Abstraction Vs Realism

[pocketmego]

I was curious as to your thoughts on Abstract vs Realistic games and which you all prefer.

 

A realistic (give or take) type of game would be Defender or Superman. Very straight forward premises that can stand up to some form of reality even if Science Fictional or Fantasy in nature.

 

Abstract would be something more like Q-Bert, Pac-Man, or Centipede. All of these games are very gamecentric in their logic and con't really be placed in any kind of realistic setting.

 

Which do you prefer and which kidn of game do you think the VCS handled better?

 

-Ray

[jaybird3rd]

I think the VCS obviously handled abstract games better. It didn't have the horsepower for realistic physics or audiovisuals, so the best it could create (when it even attempted to do so) was a very simplified representation of real-world situations or events.

 

Those limitations were a wonderful creative challenge, though, because they freed game developers from the restriction of creating games that could only exist in the real world. This gave them the opportunity to create what became the classic game paradigms and play patterns; many of the greatest video games (Pong and Breakout, Tetris, Pac-Man, etc) could never have existed if the industry was always as obsessed with realism as it is today.

 

So I generally prefer abstract games, and on limited 80s platforms from the VCS up until about the Atari 7800. They have a cleanness and an elegant simplicity about them that modern games do not, and of course they continue to be a wonderful source of escapist entertainment today.

[bedouin]

One thing I used to be able to do as a kid that I enjoyed immensely was playing a game like River Raid, Pitfall, or even Jungle Hunt and imagining that it's actually me in the game. It may seem odd, but the unrealistic looks of games based reality made the experience more enjoyable to me. So the abstractness of reality in 8-bit games was great to me (if that makes sense).

 

But then again, I could take a game like Galaga and imagine it in a sci-fi sense -- that I'm actually in the ship fighting. Bad comparison perhaps, but 2600 renderings are a little bit like reality on acid. If you let yourself get into the world as it is you can have a lot more fun with it, and even admire its synthetic nature.

 

I think the best games might be somewhere in the middle. Something close to reality, but with superhuman, supernatural, science fiction elements attached to it. Something like Mario Kart takes something we're all real familiar with and then adds in stuff we can't (legally) do in real life, like weapons and animal-like racers (or fungi). Fighters and first person shooters work along those same lines; SF2 has martial arts in it, combined with superhuman moves and combos performed in duels between humans and non-humans -- half real, half science fiction.

 

It's like comparing Space Shuttle to Tempest 2000. Which one do you want to play? Forget Space Shuttle because it's a bad example. In general, which would relax the average person more, a futuristic space shooter, or a flight simulator? A flight simulator or something like Raiden? Games that get really close to reality appeal to those who can do something in reality, and those folks usually do it. Even stuff like Madden gives you reality and fiction, the fiction part being that you're adept enough to oversee a NFL team. EA Flag Football will never sell like something with NFL teams in it.

[mos6507]

I think just about all 2600 games are "abstract" compared to modern games.

[+remowilliams]

I think just about all 2600 games are "abstract" compared to modern games.

Exactly. Only recently has raw processing power come even close to representing 'reality'

 

As far as what do I prefer - it depends on my mood. I can enjoy a Dead Rising or Prey (360) immensely, or just as much a Blue Max or MULE or Bruce Lee (A8), Tunnels of Doom (TI) or Hero (2600). And the list goes on and on and on...

 

Good games come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Regardless of platform, manufacturer or point in time

[Lord Thag]

One thing I used to be able to do as a kid that I enjoyed immensely was playing a game like River Raid, Pitfall, or even Jungle Hunt and imagining that it's actually me in the game. It may seem odd, but the unrealistic looks of games based reality made the experience more enjoyable to me. So the abstractness of reality in 8-bit games was great to me (if that makes sense).

 

Yeah, it does actually. And I agree. Playing a 2600 game as opposed to a 360 or PS2 one is very much like the difference between an book and a movie. It takes a bit more effort, involves the imagination more, but often leaves you with a more personal experience. I think that's why the system is still going so strong today. We all have ties to the games because we put a lot of ourselves into them. I used to imagine myself being involved in the games when I was a kid as well. The simple graphics and lack of storyline left the door wide open for your imagination.

[DaveD]

It's an interesting question but I think the answer is more complex than "abstract vs realism."

 

Just based on its technical capabilities alone the 2600 makes a better game machine than simulation machine. I don't think anyone would argue that point.

 

So instead of trying to portray realistic environments the 2600 really mastered other forms of communication. I see it as the difference between getting behind the wheel of a car, looking out the windshield and driving vs reading a map or road signs communicating where you're going. They both essentially accomplish the same thing in a game setting. But if you're going to rely on more abstract symbolism to represent realistic scenarios you need to be able to visually communicate straightforward concepts. What does that mean in terms of the 2600? You need well-designed, iconic graphics and solid gameplay.

[pocketmego]

It's an interesting question but I think the answer is more complex than "abstract vs realism."

 

Just based on its technical capabilities alone the 2600 makes a better game machine than simulation machine. I don't think anyone would argue that point.

 

So instead of trying to portray realistic environments the 2600 really mastered other forms of communication. I see it as the difference between getting behind the wheel of a car, looking out the windshield and driving vs reading a map or road signs communicating where you're going. They both essentially accomplish the same thing in a game setting. But if you're going to rely on more abstract symbolism to represent realistic scenarios you need to be able to visually communicate straightforward concepts. What does that mean in terms of the 2600? You need well-designed, iconic graphics and solid gameplay.

 

This thread took a direction I never saw coming.

 

I guess when I say realism I need to better define the term. I mean games that are set in some sort of definable reality. Pitfall is realism (in terms of how real the VCS can get), Defender is actually a realistic environment (just with a sci-fi setting).

 

When I say Abstract, I mean things like...

 

Spider Fighter (no reality in that game at all), Q*bert, Pac-Man. These are games that are fun to pla, but have no definable settings.

 

Think in terms of the cartoons based on abstract games. Q*Bert and Pac-Man could never have cartoons taken directly from their games. Instead the creators of the shows had to invent worlds for them to inhabit in order to tell stories.

 

Pitfall, however, did not need such construction of environment. he already had a place realisitic enough to have his stories told in.

 

Yes, I agree because if its inability to create graphics, NOTHING on the VCS is realistic. However, many games are set in definable realities and many are not.

 

As for putting your imagination into the older systems better. Absolutely!!!

 

First with my Atari and my long voyages through space in Star Raiders. That is why I love that game today, I never considered the space travel segments boring, I loved that the game seemed to be a voyage through space with you and your computer.

 

I continued that into my C64 which had many games that I could be part of. Taking a voyage in 1492 with my crew in 7 Cities of Gold as we explored the New World. Or learning to trade and interact with aliens in ELITE. It is absolutely why i hold all these games in higher regard nthan later systems.

 

GREAT STUFF!!!

 

-Ray

[Vic George 2K3]

Defender in the category of "realistic"? Alien creatures and ships are more the work of one's imagination, no matter how "realistic" one may get with crafting such things.

[pocketmego]

Defender in the category of "realistic"? Alien creatures and ships are more the work of one's imagination, no matter how "realistic" one may get with crafting such things.

 

Yes, but Defender isn't really abstract. You are flying a recognizable fighter over an Earth City. Its not like say Quick Step. Where are that Kangaroo and Squirrel supposed to be?

 

Or Centipede...

 

What are you? Where are you?

 

That is what I mean.

 

-Ray