Discourse: Realism Vs. Arcade

[Dirty Harry]

http://sochl.com/resources/images/evav/discourse.jpg

Arcade games often have very quick levels, simple and intuitive control schemes, score based ranking and rapidly increasing difficulty. Games based around Realism often have long drawn out levels, complex and non-intuitive control schemes and difficulty curves greater than a 90 degree angle. It is easy to identify that these two styles of gameplay are catered towards majorly different gaming markets but which one provides the most profound gaming experience?.

December 6th, 2008 -

Do you enjoy arcade/realism based gameplay? Why?
Do you feel games have achieved the full potential of these genre styles? How?
Could some of the more recently released games taken benefit of being more realistic or more arcade like? Which Games?
Past discussions:

Console Game Patching (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1677441)
Digital Distribution (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1680744)
User Creation (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70120)
DRM (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70734)
The Fight Genre (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71149)

[Primus]

Gran Turismo is a snorefest for me while Burnout Paradise is the mother fhucking shit.

[retsudo]

I think you're begging the question a bit; realistic gameplay doesn't automatically mean slow gameplay or unintuitive controls.

Having said that, I mainly prefer realistic games. What I cannot stand is games that claim to be realistic but are arcadey.
There are some arcade games that are good, but they really only work in multiplayer for longevity.

Take a game like Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault: huge longevity.
Most games could benefit from more realism as long as it is deployed sensibly: we don't want "sitting in a trench doing nothing for 4 months" simulators - we want realistic simulation of the action!

[murpes]

I've often said that there is no such thing as a realistic video game, especially when you pause to consider the body of game mechanics that we gamers have come to expect as standard. Things such as health packs, the ability to survive repeated gunshot wounds, bottomless inventory, non-permanent death, never having to sleep or go to the bathroom ... this list could go on forever. I'm not necessarily talking about suspension of disbelief and acceptance of sci-fi and fantasy, either; I'm talking about the violation of basic, realistic scientific principals and physics.

A truly realistic game would allocate you one life. After you die, the game uninstalls itself and you have to buy another copy. Wait ... Spore install limits are kinda the same thing. Perhaps that is the ultimate life simulator!

I don't think any of us ever want realism as a game mechanic, outside of the most hardcore simulators which are really used for training purposes. As a gaming community, we've accepted many of these limitations as conventions and don't even think about them. Have you ever watched a non-video game player play a video game? It's a simultaneously fascinating and frustrating experience. "Why can't I open this window?" "Why can't I pick this box up and put it over there?" "Let me dump the gasoline on the papers and then light it on fire." Games look realistic enough to them, so they try to do realistic things, but the games hardly behave realistically. We're numb to the lack of realism, because often then exist in every game we play.

Having said all that, there are games that strive to achieve a realistic sense of immersion. These are the game I play and enjoy. Games that make it feel like you're doing whatever the gameplay is simulating, but without the annoyance of the real world. I know TOCA 3 has absolutely nothing to do with realistic driving, but when I play that game it feels like what I think racing would be. Even an all-out action/arcade game like Call of Duty 4 has enough realism to make me forget I'm playing a video game, but not enough realism to make me forget I'm playing a video game. Sounds like a paradox, but it's really about the balance between feeling realistic and immersion.

Red Orchestra is probably one of the most realistic non-simulator game I've played, nonsensical things like respawning notwithstanding. Controls go something like this: Press X to kneel, Press Y to raise your sights, Press F1 to open your right eyelid, Press ALT-F1 to dilate your pupil ... The mechanics can be very confusing at first, actually destroying immersion, but after you play for a while and they be become second nature the sense of immersion is fantastic.

[Chimpbot]

Red Orchestra is probably one of the most realistic non-simulator game I've played, nonsensical things like respawning notwithstanding. Controls go something like this: Press X to kneel, Press Y to raise your sights, Press F1 to open your right eyelid, Press ALT-F1 to dilate your pupil ... The mechanics can be very confusing at first, actually destroying immersion, but after you play for a while and they be become second nature the sense of immersion is fantastic.

...Are you for cereal?

Those controls and mechanics sound detailed almost to the point of absurdity.

Overall, I prefer less realistic, arcadey games. I play games to escape from reality, not simulate it as closely as possible This is why I don't play the Call of Duty series at all.

[ElektroDragon]

Gran Turismo is a snorefest for me while Burnout Paradise is the mother fhucking shit.

Well said, very well said.

[murpes]

...Are you for cereal?

Those controls and mechanics sound detailed almost to the point of absurdity.

Overall, I prefer less realistic, arcadey games. I play games to escape from reality, not simulate it as closely as possible This is why I don't play the Call of Duty series at all.

lol, no, it was hyperbole. :) However I remember WWII online having an obscene amount of keyboard commands, but certainly not to that level.

The keyboard layout can be found here:
http://www.redorchestragame.com/download/p13_sectionid/5

[Hydroeric]

Gran Turismo is a snorefest for me while Burnout Paradise is the mother fhucking shit.

This. This was also the reason GTA4 was a disappointment for me. I hated the 'more' realisitic driving elements they added to the game. Give me the older GTA3-esque play any day.

[Iss]

It all depends, mainly when I play games I do it for one or more of three reasons. Either I want to be told a story and navigate a world, or I want to develop a character or I want to feel as if I'm accomplishing something. In the first two categories I find that games that don't care about creating realistic mechanics usually do better, like rpgs.
But when I want to shine and feel as if I'm doing well, I want realism.
I took some serious pleasure in maximising my kills in operation flashpoint. Similarly I really enjoy realistic tactics ands strategy games when I can apply my knowledge of such things and see that it works, and even better if I can improve on historical precedent.

Simulation is, I feel, a singleplayer genre, since most "realistic" games turn out like Call of Duty in multiplayer, where the most basic skills are realistic, like twitch reactions and confusing movement, but more complex systems are usually pointless like strategic groupmovement and positioning. Games are to codified to be realistic in multiplayer. You learn to spot signs that would be pointless, like grenading spots where habit tells you there might be snipers.

[RevXwise]

I enjoy both.

I like games that have realistic social interactions.

I like combat to be a little less realistic.

No game should focus on realism. That is when you cross the line from game into simulator. If you are training for something, then by all means have it be as accurate as possible. If you are playing simply for enjoyment, then take out some of the bullshit that comes along with real life and exaggerate the action.

[Capt_Thad]

Depends on the game. Racing games, for instance, I'd take the realistic aspect over the arcade any day. Putting the effort into tuning real cars and facing them off on real courses beats fantasy cars with pre-set stats any day. There are some arcade racers I've gotten into (WipEout and Rush, for example) but most are interesting for an hour or two, and then their novelty wears off (Flatout, Burnout, new NFS's, etc.). They're just way too easy. Not to mention being able to tune a car means near infinite combinations for each car, whereas preset stats make it pointless to play after a certain point. Fighters, in another instance, are entertaining both in lighter arcade and more technical simulation formats; though even the most technical I don't think really qualify as a simulation. I think the most appealing games to me are based mostly on realistic principles with some arcade elements thrown in for ease-of-play (semi-simulation as opposed to complete simulation). CoD MP games in HC are a good example (for FPS's)-though I seriously think anyone running around firing a .50cal sniper rifle should get knocked unconscious by the recoil or have their shoulder dislocated or something. I'd also like to see the marine training manual entry that says you can effectively dodge bullets by jumping (and somehow manage recoil to the same degree as standing). Original Ghost Recon was pretty awesome too.

Simulation is, I feel, a singleplayer genre, since most "realistic" games turn out like Call of Duty in multiplayer, where the most basic skills are realistic, like twitch reactions and confusing movement, but more complex systems are usually pointless like strategic group movement and positioning.

In generic lone-wolf pub play that's true, but try some serious clan play or competitive play. There's a reason why pubbers start whining when clans are all playing on the same team. The same with sim racers, always more fun with friends to compete against. Tons of custom tunes don't mean anything if you can always beat the AI with any of them; you need someone doing their own tuning trying to show you up. Same logic to technical fighters, computers always fight the same, you need someone mastering styles from their unique perspective to keep it interesting.

[EL CABONG]

Both are good. The old Ghost Recon games were realistic,Halo 3 is not but both are fun.

There aren't many arcade's these days. Many games are more casuel than arcadey these days.

[LionEyez]

Well, I've long been a fan of the Project Reality mod for Battlefield 2; next to ArmA the most realistic FPS game I've played. To a certain degree it has more teamwork and tactics than other multiplayer shooters, although players will always behave contrary to realism ingame (even with a 1 minute or more penalty for death, people rush)

Not every game has to be realistic I think. I love the little things added for immersion in Far Cry 2, but would have loved more fast travel options.