Every week, there are always news stories that we all sit back and comment on to any who will listen. This week begins Operation Sports' newest series, the Weekly Hits, where, rather than commenting on what Paris Hilton did, or how Hillary Clinton will keep in the presidential race, we decided to go a little closer to home. We will be taking a look at three gaming news stories from the previous week, related to the genre of sports gaming and you get the joy of listening to me comment. Some of you will agree, many will disagree, and we will have a blast debating it in the comments section. But rather than ramble on about nothing, let’s get into the fun and meaty stuff.

A System Rising From Its Mediocre Start
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/29/ps...mits-sony-ceo/

For those that know me, it’s probably not surprising that my first article of the week isn’t even directly related to the sports gaming genre. That said, its impact would have been rather large. In the previous generation of consoles, the Playstation 2 was the sports gaming console. EA supported it as its primary format for the Madden Challenge, and few would argue that the Xbox was its superior with regard to sports gaming.

So how is it that the Playstation 3 fell so far to the point that that the system was in danger of ruining itself? Here’s where that tie to the sports genre comes back into play. How many of the biggest five sports (I’m counting college football in here for obvious reason) came out for the system in its first months? How many of those were in their full form? Madden was essentially a stripped down version of its Xbox 360 counterpart. Fight Night Round 3 had been out long enough on the Xbox 360 that most of its user base had already moved on to newer games, living through its lifespan.

That’s right, I just blamed the Playstation 3’s early troubles, in large part, on its lack of the sports games that made its predecessor so great. Sure, there was a general lack of games even beyond that, but the sports games are what had the greatest impact because they had the huge lingering expectation left behind by the Playstation 2.

Breaking Faces, One Character at a Time
http://www.operationsports.com/videoview.php?id=30

Ah yes, I have been looking forward to talking about this one. Last Monday, we here at Operation Sports posted a new video trailer sent to us by EA Sports. It was a great look at the gameplay of a game many on both our forums have been more than a little curious, and largely excited, to see. The game has a high bar to meet, often being compared to Punch-Out as the game closest to what it is trying to achieve.

The video itself is a very interesting look at the game and definitely puts a face on Facebreaker. I’m not sure Kiriko was the best choice for the trailer, but being a character in the game, it’s not the worst EA could have done.

That’s not really what was most important about the trailer though. What about the gameplay? This is one thing that’s very open to interpretation and really needs to be shown in the context of play (as in, with the HUD amongst other things) to truly be understood. It came across to me like an arcade game that just happens to occur in a boxing ring with boxing gloves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing though, as it’s been obvious from the start that this game wasn’t going to take itself nearly as serious as EA’s other boxing title, Fight Night. Honestly, I think this was a great peak into what the game is and most certainly renews my interest and curiosity.

Gaming More Geared for Guys?
http://kotaku.com/5011035/research-s...-are-for-dudes
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-vga020408.php

Okay, this one’s been grinding on me since I first read the articles around the gaming community last week. I won’t sit here and tell you it’s directly false, but I do think there are certain aspects of this one that ring true and others that aren’t even close.

For those too lazy to click the links, Allan Reiss, a professor at Stanford University published a study which explained why guys play more video games than women. The research showed that it had a lot to do with the competitive nature of men and a seemingly larger motivation to succeed at the game.

Now, I do think it of course has its merits (the fact that it was done at Stanford aside) and is inherently true. After all, look at either of our forums and count the ratio of men to women and you’ll see a distinct difference. That said, though, the drive to win isn’t only specific to men.

Yes, the study showed that men were more likely to lend themselves to the competitive nature of games, and scientifically, the data showed a definite correlation. What it doesn’t do is test a large enough quantity of people. Twenty-two people are a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. For all we know, if they would have tested a female gamer, her brain activity might have been similar to that of the males in the study.

I found it highly thought-provoking that someone finally tried to answer the question of why there is such a massive difference in the quantity of male gamers and female gamers. That said, it’s going to take a lot more testing than a small test of eleven males and eleven females to come anywhere close to getting an accurate representation of answering the age old question: why do so many more males play video games than females?