Is the game really realistic? Facts vs Gameplay

If skills and stats were introduced, what monster would Foxodi become?
Back on topic: Every good game has a balance of realistic and unrealistic components. Again, what thebonesauce said it has to make sense and be balanced and justifiable. But I would love to have sea battles. And a flying blimp. Oh the fulfillment you would get, watching the blimp fall from the heavens and instakill everyone in it as it hits the ground, knowing it was your arrow, your fault for the grief you caused the enemy.

 

If game would be realistic, none would play it i think.
"How you carry so much stone on your back"
"Why running fast with gold?"
"How you can build in 0.1 second ladder?"
"Why..." etc...
Game is made for have fun from playing, not getting a damn realism or history.

 

Even Sims 3 has some components of realism missing.

 

Since when Sims is a realistic game? For me the most realistic game ever is Dwarf Fortress, and you can't says that it is really realistic. Except if you believe in goblin, dwarf, elfs, human and giant monsters.

 

hum... good question. It will be a really little map, for a really little midget.

 

Yeah, i agree on the top hat. It looks silly and takes away some of the atmosphere.
The pumpkin hat? Fuck no, that thing is sexy.

 

Fuck you and your top hat removal chatter. Nothing is sexier than a top hat and monocle.

 

I for one love realism, to the point where it might in fact be boring. Take Unreal World, for instance. It could take (if you're fast) an entire hour of IRL time to build a small house IG, with maybe a heat source/bed. The upside to this is that everything you do, since everything is hard and time consuming, is very important to you, the player. Also, its not as skill based as some other games in that the majority of your actions' success rates are decided by the game. I want something like that. With each day survived, you get stronger, wiser, faster, more knowledgeable. With each living thing killed, man or beast, your combat prowess is nearly tripled, not only from the things you've learned but because you took their stuff. What you dont use is traded for the things you do. Say you are dressed in a linen cloak and some nettle trousers, with a bow and some arrows. Kill a townsperson? That town now either hates or fears you, but suddenly you have another set of clothes, some knives for cooking, fletching and what have you, and food for the next day or so. Each action should have immense ramifications if failed. If you succeed in your endeavors, the things you get as a reward are the things your opponent dropped, which can help you in your never ending battle with aging, the coming of winter, starvation, dehydration, and most importantly, boredom. I know this will anger some people, so maybe it can be part of OW. Just, devs, please satisfy the kind of person who likes extensive and immersive gameplay. Satisfy the kind of person who when they play DnD they love to create worlds and write a booklet of lore that spans the last 200 years of in game treachery and betrayal and assassination, and how some mercenaries have banded together and stood up to fix it all. Please, devs, satisfy the kind of person like me.

TLDR;
Everything you do should have a greater effect on you and the world around you because its more realistic, and hence more fun, imo.

 

Something like that is coming with Overworld.

 

I am so lazy that I am just going to answer the topic-title question.

This is a game, no matter what, you can`t really call a game realistic. Game are afterwards made to resemble reality in a way that won`t physically affect the player. A realistic game can be defined in various ways, but you will never see a really realistic one...MMOFPSes like Arma and such offer a high level of realism, but you can`t tell me you really die when some enemy kills you, that would really suck...But realism in Arma is not that realist either, I am currently testing a game, in alpha stage, that brought tank-wars part of the game to the level of penetration, so a good shot will make the difference.

Anyway, KAG is far from being realistic, yet its fun..

 

Arma is meant to be a form of modern combat simulation. KAG isn't that at all, it's arcadey in its approach. Hence anything made to improve realism would likely be detrimental to the gameplay.

I think more important is making sure the theme of the game is kept. An example being Ace of Spades, which started as a trench war of attrition, but changed to be a far more mainstream FPS, sadly. So long as KAG keeps the mixture of faced paced arcade fighting and tactical building, everything should be dandy.