Poll: Balance VS. Reason

[Souplex]

In some games they make accommodations for balance like making a sword more damaging then a gun. In others they say up yours to balance under the basis that guns are just more damaging than swords.

Do you prefer developers balance games based upon fairness or based upon the fact that some things just should be more effective than others.

 

[darkless]

I honestly prefer realism in my games.

 

[Aardvark]

Usually it's a story based thing. The idea of a big armoured dude who can run through a cloud of bullets to engage in a sword duel with another big armoured dude appeals to people at some base level.

Realism is all well and good, but sometimes realism must stand aside for Awesomism.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The only problem with realism is that I don't have the full range of sensory perception in a game that such a design would need. I can't smell, I can't hear properly, I can't feel a bullet zinging by my head, my depth perception is going to be wonky, etc.

I opt for balance just because you have to accept the confines of working with a controller and absorbing the game through a TV.

 

[TheBluesader]

In some games they make accommodations for balance like making a sword more damaging then a gun. In others they say up yours to balance under the basis that guns are just more damaging than swords.

Do you prefer developers balance games based upon fairness or based upon the fact that some things just should be more effective than others.

Because I don't care how much work goes into it and just want the sweet, sweet end result, I demand both. Good devs should be able to put everything into a pot and figure out how to balance realism. Both balance and realism will suffer, but both should be end results.

Good examples are the Total War series for PC and Half-Life 2. You felt like you were in utterly believable worlds, yet minus all the opportunities for realistic failure. And if that's not the point of games, then what the crap is?