Second, and this is pointed directly at the "realisticons": expressing what is or isn't arbitrary game limitation is highly subjective at best (naturally), and doing so doesn't qualify anything, since, until cray supercomputers become standard home workstations, there simply isn't enough computational power to facilitate a truely "realistic" experience.
That said, I think a better way to qualify what is commonly thought of as "arbitrary" is to simply ask one's self when playing any interactive game: "Do the devs believe there own bullshit."
In order that suspension of disbelief be maintained, a dev (or author, or director, etc.) has to set up some basic ground rules or laws for thier universe; rules or laws that both facilitate gameworld abilities, and remedy game world limitations. However, once a dev breaks one of it's own rules, the immersion is lost.
A good example of this is mercenaries: Here's a game where you can blow up "anything"....except trees. Why?
If you want realism, go outside. I don't want realism when I play games...I'm trying to escape from reality. All I want is for a game to believe in it's own rules. In that way, no matter how many limitations are placed on a game, I won't care or notice, because I'm immersed in a hyper reality whose own laws and boundries make sense.
Why do they make sense? Because the developers don't give me any reason to believe otherwise.
I play Thief not because I feel like a real-life thief...but because I feel like Garret, Master Thief. I believe in that universe because the universe believes in itself. Any talk of realism in lieu of a game where the protagonist flirts with a tree demoness (T2) is just stupid.
Believe your own bullshit: this understanding extends to all things.
And enough with the climbing gloves already. Even the devs of T3 admitted it was a gimmick they used because they couldn't get rope arrows to work.
Edited by Hylix Ulyx, 04 August 2005 - 11:00 AM.