Simple poll : fun/realism?

as the title says... what matters most to you from an edition of FM.. Fun ? Realism ? or the delicate balance (imho, what the current game strives for) ?

Why makes you assume realism and fun are opposites?

I love realism. Sometimes it can be annoying where a player I really want won't come to my club. Also, the amount of money available to spend.

Most of the time it's fun because it's realistic.

Why makes you assume realism and fun are opposites?

Realism without being over the top with micro-management. I do believe with the tactics wizard FM really might have got the balance back.

Video games are a form of escapism, a way for us as gamers to become so absorbed in another simulated environment. In some respects, realism in our games is essential. In other ways, realism would ruin the game. Consider how many games really allow death after being hit by one bullet. Even in games like Halo, where the player can be put out of commission by a simple headshot,

the players still run around after being shot multiple times and can usually heal themselves by staying out of fire for a few moments or by simply running over a health kit (Not applying any medicine or bandages, just running over the kit). Being too real wouldn't be fun at all, since most people would be incapacitated after being shot by a single bullet, which would make persevering until the end of Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, Halo, or Splinter Cell simply impossible.

Tempered reality makes a game more immersive, but too much reality can ruin a game. After all, the best movies and books and television shows are usually filled with fantastic situations and improbable occurrences to keep the audiences and fans entertained. The best games are those that give us enough reality to allow us to relate, then give us enough fantasy to entertain us indefinitely.

Fun is priority for me. I certainly think there needs to be realism in the game, considering the type of game it is, but too much I find gets frustrating.

The realism of FM is what makes it fun for me.

Realism definetly

10000000000000000% realism

I dunno is real life football management fun? Like you get money and a portion of the footballing public will love you, you get to go on T.V, you get to coach how you want (or not even get involved). Then you got your : pressure after losing one game, idiotic players on better wages than you, backroom mechanations to get you moved on, the opposition manager giving you crap, your star player having a baby with his fiancee and all of a sudden winning games isnt so important, and so on ad infinitum.

If SI tried to sell you that experience, would you have fun with it?

Realism is fun. I get my cake, and eat it, too. With frosting. And it's my wife's Killer Chocolate Cake.

It needs a good balance. I've said it a thousand times, I'm a FIFA Manager convert, so here are my two cents when FIFAM and FM go head to head.

FIFAM: A lot more on the "fun factor" than FM. Also, there's a lot of business aspects to the game and building up a club's infrastructure which are interesting, and designing your own stadium can be quite fun as well, although these are less realistic because managers have little to no say in these aspects IRL. Despite the strengths, it's way too easy. I played as Tottenham and in 7 seasons won the EPL once (then always finished in the top 4 after that), won the Euro Cup once, won the Champion's Cup 4 times (3 times in a row), won the FA Cup 3 times, and won the League cup 5 times. I did all of this without hardly ever signing anybody and NEVER tweaked or changed my tactics- it just got old. Also, the transfer system is crap- it's impossible (literally) to complete player exchanges, or even part exchanges on FIFAM 09 (they did this because it was too easy on 08).

FM: Much more realistic, I suppose. FM has a much better database with more leagues, plus the community add-ons are a lot better. Further, the game has low system requirements and therefore is more accessible to a real audience. The transfer system is much better and more realistic. I have found that the level of depth in the game to be it's true strength, as that is what makes it immersive. Despite that, it is difficult to get the hang of. I downloaded FM 09 (along with FIFAM 09) off of steam in January, but gave up until recently because I just found it way too hard to get the hang of the tactics. While I think I got it, I can see how this could easily turn off newer players. However, it appears the tactical system in FM 10 will be more realistic and, in fact, easier, and, therefore, much less frustrating and likely more fun. If the tactics come out how I'm imagining them to, FM 10 will be the perfect management game because it is both more realistic and more fun.

Overall, I think that FM is the stronger game. It lacks the easy, quick, fun factor that FIFAM provides, but once you get the hang of it the game is extremely immersive.

Realism makes it fun for me

realism makes it fun for me

whs .

As a casual gamer definitely fun. Real life is frustating enough.

It needs a fine balance. Too much realism and you ruin the fun, too much emphasis on fun and you ruin the realism.

For example, I find that scouting and buying/selling players is one of the most fun parts of the game. If they went down the realism route of having directors of football buying for you and dealing with contracts etc, I would feel that a massive part of what makes the game fun had gone.

Then you have the other side, EA's stance with the gimmicks, if you like. Building stadiums and choosing sponsorship deals etc, while I would actually find them fun, they would turn me off because the realism that FM portrays would be lost.

Fun is the ultimate goal of any video game, including FM. Realism is no more than a way to achieve this goal.

realism for sure.. what makes this game fun is that it is not easy. some think that for a game to be fun it has to be easy! imagine winning the champions leauge 3 time in a row? would that be fun? not for me.

how is it fun when you are sitting on the top with 10 points difference after 14 games all the time? (it is like that for me =\ I won serie A 8 times in 10 years.. and going to win it for the 9th time this season.. believe me when I say "it is not fun anymore").

I find it's fun due to the realism...

But the question I want to know...

Does the realistic feel still exist when you're playing with a squad if regens?

I find it's fun due to the realism...

But the question I want to know...

Does the realistic feel still exist when you're playing with a squad if regens?

I agree , the realism its what makes this game so much fun !!!

To your question, yes it does. To see the evolution of the world you created is great and very interesting!

wheres the poll then??

A mixture of both is required to make FM what it is. If you want total realism then us as managers would not be able to negoiate transfers as managers dont deal with that in real life, you wouldnt be able to add a manager at a top club as in real life Man Utd would not replace Alex Ferguson with Bob Bobson. Realism is good but there needs to be a limit on how realistic the game.

The past decade has seen an enormous progress in computing power and graphics hardware, and along with that a trend towards more and more “realistic” games. Each year, the computer gamer sees an improvement in graphics quality and better simulation. Racing cars look more like real cars, sound more like real cars, and handle more like real cars. Trees are now rendered leaf by leaf. In first-person shooters today, you can not only blast the enemy, but also doors, windows, walls, and whatever objects happen to be in the room, and they will burst into shrapnel in different ways depend on what material they are made of. Even the hair of characters in some games is specially rendered to drift naturally in the wind.

There is no doubt that realism is a very big thing in computer games today. Game developers tout it as their main selling point, and video game console manufacturers battle it out over whomever has the best graphics hardware to render the most number of polygons in the shortest time. Gamers and game magazines alike rave about it, or complain about the lack of it. However, “realism” is not an easily definable concept. Just what is considered “realistic” in a computer game can appear to be contradictory. Gamers consistently ignore many obviously unrealistic aspects of a computer game. For example, you can crash a car in a racing game and still continue the race, when in real life the impact would have totally wrecked the car, let alone seriously injuring the driver.

How can we understand what makes a game “realistic” and why some games are realistic while other are not? This paper attempts to understand what it means to say that a game is “realistic” and looks at how we can understand virtual reality through phenomenological concepts.

What i am trying to say is I vote for realistic or other term realism