It's Just A Game

Col_Swelego · 07-13-2005, 02:24 PM

I hear ppl taking about "Arcade" vs "Reality" game. What are they talking about? Here is my interpretation.

To me they are talking about playing styles and this has nothing to do with the game (or game design).

Modern games allow both arcade and realistic playing styles.

What is the difference?

Think in terms of reading styles. Some ppl read science-fiction litterature and some read factual litterature.
Both can be satisfying in their own ways.

There are rules that in factual litterature personal comments and suggestions are not allowed. In games this is not the case, where games allow both playing styles.
That is why realistic players complain about games not being realistic enough. They want to exclude unrealistic features of game design.
And why arcade players feel that the game is not supposed to be realistic and want to make game design easier for self-satisfaction.

Arcade Playing Style
I feel arcade players have no interest in the outcomes or consequences of the game, except to win. They thrive on a fantasy/science-fiction environment with no specific objectives to achieve.
They play the game for here-and-now-satisfaction or kick.
The reason for playing the game is that it is fun. If the game is not fun they move on to another game.

For ex. dying in some cruel and unusal way can be fun about the game.
For ex. getting a high score is what can be fun about the game.

There is no other purpose for playing the game, but to have fun.

Realistic Playing Style
I feel a realist player wants to experience simulated environments that can involve historical, modern or future time periods.
The satisfaction is having a specific goal/challenge to reach and if the person gets a good score then that is a plus.
The ideal of having a challenge and solving the situation with what-if solutions causes the players to think.
There can be a high inlearning-process so satisfaction grows with time (eg. no immediate satisfaction).
This means the player can play the game for a long period of time.

Reaching that specific goal is what is satisfying about the game.
A specific goal can be:
a. staying alive
b. assisting others
c. base takeover
d. using a special weapon

For ex. saving a colleague and taking over enemy base can be satisfying about the game.
For ex. using teamplay to achieve map conquest can be satisfying about the game.

There is some sort of purpose for playing the game, maybe to learn about a situation that can be applied later in the future or a better understanding of an historical situation.
These players can criticize a game on how unrealistic the it is. So if the game is not so realistic, the player will go to another game.

Game Satisfaction
Like most products the buyers are looking for a consumer return.
Arcaders are looking for the fun factor.
Realist are looking for the experience factor.
Game designers are hoping to give both players what they are looking for.
So instead of going to the local pub and paying $50 on beer, the player will pay $40 on this game and have more satisfaction.

So stop fighting arcaders vs realist. And categorizing games as arcade and realistic.
As long as the game is designed for both it is an arcade-realistic game.
The future of realistic games is determined by technology. When tech gets better there will be more/better game designs for realistic players.

So if a game designer wants more realistic features in the game, this does not exclude arcade playing.
As long as the designer wants both playing styles to be used.

Over

grim reaper · 07-13-2005, 02:45 PM

The purpose of Games is to entertain.

People get entertainment in different ways, hence why different games are made.

[BFN] Night Star · 07-13-2005, 05:45 PM

In arcade play the weapons and vehicles are not very realistic. the ROF on machine guns is changed or the distance and accuracy is changed on tank rounds.

In realistic games everything is as close as possible to real life. The only problem with this is just like in real life one side will have a clear cut advantage. Not a lot of fun if you just bought the game with the money you saved by mowing people lawns for the entire summer...

Random Ping · 07-14-2005, 02:44 AM

Ah, so I am not the only conspiracist who thinks this.... :P

Games are about escape. More specifically an escape from the present reality. Games give one an opportunity to experience life from a different angle or scenario. Our reality is not necessarily within the game, but we can create a temporary reality based upon a specific situation presented in a game. We can know what it feels like to drive hot rod cars at blazing speeds and crash them into walls, but we don't have to experience the consequences involved in such a real-life event. GTA:San Andreas is a perfect example of this. It is a very popular game because people want to experience life "in the hood" but they don't want to face the consequences of actually living there and being in constant danger of death, burglery, and violence that is often witnessed in those enviroments. Games do what movies do by giving you a temporary altered reality, but with games, the player actually gets to experience more of the enviroment because they can chose what actions and consequences they want to temorarily experience within that altered reality.

Monkeyfeng · 07-14-2005, 03:08 AM

if you hate the debate between realism and arcade so much, why start another thread that talks about the issue?

KNYTE · 07-14-2005, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taiwan

if you hate the debate between realism and arcade so much, why start another thread that talks about the issue?

07-13-2005, 02:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Col_Swelego Private Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 93	It's Just A Game I hear ppl taking about "Arcade" vs "Reality" game. What are they talking about? Here is my interpretation. To me they are talking about playing styles and this has nothing to do with the game (or game design). Modern games allow both arcade and realistic playing styles. What is the difference? Think in terms of reading styles. Some ppl read science-fiction litterature and some read factual litterature. Both can be satisfying in their own ways. There are rules that in factual litterature personal comments and suggestions are not allowed. In games this is not the case, where games allow both playing styles. That is why realistic players complain about games not being realistic enough. They want to exclude unrealistic features of game design. And why arcade players feel that the game is not supposed to be realistic and want to make game design easier for self-satisfaction. Arcade Playing Style I feel arcade players have no interest in the outcomes or consequences of the game, except to win. They thrive on a fantasy/science-fiction environment with no specific objectives to achieve. They play the game for here-and-now-satisfaction or kick. The reason for playing the game is that it is fun. If the game is not fun they move on to another game. For ex. dying in some cruel and unusal way can be fun about the game. For ex. getting a high score is what can be fun about the game. There is no other purpose for playing the game, but to have fun. Realistic Playing Style I feel a realist player wants to experience simulated environments that can involve historical, modern or future time periods. The satisfaction is having a specific goal/challenge to reach and if the person gets a good score then that is a plus. The ideal of having a challenge and solving the situation with what-if solutions causes the players to think. There can be a high inlearning-process so satisfaction grows with time (eg. no immediate satisfaction). This means the player can play the game for a long period of time. Reaching that specific goal is what is satisfying about the game. A specific goal can be: a. staying alive b. assisting others c. base takeover d. using a special weapon For ex. saving a colleague and taking over enemy base can be satisfying about the game. For ex. using teamplay to achieve map conquest can be satisfying about the game. There is some sort of purpose for playing the game, maybe to learn about a situation that can be applied later in the future or a better understanding of an historical situation. These players can criticize a game on how unrealistic the it is. So if the game is not so realistic, the player will go to another game. Game Satisfaction Like most products the buyers are looking for a consumer return. Arcaders are looking for the fun factor. Realist are looking for the experience factor. Game designers are hoping to give both players what they are looking for. So instead of going to the local pub and paying $50 on beer, the player will pay $40 on this game and have more satisfaction. So stop fighting arcaders vs realist. And categorizing games as arcade and realistic. As long as the game is designed for both it is an arcade-realistic game. The future of realistic games is determined by technology. When tech gets better there will be more/better game designs for realistic players. So if a game designer wants more realistic features in the game, this does not exclude arcade playing. As long as the designer wants both playing styles to be used. Over __________________ The game outcome of egotistical players is finite ... The game outcome of team players is infinite ... Waiting for the chipmunk revolution.

07-13-2005, 05:45 PM	#3 (permalink)
[BFN] Night Star Master Warrant Officer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Eminiet domain Capital of the US Posts: 1,297	In arcade play the weapons and vehicles are not very realistic. the ROF on machine guns is changed or the distance and accuracy is changed on tank rounds. In realistic games everything is as close as possible to real life. The only problem with this is just like in real life one side will have a clear cut advantage. Not a lot of fun if you just bought the game with the money you saved by mowing people lawns for the entire summer... __________________ Looking forward to Spore. Looking forward to bf1942. 12841

07-14-2005, 02:44 AM	#4 (permalink)
Random Ping Master Warrant Officer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Evergreen State (at least on the West coast) Posts: 1,275	Ah, so I am not the only conspiracist who thinks this.... :P Games are about escape. More specifically an escape from the present reality. Games give one an opportunity to experience life from a different angle or scenario. Our reality is not necessarily within the game, but we can create a temporary reality based upon a specific situation presented in a game. We can know what it feels like to drive hot rod cars at blazing speeds and crash them into walls, but we don't have to experience the consequences involved in such a real-life event. GTA:San Andreas is a perfect example of this. It is a very popular game because people want to experience life "in the hood" but they don't want to face the consequences of actually living there and being in constant danger of death, burglery, and violence that is often witnessed in those enviroments. Games do what movies do by giving you a temporary altered reality, but with games, the player actually gets to experience more of the enviroment because they can chose what actions and consequences they want to temorarily experience within that altered reality. __________________ It is not important that the glass is half-full or half-empty, but rather how the glass got that way.

07-14-2005, 03:08 AM	#5 (permalink)
Monkeyfeng Captain Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Taiwan, can you find it on the map? Posts: 2,785	if you hate the debate between realism and arcade so much, why start another thread that talks about the issue? __________________

07-13-2005, 02:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	The purpose of Games is to entertain. People get entertainment in different ways, hence why different games are made.