. For those who want something else, they'll have to either mod the game or play a different game.

It's odd how many people are unwilling to do either and just want to be upset because this game in its vanilla state isn't exactly what they want. Even some of those on PC who could mod it to what they want refuse to do so as if using a mod to change it to the way they want is somehow cheating even though it isn't any different than if the game itself was changed that way. It makes me wonder if that mindset is caused by all the games that disable achievements if you mod the game, so it makes them think that it's a bad thing to do.
 
Yeah, and that's always going to be a problem with games like this. Some want the game to be one thing, while others want it to be something else. In the end, we're going to get whatever the devs choose to give us. For those who want something else, they'll have to either mod the game or play a different game.

It's odd how many people are unwilling to do either and just want to be upset because this game in its vanilla state isn't exactly what they want. Even some of those on PC who could mod it to what they want refuse to do so as if using a mod to change it to the way they want is somehow cheating even though it isn't any different than if the game itself was changed that way. It makes me wonder if that mindset is caused by all the games that disable achievements if you mod the game, so it makes them think that it's a bad thing to do.

A lot of that mindset comes from people who started gaming on consoles before moving over to PC. "Mods" on consoles almost always mean cheats of one kind or another. So some console players just can't wrap their head around the concept of mods being used to actually make a gamer harder, or simply adding more content.
 
A zombie game should adhere to certain genre expectations, which is typically to be the world we live in just with zombies, typically after some cataclysmic event. Expectations is critical to enjoyment. If you start bringing in things like magic you are starting to make unexpected genre mixing, and most people will not like that. It messes with their expectations. You can tweak and expand the boundaries of what a zombie game is, but if you go to far, especially start entering other genres, most people will probably not like it. I am not saying mixing genres is inherently bad, far from it, but going against peoples' expectations could be. I suppose it comes down to how the game markets itself.

Then a game should be internally consistent. When you have learnt how a game works, the general mechanics -- regardless of whether these are unrealistic compared to the real world -- then the game should adhere to these fully. Again, it has to do with expectations. If this is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic world where you are one of the few survivors and you work for a trader to organize resistance or bring supplies around, then you shouldn't find the exact same trader somewhere else. It breaks immersion. And if you can hurt the zombies by shooting them or hitting them with a sledgehammer and blunt force, then they should take damage from a large fall.
 
A lot of that mindset comes from people who started gaming on consoles before moving over to PC. "Mods" on consoles almost always mean cheats of one kind or another. So some console players just can't wrap their head around the concept of mods being used to actually make a gamer harder, or simply adding more content.
Can't wrap their head around mods making a gamer harder? I think Skyrim's Nexus page is pretty infamous at this point.
Anyhow, to quote myself (a real wise guy) from a previous ramble:
In the pursuit of Realism™, the game should allow us to fill gas cans with water. And cup candy wrappers to hold water. And fill spent shell casings with water. And ammo magazines should be craftable, repackable, AND hold water. Bandages could be soaked in water. Medical kits, you can dump out those disinfectants and sutures, scoop some water into that box. Cans, duh, water. That syringe model? That's a good mouthful right there. Man, that 4x4? It's got a nice bed; could fit so much water in that bad boy. And for even more Realism™, every time I sprint over a loose stone with my camera angled above horizontal, I should have a 30% chance to stub a toe, which would give a movement speed debuff and make a loud exclamatory noise (chance perked down with Fortitude skills, obviously) that alerts every zombie nearby. In fact, for more Realism™, any loose stone or wood pile or concrete block or curb should have a chance to pop a vehicle's tire, that way it incentivizes carrying spare wheels, for Realism™. Hey, you know what? Wheels! That's several gallons of potential water each! For Realism™, we should be able to fill the wheels with water instead of air that we're clearly blowing into the tires by lungpower, because we aren't Realismistically(™) crafting air compressors... yet. Speaking of lungpower- Realism™! We have the option to fill our lungs with water in the game!
It doesn't matter how Realistic(™) a game is or its players claim it to be, there will always be things not simulated or unable to be simulated for gameplay and enjoyment reasons, like random toe-stubbing. A game brandishing 100% Realism would be, frankly, a lousy game. Simulated balance when walking? A hotkey to blink or else your eyes dry out? Everyone's metric of "realistic gameplay" is going to be different unless you have some brand of mob mentality screaming one thing or another is a concrete symbol of Realism™ coughjarscough.

"Realism" as a metric is already hinged on suspension of disbelief, and each person's going to have a different (usually) opinion of what is an acceptable suspension of disbelief for their immersion into a game. Taking hostages or being taken hostage in Skyrim? Some people crave that kind of availability in choice. Maybe Joe Blockgame thinks that zombies are too unRealistic, so he turns off zombies with that toggle in 7DTD, and that's when he gets enjoyment out of his game. Monster Hunter is my all-time favorite franchise, but its premise is entirely centered on superhuman adrenaline junkie mercenary conservationists beating ancient legendary monsters into submission using a weapon that's another monster's skull on a stick that altogether would weigh a thousand or so pounds- but players complain about the lack of Realism with the monsters being shown on the map at all times. It's not Immersive, they claim, as they fall five hundred feet without any fall damage.

@Soulmonster raises I think the most important aspect I was trying to hint at as I went - consistency. Monster Hunter classically basked in absurdity and silliness, but its latest major releases have been trying to pour in more groundedness and Realism, and it's alienating a lot of older fans. Bethesda's inconsistent as all heck, and it's gradually turned away its diehards, too. I first played 7DTD in A15/A16, couple hundred hours, then stopped for years, only came back around 1.3/1.4 - and I don't remember A15/A16 well enough to get detailed about it, but 7DTD is, to me, more enjoyable now than it was before, and I enjoyed the heck out of it in A15/A16. Has it lost a little bit of its fabled, mythological Realism? Sure. Is it a better game for that? In my opinion, yes - but that's also come at the cost of the 7DTD playerbase getting jaded, because they feel as though 7DTD isn't holding consistent to the game it was... what, 10+ years ago, with changes in ideas and developer teams?

In my mind, the greatest thing a developer can do for Realism/Immersiveness is... not try too super-duper hard, and make the game as mod-friendly as possible. Bethesda kinda does that (most of the time), and Skyrim has endured longer than its vanilla quality should have enabled it; 7DTD is one of the most mod-friendly games I've played lately, and that attitude towards modding should give TFP a hell of a lot more credit than they get. Even just the options you get starting a new world inside the game, from customizing a seed's biome percentages/environmental feature frequency, daily quest limits, zombie block damage, and so on- the range of options you can have without a single mod, and yet they're the "Anti-Fun Pimps"?
The older I get, the more I disdain the 'Gamer Community.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lax
like random toe-stubbing. A game brandishing 100% Realism would be, frankly, a lousy game. Simulated balance when walking?

Just so you know, one of the best indie survival sims I've ever played did actually feature balance, careful movement, and toe stubbing. Miasmata. It's pretty dated now but OMG it was a breath of fresh air when it came out back in 2012. It was extremely difficult and so much fun from start to finish. Nice graphics for its time, too, considering two brothers coded it by themselves.

Anyway it also featured realistic land navigation with landmarks and triangulation instead of auto-mapping! I wish more games would do that...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lax
Back
Top