Separator

Fun vs not

36970_440604814609_500264609_5862488_5061095_n
Saturday, January 07, 2012

In one of Jeff Gerstmann's recent Jar videos he mentioned that football games weren't as fun as they used to be. That in the 90's you had access to football games that didn't require an intimate knowledge of the sport to have fun. Games these days are so intricate in their systems that a player could easily become overwhelmed and discouraged from continuing. After listening to this I tried to apply it to my feelings on Battlefield 3.

I adored Bad Company 2. While I know the tone in the games single player campaign is meant to be different between the two, I enjoyed Bad Company 2's story and multiplayer more because it didn't take itself too seriously. Battlefield 3 tried to put me in a real world scenario in the Middle East and it failed. I see that shit on the news every day. I read about it all the time. What makes developers think I want to play through similar scenarios in my games? I think there's less room for creativity and originality when they commit to serious, real world issues and inherently the game is less fun because of it.

One other issue I took with Battlefield 3 is that they toned down the destruction to make it accurately represent real life. No longer can you take out a building with a few grenades. That, to me, was what made BC2 so much fun. The unrealistic physics and destruction are what provided me with countless Battlefield moments. Those moments that make you wish the game had a built in theater mode. With Battlefield 3 you get fewer of those moments and the game is less memorable.

Because of the serious tone and lack of meaningful destruction, it feels more like Call of Duty. In Modern Warfare you get to shoot people, that's it. There are no vehicles to drive, no destruction what-so-ever. I think the reason Call of Duty multiplayer works so well is because they're multiplayer is not unlike an RPG. It's less about killing people and more about collecting things, and people love collecting stuff. They have a nice mix of arcade and simulation, a solid grounding in reality but enough of an arcade feel to make it fun.

What I've come to realize is the closer a games subject matter is to real life, the less fun the game is for me. My life is serious enough, I play games to have fun.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (3)
Default_picture
January 07, 2012

I used to want realistic games. I quickly changed my mind after some time in the military.

However I don't think it's impossible for a realistic shooter to be fun. Learning to shoot in real life is addictive in it's own way. Things like finding your body's natural point of aim and practicing your positions are a drag. But it feels great when you finally fire a perfect shot. After that comes more practice till you can make that shot every time.

The same could be applied to sports sims. A completely realistic golf game would definitely have a learning curve to it, but players will feel more rewarded once they master the game.

I still prefer the physics-defying stuff, but I could see how a realistic game can be rewarding too.

Default_picture
January 08, 2012

Yeah I definitely agree, especially when it comes to driving games. I totally get the love of Gran Turismo and the precision cornering etc but I just find it so frustrating. Give me crazy drifting on Burnout Paradise or Driver: SF anyday, it's just a lot more fun. And D:SF definitely has that crazy switch mechanic - leaving your body to possess other drivers sounds stupid, but it was one of the most innovative and effective mechanics of 2011, if you ask me.

36970_440604814609_500264609_5862488_5061095_n
January 08, 2012

I think my favorite example of fun simulation racing is Forza. They allow for deep simulation in that you can manually adjust almost anything inside the car, but you can also just hop online and play soccer with people. They have a nice balance.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.