Home
News Post



This is the first feature we've done like this, but I'm quite excited to see how it works out. I'm going to raise a point of debate and you guys will have at it and we'll post another feature tomorrow with the very best responses from each end and declare a winner of sorts.

So today's debate is this: Which of these is more important for authenticity. You can't say both, you have to decide: Would having real time physics or a completely authentic true to life presentation be a bigger boost to a game's feeling of realism?

Let's hear it!

Member Comments
# 1 Smallzin @ 06/19/12 02:21 PM
Real Time Physics is where it is at. The presentation last a FEW MINUTES, The game IS LIKE AN HOUR OF AUTHENTICITY AND REALISM!!!! Screw the presentation, give me gameplay all day everyday
 
# 2 wynams @ 06/19/12 02:23 PM
+1 for properly implemented real-time physics.

Presentation is nice, however it is also the first thing your brain diverts to the subconscious. Whereas a game playing as if actually being played on earth with gravity and other forces equates to some tight game-play that you will appreciate long after snappy intros, tired pbp or tickers.
 
# 3 SHAKYR @ 06/19/12 02:24 PM
True life presentation is important; even though they need to go hand and to be a successful game.
 
# 4 unfriendlyghst @ 06/19/12 02:25 PM
RTP is more important.

Just look at the extremes........

If NBA 2k12 had that kind of presentation, but the gameplay was wonky......................

And look at super techmo bowl for NES...........................

No presentation ecxept for some cheerleader screens and an awesome high-five animation, but........................ sweet gameplay.

I say gameplay makes or breaks the experience.

If it looks like a tv broadcast, but it plays like a 5 year olds puppet show, no thanks. But If it looks like a 5 year olds puppet show, but plays like what I see on tv? Sign me up!
 
# 5 ezio @ 06/19/12 02:26 PM
Has to be Real Time Physics
 
# 6 Jadakiss88 @ 06/19/12 02:31 PM
I would say real time physics because presentation only goes so far in video games. Unless developers plan to do constant updates, the presentation will start to sound like a broken record. 2k has been the leader in presentation yet it gets stale after so long. I would rather have real life physics so I can stretch a games limits in what I can do on any given play. I live for creating spectacular moments.
 
# 7 TDurden46 @ 06/19/12 02:33 PM
Physics. The presentation gets old after a while no matter how good it is.
 
# 8 booker21 @ 06/19/12 02:35 PM
gameplay. all day. presentation gets old after a while no matter how good it is. -> Agree 100%
 
# 9 NoLimits77 @ 06/19/12 02:40 PM
Presentation is more important than most gamers realize. If the game's presentation felt "arcadey", then the game itself wouldn't feel close to the real thing, even if the actual gameplay mirrored real-life. Yet, the it'
s the saem problem the other one around obviously. As much as I want real-time physics, I think that the presentation is actually more important to providing an authentic experience. But remember, being more authentic doesn't always mean better. Despite what I said, I would prefer a Madden that focuses more on the gameplay and the real-time physics than one that tries to gloss over the poor gameplay with a professional presentation.
 
# 10 erich20012001 @ 06/19/12 02:45 PM
 
# 11 tHurley2010 @ 06/19/12 02:51 PM
Real time physics is more important than true-to-life presentation. If you don't like the presentation, there always seems to be an option to adjust the settings, by either shutting off the commentators, or just even listening to music while you play.

But there isn't a way to adjust collisions, momentum, etc... so it just makes more sense that the game would feel more realistic if properly implemented real time physics were used.
 
# 12 bigsmallwood @ 06/19/12 03:16 PM
All though we should have both.....RTP, if done properly will be more important to the gameplay, than a presentation that is flawless. Gameplay has to be #1 then, a decent presentation.
 
# 13 DIRRTY30 @ 06/19/12 03:56 PM
Physics. Gameplay is the most important part of playing a game, which should be pretty obvious. Presentation is still very important for authenticity, but how long is presentation going to keep you playing compared to fun gameplay? You can play a game with the sound muted, and if the gameplay is good, you can still have an enjoyable time. Now if you had a game with amazing presentation, but playing the game was no fun, then whoopty do. It would be like watching bad football. Also, a lot of people skip over many presentation elements in sports games anyway so they can get back to playing.
 
# 14 AllJuicedUp @ 06/19/12 04:02 PM
Some people seem to be answering what they think is more important to a good/fun video game, which is not the question at hand. The question is, what is more important for authenticity?

And to that question, there is no doubt it is completely true to life presentation. I'm talking a playable broadcast camera, the most in depth commentary and dynamic commentary in a sports video game, a post game show thats actually good (aka a show like Choops 2k8 did), etc... the whole damn package!

If you take Madden 12 and add those features the authenticity goes through the roof. Does it get any more fun and increase the replay value? Maybe a little, but not much.

Now if you ask me which one I'd rather have, its real time physics no doubt. Even a mediocre physics engine that made the contact just a little better would add a ton more fun and replay value to Madden. A fully fledged one (I'm talking a fleshed out physics engine more in the model of Backbreaker than say NHL, which is a joke to call physics), and I'd be in football heaven as far as enjoyment goes. Which for me is far and away the most important aspect for a game.

But the question was about authenticity. And if you take Madden 12 and could add either of those to it to make it a more authentic experience, the answer is presentation.
 
# 15 statum71 @ 06/19/12 04:07 PM
I gotta go against the rules and say both.

Physics is so so huge in bringing gameplay close to realism. But without the TV-style polish it just feels like a really cool game that's "kinda dry."

Case in point......FIFA. Awesome, awesome gameplay. But it comes nowhere close to feeling like the game is on TV. Which takes away some immersion for me personally.
 
# 16 turducken34 @ 06/19/12 04:13 PM
True to life presentation. I play these games to unwind from the stresses of the day. I'm not going to be analyzing each and every tackle to be sure that they're not replicated. Presentation though is something that helps draw me into the game if it's good. I haven't been one to bash commentary, but Madden 12 was the first time ever that I turned it down to 0. It was very disjointed.
Now if there were to be a weekly wrap-up show, displaying scores from around the league, talk of the big injuries,playoff chase and some actual highlights, then I would be in hog heaven! The "other" game that implemented RTP was not very fun at all in my opinion. It looked nice, but too much was lacking- like no injuries etc.
I have never played organized football, so I'm not one that's going to sit there and scour over every little thing that might not replicate the real game of football. I don't feel that 12 was broken or unplayable, my disappointment from what I've seen and heard of 13 so far is a lack of presentation.....and the weather if it's not fixed! Phil and Jim are a nice start so kudo's to EA for that.
And while I'm interested to see and feel how RTP works for 13, I would have preferred to see more presentation stuff done. In the end, I just want a game that pulls me into another world for a couple of hours each night before the grind of the next day.
 
# 17 DubTrey1 @ 06/19/12 04:16 PM
RTP. thats all. Presentation can be worked on for the next year. RTP is around the gameplay....
 
# 18 SkillzKillz719 @ 06/19/12 04:16 PM
Gameplay. That's difference between a video game and real life. If you wanna see a true to life presentation go watch a game on CBS. LOL.

The point of a video game is the gameplay lol.
 
# 19 gmitch23 @ 06/19/12 04:21 PM
I cant believe i'm saying this but it has to be presentation. The way the game is presented to you over and over is what will keep you coming back most. Why esle do we love to watch football in real life? Because of the way its presented. Would you watch real life football with not commentary? Yes, but not for long. Why do you love going to the game in person? Because of the atmosphere. A game can have RTP but how much fun would it be if the crowd didnt cheer on touchdowns, every game played on generic football fields, or your favorite players not being presented in a way that's similar to thier real life counter parts. Football is a game of emotion and enthusiasm. If that same emotion is not presented each and every game, we would quit playing it within a couple of days. If the presentation can be produced with real life excitement, I'll play that game any day over a game that only have RTP. As humans, we stick with the things that brings emotions, and great presentation can bring emotion.
 
# 20 ubernoob @ 06/19/12 04:32 PM
Most important for authenticity?

Presentation. I don't expect anything near perfection from a football video game (nor so the masses, obviously. Compared to the crowd here.) I'm used to simming through seasons of Madden and maybe playing 1 or 2 games per year.

True to life presentation would make the game much more authentic than real time physics. Obviously both is the answer, but if forced to pick... I have to go with presentation - and I'm as sim as the next guy.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

« Previous1234Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.