TacticalRealism.com

Fun vs. Realism

March 30th, 2006 by D6Veteran

The line between realism and fun is not an objective one, but rather a line that each player draws, and redraws as their experience dictates. The arguments that crop up in gaming forums around the net pitting realism against fun are nothing new, but they seem to be growing as does the popularity of all flavors of realism gaming. Some of the posts and blogs I have read even give me the impression that realism is the new cool - you can easily find younger players wearing realism as if it were identification of being ‘alternative’ in the gaming world.

Iron Sites

People like Red Storm’s Christian Allen, Lead Multiplayer Designer for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360, recognizes that players are gravitating towards more authentic experiences on the consoles even. Still, I would argue that fans of realism are a niche community when compared to the hordes of players enjoying the arcade experiences that most FPS games deliver. Realism mods are still largely viewed as a freakish aberration of the FPS gaming community - and this only reinforces the alternative identity that some realism fans associate with the genre.

For the most part realism features are perceived as a threat to fun. I found one gamer poking fun at realism by commenting that pretty soon we’ll see realism mods where you need to click ‘b’ repeatedly to keep your character breathing. Another conversation I read involved a gamer trying to explain a new type of gaming he was getting into called “tactical realism”, and the reply back was, “sounds like a lot of camping”, followed by several “lol” replies. I admit, I laughed too, but for a different reason. I should also point out the guy claiming that Red Orchestra’s exciting gameplay owes no credit to its realism features.

Realism

On the forums dedicated to realism mods you can even find realism fans giving passionate arguments against the implementation of further realism oriented features. Their point almost always boils down to fun vs. realism. Again, a difference in where that line is drawn.

What I found interesting was trying to determine where I would draw my own line between fun and realism in an FPS. Ignoring absurd features like pressing ‘b’ to stay alive, I could not find the line for me. I think realism features; properly implemented with a goal to immerse the players in an authentic experience, mean fun to me. And I think as the genre matures it realism will equate to fun for more and more FPS players.

8 Responses to “Fun vs. Realism” »»

  1. Comment by NightStalker | 03/30/06 at 4:49 pm |

    Totally agree, Infact all you have to do is look at the amount of traffic some of the communities CoD 2 servers are attracting to see that Realism indeed is the new “IN” thing. As more people find their way into the community, the line between fun and realism will disapate until there is no line. We are indeed a niche community but its and ever growing one. If more games begin to implement realism and authenticity, it wont be long before Niche turns to Mainstream.

  2. Comment by ghost | 03/30/06 at 5:20 pm |

    WW2 FPS has been done over and over again. How do you continue to make it fun in and of itself? You create changes in the playability. Arcade-action has been done to death… the next step is total immersion into the game itself. No, not all with find it ‘fun’, but not all games are fun to all people. It’s fun, is a pointless argument and always will always be up to the individual.

  3. Comment by zappa | 03/30/06 at 6:36 pm |

    Realism requires a better computer. When one doesnt have the highend computer, I have noticed that people become critical of the game. Example Red Orhestra. With the grahics on high, it looks as good as COD 2.

  4. Comment by Kenkel | 03/30/06 at 7:38 pm |

    The above comment makes no sense. People are critical of Red Orchestra when coming from COD2 soley because it doesn’t have the eye candy COD2 has. If you’re looking for eyecandy as the top selling point, realism never was for you. You’re buying into marketing and hype, where a game could be absolute crap but look incredible on your monitor at home. Doom 3 seems to come to mind.

    Call of Duty 2 has eye candy, sure. …it…wait. That’s all it has.

    America’s Army is a prime example of “realism” going mainstream. More developers are recognizing that while there is a large amount of people playing a game for enjoyment, the majority of gamers are above the age of 21. I’d go out on a limb and say the older the player, the more mature they’d like their gaming enviornment. Realism seems to breathe mature, you’d have to think and respond to other’s movements, something an anxious 10 year old on CS is not willing to do.

  5. Comment by NightStalker | 04/01/06 at 2:12 pm |

    Zappa, Id also have to disagree, Tactical Realism has nothing to do with computer specs, for example my Captain in 1stSF/SS is currently stuck playing CoD 2 with a 64 MB Geforce 4 video card, that doesnt stop him from being a top player or from playing the game altogether. As said in a few articles back, Tactical Realism is a gamestyle, it does not rely on computer specs. Technically speaking, any FPS game can have Tactical Realism rules applied to it, and mods made to it to better the experience.

    If you are referring to game developers causing the need for high spec computers, then I would agree with you on that. Most games due out for PC have Next Gen Eye Candy attached, Ghost Recon 3 is a good example of this, it should be a good game for realism but it will also require a good computer to run it.

  6. Comment by (3FJ) Steger | 04/07/06 at 11:26 am |

    “Tactical” and “Realism” go together very well to form a type of game play that many people viewing this site, including myself and my clan, have come to enjoy. However they are in fact two separate things and one can and does exist without the other in many cases.

    Tactical is defined basically as the use of tactics, which is defined as maneuvers used against an enemy or a set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

    For the term realism it is a little harder to find a black and white text book definition. But I think everyone would agree that put simply, it is an attempt to make elements of a game operate as close as possible to how they would in real life. When I see people make comments like “what’s next, press b to breath” it just makes me realize how much they have no idea what “realism” is. Of course that would be stupid. You don’t have to remember to breath. Why would you have to remember to press a button in a game to do it? But other things, like RO’s having to remember to press a button to chamber a round with bolt action rifles is a perfect example of an element of realism. You do have to remember to do that in real life, so why not put it in the game? I personally don’t like all elements of a HUD removed in the name of realism. Why? Because, for example, removing how much ammo I’m holding is NOT realistic. As a real solider it’s true I might not know that I have 47 rounds left, but I can tell roughly how much I have by the weight of the magazines in my pocket. There is no need to have to remember how much. In one second I can tell roughly that I have 1, 2, 3 mags left. Without this info in the HUD there is no way to know without just having to remember it. Not realistic. So sometimes I think some modding just goes a little too far. But there is so much opinion in “realism” that it makes it hard to define.

    Back to tactical. The game BF2 is by far the single most “tactical” game right out of the box that has ever been created to date that I am aware of. I said tactical, not realistic. But having to work in a squad to get the job done, having to make sure your squad has a good mix of player classes (you need a medic, supply, engineer, etc. to be most effective), having to keep your squad leader alive, having to use a proper mix of land, sea, and/or air vehicle support, having to work closely with your commander, having to pay attention to squad/commander orders, these are “tactics” and without using them no group of unorganized loose individual players is going to beat a group playing with all the tactical advantages BF2 can provide. RO does have some of this, but unfortunately it also does fall a little short in my opinion. It just is not as easy to organize as with BF2. What RO does offer to the tactical realism community is the second part, the realism.

    All in all, I think there is no game that is set up better to promote tactical play than BF2. Unfortunately for BF2, or better said, unfortunately for the tactical realism players that play BF2, the game also promotes a lot of run-n-gun style play. RO is a good game for people looking for tactical realism, especially those of us who prefer WWII. But watch out for FH2, the Forgotten Hope mod for BF2. This one is going to be something special and I think will fill a void that many of us are looking for.

  7. Comment by D6Veteran | 04/07/06 at 11:59 am |

    Well said Steger. I can appreciate the elements that both RO and BF2 bring to the TR community, but I think the reason I gravitate towards RO over BF2 is because my tolerance for RnG is extremely low and my appreciation of realism/authenticity extremely high.

    The blend of the two games is something I think this community is looking forward to. In my mind that could come in the form of a later version of RO, FH2 or RnL.

  8. Comment by Antony | 04/24/06 at 8:35 pm |

    Hello there! Just want to say that I find your site enough interesting for me. Usefull information and all is good arranged. Thank you for your work. I will visit your site more ofter from now and I bookmarked it.
    [URL=http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=kkarsha]adipex[/URL] [URL=http://vvarder.cba.pl/adipex.html]adipex[/URL] [URL=http://vvarder.cba.pl/alprazolam.html]alprazolam[/URL]

Leave a Reply »»