Fun and realism are not inversely related, depending on how far you model reality.

I think evolution of games will point to finding ways to model reality that are still enjoyable. I think that we as designers are getting way too caught up in the semantics of words, and as a result are polarizing many issues.

For example look at the following words and see how you define on your own terms:

Game
Simulation
Fun
Entertainment
Freedom
Realism
Linear
Storytelling

All of the above are subjective terms and each of them has a different connotation to different people. I think the question we should be asking ourselves as designers is why are we imposing our ideas of "fun" and "reality" on the gaming populace? If designers never pioneered and explored new territory then many new styles of gameplay would never have come about. Take a look at tactical shooters or space sims. With tactical shooters, many in this forum would have argued that they ventured too much in the "realistic" arena and would not be "fun". However, sales of tactical shooters prompted clone after clone. As for Space Sims, the more hard core flight simulator folks normally would have balked at the "fantastical" aspect of non-realistic craft. But they became a very popular sub-genre amongst a crowd that are notorius for wanting realism in their games.

I think that anyone that tries to define fun is placing their own subjective ideas through a personal filter. What is fun to you may not be fun to me. Getting back to the evolution of games, I think we will see designers trying to model situations that are realistic yet entertaining at the same time.

When some people on this board see the world "realistic", they think the designers is trying to model reality to the smallest detail....making FPS shooter heroes have to go to the bathroom after 3 hours of continuous play for the sake of reality. Realism is not about recreating reality per se (unless you are designing a true Sim) but finding which aspects of reality can introduce a more indepth gameplay or more interesting game play.

For me personally, game evolution is about getting the player to experience real emotions or thought. I think that a certain level of immersion and care is required to do that. When a game can move a player like a good book or movie, then I think games will have progressed to a higher level of entertainment.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
I think that we as designers are getting way too caught up in the semantics of words, and as a result are polarizing many issues.

All of the above are subjective terms and each of them has a different connotation to different people.

But that''s a large part of the problem... if we can''t agree on what a term means, how can we discuss the concepts we''re talking about? And if we can''t discuss the concepts, how can we further our *art/science? (*Delete as applicable.)

quote: When some people on this board see the world "realistic", they think the designers is trying to model reality to the smallest detail...

Which is why I avoid the word ''realism'' in most contexts. I prefer "immersive", "believable", and "internally consistent" in various contexts as they are less subjective. It is also hard to see how any of those terms could make a game less ''fun'', no matter what your idea of fun is

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

Wow, I never seen it recognized anywhere else that semanatics leads to polarization. I can see that it does.

A semantic point of my own.

quote: Original post by Kylotan
Which is why I avoid the word ''realism'' in most contexts. I prefer "immersive", "believable", and "internally consistent" in various contexts as they are less subjective. It is also hard to see how any of those terms could make a game less ''fun'', no matter what your idea of fun is

I think that ''engrossing'' might be a good word to use instead of immersive/ in certain contexts. Why? Because I find that the word ''immersive'' tends to be used in discussions of first person perspective games.

IE. It is immersive, = it feels as though you are there. Puts you in the world.

Whereas I think that ''engrossing'', is a more general term which applies to games which are interesting (ie. like a good book), but doesn''t have the same connotations. Ie. Doesn''t imply (as immersive does, at least to me) that it is first person, so maybe it is a third person game. And also that instead of going for a seamless "you are there" experience, it may be more of a "good fiction" experience.

JUST some more semantics..