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

[Zed Clampet]

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.

 

[Zed Clampet]

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.

 

[Zed Clampet]

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.

 

[Zed Clampet]

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.

I've played Dinkum. Pretty decent. Takes place on a deserted island that very loosely resembles Australia. Lots of running away from things in the beginning. The game is rather confusing, though. Not a lot of direction given, but maybe that was because it was in very early access when I played it.

*****

Schedule I is an example of how realism can enhance a game for me. This won't sound fun, but it really adds to the immersion. So I was growing weed in my motel room, and every package or tube or jug that I opened and used left me with trash (the packaging) that I had to put in the garbage can. The garbage can became full, and I had trash in the floor. I decided to go to the hardware store to buy some more garbage bags, but when I got there they were closed for the night.

And whenever you, for instance, plant some weed. You open (by swiping across the top) a bag of soil and hold it over the pot. Then you click/hold on the bag and press A or D to tilt the bag so that the soil spills out into the pot. Then you open a little vial by clicking on the lid and then tilt it like you did the soil until the seed falls out into the pot. You then click the dirt around the seed to cover it. Finally, you get a watering can, stick it in the sink. Turn the sink on and fill the watering can. Then you go back to the pot, tilt the watering can and water your plant.

All of this just makes it feel more real and helps you to become invested in the world. And it is fun, too.

 

[Frindis]

Somwhere in the middle. I enjoy games like Metro Exodus, Dayz Standalone and Arma 3, but I don't like when it becomes to strict. Example of this is when I tried Ready or Not on Steam. A somewhat janky super serious 1st person tactical shooter that just slapped my hand whenever I tried to be tactical. I ended up shooting all the civilians out of boredom, enjoying the blood spatter mechanics in the game, turning it into a Postal game instead.

 

[GSarge]

The one "Realism" game that I really had most fun with is "Ready or Not"

It has straight forward objectives like: Get in, Secure Evidence, Rescue Civilians and Capture or Incapacitate or Kill Hostiles

You can take a peek under doors before tossing a flashbang, split your team in two and order each side to break into some room at the same time from different sides of the room, yell at hostiles for compliance, missions also change things up by adding environmental hazards like traps and bombs, all of these are done to prevent you from just rushing through missions or sending yourself and your squad to your immediate deaths

You can manage and form your team before you start missions, selecting the right operators with the right speciality and perks and loadouts to make missions go smoother

You are rewarded with more perks, operator slots (but can only take up to 4 with you to missions) operator customizations based on how well you complete mission, if you fail, damage or kill operators, civilians or yourself you could risk "weakening" your team and decreasing their morale/effectiveness or even straight up killing them, in which case you lose them and their perks and will have to replace them with new operators with another random specialty who haven't unlocked their perks yet

The game encourages you to use the right operators and the right tools and tactics for the right jobs to make missions go as smooth as possible, you can take a few hits before dying but if you're not careful enough you might end up getting killed before you know it

Honestly in cases like this Realistic games are fine and really benefit from being realistic as long as they stick to their vision and don't try to overcomplicate things and overwhelm you with useless or pointless details

 

[Zed Clampet]

The one "Realism" game that I really had most fun with is "Ready or Not"

It has straight forward objectives like: Get in, Secure Evidence, Rescue Civilians and Capture or Incapacitate or Kill Hostiles

You can take a peek under doors before tossing a flashbang, split your team in two and order each side to break into some room at the same time from different sides of the room, yell at hostiles for compliance, missions also change things up by adding environmental hazards like traps and bombs, all of these are done to prevent you from just rushing through missions or sending yourself and your squad to your immediate deaths

You can manage and form your team before you start missions, selecting the right operators with the right speciality and perks and loadouts to make missions go smoother

You are rewarded with more perks, operator slots (but can only take up to 4 with you to missions) operator customizations based on how well you complete mission, if you fail, damage or kill operators, civilians or yourself you could risk "weakening" your team and decreasing their morale/effectiveness or even straight up killing them, in which case you lose them and their perks and will have to replace them with new operators with another random specialty who haven't unlocked their perks yet

The game encourages you to use the right operators and the right tools and tactics for the right jobs to make missions go as smooth as possible, you can take a few hits before dying but if you're not careful enough you might end up getting killed before you know it

Honestly in cases like this Realistic games are fine and really benefit from being realistic as long as they stick to their vision and don't try to overcomplicate things and overwhelm you with useless or pointless details

If I were good at shooters, I'd be all over that game. It looks fantastic.

 

[McStabStab]

I think we've all played games on both sides of this continuum. The games that come to mind for hyper-realism are Tarkov (gunsmithing, bullet physics, status effects) and SCUM (health monitoring, status effects). I've attached a screenshot of SCUMs UI for metabolism status. Honestly most of it I didn't care much for and I'd have my character chug a bottle of vegetable oil just to see what it did.

As @Colif said too much realism can make things unfun. Cities: Skylines 1 was great because it toed that line perfectly, but Cities: Skylines 2 they went so hard into the systems that they got in over their heads. There's way more realism than the first, but all those realistic systems need to work perfectly to maintain the simulation... and they don't.

 

[Pifanjr]

The one "Realism" game that I really had most fun with is "Ready or Not"

It has straight forward objectives like: Get in, Secure Evidence, Rescue Civilians and Capture or Incapacitate or Kill Hostiles

You can take a peek under doors before tossing a flashbang, split your team in two and order each side to break into some room at the same time from different sides of the room, yell at hostiles for compliance, missions also change things up by adding environmental hazards like traps and bombs, all of these are done to prevent you from just rushing through missions or sending yourself and your squad to your immediate deaths

You can manage and form your team before you start missions, selecting the right operators with the right speciality and perks and loadouts to make missions go smoother

You are rewarded with more perks, operator slots (but can only take up to 4 with you to missions) operator customizations based on how well you complete mission, if you fail, damage or kill operators, civilians or yourself you could risk "weakening" your team and decreasing their morale/effectiveness or even straight up killing them, in which case you lose them and their perks and will have to replace them with new operators with another random specialty who haven't unlocked their perks yet

The game encourages you to use the right operators and the right tools and tactics for the right jobs to make missions go as smooth as possible, you can take a few hits before dying but if you're not careful enough you might end up getting killed before you know it

Honestly in cases like this Realistic games are fine and really benefit from being realistic as long as they stick to their vision and don't try to overcomplicate things and overwhelm you with useless or pointless details

That description reminds me of S.W.A.T., which was a bit too realistic for my tastes but still an interesting experience.

 

[Colif]

Golf was ruined by realism. The way you had to actually hit the ball became overly complicated. It was way easier in link 386, it started to become more realistic and less easy...

Now I have no idea how it works

Oh, it seems people use controllers now... So I guess you use joystick to aim/power shots?

 

[Zloth]

I like more realism. Well, more realism for a video game - which isn't very realistic at all. It's a bit like saying I enjoy the healthier candy bars. Still, I like it when the magic systems make some sort of sense. If your fireballs have different colors as the power goes up, don't just do a random color order, stick to the spectrum. If it's science fiction, hard SF beats soft SF.

 

[Colif]

So, a realistic Magic system... I see.

Shame you can't get a large number of people to agree on where the line is between acceptable realism and too much. I assume Flight Simulator lets you set your level of realism on a player by player basis. Same with racing games and how realistic the driving model is. So options to tone down the realism or scale it up can make everyone happy. Provided they can choose on an individual level.

 

[Pifanjr]

I like more realism. Well, more realism for a video game - which isn't very realistic at all. It's a bit like saying I enjoy the healthier candy bars. Still, I like it when the magic systems make some sort of sense. If your fireballs have different colors as the power goes up, don't just do a random color order, stick to the spectrum. If it's science fiction, hard SF beats soft SF.

That's more about having internal consistency than realism.

 

[Zloth]

So, a realistic Magic system... I see.

It's not magic, it's.... alternative physics. Yeah!

That's more about having internal consistency than realism.

Well, sorta. Realism is self-consistent, after all. But I'm thinking more along the lines of "soft magic" vs. "hard magic" (which is a reflection of Science Fiction's soft vs. hard). A magic system like in Lord of the Rings is soft. Gandalf can just do magic of some kinds. We're not even given the names of spells, never mind an inkling of how they work. The magic system in Wheel of Time is somewhere between the two poles: we're told about the types of weaves and how men channel vs. women vs. evil folks, and how some simple stuff works (weaves of fire to make things burn), but not how more complex things work (like healing). Sanderson's Mistborn books get into a lot more detail about that sort of thing, and Dungeons & Dragons flat out gives you statistics on exactly what every spell will do.

The hard magic (and hard science fiction) give more of a sense of realism. They aren't truly real (unless the SF author gets lucky), but they feel more real, at least to me.

The soft magic/SF can be self-consistent still, at least as near we can tell.

 

[Colif]

Speaking of magical colours

A colour you can't see with naked eye... hmm, next they will find Octarine

Seeing 'olo': Scientists say they discovered a new color not seen with the naked eye

A team of scientists in California say they have discovered a new color they named olo, but you can't see the \

www.usatoday.com

 

[Pifanjr]

Well, sorta. Realism is self-consistent, after all.

The real world is consistent, but that doesn't make anything that is consistent realistic, was my point.

But I'm thinking more along the lines of "soft magic" vs. "hard magic" (which is a reflection of Science Fiction's soft vs. hard). A magic system like in Lord of the Rings is soft. Gandalf can just do magic of some kinds. We're not even given the names of spells, never mind an inkling of how they work. The magic system in Wheel of Time is somewhere between the two poles: we're told about the types of weaves and how men channel vs. women vs. evil folks, and how some simple stuff works (weaves of fire to make things burn), but not how more complex things work (like healing). Sanderson's Mistborn books get into a lot more detail about that sort of thing, and Dungeons & Dragons flat out gives you statistics on exactly what every spell will do.

The hard magic (and hard science fiction) give more of a sense of realism. They aren't truly real (unless the SF author gets lucky), but they feel more real, at least to me.

The soft magic/SF can be self-consistent still, at least as near we can tell.

I think hard fantasy/science fiction feels more consistent because it is more consistent. You need rules for consistency and hard fantasy/science fiction shares those rules with the consumer. There isn't that much soft fantasy/science fiction that adheres to strict, consistent rules but doesn't explain those rules.

 

[Colif]

So you want something like what has become standard in equipment colours:
White>Green>Blue>Purple>Orange
though its really only the 1st 3 that are set in stone, the last few quality levels seem to vary.

The unwritten rules of spell/gear colours that are almost as written in stone as the command schemes most games seem to use now. It only seems to be ARPG where every game does the controls differently. I wish they would agree, make it easier to learn them.

 

[Colif]

Speaking of magical colours

A colour you can't see with naked eye... hmm, next they will find Octarine

Seeing 'olo': Scientists say they discovered a new color not seen with the naked eye

A team of scientists in California say they have discovered a new color they named olo, but you can't see the \

www.usatoday.com

Actually, in theory, you could see this colour but your ability to see any other colour is greatly reduced. Essentially, you can only see this if your eyes were missing two of the three light receptors meaning you probably only see o1o

there are three impossible colours. All only use one of the three receptors and all would be a very bad form of colour blindness. You throw away all the other colours to see it. Its essentially blindness.