Ever feel your taste for sports games waning?

[Kodos]

Lately, I've been finding myself wondering if I might enjoy other games more than sports games. The whole trying to win championships becomes repetive after a while. No matter how good the AI in a game like FOF is, a decent player will end up winning way more than the statistically expected 1 championship per 32 seasons that you'd get if the AI were really the human's equal. (Note: I'm not trying to put down FOF or any other text sim - just pointing out a common problem. FOF is a wonderful game and offers some things that no other football game does.) Imposing QuikSand-like house rules seems like an artificial way to achieve more parity with the AI, and as he's pointed out, the various house rules end up being a real tradeoff.

On the other hand, if I win on a console sport game, it just feels like I must have had the sliders set too easy, because I play with teams like IU that would never win in real life. Thus, any win or rise to power seems artificial.

Sometimes I wonder if playing adventure games like Ratchet and Clank or Silent Hill or the much-whored Shadow of the Colossus might be more enjoyable because there isn't a real world to compare the results to that makes the game results seem artificial.

Obviously multiplayer is a different beast. I could play in IHOF indefinitely and probably never win it all because I'm in the same division as a certified FOF genius. Which to some degree is also unsatisfying. The ability to at least win my division once in a while would be pleasing, but honestly I don't know if I have the skill (or the willingness to spend the time to acquire the skills) to ever overcome the obstacle cthomer presents in IHOF.

Anyhow, just wondering if anyone else has encountered these feelings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, but probably for different reasons & with different new destinations in mind.

I never see myself going to console sports, too damned many buttons on these new-fangled controllers. And everything else on the console either seems too close-ended or too repetitive. MP is an even less appealing option for me for a number of reasons, none moreso than the fact that my gaming opportunities ebb & flow -- I may have 3 days where I can do nothing much but play to my heart's content while I may also go 2-3 weeks where I really don't have the time or energy to put anything into gaming. That being the case, high on my list of priorities is having absolute control over when I play.

But I'm also well into the point of feeling like the majority of the current crop of computer sports games has lost a lot of appeal for me. Too repetitive, too easy to manipulate in most cases, too damned buggy, too something that leaves them a disappointment in some way.

That's what's been shifting me back to my gaming roots on the tabletop. More options, more opportunity to fix things that are broken or even those that just "feel" brokent & are dampening the experience.

[mrsimperless]

I just chock up the so-called "artificial" performance of my Rutgers team in NCAA 06 as a symptom of my football genius. I fall asleep content at night knowing that if I were ever magically offered a Division 1 coaching job in real life that my team's rise to greatness would be no less dramatic.

[QuikSand]

While I do love a good sports sim, I think I could get comparable enjoyment out of something else that ends up with the same elements that I find attractive in them.

I like the feel of "building" something -- whether it's a football roster, a party of adventurers, a burgeoning cityscape, a grid of railroads, an amusement park, or a political campaign -- that's what I enjoy. I also like to feel that my decisions are actually guiding the success or failure of the thing that I'm building - that I really matter in the process. If the building process is satisfying, and the decisions that I have to make along the way are at least interesting and gratifying, and the ultimate product of the building is something worthwhile... then I'm going to like the game.

Sports seem to provide a great platform for this sort of thing. I have long argued that I think football actualy rests in my own "sweet spot" in terms of the number and importance of the decisions being made in the process, better than any other sport that I have tried.

I'm sure that these interests could be filled quite nicely by other non-sports genres. I'm always open to a new game or experience -- for me, my formula is actually pretty simple.

[Samdari]

In a discussion with HA last week that started on the topic of MMOG's we kind of touched on this topic. I think that no matter what game, or even genre of games, you play, there reaches a point in which the goal you are chasing today is the same as yesterday, and the gameplay feels repetitive. In order to keep gaming fresh, I think one needs to play a wide variety of games.

[Kodos]

I have to agree with QuikSand's building thing. I enjoy that aspect of sports games a lot, and it is part of the reason I always pick scrub teams like IU to begin the dynasty. I really enjoyed the building in Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis, even though the game got mediocre reviews. Plus, after achieving 5-stars, it was fun to knock down the walls and let the dinosaurs eat all of the visitors. :)

[Raiders Army]

I don't eat games. I play them.

[cuervo72]

I like the feel of "building" something...[stuff removed]...if the building process is satisfying, and the decisions that I have to make along the way are at least interesting and gratifying, and the ultimate product of the building is something worthwhile... then I'm going to like the game.

Front Office Weird Science

[kcchief19]

I like the feel of "building" something -- whether it's a football roster, a party of adventurers, a burgeoning cityscape, a grid of railroads, an amusement park, or a political campaign -- that's what I enjoy. I also like to feel that my decisions are actually guiding the success or failure of the thing that I'm building - that I really matter in the process. If the building process is satisfying, and the decisions that I have to make along the way are at least interesting and gratifying, and the ultimate product of the building is something worthwhile... then I'm going to like the game. This pretty much describes almost every PC game I've bought in the last 10 years.

The only games I've tried outside that realm have been some of the Star Wars games, and while they were impressive in their design and entertaining in a way, they were ultimately less satisfying than other games that may appear less impressive in their design. It could have also been due to my lack of button-mashing abilities, so I'll factor that in as well.

[Maple Leafs]

No matter how good the AI in a game like FOF is, a decent player will end up winning way more than the statistically expected 1 championship per 32 seasons that you'd get if the AI were really the human's equal.
But isn't the point of any game to see if you can do better than statistically expected?

You mention games like Silent Hill. Well, statistically the odds of anyone (even someone with special training) surviving a night surrounded by monsters and zombies, while scurrying around looking for handgun bullets and healing potions, would essentially be zero.

The odds of the mayor of any given small town being able to build it into a towering metropolis are next to zero. The odds of being able to build an army and take over Europe are not far from zero. Compared to the above, the odds of building an NFL team that wins six titles in ten years are actually pretty decent,

Yet nobody complains about these games being unrealistic. We accept that part of the fun of those games is that they give us a chance to do more than should be realistically possible -- that's how you "win".

I've never understood why it's acceptable in other types of games, but (for many of us) not in a sports sim.

[Icy]

We all have that problem from time to time, for me the thing is always managing the worst teams and trying to make them the best, i really enjoy rebuilding, developing young players etc, but usually once i create a good team and win twice a championship i get bored and start again with another crap team in the same or other sport sim.

About other games, as quicksand said, i like to feel i'm building or developing something, that is why i only play games with a campaign mode on them, where i have a goal and i need to go step by step from zero to the top. I have even enjoyed racing games, but only that ones where you start with a crap car and you can upgrade it earning money.

There are other gamers that enjoy winning always, but there is not any fun on that to me. Look at the FOFC FBCB multiplayer league for example, i always try to manage a crap team and rebuild them, being about to be fired etc.

[Kodos]

But isn't the point of any game to see if you can do better than statistically expected?

You mention games like Silent Hill. Well, statistically the odds of anyone (even someone with special training) surviving a night surrounded by monsters and zombies, while scurrying around looking for handgun bullets and healing potions, would essentially be zero.

The odds of the mayor of any given small town being able to build it into a towering metropolis are next to zero. The odds of being able to build an army and take over Europe are not far from zero. Compared to the above, the odds of building an NFL team that wins six titles in ten years are actually pretty decent,

Yet nobody complains about these games being unrealistic. We accept that part of the fun of those games is that they give us a chance to do more than should be realistically possible -- that's how you "win".

I've never understood why it's acceptable in other types of games, but (for many of us) not in a sports sim.

For a Ratchet and Clank game, it's pure fantasy, so there is nothing to gauge it against. And it's not trying to replicate something that actually exists.

[Maple Leafs]

For a Ratchet and Clank game, it's pure fantasy, so there is nothing to gauge it against. And it's not trying to replicate something that actually exists.
Fine, but what about city-building simulators or Sim/Civ type games? What would happen if you bought a flight simulator and found out you couldn't do anything but crash until you'd had months (years?) of training?

[Kodos]

I hate flight simulators, FWIW. Boring.

[John Galt]

But isn't the point of any game to see if you can do better than statistically expected?

You mention games like Silent Hill. Well, statistically the odds of anyone (even someone with special training) surviving a night surrounded by monsters and zombies, while scurrying around looking for handgun bullets and healing potions, would essentially be zero.

The odds of the mayor of any given small town being able to build it into a towering metropolis are next to zero. The odds of being able to build an army and take over Europe are not far from zero. Compared to the above, the odds of building an NFL team that wins six titles in ten years are actually pretty decent,

Yet nobody complains about these games being unrealistic. We accept that part of the fun of those games is that they give us a chance to do more than should be realistically possible -- that's how you "win".

I've never understood why it's acceptable in other types of games, but (for many of us) not in a sports sim.

That's an interesting point. I think a big difference may be the baseline we use. When playing adventure/action games, maybe we are comparing them to movies where the hero does everything and never dies. We have come to expect us overcoming long odds. In sports, however, the baseline we choose is real sports.

And there is also that difference of dying in other games . . .

[SackAttack]

Lately, I've been finding myself wondering if I might enjoy other games more than sports games. The whole trying to win championships becomes repetive after a while. No matter how good the AI in a game like FOF is, a decent player will end up winning way more than the statistically expected 1 championship per 32 seasons that you'd get if the AI were really the human's equal. (Note: I'm not trying to put down FOF or any other text sim - just pointing out a common problem. FOF is a wonderful game and offers some things that no other football game does.) Imposing QuikSand-like house rules seems like an artificial way to achieve more parity with the AI, and as he's pointed out, the various house rules end up being a real tradeoff.

On the other hand, if I win on a console sport game, it just feels like I must have had the sliders set too easy, because I play with teams like IU that would never win in real life. Thus, any win or rise to power seems artificial.

Sometimes I wonder if playing adventure games like Ratchet and Clank or Silent Hill or the much-whored Shadow of the Colossus might be more enjoyable because there isn't a real world to compare the results to that makes the game results seem artificial.

Obviously multiplayer is a different beast. I could play in IHOF indefinitely and probably never win it all because I'm in the same division as a certified FOF genius. Which to some degree is also unsatisfying. The ability to at least win my division once in a while would be pleasing, but honestly I don't know if I have the skill (or the willingness to spend the time to acquire the skills) to ever overcome the obstacle cthomer presents in IHOF.

Anyhow, just wondering if anyone else has encountered these feelings.

It's a big part of why I've always been primarily a console gamer. It's nothing against PC games, but the games that are exclusive to PC are of a very different sort than those that are exclusive to consoles, and I find that more often I enjoy the console-style games.

Exceptions to every rule, of course, and I do play PC games more frequently when I have a machine capable of running them, but by and large, the most enjoyable games I've played have been on consoles.

[Crapshoot]

If I may, I'd like to add to Quicksand's quote I play games because I want to be entertained by the story I am creating. In sports games, the story comes from me building my Hearts team into a veritable powerhouse to compete with the Old Firm - in Civ 3, its my civilization rising from minute beginnings to dominance. Nonetheless, the same appeal that is present in these provides intrigue for me in KOTOR and KOTOR 2 (only RPG's I've played in 10 years) - albeit with a greater emphasis on the story and a lesser one on the belief that I'm building it. Nonetheless, the suspension of disbelief, the game that makes me feel that it works because I did it - that's what I enjoy about gaming, and its what keeps me interested across the spectrums.

[Godzilla Blitz]

"Building something" through meaningful decisions is a big reason why I'll play a game, but I also play games for the stories they tell. I like some of the more popular strategy games and wargames for this reason. A good game of Civ 2 or 3 makes for a great story. A good sports-game career generates a lot of interesting stories, both on a team level and a player level.

If the story the game creates is good, if I get to make something, and if I get to use my brain, then the chances are good I'll like the game.

EDIT: Ah...Crapshoot beat me to it.

[Ben E Lou]

No.