The Next Football Sim, needs to be 2D physics based or not?

[sabotai]

I keep going back and forth on the idea of 2D physics-based football sim. It would look great and be immersive, but unless everything was perfect, the results/stats would suffer and would the maker of the game have to "dumb down" the game of football (limited number of routes, receivers only performing vertical releases, limited ways for the OL to block, DBs only do zone or "man off" coverage, etc.) in order to get acceptable stats?

Wondering what everyone's expectations are for the next football sim to hit the market, whatever/whenever that might be.

[Julio Riddols]

I want a game with the type of animation one would find in Tecmo Super Bowl. Do that, find a way to make the play outcomes realistic, and that would be the best game on earth.

Anything that takes advantage of individual match ups would be the way to go, because that is what is really missing in these sims. You can't watch a great CB go against a great WR or see who your LT just flattened to make a hole for your RB, or who your RB just ran through to score that decisive TD. Thats what I think most of us want to see, something that makes our players real. Not just numbers in an algorithm.

And really, to be honest, if someone could capture the original TSB and make it into a career mode game, then that would be just fine. I don't mind the stats being skewed in that instance. I have yet to see a game that is as fun or does such a good job of making great players noticeably great and poor players equally noticeable.

[EagleFan]

FBPro...

[NobodyHere]

I want a game that gives me maximum customization options.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Must. Have. Beer. Tent.

[chinaski]

MyFootballNow - Franchise Football Simulator | Home Page

I think this is the best football game going atm. But I dont mind not having hyper realistic stats, but MFN is pretty close. The level is control of everything makes up for it in my mind.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by chinaski

MyFootballNow - Franchise Football Simulator | Home Page

I think this is the best football game going atm. But I dont mind not having hyper realistic stats, but MFN is pretty close. The level is control of everything makes up for it in my mind.

Sign up for Account

That is strikes one through three for me.

[stevew]

It's not something I would have to have but it would be nice to have more variations on styles of play than FOF offers. And maybe to have matchups that matter more.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Sign up for Account

That is strikes one through three for me.

Say what now? Why would you not sign up for an account for any web based game? Its 100% free.

[FBPro]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

FBPro...

Present......

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Say what now? Why would you not sign up for an account for any web based game? Its 100% free.

I don't want a web based game.

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure how to pigeonhole my answer above, but I have reservations about 2D.

If the game is run with a seriously tight resolution engine, driven by the suitable set of player abilities and yielding reasonable stats and outcomes... that's what really matters in that department. If we are presented with a view of that in 2D or whatever that makes the in-game experience more lifelike or engaging, I would agree that's a potential benefit.

However...

If the 2D engine drives the train, it sets up for a disaster. If plays get resolved based on where little dots are and things like coverage are assigned similarly, then it's going to be a bitch trying to pass the most important tests (ability-driven and stat-realism). It's too easy to see things like "fooling the AI free safety dot" and "defender didn't stay in his contain role" and "nobody covered the fullback" becoming the real story when it's a ballet of AI dots playing it all out.

So that's why it's hard to answer above.

Currently, in Solevision, Jim makes a meager attempt to offer some color to explain things... but investing the tons of time to make a little set of dancing dots do so persuasively seems like a sideshow to me. And he clearly doesn't want a 2D engine to drive the play resolution in the game, which I judge as a very good decision.

[Dutch]

It would most likely be a different niche than what Jim is driving for. FWIW, I don't think FM's graphics are based on anything but the underlying engine...for example...so that would be great...but ultimately, I would like more feedback on how all my players are doing and it doesn't require a graphics engine for that. Scout grades after each game seem somewhat doable.

[MizzouRah]

2d or something like FBPro would be great. FBPro 97 is still my favorite football game of all time.

[Ben E Lou]

For more than a decade--from Microleague Baseball until Baseball Mogul's first version was released--I played games that offered little to nothing in terms of career options. (It was mostly nothing, though LaRussa baseball did have a horrid career option where, among other glaring issues, it produced no pitchers who could go more than 3ish innings.) So for that entire time, I grinded through long season after long season with various games, all the while wanting something that allowed me to play out careers, not games. And since 1997 and the advent of Baseball Mogul and Front Office Football, I've had basically no real interest in the game-to-game and year-to-year aspects of these games. The only reason I've watched Solevision in FOF is to look for soft spots in the engine. I don't think I've ever play-called an entire game in FOF. I've owned OOTP 3 through OOTP 16, and I have no idea what the PBP interface even looks like in any version of that game.

In short, I'm wayyyyyyyy more interested in who is going to be my QB five seasons from now than in what play I'm going to call next. So, uh, I definitely don't want an indy developer spending time on 2D. I'd never use it.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If the 2D engine drives the train, it sets up for a disaster. If plays get resolved based on where little dots are and things like coverage are assigned similarly, then it's going to be a bitch trying to pass the most important tests (ability-driven and stat-realism). It's too easy to see things like "fooling the AI free safety dot" and "defender didn't stay in his contain role" and "nobody covered the fullback" becoming the real story when it's a ballet of AI dots playing it all out.

Yeah, this. How many years has SI been doing FM, and there's still weird holes in the 2D engine that don't look quite right. And they had around 10 years with the game engine before 2D. The chances of somebody building a game around it from scratch that gives realistic results - pretty much nada.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

For more than a decade--from Microleague Baseball until Baseball Mogul's first version was released--I played games that offered little to nothing in terms of career options. (It was mostly nothing, though LaRussa baseball did have a horrid career option where, among other glaring issues, it produced no pitchers who could go more than 3ish innings.) So for that entire time, I grinded through long season after long season with various games, all the while wanting something that allowed me to play out careers, not games. And since 1997 and the advent of Baseball Mogul and Front Office Football, I've had basically no real interest in the game-to-game and year-to-year aspects of these games. The only reason I've watched Solevision in FOF is to look for soft spots in the engine. I don't think I've ever play-called an entire game in FOF. I've owned OOTP 3 through OOTP 16, and I have no idea what the PBP interface even looks like in any version of that game.

In short, I'm wayyyyyyyy more interested in who is going to be my QB five seasons from now than in what play I'm going to call next. So, uh, I definitely don't want an indy developer spending time on 2D. I'd never use it.

Ben, I'd argue that we allocate our playing experience around the tools that are available to us. If there were different tools, you might apply your time in other ways. A game like FOF is far more exciting in the career building aspect rather than the in-game aspect, so that's what we enjoy playing.

[EagleFan]

I would kill for another FBPro game (not the abortion of a game that was released under that name on Steam). I loved calling the plays for my games and seeing how the game developed. It immersed me so much more into the environment when I could see the computer versions of my players performing on the screen.

[EagleFan]

dola: That same immersion carried over to BBPro 96 (along with the awesome soundtrack). I remember being psyched watching one of my players hit their 300th home run. This is a level that I can;t get into with games like FOF. Even though I love that game because I can run through season so quickly I don't get those same "remember when" moment.

To correlate those with FM. I have more memories of FM games than FOF because of moments like watching my Burton club score two goals in the final 5 minutes plus injury time to turn a 1 goal deficit into a 1 goal victory to advance to a playoff final that ultimately led to promotion. I got fired one time for taking a hardball stance on trying to sign a player that I saw kill my team in multiple games, wanted him on my roster badly. Not because of what his ratings were but because of what I witnessed. A spread sheet doesn't offer that.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not sure how to pigeonhole my answer above, but I have reservations about 2D.

If the game is run with a seriously tight resolution engine, driven by the suitable set of player abilities and yielding reasonable stats and outcomes... that's what really matters in that department. If we are presented with a view of that in 2D or whatever that makes the in-game experience more lifelike or engaging, I would agree that's a potential benefit.

However...

If the 2D engine drives the train, it sets up for a disaster. If plays get resolved based on where little dots are and things like coverage are assigned similarly, then it's going to be a bitch trying to pass the most important tests (ability-driven and stat-realism). It's too easy to see things like "fooling the AI free safety dot" and "defender didn't stay in his contain role" and "nobody covered the fullback" becoming the real story when it's a ballet of AI dots playing it all out.

So that's why it's hard to answer above.

Currently, in Solevision, Jim makes a meager attempt to offer some color to explain things... but investing the tons of time to make a little set of dancing dots do so persuasively seems like a sideshow to me. And he clearly doesn't want a 2D engine to drive the play resolution in the game, which I judge as a very good decision.

this is exactly how i feel

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If we are presented with a view of that in 2D or whatever that makes the in-game experience more lifelike or engaging, I would agree that's a potential benefit.

Dragon's Lair, but for football!

(Which I think they actually attempted with a VCR...)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mota

Ben, I'd argue that we allocate our playing experience around the tools that are available to us. If there were different tools, you might apply your time in other ways. A game like FOF is far more exciting in the career building aspect rather than the in-game aspect, so that's what we enjoy playing.

Nope. Dead wrong. To be 100% clear, every year from 1992ish, through many, many seasons of playing Strat-O-Matic Computer Baseball one game at a time, I would write to S-O-M to ask them to consider making a career-based game. I played game-by-game stuff because that was the only type of game available that worked reasonably. I want a career-based game. Period. Getting caught up in the weeds of PBP, no matter how engaging, is something I'll never do again now that career play is available. I guess you missed what I said about OOTP: from what I've heard, the OOTP single-game experience is wonderful, but in 14 versions of OOTP (or however long it has been an option,) playing that way has never even interested me enough to be bothered to try it even once.

[Antmeister]

I always wanted something that isn't quite the top down 2D that most think about, but I wanted cut scenes from one play to another. That way you don't have to see the entire play from a top down mode, but focus only on where the ball is traveling.

It's funny, but something like 4th and Inches did this way back in the day. I just want to visually connect with my players. So the camera can be zoomed in much closer than even that game. While I don't coach games, it would be nice to watch your DBs get burnt or if there was just a mistake in coverage, or if an offensive lineman is a liabilty when I placed them at a specific position or if the incomplete pass was due to the receiver or my QB running bad routes.

What is tough about FOF is that when players improve/decline over time, you can't really capture moments but instead wait until they have a body of work to determine if they are improving/declining on a game by game basis. Something as simple as a lineman pushing off the ball a lot stronger or faster would be good queues that he is improving or seeing my backup receiver getting wide open or even catching the ball in traffic to indicate if his route running or ability to catch the ball has improved. And when it is zoomed in, it doesn't have to show all the players on the field, but only those focused near the ball on a given play on offense/defense.

Anyway, put way too much thought into this.

[EagleFan]

Still to this day one of my best memories in sports sims was while playing FBPro and not even a game I was playing in. I was eliminated from the playoffs by the Axis of Evil Cowboys team, a team that had not lost all year and was doubling up teams on average.

They played Buffalo in the Super Bowl and it was their closest game of the year. Late in the game Buffalo led by 4 points and the Cowboys had a 1st and goal from inside the 5. Play one they run to the 1. Play two they have a pass knocked down. Play three is a run that is stuffed. They go for it on 4th down and a running play gets stopped short of the goal line. The Bills go on to run the clock out to win the Super Bowl and hand the Cowboys their only loss of the season (and the virtual Dolphins pop the champagne).

With quick sim career games, I couldn't tell you much about any other game that is being played. Even games that look like they were pretty good Super Bowls which I looked at the box and game log to see how they ended do not stick in my head. I get a brief "that looked like a good game" moment but that is all.

Just my .02.

[albionmoonlight]

In a perfect world, sure.

In the real world, where a developer or a development team has to prioritize certain things in order to make the game economically feasible, I do not want a 2D engine.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

dola: That same immersion carried over to BBPro 96 (along with the awesome soundtrack). I remember being psyched watching one of my players hit their 300th home run. This is a level that I can;t get into with games like FOF. Even though I love that game because I can run through season so quickly I don't get those same "remember when" moment.

To correlate those with FM. I have more memories of FM games than FOF because of moments like watching my Burton club score two goals in the final 5 minutes plus injury time to turn a 1 goal deficit into a 1 goal victory to advance to a playoff final that ultimately led to promotion. I got fired one time for taking a hardball stance on trying to sign a player that I saw kill my team in multiple games, wanted him on my roster badly. Not because of what his ratings were but because of what I witnessed. A spread sheet doesn't offer that.

I agree about the memorability--I still distinctly recall plays from Pro League Football over 20 years ago, and those were just Xs and Os. frankly I don't think it's so much an engine, as just more information taht would help. When I watch Solevision and see that one of my defenders broke up the play, but didn't get the tackle or assist, I suddenly have a window into how my players perform that I would never have otherwise. Even a more thorough text output, which actually related to the engine, that told me how well players performed, or who exactly screwed up on a play, would increase my immersion and improve my team.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Nope. Dead wrong. To be 100% clear, every year from 1992ish, through many, many seasons of playing Strat-O-Matic Computer Baseball one game at a time, I would write to S-O-M to ask them to consider making a career-based game. I played game-by-game stuff because that was the only type of game available that worked reasonably. I want a career-based game. Period. Getting caught up in the weeds of PBP, no matter how engaging, is something I'll never do again now that career play is available. I guess you missed what I said about OOTP: from what I've heard, the OOTP single-game experience is wonderful, but in 14 versions of OOTP (or however long it has been an option,) playing that way has never even interested me enough to be bothered to try it even once.

Okay I'll accept that I was wrong.

I've always been a career guy as well. Always. But for me, the speed I play the career depends on the type of experience the games provide. In OOTP I like to have at least 1 game / week play out CPU vs. CPU so I can see my players and what they're doing in a game context. For me it keeps it from feeling like I'm just balancing numbers on a spreadsheet. These guys feel like real athletes and competitors, with history behind them (the guy that always comes through for you, the pitcher that lets in the big inning) that you would never know from quick simming.

Then there's a game like Baseball Mogul which the in-game portion is not interesting to me at all. I play those seasons pretty quickly, as the level of depth doesn't really lend itself to scrutiny. That experience is more about the swings from season to season and the development of the franchise.

In terms of this thread, I really think that the numbers-only marked in football is well served. If someone was to come out with a new sim, I think that a realistic 2D game would have the best chance to succeed. We have FOF and Madden, so something in between would hopefully be able to connect the two facets and hopefully serve a demographic that hasn't been reached in some time.