#What should Rematch be?: Arcade vs Simcade vs Simulator

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

dense zodiac
#

Another thing that I want to make extremely clear from the beginning: this post is NOT about development priorities. It is not about what should be implemented first, second, or last. It is not about whether dribbling should be reworked before matchmaking, or whether servers should be fixed before mechanics are touched. Those are completely different conversations and they already happen everywhere else. This post is only about design philosophy. In other words, what kind of game Rematch should ultimately try to be. I’m not asking what should come first. I’m asking what direction the mechanics should eventually aim toward.

Because of that, I’ll talk about the three most common design approaches used in sports games: Arcade, Simcade, and Simulator. I’m going to go through each one separately and explain what they actually mean in practice, what kind of gameplay they create, what their strengths are, and what problems they tend to bring with them. I’ll try to avoid jargon or overly technical language because the goal here is clarity, not sounding like a game design textbook. And yes, some of this might sound a bit sarcastic at times, but that’s mostly because these discussions usually become weirdly dramatic for no reason.

I’ll also try to talk about each one individually whenever possible, instead of constantly comparing them, because that tends to make things easier to follow.
So let’s start:

#

Arcade:

An arcade-style sports game is usually built around one central idea: immediate fun and accessibility. The mechanics are intentionally simplified so that anyone can pick up the game and start playing without needing to understand a deep system of timing windows, physics interactions, or layered inputs. Actions tend to be fast, responsive, and often slightly exaggerated, because the goal is to create a gameplay loop that feels exciting even when you’re not deeply invested in mastering every mechanic.

In an arcade system, the game often helps the player more than they might realize. Movement tends to be forgiving, inputs are more lenient, and mistakes are less punishing. If you press a button slightly too early or slightly too late, the game might still give you a decent result. That doesn’t necessarily mean arcade games have no skill ceiling. They absolutely can. But the path to basic competence is usually very short, and the game prioritizes flow and spectacle over precision and realism.

One of the big advantages of this approach is that it keeps the player base wide. Casual players can jump in without feeling overwhelmed, matches tend to stay chaotic and entertaining, and the barrier to entry is low. From a community perspective, that often means faster matchmaking, more players experimenting with the game, and a generally lighter competitive atmosphere. People don’t feel like they need a hundred hours of practice just to avoid embarrassing themselves in their first matches.

#

.
The downside is that arcade systems can sometimes feel shallow over time, especially for players who enjoy mastering mechanics. When systems are simplified too much, decision making can start to feel repetitive. If the same actions consistently produce similar results regardless of context, high level play may eventually start to look very similar between players. That doesn’t always happen, but it’s a risk.

Another hidden downside is something people rarely mention: arcade mechanics can unintentionally create dominant strategies that are hard to counter, because the system lacks enough mechanical nuance to produce varied outcomes. When that happens, players often feel like the game becomes “spammy” or overly dependent on a few optimal actions.

So while arcade design is great for accessibility and quick fun, it sometimes struggles to sustain long term mechanical depth unless the developers carefully introduce systems that still allow skill expression without breaking the simplicity of the core gameplay.

#

.
Simcade:

Simcade sits somewhere in the middle, and because of that it’s often the most difficult design space to balance properly. The idea behind simcade is to keep the game approachable like an arcade title, but introduce enough mechanical nuance that player decisions and execution start to matter more. It’s essentially trying to capture the best of both worlds: accessibility and depth.

In a simcade system, mechanics still feel responsive and relatively forgiving, but they begin to include more intentional timing, positioning, and context-based outcomes. Actions don’t always produce identical results, and player inputs start to influence the outcome in more meaningful ways. Dribbling, movement, and passing systems often gain subtle layers where good timing or positioning can give a noticeable advantage.

The biggest strength of simcade design is that it tends to produce high skill ceilings without alienating newer players. A beginner can still participate and enjoy the game, but experienced players have more room to differentiate themselves through execution and decision making. Ideally, this creates a healthy competitive ecosystem where improvement feels rewarding without requiring extreme dedication just to be functional.

#

.
However, simcade design also has its own problems. Because it sits between two philosophies, it can easily disappoint both sides if not handled carefully. If mechanics are too forgiving, competitive players may feel like the game lacks depth. If mechanics become too demanding, casual players may start to feel pushed away.

Another hidden challenge is clarity. Simcade systems often rely on subtle mechanics that aren’t always obvious, which can create confusion about why certain outcomes happen. When players don’t fully understand the systems behind their actions, frustration can appear even if the mechanics themselves are technically well designed.

But when simcade design works, it tends to create some of the most balanced experiences in sports games, because it allows both casual enjoyment and competitive mastery to coexist without one completely suffocating the other.

#

.
Simulator:

A simulator approach pushes things much further toward precision, realism, and mechanical authenticity. Instead of simplifying systems to prioritize accessibility, simulator design focuses on accurately representing the underlying mechanics of the activity being simulated. In sports games, that usually means more complex physics, stricter timing windows, and systems that require deliberate player input rather than automated assistance.

In a simulator style game, mistakes are often very visible and very punishing. If your positioning is wrong, the outcome will likely reflect that. If your timing is off, the system may give you exactly the result you technically deserved. The game does not try to smooth over errors as much as arcade systems do.

The advantage of this design philosophy is that it can create extremely satisfying mastery curves. When players improve, they can often feel it directly in their control over the mechanics. Success becomes strongly tied to skill development rather than system forgiveness.

#

.
But simulator design also carries some heavy trade-offs. The biggest one is accessibility. Systems that demand precision and understanding can make the game feel intimidating or exhausting for players who simply want to jump in and have fun. If the barrier to entry becomes too high, the player base can shrink to a niche audience that enjoys that level of mechanical complexity.

There is also another issue that often gets ignored. Simulator systems can sometimes create rigid gameplay patterns, because players eventually learn the exact mechanics that produce optimal outcomes. When that happens, creativity can paradoxically decrease even though the system itself is complex.

So while simulator design can produce incredible depth and realism, it also requires a community that is willing to invest time into learning and mastering those systems.

#

.
Current Direction of Rematch:

Looking at the current behavior of the mechanics, how the controls respond, and the level of implicit assistance present in several in-game interactions, Rematch today seems to lean more toward a Simcade with Arcade tendencies rather than a full simulator.

This happens for a few relatively clear reasons. First, several actions still have a very immediate and permissive response, which indicates an intention to keep the game accessible. Movement and some interactions still favor fluidity and fast pacing instead of demanding extreme precision in every single decision.

At the same time, there are signs that the game does not intend to be purely arcade. Some mechanics already show attempts to introduce layers of execution and game awareness, which suggests that there is a search for competitive depth. The system does not seem to want to be completely simplified, but it also does not require the level of precision or punishment that would normally be expected from a pure simulator.

#

.
Another more “hidden” factor is the type of experience the game itself seems to be trying to create. The pace of matches, the way plays develop, and the space for improvisation suggest that the proposal is more connected to skill expression within an accessible environment, which is usually exactly the territory where simcade games thrive.

This does not mean that this direction is necessarily the best one or the only possible one. The intention of this post is not to decide that on its own, but rather to open a clear discussion about which of these paths makes the most sense for the future of the game.

#

Which of these is Rematch and which should it be?: Arcade vs Simcade vs Simulator

#

We can also try to make this a bit more interactive and fun.

I’ll put three emojis attached to this comment:
“A” for Arcade, a controller for Simcade, and “S” for Simulator.

Just vote using the one you think fits the game best. Please pick only one option.
(But don’t forget to give an upvote up there so the discussion can keep growing.)

loud kindle
random dune
#

I argue that Rematch is a Simcade game. The controls are arcade like due to their simplicity. When the mechanics come together, for me, it FEELS like I’m playing soccer which I would argue is the simulation portion of the game

earnest sentinel
#

Simcade.

I don't really care how they categorize the game as long as the controls feel good and unblocking of what I want to do.

Being able to out-skill your opponents and contending as a strong individual player in a team is what got me in the door, and being able to do cool things against good players is why I still play. I say this as both an iso player and a certified passer.

Every time they smooth out endlags, clear out momentum resets and snags, and improve the player's ability to move their character, the game feels better. However, what the players can do still feels like it can be expanded to me.

For example, pressing the tackle button while you're holding the ball currently does nothing. There's an entire library of cool things your character could be able to do if pressing tackle with the ball did something.

pastel nova
#

Simcade without a doubt

radiant ginkgo
#

I'm sorry but I feel like this post wasn't really thought through. Just ended up being longwinded and without any bite.
It's just stating the obvious.

There really isn't any reason to mention simulation, because at the furthest point, the systems involved within a full simulation sphere, would require such massive an overhaul of the game from the largest to the smallest level, that it wouldn't even be Rematch anymore.

Could Rematch be turned straight up Arcade "browser game"? I guess. Maybe by regressing systems considerably.. But that's never gonna happen and would render a lot of work so far to be a waste of development resources.

This is assuming anyone would want to take it to the extremes.

We play this game, because we like it's core identity, it's the details we disagree on. That just leaves the option we all already knew, Simcade.

The real interesting and useful debates from a player and dev perspective revolve around the actual specific game systems and their pull in either direction from the middle. That's what I believe would be the topic when you write "What direction should the game lean toward"

But that's topics you find in the many threads, you are criticizing in the beginning, for not going anywhere.. Well, everyone here is just gonna say Simcade and move on 🤷‍♂️

I appreciate the time you put into it though.

dense zodiac
# radiant ginkgo I'm sorry but I feel like this post wasn't really thought through. Just ended up...

Above all, it’s actually quite comical that even Nordi has said several times that you can’t agree or give credit without first raising some counter-argument against whatever the text you just read actually says.

Look, first of all, let me be direct: my post isn’t about reinventing Rematch or proposing impossible extremes of pure Arcade or full Simulator. It has a very clear and important purpose, which is exactly because most discussions here get stuck in shallow debates about “offensive system vs defensive system” or which mechanic should be prioritized, without ever looking at the bigger picture: what design direction the game is really taking and where it should be heading.

That’s why I wrote a long, detailed, and structured post about the pros and cons of each design approach: Arcade, Simcade, and Simulator. Each of these approaches has a direct impact on player experience, accessibility, competitive depth, and how someone can express skill within the game. This isn’t obvious to everyone, but it’s the foundation that allows any further discussion to actually be productive instead of just “I think this system is better than that one.” My goal is for anyone reading to understand the concepts and implications of each design clearly, without having to guess what I meant, which is exactly what most conversations here lack.

My post is not a development manual or a list of priorities for the devs. It’s not about deciding whether dribbling should be reworked before matchmaking, or if servers should be fixed before mechanics are adjusted. Those are completely different conversations that already happen elsewhere. The focus here is design philosophy: what kind of game Rematch should ultimately try to be, which direction the mechanics should follow, and how that affects gameplay, the learning curve, and the competitive experience.

#

Going into detail about Arcade, Simcade, and Simulator makes the discussion go beyond trivial points and actually become useful. You can clearly see the trade-offs of each approach, their strengths, potential problems, and how they affect both casual and more dedicated players. This provides much more clarity than simply saying “Simcade is better” or “defense is more important than offense.” It is an essential step to ensure the conversation is based on understanding, not just vague opinions.

Another important point is that the goal of the post is not just to describe or compare game styles. It is meant to help the community reach a conclusion, whether unanimous or not, about what Rematch players truly want. The game could be a proper Simcade, or there could be nostalgia or a valid argument that in the beta it was more Arcade-focused and that represented “the real spirit of the game.” I have seen many people make this argument, and that is exactly why a structured discussion with clarity on the game’s identity moving forward is necessary.

I also added a simple and interactive way for people to participate using the emojis “A”, controller, and “S” to vote for Arcade, Simcade, or Simulator. This keeps the discussion organized and practical, avoiding a chat that becomes a wall of disconnected arguments, which is exactly what happens when debates about isolated mechanics drag on without reaching any conclusion.

So if it seems long or “obvious” to some, that is fine. The value of the post is not in surprising anyone. It is in creating a clear and detailed foundation so that any future debate has a proper starting point and is not just more of the same. It allows us to talk in a structured way about the future of the game’s design, the identity players want, and how each approach influences the overall experience. This is exactly why it remains relevant, even for those who already see Rematch as a Simcade with Arcade tendencies.

#

Another very important point I forgot to mention regarding what you said, “But that's topics you find in the many threads, you are criticizing in the beginning, for not going anywhere… Well, everyone here is just gonna say Simcade and move on 🤷‍♂️” is that there is a big difference between just voting for Simcade without explanation and actually explaining why you think it’s valid.

It’s fine if everyone ends up voting for Simcade unanimously, but by providing reasons for each vote, we go beyond just the vote itself. We get to see why players feel Simcade is the right direction, which creates clarity and a shared understanding of the community’s preferences. Once everyone explains their reasoning, we can all acknowledge that Simcade is the most appropriate path, and that consensus is based on understanding, not just an automatic choice.

Now, I won’t intervene here anymore, otherwise this will just turn into a side debate about something that’s outside the purpose of the post and everything else.

meager swift
#

Not gonna lie rematch is pretty arcade to me. Players jump 7 feet in the air and shoot crazy volleys, they use boost with lightning coming out of their feet, GKs can save basically anything. Etc etc.

FIFA is a sim

Not sure if there’s any soccer game inn the middle

#

A simcade is like 2k park not gonna lie

dense zodiac
#

Which of these is Rematch and which should it be?: Arcade vs Simcade vs Simulaitor

#

I made a small typo and I’m going to shorten the name, it’s too long to fit on mobile.

#

What should Rematch be?: Arcade vs Simcade vs Simulator

radiant ginkgo
# dense zodiac Above all, it’s actually quite comical that even Nordi has said several times th...

This is completely off topic and out of respect I don't want to derail the post, so I'm just gonna reply to it this once since you brought it up yourself.

"Above all, it’s actually quite comical that even Nordi has said several times that you can’t agree or give credit without first raising some counter-argument against whatever the text you just read actually says."

I don't know who this Nordi is or why they should be an authority on anything.. Especially me? 😂

Their name has come up a 2-3 times now. They are on my block list, which most likely means they are one of these: toxic child, someone who couldn't keep a civil conversation despite having opposing views or someone who was told by mods not to interact with me because of an argument, but continues to do so.. While I don't.

In any case it's not to be taken at face value since they are probably just mad none of their comments are being read and that I don't subscribe to the little echo chamber of opinions some people apparently want. Not gonna happen.. Kiddos.

Case and point, you can look through the various topics I've commented on and see lots of examples of me simply saying a suggestion is good and giving it praise. I even did so not long after I commented here

#1478959186418339860 message

But if there is something wrong with the posts arguments or details that need discussion, I will do that. That's the whole reason we are here - Discussion.. Not just agreeing on everything.. I will however not disagree with something simply for the point of disagreeing.

Look, I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked or something, that's not the intention. But I'm not gonna be patting you on the back but providing an honest breakdown instead, which was what I did.

Sorry again for making things a little messy with this post.

Returning on topic; I don't have anything new to add that I didn't already say in the first post. Still stands.

meager swift
#

Bro am I on Reddit

radiant ginkgo
dense zodiac
# meager swift Bro am I on Reddit

I would love it if there was an AMA every 3 months on Reddit, Sloclap would probably close it after 24 hours every time if it were up to me lol

radiant ginkgo
dense zodiac
dense zodiac
radiant ginkgo
# dense zodiac yeah.

I completely missed that for some reason. Would be nice with a new one this summer perhaps when the game turns 1.

loud kindle
#

Yall on that "Im not gonna say anything but im gonna say one thing and ill be done i swear bro" type shit

earnest sentinel
#

@dense zodiac So what are your thoughts on where you think Rematch should be going? You're OP but I don't think you've shared your viewpoint yet

dense zodiac
# earnest sentinel <@517113675618975759> So what are your thoughts on where you think Rematch shoul...

I don’t really think it would be appropriate for me to share my own viewpoint in this thread that I created. One way or another it would end up being a bit convenient and even counterintuitive to what I said earlier about not wanting to interfere or shift the focus away from the main point.

I’d rather keep the discussion centered on the topic itself and let people share their own perspectives.