Realism Vs Fun

Ok, since my other thread is starting to go down this route I figured it should have its own thread. Any ideas? How far should the game venture down the road to realism? Should gameplay be sacrificed?

I think everyone wants the game to be fun. If it wasn't fun then they would not play it. The debate is what people consider fun. Some people think the more realistic the game is the more fun it is while others want a certain realism to the game but see the game as not a real manager's job and don't like the tedious tasks of setting up tactics and so on. I am not sure what category I am in as I prefer things to be as realistic as possible but am also lazy when it comes to setting up tactics and training and so on. I am just eager to get on with the game and play matches.

Personally, i feel, the game is called football manager so it has to be as close to that as it can be, there are other titles on the market which don't offer as indepth and realistic a take on management but are moreso geared towards being aesthetically pleasing, those who wish to have realism, buy FM. Those who wish for something a little less realistic and perhaps more 'fun' more 'pick up and play' kinda thing, choose another game.

People should never forget this is just a game, it will never be like the real thing; sitting infront of a computer clicking buttons, buying world class players and winning the Champions League overnight - Bob Paisley would be rolling in his grave.

The main strength of FM is the HUGE database of players, without the scouting FM wouldn't be the success it is today.

I would prefer if FM had more choices of playing - an option for a shorter arcade style season (maybe just entering in a single cup competition).

Creating your own club would be enjoyable - with a choice of the clubs initial cash - which would ultimately decide the diffiiculty and how quickly the club will progress etc.

Realism to an extent, but pleasure/excitement should be the focus.

Unfortunately, more and more players plays this game worldwide and many of them don't know much about football or are just too young. But unfortunately, in order to make bigger profits with the game, the developers are making the game for THEM. Therefore, realism is less and less important from year to year. In the earlier version, you had to make a good tactic and sign players wisely, but nowadays, it's enough to just select the right team talk from the 4 possible options... I don't like this whole "manager-minded game"-thing or whatever it is. Or, just look at the menubars. There are small icons so that illitarets can play the game as well.

Realism >>>>>>>>>>>> fun.

Realism >>>>>>>>>>>> fun.

...and Realism = Fun

Realism vs Fun is like Sex vs Fun. They are not mutually exclusive.

i doubt real management is at all fun. its hard work, with many more stressful situations than are represented in fm08, so i'd say the balance is ok at the moment, but realism should only be elaborated on and not sacrificed.

Forgot to say you want fun without realism, go buy FIFA Manager.

i doubt real management is at all fun. its hard work, with many more stressful situations than are represented in fm08, so i'd say the balance is ok at the moment, but realism should only be elaborated on and not sacrificed.

That's the beauty of realism in the game context. Realistic things like a bad run of form, struggling to keep hold of a star player or the threat of losing your job can be enjoyed precisely because you know it's a game. That's how it is for me, anyway. But for a real manager, those are the things that keep you awake at night.

Realism >>>>>>>>>>>> fun.

If it wasn't fun, surely you wouldn't play it?

He's not saying he doesnt want fun, he's saying that he prefers realism

If it wasn't fun, surely you wouldn't play it?

But fun comes second to realism. I wouldn't play it as much as I do the now but I would still play it.

Ok so, if SI introduced in FM09 that everygame had to be played on full match. 90 minutes without going on holiday, you had to sit and watch the entire match. Would you still play it?

Probably but I would do something else at the time the game was being played. But we all know they probably won't do that as they will lose alot of buyers and they will get alot of complaints.

But fun comes second to realism. I wouldn't play it as much as I do the now but I would still play it.

Neji is surely right, though. If it was not fun you would not play it. You just think the more realistic the more fun. The less realistic it is the less fun it is. Everyone who plays FM play it because they find it fun.

Probably but I would do something else at the time the game was being played. But we all know they probably won't do that as they will lose alot of buyers and they will get alot of complaints.

Why would you do something else at the same time? Because it wouldn't be fun watching the whole match every time, right?

Obviously not but obviously I mean different kinds of reslism.

You just think the more realistic the more fun. The less realistic it is the less fun it is.

You want fun you buy FIFA Manager you want realism you buy FM. God will everyone get off my back.

You want fun you buy FIFA Manager you want realism you buy FM. God will everyone get off my back.

We're not getting on at you but I'm just trying to make the point that fun is more important than realism. For you realism gives you more enjoyment but if they made it too realistic you wouldn't play it because it would no longer be fun. So fun is more important than realism. Thats my take on it.

Don't get me wrong. I love how realistic FM is but if they started to add things in for the sake of realism, features that take gameplay away, I would no longer play it.

Neji is surely right, though. If it was not fun you would not play it. You just think the more realistic the more fun. The less realistic it is the less fun it is. Everyone who plays FM play it because they find it fun.

i agree. but not everyone thinks more realism = more fun. thats why this subject pits realism against fun, as if its either one or the other. some think its too realistic, therefore less fun. these people usually expect it to play like a game where you are supposed to win rather than a simulation where you have to do the correct things to suceed. i guarantee those who say this game is no fun would change their tune if they were able (or bothered) to spend time finding things out for themselves, and develop winning strategies. then they would see how realism can result in fun.

btw, this game is addictive. people will play it wether they are enjoying it or not, to an extent.

i agree. but not everyone thinks more realism = more fun. thats why this subject pits realism against fun, as if its either one or the other. some think its too realistic, therefore less fun. these people usually expect it to play like a game where you are supposed to win rather than a simulation where you have to do the correct things to suceed. i guarantee those who say this game is no fun would change their tune if they were able (or bothered) to spend time finding things out for themselves, and develop winning strategies. then they would see how realism can result in fun.

btw, this game is addictive. people will play it wether they are enjoying it or not, to an extent.

Oh, I know that not everyone thinks more realism is more fun. What I mean is that everyone wants the game to be fun but everyone, also, has a different opinion on what 'fun' is i.e. more realism/less realism. Fun is the most important thing, if the game was not fun nobody would play it no matter how realistic or unrealistic the game is.

I'm confused how people can argue for realism over fun. If you are a strong advocate for realism in the game, as I am, then surely it's because you find the game more fun the more realistic it is. The realism vs fun debate only works if you believe that realism needs negating in favour of fun. In other words, it only works if you think realism makes it less fun. If you like realism, presumably it's because it makes it more fun for you.

this is silly

realism and fun are not mutally exclusive

really some people want it as fun as possible

whether it is with more realism or less

at the end of the day everybody wants it to be as fun as possible

but if it was too realistic such as eating sleeping during the game

thats just silly

For me, part of the fun is in the realism, I enjoy the idea that I am at the helm of my favourite club and anything that adds to the realism of this, in my book, adds to my enjoyment of the game, so this all just seems like a moot point to me, everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes "fun" but from my time spent on this forum, most people seem to be of the same point of view as this

ok, maybe im greedy, but i want the best of both. as realistic as possible whilst making it as fun as possible. sure, i want to take over my fave club but i dont want to be booted out the door at the first opportunity because im a numpty. that might be realistic, but its not fun. the important thing is, for this game especially... to enjoy the experience, whether youre successful or not.... now, in my current game, i took over middlesbrough (dont ask, id had a tad too much of my sponsor's tipple that night) so i was managing them and liverpool.... ended up enjoying the middlesbrough part more... paid more attn to it, got right into it.. even though i only won 6 games in 6 months i think it was... but it was enough to save them from relegation, and guaratntee me the job for a while longer, along with the funds to strengthen... currently coming upto my 1yr anniversary in charge and around 8th in prem... anyways, i digress... fm walks a tightrope between being as realistic as possible, and trying o give the users as much enjoyment as possible. tbh, i dont think si do a bad job at all... theyll never keep everyone happy, but there has to be the balance of the two, you cant, imho come down on one side in favour of the other...

Its definitely a tightrope act:

SI are successful because they have the most realistic football simulation available, and because it is fun to play.

However, if you come down to it, we have to sacrifice realism for fun.

On most major clubs, the manager isn't really responsible for transfers. The "Director of Football Operations" or whatever title you've given him is. However, if you tried to take that away from the player's control, you'd be gutting one of the core aspects of the game. So, SI have compromised: we are essentially a manager who wears more than one title: we are Manager, we are Director of Football Operations, and we're probably also the Director of Scouting.

Why?

Because that is fun.

There is certainly a fringe group of folks who think, "Yeah, we should have a DFO above us who makes those decisions - that's what's realistic!" ... but SI compromised by having the chairman occasionally step in and either buy or sell a player ... but for the most part, leaving the vast majority of transfers in our hands.

It winds up being the same tightrope on all issues.

Personally, I think its key to the future of the franchise to remember that fun is what keeps your loyal customers coming back, and fun is what you need to provide to hook new players, who will be your loyal customers ten years from now. I've seen enough frustrated posts in-forum to see that the game is clearly not fun for everyone .. for some it is far too frustrating .. While for others, it may be too unrealistic.

As long as SI can keep those two populations in the fringes .. they're hitting their target audience .. which may or may not be you, personally.