Your thought on realism

Well said. In the end, many of the features promised will be fun and enjoyable, no matter how much realism is implied. There is a balance between not realistic enough and too realistic, however fortunately it is not such a fine line as most people think. Unless you're a Debbie-Downer who gets too technical to have any fun in the first place

 

I personally feel that a game shouldn't (especially if it isn't a simulation game [they usually have realism]) have lots of realism to the point of where it makes the game feel very limited or tedious. I lean over mods to make some sort of realism into the game so it's an optional thing for players to have. As long as realism doesn't alternate the gameplay and/or makes the gameplay more tedious (I'm looking at you Minecraft hunger bar), it's okay with me.

Also:

(Random names have been used)
Kyle: Jeff, share me some of your potions, I'm low on health!
Jeff: *Gives potions*
Kyle: *Heals* Thanks Jeff! That's a slap on the back for you! *Kills with weapon and loots*
Jeff: WHAT!?!
Kyle: Jokes on you, I enabled friendly fire on my server.
Jeff: ...I hate you.
Kyle: And I like your equipment.
...
Biff: What are you doing?
Sam: I'm building a big hole that will trap any approaching creatures. This trap only has one entrance and no exit! Try not to fall into it!
Biff: ...Ok.
3 hours later...
Sam: Uhhhh...Biff? Where are you?
Biff: I fell inside your hole with all of the other players and 20 powerful monsters.
Random Player: * Accidentally throws bombs*
All Players: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-
EDIT: Fixed some lines that Witness pointed out.

 

In the second situation, you should consider fixing lines of who-says-what.

Also, actually, while I am not a fan of underhanded tactics, the possibility of more realistic interaction (barring douches for the sake of it who probably would be banned from the server rather quickly) is appealing to me and to some (though, again, here I must point out it's about realism of interactions not just realism). Far worse things are happening in games like Haven & Hearth, DayZ or Eve Online and to much of the playerbase there, it's actually part of the charm.

In the example above, if it's server-side setting, I am very much for it. If someone doesn't want to take a risk, he'll play on a server without friendly fire. People who don't want to be constricted by forced 'carebear mode' and prefer unforgiving gameplay demanding skills and ingenuity will be able to join friendly-fire one on their own, free choice.

As for the traps, mishaps connected to them - We loved it when an acquaintance of mine was booby-trapping some building on Minecraft server, but then some stray animal accidentally activated the thing before he got out. As much as one of the most epic moments for us were when we were trapped deep underground, determined to escape with our load of ore despite hordes of monsters (on hard difficulty, no less!) and our dwindling food supplies. It was great and such moments are half of the enjoyment of the game for quite some people - thus, my post above despite the fact that I know that Starbound isn't meant to cater to those people by default (though it still may).

I do agree that realism should be set as an additional and optional goal though - it has many supporters but again, the game was not drawing them much (at least so far) and lot of playerbase would do fine without it. Though if it's possible, I am totally modding a need of self-contained environmental suits for some planets and hunger on the server I will play on for some epic, survival, exploratory fun without guys running around in silly vanity stuff.

 

I think that while crazy things like alien monsters and magical space ponies are important for a game like starbound, a certain amount of realism is needed too. As far as I can see though, the devs have got exactly the right mix of realism and craziness. And we've got proper water too! None of this minecrafty "Water source block = Infinite water" rubbish.

 

There are oh so many acceptable breaks from reality. I don't give a darn about realism as long as the game is fun and doesn't have some annoying fake difficulty and longevity.

 

Sorry, but somehow, I doubt that that is true :/

 

I personally don't care about realism and realistic gameplay. Especially not in a game like Starbound. Just as long as I have fun the devs can include flying cats that glow greenish underwater or whatever.
So I can have a cup of (un)realism as long as it doesn't ruin my game!

 

Nobody officially said this but using my internet observation skills I've decided that Starbound is going to inhospitable planets that will require full body suits to keep you safe. For an example look at Tiy's twitter. But the suit will probably just be cosmetic so your actual armor can still be worn AND if they have planets like this then they will undoubtedly have a weather station you can build to clear up the air and be able to live without the suit.

 

Oh my bad, I forgot "Video game = Males, Barbie = Females"

 

The majority of people on almost any forums will be males. Trying to make people who say so sound sexist won't change that.

 

I don't escape to video games just to experience what real life is like. Some things have their place to make things fun and challenging.
Its bad enough I have to go get nourishment for my real self while playing it, why to I have to interrupt my play to eat in game?

 

because, it makes you have to get food, you can't stay in a mine or something forever. but if I am right, they have said that there is not going to be a food bar.

 

They have already confirmed without a doubt there is no hunger and no durability. I'm just adding my opinion.

Starbound isn't going to be a mine crawler. From the way Tiy talks about his image of the game there will be so much to do you won't even realize food is in the game. Like someone said before. There is no point in adding fake difficulty. Having to go eat every 5-10 minutes takes you away from what the game is supposed to be.

 

Games with more realism are the ones that are worse. No one wants to play a simulation of walk the dog and take out the trash.

 

Some simulations are alright, like war simulations games etc.

 

Things I like realistic:
-Monster behaviour
-Physics
-Environments
-Weather
-Block interactions

Things I don't like realistic:
-Anything that is designed to waste your time doing repetitive stuff just to maintain your current status or the solution to which is standing still and doing nothing.
(items breaking when their durability is up - Im fine with durability as long as you can repair the item after its used up, rather than having to create an entirely new item. Also max durability shouldn't degenerate since an item with a max durability of one use is ridiculous... unless the item is designed with that in mind
hunger, while it has its place, doesn't fit a space-age tech where you are supposed to explore rather than try to survive. Having a hunger meter kinda implies your character is not prepared for the trip)

 

This is not a tic box that says "realism", and you can tick it on or off. It's a question about what should be realistic, what not, and how much.

 

No hunger, no fall damage, no death = game over. Fall damage is just a games way of saying "F**k you, yer gonna die from falling off a 2 foot wall".

 

I disagree, there's got to be at least 30 WW2 games (NOTHING CAN BE DIFFERENT, IT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND IT'S USED UP!). The Modern Warfare games are stupid, yeah some random guy with no armor on can take a sniper riffle bullet to the chest without even slowing down, LAME! We want lasers, plasma weaponry, force fields, Dark Matter (mostly just me because I do enjoy a material that disintegrates you on contact) you know stuff like that that's space age and stuff.

 

QWOP