...How were people calling this realistic?

#1IllMadePosted 8/29/2011 2:34:12 PM
It's a pretty enjoyable game, but as far as tennis goes, it is in no way an indication of what tennis is like. From the spontaneous winners to no double faults, to no aces, to volley battles and doubles points lasting ten+ strokes... This game isn't "realistic", as someone people seemed to have thought.

Went back to play this and wondered.
---
And although this is a fight I can lose,
The accused is an innocent man
#2PedroMontanaPosted 8/30/2011 3:43:26 AM
About "realism" in games in general:

I think an arcade game like this that tries to be an enjoyable game that looks like tennis is a far better thing then those "simulation" games that try to slavishly ape the real sport but fail as video games.

In my opinion, all this hype about "realism" and "simulation" in video games is a rather problematic thing, because the physical aspect of the simulated thing is always missing anyway.
When i play an arcade style racing game like F-Zero or Mario Kart, i'm intuitively able to control my vehicle because everything is simplified. Because of this, i can instantly focus on the competition instead of having to learn the game.
Now, in those racers that call themselves "driving simulation", i always feel that simply driving a car is actually far MORE complicated then in reality.



About people calling this game (and Virtua Tennis 1) realistic:

Well, you have to compare this to other Tennis games of it's time.
Tennis isn't that big of a video game genre, so comparisons had to be made with games from previous generations (which are less realistic because of technical limitations) and games that even more blatantly go for fun arcade multiplayer experiences like Mario Tennis. Top Spin is the ONLY popular and high rated Tennis series that really tries hard be "realistic".

Virtua Tennis is relatively realistic compared to all other high rated Tennis games outside of Top Spin.
---
No More Heroes
#3IllMade(Topic Creator)Posted 8/30/2011 11:03:52 AM
Good points. Admittedly, the only tennis games I've played are this, one on the Saturn, and Mario Tennis. Mario Tennis is fun because it is very arcade-y, but when I come back to play this one it just feels lacking in some fundamentals of tennis (serving is completely bizarre, lobs are flat and therefore almost entirely useless, too much control at the net), which stand out because this game mostly seems like it's simulating real tennis, whereas a game like Mario Tennis acknowledges it's own levity.

I have a differing (and somewhat inconsistent) opinion on games, perhaps. I do enjoy being able to pick up and play Mario Kart because it's all very simplified, but at the same time, I'm the kind who wants to see manual cars in GTA and so forth (with a somewhat-realistic shifting system). Speaking of that, even games like Forza today still do manual cars where a simple button press shifts for you, right? That seems strange to me, for a game noted for its simulation. As a bonus, I think it'd be a great learning tool to at least give kids the concept of driving stick.

I do agree that realism is becoming a problem with today's games or perhaps gamers. Gamers today ask for realism that pushes beyond the boundary of enjoyability, simply for the sake of having "more realistic" games.

But I digress entirely. Oh well. Just a thought that struck me as I go back and play my Dreamcast. Still a fun game, don't get me wrong (although I have always hated the 2k's series of "World Tour" mode or what have you, where you have to literally grind to improve attributes with stupid 'mini-games' that are horrible, rather than ones that might improve your gameplay, or better yet, actual games. This wasn't in NHL 2k2, which I also like, but it was in NBA 2k6, so... Not sure if it's ubiquitous throughout 2k games.)

Thanks for the civil post, not trying to rant or anything. Just a tennis player and gamer here.
---
And although this is a fight I can lose,
The accused is an innocent man