Poll: Realism vs player's convenience.

[Gray-Philosophy]

I picked realism, but I'm honestly a bit fuzzy on the subject because it depends on context. Ideally I'd like to see a balance of realism made convenient, if possible.


I love some well-simulated realism, but not to the point that it makes a game mechanic tedious without further purpose. More often than not though, I'm more concerned with realistic consistency and logic rather than "realism" on it's own.
A typical fantasy universe has sorcery and dragons, two things completely unrealistic. But if the arcane powers and monsters have their own established "rules" on how they work, and it makes sense within the context of the game universe, then it's all good.
Things like laws of physics within the game world (gravity'n sh*t) versus weapon size and weight. As well as whether or not anything unexplainable can be written off with "magic did it", or if magic actually has some kind of recognizable consistency in it's own functionality. Stuff like that, if that makes sense.


At the same time, convinent mechanics and controls are undeniably important. But things can also get too convenient, worst case scenario, limiting player interaction. I think if you can make a meaningful mechanic out of simulating realism, it should be done. Again though, this really depends on context, what kind of game it is and what the objective of it is etc.

A fast-paced arena shooter wouldn't benefit from having realistic hunger/food conditions, like a puzzle game wouldn't benefit from realistic "skill"/physics based picking up, turning and placing of the pieces. It would only add redundancy with no real gains from good mastery of the controls.

 

[Dalisclock]

As others have said, Context matters. While realism is important, it shouldn't overwhelm enjoyability. Very few people want to play an FPS where getting shot once(maybe twice) drops you to the ground and if you don't die within a few seconds, you go to the hospital and then spend months in recovery, possibly losing a limb or suffering debilitating injury for the rest of your life, once you've been medically discharged from the military. These things are realistic but nobody but the most die hard are interested in simulating this.

One game that I will (once again) use is Kerbal Space Program. In some ways, it's very realistic. Physics are Newtonian(with the exception of Lagrange points, which can't be implemented using the game engine), fuel is a major limiting factor(If you want to refuel something in orbit, you need to get a tanker up there, rondevous and dock first. Also you need to design a tanker), you have to learn how to fly properly to do much of anything(especially since the stock game doesn't have an autopilot function) and building something unbalanced will cause your ship to be uncontrollable even if it can reach orbit.

However, quite a few compromises were made for the sake of being enjoyable, such as life support not being a factor(unless you mod the game to make it harder), build times for spacecraft are effectively zero(you can build and launch anything in a matter of minutes), a lot of building is simplified from real life and a major disaster doesn't have much in the way of repercussions for your space program. Not to mention there's a "rewind to launch" button and a time accelerator function(because otherwise a trip to the Mars expy would take a year of real time with the game running nonstop).

It hits a nice middle ground between Realism and Playability, and naturally, you can tweak the game with mods if you feel it needs more realism(life support, ship build times, physics,instrumentation).

This is in comparison to a Shuttle Simulator game from the 1990's which was so realistic that, in order to do anything, you actually had to find the switch on the shuttles control panel and operate it the same way you would in real life. The launch sequence literally took hours without time acceleration and a lot of the pre-flight checks and operations. Very realistic, but not particular fun. And god help you if you don't know where a particular switch is.

 

[someguy1231]

Player convenience, without hesitation.

As far as I'm concerned, "realism" is just an unnecessary restriction on how creative developers can be and how fun a game can be.

 

[FalloutJack]

There is no one rule to govern all games on this, nor should you simply choose between one or the other. Moderation and finding a perfect medium is key.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Depends entirely on the mechanic in question. Realistic permanent death = pass; I'll take the convenience of re-loading, thanks - in games with a "main" character, not strategy games or the like, that can work for the experience rather than against it. Realistic travel (as in no "fast travel") = maybe, depending on how huge they made the map (read: if it takes 45 minutes to walk from point A to point B - most people are not blessed with so much disposable time). More minor things like a stamina bar for hang-time while climbing and such would be on a case by case - if I'm spending much of the game climbing then that's going to get frustrating and hamper my enjoyment of the game beyond its value of enhancing immersion by being realistic after a certain point - if on the other hand it comes into play infrequently it could enhance without crossing that threshold.

If you are perhaps suggesting we get realistic about how much a person can carry while doing ridiculous heroics and not jangling like a set of janitor's keys trying to sneak with a half dozen glass bottled potions in their pack that they can chug at a second's notice mid swing in the heat of battle... well I don't think that's going to work. There are some aspects of reality one must do away with when one steps into the game world.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I say: A good balance.

If i play simulators i want as much realism as possible - but obviously the limitations are there: It's still a game and we still have a certain tech-level.
I mean it's in the word, these games try to simulate something as best they can do.

Outside of that, idc. As a huge boardgame enthusiast i'm happy, when/if the designer can get his messages across with his mechanics within his game - that's what's important. Use as much or as little realism as necessary for that.
It's a tool, not a goal, imo.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I'd say realistic mechanics over player convenience. For me to become immersed in a game I must feel like my character is part of a living, breathing world rather than feeling like the entire world exists only to pander to my power-fantasy.

Morrowind was a game that was very good at immersion, because it wasn't afraid to let the player make mistakes or to hold the player back at certain points. Every NPC was killable, even quest specific ones, which could lead to situations where the PC had eliminated their chances of progressing down certain questlines if they had slain the wrong NPC. Inconvenient, certainly, but realistic. It was entirely possible to drop, sell or otherwise lose quest items (I remember once being sent to recover a holy artifact from the body of an Ordinator only to (re)discover that I had encountered him before when questing at a much lower level and had stripped him of all his gear to sell for drakes for training). Again, inconvenient, but by making the PC fallible the game impresses upon the player that their every action, even seemingly meaningless ones at the time, have repercussions. Advancement in the various Guilds, Houses and other organisations of Vvardenfel required actual skill in the requisite abilities and spheres of knowledge, meaning that if a character wanted to become head of the Fighters Guild then that character had to demonstrate that their abilities actually counted them amongst the best warriors in the land (requiring a combat skill to be in the 90s before they became eligible for promotion).

Compare the above with Oblivion, which was not very good at immersion because it refused to let the player make any mistakes. Any hint that the player was about to do something wrong would cause the game mechanics to come clunking down around the character, removing all immersion by forcibly reminding the player that they are, in fact, playing a game. Every NPC involved in a quest at any point in the game was unkillable from the off, resulting in the rather odd situation of making it seem like Cyrodiil was inhabited by a race of immortals. Great for not letting the PC put a foot wrong, but hugely immersion-breaking. Characters would end up lugging a backpack full of seemingly random items around with them, with no idea what they were doing with such a strange collection of gee-gaws, only knowing that if they tried to unload their inventory they would be told by some mystical being that "Quest items cannot be removed from your inventory!". Again, great for keeping the training wheels on the PC so that they can't f*ck up, but completely removing all sense of consequence from the game. And players were effectively power-ramped through the factions, as the NPCs immediately recognized that the PC was somehow deserving of special treatment and that their personal abilities should in no way impede their meteoric rise through the ranks. This would lead to very odd situations, such as a warrior being crowned Arena Champion despite only having joined up earlier on in the week. Very awkward when conversing with the other trainees who regale you with stories of how it's taken them ten years to attain the rank of gladiator. Again, perfect for PC power-fantasy fulfillment, but piss-poor at actual character arc development and a sense of achievement.

TL;DR: At least for me, more realistic mechanics result in a deeper and more rewarding experience.