Hi Dark,

Oh, I think you slightly misunderstood what I was saying. Obviously,
there have to be acceptions based on game play, plot, etc but by and
large what I am getting at is that even completely imaginary
characters, weapons, and other items have to act somewhat realistic in
a game world. I.E. in a way that is plausible.

For instance, in Mysteries of the Ancients there are healing potions
all over the place made from Phoenix tears. Well, we all know that
these are completely imaginary items since the Phoenix is a mythical
bird. However, I don't believe even a magic potion like that should
restore you to full health instantly. It would take at least a couple
of minutes to restore your health and strength to normal. Even in
Harry Potter in the Chamber of Secrets when Harry is injured it took
Harry a few minutes to heal when Forks healed him with his tears. So
basically even though Phoenix tears are magical, completely imaginary,
I'd say that most people realise that any cure magical or not
shouldn't  be instantanious.

As for weapons imaginary or not they should have some restrictions.
Using your example of Iceman's ice weapon you pick up regardless of
how imaginary it may be things like min and max range still apply. If
the ice weapon is two feet long then obviously you have to have a very
minimum of two feet between you and the enemy in order to aim the
weapon at the enemy. You shouldn't aim towards the floor and hit the
enemy square in the face. You still need room to actually point it at
the enemies face, and if you hit the enemy square in the face that is
believable. You see what I mean?

Its interesting this topic has come up, because I have been discussing
this very issue in a gaming article I'm writing on creating games,
developing memorable characters, etc. It seams all too often when
people creat characters for a game like Dungeons and Dragons most
players try to take the god-moding strategy by inventing the most
invincible, most powerful, and absolutely perfect character
imaginable. What I think people overlook is that some of the best
heroic characters in fiction have weaknesses and make mistakes just
like everyone else. That's what makes them memorable characters,
because they aren't all knowing, perfect, and display human
characteristics all of us have to deal with.

For example, let's take Professor Dumbledore. He shares many of the
characteristics we would expect in a heroic wizard such as being
kindly, wise, a powerful wizard, and has a list of achievements as
long as your right arm to prove it. To Harry, Hermione, and Ron
Dumbledore is larger than life. However, by the time the seventh book
is released we find out Dumbledore is not all he seams. He has made
mistakes, a hidden past few know about, and has made poor
choices/decisions that he shouldn't have. Even in Chamber of Secrets
one wonders why someone as wise and smart as Dumbledore would hire a
complete frod like Lockheart to take up the job of Defence Against the
Dark Arts teacher. It could be as simple as no one else for the job as
was stated, or Dumbledore wasn't aware of exactly how much of a frod
Lockheart was when he hired him. Either way it turned out to be a poor
decision, because when push came to shove Lockheart was a liability
rather than a help to Harry and Ron when they go to rescue Ginny from
the Chamber of Secrets.

The point I'm aiming for is that characters are more believable when
they aren't so perfect and wonderful after all. They must face
challenges that even there own strength, character, and abilities may
not be able to overcome. They must be sorely tested. Not even super
heroes like Superman and Supergirl are totally perfect. Whip out some
criptonite, and you'll reduce them to weak mortals hardly able to
stand. In Superman Returns when Lex Luther stabs Superman with a
criptonite knife Superman nearly dies and probably might have if Lois
Lain hadn't showed up in time to rescue him and pull the criptonite
knife out of his back. Its a reminder of Superman's own mortality we
rarely see when fighting normal villains, and a reminder no matter how
big and powerful you are there are always weaknesses that can be
exploited. There is an old joke that proves this point.

Q: If Batman and Superman were having a fight and Batman didn't have
any criptonite who would win?

A: Batman, of course. He always has criptonite hidden in his utility
belt, and always comes to a fight prepared.

What this joke really means is that if you are prepared even the
mightiest hero or mightiest super vilain can be defeated. Everybody
has a weakness. Batman who his undoubtedly a light wait compared to
Superman could in theory beat Superman in a fight if he knew
Superman's weakness and could use it to good advantage. In fact,in
some of the DC Comics Batman has defeated a number of super vilains
simply by being prepared.

For instance, Dark Seid is undoubtedly one of the most evil and
powerful enemies in the DC Comics universe. He is a god-like enemy,
but Batman has defeated him in at least two cases i know of. In the
1980's there was a Justice League comic were Dark Seid used a boom
tube to capture the JLA members and take them to Apocalypse. During
the battle Dark Seid tried to destroy the JLA by hitting them with the
omega beams in his eyes. Batman pulls out a small mirror from his
utility belt and reflects the omega beams back at Dark Seid defeating
him. In the recently released Final Crisis series Batman retreaves the
bullet Dark Seid used to kill O'ryan and fires it into Dark Seid's
chest killing him.

So when we talk about realism in games there has to be a realistic way
to handle even imaginary items and characters. It would probably be
unrealistic and unbelievable that Batman could take on Dark Seid in a
real fight, but in both cases mentioned above DC Comics came up with a
realistic situation where Dark Seid could be defeated by even one of
the weaker members of the JLA through simple means. Where more
powerful heros like Superman, Supergirl, Wonder Woman, and Green
Lantern failed to get the job done. That's ok as long as it is

Which I think was my entire point of this long message. I'm not so
much concerned about realism so much as the possibility of the thing
which makes the diference. If something isn't possible then it isn't
possible. However, if something is possible and sounds plausible then
by all means do it.


Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.

Reply via email to