Reply To: Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[limburger 21822xp 0]

@piers I definitely agree that ‘realistic’ is definitely something that can (and should be) fun.

I suspect that a lot of the idea that ‘realistic’ = ‘complex’ is the result of a few (bad) designers focussing so much on ‘realism’ that they forget that it should be playable (and logical) as well.

I’m again drawing parallels to videogames, because at an abstract level the problems are similar.
Best example are these ‘survival’ games. These games take the idea that ‘hunger’ and ‘stamina’ ought to be simulated in order to get a ‘realistic’ survival situation. However bad design choices result in the game becoming more like babysitting a virtual avatar, which makes the game boring as you’re too focused on keeping the meters at an optimum level instead of *eh* playing a survival simulation.

I wouldn’t mind if games had to switch to apps to get more simulation aspects into a game.

If the industry wasn’t as obsessed with describing scale in a format that is abso-flocking-lutely useless in order to create an artificial eco-system then sourcing models from various manufacturers wouldn’t even be an issue. Seriously.
Why is ’28 mm’ from company A a giantic fat tub o lard and the same ’28 mm’ soldier from a competing company looks like an anorexia patient. I can understand that technology limitations mean that certain aspects of a figure have to be larger than life (gun barrels and swords) in order to make them more durable, but everything else ? *aarrrrgh*
I wish ’28 mm’ would be replaced by 1:56 or even 1:48
And don’t even get me started on the ‘xx mm Heroic’ variants … what the heck is that ?