Poll: Fun or Realism? Which do you prefer

Hi! I’m currently working on a new concept that I’d like to pitch soon, but I wanted to ask you guys: What do you think is more important in GZ? Realism or Fun?
Would you sacrifice realism for a feature that would be most of all just fun?

Fun or Realism?
  • Fun
  • Realism

0 voters

4 Likes

Whatever the game used to be and was marketed as. If I wanted destiny, rust, or Rage I would be playing those games. Not an amalgamation of all of them.

If the game becomes too realistic it becomes tedious and frankly generic. If it becomes too focused around “fun stuff” that doesn’t match the theme or environment of the game then it’s hard to take seriously.

6 Likes

Yes I agree, and I think that “fun” in the poll should be better defined. Because realism can be fun as well, it’s a matter of perspective. Perhaps it should be “action-oriented and less grounded” etc etc. I’ll always prefer GZ like how it was like you said used to be and marketed as. The grounded and dark tone is what made GZ special and set itself apart. But now I think it’s trying to do much with very little recourses. So everything ends up becoming a mess of ideas and concpets that dont work well togheter.

2 Likes

I’m gonna say both. Fun grounded in realism. Visually something that seems like it would make sense in the real world, but probably doesn’t. Does this make any sense at all? :thinking:

6 Likes

Yes! Great answer, but if you had to choose one? Just a hypothetical

I choose Fun! :tada:

1 Like

Great! Thanks for your answers so far:)

I would very much enjoy dying from a bad case of the cold. I do not want my game to be “fun”, I want it to be grueling and annoying. I want my character tro pass out from a .32 ACP wound, and die in the middle of the forest from exposure.

2 Likes

I agree and you said it better than I could have… I must be sick or something to agree with you!? :grin:

I kinda wanna make that game tbh

1 Like

I suppose it’s a pipe dream, but a proper survival mode would be cool to see. Not ultra-realistic, but with balance between fun and realism.

2 Likes

Oof, I just evened the vote :sweat_smile: the author is going to have a challenge to decide which direction to go, seems like there are two major camps of players here

PS - I agree ‘fun’ needs clarifying, I mean it’s a game, fun is it’s whole purpose. My thought was ‘fun’ is like how the medical ammo FX shows sparkly health icons. Definitely not realistic, but good for player experience as you can immediately tell if you’re shooting a runner with negative damage :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m really surprised that it’s so even, that makes it so interesting! My idea is not really gonna change based upon the results of this poll, I just wanted to gaige the general idea people had on here^^
My idea is definitely gonna be “sacrifice a little bit of realism to get something that would be immensely fun”, but I think it could still be within the limits that the game has right now (Nothing too futuristic, but there is definitely stuff that didn’t exist in the 80s)

I am not totally surprised at the number of players wanting the game more realistic. All the comments that compare the things in the game to real life, like the explosions effect on the surroundings, the flames and gas going through walls and solid objects, to the weight of each ammo and so on. The game already is realistic enough for some players to expect it to go farther with the realism.

Even the stories of players characters in the game seem like they are talking about real people that were involved in this battle against machines.

The high demand for more missions, more areas to explore and more types of buildings that make it seem even more realistic.

Seems that is what makes Gen Zero so much FUN to play for some of us, the mix of realistic with fun.

4 Likes

You exactly make the point that the game lacks a lot of realism already. The game started initially pretty realistic. There was little to no fun. Then came the bikes, the melee weapons, the experimental weapons, base building etc. which turned the game into the fun direction.

According to the poll that seems to be the right move since about half of the players want the game to be more fun. I’m on the realism path and hope the devs don’t turn the game even further into the fun direction loosing realism on the way.

4 Likes

I voted for realism, but maybe I misinterpreted what “realism” meant in this context. I really enjoyed the game when it came out, because I got really sucked into the mystery and was genuinely scared of the robots, even the runners. The way the game was designed, that avoiding combat was often the best choice, felt realistic and refreshing at the same time.
Roaming the vast map, searching for clues and finding more weapons took time and effort, which in my opinion added to the “realism”. I felt that it was definitely my kind of game.
Lately, the game has turned more into a generic shooter (with base building), and not at all what I enjoyed so much when it came out. It was the first game in many years that I really enjoyed, and now it’s more or less gone. :cry:

11 Likes

Since I don’t see fun gameplay contradicting realism I can’t answer this poll. If it would have said Realism vs ‘Crazy, clownish fussy fun’, I’d pick Realism.

4 Likes

I wouldn’t like for the player to get more unrealistic.

I would like to see more realism in machines behaviour - we had a glimpse of that some time ago, but I would go a few steps further :wink:

3 Likes

April Difficulty solves both.

Start with that

5 Likes

Who would stand in the way of a hunter (4m high, absolutely deadly robot) armed with a baseball bat or a hammer? That is more than unrealistic. My choice “realism”

5 Likes