Totally agree. I think making a game fully realistic might sap some of the fun. It is a video game after all. That said, I don't think we've ever really had a game come that close to being so realistic it was losing the fun factor.

I agree with Rudy. Your chart looks about right, but I don't think we've seen a game that has ventured over the top of that crest.

I can not believe I have never thought of a Fun Chart! Damn you Chris!

Out of curiosity can somebody think of a situation where gameplay got overly realistic to the point it hurt a title?

There are plenty of examples of the stuff off the field doing that. The first NFL Head Coach was too much like a role playing game, and IMO NBA 2k8 danced dangerously close with the "I don't care what a mid-level exception is" line.

In the few cases I can think of, the problem was more about bad execution and not being too realistic. i.e. Madden's pre-snap defensive reads taking advantage of wholes in the AI and resulting in things like nano-blitzes.

But that wasn't too realistic - it was just bad game design.

So off the field I would agree - you can get too realistic for your own good. On the field? I'm not so sure the Fun Chart holds water.

Give me a 100% realistic game and I'll get back to you.

Has anyone ever experienced a perfectly realistic game? Because the closer the show gets the better it gets, and its almost perfect. I couldn't imagine it getting more realistic and being less enjoyable.

Well, it is... and it isn't. You have a good point in theory. The sports titles of the past 5-10 years have been headed up a slippery slope - I have often found myself thinking "who cares about setting prices for hot dogs?" when playing a Madden franchise, or how much money to spend on advertising, and the like. Having your team practice/work out/etc. It seems more like work than fun. But adding realistic features to the game that are not geared towards the business end, like better graphics and more realistic gameplay physics, authentic uniforms, bullpen action, etc. really increase the fun.

But the other side of the coin to consider is that simpler games, with simple graphics that lean more towards "arcade" style gaming, like the old RBI Baseball for NES or the old NBA Jam or Power Pros for Wii (to a lesser extent) can be just as fun, if not more fun than a true sim like MLB the Show. What makes these games fun is that they do not overcomplicate the game, but they do master the important part - the feel of gameplay. If it feels like you are involved in every play, every moment of the game, the game becomes exponentially more fun. Conversely, if you are sitting there waiting for a pre-loaded animation to happen, it feels like the game is "playing itself". I feel like a lot of gamers would sacrifice "graphics" for a fluid, smooth playing "cartoony" game like RBI Baseball was, updated for the 21st century with more of the little things (i.e. working bullpens, dives/slides, etc), updated rosters and franchise modes. Think about how annoying it is waiting for the pitcher to reload in these "sim" games.

After all, this is all make believe anyway.

rachristine2, i think you're right about better graphics and more realistic gameplay, but you obviously haven't played madden since last gen cause that owner stuff is nowhere to be found on any 360 or PS3 title so you're point is currently moot.

As far as your second point, games like nba jam don't master gameplay. they create their own gameplay to follow which doesn't resemble the sport in anyway. while nba jam was somewhat fun, it wasn't basketball and the game would routinely take over and play itself instead of letting the players decide the outcome of the game. games like that were more like playing rock paper scissors with a basketball or baseball theme.

Chessboxer, you have a point as NBA Jam was probably a bad example. I have played Madden 08 and 09 on ps3 (as rentals) but found that they had lost something in the past few years. The graphics are amazing, I admit. However, I don't know how to describe it but '09 feels something like your players are just floating. It doesn't seem like you the player are in total control. They need to concentrate more on control and less on graphics. I think that's what its all about.

I'm more a baseball game player, but the point I'm trying to make is that with the new style games, what it comes down to is that you are clicking a button at the high and low point of a meter to pitch. You spend half your time waiting for some canned animation or cut-screen or automatic wind up that it feels like the computer is playing and you are merely the "man in charge of the up/down meter". Or if you try to practice swing before a pitch, the computer will only let you do one swing and it will start when you press the button, but continue without your input. In a perfect game, nothing on a user-controlled character should move unless you are moving your hands.

MMCHRISS, If EA was to make a totally sim boxing game the sell would go off the charts...Look at how the fans were complaining about Fight Night Round 3 arcady elements. The more sim this series get the more fans it will get....

Some games, realism is too much.

For example, there are gamers out there who play every game out-of-the-box and don't want to mess around with sliders. For them, the foul frequency in NBA games would be too much at 100% realism (as would TV timeouts). It seems that most of the time in the NBA, when you're called for a foul, you contest it. The same is true for gamers, and they get frustrated when random fouls are called.

Take the NFL for example. If I were an offensive line guard, I would have a good idea of when I was holding someone. But in NFL games, holding calls are generated in a way that feels random, and when I'm controlling 11 guys, conflicts of interest arise. I can't prevent my guard from holding while I'm controlling the quarterback trying to scramble.

So foul calls, TV timeouts, potentially ejections... there could be ways of making them work, but only at the expense of other elements. Meanwhile, merely including them in 100% realistic frequency would be frustrating to most gamers.

Great blog, by the way.

The problem is we are sitting at about 40% on your scale and they will never get close to 60%

For the guys saying we haven't experienced perfect realism, I agree. That's not the point..in fact I'm going to blog about how 100% realism isn't possible in sports games soon...but that's another day and another story.

What I'm basically saying though, is if the games were 100% perfectly realistic...there is absolutely no way anyone would find any joy playing it. Here are some examples:

Football: Can you read a defense like Peyton Manning? If not you are going to absolutely suck at a 100% realistic NFL video game.

Basketball: Can you make decisions as quick as a Chris Paul? Why would you run a zone instead of man? When do you switch back before the 100% realistic Phil Jackson owns you in the X's and O's game?

Baseball: I don't think you can make baseball 100% realistic on a video game...but if you could...do you really think you could hit the ball all that often? Even with a digital version of A-Rod...your brain would have a hard time keeping up with what could be coming.

Just a few examples of how really un-fun a 100% realistic sim would be. I think my graph is pretty spot on...somewhere between 80-90% realistic is where the game is both practical, realistic and fun.

Shakyr,

I think you bring up a good point...and I think sports like boxing and MMA could be the best "most realistic" sports games out there. Individual sports stand a better chance but there is inherently going to be no way any game could be 100% realistic. It's an obvious point that has to be pointed out from time to time

A 100% realistic game would include the real life counterparts. Put your player to bed, feed him. It's like digi-player 2009. Think GTA combined with Madden or the Show...without (or in some cases with) the guns.

Show me broken bones and unconscious players and players being fined for illegal hits. Give me off the field problems and arrests. Then show me a game that rarely does the same thing the same way twice and you have a 100% realistic video game.

Games are based on codes...algorithms... formulas....equations.

If "X" then "Y"... In real life there is no such formula, and that is why realism is reserved for life and, while it would be amazing, won't happen in a game.

I agree completely. An ultra-realistic game would take 3 or 4 hours to play a single game (depending on the sport). That is way too long for me.

I know there are a few people that would like it, but it would be a minority. Even amongst the "sim" football crowd, not too many people play 15 minute quarters and let the play clock tick down every play. For the hockey crowd, there are alot of "sim" players that frequently pass the puck with the goalie when the real life counterpart would hold for the face off.