Poll: realism vs fun

[scyrin]

while surfing the forums as many of us do i stumbled upon the forum about the new black ops game

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.243701-Black-Ops-rage-welcome-to-the-next-year-of-your-life

there were many interesting views on the changes but a topic that came up a lot was if gamers prefer to sacrifice a bit of fun for more realism of the game or vice versa

So i ask escapist: do you prefer games to focus on fun or realism?

EDIT: apoligies for any confusion, i ment do you feel a game should be more focused on letting the player have the most fun out of an experience, or should it feel realistic and gritty

Example:
Painkiller (make no sense but you can feel like a immortal god)
vs
Call of Duty 4 (realistic and interesting but not able to feel more or less unstoppable)

(somehow i know this example will bite me in the ass)

(apoligies if thread has been done, spelling, and grammer issues)

 

[Valkyrie101]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

 

[Jonluw]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Well said.

If I had to choose, I would say fun, because I wouldn't play a realistic game if I didn't think it was fun.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Fun, obviously, but if the fun part of the game is having some unique advantage or disadvantage in a realistic setting then ignoring the realism seems like a bad move.

Realism and fun aren't polar opposites. The question a gamer has to ask him/herself is what kind of game they think is fun.

 

[freedomweasel]

I think this exact thread was posted a few weeks ago.

If the game sets itself up to be somewhat realistic, it should play out as being somewhat realistic. The game should follow its own rules. Black Ops is set up like an action movie, so I have no problem with all the silly dual wielding and all that. Stick that in something like rainbow six which is a little more realistic, and I get more annoyed. Both can be fun.
Stick option 3 on the poll.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Fun. If I want realism I'll go outside. Games are an escape not a way to experience real life that like getting away from your job by working overtime!

 

[MassiveGeek]

Depends on my mood. But I do love realism...

 

[Snake Plissken]

Go fucking figure. Currently the poll sits at 100% fun. Who'd have thought? Man, I thought people HATED fun games.

The number one aspect that people look for in a game is that it's FUN. Everything else pales in comparison to this uber-important little criteria. Nobody gives a fuck about realism, scope, size,story, characters, etc. if the game isn't FUN.

Were you expecting a different result of the poll?

 

[Armored Prayer]

I like a mix of both.

CoD does this perfectly. The overall look and fell is realistic, then they mix some fun arcade style first person shooting. And the result is awesome.

 

[Berserker119]

I think it's better when it isn't realistic. Look at Team Fortress 2.

 

[Dr_Cuddles]

Both.

But if I had to choose one, fun. I play video games to have fun. It's as simple as that.

 

[MrShowerHead]

Realism can be fun, you know......

But from those two......Fun

I do love OFP, ArmA II and Battleground Europe, but I wouldn't like that every single game made is realistic.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I'm pretty sure realism came after fun some time early this decade, (or does 2010 count as a part of this new one?) around the time we saw guards in MGS2 actually calling for backup with their radio and thought "wow, that's realistic!" I could still go nuts with a machine gun if I so chose. (once I found the fucking thing, damn ID tags.) Maybe it's just me, but now realism feels more like watching my guy die in 3 shots again and going "Oh, it's realistic." in monotone.

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

Neither. What works for one game, i.e. realism, won't work for another one focussed on arcadey gameplay.

Let me sum it up with images.

Spoiler: Fun.

Spoiler: Realism.

They're both very different games and trying to compare them just wouldn't work, because of how differently they do things.

 

[Sixcess]

Realism can be fun. I picked up STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl in the recent Steam sale and the fact that you're not an invincible one man army combined with the enemy AI made even the very first gun battle in the game an exhilerating experience.

But STALKER may be the exception that proves the rule. I'll take Doom's one man against Hell action over the po-faced 'authenticity' of CoD and its ilk any day.

 

[UltraDeth]

I just looked up the meaning of "Escapist" and it is someone who likes to escape reality. Which makes me believe that the makers must be into fiction and fun. Otherwise this site would be called the Realist

 

[DustyDrB]

Well, the way you described it (sounding more like fun=overpowered PC to realism=PC feels a sense of danger) I would go for realism. If the game isn't challenging me, then I don't want to play it.
But they fun and realize aren't necessarily separate things. This is just another thing for some Chicken Little gamers to cry about.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

it honestly depends. but for the most part BALANCED. i could care less whichever sprectrum the game sits on for real or fun, just as long as its balanced. then after that i prefer non realistic games, as they tend to be lots more fun (halo, conkers bad fur day, etc..)