Does realism always = more fun?

Devil_forever

You're only young once, you can be immature f'ever
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
11,849
Location
Head of the naval division of lolibfascon
No this isn't to do with graphics. I've always preferred games like Mario Kart over the Forzas or the GTs of this world. We all know that the latter two have stunning physics and go pretty far into creating a realistic driving experience but you'd never find me sitting down and spending hours playing either, I simply find them dull. Same goes for shooters, I prefer a less "realistic" game like Halo to your typical Tom Clancy. The only real exception to this is when it comes to football games.

My question to you gamers is, does a more realistic experience mean a more fun one to you guys?
 
I don't think that you can seperate the two as easily as you are trying to do. Is Mario Kart on the SNES fun? Hell, yes. Is GT5:P on the PS3 less fun? Hell, no! Both give their own angle on a basic idea of moving an obstacle around a course. Maybe you find one more difficult or less engaging than the other, but then, that depends on what you personally are looking for.
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't think that you can seperate the two as easily as you are trying to do. Is Mario Kart on the SNES fun? Hell, yes. Is GT5:P on the PS3 less fun? Hell, no! Both give their own angle on a basic idea of moving an obstacle around a course. Maybe you find one more difficult or less engaging than the other, but then, that depends on what you personally are looking for.
Click to expand...

More or less this.

I enjoy games like Arma 2 and operation flashpoint for their realistic take on modern warfare, though I have just as much fun blowing shit up with plasma cannons and rocket launchers while springing 200ft in the air in games like Unreal Tournament.

However I do think too much realism will inevitably destroy the fun factor, think games like The Sims where taking a piss and having to sleep makes up a large chunk of the gameplay, whereas the same cannot be said for absurd games with no tingle of realism whatsoever.
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't think that you can seperate the two as easily as you are trying to do. Is Mario Kart on the SNES fun? Hell, yes. Is GT5:P on the PS3 less fun? Hell, no! Both give their own angle on a basic idea of moving an obstacle around a course. Maybe you find one more difficult or less engaging than the other, but then, that depends on what you personally are looking for.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what setting you are in. If you are with friends, Mario Kart is going to be a lot more fun, if you're on your own, sticking Gran Turismo on and cracking open a beer is a great way to relax and have fun.

Turn up the volume, and listen to those cars :drool:
 
And with regards to shooters I'm with Kaos, much prefer realism like Modern Warfare, World at War and the Tom Clancy series as opposed to something like Halo, Killzone, or Gears of War.
 
I predict that at some point this is going to turn into a MGS vs Splinter Cell debate.....actually I'm just deliberately trying to induce the debate.
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't think that you can seperate the two as easily as you are trying to do. Is Mario Kart on the SNES fun? Hell, yes. Is GT5:P on the PS3 less fun? Hell, no! Both give their own angle on a basic idea of moving an obstacle around a course. Maybe you find one more difficult or less engaging than the other, but then, that depends on what you personally are looking for.
Click to expand...

Personally I've always preferred Mario Kart's whacky approach to GT or Forza's "realistic" one. I don't think it's because I find them too difficult either but when discussing games, it seems to always go on to "oh the physics on x is better than on y", I find this baffling as I don't really see games with better physics being more fun and enjoyable than the ones with far worse physics.

I seem to remember an argument on here about people dismissing Halo as overhyped and as "unrealistic". You yourself made a comment about the guns in halo looking like bubble guns. I honestly couldn't care what the design of the gun in a video game looks like and I find it baffling that people dismiss games that are as fun as halo (imho), citing realism as the reason. Put it this way, I'd rather be using an unrealistic weapon on a game like Halo than be holding my breath to take an accurate shot in a game like Ghost recon.

This maybe due to the fact that I'm more of a casual gamer but surely realism or lack there of doesn't take away from the enjoyment of a game.
 
Mario Kart is obviously funnier because the level designs are more entertaining and you can shoot shells and bananas at others. In other racing games you just drive around in a circle or doing loads of laps on a long boring map, which gets tedious after a while.
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
Mario Kart is obviously funnier because the level designs are more entertaining and you can shoot shells and bananas at others. In other racing games you just drive around in a circle or doing loads of laps on a long boring map, which gets tedious after a while.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Some of GT's tracks, in fact most, are excellent.

Trial Mountain man!!!
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
Mario Kart is obviously funnier because the level designs are more entertaining and you can shoot shells and bananas at others. In other racing games you just drive around in a circle or doing loads of laps on a long boring map, which gets tedious after a while.
Click to expand...

Yep pretty much my point, I find it pointless after a few laps. I have a friend who'd pick doing 30 laps on Forza over Mario Kart any day:eek:
 
esmufc09 said:
And with regards to shooters I'm with Kaos, much prefer realism like Modern Warfare, World at War and the Tom Clancy series as opposed to something like Halo, Killzone, or Gears of War.
Click to expand...

Hardly a realistic shooter, if anything its Arcadey with most players running around equipping sub-machine guns and shotguns going on corridor rampages. There's actually very little perception and tactical thinking needed, its mostly spray-and-pray and if not then just spam-throw grenades and that'll guarantee you a kill or five.
 
RedKaos said:
Hardly a realistic shooter, if anything its Arcadey with most players running around equipping sub-machine guns and shotguns going on corridor rampages. There's actually very little perception and tactical thinking needed, its mostly spray-and-pray and if not then just spam-throw grenades and that'll guarantee you a kill or five.
Click to expand...

I was more referring to the weapons, settings etc. Particularly World at War, it was great fighting in Stalingrad, Berlin etc.

Of course multiplayer is a different kettle of fish, because most who play do exactly what you said and ruin the game. That's why I tend now to play Hardcore Search and Destroy, much more fun and less idiots about.

Of course I haven't played in about 2 or 3 months now.
 
esmufc09 said:
I was more referring to the weapons, settings etc. Particularly World at War, it was great fighting in Stalingrad, Berlin etc.

Of course multiplayer is a different kettle of fish, because most who play do exactly what you said and ruin the game. That's why I tend now to play Hardcore Search and Destroy, much more fun and less idiots about.

Of course I haven't played in about 2 or 3 months now.
Click to expand...

:lol:I fit exactly into the category of "idiots" then mate. I'd probably fall asleep playing Hardcore Search and Destroy. It might be due to the fact that I'm not really a dedicated gamer.
 
Devil_forever said:
I fit exactly into the category of "idiots" then mate. I'd probably fall asleep playing Hardcore Search and Destroy. It might be due to the fact that I'm not really a dedicated gamer.
Click to expand...

It just annoys me that when you start a game, as soon as you move you get blown up by a grenade. There's no skill involved, you are just relying on luck.

You get so much more satisfaction on HS&D, try it!!
 
I enjoyed Mario Kart - for me it's probably the most fun I've had playing a racing game. But I also loved Ridge Racer and GT(original). The original Wipeout was fun and all - but I think a lot if it had to do with the music.
 
esmufc09 said:
I was more referring to the weapons, settings etc. Particularly World at War, it was great fighting in Stalingrad, Berlin etc.

Of course multiplayer is a different kettle of fish, because most who play do exactly what you said and ruin the game. That's why I tend now to play Hardcore Search and Destroy, much more fun and less idiots about.

Of course I haven't played in about 2 or 3 months now.
Click to expand...

Yes but even the single-player campaigns lack true realism. The battles and settings may be accurately, historically-scripted but the gameplay itself really doesnt apply itself realistically. You're still running around like a juggernaut able to take several shots to the face and when needed are simply able to rest to conjure your health back. Contrast with Arma/Operation flashpoint where a shot or two will simply kill you, or if you're lucky leave you permanently incapacitated where you'd have to seek medical attention if you were to continue.
 
WeasteDevil said:
No shooter is realistic, because one bullet would normally put you down or kill you. In that regard then yes, it would be no fun, and a game should be forgiving because it's, well, a game.
Click to expand...

There are realistic military simulators out there such as Americas Army (ok yes its a recruiting tool though still recreates a realistic take on warfare), and Arma 2 and OF which I've already mentioned. The Ghost Recon games can also fall into that category minus the whole futurisitc gadget-fest they have going on in the Advanced Warfighter games.
 
esmufc09 said:
It just annoys me that when you start a game, as soon as you move you get blown up by a grenade. There's no skill involved, you are just relying on luck.

You get so much more satisfaction on HS&D, try it!!
Click to expand...

I'm not talking to an extent of getting killed with grenades flying around, that were launched in a "throw and hope" attempt by some idiots. I prefer the balance in a game like Halo whereby you can get into duels easily (and a bit of skill is needed against the better players) and as Weaste pointed out it's forgiving nature allows you to go on killing sprees which you simply couldn't do in the more "realistic" shooters (unless you were pretty darn good). I find this often adds to the fun but leaves more serious gamers such as yourself fuming. I guess I'm a bit like that when it comes to footie games.
 
And Sensi's the best football game I've ever played - certainly the most fun. They weren't exactly cutting edge graphics even at that time.
 
I don't just wear dresses.

amiga1200.jpg
 
I used to have the curler from about 30 yards out into the top corner down pat on Sensible Soccer. Then I bought it on XBL and I am appalling on it.

I'm not a driving games fan, I'm too impatient with the more 'realistic' simulations (i.e. I don't like braking), same with shooters really.

I'd always value fun over realism in virtually all games apart from maybe football games, although they must be enjoyable to play.
 
It really depends on where you draw the line at what counts as "realism". I mean, Oblivion counts as "realistic" in its graphics, environment detail and the way combat works with the physics and all, but obviously couldn't be further from realism when you're a giant cat fighting vampires with a magic sword.

I think in the long run "realism" in the former sense will be a good thing, because it allows you to fully immerse yourself in whatever game you're playing, but realism in the actual sense might be a bit of a downer because you'll end up just doing things that you might do in real life?
 
Count Duckula said:
It really depends on where you draw the line at what counts as "realism". I mean, Oblivion counts as "realistic" in its graphics, environment detail and the way combat works with the physics and all, but obviously couldn't be further from realism when you're a giant cat fighting vampires with a magic sword.

I think in the long run "realism" in the former sense will be a good thing, because it allows you to fully immerse yourself in whatever game you're playing, but realism in the actual sense might be a bit of a downer because you'll end up just doing things that you might do in real life?
Click to expand...

I think Dara O'Brian summer up a lot of my feelings on GTAIV saying about the driving around for 20 mins to get to a mission (not helped with the handling on the cars being fiddly as hell). All the girlfriend/friend stuff was boring as hell also. I gave up on it after about a week of playing as I found it tedious.
 
Well COD 4 is less realistic than COD:WaW, but the general consensus is that COD 4 is better. So im guessing most people aren't overly fussed about realism.
 
esmufc09 said:
I was more referring to the weapons, settings etc. Particularly World at War, it was great fighting in Stalingrad, Berlin etc.

Of course multiplayer is a different kettle of fish, because most who play do exactly what you said and ruin the game. That's why I tend now to play Hardcore Search and Destroy, much more fun and less idiots about.

Of course I haven't played in about 2 or 3 months now.
Click to expand...

Hardcores what all the noobs play. Any hardcore game, you have to spend the first 3 minutes dodging all the noob tubes launched at Spawn. The only reason Hardcore is any good, is that it makes Juggernaut redundant which is such a fecking terrible perk. But, the fact your life is reduced, means people just use spray guns such as the PPSH or the trusty MP40.

I wonder, Devil_Forever, do you play WaW and Modern Warfare? If so, MP40 Jugger on WaW and M16 on MW?
 
1871_Biscuit said:
Hardcores what all the noobs play. Any hardcore game, you have to spend the first 3 minutes dodging all the noob tubes launched at Spawn. The only reason Hardcore is any good, is that it makes Juggernaut redundant which is such a fecking terrible perk. But, the fact your life is reduced, means people just use spray guns such as the PPSH or the trusty MP40.

I wonder, Devil_Forever, do you play WaW and Modern Warfare? If so, MP40 Jugger on WaW and M16 on MW?
Click to expand...

Is this English? :wenger:
 
1871_Biscuit said:
Well COD 4 is less realistic than COD:WaW, but the general consensus is that COD 4 is better. So im guessing most people aren't overly fussed about realism.
Click to expand...

Not a good comparason as people prefer MW because it is just that, modern warfare and not another WW2 shooter not because of the realism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.