I've heard many different arguments for this. Some prefer the shocking level of detail and precision that a game reflects on real life (such as say, COD 4). Others might like the wanton chaos and absurd situations that a game provides, making the experience something much more unusual (i.e. GTA 4). I've seen whole reviews biased on one side or the other... and on rare occasions games can find a good balance between the two. But which game really provides the better entertainment value? (Not entirely sure if flexibility is the right word for the opposite of realism... didn't want to go with fantasy).

I prefer a balance between the two. Keep it real, in the sense that the physics are real, the graphics are good and the features realistic (i.e. having to hotwire in GTAIV). But don't make it too realistic. Have a bit of artistic license - add some pinatas, blow things up. Make the game realistic, but not the expense of the enjoyment factor.

DiamondJim:
Ishocking level of detail and precision that a game reflects on real life (such as say, COD 4).

COD4 realistic? eh, not really... not so much; regenerating hp, respawning, tame blood effects, tiny sniper range, no environmental interaction, very streamlined for a run and gun multiplayer approach. The single player is very cinematic, but everyone (hopefully) knows the difference between cinema and rl. True, player models and environments are highly detailed, but holding COD up as the epitome of realism in games makes me wonder - is that as realistic as fps games are?

OT, I personally love to run in guns blazing in Halo, TF2 and the like, but I can't really do that so well in games like COD and CS, so my vote is for 'flexibility'. That said, I also love the sense of achievement that you can get accomplishing something in a semi-realistic environ as opposed to a more arcade-y one, so imo both genres have merit.

Johnn Johnston:
I prefer a balance between the two. Keep it real, in the sense that the physics are real, the graphics are good and the features realistic (i.e. having to hotwire in GTAIV). But don't make it too realistic. Have a bit of artistic license - add some pinatas, blow things up. Make the game realistic, but not the expense of the enjoyment factor.

Amen brother.

Flexibility to me is end of story better. My expierences with realism so far have all been negative. Too much holding me back, I feel like something is missing from my time playing. Being able to defy physics and do the impossible is what keeps me going in games.

Realism is fucking boring...

I like good games, if they do realism or pseudo-realism thats fine with me.

I'd say it really depends on the kind of game the devs want to make.

For example, a game like STALKER. I believe the more realism in that game the better. You can use the argument that "omg anomalies aren't real" but if the platypus exists, then your argument is invalid. Same with Half life 2. A stealth based game would also benefit from large amount of realism.

On the other hand, a game like Serious sam, duke nukem, or GoW would benefit more by being ridiculously over the top and almost arcade like. Personally I'd like more rambo style FPS because they can be quite entertaining.

I'm going to set it on the line and say that true realism is impossible to achieve in a game; the experience depends on which mechanics are included, emphasized, and omitted. Because you don't have the same type of situational awareness in a game that you do in real life, nothing's ever going to be convincingly realistic - for instance, pinning is almost impossible in a video game unless you implement a mechanic that pretty much forces players to pay attention to it, but if you do that, you also have to make cover protect the characters more than it does in real life - no shooting through the windows of the car; that guy's pinned, so you need to shoot him from somewhere else.

It depends on the genre, as said before. But flexible games are more fun. Except if theyre an FPS. GTAIV didnt exactly match the hype I created because you couldnt fall off a really tall roof without dying. Thats why I am getting my hopes up for Saints 2.

It depends on the game I guess. Sometimes there is a call for realism such as Ninja Gaiden 2's exaggerated and fake as hell blood effects. Other times, having your Burnout car crash be able to hop from car to car and cause millions of dollars worth of damage is a lot more fun than a realistic crash. I chose flexibility only because I did like Ninja Gaiden 2 and several games with raw flexibility are enjoyable. Other games are real to the point where it just hurts game play and my patients.

I would agree that there should be a balance between the two, but if a game's story/gameplay is going to defy some sort of law, then the game developers should at least add something that will help make the change consistent with the story/setting. Just a few examples:

- Team Fortress 2's cartoon-ish setting
- Some protective armor, like the HEV suit in Half Life 2
- Bag of Holding (or S.A.C. if you played Beyond Good & Evil)

Though speaking of BG&E, there is something really wrong about getting hurt by rats in Beyond Good and Evil just by bumping into them... (every other animal in the game didn't hurt you when you collide into them, so what the heck?)

edit: Okay, so I'm more interested in realistic games than flexible ones. I am aware that some games can be too realistic, but there are many moments when I wish every single animal didn't attack you on sight (Oblivion) or when futuristic guns didn't break so easily (System Shock 2).

The most realistic game I think I've played was Gran Turismo 4 and I can honestly say it was mind-numbingly boring.

Realistic physics engines are great, but at some point you just have to suspend your disbelief and throw some pirates and ninjas in there... yes, even in racing games.

Realism only works in FPS's and racing games, in anything else you need the freedom to enjoy your world...then blow it up.

I love a game that uses the fact that it's a game to its advantage to make a really cool experience. I mean, we play games to escape reality, not simulate it. But that said, I still like it when things react and behave realistically.

Are we talking about purely visual aspects?
If so Realism is a pretty stupid idea, no matter how hard game designers try it's always going to look a little fake.
But if we're talking about gameplay I welcome realism with open arms.
Operation Flashpoint for example is a game which I have had many a fun time on.
Sure you can get killed in one hit, and your Assualt Rifle is going to do jack shit to an American tank (I was always the soviets)
But there is nothing quite like the feeling of beating the sorry bastards despite the odds and triumphantly sprinting off to the next objective (I had terrible luck with vehicles, Trees seemed to pop up infront of me, so I'd have to wheeze my way from place to place)

Realistic is nice to an extent I.E. blood splatters, ragdoll physics, and REASONABLE inventory space (Looking at you AotD4) if its a survival-horror game.

Otherwise, I'm all for aspects that help the player.

I like realism is some games, like splintercell(one shot your dead) but I really enjoy videogames that know they are just videogames(something to escape reality not mimic it, like timesplitters not a bit realistic but still loads of fun.

I really can't get into too flexable of games. It greatly annoys me when in a game you shoot the other guy about 8 times and they still are alive.(And I don't mean using some little retarded gun to shoot the guy)

Are not the two things the same? Realistically one has some degree of flexibility over how to tackle a problem inside a game. It is the lack of realism that leads to unnecessary rigidity in games.

Going to focus on FPS's for a moment here... Lets take a look at the ones that try to be "realistic". I'm looking at you, every army based shooter game ever made, especially all of the WW2 ones, but more importantly the team based online ones without the HP bars.

"Pinning down" as has been previously mentioned CAN be done! It's a defensive tactic that I use alot, where you simply shoot bullets in logical locations where you think enemies are. I've had this used against me too, and it's frightening when you're really into the game, because you don't know where it's safe to poke your head out without getting it shot... So you wait for somebody to flank them, or look for an escape. That's pinning down. UNFORTUNATELY, there are two problems with "realistic" shooter games, these being the unpredictability of players whom know they can just respawn when killed (way too many suicide charges) and the unrealistic degree of accuracy obtained by having a crosshair on the screen, that can turn ME (a coward with shakey hands) into a sniper with regular rifles with very little practice.

But of course, they'll never be convincingly realistic until my pistol can kill a dude in less then 5 shots. Yes I know it's a dinky little pistol, but it still shoots bullets! I'm really sick of every FPS ever made only rewarding people for overcompensating (if you catch my drift) >=/

TF2 on the other hand, is my favorate FPS at the moment. Why? Because I hate wetting myself every time anybody shoots at me with anything bigger then a pistol! I have HP, I can take a round or two, and if things go bad I can retreat for healing, and chances are the time taken to heal will not be wasted as I'm 1-hit-KOd by my next encounter! (which also ruins realistic gaming, by further removing any reason to care about your own mortality) And also, I like how I can actually kill people with MY pistol, without any noticeable loss of efficiency vs the bigger weapons.

Flexible games ftw.

"But of course, they'll never be convincingly realistic until my pistol can kill a dude in less then 5 shots. Yes I know it's a dinky little pistol, but it still shoots bullets! I'm really sick of every FPS ever made only rewarding people for overcompensating (if you catch my drift) >=/

TF2 on the other hand, is my favorate FPS at the moment. Why? Because I hate wetting myself every time anybody shoots at me with anything bigger then a pistol! I have HP, I can take a round or two, and if things go bad I can retreat for healing, and chances are the time taken to heal will not be wasted as I'm 1-hit-KOd by my next encounter! (which also ruins realistic gaming, by further removing any reason to care about your own mortality) And also, I like how I can actually kill people with MY pistol, without any noticeable loss of efficiency vs the bigger weapons."

I feel your pain. (sorry for quote apperance, new to posting)

Johnn Johnston:
I prefer a balance between the two. Keep it real, in the sense that the physics are real, the graphics are good and the features realistic (i.e. having to hotwire in GTAIV). But don't make it too realistic. Have a bit of artistic license - add some pinatas, blow things up. Make the game realistic, but not the expense of the enjoyment factor.

congrats you are correct u just won a million dollars

I think the only thing that needs to be realistic is the Physics. Then you can add in some kind of game mechanism like the Gravity Gun or Telikinesis and have fun with physics based mayhem. Because as a recent article noted, Flinging dudes is never NOT fun.

I really think what I want is for someone to work up a game engine that can assign physics to the game environment. Most importantly to give different material ratings for destructibility. So while you can only ding the steel wall with your wrench you can make a big dent with a rocket laucher. Or give a realistic wood material. Make it so everything is made of inherently smaller parts. So when you destroy something it's little bits stick around. No more indestructible fences you can only knock over or chip.

Then we need a range of tools, some of which wouldn't be constrained by reality. Such as the telikinesis. Maybe some manner of force lance. Just concentrate real hard on that wall until you drill through to the other side.

That's how I want reality to be mixed with games. Realistic physics and environments. Unrealistic tools and abilities.