A little opinion on realism

[gsmanners]

And I laugh at those who actually believe they know the laws of their universe. Skyrim "mythology" is actually heavily based on a old reality of people who once lived in our world. One day, there might be games for people based on the mythology of your reality. They will one day laugh at all the things you believed to be true.

 

Why wait? I already laugh at most of the things people believe are true. :biggrin:

[thesapien]

We do know the current laws of our universe, for the most part. I know my way around physics and old-earth theories. Of course, physics get wonky when you start dealing with black holes and the distant past ('distant' as in, 'before matter theoretically existed in the state it does now').

 

Humans, however, have only existed for our current physical laws. It would be hopelessly false to say that our young species has borne witness to alternate laws of reality, as our species is only capable of surviving in a three-dimensional (New theories think of some aspects of reality as a 2D projection) temporal (bound by linear time) plane.

 

In short, we only know how the universe treats humanity, and beyond that we remain blind. Hopefully we'll be able to clear that up in a few more centuries. Right now, scientists have quite a good grasp of the current universe. The versions that existed earlier/later, if time can even be considered (the progression of time itself changes around black holes, for example), we know little of.

 

I used to have a big ego too on such matters; once even wrote a little self published book on the matter, specifically to help explain away paradox in modern quantum theory. I thought I had consciousness pretty well explained enough for me, as well. Perennial problems in philosophy didn't seem too mysterious either. Feels so long ago, now. Today, I'm less certain of everything, so uncertain that I doubt my doubts and would never claim to know for sure that you are wrong as I was/am.

[thesapien]

And I laugh at those who actually believe they know the laws of their universe. Skyrim "mythology" is actually heavily based on a old reality of people who once lived in our world. One day, there might be games for people based on the mythology of your reality. They will one day laugh at all the things you believed to be true.

 

Why wait? I already laugh at most of the things people believe are true. :biggrin:

 

LOL ;D

 

including @ myself

[thesapien]

Seriously, it is a game, not a simulation. I play to have fun and this involves doing things that would not work or probably kill me in real life.

 

I'm not sure why I play or why anyone plays or why so many other animals also play (like watching kittens play fight), but could it really be just in fun for fun's sake? I mean, what makes it fun? I do agree that during play it is often a good thing to experiment with what you can do and experiment by playing with reality. However, saying "I play to have fun" doesn't sound like it is saying anything really, kind of like when someone says "I laughed because it was funny." No real new info there.

[Ferodaktyl]

I'm not sure why I play or why anyone plays or why so many other animals also play (like watching kittens play fight), but could it really be just in fun for fun's sake? I mean, what makes it fun? I do agree that during play it is often a good thing to experiment with what you can do and experiment by playing with reality. However, saying "I play to have fun" doesn't sound like it is saying anything really, kind of like when someone says "I laughed because it was funny." No real new info there.

 

you really remind me of an episode of "Dexter's Laboratory", with that question :

"What's the purpose of meaning?"

 

Not everything has to have an explanation. That doesn't mean we stop searching for answers.

 

So, playing games for fun seems quite a good explanation for me :thumbsup:

[stabbykitteh]

We do know the current laws of our universe, for the most part. I know my way around physics and old-earth theories. Of course, physics get wonky when you start dealing with black holes and the distant past ('distant' as in, 'before matter theoretically existed in the state it does now').

 

Humans, however, have only existed for our current physical laws. It would be hopelessly false to say that our young species has borne witness to alternate laws of reality, as our species is only capable of surviving in a three-dimensional (New theories think of some aspects of reality as a 2D projection) temporal (bound by linear time) plane.

 

In short, we only know how the universe treats humanity, and beyond that we remain blind. Hopefully we'll be able to clear that up in a few more centuries. Right now, scientists have quite a good grasp of the current universe. The versions that existed earlier/later, if time can even be considered (the progression of time itself changes around black holes, for example), we know little of.

 

I used to have a big ego too on such matters; once even wrote a little self published book on the matter, specifically to help explain away paradox in modern quantum theory. I thought I had consciousness pretty well explained enough for me, as well. Perennial problems in philosophy didn't seem too mysterious either. Feels so long ago, now. Today, I'm less certain of everything, so uncertain that I doubt my doubts and would never claim to know for sure that you are wrong as I was/am.

 

Funny how getting older will do that for you. :thumbsup:

[beazalbob69]

We do know the current laws of our universe, for the most part. I know my way around physics and old-earth theories. Of course, physics get wonky when you start dealing with black holes and the distant past ('distant' as in, 'before matter theoretically existed in the state it does now').

 

Humans, however, have only existed for our current physical laws. It would be hopelessly false to say that our young species has borne witness to alternate laws of reality, as our species is only capable of surviving in a three-dimensional (New theories think of some aspects of reality as a 2D projection) temporal (bound by linear time) plane.

 

In short, we only know how the universe treats humanity, and beyond that we remain blind. Hopefully we'll be able to clear that up in a few more centuries. Right now, scientists have quite a good grasp of the current universe. The versions that existed earlier/later, if time can even be considered (the progression of time itself changes around black holes, for example), we know little of.

 

I used to have a big ego too on such matters; once even wrote a little self published book on the matter, specifically to help explain away paradox in modern quantum theory. I thought I had consciousness pretty well explained enough for me, as well. Perennial problems in philosophy didn't seem too mysterious either. Feels so long ago, now. Today, I'm less certain of everything, so uncertain that I doubt my doubts and would never claim to know for sure that you are wrong as I was/am.

 

Funny how getting older will do that for you. :thumbsup:

 

I bet that little ant in the backyard thinks it has it's universe all pretty much figured out also. Humans must be the most arrogant species on the planet or off. Science is founded on THEORIES that arrogant people use as FACTS. Nothing more than another form of Religion IMO or should I say IN MY THEORY if that makes it sound more science like.

[thesapien]

I'm not sure why I play or why anyone plays or why so many other animals also play (like watching kittens play fight), but could it really be just in fun for fun's sake? I mean, what makes it fun? I do agree that during play it is often a good thing to experiment with what you can do and experiment by playing with reality. However, saying "I play to have fun" doesn't sound like it is saying anything really, kind of like when someone says "I laughed because it was funny." No real new info there.

 

you really remind me of an episode of "Dexter's Laboratory", with that question :

"What's the purpose of meaning?"

 

Not everything has to have an explanation. That doesn't mean we stop searching for answers.

 

So, playing games for fun seems quite a good explanation for me :thumbsup:

 

Stuff always gets lost in explanations anyway. No explanation quite lives up to the thing itself. Imagine a theory of laughter that wasn't funny. It wouldn't quite ever "explain" laughter to someone who has not already laughed. So the most important component which we fill in while studying the theory isn't there. Thus, such theories are just imagined as helping.

 

So, me too.

 

I think I got lost though after an initial response to someone saying Skyrim is not a simulation and has no realism requirements. Some of us do have fun because it is a kind of simulation. If it were purely abstract and/surreal, well, I guess that can be fun, too, but, nm. It's all good.

[SHazardous]

The "realism" issues people have with Skyrim always make me laugh.

 

I don't get why one would be concerned about the "unrealism" of some minute aspect (armor in the game for example) but be totally unconcerned about everything else that is unreal.

 

My PC gets hit until there is the thinnest sliver of red on the health bar and all I need do is hit "inventory" (and everything stops) drink a potion and viola, I am 100% health again ready to keep fighting the 4 or 5 enemies trying to kill my PC.

 

Even more unreal is my PC gets killed and all I need do is start a previous game and lo and behold I am resurrected! Dead isn't dead, its just a chance to retry.

 

There are dragons flying about.

 

Entering a tomb and one finds zombies and/or ghosts and sometimes vampires.

 

My PC can shoot fire balls, frost spears or lightning bolts from a hand - out of nothing.

 

My PC has a sword that when it hits someone they get set on fire and a bow that when someone is hit with an arrow they are frozen.

 

Most people playing the game would likely only succeed in killing them self dual wielding orc axes enchanted with fire and frost, and many lack the strength to actually pick up and swing a iron long sword that is 5 feet long.

 

There are a thousand (tens of thousands) of things in the game that are entirely unreal, that defy the laws of physics and chemistry, that are wholly impossible in the real world. So why is anyone upset or concerned that their PC can swim wearing full plate steel armour exactly the same as if wearing a speedo?

 

If the game followed any of the rules of reality, no one would play it because they'd be so frustrated, bored to death, or killed and not allowed to ever play the game again (dead is dead) in the first 3 minutes.

 

Me, I do not want any realism in any aspect of Skyrim.

 

Well said my good sir, well said indeed. Wish there was "like" button for reply's. This one gets LIKE from me! :)

[Jaguarnaut]

Meeting Sheogorath and getting the Jabawack is one the game's highlights for me so far, and has revived my interest in continuing to the bitter end.

 

No game with magic is good enough without realistic magic.

 

It's also awesome to see saber cats and huge crabs appear to weigh about 1/100th of the weight you’d expect them to have. Hover-horses are also a nice touch, the attention to detail counts.