More realistic games = less fun?

Not sure if this should be in serious discussion but since im talking about games, whatever.

Im just wondering if anyone else noticed that they are having less fun with some of the more realistic games nowadays. Take GTA 4 for example, for a while at the beginning i was having a lot of fun running ppl over with my car and shooting, however the more i got into the game, the more bored i felt. I found myself getting annoyed at some of the places i cannot go in-game, dying incredibly easily and frustrated at the repetitive process to obtain weapons. Then i realized that im was not really playing a game, but more of a real life simulator (of course there are limitations and exceptions to that)!

So is realism these days ruining games? Compared to Prototype, where i mercilessly slaughtered ppl and threw cars a helicopters, I had much more fun.

What do the rest of u think?

Yea, to me it seems video games nowadays are sacrificing gameplay and fun for more eye candy.

And most of the time the eye candy isn't that great. :\

Depends on the game and player. For example, I loved GTA IV, and Prototype didn't last me as long, but it's all just opinions.

With realism, it wouldn't be good if every game suddenly made everything as realistic as they could. We need those arcade-like, unrealistic aspects for variety and fun. On the other hand, I love having a couple racing games that are as realistic as possible. Mount and Blade's combat has the most realistic medieval combat I've played, and I have a blast on it. At the end of the day, I enjoy games with realistic aspects, just not entirely realistic.

I don't think I have less fun on realistic games, but realistic games and unrealistic (arcade, fantasy, etc) games need each other. However, a game that isn't bound by realism can let a designer's creativity go wild, and I'm all for creativity.

Personal Opinion:

Games are ment to be abstract and take you to a different world to entertain you. Making everything too real takes that fun away.
I could get really into it, but I hate the closed-minded people that will reply to stuff like this. So I'ma stop here.

(P.S.
That's why the Sims is an evil game!)

Most of the games that have stay the most in my mind and have had the most replay value were always games that took the game into another world with a more fantasy feel instead of keeping it within realistic limitations.

On the other hand the realistic games had more of a high point in a fun level at some points. To me it seems that realistic games have more potential (also these games have more mutiplayer value in most cases which is probably influencing me) while more unrealistic games have a better replay value and constant play value.

In short atleast to me its good to have both for quick gameplay and long term. This isn't very good for the people out there who can not afford many games.

One "realistic" game I played was Need for Speed: Prostreet, which was a piece of shit. Realism is nice up until it begins hindering with gameplay, which is what happened in Prostreet. The cars can go up to 200 mph easily, but anything over 70 and the car flips over.

I don't care for Prototype or GTA4. Prototype was horribly repetitive. And the city was so bland that I couldn't stand to simply explore the game either. But is realism bad? I don't think so. The majority of games out there still have some semblance of make-believe to them, if not altogether unrealistic.

Take Persona 4 for instance. As the protagonist you attend school, work a part-time job, socialize with friends, start relationships with girls, join after school activities and act much like a normal high school kid would. But does that ruin the game? No. On the contrary that's what made the game so successful and unique.


Most games nowadays just bring realistic elements to the game in question. Such as better physics, better weather/water/lighting/shadow effects, more accurate sounds (explosions, voices, whatever), etc.

And even the most realistic games I can think of, like CoD4, The Sims, Counter Strike: Source, racing games, sports games - they're hugely successful.

But it's a matter of taste. If you want a wizard hurling fireballs at small slimy goblins, then playing as a terrorist with an AK47 in a real-time environment where a single shot can kill you might not be your cup of tea.

Looking at it from a slightly different perspective, I prefer games with more unrealistic visuals and graphics. I don't want the characters to look like real people. I don't want my games to look like an improved version of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I want anime-style graphics, cartoony shit, and over-the-top stuff that doesn't make sense. Then again, I typically play RPGs, action-adventures, and fighting games, and I never, ever play first-person shooters or simulators of any kind.

Great responses from everyone! Very deep and informative. It also got me to think that it might not be just realism that makes games good or bad, but instead what aspects of realism is defined and others that are downplayed in response to gameplay. Of course this may be old news to many of you, but for me, its a hell of a revelation!

Realism in a game is kinda hit or miss

as mentioned above, Persona 3,4 and GTA IV are games which had realism and made the game great

for me i prefer a bit of realism in the games i play

This is why I like Saints Row more then GTA IV.

I started cracking when I heard you say this. You should've said "Turning the chestboard around" XD

Anyways, I enjoy my unrealistic games. I like all the creativity put into them and the way they are presented (take WoWcrack for example). But you do come across a few gems from the realistic side that are presented so perfectly that the first time you see it you just gawk at its awesomeness (Take Fight Night for example). I really liked the look of Far Cry 2 but alas about 2 hours into the game and you start to get bored with its repetitiveness. Also for those racing game simulators, I can only play those from first-person view otherwise its too easy.

This.

Realism can be awesome when it's implemented right. Just take a look at Gran Turismo for example.



Need for Speed is the perfect example of a game that went to the crapper after they started removing the arcade-like aspects from it's game. Now the new games are nothing more the GT wannabes.

It really depends. Generally I like the realistic tone games have been taking nowadays. Sometimes the gritty aspect is annoying (i.e. Gears of War) not everything is gray, brown, and black.

Take GTA: San Andreas for example.
Somewhat realistic.

Until you use cheats.
Then it gets awesome.

Generally, I will equate the level of realism I want in my videogames by its genre.
Is it an FPS? If so, then I prefer it to be realistic to the point where you aren't at least shooting people 10+ times for them to die.
If an RPG, I prefer it to be as anime/manga oriented as possible.

That being said, the majority of games that I have enjoyed were unrealistic. I find a certain joy in being able to do things outside of the confines of normal human ability.

Yup.
but CoD4 is pretty fun even if I waste a whole clip on people.

Dude, are you telling me you didn't have fun even without cheats?!
What about throwing youself off a mountain top with a bike? (I forgot the name of the mountain haha. But i'm sure you know which one it is)