> which provides more long term engagement than fleeting shallow fun. That is your opinion. Also let's not kid ourselves, No Mans Sky is not a realistic game (

> which provides more long term engagement than fleeting shallow fun. That is your opinion. Also let's not kid ourselves, No Mans Sky is not a realistic game (you can visit other planets). The full quote is more nuanced, it describes the idea that for game design you need to be able to explain why something is included in a design (design with intent) "realistic" without further explanation in this context can read like "because we always did it like this". Which is not sufficient. "You'd have these conversations where you'd be sitting in a design review and somebody [would] say, 'That's not realistic.' And you're like, 'Okay, what does that have? Explain to me why that's interesting.' Because in the real world, I have to write up lists of stuff I have to go to the grocery store to buy. And I have never thought to myself that realism is fun. I go play games to have fun." Half-Life 25th Anniversary Documentary (Valve, November 2023). Surely there are games that make grocery shopping fun. But they probably don't focus on the realism of grocery shopping, rather they might focus on things that can make the experience fun. Otherwise you might as well just go grocery shopping instead of playing the game. Simulations that take off often allow you to experience things that you might otherwise not be able to do (flying a airplane, driving a racecar). In that case the fun is in obtaining the unobtainable or without risks (crashing).