I''m not asking this question to mock or belittle, but I''m honestly curious how many people that specifically come to this forum do any sort of programming or are at least in the process of learning. Why do I ask? I want to see if there is a correlation between the people who tip the scales in favor of playability in the realism vs. "fun" balance. How do I think this will correlate? I have a feeling that people that program are doing something that is complex and diffucult, and yet is "fun" in its own way. I personally tend to like games that are very challenging, have high learning curves, and are generally more realistic. I''m not a programmer, but I''m learning. I can do some very basic programming, but when I look at source code for games, I''m still bewildered though I can eventually piece it together one line at a time with my C++ books handy for me. I have a hunch that people who feel that reality precludes fun are people that don''t program. How do I make an assumption like that? Because programming in and of itself is a very tedious task. It often takes a long time to see the rewards, and can be very frustrating when you don''t know why things don''t work the way they do. And yet it is still fun in its own way. I think you can make a case in point for some kinds of games. Maybe they are realistic, tedious, slow and sometimes frustrating....but that can be a part of what actually makes it fun. I think the world is an instant gratication world...we want out fun and we want it now. But there are other ways to make things fun that I think some game designers here forget. Realism and simulators does not have to equate to dry and boring. I think the majority of people want instant gratification, but hopefully with a little imagination designers can come up with games that are both complex, intriguing, realistic....and entertaining. I''m all for the occasional fluff now and again, but am I the only person that feels that simple fun games leave you with a certain hollow feeling? What makes things fun for me is a sense of accomplishment, like I did something worthwhile and challenging. At the risk of sounding morally righteous and pedagogic, most simplistic "fun" games are like the junk food of the gaming world: they taste great, and you crave more....but they lack any nutrition and sustenance. You don''t have to "cook" junk food either, you buy it prepackaged and ready to eat, no preparation time required. My point of the poll is basically just to find out why people fun over realism and complexity, or feel that realism is mutually exclusive of being entertaining.

I program for a living, and also in my (very small amount of) spare time.

I don't care whether a game is realistic or not, provided that by adhering to realism, the game does not lose its gameplay .

An example might be a shuttle simulator where you had to sit through seven hours of preflight checks before you could even take off. Realistic? Yes. Fun? Not unless you are a major space shuttle nerd, and an incredibly bored one at that.


[edited by - Sandman on May 27, 2002 2:00:30 PM]

I''ve been programming for 17 years, do it (some) for a living. I personally find it extermely rewarding (though I don''t think I could live my life as a full-time programmer -- my current job allows me to do a lot of different things, but I get bored pretty quick, so doing "just" programming all the time would wear me out).

Anyway, I look for realism where realism is needed, but it really depends on how it''s executed. Take the original Jurassic Park PC game. They touted realism based on their physics model, but the game was a horrible mess. Boxes that fall realistically at that point don''t matter worth a hill of beans, since the gameplay sucked. I personally play games to escape into a fantasy world, so realism isn''t all that important to me as long as the game is fun.

Mind you, in certain games, realism IS important -- driving games and flying games being the most obvious -- but if realism being there only detracts from the gameplay, then I would much rather have unrealistic fun.

-Chris

I don''t program for a living, but I have programmed for mysself for close to twenty years.

I have a major problem with the "realism vs. fun gameplay" argument in the first place. It''s analogous to a "realsim vs. enjoyable movie" argument. One does not preclude the other.

A beterr argument might be "long stretches of boring tedium vs. fun gameplay". I could make a long stretch of boring tedium whether I chose to adhere to realism or not. Likewise, I could remove a long stretch of boring tedium whether I chose to adhere to realism or not as well.

The real world does provide rich detail and a great deal of gameplay options to draw from. And it does increase the believablity factor.

I''m too young to have a job programming, but I do it on my spare time a lot (of course, all time is my spare time, don''t you just hate me? =).
I think you''ve got to look at the basics of gaming Dauntless. Games are junk food. They are sweet, give you a little rush, and leave you wanting more. The reason games are appealing is the same as junk food, it''s one time you can get the "instant gratification".
Why do people eat junk food? Because they are always eating "good and healthy" food. If every meal we ate junk food, then we''d be eating healthy food as a treat.
Similarily, we spend our lives doing boring, tedious things. We never get instant gratification, we''re always working, working, working towards things. Games give us a chance to have fun, right away for once.

This isn''t a matter or realism, it''s a matter of what we, as humans, look for in games. Fast fun. That''s why they were created, that''s why they are popular, that''s why we play them.

------------
http://aud.vze.com <-- Newbie alert, look at your own risk. Can induce severe laughing fits and other variations of hysterical outburst.

*sigh*

LockePick, you just used an analogy to blow smoke over the whole realism vs. gameplay argument.

Realism does not mean tedium. Tedium means tedium. They are too different things.

Simulating tedium found in real life for a game would be boring. But so would simulating tedium not found in real life.

Most movies are based on very real things. But they are not tedious to watch. This is because the movie focuses on the elements which are interesting and makes effectively make transitions between those things which are tedious. The same goes for books.

Please, understand that realism and tedium are not the same.

I have been programming for 7 years, and I''m still to young to do anything good with it. I recently started learning C++ and i now understand about as much as you do. The truth behind this arguement i think, (and behind everything else in the world really) is balance. You cant have one thing without the other. Cant have pleasure without pain, boredom without excitement, energy without ever feeling tired. So, in games, you balance it. When someone runs an area of a game for 3 hours, get to the boss, they have the same cardiovascular workout as a football player. The kill the boss after 20 mins of hit and run, the loot the awesome eq. They feel good. The 3 hours of boredom came to 30 mins of excitement, and that 30 mins was well worth it. So now that my explanation on balance is finished, it also relates to reality vs gameplay. Make gameplay based loosely on reality. A great example is eating. Some games throw this in as a bonus, or a rare thing you have to do. Games like Krondor required you to eat like 20 times an hour while playing. Geezus, its the first game ive ever had a character die simply from food related incidences. Moral to my long and badly written story is that you have to balance it out, fantasy and reality should entwine to create a world that allows our imagination to soar, but that we can relate to as well.

lockepick-
looking at America, I''m not so sure that people are always eating healthy THat''s kind of my point, I think people are so used to the junk food style of games that, like a child being told to eat broccoli because it''s good for them, people don''t want realistic games either. (has a feeling his analogy took a weird turn into the twilight zone...)

But what I''m trying to get at is that realism and fun are not diametrically opposed, or at least don''t have to be. What I think scares people off is a lack of understanding of what realities will be modeled, and perhaps more importantly, the learning curve required.

How many people here have been put off by Tactical Shooters like Ghost Recon because they have to relearn that they can''t storm into a room with guns blazing away? How many people here won''t touch a flight sim because of the hours they will have to spend just to learn how to get the plane to handle the way you want it to? I think the learning curve is the largest barrier to creating more realistic and complex gaming worlds. Take a look at the sniper post in the forum where the originator wanted to create a more realistic sniping experience but people don''t want to take into account things like ballistics.

The thing that amazes me is that improving a skill can be fun...it just takes some getting used to. I think that''s what scares people used to "junk food" gaming. And I think the analogy is a really good one....junk food doesn''t really do anything for you, it''s immediate gratification. But with more skill based games you are training yourself on many levels, not just to be better at the game, but things like discipline, attention to detail, and a deeper level of thinking.

Realism also can be modeled in different ways, from the painstaking to behind the scenes. THe trick in modeling reality is extracting its essence not necessarily capturing it verbatim. The level of abstraction is important of course, because if it is abstracted too much the "flavor" is lost. For example, I think that in strategy games the resourcing model prevalent in RTS is really an abstracted modeling of logistics and supply. I think it was simplified too much. I think there is a better way to model supply, manufacturing and logistics. But I don''t think you have to go as far as having an economic council, quartermasters that ask the player to fill out forms to requisition equipment, or have gas stations to fill up your supply trucks. So depending on what and how you model behaviors and states, you can make a game more realistic without bogging it down in minutiae.

I program, but I don''t think it has any correlation with your original idea. I like all sorts of games, from the simplest to the most complex.

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

quote: LockePick, you just used an analogy to blow smoke over the whole realism vs. gameplay argument.

Unintentional, but good nonetheless. Nothing in life is ever clear =)
And I don''t see exactly what you mean, I said it wasn''t a matter of realism. See here:

quote: This isn''t a matter or realism, it''s a matter of what we, as humans, look for in games. Fast fun. That''s why they were created, that''s why they are popular, that''s why we play them.

I''m agreeing with you, or at least, trying to? XD

quote: looking at America, I''m not so sure that people are always eating healthy THat''s kind of my point, I think people are so used to the junk food style of games that, like a child being told to eat broccoli because it''s good for them, people don''t want realistic games either. (has a feeling his analogy took a weird turn into the twilight zone...)

I would agree about entering the twilight zone. IMO discussions like this belong waaaaay past video games. Now we enter matters of our upbringing, education, and culture. Yes honing a skill can be fun, but when I look around I see the world deteriorating out of that mindset at an extremely rapid pace. Matters like these should be dealt with by a society , and game developers should be free to continue with the quick entertainment. Junk food is fine when it''s just a treat. Modern western society seems to be built upon it now though, scary thought...

------------
http://aud.vze.com <-- Newbie alert, look at your own risk. Can induce severe laughing fits and other variations of hysterical outburst.