Perhaps realism equals fun sometimes? ZOMG I just divided by zero!
Also, who the hell doesn't like fun games?
Also, who the hell doesn't like fun games?
Poll: realism vs fun
- Thread starter scyrin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Balance. It's more important than fun and realism, since balance can result from realism and can create fun.
So what a realism game can't be as much fun as a nonsensical one? I get the point you were going for and in answer to your question, I do not mind a realistic game as long as it is consistently real however crazy over the top games can be thoroughly enjoyable as well. So In the end I am calling it a tie, depends on what mood I am currently in.
I play games to be entertained you want to have flying monkeys with laser vs Godzilla? Fine just make it entertaining...though i don't see how that COULDN'T be entertaining. Basically if you need to sacrifice realism to make a game more fun then do it. That is why Saints Row 2 is a n infinitely better game then GTA4
Well done realism = immersion
Immersion = Fun
Realism and fun can be coexistent, only that while fun on it's own can be good without any kind of realistic support (Katamari, Team Fortress 2), pure realism cannot stand on it's own and just ends up being the opposite of fun; boring (America's Army 3)
Immersion = Fun
Realism and fun can be coexistent, only that while fun on it's own can be good without any kind of realistic support (Katamari, Team Fortress 2), pure realism cannot stand on it's own and just ends up being the opposite of fun; boring (America's Army 3)
versus thread!
Nah, just kidding. I'll choose fun any day of the week. Most of my favourite games are fantasy or have fantasy elements and the few realistic games on the list are mostly sports titles. Realism isn't important to me. It's not a priority.
Nah, just kidding. I'll choose fun any day of the week. Most of my favourite games are fantasy or have fantasy elements and the few realistic games on the list are mostly sports titles. Realism isn't important to me. It's not a priority.
First of all: like everyone said, they don't have to be mutually exclusive at all.
But for the sake of this poll: to quote Yahtzee, "This is a GAME. GAMES ARE FUN."
But for the sake of this poll: to quote Yahtzee, "This is a GAME. GAMES ARE FUN."
I prefer my games to be fun. However, much fun can be had from realism. It sort of depends (for me) which genre you're in.
A "realistic" game would delete itself and invalidate its own product key after every death... and still be too game-y to be truly realistic. Even Steel Battalion didn't go that far... it just scrubbed all your game saves if your platform blew up before you could hit "eject".
I think a lot of folks have a very broken idea of what "realism" is in games... and how a truly realistic recreation of much of what we see in games would be desperately unfun.
-- Steve
I think a lot of folks have a very broken idea of what "realism" is in games... and how a truly realistic recreation of much of what we see in games would be desperately unfun.
-- Steve
Fun is somewhat unrelated, as lot of people have noted.
Some games get pundits for their excessive realism, others are lauded for their fantasy universe. I think it's most important that a game sticks to its core material, ie a game like Modern Warfare should be as realistic as possible, whereas a game like Mario should have as little realism weighing upon it as possible.
Some games get pundits for their excessive realism, others are lauded for their fantasy universe. I think it's most important that a game sticks to its core material, ie a game like Modern Warfare should be as realistic as possible, whereas a game like Mario should have as little realism weighing upon it as possible.
