Edit History

11 hours ago, theFlu said:

Jar simulation type 1: "No simulation" == not realistic at all

Actually you are right, but that unrealism is the only reason you can run a game on a computer. Any game that is not the matrix is bound to have a lot of that type of unrealism. It also makes games fun. Think of a SF game where you have to fly months to a distant planet and it did actually simulate time.

For me that is a very different type of unrealism, the unrealism of you having to fill in the blanks. There is no jars, you have to imagine you are filling the water into containers.

This is similar to the unrealism of a book, which is as far from "your" realism as possible, where you have to fill in the blanks. But your imagination can be as realistic as you want.

This is different from an inconsistency to reality (not being able to get water from a lake is such an inconsistency, as would be a forced single jar) for example which makes it hard to imagine the realism. 

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

Jar simulation type 1: "No simulation" == not realistic at all

Actually you are right, but that unrealism is the only reason you can run a game on a computer. Any game that is not the matrix is bound to have a lot of that type of unrealism. It also makes games fun. Think of a SF game where you have to fly months to a distant planet and it did actually simulate time.

For me that is a very different type of unrealism, the unrealism of you having to fill in the blanks. There is no jars, you have to imagine you are filling the water into containers.

This is similar to the unrealism of a book, which is as far from "your" realism as possible, where you have to fill in the blanks. But your imagination can be as realistic as you want.

This is different from internal inconsistency (not being able to get water from a lake is such an inconsistency, as would be a forced single jar) for example which makes it hard to imagine the realism.