What point in the "realism to fun" spectrum brings you the most enjoyment...

[ZedClampet]

Are you one of the realism simulator types who wants as much realism as possible, or do you want things gamified as much as possible? Somewhere in the middle? Does it matter what type of game it is? Do real world ethics play a role? In other words, if being more realistic meant worse behavior would you still want more realism?

Two examples

theHunter: Call of the Wild: Many gamers were outraged that when the African map was released you weren't able to hunt rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc. According to the developers, this was for both realism and for ethical concerns. You can't actually hunt those animals legally (realism), and they don't want to do anything that represents poaching (ethical).

Police Simulator: It's been awhile since I checked this game, but there used to be people who were angry that the police (the game is set in a fictional American city) didn't carry guns. The main reason for this, per the developers, is that there are no criminal behaviors in the game that would require you to use force and shooting people who shouldn't be shot would require the game to be able to handle the ramifications of doing that or it would lose a lot of its realism.

Personally, I'm more toward the realism side of the spectrum even though that may mean a little less moment-to-moment fun. I also understand the desire of developers who want to leave distasteful things out of their games. I would love to go elephant hunting in theHunter if they could give a plausible reason for why it's allowed (like wasting disease), but I'm perfectly happy without it, and I would probably enjoy shooting a speeder every now and then (why, I'm not sure) in Police Simulator, but I think that the police being held accountable for their mistakes would make the game more enjoyable for me.

 

[Alm]

I’m more in the gamified end of the spectrum. I do like realism now and again but I like games that are more easily entertaining and games that I can pick up and put down easily. I think I need to increase my attention span again, though I’m not feeling in a huge rush to do that

 

[Colif]

If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game.

I mean, I struggled with The Sims as its whole point is to simulate someones life... I was already doing that... what is the point. If I wanted to do that I would turn game off. Only thing it offered over reality was time cheats.

Games let you do things you cannot do in reality.... so why would I want realism? That just gets in the way of fun.

racing games with realistic car prices are not fun. I don't even want realistic physics if it means you need to buy gear to actually play the games... the cost of entry into some games is too high.

 

[ZedClampet]

I mean, I struggled with The Sims as its whole point is to simulate life... I was already doing that... what is the point.

I tried Inzoi for about an hour. It was painful. I definitely have a realism cut off point. I have a house design/building game (don't recall the name) that is utterly unbearable during the building phase. It's basically every step in actually building a house except without real world conveniences. Need to pour the foundation? Sorry, there's no cement truck. You have to carry buckets of cement back and forth.

 

[Colif]

Sim City 1 was fun, Sim City 4 you needed to be a city designer to understand it fully. Realism can break the fun.

inZOI probably needs more work, especially after watching a video of it and seeing the city scape and his car driving through buildings.

that is what early access should look like. Rough around the edges but mostly functional. Likely to change at any time.

Reality based games like it aren't what I really want to play. I prefer fantasy.

 

[mjs warlord]

I boot up my rig and think Pfffft your a bundle of bits in a box and your not gonna get the better of me today

 

[BeardyHat]

10 years ago, I probably would have said I want realism, but these days, give me something more gamey.

Playing something like Hell Let Loose, as an example, it's very cool, intense, really makes you feel like a WW2 soldier. But in that, death comes quickly and out of nowhere. Often you're sitting, looking for enemies and then maybe you see a flash from the trees and you're dead.

It's neat, but because of how it sides more towards realism, it's a game that takes a lifetime to be competent at. As well, when you have those realistic elements, it all seems that much more incongruous when you run up against those limitations and see the "game" part of things.

I definitely prefer something more abstracted, that focuses more on the fun and the experience, trying to make you feel like you're doing the thing, while not requiring you to be a professional. Think of how we lost all the Arcade Style flight sims to pure Sim games. DCS to Ace Combat. Ace Combat makes me feel like a fighter pilot, DCS makes me feel like I have a job.

 

[Pifanjr]

I don't care much about realism, but in the two examples I do agree with the developers. I care about realism in how it affects the presentation of the game. So for the two examples you gave, adding the features some of their players were asking for would change the kind of experience the developers were aiming for.

A different example of how realism affects the presentation of the game is when you compare Shapez and Factorio. They're very similar games in how you automate the collecting and processing of resources, but I find it much easier to get invested in Factorio because of the added realism.

Realism also helps players intuitively understand more complex games. Something like a survival crafting game for example heavily depends on realistic recipes to make sure the players can figure out and remember how to craft stuff without needing to consult a manual/guide all the time.

 

[ZedClampet]

I don't care much about realism, but in the two examples I do agree with the developers. I care about realism in how it affects the presentation of the game. So for the two examples you gave, adding the features some of their players were asking for would change the kind of experience the developers were aiming for.

A different example of how realism affects the presentation of the game is when you compare Shapez and Factorio. They're very similar games in how you automate the collecting and processing of resources, but I find it much easier to get invested in Factorio because of the added realism.

Realism also helps players intuitively understand more complex games. Something like a survival crafting game for example heavily depends on realistic recipes to make sure the players can figure out and remember how to craft stuff without needing to consult a manual/guide all the time.

ShapeZ is probably the ultimate gamification of a factory game. It's an okay game, but it feels ultimately hollow to me. I just naturally care less if I'm making semi-circles instead of batteries.

I definitely prefer something more abstracted, that focuses more on the fun and the experience, trying to make you feel like you're doing the thing, while not requiring you to be a professional. Think of how we lost all the Arcade Style flight sims to pure Sim games. DCS to Ace Combat. Ace Combat makes me feel like a fighter pilot, DCS makes me feel like I have a job.

DCS is one of those games where the realism is so extreme and the subject so complex and hard to master that I would love to try to get into it. Unfortunately, I also don't believe that I would put sufficient time into learning to fly a 1 to 1 recreation of an F22 and ultimately would enjoy Ace Combat more.

 

[Colif]

Games like the below wouldn't be much fun if they were realistic

As the soil here is really bad and there is no way you could grow the crops like he did.
And there is no way Fairy Bread is the highest selling item here compared to Gemstones

But apart from that, its a fairly accurate depiction of my Country.