Realism over fun Thread

I need your opinions, do you guys prefer the kind of game that is fast paced, were you run fast, take at least 200 shots and you are still alive, jump high, you die then respawn, were you can carry over 7 weapons (In a modern or WW2 era)
Or do you prefer the not so fast game, 10 shots and you are dead, only 2 weapons carry plus equipment, no jumping like a cheetah, die and wait for your turn. ??

Is just a statistic we need to know.
Thanks you for your time.

Adrien C
Public-Relation departement.

Wrong section to post this in I believe, but i'll answer anyway.

I choose fun, but that does not mean I dislike realistic games. Take hostile intent for an example. I like it, not for it's realism, but for the gameplay that the realism creates. I like the teamwork and the intensity of it. I don't care how realistic a game/mod is, all i care about is if it is fun.

Realistic mods are overrated. They're not even realistic

So fun, yea, its the reason why games exist.

I like playing CoD and I like playin' UT2k4... it depends what mood im in.

I'm very similar to arvey, i enjoy both! Mood wise mostly, though its good to play a variety than stick to one style ^_^

As long as you dont sacrifice fun and gameplay for "realism" then you should end up with a good game.

realism.. herrmmm.. if you call counterstrike, urban terror, bf:1942, medal of honor realistic? sure i guess so.. hold on .. im gonna go jump crouch to a colt headshot before i have to go to bed

notice the " " Carni

counter strike is no where near realistic, after shooting someone in the back 4 times with my usp, then all of a sudden he jumps in the air with a 180 turn and kills me at full health instantly with the danm colt, and being head shotted across the map from someone with an ak while i have a scout, i absolutly beleive counter-strike is so much bs but danm its fun:/

i was hoping you people could sense my sarcasm.. but if you want me to put on training wheels with
[sarcasm][/sarcasm] ill do that for you..

notice the " " ? okkk....

I prefer the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags. They are wc3 approved

Yeah, RS6 (the original) was NOT realistic. I think whoever made it was a pissed-off pessimistic person. "I don't see how its unrealistic! I'm pretty sure in real life *I* would die from that far away from that caliber weapon, but not a terrorist!"

arvey-Haynos wrote: I like playing CoD and I like playin' UT2k4... it depends what mood im in.

I sure agree with you there.

*me is surprised this topic was not moved by now

- Edited By robo_ronald On Tue 1st, Jun 2004 @ 5:17:16pm

cs buttrapes any and all unrealism based games out there....

Moved. Fun >> realism.

Realism < Fun

Fun should always have dominance in a multiplayer game, or it gets boring and trite

Ok lets take the recently released Thief.
You creep, you hide in the shadows and you steal off people.

Then lets take Condition zero (SP).
You shoot, you work as a team and go through a league facing tought objectives.

The diffrence being Thief suits the realistic ways because its what the games about, but CZ wouldnt be half as `fun` if it was realistic.

You can have fun+realistic, realistic can = fun, but realistic on its own isnt fun, which is why Im glad they have blacking, killing, factions etc to keep it fun.

very good point azz0r.

I also point out ut2k4 it seems like they take the 'fun' parts of realism ie falling damage, breathing, rag doll physics. But mix it with unrealistic elements. THis makes the best type of game in my opinion.

I like both...it doesn't bother me that there are a lot of games out there that are one or the other. I mostly mod/play games based on the Wolfenstein engine still to this day and age, and by most folks standards, that's probably leaning toward the "less realistic" end of the spectrum (though arguably, any game where you heal instantly from massive abuse simply by picking up a health item is somewhat unrealistic).

I'm all about fun, and and most of the "realistic" games I play still have to be fun for me to do so. MOH is probably as real as it gets for me while still being fun. I used to frequently play games in the Delta Force series and combat flight simulators, but that was always to test my skills and instincts. Were they as fun for me as an old Wolfenstein shooter? No, because I could spend a full hour trying to be stealthy in a DF mission only to instantly die from a single bullet to the head, and that's just not fun. I get enough realism in day to day life, that I have to say I definitely vote: fun>>>realism

The key point is that there is no such thing as "realistic" - it would be impossible to simulate something called "Real-Life" with current computer technology, and even then it wouldn't have any playing value as interface technology is a second limitation.

Take flight simulators for example - it takes a lot of discipline to actually enjoy such like IL-2 and LO:MAC on the "full realistic" settings with no external views or visual aids.

Simply put - flying a real aircraft is easier than confining yourself to a viewpoint with minimal feedback and looking at the world on a tiny monitor...

And flying a real aircraft is much more fun as a result.

Visual aids emulate the "experience" far better than gaming masochism of "full realistic" - and IL-2 is scalable from Crimson Skies gameplay to the simulation of historical air combat.

Then comes the point of exploiting these visual aids to gain "unrealistic" advantages over other players. Simply put again, there is no way in hell any pilot could magically have full situational awareness of a given 3D space [as in knowing where exactly where all participants in a battlespace are, checking six by using an external flyby view]. Techniques are required for situational awareness - the majority of players won't look towards making use of RL-derived simulated techniques where there is an easier alternative - the F6 key for instant external padlocks to hostile aircraft within a 7km radius, no limitations.

So lock out the external views - and people are actually flying with sense instead of turnfighting with flaps fully deployed at 200kph - a stupid way of fighting in anything past 1942 as much more emphasis is placed in aircraft features such as maximum speed, raw horsepower, firepower, and armour protection at the expense of raw agility.

Biplanes can't be beaten in a turnfight - but they don't go anywhere. Smart Bf109 pilots would use team tactics and exploit their much superior speed and "boom and zoom" ability against the slow I-16s [which is a very agile Russian monoplane fighter]. Not turnfight on the enemy's terms.

Implimenting masochistic game settings prevent the occurance of unreasonable flow of gameplay at times, and actually add to the fun - use the brain to get kills plus knowledge of physics, not yank the stick blindly and blast away at abandon with unlimited ammunition.

After all it only takes a single half second burst of fire at the right area for a physical kill - flying, fighting and getting into position to do it in "full realistic" settings just adds to the immersion and fun factor.

Back to the topic -

There is again, no such as "realistic".

"Realism" is just a compromise between implimenting crazy limitations upon players, and letting them roam on their own free will against the laws of physics [arcadish fun ]

I will take realism anyday, but not by claiming "realism" in anything.

However I would expect in Homeworld 2, that since capital warships are the pride of the civilization itself and a massive investment of resources, that they actually are worth their expense, not be deathtraps for their thousands of crew.

As in the stock configuration - high casualty rates are typical. Command and control is just typical "RTS" fare - more like real-time clicking fest, against logic.

No way would a Battlecruiser captain order the helmsmen turn the ship a full 180 degrees to chase little frigates as if they would sit still and be shot, when there is an enemy battlewagon in the fore quarter right in optimal firing range....

By curing these "logic flaws" [not "realism", it's sci-fi] one already moves towards the goal of a "naval simulation" out of the ability to use logical chains of thoughts to devise techniques and emulate a "what if we were fighting in a space context with real ships" context, instead of resorting to thinking in terms of numbers and game exploits in order to win.

Point Defense Systems [HW2 mod] is one such study in such an approach to RTS gaming.

Need fun be at the expense of logic based off application and extrapolation from the basic principles of warfare? [ie. extended RL?]

No - I think being able to apply RL-based military doctrines is much more fun than throwing simple 1s and 0s with no memorable value at the enemy.

In that, the challenge is not seeing one side of the argument [fun vs real], but compromising between the two to attain the best possible gameplay experience possible under the limitations of current computer technology.

Even better - cater for both styles of gameplay at the same time!

The mod referenced to above is, yes, my creation - and it does touch upon the topic discussed in this thread, in fact, meant for experimentation of such a mindset to gaming in light of HW2's deficiencies.

"Don't like it? Do something and stop whining." is the approach taken.

Nice, thank you guys.

You Need Both