Has the Definition of Realism Changed? - RaychelSnr's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

RaychelSnr's Blog

Has the Definition of Realism Changed? Stuck

Posted on March 21, 2011 at 09:50 PM.

(31)

Every now and then, I have to write a blog of this sort to get the blood boiling among OS faithful and to seek your input on the more intricate issues of our genre.

The baseball games are where I'm laying my thesis down this week, as I think they provide a prime example of how the definition of realism in our genre (and perhaps all of video games) has changed in the last five years.

We have gone from gameplay being the standard bearer of realism to the overall package being what we consider concerning how a game is realistic.

Gameplay used to dominated the discussion whether a specific game was realistic, nowadays the tone of those same discussions is noticeably different.

Graphics, animations, commentary, crowd noise, plays, controls.

Oh, and gameplay.

Not to say gameplay is an afterthought. It's not -- but to say that a game that plays well is automatically realistic in this day and age isn't quite getting 'it' either it seems.

Some people who have yet to play MLB: The Show (or who vehemently insist that MLB 2K is just as good) have brought up an argument that graphics don't equal realism -- which was the case five to seven years ago when graphics couldn't equal realism because they simply weren't good enough.

Fast forward to 2011.

What makes you feel more into a game?

Player models being right, good animations, good atmosphere, solid gameplay.

This is the era where realism has finally changed it's definition from simply gameplay to something more inclusive of all of the aspects of a game. The PS2 was a fine console, as was the XBox: however neither could push the realistic barriers and boundaries the consoles of today can.

Seven years ago, it was cool to see a player with a batting stance and a general player model that looked vaguely like Alex Rodriguez standing at the plate. Today, I'm disappointed if Alexi Ogando's pitching motion doesn't look right.

Which is why I can't stand to play MLB 2K11 in lieu of The Show.

And it's why I think MLB 2K11 isn't receiving the type of praise it could -- it features generic player models and stances/deliveries. It's hard to call yourself authentic when the competition has twice the content you do -- kind of the same thing as buying a Chevy Aveo and bragging to your neighbor who just bought a Corvette.

The whole concept of realism has shifted because gameplay is, for all intents and purposes, easy to nail to a certain extent in today's console world -- at the very least it's expected to be solid. No AAA sports title really misses the boat in terms of gameplay these days, at least those which are expecting to succeed. When they do miss the boat (NBA Elite) they are completely thrown out to sea forever.

So has the meaning of realism shifted from something that simply meant gameplay to something that includes the entire package?

While this is a subjective argument of semantics because one man's realism is another man's unrealistic arcadey mess, I'd argue realism has changed and the expectations on developers to deliver has changed.

But as they say, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

So what do you think? What is your definition of realism as we had into the best time of the year (MLB Season) in 2011? Has your definition of realism changed?

Comments

# 16 LingeringRegime @ Mar 22

Randomness based on statistical integrity. For my money Strat-O-Matic/OOTP is still the most realistic. The Show is probably as close as it gets for a console though.

# 17 CuseGirl @ Mar 22

My definition of realism has nothing to do with enjoyability, to be honest. It took me a while to ENJOY Mlb The Show and NBA 2k11 because the learning curve is so high, ESPECIALLY in the Post-Patch 2k11.

Realism, for me, would include better player models in The Show. They only have fat, buff, skinny, wut is that? MVP Baseball allowed different bicep sizes, chest sizes, even the size of the players feet. Also, if SCEA could fix the FA/Arbitration glitch in The Show, I'd be happy.

# 18 TarHeelPhenom @ Mar 22

Realism to me is gameplay in addition to authenticity in regards to said sport. My favorite sports title is NCAA Football so I'll use that game as an example.

IRL, when I look at college football I see variations of athletes, gameday strategies, but the pageantry is what stands out the most...the atmosphere. So, when i play a college football game, I want it to feel the same way it would if I were tuning in on a fall Saturday afternoon. I don't want to feel like I am playing a ported version of Madden. I want to see the school spirit, I want to see the different philosophies on offense and different play out. I want to see the difference between a Blue Chip QB and a walk-on. Even more than that though...I wanna see presentation. It's 2011 and EA has yet to use their ESPN license to it's full advantage. I see what 2k does presentation wise and it's totally unacceptable. The possibilities are endless. Why not utilize GAMEDAY at the biggest game of the week? Why not utilize ESPN and ESPN2 for different games and have two different sets of commentators? They have proven it can be done because they did it with their last NCAA College Basketball game. Also, recruiting...they give us the ESPN 150. Why not give us the UA All-America Bowl game with the opportunity to see some of the best high school players in the country play before they come to college? These things can be done and have been done in other games. IMO, these companies should spend less time putting in FLUFF like mascot games and all this other mess with no value and focus on gameplay, presentation and deep franchise/dynasty modes. That's what keeps the core gamers happy. We don't mind sacrificing graphics for those things.

It says a wholeeeeeeeeeeee lot to me when games like NFL 2k5 and College Hoops 2k8 are STILL being played today in 2011. It also says a lot that 2k is the makers of those games as well.

# 19 TarHeelPhenom @ Mar 22

I would also like to add the ability of the gamer to edit. and customize as they see fit once they have the game in their possession

# 20 wcrickards @ Mar 22

For me, realism is simple. When I'm playing the game, I want to see statistical similarity to real life. I don't want to hit eight home runs and strike out fourteen times a game (which is why I couldn't stand the MLB 2k series). I don't want to see a basketball game where all the points are scored in the paint and on fast breaks (which is why I couldn't stand a basketball game until NBA 2k11).

# 21 Dazraz @ Mar 22

I think realism stems, not from how accurately a game plays in relation to the physics of the actual sport, but more in how it replicates a TV broadcast. TV is the medium in which we both watch sport & play sport games. Therefore it is only natural that any correlation between the two will result in a sense of realism.
Improved gameplay, live physics, better graphics, accurate sounds, dynamic commentary, deep franchise modes, TV style overlays, all of these can help deliver a realistic game but only if they're brought together in a single package. All too often games get 2, maybe 3 of these right but rarely all of them. NBA 2K11 is the one game that comes closest to delivering them all.

Look at Madden 11 & NHL 11 - Visuals, physics & stadium/arena sounds are solid but the commentary is weak, the Dynasty/Franchise Modes dated & flawed & no sense of a broadcast level of presentation whatsoever.

Even the mightily impressive MLB the Show fails to get the sense of broadcast presentation right despite the wide variety of situational cut scenes throughout the game that give the sense of an unpredictable live game on TV. Stale & badly synced commentary fails to complement what you see on screen & therefore detracts from the overall experience.

Will we get to the point where all our favourite sport games are released in a ultra realistic fashion?

Probably not. All we can be certain of is the technology is now there to do so. Our hopes lay in the hands of the developers. How much they are willing to invest & how creative they want to be with their game.

# 22 Seanzie @ Mar 22

Good points in the blog. I do think that realism has become somewhat subjective, as nonsensical as that sounds. Sometimes I read people on this very forum complaining about certain things, and I don't think they're really looking into the gameplay mechanics as a whole.

I like to think that most games are relatively realistic. There's always room for improvement, but I think the realism fails when people find exploits in the game (ala the nano blitz in Madden).

# 23 rdklein @ Mar 23

Realism = Statistics and AI.

Sure, a game can have great player models and physics, visually stunning ballparks/stadiums, and great commentary - but if I see Roy Oswalt throw 300 innings without giving up a walk, the Minnesota Vikings scoring 42 points per game, or Kobe Bryant shooting 68% from 3 point range in a season... how real is that? The game sure is pretty, but it ain't real.

That's why there is a fairly strong market for some of these games that focus more on statistical and AI realism than graphics. OOTP and FM are great examples of fantastic games with statistical accuracy... with very little eye candy.

Carl Crawford is a great base stealer, but he doesn't steal 400 bases a season.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys at EA and 2K even watch sports.