Bartski
Gold Member
Having noticed plenty of disagreement and discussion in regards to something I see as a very interesting aspect of modern videogames design philosophy, I'd like to invite you all to voice your opinion on it!
This should be interesting.
Which camp are you in?
CAMP 1:
Arcade and Fun - games should never try to emulate real-world and should never shy away from reminding the player they're games.
- Moment to moment fun, responsive gameplay is king.
- The key to immersion is never taking away control from the player.
- Realism is the antithesis of fun.
- The player needs to feel they're playing a game, rather than watching a movie.
- Games should never waste any time of the player in favor of keeping the game world coherent.
- Real-world stories can sometimes work combined with arcade aesthetic, however, they're usually irrelevant and incompatible with key strengths of modern-day gaming.
Recent examples: Doom Eternal, Devil May Cry 5, Nioh 2
CAMP 2:
Grounded & Realistic - games should do their best to emulate real-world if they try to tell real-world stories.
- Maintaining verisimilitude in gameplay is king.
- Devs should take the challenge and develop responsive interesting mechanics without breaking it.
- Sacrificing moment to moment "fun" and sometimes frustrating the player achieving this goal is ok.
- Games can and should strive for being audiovisual interactive experiences and evoking a variety of emotions rather than pastime activity comfort food.
- Such games should be as cinematic as possible while staying as interactive as possible.
Recent examples: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last Of Us Part 2
CAMP 3
I like both - Why can't we have both? Such different design directions are perfectly viable, resulting in games of different qualities I enjoy, it's a pointless faux contention.
[EDIT way too late: aka how-not-to-do-a-poll-101 camp...]
If the first thing coming to your mind is that the examples I'm giving are shit - well these are the games I actually played and imo work well for what I'm trying to say. Feel free to give yours. I consider games like Ghost of Tsushima or Death Stranding an interesting middle-ground and I deliberately excluded them. I understand most votes should and probably will land on option 3, I have decided to make this thread however after seeing plenty of voices (here and on Reddit) showing strong preference towards options 1 and 2, people appreciating vs standing in opposition to certain modern trends in gaming.
What do you think?
This should be interesting.
Which camp are you in?
CAMP 1:
Arcade and Fun - games should never try to emulate real-world and should never shy away from reminding the player they're games.
- Moment to moment fun, responsive gameplay is king.
- The key to immersion is never taking away control from the player.
- Realism is the antithesis of fun.
- The player needs to feel they're playing a game, rather than watching a movie.
- Games should never waste any time of the player in favor of keeping the game world coherent.
- Real-world stories can sometimes work combined with arcade aesthetic, however, they're usually irrelevant and incompatible with key strengths of modern-day gaming.
Recent examples: Doom Eternal, Devil May Cry 5, Nioh 2
CAMP 2:
Grounded & Realistic - games should do their best to emulate real-world if they try to tell real-world stories.
- Maintaining verisimilitude in gameplay is king.
- Devs should take the challenge and develop responsive interesting mechanics without breaking it.
- Sacrificing moment to moment "fun" and sometimes frustrating the player achieving this goal is ok.
- Games can and should strive for being audiovisual interactive experiences and evoking a variety of emotions rather than pastime activity comfort food.
- Such games should be as cinematic as possible while staying as interactive as possible.
Recent examples: Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last Of Us Part 2
CAMP 3
I like both - Why can't we have both? Such different design directions are perfectly viable, resulting in games of different qualities I enjoy, it's a pointless faux contention.
[EDIT way too late: aka how-not-to-do-a-poll-101 camp...]
If the first thing coming to your mind is that the examples I'm giving are shit - well these are the games I actually played and imo work well for what I'm trying to say. Feel free to give yours. I consider games like Ghost of Tsushima or Death Stranding an interesting middle-ground and I deliberately excluded them. I understand most votes should and probably will land on option 3, I have decided to make this thread however after seeing plenty of voices (here and on Reddit) showing strong preference towards options 1 and 2, people appreciating vs standing in opposition to certain modern trends in gaming.
What do you think?
Last edited: