We are back with week number two of the DigitalSportsMania Roundtable with our staff tackling the issue of which is more important in a sports video game, realism or fun?  Check out what the panel had to say on this not so simple question and be sure to voice out whether you agree with them or not!

Chase "Sliz" Becotte 

"I'll assume you mean sports games since, you know this is DSM, and I'll also avoid saying both are equally important and say instead that realism when it is done right will help a game sell more. Now obviously sports games have overdone realism at points, and have also catered too much to the arcade crowd at other points. The magic really happens when a game is simulation and people don't realize.

It's not fun when you have to analyze a 100 graphs and analyze a ton of word documents to figure out how much potential someone has in an upcoming draft. However if the game is simulation based and the player doesn't realize this fact but rather just plays the game like he sees it on television to succeed; then in that that case developers have done something right and gamers will appreciate that the most.

Not that fun factor isn't important, but if a simulation game is done right, then the fun factor will come through no matter what."

Patrick "BigWill33" Williams

"To me this is easy, realism is fun. If my game looks like what a broadcast actually looks like, or plays like the on field product then I am happy to the fullest.

I love when sports games get down player movements and graphics for stadiums to the slightest details. I love seeing new animations, ones that have you going wow months after you first cracked open the game.

Sure if a game is fun it is great, but I have alot easier time obtaining fun from a true sim game that plays and looks great. To each their own, I suppose."

Dave "BlyGilmore" Branda 

"This day and age its realism sports gamers are looking for. Your average sports gamer has a very good notion of what happens in real sports and is looking for the same kind of experience in their video games. Part of the reason is the technology of video games.

Sure, back in the day five on five football was acceptable. We didn't care about what our pitcher looked like - afterall he was rendered using three colors. And we had no problem excepting hockey teams were comprised of strickly fat guys, skinny guys and medium guys.

But now? Now we know realism really comes down to how dedicated or lazy the design team is. We know they can get the uniforms right if they really try. We know they can find out how much your given NFL tight end makes (after all - we can find it in three clicks of a mouse without an exclusive license).

And we know baseball game developers should know what a double switch is and figure out an easy way to pull it off."

Erik "Ralnakor" Westfall

"While I definitely think fun factor is a bigger aspect of even sports games once in possession of a sports game, from a pure selling standpoint, realism is the bigger issue. Think about it, if a game wasn't able to argue that it was recreating the sport as we know it, we wouldn't want to play it nearly as much as if it advertises itself as 'sim' and delivers.

Bridging the gap once a player is in the game is where the real prize awaits though. Like Sliz said, making a game so realistic that it almost becomes tedious takes away from the fun factor.

That bridged gap is what makes these games so accessible to the general public because that way, a casual fan can find entertainment despite not knowing the fine-tuned ins and outs of the sport while the hardcore fanatic can bring his knowledge and use it to truly take advantage of how the sport works against like-minded individuals."

Matt "MattyG" Gagnon

"Well there is a fine line. If you go too realistic the game become boring and bland. If it's too focused on fun it's lasting appeal is virtually nonexsistant. If you had to pick between the two I think it's obvious realism would win out, but sometimes too much of a good thing is, well... bad.

We are still talking about videogames here so there still needs to be some fun involved. If there wasn't any, you could just go outside and play. One genre that I think really proves the whole fun vs. sim argument is racing games.

I always get myself hyped for the true racing sims like Gran Turismo, but they always seem to wear thin quickly because the fun factor isn't there. Meanwhile games like Motostorm, Wipeout and other more "arcadey" titles tend to get a lot more play because they're simply more fun.

But in other cases like football, baseball and golf we look for more realism because we don't expect a lot of over-the-top action in them. So more fun versus realism is good in some cases and in others more sim beats out the fun-factor."

Chris "ChrisS" Sanner

"I'm not quite sure what you can say that hasn't already been said.  I really believe that if a game is completely realistic it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be fun.  Football is a prime example of this. 

I truly believe a perfectly realistic game would be so frustrating for the average gamer that the game would flop and ultimately the product would be a failure.  Games must be made as accessible but also as close to their real to life counterparts as possible. 

However, with that said, a game that is fun will sell quicker than a game that's a perfect sim.  And if you are talking just business here, a game that is fun means more dinero than a game that's realistic.  Just how the population works here folks."