The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Video games: Immersion/Realism (pro) or Fun/Interactive (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 73098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance, second is for arguments, and third is for rebuttal/final statements.

What I want to know: should video game developers strive to make games more immersive and realistic, or should they focus on the gameplay and making the game more fun? I see this debate as addressing the issue of games gravitating more towards an experience for the single gamer (immersion) versus an experience for a group (interactive). I use the word "fun" on the side of Con not to exclude the fun gamers have while playing immersive games, but to indicate that the games on this side put more effort into making the user enjoy his or her-self, often at the cost of realism. I will be taking the stance in favor of games promoting fun over realism, gameplay over immersion. I am also aware that there may be room for games to do both.

Games that I consider favoring the first category - Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Far Cry 4

Games that I consider favoring the second category - Super Smash Brothers series, Mario Party, indie puzzle games such as Ibb & Obb

Looking forward to good debate! Let me know if you have any questions or would like clarifications. Again, first round is simply for acceptance.


I will accept this debate and take the side of the realism gamers.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting!

First-person games typically favor gamers who play them alone, as the experience is intended to be immersive for the player, who has not only viewpoint but control, and these games are not intended to be as fun for spectators. The stereotype of a gamer is gravitating strongly towards the single man playing alone on his PC, rather than gaming being viewed as a potential group activity.

Games that focus on the experience of gameplay above all else, however, encourage the gamer to let loose and relax, simply being able to enjoy the feel of the game and not having to constantly strive for immersion or scan for visual inconsistencies. Games that portray themselves as "fun" above all else have long been popular, especially under the Nintendo flag, and offer a gaming experience for all people, alone and in groups. This flexibility not only allows for a more diverse crowd of players, but it furthers the social aspect of gaming, an attribute which helps both developers and gamers.

Economically, fun games typically offer more bang for your buck, as they have, in general, a higher playability factor. This is due to the fact that they are mostly about gameplay and not typically dependent on a continuous storyline, and this means that individual players have a choice with these games to either purchase the game or play the game with a friend who has already purchased it. The very fact that these games typically offer better multi controller modes makes them more economical; gamers of all levels and financial situations can enjoy them just as much as the person who purchased the copy. For some gamers who have money, this might not be so big an issue, but by offering gameplay that is both attractive to those who typically don't play games, and by offering a chance for people with less financial backing to play games with friends, developers are better servicing their customers and allowing for a more widespread appeal to develop for their game.


Hi you made some good points.

I believe that realism games are more attractive to people as players can relate to what is happening in the game, it allows players to immersive themselves in a fictional role in a believable world. For instance a player can become the spy they always wanted or race car driver etc. For the average working human to escape the trials and tribulations of life for a short while. The more fun nitendo games are more for children, fun characters and easy gameplay. These are not for the hard core gamers who have a more detailed and gritty storyline to really get involved with or even a horror tale to become scared in. Allowing the game creators to tap into more senses and feelings overlooked in fun games.

As for the one man playing alone, I disagree nearly all of the games nowadays have vast multiplayer options.
For instance grand theft auto is the realist game you can get. But i have many times driven around the city with lots of my friends talking in my headset.

For you to say the single man playing on his PC is naive. There are millions of female players around the world.
The are tons of people playing call of duty, working in teams, talking to each other, trying to overcome obstacles in a real world environment. If anything these games force human interaction and develop communication skills.

Also realism games such as call of duty i play many times split screen with my friend who will come over to play with me, thus enforcing our bond and causing us to communicate and have fun at the same time.

This game also offers a huge amount of bang for your buck as you say because the multiplayer has alot of ranks and upgrades to get.

Other huge multiplayer games such as battlefied etc have games with like 20 people which is more than you could have in your average house.

Far cry 4 is amazing game with lots of coop available and competition play. One game I am playing at the moment is dying light which is incredible coop!
Debate Round No. 2


Hey Pro! Thanks for your points, and for supporting your side as well as contending with my points.

I agree with you that realistic games allow people to escape to a reality that looks similar, but is not their own life. It allows them to live as another, similar to movies. However, I do not think that escapism is simply for immersive games. Fun games allow the brain to unwind, while challenging the senses and distracting the player from tribulations outside the game. They also do not require that the user submit to as many restrictions in gameplay (such as having to earn better equipment) or feel as much stress (such as hyper-challenging and realistic shootouts). So, while I agree with you, I think your point is something both kinds of games address.

Games have multiplayer options, but these are mostly online. Headset conversations, as all gamers know, do not carry the same context as conversing with those sitting next to you. For every group of people I see using the headsets to work as a team, I see ten other groups using the headset as a shield of anonymity to scream and curse at their enemies. Fun games offer multiplayer options and multi-controller options that encourage social gaming.

I agree that gamers are diverse. However, my wording was this: "The stereotype of a gamer is gravitating strongly towards the single man playing alone on his PC". Not an argument that this is true; simply an argument that it is dangerous to allow this to become to assumed norm of gamers, quite obviously for the contentions you expressed. If developers only see that stereotype when making games, that harms many gamers. I see fun games as more appealing to these large crowds.

I'm glad you still game with friends. Keep doing that. But my argument is that fun games encourage that more. 20 people talking over headsets is, again, not the same as being together in a room. I'll check out Dying Light. Far Cry 4 looked great.

That's all from me! Short debate, but please vote con!


I totally agree with you on every point.

I have very fond memories of mario kart etc on the n64.
With my dad, bro and sis all playing in the living room.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.