Where do we draw the line between fun and competition?

One of the things I noticed on these forums, is that people come up with ideas that they would like to see implemented in the game, and then use various reasons in an attempt to justify them.

The argument that's been getting in my face is that we should do X because it's realistic.
When was the last time realism made a game fun or better? I see video games as sandboxes with arbitrary rules, that when mastered and properly followed, achieve victory. the only purpose that realism serves is the enhancement of readability and shortening the learning curve. Because you essentially already learned a part of the game during your mastery/understanding of the real world. [/rant]

While everyone can have a voice, I think that we should be cognizant of what we and others want.
I'm looking for two major aspects in this game.
1. Fun
2. Competition

I get worried when I see people turn the game towards a more casual direction.
Don't get me wrong, games NEED a casual aspect. "Casuality" appeals to the masses that fuel the community. Though at the same time I would love to see TA mechanics compete with the current "RTT" paradigm.

My $0.02

Turns out, a well designed game allows for both.

Mike

I want the competitive side of this to become big. Maybe we can convince Uber to sponsor a Tournament a few weeks after the final release. On that thought, maybe we should try and keep info from leaking out of these forums, so that interest in the game has spikes at Beta and Release, which might work better than just keeping everyone passively aware of the game's existence.

Ideally fun and competition should be one in the same. Even if you're competing against the AI, it's still competition.

Yeah, but people mean it in terms of meta competition, aka having big tournaments with sponsors and stuff.

I would go one step further and argue that they are the same. I can't find a game enjoyable for more than a few hours without some competition.

A solid, fun and well designed game can find itself used in competition.

I disagree. just look at EVERY SINGLE PLAYER GAME EVER. You can't consider true competition, only challenge. That might be what you mean though.

I get what you mean, but I don't think that's quite what the OP meant.

I think he means more that aspects that contribute to the 'competitiveness' of a game detract from the 'fun' aspects of a game. Which while it can work that way in some cases, it'd have to be fairly extreme, but in most cases plain old fashioned solid game design is a boon to both aspects.

Imagine a game where Tank A is straight up OP, obviously so, the 'Competitive' players don't like that because there is too much of a focus on that OP unit, they have to build that unit or lose to someone who does. This is just as much a bad thing for the 'Fun" players because they latch on to this OP unit and get bored of the game when they discover there isn't any point building anything else.

The Solution of balancing the unit appeases both sides, the 'Competitive' players get a larger variety of valid strats which is just as beneficial to the 'Fun'.

Mike

anything can be competitive, it should be fun first and foremost. and luckily factional balance won't be to the games impediment

Forgot to touch on this, but you should really check out this thread;

PSA - Realism VS Awesome

Realism, or rather, the aspects of the game that are grounded in realism, are fairly important to intuitive gameplay, or in other words, this are focusing when the look like something we recognize, but don't act like it at all, like a Turbo button in a racing game that doesn't make you go faster.

Mike