A confession….(re: sports sims)

[Buccaneer]

A short while ago in one of the threads here, we were talking about game reviews and magazines. I made my usual quip about Computer Games being the only gaming magazine written for grownups. Someone agreed with that but then added that the design and layout of the magazine was un-professional. My reaction was that the magazine was laid out in a straight-forward, easy to access manner without a lot of gaudy, unnecessary pictures and graphics. Then I thought, "wait a minute…." for I then realized my hypocrisy. In the past two weeks, I gave that quite a bit of thought and here’s what I came up with.

I have constantly criticized FOF SP (and other games) for being very non-immersive and tedious – for me. I had always thought it had to do with the spreadsheet-nature of the game and lack of visual clues, true customization and analytical feedback texts. It does – only to some minor extent – but adding more of those may make the game worse (i.e., taking away from the extraordinary engine). What brought me to that conclusion was Brian’s brilliant game: FBCB. With that game, I found my groove in which OOTP was the only other game to have done that. But FBCB is a spreadsheet-like game with little visual clues (thanks goes out to the person who added the real logos), some customization (but they are not necessary) and very little analytical text. Those made me realize that my personal criticisms of FOF SP don’t hold water anymore and I apologize for that.

So why is it that I can get hooked on FBCB and OOTP but not other sports sim (or more broadly, on various strategy games but not others)? To me, I have always judged games by only two criteria:

1. the "one-more-turn" phenomenon
2. replayability

How this translates in real life is the obsession of 1) wanting to go home and start playing again, 2) wanting to keep playing until I have to go to bed and 3) wanting to get back to playing the game again after you have left it for a while. That’s it. As FBCB has proven, as well as the obsession of replaying old (in some cases, quite old) favorites, it has very little to do with graphics, customization and unnecessary feedback text – or even subject matter. What it does have to do with is the level of detail that I am comfortable playing at.

And believe it or not, it has very little to do with micromanagement, in fact, it may have everything to do with micromanagement!

In looking at how others play sports sims (or other games for that matter), I can’t criticize those spending time on micromanagement details – because I do the same thing but at a different level. The way I play can be termed Micromanaging the Macromanagement.

If I am not paying attention to micromanagement details in OOTP, FBCB, FOF SP, etc., why does it still take me 10+ hours to get through a single season? For others, it is the time spent on PbP, detailed gameplanning, coaching, detailed game stats reviews, etc. If I don’t do any of that (which I don’t), then I should be able to play like SkyDog and get 2-4 seasons done a night. But there’s no way I can do that because I am micromanaging the micromanagement.

[on tangent]

I have written here on what games we have played as kids (particularly sports) influenced what and how we play now as adults. I suspect that what and how I was playing was very different than most of you.

While you were into Strat-O-Matic or APB (I don’t recall the exact acronym), I was memorizing league standings and team nicknames.

While you were studying box scores, I was looking at team transactions and following the advent of free agency.

While you would know how many homers Mike Schmidt hit each season, I would know the geographical history of each franchise and their movements.

While you were interested in how the new Oklahoma RB would work out, I was still trying to align the major college conferences so they made sense geographically.

While you were wondering how the visiting team would match up with your home college team, I was just interested in what city and state they came from and whom else were in their conference.

While you were anxious to see how the new OL would work for the Houston Oilers or the rookie PF for the Lakers, I was anxious to see if there had been any changes to the logo or uniform.

While you were upset that your team drafted player X instead of player Y, I was just looking at what college they came from and counting how many players from different colleges were drafted.

Finally, while you were wondering about the Cowboys’ cohesion in the secondary, I was just to trying to formulate a lineup/roster of my favorite players from the football cards I had.

[/off tangent]

In other words, I was following a different game. I think a lot of it had to do with the year that I got very interested in sports: 1970. That was about the time of major changes in all of the leagues (NFL/AFL merger, MLB and NHL expansion/realignment, NBA/ABA merger) and I was hooked on looking at all of the changes – and still am.

Therefore, what I had followed is where I now spend my time playing: brackets, drafting, trading, free agenting, recruiting, re-aligning teams and leagues, getting the correct historical logos tied in, following team transactions and in FBCB, looking at what town the potential recruit comes from, as well as team rankings and standings. Micromanaging the macro, sort of speak.

Okay, so what does those have to do with my point? I think they are the reasons I got hooked on OOTP and FBCB and not on the other games. I only play OOTP with the Lahman database and historical leagues. The two criteria I mentioned earlier the "one-more-turn" phenomenon and "replayability" kicks in when I see and play with the classic pre-1952 league standings or the fascinating 1953-1968 standings, plus the very comfortable 1969+ standings (and to go through the requisite expansions). It also kicks in when I see the many college names in FBCB (a lot I haven’t heard of) and see where they are located and what their logo looks like, plus how the conferences are arrange geographically and what winner comes out of them. I can tell you more about the 1970 final NFL standings than I can 2003.

In other words, it has very little to do with what I felt were deficiencies in FOF SP (the game is nearly perfect for what it is) and the reason I can ignore statistical deficiencies in other games. You show me a good SP with bad BB/K ratio and I wouldn’t care, but you show me a 1976 NFL league with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NOT in the AFC West, I would care.

FWIW.

YMMV.

And so on.

[WSUCougar]

Alright, Chief Rum, what have you done with Bucc?

(Very interesting post, by the way.)

[Franklinnoble]

Fantastic post, Bucc... I never really thought about it all like that, but you've managed to put down to words what I thought was missing from FOF4/2k4.

If Jim could add expansion, re-alignment, and custom league sizes to FOF, it would be a truly addictive game for me. That's one of the things I like about FBCB. With the limited conference movement turned on, you keep top-notch teams in the top-tier conferences. It's neat to see a team like Utah State playing in the Pac-10.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And believe it or not, it has very little to do with micromanagement, in fact, it may have everything to do with micromanagement!

Chief Rum's head starts spinning and then it just explodes.

Oh and, ha ha, Cougar.

CR

[fantastic flying froggies]

Loved your post. I share many of your tangent views.

What I really want to know is, what the hell was Tampa Bay doing in the AFC West ?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

In other words, it has very little to do with what I felt were deficiencies in FOF SP (the game is nearly perfect for what it is) and the reason I can ignore statistical deficiencies in other games. You show me a good SP with bad BB/K ratio and I wouldn’t care, but you show me a 1976 NFL league with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NOT in the AFC West, I would care.

I was only 3 at the time, but I know of this fact (and the Seahawks, for that matter), and was happy inside about it knowing probably only 5% of football "fans" knew that as well.

Must have been satisfying to be able to move and redesign your IHOF team, huh?

(oh, what do you think of the Brewers being in the NL ?)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I was only 3 at the time, but I know of this fact (and the Seahawks, for that matter), and was happy inside about it knowing probably only 5% of football "fans" knew that as well.

Must have been satisfying to be able to move and redesign your IHOF team, huh?

(oh, what do you think of the Brewers being in the NL ?)

I am surprised more would not know of TB's placement since that was the year they went 0-14.

You are very correct about moving from Stillwater to Telluride. I actually was not locked on Colorado but since I was remaining in the Deep South, Telluride ending being only moved about 150 mi. north (and a bit west), thus keeping within the sphere of the Texas and Mississippi teams. I felt good about that.

I don't have any problems with the Brewers in the NL because Milwaukee had one of best historical NL teams in the Braves from 1953-1965.

[cuervo72]

Ah, very good point about the Braves.

[Young Drachma]

::Applauds post::

I agree with a lot of it. Which is why I always seem to move teams in my dynasties. Hehe..but I'd never thought about why.

[cthomer5000]

*realizes he has more in common with Bucc than he'd ever imagined*

The history of NFL franchises (to me) is among the most fascinating football topics out there. I've been many hours reading about the old days, trying to find out why teams moved, and thinking of the endless ways in which things could have gone differently.

[Dutch]

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were awarded their franchise in 1974/5. They began play in the NFL's 1976 season and the Buccaneers and the Seattle Seahawks were placed in opposite conferences for one season. In the 14 game season, they would play all of the teams in their conference (13 opponents at that point in time) and then once against each other.

The purpose of the round robin schedule of events was to introduce the teams to the opposite conference. The following year, 1977, they would be moved to their slated divisions and begin play in ernest looking for the conference championships. (in 1976, these teams were not afforded any luxuries of today's expansion teams and it didn't take long to understand that there wasn't a chance in hell that either the Bucs or the Seahawks would do anything but lose games in 1976 while touring the opposite conference...as it turned out they finished a collective 2-26 that year).

Anyway, that answers that question. And a fine post by Buc. I agree 100% that immersion designed into a game is important, but if done poorly, could ruin the experience instead of enhancing it. So Jim, to simply ask you to continue what you already do so well, tread lightly and smartly!

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were awarded their franchise in 1974/5. They began play in the NFL's 1976 season and the Buccaneers and the Seattle Seahawks were placed in opposite conferences for one season. In the 14 game season, they would play all of the teams in their conference (13 opponents at that point in time) and then once against each other.

The purpose of the round robin schedule of events was to introduce the teams to the opposite conference. The following year, 1977, they would be moved to their slated divisions and begin play in ernest looking for the conference championships. (in 1976, these teams were not afforded any luxuries of today's expansion teams and it didn't take long to understand that there wasn't a chance in hell that either the Bucs or the Seahawks would do anything but lose games in 1976 while touring the opposite conference...as it turned out they finished a collective 2-26 that year).

Anyway, that answers that question. And a fine post by Buc. I agree 100% that immersion designed into a game is important, but if done poorly, could ruin the experience instead of enhancing it. So Jim, to simply ask you to continue what you already do so well, tread lightly and smartly!

Wow... I'm sort of ashamed that I didn't already know this.

[Dutch]

If I wasn't a Tampa Bay fan, I seriously doubt I would have known this. Unless I had been a Seahawks fan, that is.

[Buccaneer]

or someone that had his bedroom wall full of league standings and logos.

[Sun Tzu]

Great post Bucc. A lot of the things you mentioned I find myself doing.

[Wolfpack]

Bucc...any chance we're mind-linked or something? Those are worthless sports tidbits and information that I also dig into (probably as an outgrowth of my youth studying every atlas I could get my hands on). Standings, playoffs, team locations, team logos, you name it. Hell, I spent days in my youth coming up with imaginary leagues using one mechanism or another to play it out. And, yes, I did have one of those sticker charts with the helmets on it. I actually have a magnet board, but it's been obsoleted since Cleveland rejoined the league. I see that some places are offering all those mini-helmets as a form of standings board. Very tempting, but very expensive ($120, I think).

[Wolfpack]

Dola...

All the conference shuffling (ACC basketball be damned...sort of) over the last year at the college level was great brain candy to chew on. And it might never end. ESPN's got an article up now publicly talking about CUSA's interest in LaTech or UTEP.

[Buccaneer]

I am heartened to see others knowing where I am coming from. But perhaps me more than most others, these alternate obsessions came at the expense of learning/studying players and their stats, as well as strategies. I just never got into those and still don't.

One of the things I forgot to mention was when I create new leagues (typically using state name with geographical-related nicknames), I would commish a league and use whatever I had handy to "play out" the games. Sometimes they were as simple as a deck of cards or a role of dice, or using game pieces like Stratego. I never cared about the game(s) itself but just the final score and how it changed the standings or rankings. This directly relates to today where I don't follow game details in real-life or in sports sims, I prefer to just fast sim since the details do not matter - just the results.

Curiously, in my current obsession with FBCB, I do not have conference movements on. The reason is I am still learning about the many conferences and their teams. Maybe after several seasons once I have them down, then I can turn on movements.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

or someone that had his bedroom wall full of league standings and logos.

I did this with my pee-wee (for lack of a better term) football standings when I was a kid. I would make little cutout football helmets, color them in like the actual helmets, and post them on a paper with the current standings.

I'd also make up brackets for "olympic competitions" for Intellivision hockey....where I was controlling both controllers.

There was also the time where I made a map of my house and yard, divided it into provinces, and made a flag for each. Then I went around posting the flags, I think I stuck one on the garage door.

[Dutch]

I do have a scrapbook at home with every Buccaneer news clipping from the 85 season. We were beating the Bears in both games we played at halftime....we finished 2-14 however and never really challenged the Bears for the Central Division Title.

[Kodos]

I remember my brother and my best friend and I used to have Atari Olympics with whatever games we had available. Oh, those were the days...