🎮 The Myth of “We Can’t Do That in Games” — A Deceptive Narrative in Modern Gaming
I. 🎭 The Deceptive Shield: “It’s Too Hard” in the Age of Technology
Game developers—especially in the sports and simulation genres—often lean on the narrative that certain features, mechanics, or realism requests are “too hard,” “not feasible,” or “not what the market wants.” These claims are often not only exaggerated but deliberately misleading. We’re in an era where:
-
AI can simulate human behavior with astonishing complexity.
-
Physics engines can accurately replicate real-world environments and collision.
-
Character customization is more advanced than ever.
-
Games like Microsoft Flight Simulator use real-time weather data and satellite mapping.
-
The indie game scene pushes creative boundaries on shoestring budgets.
Yet somehow, when boxing fans ask for things like accurate footwork, real punch trajectories, AI tendencies, or realistic stamina, we’re told:
“It’s not possible right now… maybe in the future.”
This is not a technological limitation—it’s a design or budgetary decision disguised as technical impossibility.
II. 🧠 Fans Defending Limitations: The “Stockholm Syndrome” of Game Fandom
A concerning trend is the cult-like defense from certain fan segments. When valid criticism is raised, whether it's about AI, realism, or missing features, defensive fans will:
-
Accuse critics of being “crybabies” or “too picky”
-
Repeat developer talking points as if they’re facts
-
Shame others for “not understanding how hard game dev is”
This is dangerous because it creates an echo chamber where companies don’t feel the pressure to improve. Instead of being held accountable, they’re shielded by their own community.
Examples:
-
A fan says, “This game doesn’t need stamina drain mechanics. It’s just a video game.”
-
Another says, “You think it’s easy to make realistic footwork? Just be grateful we have a boxing game at all.”
They normalize mediocrity, which in turn lowers the bar across the entire genre.
III. 🔍 Expose the Reality: It’s About Priorities, Not Possibility
Let’s be real—developers pick and choose what to implement based on:
-
Budget and deadlines
-
Marketing appeal
-
Target audience engagement
-
Short-term returns vs. long-term community loyalty
Many won’t invest in realistic mechanics because they assume it won’t drive immediate profit, not because it’s impossible. But if realism is the vision, and fans support it, the investment pays off long-term.
If we can have:
-
Dynamic weather in racing sims
-
Fully branching storylines in RPGs
-
AI neural networks in fighting games
We can absolutely have:
-
Southpaw stance proficiency ratings
-
Unique trainer behavior models
-
Stamina degradation tied to punch selection and movement
-
Realistic boxer AI based on historic tendencies
IV. 🧱 What Needs to Change
-
Fans must demand transparency — ask why something isn’t included, not just if it can be.
-
Stop defending developers’ excuses — hold them to a higher standard if they promise realism or simulation.
-
Support developers who take risks — even if the graphics aren’t AAA, reward innovation.
-
Push back on limited thinking — challenge the narrative that complexity isn’t marketable.
V. 🗣️ Final Word
The era of technological limitation is over. We live in a time when digital possibilities are endless—but corporate creativity is shrinking. The only way to change that is through community pressure, public discourse, and raising expectations. If you believe realism matters, don’t let excuses become doctrine.
🎮 The Lazy Excuses Holding Games Back:
“It’s Just a Video Game” & “That’s Too Hard to Add”
I. 🧠 "It’s Just a Video Game" — The Most Convenient Cop-Out
What it really means:
“Don’t expect depth, nuance, or realism—shut up and play.”
This line is often used to shut down any call for authenticity, immersion, or realism. It’s a phrase that lowers the standard of expectation and enables companies to release half-finished, shallow experiences with no accountability.
Why it’s deceptive:
-
Games are no longer "just games" — they're complex, living systems with AI, physics, emotion, story, and community.
-
It ignores how games like Red Dead Redemption 2, NBA 2K, or Football Manager offer immense depth in their respective genres.
-
Fans don’t say “it’s just a movie” when a film lacks plot or direction.
-
"Just a game" is weaponized to downplay customer feedback—especially from fans who understand the sport or topic better than the developers.
Boxing example:
Want realistic stamina drain or footwork balance?
“Bro, it’s just a game…”
Meanwhile, they’re selling a $70 product labeled as a “simulation.”
II. 🏗️ “That’s Too Hard to Add” — The Illusion of Technical Limits
What it implies:
“We can’t do it… not because we’re unwilling, but because it’s just too complex.”
Why it’s misleading:
-
In 2025, we have:
-
AI-generated animation
-
Real-time physics engines
-
Motion tracking from video without suits
-
Deep learning systems predicting player behavior
-
-
Indie games with teams of 3–5 people create more innovation and realism than multi-million dollar studios making excuses.
Most of the time, it’s NOT too hard — it’s:
-
Not prioritized
-
Not budgeted for
-
Not seen as profitable in the short-term
Boxing example:
A fan asks for AI that mimics real-life tendencies:
“That’s really hard to do.”
But companies like Title Bout or Football Manager have been doing it for over a decade.
III. 🧱 These Excuses Are Gatekeepers for Mediocrity
Together, both excuses serve the same function:
-
They lower expectations.
-
They shut down innovation.
-
They give lazy developers a pass.
-
They gaslight passionate fans into silence.
And worst of all, they condition the community to defend mediocrity.
You’ll see die-hard fans repeat these excuses like scripture:
“Just be glad we have a game at all.”
“They’re doing their best.”
“That’s not easy to add, man.”
Meanwhile, the game remains incomplete, missing core systems, and development stalls while marketing pushes new cosmetics and merchandise.
IV. 🧭 What Should Replace These Excuses?
-
Transparency:
“We haven’t figured that out yet, but we’re working on it.”
-
Realistic Priorities:
“We’re focusing on core mechanics before adding fluff or filler.”
-
Community Input:
“We’re building tools to implement more of what you’re asking for—help us test it.”
-
Acknowledgment of Capability:
“It’s possible—we just need more time or resources.”
V. 🔥 Final Word: Demand Better
If a company promises a realistic experience, they must be held to that standard. Don’t let them hide behind the excuse of “it’s just a video game” when games today are more powerful than ever.
Realism is not too hard to implement—it’s just too hard for those who don’t care.
We don’t need to accept shortcuts, half-steps, or excuses when the tools, knowledge, and community willpower to build great games already exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment