Ozzie Arcane the only time that critique is valid is a history documentary

100%

Wow talk about abstraction. Good point….

to be honest I'm seeing the conversations surrounding that have changed dramatically, where 5 years ago the majority cried "graphics graphics!" and now that we've achieved near realism people just want good games. They don't want hyper real, they wan't a good game that doesn't take hours to install and riddles with micro-transactions (although thats a different conversation entirely)

@@Panther-kid What you said about the conversations is very true about Japanese games. Games such as Guilty Gear, Persona 5, and Breath of the Wild made the graphics work in such a way that their unique styles were pushed to the max. These are examples of some of the most visually appealing games out their. It also helps that these games are very good to play as well. The Breath of the Wild GDC talked about how the devs wanted to make an art style that "made it easy to lie", or to better put it, make an art style that allows them to get away with more fantasy/non-realistic things in the game. For Western games, however, graphical realism was and is still predominantly preferred, especially with PC gamers, with games like Fortnite and Overwatch being the rare exception. Games like the Last of Us, new Tomb Raider, and Uncharted are examples of games that pushed the "need" for games to be more realistic. This is where the graphic obsession peaked at an all time high imo. This was extremely prevalent in the PS3/Xbox360 era, where realism was king. Ironically, this is the same era where people claimed that JRPGs and Japanese games as a whole were "dead". If you search a list of the best PS3/Xbox 360 games of all time, with the exception of Minecraft, all of them had realistic art styles.

Prioritising animation over responsive controls is another problem in some games that are trying to emulate realism...look at red dead redemption 2 for example, moving the characters around is like steering a boat.

Couldn't agree more about rdr2. Trying to pick shit up gets so absurd when my character wants to stumble an extra 3 steps forward. I don't mind sacrificing that detail of "realism" if it hinders ease of use.

Whats realistic or not is something i wont get into but i am one of those that look for *realistic standards* in games. To me its a matter of principles and i think principles should be kept or chaos will unfold (even in video games). World of Warcraft is a fantasy game BUT everything has to exist according to the world. You cant just add loli or pikachu as a dress me options in there, Its UNREALISTIC and will break any sort of immersion (its what mainstream video games do nowadays). Another example to understand what i am saying is: picture that u play a game where u have a char thats a Werewolf. And he has the same Physical STR with a char thats a little girl/loli thing, well, THATS atrocious! REALISM IS NEEDED or chaos unfolds (as i said above). Sacrificing realistic principles that define each character, that define the world u play in etc is the downgrade of video games. I personally dont play Fire Emblem games (although i have fun in them). Why? because there is no UNIT turn order. You act then your enemy. To me, this is unrealistic and its a game breaking design.

Then you have well designed fighting games where it becomes physical chess rather than, spamming.

Radiant Historia, Mana Khemia, Shin Megami Tensei, and Golden Sun all have outstanding combat. Haven't played the other ones yet.

That's fair but I really only wanted to address the "realism" claim, and not necessarily the precise differences of each system.

THIS.

I've had this exact conversation and the stubbornness is incomprehensible. I just like to address it nonetheless because, even assuming that it had merit, it still lacks substance as a criticism. Thanks Hian!

@@HighLevelReviews Np. I agree totally. It's such a pervasive perspective but quite clearly it just stems from motivated reasoning I.E "I can't relate and have fun with command based systems, therefore there must be something wrong with them" *scrambles for any surface reason seemingly available. It's just so banal. Some of the most historically significant and lasting games ever conceived by humans are entirely abstract - chess, traditional cards, Igo, rock paper scissor etc. Many humans have a propensity towards enjoying abstract games, and taking combat and turning it into an abstract exercise is actually a very clever act of gameification. Interesting this is actually what chess is as well - Modern chess is a derivation of Chaturanga, an indian strategy game which was itself an obvious abstraction of army combat as seen from the view of the commander - the first strat RPG if you will.

Don't forget that the first ARPG, Dragon Slayer by Nihon Falcom, was released in 1984.

yeah, would be hilarious/brilliant to run with the oft-repeated "it's not realistic!" line and make it "realistic" in a specific universe to further comment on the inanity of that criticism.

and you say of course as though thousands of people aren't baffled it isn't accurately representing some imaginary combat state in that world

@@HighLevelReviews yeah, and you made a good point in the video that all games, even the supposedly "realistic" ones, are still abstractions. Combat in real life doesn't work like in Devil May Cry or Rainbow Six either. Scott Pilgrim is what happens when you bring even "realistic" video game logic into a real world setting.

Really appreciate that man, I look forward to your stuff. Got a twitter or anything I can follow it on?

@@HighLevelReviews yup follow me on twitter @joefro0 :D

>> Realism theoretically helps players subconsciously connect to the digital game world [...] Even this conjecture is flawed as I see it since it conflates "realistic" with "intuitive". That is not always the case. If fighting became more realistic in games, for example, it would look much less flashy, much less cinematic, and actually far more awkward and clumsy. For many users, their intuition of fighting is shaped by unrealistic choreography from films and TV shows designed to read well on camera rather than simulate the awkwardness and chaos of a real fight, by sports like MMA and boxing which do not particularly resemble a real fight to the death due to their rules, by comic books involving superheroes, etc. Even realistic dialogue is not necessarily intuitive in the media filled with "umms" and awkward pauses and small talk and the like. A game aiming to simulate those aspects of everyday speech would likely bore its audience to death, since it would be placing equal focus on the mundane rather than the more exciting and interesting aspects of a conversation. Even the best photorealistic and naturalistic artists don't make realism their ultimate goal, and instead aim to exaggerate reality (ex: exaggerating the poses of their models, exaggerating contrast between foreground and background, exaggerating value differences of focal points, etc.) because the exaggeration actually more deeply resonates with our intuition of how things should be rather than how they actually are. Intuitive can help a lot since it aligns with our expectations. But sometimes the conventions that shape our intuitions are hardly realistic. My intuition is conditioned into associating a blue icon of a floppy disk as a save button, even though that has very little to do with realism. I can see intuition as a noteworthy goal like using A to jump and B to attack on a Nintendo controller instead of defying expectations and ergonomics by reversing the two, but I think realism is a red herring.

@@AnonyMous-og3ct There have been some really enlightening studies focused on player expectation in relation to dialogue/conversation (both fore and backgrounded). Most of them clearly demonstrate that players expect and indeed anticipate every conversation and all world chatter to be, in some way, player referential. This is what many players label as "realistic" during these studies. Outside of certain archetypes, this is absurd. It simply defies the sociology of a layered and functional world. But to add to your point, how boring (though realistic) would an escapist adventure be if none of its inhabitants acknowledged the player or involved him/her in their exploits? Despite the wrongheaded and misguided stamping of "realism" on to absolute player involvement, it's clear that recreating real-world communicative practices is not the goal (and shouldn't be). Appreciate the comment!

Underwhelming, sadly.

@@MrSerpico145 Where does he say that? in a video?

@@gamerprince-tl5hg that's my opinion. He asked for one.

@@MrSerpico145 oh i thought you were saying HighLevelReview's opinion on the game. my bad.

@@gamerprince-tl5hg np

thanks!

Suikoden 2

Shadow Hearts! It is wonderful.

Thanks for the quick answer ;)

@@loulipac of course, thanks for watching my video lol

Xenogears, but I'm assuming that's exactly what you meant.

Haha yes, I just found out I put the wrong name in my message, and was coming back to modify it.

ChasingPerspective bonds of sea and fire I believe

Thanks. Your right hard to remember many JRPG Soundtrack. There too many great JRPG soundtracks LOL

Bro that's a strawman what they meant is that isn't engaging and immersive but people misuse the term realism often because they have no other word to describe your counter argument is pathetic

@@newmobils8294 Dude. You do not even know what a strawman is. A strawman is a bad argument that nobody ever makes but is used as a representative. There are plenty of horrid arguments people do make (like nitpicking the realism of fantasy combat and using that against turn-based combat). It is an argument that is actually made by people (that think themselves the modern Einstein) . Your opinion about turn-based not being engaging is barely a step up because that retarded opinion did not stop Pokemon, SMT, Dragon Quest or D&D from becoming mammoth IPs.

Considering interview after interview i read of developers confirming turn-based wasn't the first option but felt that what they wanted out of an action based system at the time simply couldn't happen or be executed in the way they'd envisioned, I'll kindly disagree. I'm not saying turn based wasn't a deliberate first choice for some but there's a lot of evidence that suggests it wasn't for many.

Totally understandable!