Ratings, difficulty, sliders, and a philosophical problem with console sports games

[BFleming]

This will probably sound quite curmudgeonly, so be warned

Am I the only one who is getting tired of all the tweaking and adjusting we each have to do just to get a sports game to somewhat resemble its real-life counterpart??

I just picked up NCAA 2004 and while I feel the game is solid, there are still several things that I fear will always keep it from ever becoming one of my favorites.. Just off the top of my head:

1) Can anyone point to a difficulty level where the players play to their level, no more, no less?? I have yet to see a next-gen sports game where there is one clear cut solution to "play at this difficulty so all things are neutral". Let the decision of the game come down to who strategizes and executes better than their opponent.

2) What is the point of having difficulty levels in the first place? Regardless of opponents in real life, players have the same speed, same abilities whether they're playing the Bengals or the Bucs. (Insert Bengals joke here) Personally, I feel difficulty levels were set as a way to artificially overcome shortcomings of the AI.

3) I may be going against the tide with this one, but I also think that sliders are another ridiculous innovation. Rather than taking the time to get the balance correct "out of the box", sliders make it that much easier to take that shortcut and say something like, "Who cares if we can't get the run blocking just right?? Give them sliders for it, let them do all the play testing for us...Let's move on to....Mascot Teams!!!...Yes!! Thats what they want" Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work people have done with the sliders (Bill Abner's work for NCAA 2003 for example), but couldn't their time spent making sliders been used for something more productive maybe even...*gasp*..playing the game??

4) Can we also fix the minute settings, please?? This should be the easiest thing in the world to do, but no... We have to decide between 5 minutes, 7 minutes, 9 minutes, etc. We've done research on the number of plays per game, etc...Why??? Why can't they just balance the time so it works out to an acceptable number of plays?? Why does it have to be our job to do the play testing for them?? And this is not just EA, this is Sega, etc...

5) One of the biggest additions to this year's NCAA title was the addition of online play. Yay. I have a network adapter, have the game, have a cable hookup going right into the PS2, but does that mean I'll play? Probably not. Why? I won't waste time complaining about the 14 yr old who does nothing but go for it on 4th and 75 from his own 5. Instead I'll shift my focus to the opposite end of the spectrum. As I told some of you, I used to be a manager of an Electronics Boutique. One of my employees was a hell of a Madden player, and actually made it to the semi-finals of the Madden tournament last year in both Philly and Chicago, eventually losing to the kid who won it all....Anyway, since the store was usually quite slow and we had 4 tv's set up with systems, we would often play during work and had several customers come in to challenge our "resident expert". The result was watching a game that was not decided by the better FOOTBALL player, rather the player who was most capable of taking advantage of the AI. For instance, a typical play on offense would involve 3 or 4 audibles resulting in half of the players out of their natural position. The defensive play would consist of no less than 3 line/lb switches, a coverage shift, and 1 or 2 manual player shifts, like putting a MLB right behind the LE, etc. Result of the play?? One of the defenders tore through the line like HornsManiac tore through his minor leagues, and would either get a sack before the QB took his 3rd step back, or the QB would loft a ball to his FB, I mean his TE, no I mean his WR, I mean...I don't know, he called 472 audibles so I lost track of who it was, but regardless he goes untouched for a TD. Then we switch sides and do it again. Yawn. Play Madden/NCAA Football and I'm interested, play Madden/NCAA AI Exploitation 2004 and I'll pass. I actually offered to play the "expert" in a coach-only game, but of course was refused. God forbid a game of football broke out from AI Exploits '03

Now if you will all excuse me, I'm going to mess with the sliders for NCAA 2004...because I just love messing with sliders...

[Marmel]

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself.

The sliders, the settings, the difficulty levels, I hate all that stuff. I just picked Varsity, because I seem to play competative games with my crappy created school. When I win games at will, I will move up a notch. I will never touch the sliders or any of that other lazy programming crap.

[Anrhydeddu]

I agree to an extent. What is missing is the fact that these are games. There are purists among us who expect an ideal level of realism and never being able to change it. The fallacy with that is the level of realism will change over time, even how we want to play a game. Ever play Monopoly by instituting house rules? Ever play a custom Civ2 game where you set up/play "what if" scenarios? A game cannot be so static that all you are doing is playing the same season over and over, even disguised as a multi-year career.

If you think that there is an objective level of realism when playing a game, I would ask you to look again. Look at all of the criticisms of something being too hard/too easy, too severe/too lax, too strong/too weak, etc.

Now whether sliders are the answer, I don't know. My first exposure to this was when I played Madden 2003. But as much as I hated setting those, I can understand why they are there. I will not be so conceited in thinking that my level of realism (esp. in my bias against wishbone-type offenses) or even how I perceive sports reality is the true and only way to go. It's just that I always believe in a more democratic approach to games instead of "my way or no way" approach.

[albionmoonlight]

Also--for some people, true enjoyment comes in the form of a big challenge. These gamers want it to be neigh impossible to win, so that when they do they can feel real pride in the accomplishment. Some people have the most fun playing arcade games and winning 99-0 every time.

I fall in the middle. I have the most fun playing FOF when I win. I don't want to exploit the AI to the point where it isn't a game anymore, but I actually enjoy having a "little edge" over the CPU. (I am one of those who does not like the fact that it is harder to draft "breakout" players in FOF4, now). Real life is hard enough. I want to catch some of the breaks in my games.

I know that sliders are generally a substitute for good programming. But sometimes they have to be there because people just want different things.

[Bee]

Every gamer has a different skill level. Marmel might be able to generate realistic stats on one level, while I don't have nearly his skill end up throwing 11 interceptions and running for -8 yards. Without difficulty levels and sliders (especially for a console game where you control the action on the field) the majority of players will not end up with realistic results. It's just not possible with the variety of skill levels out there. I, for one, would much rather have to deal with a few sliders and take a little time at the start to get the game set to my skill level (and preferences as Bucc mentioned before) than not have that option.

[Fritz]

I wish women came with those damn sliders.

[SteelerFan448]

Once they make the game 'perfect' or near perfect, then there is no where they can go with the game outside of the graphics. I like how games progressively get better each year, but it does hurt the wallet a bit.

[Marmel]

To clarify, my stance....

the difficulty levels are not an issue. In fact, I like the difficulty level. There should be more levels, maybe Frosh, Soph, Jr, Sr, All-Conf., All-Amer, Heisman, AI Cheats...that is 8.

Incorportate the sliders right into the different difficulty levels. If a gamer cannot find a good level among the 8, then he might be playing the wrong game.

I guess it is the sliders that I have the biggest problem with. Not every game has to be made for everybody. sometimes, if you try to do too much, you don't do anything in the end. (I think I read that in a fortune cookie once. )

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I agree to an extent. What is missing is the fact that these are games. There are purists among us who expect an ideal level of realism and never being able to change it. The fallacy with that is the level of realism will change over time, even how we want to play a game. Ever play Monopoly by instituting house rules? Ever play a custom Civ2 game where you set up/play "what if" scenarios? A game cannot be so static that all you are doing is playing the same season over and over, even disguised as a multi-year career.

Ok, I agree to an extent as well. I am all for customization, and the fluxuations as a result so that it won't be so static that it feels like the same season over and over...But, the difference between Monopoly, Civ2, and NCAA 2004 are the foundations on which they are built. Monopoly and Civ were both quite solid from the momnet you crack open the box. Within minutes, you're up and ready to go, then play that basic way until you grow tired of it and search for some way to tweak it, hence the house rules in Monopoly and "what-if" scenarios in Civ2. However, if we were to take a quick poll, I would safely bet that less than 1/4 of everyone playing NCAA 2004, or any other sports title for that matter, would just start up a game right out of the box. Usually, the first thing we do is mess with the difficulty, mess with the clock settings, etc... Rather than being able to play the new game i just took out of the shrink wrap, I have to spend minutes to hours toying with different settings to make the game feel "right"...

What we want is basically identical. We want an evolution of the game to give it a long-term value. I feel the created schools/conference moves, etc will satisfy that. The difference is, while you're passing go and collecting $200, I'll be trying to decide whether i should move the "Human FG Accuracy" one click left or one click right..

[Abe Sargent]

I have played every console version of Madden from 98 on. Purchased them all.

People were clamoring for sliders. "Give us a way to customize our game!" People do that here for FOF. "We need an Injury Frequency slider!"

The simple fact is that different people want different things from a game. Besides, how do you know if a setting is realistic? Am I getting a spate of injuries or is the setting too high? Is my QB a really good passer (and he IS Brunell) or is the accuracy up too high. Does my O-line suck at run blocking (they are a crappy Jax line) or does the slider need adjusting?

If there were no sliders, then people would complain about the settings ad nauseum. Maybe you would prefer that the game came with several slider settings pre-set. Choose the Arcade settings and it goes to 2 here, 8 there, 5 over here. Choose the realistic setting and it moves all of the slider into their correct positions. And so forth.

Would that help? Customizability for those who want it, and pre-set configurations for those who don't want to tweak the settings.

-Anxiety

[Maple Leafs]

I agree for the most part. Sure, being able to customize is a good thing, and there will always be people who want to do things like turn down the injuries or penalty frequency.

But it's got to the point now where I think sliders are becoming a crutch for game designers. It's as if they're throwing up their hands on the whole "realistic AI" idea, and telling the gamer "we give up, here are some sliders, you figure it out!"

[condors]

i agree the default settings (at least on 2003) did not make for a playable game with realistic results

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by condors
i agree the default settings (at least on 2003) did not make for a playable game with realistic results

...and that is inexcusable.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Fritz
I wish women came with those damn sliders.

Playing with their knobs can sometimes have a positive effect.

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I agree for the most part. Sure, being able to customize is a good thing, and there will always be people who want to do things like turn down the injuries or penalty frequency.

But it's got to the point now where I think sliders are becoming a crutch for game designers. It's as if they're throwing up their hands on the whole "realistic AI" idea, and telling the gamer "we give up, here are some sliders, you figure it out!"

Exactly.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by condors
i agree the default settings (at least on 2003) did not make for a playable game with realistic results

I played NCAA 2003 for a good 7 or 8 full seasons. I played on All-American, 5 min. quarters and didn't touch the sliders. I felt the results were fine. I enjoyed the game enough to play 7 or 8 full seasons.

I really don't understand why people would bitch about being able to customize your game. I think "sliders" aren't a crutch or sign of bad programming, in fact they are the opposite. The programers have made their programs so flexible that you, the untrained player, by simply adjusting some bars with your controller, dictate how challenging and realistic you want your game to be.

There is no one setting that will allow everyone to have realistic results. Some people are better than others at exposing AI weaknesses or just have better hand-eye coordination. I can't think of one game which cannot be customized that has ever met everyone's expectations.

As has been noted above people play these games for all different reasons. A friend of mine used to play just so he could win the Heisman Trophy and National Championship each year. He would down every kickoff at the 1 yard line so his WR could catch 99 yard TD passes. It was ridiculous, but that's what he wanted out of the game and that's what he got (by playing on some baby level).

Being able to adjust the clock is a god send. I love the game, but I like any one game to take between 30-40 minutes. Something I can do "right before I go to bed." I don't really want to play one game for 2 hours or whatever. Some people like that. Some people want 20 minute games. Ballyhoo for us, the game is customizable and we all get what we want.

EA has made games that appeal to an incredibly broad group of people. A part of this success is giving their consumers the ability, at some level, to try to mold the product into the game they want. Is it perfect? No. You can't please everyone all of the time.

Sliders, multiple difficulty levels, being able to adjust the time, all steps forward. All advances in programming.

[Mustang]

I watch real life football for realism. I play games for fun. . .

I hardly ever screw around with the sliders. I just leave the game at what it is. I don't fault the programmers for putting in slider bars so people can adjust for tastes, preferences and skills mentally and physically.

[BFleming]

Ok, then all I ask is this:

What is the exact setting where all the players play to their exact ability and what clock setting would I choose to have the number of plays I run be within say 5% on average of the simulated games??

The pathetic part of this is no one knows and it would take hours of research to figure it out. Give me a baseline, and then I'll happily tweak from there, but don't give me some shot in the dark and say, you can figure it out...go ahead...

[Fritz]

I am a little confused with "play to their exact ability." Do you know what that is?

[ice4277]

Originally posted by BFleming
Ok, then all I ask is this:

What is the exact setting where all the players play to their exact ability and what clock setting would I choose to have the number of plays I run be within say 5% on average of the simulated games??

The pathetic part of this is no one knows and it would take hours of research to figure it out. Give me a baseline, and then I'll happily tweak from there, but don't give me some shot in the dark and say, you can figure it out...go ahead...

I got pretty decent stats playing 8 minute quarters on All-American last year, and no, I didn't tweak the sliders much either. But then again, I was going for what gave me the most fun, not the ultimate in nitpicking realism. If I want that, I will go with a game of CM.

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Fritz
I am a little confused with "play to their exact ability." Do you know what that is?

Sorry, trying to work and type at the same time...would play to their attributes sound better?? I would ideally like to see a noticible difference in say a 90 hands/catching ability WR and a 79 hands/catching ability WR..

edit: speed wasn't a good indication of what i mean

[Anrhydeddu]

What is the exact setting where all the players play to their exact ability

There is no such thing or would you want it to. You want the unpredictability of where a star play can play below expectations just as you would having a non-star player play above expectations. This assumes hand-eye coordination being neutralized.

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
There is no such thing or would you want it to. You want the unpredictability of where a star play can play below expectations just as you would having a non-star player play above expectations. This assumes hand-eye coordination being neutralized.

Point taken. I guess the best way to put it is to start with a neutral playing field and let the chips fall as they may.

[condors]

if you got great results out of the box with ncaa2003 my hat is off to you but i had temple (1 star school) they were #1 in the nation on defense(highly unbelievable) and ranked last in offense(that is believeable)

[Fritz]

I have always been under the impression that the "ratings" in the Madden/NCAA franchise were used to produce "relative" performance.

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Fritz
I have always been under the impression that the "ratings" in the Madden/NCAA franchise were used to produce "relative" performance.

Agreed..The problem lies in setting that intial foundation from which the performance varies...

[BFleming]

Dola,

Originally posted by Fritz
I wish women came with those damn sliders.

I also agree with this 110%

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by BFleming


2) What is the point of having difficulty levels in the first place? Regardless of opponents in real life, players have the same speed, same abilities whether they're playing the Bengals or the Bucs. (Insert Bengals joke here) Personally, I feel difficulty levels were set as a way to artificially overcome shortcomings of the AI.

Am I the only one wondering what the world has come to when it becomes normal to use the Bucs in contrast to the Bengals?

[Kodos]

Originally posted by condors
if you got great results out of the box with ncaa2003 my hat is off to you but i had temple (1 star school) they were #1 in the nation on defense(highly unbelievable) and ranked last in offense(that is believeable)

This would tell me that you were playing too short quarters. More minutes = more offense for you, and more offense against your defense, which would bring your results more towards the rest of the cpu-controlled teams. If you don't want to play longer games, that's fine, but don't blame the game maker if a big part of the problem is you. If you aren't willing to tune the game to your abilities, don't blame them. Most casual players probably don't want to play long enough quarters to get realistic results. Programmers know this and set the default to a shorter game. If you want to play longer, you can.

I have a hard time understanding why people dislike having sliders. If you don't want to use them, don't touch 'em, and just pick the difficulty levels that you find most enjoyable, and adjust the quarter length if you want to.

I like having sliders. With literally millions of players of vastly differing skill levels, it would be impossible to come out with a game without sliders that each person could play and enjoy right out of the box. Games like Civ that don't bring eye-hand coordination into the equation have a much easier task of getting it to play "realistically". But in a twitch-reflex game like console football, you can never find a pre-set level out of the box that will work for everyone. Maybe what would work perfectly for you would end up being too difficult for me to enjoy. If you really care about getting realistic results, being able to tune the game to your own skill level is the only way to go.

This is precisely what some of you are griping about, but right now I am working on sliders for NCAA that will work for me. I define "work" as producing stats on par with the cpu simmed teams, while also leveling the playing field so that I should rarely beat a better cpu team (without playing a great game), and that I should rarely get beaten by an inferior team. Basically, I want to have to struggle to make IU a national powerhouse, instead of becoming great in an unrealistically short amount of time. With sliders for passing and running and defense for both teams, and with adjustable game length, I will be able to do this with some work. Without sliders, I would not have a chance to get realistic results relative to the simmed computer teams.

Here is how I will get fairly realistic results. First, I simmed the first 12 games for all teams in dynasty mode, and then found out what the middle of the pack team got for passing, running, etc. on the season. This will help me set quarter length to produce similar stats. Then, I will play a mid-level team against itself (Arizona, in this case) until I tend to split games evenly with the computer. So in a 10-game series, I should lose 5 games and win 5. When I get those settings, I will have pretty much leveled the playing field with the cpu in terms of statistics and difficulty level. Will this take a good deal of time? Yes. Will it be more satisfying when I finally bring IU to national prominence? Yes.

I'm sure this is too much for most folks to mess with. To me, it is worth it, and I am glad that I am given a chance to tune the game to my own unique skill level. Some people want to win every game going away, even with Temple, some people want to struggle. I want realistic results, so I will work to get them. Nothing worth having comes for free.

- Your resident EA sports whore,
Kodos

[MizzouRah]

I hate sliders as well. I usually spend hours searching various sites for those all out 'these produce the best stats' sliders.

How come I enjoyed Madden 94, NHL 96, etc... with ZERO sliders to tweak? It is a crutch for programmers, unfortunetly.

One good thing, Madden will have an accelerated clock this year, so 15mins should do just fine. NCAA is best for me with 9 min quarters. I can't believe they didn't follow suit and have the accelerated clock feature in NCAA this year?? wtf??


Todd

[mrsimperless]

Originally posted by Kodos
Basically, I want to have to struggle to make IU a national powerhouse, instead of becoming great in an unrealistically short amount of time.

Unfortunately I don't know if you will be able to achieve this, as from what I've seen so far the recruiting is quite a bit too easy. (And there are no sliders for recruiting ) I am playing a dynasty as IU as well. My first season was mediocre (just simmed through) and I got pretty good recruits. My next season was mediocre as well, but I ended up with a top 15 recruiting class including the #2 QB and #1 LB in the nation. Since the first of "my guys" are ready to play now I will be coaching the games from here on out and things will start to slow down. But I fear that if my recruiting doesn't slow down that my rise to the top will be much quicker than what I would like.

[Kodos]

Luckily, I am terrible at recruiting. It must be the drool. I simmed a season with Penn State to get to the recruiting, and my class was ranked somewhere in the 60s I think. Sadly, IU's class was rated third to last. This game is too realistic sometimes...

[Raiders Army]

I like sliders. It's a lot like the Front Page Sports games where you could change the config.sys file to reflect what you wanted. In fact, I'm for more customability. I'd like to determine who gets player of the week, Heisman Trophy, etc.

Hey, also, if you want realistic stats, you shouldn't play the game. I challenge anyone here to play like the real teams would. (Just two more yards for the season record, etc.). Any time you introduce a player into the game it produces unrealistic results.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by MizzouRah
How come I enjoyed Madden 94, NHL 96, etc... with ZERO sliders to tweak? Todd

I enjoyed these games too...however, I don't think I ever really got realistic results from them, either. Again, I think people are getting enjoyment and realism confused sometimes. I played NCAA 2003 on default all-american settings, got relatively realistic results, and had a great time. It just depends on the person.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by ice4277
I enjoyed these games too...however, I don't think I ever really got realistic results from them, either. Again, I think people are getting enjoyment and realism confused sometimes. I played NCAA 2003 on default all-american settings, got relatively realistic results, and had a great time. It just depends on the person.

To me, realism would be what gave me the greatest enjoyment out of the game. I only coach the games, so I want the game to realistically reflect a college football game. I hate that they don't have a "neutral" slider setting that would allow that, but I am glad that at least we have sliders that might allow us to produce that.

[MizzouRah]

I hear both arguments for sliders, I just don't like spending alot of time tweaking things, wondering if I have the 'right' settings. At least without them, I don't have to contemplate that problem.



I used to coach FPS Football, but I can't get into that on a console for some reason. Not sure why.

Todd

[MizzouRah]

In reply to my post:

How come I enjoyed Madden 94, NHL 96, etc... with ZERO sliders to tweak? It is a crutch for programmers, unfortunetly.

Originally posted by ice4277
I enjoyed these games too...however, I don't think I ever really got realistic results from them, either. Again, I think people are getting enjoyment and realism confused sometimes. I played NCAA 2003 on default all-american settings, got relatively realistic results, and had a great time. It just depends on the person.

I've been thinking more and more about this... and the statement above by ice, says it all for me.

I'm turning over a new 'console leaf', if you will. I'm not going to worry about sliders anymore, nada, zilch, 0!

I started a Franchise in World Series BB on All-Star and I'm using the defaults, same with NCAA (on AA) and Madden (AP) when I get it. For me, spending all my time worring about stats is silly on a console game, I need to play them and enjoy them, just like Madden's and NHL's from the past with no sliders.

I do wish there were more levels though, like NCAA.. something between AA and Heisman would be just about perfect for my level of play. On Heisman, the CPU teams get more running yardage, but their defense play is too good for me. Oh well, I wonder what level developers play on? Do they tweak sliders?


Todd