Posted this on another thread but decided it would be better here, sorry it's long as balls.
I think a main problem is TWI's inconsistent definition of "realism" to justify the inclusion of various elements of the game. Realism in this community has a normative and positive value, everyone wants realism, realism is good, what separates RO is realism from other shooters etc. As a result most features in the game need to have a backing of "realism". However what needs to be said and understood is that there is debate as to what is realism actually means in application.
Broadly defined realism can be approximated as having the value of being true to life.
In a typology I would separate realism in videogames into two broad types, realism of inclusion, and gameplay or behavioral realism. These two are distinct and at times conflicting and are the result of trying to apply a very diverse world onto a very finite piece of simulation.
Realism of inclusion means to me, that if something is included in life that means that it can and should be included in the game, and theoretically it should not break gameplay because it conforms to real life. Is it "unrealistic" to include MKB's? According to realism of inclusion, no, because there were mkb's in Stalingrad, and there were probably situations in which they were used in the frequency they are in this game. It is therefore unrealistic if they were NOT included in the game.
Same with aim-zoom, in real-life you are able to see much farther than you can on a computer, and so the inclusion of a zoom to help approximate what you can actually see is a sensible solution to be "realistic". In another way, it is realistic to include the King Tiger or the clown car because they were both in WW2 even if they were rare.
Gameplay realism attempts to coerce the player to play in a manner than the designer deems realistic to the time period or to what he conceives to be the effective human capacity in a given circumstance. Even if this was maybe not always "realistic" to what one could do or experiences in real-life. Inclusions of gameplay realism can be seen in the application of motion blur, and desaturation to indicate suppression. Similarly in RO1 when one was hit and only injured, you would experience a temporary slowdown in movement.
Are these things realistic? After all, no one loses color vision and has blur when bullets are flying, and you wouldn't run slower after be shot in the arm, but they produced a realism of results. Players are more cautious about being shot because of unrealistic gameplay features, but this creates its own realism.
Simply put, most ideological battles on a feature being "realistic" are moot, because they rest on different interpretations of why something is realistic or not and since you cannot have perfect realism of inclusion and realism of gameplay as in real life, you have to make design choices in one direction or another.
What can be more concretely measured and argued for is immersion. I define immersion in a videogame as the level to which a person identifies and connects with a digital avatar as an embodiment of the self. This can be either in an abstract way, as in the way you relate to a fictional character or in a direct way as in feeling physiological effects from virtual stressors (adrenaline when an mg opens up and you just manage to find cover is in example). Good games are often ones that have high levels of immersion, where one has attachment toward characters.
I would argue that what made RO:O great was that it had high levels of immersion. Similarly, I would argue that RO:2 has less of that sense of immediate immersion. A lot of the design choices I believe were made without understanding how it would effect the cohesive whole of the game.
A good one is bayonets, it makes sense that all players have bayonets affixed when preparing an assault, as that would probably be the case in close range fighting in Stalingrad. That is an example of realism of gameplay, but by removing that sense of choice TW removed a sense of immersion with the character. Same with the rest of the forced unlocks.
Similarly by including things like the MKB, or the MP-40/II, and the host of other rare weapons in the game this realism of inclusion has produced gameplay that often times feels less realistic to life or the time period. In a more controversial point, same with the aim-zoom, players can see what they can in life, but respond in ways that feel maybe less appropriate to combat in real life.
In summation you need both, and to balance them with an ultimate aim of how a game should, using all the opaque grandeur of the term, "feel".
I think a main problem is TWI's inconsistent definition of "realism" to justify the inclusion of various elements of the game. Realism in this community has a normative and positive value, everyone wants realism, realism is good, what separates RO is realism from other shooters etc. As a result most features in the game need to have a backing of "realism". However what needs to be said and understood is that there is debate as to what is realism actually means in application.
Broadly defined realism can be approximated as having the value of being true to life.
In a typology I would separate realism in videogames into two broad types, realism of inclusion, and gameplay or behavioral realism. These two are distinct and at times conflicting and are the result of trying to apply a very diverse world onto a very finite piece of simulation.
Realism of inclusion means to me, that if something is included in life that means that it can and should be included in the game, and theoretically it should not break gameplay because it conforms to real life. Is it "unrealistic" to include MKB's? According to realism of inclusion, no, because there were mkb's in Stalingrad, and there were probably situations in which they were used in the frequency they are in this game. It is therefore unrealistic if they were NOT included in the game.
Same with aim-zoom, in real-life you are able to see much farther than you can on a computer, and so the inclusion of a zoom to help approximate what you can actually see is a sensible solution to be "realistic". In another way, it is realistic to include the King Tiger or the clown car because they were both in WW2 even if they were rare.
Gameplay realism attempts to coerce the player to play in a manner than the designer deems realistic to the time period or to what he conceives to be the effective human capacity in a given circumstance. Even if this was maybe not always "realistic" to what one could do or experiences in real-life. Inclusions of gameplay realism can be seen in the application of motion blur, and desaturation to indicate suppression. Similarly in RO1 when one was hit and only injured, you would experience a temporary slowdown in movement.
Are these things realistic? After all, no one loses color vision and has blur when bullets are flying, and you wouldn't run slower after be shot in the arm, but they produced a realism of results. Players are more cautious about being shot because of unrealistic gameplay features, but this creates its own realism.
Simply put, most ideological battles on a feature being "realistic" are moot, because they rest on different interpretations of why something is realistic or not and since you cannot have perfect realism of inclusion and realism of gameplay as in real life, you have to make design choices in one direction or another.
What can be more concretely measured and argued for is immersion. I define immersion in a videogame as the level to which a person identifies and connects with a digital avatar as an embodiment of the self. This can be either in an abstract way, as in the way you relate to a fictional character or in a direct way as in feeling physiological effects from virtual stressors (adrenaline when an mg opens up and you just manage to find cover is in example). Good games are often ones that have high levels of immersion, where one has attachment toward characters.
I would argue that what made RO:O great was that it had high levels of immersion. Similarly, I would argue that RO:2 has less of that sense of immediate immersion. A lot of the design choices I believe were made without understanding how it would effect the cohesive whole of the game.
A good one is bayonets, it makes sense that all players have bayonets affixed when preparing an assault, as that would probably be the case in close range fighting in Stalingrad. That is an example of realism of gameplay, but by removing that sense of choice TW removed a sense of immersion with the character. Same with the rest of the forced unlocks.
Similarly by including things like the MKB, or the MP-40/II, and the host of other rare weapons in the game this realism of inclusion has produced gameplay that often times feels less realistic to life or the time period. In a more controversial point, same with the aim-zoom, players can see what they can in life, but respond in ways that feel maybe less appropriate to combat in real life.
In summation you need both, and to balance them with an ultimate aim of how a game should, using all the opaque grandeur of the term, "feel".
