Poll: realism vs fun

[Shycte]

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

There is indie developer named Jesse Venbrux, he made a game simply called "Execution". Seeing your first comment I just thought that you might want to check it out.

Realism is a pluage haunting gaming. Nothing should ever get in the way of fun.

TimeSplitters series, point of case.

 

[redisforever]

Fun, as in Serious Sam. Probably the lease realistic game ever. And I play it all the time.


BTW, Yippee! 100th post.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

2 words: Spider-Man 2

 

[rossable]

one begs to ask, why can't i have the unstoppable godlike fun in a real-life setting? i believe that the ultimate game would be a mimic of a lucid dream. a fractured form of reality where you can do literally anything. isn't that the pinnacle of what all games strive to connect with in our sub-conscience?

 

[Blame it on Ben]

Unfortunately I have to vote fun, because crawling everywhere after you got shot in the legs would not be fun. However, I consider some realistic games fun, for example most Ghost Recon games are mostly realistic on the hardest difficulty AKA- one head shot= dead, two or three body shots= dead, etc. However I've also had fun with unrealistic games Battlefield Bad company.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is I prefer games that pick a side rater than games that try to shoot for the middle. As long as games like Halo and Call of Duty come with such a variety of game types with different realism settings, it is possible to kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

If it's a game to screw around in, then fun, outrageous, stupid fun.
If you want to tell a story (a serious one), then realism.
However you must balance the two.

 

[rokkolpo]

Realism sucks. (opinion ofcourse)

I want weird shit flying at my screen.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Realism should never trump fun.
Also, logic must be considered:

scenario one (the right way): I am a mega space marine on the planet zog in the future. This futuristic door won't open and can't be destroyed.
"That's acceptable because it probably made of some future material or has an anti rocket launcher force field".

scenario two (the wrong way): I am a normal marine in a modern conflict with contemporary weapons. This contemporary wooden door won't open and can't be destroyed.
"Why can't I kick it down!? Why can't I shoot it to bits!? Why won't my grenades do anything to it!? Why is it that I have to attack a whole load of enemies to get the key!? Why the FUCK am I playing this stupid game!?"

You have to follow up realism or it ruins the game.

 

[Dendanius]

I don't even understand how this is a discussion, given the black or white choices.
Look at it this way, would you be more likely to play a game with 100% fun and 0% realism, or 100% realism and 0% fun.
The choice is pretty obvious, a game that's not fun in the slightest and full realism wouldn't hold your attention.
I tend to prefer games with a nice balance between the two though. Guess that's why I've never been into the whole sci-fi, futuristic games and whatever.
"I don't WANT to shoot lasers and jump 500ft into the air, I want to use guns I recognize, in semi realistic settings. I don't mind taking out 1,000 people by myself though. /flex."

TL;DR, Balance the two, duh. The line changes depending who you are though.

^ Sorry, typed more than I meant to. Oh well.

 

[Durgiun]

Saints Row 2. That is all.

 

[krugerrand123]

Fun, If i wanted realism, I would not be playing games,I would be outside.

 

[Ziggy]

Fun, but fun can be realistic too.

what if you thinke realisem is fun

 

[Mistermixmaster]

But what if I find realism fun? D: (Hey, there's a reason I play Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood on Realistic Difficulty...)

Well, I guess it does depend a lot on the game for many though...

 

[Twad]

FUN. Becuse if a game isnt fun then why play it in the first place?

"Realism" is often nice, but not always necessary. Depends on the game.

 

[LogicNProportion]

I think the two can hold hands proudly, if it's done the right way, as can anything.

As much as I dislike the game and Obsidian, I believe New Vegas may have scored one big goal with it's 'Survive!' mode. It adds a bit of 'body' to the experience I think an immersive apocalyptic wasteland needed.

Of course, fun is the primary function, but why can't I have fun also scrambling about when my character's stomach starts to growl?

I'm not talking Sims, I'm talking Metal Gear Solid 3.