Too much of a focus on realism?

[Celtic34]

I didn't know where to post this. If a mod wants to move it feel free. But I was just at best buy playing a few different sports games. I feel like something has been lost as far as gaming is concerned. I think games are taken too seriously these days. In the end they are still games. Companies are too concerned about the bottom line and games cost too much to make. It's their own fault really. Companies strive for realism which is all well and good but there is a lack of diversity in games these days.

MLB 2k11 has it's issues but I like the fact it's a different take on the sport at least. That's not to say I think it is a great game. I'd much rather a great game that is fun, that is a realistic, and everything in between, but what's interesting to me is baseball is the only sport that has two titles and in the end there really is only one. There really is no competition. I'd much rather mlb 2k11 be a great game too in it's own way and be polished and great. It has potential but there are flaws with it. The Show is this amazingly realistic achievement but it's still just a game and it's not the end all be all. Other things can be done just as good. Where has the diversity gone? Shouldn't the leading developers be advocating this kind of diversity and pushing other developers to get into the game? They will say it's not their responsibility to do that, but it really is in ways. They are the leaders of the industry. Are they just too greedy where they want it all to themselves? Or are they just negligent and don't care as long as they are number one and winners.

What's amazing to me is I'm home now playing mlb 2k11 and the gameplay is much more fun to me, but even a company like 2k is struggling to release a finished product. The game is that different take but for some reason year after year they don't finish it. It's like there just isn't enough motivation to do that for some reason, whether 2k feels their resources are better spent elsewhere or what. Shouldn't people be getting paid money to do that? Shouldn't that be where their resources are spent? But no that's not how it works because they just aren't going to get that money back. They are better off investing in their nba series which they basically have a monopoly on.

I'm not saying there should be a lot of junk out there. But there must be other talented people out there that have a passion for this kind of stuff. I'm one. But it just seems it's so hard to get into the fight. You either work for Sony, or 2k or you don't. You play by their rules. Or you are here feeding them and not getting paid for it.

In the end I think it's a good thing that these developers are trying to make the most authentic, realistic playing game they can, but it's also to a fault. Making something as realistic as possible is good, but it crushes innovation and different ideas imo. I think developers are too concerned with crushing the competition and showing each other up vs helping each other. There's clearly a lack of trust and maturity in the industry and way too much greed.

Think about baseball itself. There are about 30 some odd teams and a lot of different ways to play baseball and win. Think about basketball. The Lakers and Celtics do things differently and both are great teams. The Celtics are clearly better and their way of doing things is better but that is beside the point.

Baseball would be pretty boring if there was only one team and only one way to win.

[peigone]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

You're making great points. But the simple fact is the mass majority want everything in these games exactly like the real thing, right down to hairstyles and tattoos. And that's not going to change; in fact, it's getting more that way every year. Me, I get rid of all the stars and play with default nobodies. That way I don't need to worry what the player's face looks like, or if his sleeve length and wrist bands are correct. Much more enjoyable that way. But then, I've essentially been gaming for four decades now and can appreciate simplicity. Pong for example was an AMAZING game when it came out!

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

That's kind of what I'm getting at . I grew up back in the day had about 1000 games for my commodore 64 that each cost about 50 cents to make probably. Nowadays everyone wants their two cents and it's capitalism gone wrong or something. Every player wants to be paid for their likeness in the game. These companies have purchased exclusive rights to MLB. Where someone like me if I wanted to make a game has no shot. I understand it. But would it kill these companies to be big boys and share a bit? Me if I was making millions of dollars playing MLB would just think it was cool to be in a baseball game. They wouldn't have to pay me for it. Maybe I'm just nice that way, but as long as it is a good likeness and not making me out to be something I'm not I wouldn't care. Any game for that matter. If someone wanted to put me in a game I would just think that was cool. As long as I approved. Maybe I'm just too nice or normal lol.

My t heory is why can't EA make a great baseball game. Why can't 2k make a great baseball game. Why can't Sony make a great baseball. Why can't 3 other people make a great baseball game. These guys make tons of money. When is enough?? If I had that kind of money I wouldn't be that insecure where I had to one up and crush the competition. It just seems petty to me.

Are these companies that scared of each other where there is so much fear in business where they have to be number 1 and crush everyone elses ideas? That's pretty sad if that is the case. Are they that concerned with the bottom line?

I agree realism is a good thing. But it just has become an obsession on so many levels when there are other ways to achieve realism while doing it in a different way.

What if 2k baseball was realistic and awesome in its own way and a finished product? What if there were 6 games that were all that? Why not? Why do games have to cost this much to make? Why is there so much fear mongering? All these lawsuits and all this stuff that goes on just seems petty to me. Where they basically sue everyone out of the business to protect their own ****. Who is really the pirate and stealing the gold? They have copyrights on everything these days, when I have every right to walk down the street to. I can understand protecting your own product but it's to apoint where these copyright laws are actually infringing on other peoples rights and companies use it in a greedy way and not the way it was intended. If someone is stealing your stuff and using it in an unlawful way sure. They ahve also driven up costs of these games and then complain about it, saying these games cost so much to make and are so hard to make, when it's their own greed that caused it in the first place. If I have no sympathy for them I think that's understandable. I just tend to think these companies now use copyright laws to fear monger and destroy the competition.

There was a day when most software was open source and you didn't have to pay for it at all. I don't think these companies know how lucky they have it. Then they say things like you are so lucky our games are only $60. At least you have a game to play. But where is the diversity? The reality is they are lucky they are still getting my $60 at all.

These are games. I understand they've become big business and there is a lot of money at stake. But in the end they are still games. I think all the fanboy stuff and following of one company and pledging allegiance while trashing the competion is a sad state of our society. We should be encouraging diversity. Not panning it. Too many insecure people out there who need to learn how to share, grow up and stop being so insecure. You can't even discuss both games on these forums without it turning into a flame war or getting banned. It's kind of sad. How immature are people really?

I just think 2k is going to end up selling out to activision or something because they have to to compete, and it's going to be EA or Activion or Sony until they eat each other alive and we head into the abyss as gamers. Then there is going to be no baseball at all. We are seeing that in the NFL right now.

Sorry long winded. I just had to get that out.

[SoxFan01605]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I see you point, and agree with some of what is being said, but you seem to be using supporting logic for a different point. You've made a good case for competition (one I 100% agree with), but I don't see how realism falls into that at all. The reason there is no diversity is because of exclusive licensing more than anything, and that's as much on the sports organizations doing it (NFL, MLB) as it is the gaming companies securing those rights. It's only Sony or 2K for baseball because 2K secured exclusive 3rd party rights, and MS decided not to bother with a 1st party title (despite having the rights to a very respectable license in High Heat) while Sony did.

I don't see how striving for realism is possibly a bad thing. If anything, the push towards trying to give the most authentic experience leads to more innovation than a lack of it. If everyone were trying to make a quick "pick up and play" type game, it would lead to the same end. Realism doesn't hurt innovation, a lack of competition does.

In the end, baseball is baseball and there is only so much you can do with it in terms of making it a unique experience. Both games available offer different experiences in terms of how they deliver the video game aspects of their representation (control, presentation, etc). So again, striving for realism isn't the issue there. It's not crushing anything. It's simply that you only have two distinct options instead of 5-6.

On that point, I agree. More people getting their hat in the ring, ensures more chances for consumers to get what they want. I just don't agree with the notion that the way to ensure this is to stop worrying about realism.

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I'm not saying stop worrying about realism. I just think there is too much of a focus on it, where other thigns aren't being implemented that are fun. There's a lack of innovation and anything new. I think the bottom line has become who can release "the most realistic baseball game ever." That's all well and good. But where's the fun? Why can't we have 6 games that are the most realistic game ever in different ways. In the end these are games. Why can't we have different ways of thinking and doing that.

Well played Mauer. Well played.

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

1. Why can't i have a baseball game with bench clearing brawls. It happens and is realistic

2. Why can't i have managers arguing calls and players being ejected.

3. Why can't i hit a liner and knock a beer out of the fat guys hands in the first row and have it spill all over the big breasted lady next to him.

4. Different modes. 2k tried this with the jordan challenge. But that is so far and in between these days. But there are so many different takes and ideas that could be implemented that would make for an immersive experience.

5. PLayers diving into the stands. All sorts of stuff.

That's all realistic. These games just feel stale to me.

[crumpled_heap]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I don't understand this topic. You say the game is too realistic and then say you want more realism.

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

If I play mlb 2k11 and then play the show. Both games have a different feel to them. Both are realistic in their own way.

I don't know how to explain it. The way 2k designs their controls and the feel it has is different than the show. Both games are realistic. The Show more so. But there are different ways of achieving that and making a game fun is all I'm saying.

Look at it this way. What you see may be different than what I see. Perception is reality. There are different ways to achieve realism.

The Celtics play a different style of basketball than the Lakers do. I may see that and implement that differently into a game than you would.

The Show may be an incredibly realistic game at its core, but it's not the end all be all. There are things I see about it I don't find to be that realistic. I think there are certain things missing. There is a focus on the batter and pitcher duel, but there are things lacking as far as small ball and the way fielding is. I don't see players differentiate themselves too much where certain players really stand out in the field and their strengths and weaknesses.

I don't feel like i have that much control when pitching and it doesn't feel natural like I would like, in either game. I don't get that feeling of actually pitching the ball so much like I would like. It's more like I'm sending a command and then the player pitches the pitch. IT's not as natural as it should be.

I dont feel that pop off the bat in the Show that i do in 2k. I think when i hit a ball in the gap in 2k it's pretty awesome. It's sort of easy, but I think 2k really nailed certain things about their hitting this year. I Think 2k's controls are much more loose and responsive.

The Show doesn't give you the same freedom in areas and feels a bit scripted.

In 2k I don't feel the same weight. The Show has weight to the bat and ball that is much better than 2k when hitting. Pitching it's the opposite which is weird. I think 2k the ball seems to have much more weight when pitching. When I get a strikout in 2k it feels much better than the show.

[peigone]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

So again, striving for realism isn't the issue there. It's not crushing anything.

I disagree. The more resources put into creating custom player faces, and making sure their sleeves or tattoos or cleats are real-life authentic, the less time committed to game play programming, and working out bugs and such.

I would also suggest innovation suffers. Take a look at this series. 2K actually removed an amazing feature (step influence hitting) a couple years back because the masses don't want game play authenticity and difficulty -- they want graphics and Manny's dreadlocks.

[SoxFan01605]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I'm not saying stop worrying about realism. I just think there is too much of a focus on it, where other thigns aren't being implemented that are fun. I think the bottom line has become who can release "the most realistic baseball game ever." That's all well and good. But where's the fun? In the end these are games.

Well played Mauer. Well played.

I guess it depends on the consumer. They are just games, you're right, but there is a large demographic that enjoys the sports these games represent as well, and the best way to gather that group in is by striving to represent them well. I have plenty of fun with NBA 2K, The Show, NFL 2K, etc and they all strive/strove to be realistic representations as priority one.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> Comparing these games to older games makes little sense in that regard IMO. It's a running theme anytime someone points out details in a game around OS that I just don't buy into.

You can appreciate the simpler games that come out and still have realistic expectations relative to modern technology. I too enjoy some of my older games, but it's not unreasonable to expect games to be at a more advanced level than games made in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s/early 2000s.

It's like when people go on a tangent listing all the old baseball games they played and how others should feel "lucky" they have it so good today when someone has a complaint about a modern game. That's great...I played those games too and loved them...except I don't expect a Nintendo or Atari to push high end visuals. I do expect a PS3 or 360 to.



My expectations evolve as the technology does. The "classic" style of video game certainly has it's place and one I will always appreciate, but there's also a place to continue to blur the line between gaming and reality. That's a positive IMO, not a negative.



I agree that fun isn't necessarily tied to realism, but my point is, by that same token, I don't think fun is hampered by focusing on it either. Fun is subjective. It's it's own animal. While you might not like the direction of video games in that regard (and that's perfectly plausible-a lot of people would agree, I'm sure) these developers aren't just trying to pump out realistic games for the sake of it. There is a demand for realism because a lot of us find that fun as well.


As I said, if someone is more into a simple, more pick up and play experience (because that's what they find to be more fun), then there are openings for that too, of course. Again though, the opportunity to make them and be successful hinges more on licensing locks than realism. I just disagree that there is a problem of too much a focus on realism. I do agree, that if there was more open competition, we could all have a better chance of seeing what we each want out of these titles.

[queensbomber]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I agree with you on the competition aspect but we all lke realism in our game, thats what makes go out and buy every year because its the closest a lot of us will get to the real thing.

Remember when you first the graphics in world series baseball for genesis?
Or 2K1 for dreamcast? and so on and so on?

As far as these developers go, once upon a time (before 2006) we would get a slew of baseball title; World Series, MVP, All Star Baseball, High Heat, Inside Pitch, MLB 989, MLB Slugfest...
I remember reading forums and lookin for previews and reading through game magazines for info on the games I was interested in.
Then EA sports had to ruin the fun for everyone by getting the exclusive deal with the NFL.
2K went out and did the same thing to EA and got the MLB license, so pretty much Ea couldnt make a baseball game.

I can only imagine where baseball gaming would be now if those deals were struck.
We'd be on MVP 2011! Sony has gone above and beyond to take the reigns as king of baseball games the past few years, but why can't 2K?

Since 2008 Ive been playing the show, because in the end there are many less flaws than 2K. Thats the bottom line.
If 2K couldve taken 2K7 and built upon that game, it couldve been rightup there with the show.
Instead, what happened?????

[SoxFan01605]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I disagree. The more resources put into creating custom player faces, and making sure their sleeves or tattoos or cleats are real-life authentic, the less time committed to game play programming, and working out bugs and such.

I would suggest innovation suffers. Take a look at this series. 2K actually removed an amazing feature (step influence hitting) a couple years back because the masses want don't want game play authenticity and difficulty -- they want graphics and Manny's dreadlocks.

The trouble with this series is deeper than a focus on graphics...lol. Nowadays, these bigger companies have separate guys working on the different facets, so graphics don't come at a sacrifice to gameplay or vice-versa. People can have concern for both and how they interact for gameplay.

I do agree about the reduced difficulty and removal of certain, more challenging features (like the step influence, which I agree was great), but again, that's not an issue with a focus on realism (after all, timing your step would be a realistic concept). It's an issue of meeting the demands of your consumers.

So in this example, your beef should be with the many fans who cried foul at the added challenge rather than a focus on realism, since they actually reduced realism to accommodate the wants of gamers.

[jeffy777]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

If you don't want realism, there's always The Bigs 2

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

I bet everyone has a different perception on what is real and what isn't and there are a lot of good ideas. The fact people spend this much time criticizing and on these forums, tells me there are a lot of people out there that have different perceptions on what is real or not. Not to get into philosophy with you but it's kind of true. What is real? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it did it really happen?

That's why I think there is too much of a focus on realism when there should just be a lot of people out there trying to make the best and most fun game they can. We sort of are here. We are helping Sony or 2k achieve that if they listen. But I still think it's too focused on 1 or 2 games when there could be more ideas that are actually being implemented.

I'd say there are a lot of people here on this forum with a different perception of what real is. I think we are being milked like cows while Sony controls it all. When I wish more people would make games. In the end hopefully it's good for everyone and everyone is happy. I wish more people would challenge themselves to come up with different ideas. I think people feel too much at the mercy of the developer and there is a lack of innovation and thinking outside the box and doing something about it..

For me it's like why come up with a great idea when I can't develop it anyways and it's just not going ot be listened to. My motivation is simply as a consumer because I want to play more great games. I like video games. So I come here and vent my thoughts. I feel like I'm being consumed and not listened to more times than not though.

[Celtic34]

Re: Too much of a focus on realism?

If you don't want realism, there's always The Bigs 2

That's what is funny. It's like 2k just released a game that was totally over the top to appeal to a certain demographic. The thing is that game is just missing the mark too.

I want realism. I'm more talking about 2k and Sony because I think they both have a good take on it and I don't understand why there can't be more of that with different ideas. I liked what 2k did with the jordan challenge. That was thinking out of the box a bit while also keeping it realistic and immersive.

Seriously how bland is Madden when you think about it. IT's realistic sure in its own way, but it's really kind of bland. It's like its focusing on the lowest common denominator. That's all I'm saying. Every year it's like baby steps. Developers aren't willing to take chances. There is too much money at stake.

How many first person shooters are there these days? They are all the same. I remember back when there were games like x-com and maniac mansion that were totally different than anything else. Games like Tecmo bowl and bases loaded. Why can't there be a super realistic tecmo bowl kind of game. Or a super realistic bases loaded game. I Think people have gotten into this mode of Madden is the only way to do it.

I've been playing the same madden game for 20 years and no one else is willing to make another football game that could be just as realistic if not moreso. I think you would be surprised what can be done.

When the Show came out it was like omg I didn't even think this could be done.