Case against realism - Jimquisition episode about RDR2 and other 'realism' based games

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Can completely disagree, but interesting POV. Would also be interesting to hear some youtuber video FOR realism

[video=youtube;uj49X7Ahv_s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj49X7Ahv_s[/video]

 

[Backer42]

I don't want to hit myself with spoilers, so I don't watch any RDR2-related content. Is he complaining about the survival mechanics (food etc.)?

 

[Vasea Azure]

I don't want to hit myself with spoilers, so I don't watch any RDR2-related content. Is he complaining about the survival mechanics (food etc.)?

Mostly about very realistic and in depth hunting mechanics.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I don't want to hit myself with spoilers, so I don't watch any RDR2-related content. Is he complaining about the survival mechanics (food etc.)?

That's one thing. He then go on about problems in other games, like Zelda having weapons that shatter after few hits, etc.

 

[Fishy]

That's one thing. He then go on about problems in other games, like Zelda having weapons that shatter after few hits, etc.

Yeah, that's actually a bit awkward because he's sort of forcing the RDR2 realism debate into something else which doesn't have to be related at all. As he himself identifies, BotW's weapon brittleness is anything but realistic. That's the epitome of a gameplay-oriented decision. Whether it's a good or bad idea overall is up for debate, but it's there to force the player into varying her weapon choices.

That's to shoehorn the current game into his actual point which is that games should basically be streamlined to be pure conveyors of fun with nothing in the way. Now, it's not like this is a new idea, and it's certainly seems to be a pretty popular recipe for selling copies. Like, he's praising AC. How many games are there in the series already? How many CoD or Medal of Honor? Could DCS be made more "fun" with a War Thunder flight model and complexity level? For the vast majority of the gaming public, it's a resounding yes... It's imho a good thing that studios big and small dare do some things differently sometimes, at the risk of being called indulgent. He might not be receptive to it, but that "indulgence" might just have a purpose. I have no idea what the game is that he showed a few times starring a female-looking android doing chores, but surely the whole point of an annoying, needlessly involved and repetitive control for the dishwashing sequence is to carry the feeling of tedium across from the character to the player. "Brother, A Tale of Two Sons" does something a bit like that in using the controller to carry an emotion and it's actually pretty awesome. Showing/telling something to the player is one thing, having the player physically experience some of it is another. Different regions of the brain get activated when a physical movement is tied to a thought and a game can try and take advantage of that to increase an emotional response.

Imho, not everything in games should necessarily be about what he calls "fun". Fun is a personal thing for a start, and it's not like we lack streamlined games either. But then, there's other stuff: games as a media can be used for other things. They can involve emotionally, they can make one question things, they can teach... As far as I'm concerned, it's cool that some people do things their own way. And at the end of the day, it's their income that they put on the line.

 

[Backer42]

Mostly about very realistic and in depth hunting mechanics.

Great, I have only scratched the surface of those so far. I'm totally not against having a whole "Hunting Simulator 2018" just included in your regular AAA title. I think that is something, that differentiates Rockstar titles from the whole bunch of simple "smash button repeatedly to win" you find in other blockbusters.

I also read complaints about having to actively work for food & shelter (already in the previous game). I like that something is at stake inside a harsh world, instead of just visiting a Western-styled theme park.

I don't know yet if I like the story and the characters, but the gameplay is quite similar to the previous game, which I liked.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Great, I have only scratched the surface of those so far. I'm totally not against having a whole "Hunting Simulator 2018" just included in your regular AAA title. I think that is something, that differentiates Rockstar titles from the whole bunch of simple "smash button repeatedly to win" you find in other blockbusters.

I also read complaints about having to actively work for food & shelter (already in the previous game). I like that something is at stake inside a harsh world, instead of just visiting a Western-styled theme park.

I don't know yet if I like the story and the characters, but the gameplay is quite similar to the previous game, which I liked.

It's not really about realism like on a sim level. He mostly complains over the - in his eyes pointless and lengthy - animations. And that's where I give credit to his view: Animations for the sake of animations is a point where you need to ask: What does it bring to the gameplay?

 

[metatheurgist]

Variety is a great thing. It's OK for games to appeal to different people, as long as they can make enough money to keep operating. It's when everyone starts chasing the same "golden" market that we get the plethora of boring FPS that we have now.

 

[Jenner]

Realism for realism's sake in anything but a hardcore sim is silly, I agree. There is a point at which it becomes an impediment to 'fun' rather than an enabler. He's also spot on pointing out that for most games, 'realism' amounts to 'make the player wait.'

You can deduce what side I'm on in the latest Infinity War round these here parts.

 

[Backer42]

It's not really about realism like on a sim level. He mostly complains over the - in his eyes pointless and lengthy - animations. And that's where I give credit to his view: Animations for the sake of animations is a point where you need to ask: What does it bring to the gameplay?

It's a deliberate gameplay choice he didn't understand. You can't loot ten people in ten seconds or dig through a whole house in half a minute taking everything.

Instead you have to make choices. Where to look for the valuables, when to flee the scene before getting caught.

 

[metatheurgist]

It's a deliberate gameplay choice he didn't understand. You can't loot ten people in ten seconds or dig through a whole house in half a minute taking everything.

Instead you have to make choices. Where to look for the valuables, when to flee the scene before getting caught.

Yep. Things like logistics and limitations are things I find interesting in a game. Other people say those things are boring. Which is fine, as long as both type of games are made and I'm not stuck with boring FPSs where I can carry an entire arsenal with my pocket dimensional storage. I don't play FPSs for a reason, if you don't like my boring logistical game where limitations are part of the challenge - don't buy it!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It's a deliberate gameplay choice he didn't understand. You can't loot ten people in ten seconds or dig through a whole house in half a minute taking everything.

Instead you have to make choices. Where to look for the valuables, when to flee the scene before getting caught.

I think issue is in single player game - unless it is cleverly open ended - doesn't make any real change, does it? It is for role playing really. Which is fine by me - I LOVE role playing - but there are some balancing issues coming from this.

As I said, would welcome nice video from opposite POV Anyone caring to make one?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

It's a deliberate gameplay choice he didn't understand. You can't loot ten people in ten seconds or dig through a whole house in half a minute taking everything.

Instead you have to make choices. Where to look for the valuables, when to flee the scene before getting caught.

I don't think he asks for choices, he just asks: Is it fun? Which is obviously subjective matter.

 

[Factabulous]

It's the same debate we have over ED - is something gameplay , or it it grind. The same arguments are playing out around whether probes should be infinite or not, and it's the same questions - is this something that's fun, or just busy work. And the same answer - some will like it, others - not so much.

Nice vid though, first I've seen complaining about BoTW in anyway at all

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It's the same debate we have over ED - is something gameplay , or it it grind. The same arguments are playing out around whether probes should be infinite or not, and it's the same questions - is this something that's fun, or just busy work. And the same answer - some will like it, others - not so much.

Nice vid though, first I've seen complaining about BoTW in anyway at all

Yes, it is actually *interesting* discussion to have for a while in gaming (and I don't think any side has truth, it is just different preferences and ideas what games must be). As for BoTW it was big issue for lot of reviews...but it was only one. They tried to push you to try different weapons instead of sticking with one.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

In R* games, most of the side activities are optional and probably woven once into the story missions.

If any developer hits the nail with right gameplay and rich content, it is them. And I love the real world settings in the sea of fantasy, steampunk and sci-fi worlds.

 

[duffbeeeer]

The topic is very interesting to me. I grew up with old school 90s games (Elite:Frontier o7), where often the only option to repair a mistake in playing a game was restarting all over. Games usually had only one save game slot because of laughable disk space available at that time. Imo games being hardcore at that time was more the consequence of lacking technology and nothing else. Still I grew up to the games and was able to finish them after a while and it always felt like a great achievement.

Then the 2000s came, hard drives were getting more common, even in consoles. Devs had more options for saving progress and so they offered more second chances to the players. But they didnt stop there. The gaming market was heading for the masses and so the games needed to adapt to the new audience. Suddenly you had quest markers, gps directions, quick time gameplay etc etc... To me all the exploration of the game mechanics became meaningless, when throwing all tools for it in front of you on the ground. WoW was the best selling MMO at that time and it really is symbolizing the whole trend of that era. It was a wonderful designed, colorful and rich world, which was like theme park with predefined rides and the same outcome for everyone. Absolutely boring to me. I headed for EVE Online, which covered my needs ot intelligent gameplay.

Then there was BF3 getting all 3d spotting, instant redeploy and vehicles with auto ammo reload. Pretty game but for me it was the low point of casualization of AAA games. Nothing mattered anymore. People were just running around improving their KDR and not caring about working as a team. I thought thats it. Games will be getting dumbed down for the masses and the only option for deep gameplay are rare indie games.

Boy I was wrong. And I am glad.
Ironicly PUBG saved the market regarding more complex gameplay systems.

It introduced back hardcore game elements to the masses, it was unforgiving and needed good practice to be good at but it swept the whole PC gaming pie in no time. Suddenly all the big publishers realized that the audience has matured past accessible and easy gaming experiences. Battlefield V and RDR2 mark the first AAA entries of this new trend and I am hoping that this continues.

Imo the thing about elements in games that punish is pretty easy: You as a human being cant appreciate the good if you dont know the bad. You dont know black without knowing white. Its like being a soldier in military training. First you get beaten down only to be higher up when you are finished. That Jim Sterling doesnt seem to understand. People accepting that losing is part of life are way more satisfied when they win. They know it came with a price and thus has more meaning.

<3 Rockstar for coming back to the roots

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The topic is very interesting to me. I grew up with old school 90s games (Elite:Frontier o7), where often the only option to repair a mistake in playing a game was restarting all over. Games usually had only one save game slot because of laughable disk space available at that time. Imo games being hardcore at that time was more the consequence of lacking technology and nothing else. Still I grew up to the games and was able to finish them after a while and it always felt like a great achievement.

Then the 2000s came, hard drives were getting more common, even in consoles. Devs had more options for saving progress and so they offered more second chances to the players. But they didnt stop there. The gaming market was heading for the masses and so the games needed to adapt to the new audience. Suddenly you had quest markers, gps directions, quick time gameplay etc etc... To me all the exploration of the game mechanics became meaningless, when throwing all tools for it in front of you on the ground. WoW was the best selling MMO at that time and it really is symbolizing the whole trend of that era. It was a wonderful designed, colorful and rich world, which was like theme park with predefined rides and the same outcome for everyone. Absolutely boring to me. I headed for EVE Online, which covered my needs ot intelligent gameplay.

Then there was BF3 getting all 3d spotting, instant redeploy and vehicles with auto ammo reload. Pretty game but for me it was the low point of casualization of AAA games. Nothing mattered anymore. People were just running around improving their KDR and not caring about working as a team. I thought thats it. Games will be getting dumbed down for the masses and the only option for deep gameplay are rare indie games.

Boy I was wrong. And I am glad.
Ironicly PUBG saved the market regarding more complex gameplay systems.

It introduced back hardcore game elements to the masses, it was unforgiving and needed good practice to be good at but it swept the whole PC gaming pie in no time. Suddenly all the big publishers realized that the audience has matured past accessible and easy gaming experiences. Battlefield V and RDR2 mark the first AAA entries of this new trend and I am hoping that this continues.

Imo the thing about elements in games that punish is pretty easy: You as a human being cant appreciate the good if you dont know the bad. You dont know black without knowing white. Its like being a soldier in military training. First you get beaten down only to be higher up when you are finished. That Jim Sterling doesnt seem to understand. People accepting that losing is part of life are way more satisfied when they win. They know it came with a price and thus has more meaning.

<3 Rockstar for coming back to the roots

I don't see how having to watch the same animation over and over again is suddenly "hardcore" and "real gamer" experience with "meaning".

 

[duffbeeeer]

Its about time investment and planning it accordingly. Also I was writing about the broader picture of the industry and not some single design decision.

 

[Jenner]

<3 Rockstar for coming back to the roots

I think you're missing his point. He isn't talking about 'hardcore' experiences vs 'casual', he's talking about obsessive attention to detail and how that can detract from enjoyment. The game doesn't have to be Dark Souls level brutal to suffer from time wasting animations, needlessly complex but mundane gameplay, and unnecessary detail 'fluff'.

I disagree with your point about gamers needing to be kicked in the nether regions in order to appreciate their experiences, though, even though it's a bit off topic from what Jim is talking about.