Does anyone else feel this way? The more realism is added in games the more I realise how much I hate it when I see it especially if the 'realistic' aspects of games can't be turned off and I think I'm slowly developing a list of things that piss me off and I'm of the view being a gamer you should always have an option to turn this stuff off and not have it forced on you if it's not multiplayer especially if it turns out it saves tons on performance and is just gimmicky.

Some examples of what I've been thinking of lately:

. Hair growth
. Soft body vehicle physics/damage
. Travel Time
. Fuel
. Ammo ( Depends on the type of game this one but in some non-survival genres I feel it just doesn't belong or drags the game out far too much )
. Floaty or Clunky character movement
. 'Realistic' physics of any kind
. Gun Sights
. General graphic fidelity

Some of these features can even make gaming a total chore, does anyone remember the Witcher 3 and beard growth? That annoyed the hell out of me yet people were praising it like it was a genius feature.

Realism in games = Simulation

Simulation games are not actually fun in itself, or have enough content like other game types, its ment to please people that wants a simulation of real life experience.

tip: If you are not a player that likes simulation, you will not enjoy making a simulation.

Like ray tracing and that kind of thing, it's just a waste of processor power and I can't even see it. Physics always seems too slow. The games I play anymore are completely abstract, like Free Cell, Chess, stuff like that. Still, I'm working on a turn based rpg, but I want the battles to be heavy on strategy.

Apart from stuff like Cassette Beasts, which was done in Godot apparently, I hate turn based combat, PSO on the Dreamcast put me off forever.

    Maybe you're playing the wrong games. There are like 100's of games released every day on Steam and Itch, and most of them aren't like that.

    GodotBeginnerRich I hardly ever play turn based strategy, or any games. I don't like the turn based where you start these factories and all that, and I want it to be position based on a grid, not lined up. Then it's just a matter of strategy involving position and resources, like only so many spells, or arrows or whatever. And none of those endless animations.

      I totally get it. I got bullied pretty hard back in middle school when the kids were discovering call of duty and GTA. It took me years to get around to trying those kinds of games because they looked so boring(realistic).
      Loved Halo though.

        Unsolicited opinion:
        Games have the potential and at times can be an art form and some of the best completely throw realism out the window. What's the point of learning how to build a world if its something you've already seen before? What Remains of Edith Finch i think is a great example of a game that has a healthy splash of realism but not so much where it becomes boring.

        I think realism is good in a game if it serves a purpose towards the gameplay. I can definitely see where you come from about it being wasteful in some/lots of cases. I've played plenty of "pretty" or realistic games that were quite hollow when it came to substance. That being said...

        Example of "good" realism:
        The physics of impact when a sword hits your shield. A recoil feels good and keeps you engaged with haptic feedback, like a controller vibration, to communicate the hit with more than sound.

        Example of completely pointless realism:
        When a fighting game with female characters wastes time on their "jiggling" physics of anatomy that are not important to combat.

        The only games I still play are all turn-based and two-dimensional. Realistic adventures are not fun. Just like real warfare, they consist of long periods of boredom followed by short bouts of terror.

        However, you have to have realism when you want a player to be able to intuit the next move. If your puzzle isn't based on physics, then you have to spell out every option for the player -- not a problem, as long as you take the time to do it.

        The second use for unnecessary realism is creating an emotional reaction. Humans are wired to react to real humans with hair and jiggling and all. If you don't see that in the game, your player's back-brain is thinking, "mannequin!", the whole time. You can still have emotional reactions to simple games, of course, but it's arguably stronger to a realistic character.

        The worst drawback to realism (apart from computer requirements) is that any flaw becomes that much more obvious. Even state of the art games tend to suffer from this.

          I'm usually not a big fan of playing realist games, but some really do catch my eye.
          This new FPS game that got famous recently for being crazy realist, Unrecord, looks hella exciting.

          That's quite a limited, reductive opinion IMHO, but anyway OP and everyone are free to have their own, right ?

          I could say it's depend, some game MUST be accurate as much as possible, like Virtual Pool 3 & 4, because an arcade pool game quite sucks (Arcade Pool on Amiga from Team 17 for instance have great visual but that's all, I never really enjoyed this game), same for some kind of sport game (darts, racing sim obviously, flight sim, ...) Accuracy in other game depend, FPS in which player is pretty much invincible and can run like a champion with a few bullets in the legs are ridiculous, they were good in the 90s, but now, it would be just a shame UNLESS it was made this way on purpose.

          To balance that, full accuracy is also not wanted as a monitor doesn't allow to have the same view as our eyes, saves might be useful because we cannot afford to spend a full month behind a game to play in real time, games are still very very limited, even with VR I guess, it could be also boring to die of an infection from a little splinter for a bullet impact nearby whereas it could happen in real life. Lost Patrol also on Amiga quite simulate this kind of insane accuracy and it was not an intense action game.

          After all, the purpose of a game is to have fun in a way or another, for casual player as well as hardcore insane crazy ones.

          duane I think your second use of realism doesn't work, maybe not anymore. Speaking as a certified kid, we don't connect with real humans well. Speaking as myself, I don't connect emotionally at all. I don't connect with depictions of real humans either. At all. Instead, I emotionally connect better with non-animate objects and animals. But when I put it that way, I'm not connecting, am I? It's reactionary, meaning it's probably autism.
          There's this experiment back in 1944:

          I'm spoiling the next paragraph in case you want to try it yourself. Just watch it and think about how you feel watching it.
          Logically, you see shapes moving around. But most who saw this animation back in 1944, and I, instead saw a story of domestic abuse with a good ending. Thanks to zero attempt to make the characters appear human, I emotionally reacted more than I would otherwise. When I see real domestic abuse, I feel the urge to stop it, but no underlying rage or fear. It's just a human being human. With these shapes, I never hated a large equilateral triangle more in my life.
          Others could be different. I don't ask often, because apparently it outs me as some kind of sociopath.

            GodotBeginnerRich For most of my friends, COD introduced them to guns, which introduced them to tanks, which led to a rabbithole to discover they love planes, ultimately resulting in most of them being electrical or aerospace engineers.
            It also gave a few a gaming addiction, so I don't see it as any better or worse than a caffeine habit.

                That video is going to give me nightmares. Someone should make a whole game like that.

                  Playing mature games is not actually illegal for kids. It's a voluntary ratings system that only dictates what can be sold. If a parent buys their child COD, that's fine.

                    GodotBeginnerRich COD is 18 rated, kids aren't legally allowed to play it... But of course they do anyway due to idiot Parents who let their kids play age rated games.

                    So it's the parents who are considered idiots, not those who passed the idiotic law?

                    cybereality If a parent buys their child COD, that's fine.

                    Common sense prevails.

                        GodotBeginnerRich kids aren't legally allowed to play it

                        AFAIK in most of the world that is not true. The ratings(PEGI and similar) are industries own creation and self regulated(as a group) and they are meant to be indicative. Parental advisory sort of thing. So the parents decide what to buy and let their kids play, or so it's intended at least.

                            Megalomaniak In the UK, it's a crime to "supply" a minor with a "mature video presentation" (games included), unless it's "exempted supply".
                            I'm not a lawyer, nor british, but I'm pretty sure that means the only "crime" in underage gaming is whoever sells/gives the kid Battlefield 3 while holding some legal status that involves giving stuff away or selling stuff. Stores, government, charities.
                            it's under section 11
                            https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/39/section/11
                            Basically, it's not a crime to buy your 15 year old Halo Infinite for christmas. Not that it matters since no one actually enforces the law
                            In America there's no law at all as far as I know, it's purely a "this game's kinda violent" message to the parent. In fact, my first COD game was for the Wii, and I got it because my mom asked the dude at Gamestop what to get a 13 year old.

                            Imagine if you had to send Steam your state ID to prove you can legally buy the big boy games.