Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

[DXZeke]

The developers tinker with behind the scenes sliders on every game they make. Why can't they just give us a couple options... like "Casual" vs "Sim" and then leave it up to the buyer to play what they want.

Like with a basketball game there's more dunks and 3pt shots on Casual where as in SIM you're having to play smart D, Call plays, let things develop like you'd see in a college or Pro game.

This goes for most sports...

Casual has the game more slanted in favor of the USER to make it pick and play fun... where as SIM would be based upon Stats instead like you see with MLB The show and NBA 2k9.

Why must the developers appease to the casual crowd when over the course of 2yrs you could have your game revamped too make both Casual and SIM owners happy by having 2 separate experiences on the Disc?

And if we look at Sales Numbers... NBA 2k9 and NHL 09 - the two games that are talked about as being more SIM - are the sales leaders in their sports category.

I can dream....

[Cusefan]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

I don't see why realism has to = difficult controls (as the article kind of implies and states repeatedly). For me, the ideal sports game would have simple controls (something like NHL 09), but yet what I see on the screen would be as close to real as possible. I don't think making the controls complicated, or giving the player complete control over ever little nuance, is the ticket to realistic sports games. I don't see why a baseball couldn't produce more realistic results (higher pitch counts, foul balls, less HRs, etc.) with NES-style simple controls, if it was programmed to be more realistic.

I think the mistake some of the developers are making are making the games too complicated. I shouldn't have to practice isomotion moves for hours to pull off a spin move. It should be a simple as a button press, but the key to making it realistic is coding it so only guys that can actually pull it off in real life can pull it off in the game. If you try it with someone who doesn't have those skills, there should be a realistic consequence for it. That's where games get it wrong, I think. There's not enough of a negative consequence for unrealistic play.

Madden is also getting it wrong, I think with all the complicated pre-snap controls all the controls for moves while running (R stick, buttons, shoulder buttons, etc.) Why can't it just be something as simple as I run with the left stick and the game is coded so that guys that are good at breaking tackles will occasionally and realistically break tackles? It would still feel satisfying and rewarding, I believe, without me having to try and manually string together a bunch of commands to do it.

I *hated* MLB2k's game last year. The pitching controls are horrible, IMO, and still don't accomplish what they were going for: making it feel like throwing different pitches. Again, I think pitching should be as simple as a button press, but the game AI determines based on player ratings how accurate, fast, how much movement, the pitch has. You still manually aim, but if you don't have the best pitcher in the world, don't expect the ball to go where you want 100% of the time. To me, that is more "sim" than having to perform all kinds of crazy motions on the R stick to throw a curve ball. I just want to see realistic animations and results on the screen; I don't need to try and emulate what throwing a pitch feels like on the controller somehow for the game to feel "realistic."

So, in summary, I think realism in sports games would be appreciated by "sim" and "casual" fans alike, if they can make the controls simple, yet fun to play, while yielding realistic scenarios, and causing realistic negative consequences for unrealistic play.

Wouldn't that take all of the skill out of the game?

I do agree with madden to an extent. I wish the better football tactician would win 90% of the time over the kid who has no idea what he is calling but has good stick skills. But that's video games

[born_bad]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

Wouldn't that take all of the skill out of the game?

Not necessarily. It would remove a lot of the controller skills, but not necessarily skills to outplay your opponent. I think back to the NES games: the controller was a d-pad and 2 buttons, yet a lot of the games still required skill. In a lot of ways those games are more challening than modern games, once you get over the more involved controls.

I'm at work now, so can't really expand on it, but I think you could still develop games where the more skilled player has the advantage, but "skilled" wouldn't just be about the controller; it would be more about the decisions you make, your ability to execute them, and realistic consequences for bad decisions.

[carnalnirvana]

this may be pandoras box but i would really like if lets say EA would release a editor tool for each of its games and let us patch or tighten some base areas.......

i know some are more experienced than others when it comes to computers and programming but it would be something you have to buy so that should keep it in the hands of the people who are hardcore tweakers...

an example of this is counter strike it took a while but ............

or mugen kinda similar

[jpup]

this article makes my head hurt and is the reason why we have arcade sports games instead of sports simulation. this goes against everything I have ever read at OS.

[asu666]

I consider realism to be great gameplay (e.g., ESPN NFL 2K5, FIFA 09, MLB 08), excellent animations (e.g., ESPN NFL 2K5, FIFA 09, MLB 08, NHL 2K9), presentation (ESPN NFL 2K5, College Hoops 2K8, MLB 08, FIFA 09) and depth (MLB 08, FIFA 09, College Hoops 2K8). All devs should look at what has been done in the past with these titles and use them as a bar that should be exceeded with future releases.

[GSW]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

I don't see why realism has to = difficult controls (as the article kind of implies and states repeatedly). For me, the ideal sports game would have simple controls (something like NHL 09), but yet what I see on the screen would be as close to real as possible. I don't think making the controls complicated, or giving the player complete control over ever little nuance, is the ticket to realistic sports games. I don't see why a baseball couldn't produce more realistic results (higher pitch counts, foul balls, less HRs, etc.) with NES-style simple controls, if it was programmed to be more realistic.

I think the mistake some of the developers are making are making the games too complicated. I shouldn't have to practice isomotion moves for hours to pull off a spin move. It should be a simple as a button press, but the key to making it realistic is coding it so only guys that can actually pull it off in real life can pull it off in the game. If you try it with someone who doesn't have those skills, there should be a realistic consequence for it. That's where games get it wrong, I think. There's not enough of a negative consequence for unrealistic play.

Madden is also getting it wrong, I think with all the complicated pre-snap controls all the controls for moves while running (R stick, buttons, shoulder buttons, etc.) Why can't it just be something as simple as I run with the left stick and the game is coded so that guys that are good at breaking tackles will occasionally and realistically break tackles? It would still feel satisfying and rewarding, I believe, without me having to try and manually string together a bunch of commands to do it.

I *hated* MLB2k's game last year. The pitching controls are horrible, IMO, and still don't accomplish what they were going for: making it feel like throwing different pitches. Again, I think pitching should be as simple as a button press, but the game AI determines based on player ratings how accurate, fast, how much movement, the pitch has. You still manually aim, but if you don't have the best pitcher in the world, don't expect the ball to go where you want 100% of the time. To me, that is more "sim" than having to perform all kinds of crazy motions on the R stick to throw a curve ball. I just want to see realistic animations and results on the screen; I don't need to try and emulate what throwing a pitch feels like on the controller somehow for the game to feel "realistic."

So, in summary, I think realism in sports games would be appreciated by "sim" and "casual" fans alike, if they can make the controls simple, yet fun to play, while yielding realistic scenarios, and causing realistic negative consequences for unrealistic play.

I apologize to everyone for not reading the rest of the posts in this thread but after reading this I don't really feel the need too. (I will anyway though)

[KG]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

I don't see why realism has to = difficult controls (as the article kind of implies and states repeatedly). For me, the ideal sports game would have simple controls (something like NHL 09), but yet what I see on the screen would be as close to real as possible. I don't think making the controls complicated, or giving the player complete control over ever little nuance, is the ticket to realistic sports games. I don't see why a baseball couldn't produce more realistic results (higher pitch counts, foul balls, less HRs, etc.) with NES-style simple controls, if it was programmed to be more realistic.

I think the mistake some of the developers are making are making the games too complicated. I shouldn't have to practice isomotion moves for hours to pull off a spin move. It should be a simple as a button press, but the key to making it realistic is coding it so only guys that can actually pull it off in real life can pull it off in the game. If you try it with someone who doesn't have those skills, there should be a realistic consequence for it. That's where games get it wrong, I think. There's not enough of a negative consequence for unrealistic play.

Madden is also getting it wrong, I think with all the complicated pre-snap controls all the controls for moves while running (R stick, buttons, shoulder buttons, etc.) Why can't it just be something as simple as I run with the left stick and the game is coded so that guys that are good at breaking tackles will occasionally and realistically break tackles? It would still feel satisfying and rewarding, I believe, without me having to try and manually string together a bunch of commands to do it.

I *hated* MLB2k's game last year. The pitching controls are horrible, IMO, and still don't accomplish what they were going for: making it feel like throwing different pitches. Again, I think pitching should be as simple as a button press, but the game AI determines based on player ratings how accurate, fast, how much movement, the pitch has. You still manually aim, but if you don't have the best pitcher in the world, don't expect the ball to go where you want 100% of the time. To me, that is more "sim" than having to perform all kinds of crazy motions on the R stick to throw a curve ball. I just want to see realistic animations and results on the screen; I don't need to try and emulate what throwing a pitch feels like on the controller somehow for the game to feel "realistic."

So, in summary, I think realism in sports games would be appreciated by "sim" and "casual" fans alike, if they can make the controls simple, yet fun to play, while yielding realistic scenarios, and causing realistic negative consequences for unrealistic play.

I feel the complete opposite. I want total control over my players pre and post snap. The game is already coded so that players break tackles, it's called the ratings. I don't want to play a game that any bum off the street can pop in and play well. Learning how to play the game is the beauty of "sim" games and that's where some companies fail and some succeed. What's the point of playing if you're gonna count on the CPU to pull off moves for you? What companies need to do is work on their branch animations. I agree that there are too many canned animations where you know the outcome as soon as you see the animation forming. Specifically I'm talking about gang-tackling and collision detection.

[dannydufflebags]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

realism rocks

[sportyguyfl31]

just have the games depict the dang sport accurately, and in a way that doesnt bastardize the game.

Is that too much to expect?

[aggro77]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

I think EA has kind of been experimenting with this with their simplified, everybody play controls. I don't think they have found the perfect system, but I will say that this year is the first time I have enjoyed a FIFA game since 2003 thanks to the option to use a simplified control scheme. The simplified controls haven't allowed me to walk all over the CPU and win every game, I've gotten my tail kicked when I've tried to take on a superior opponent or when I make bad decisions or mistakes.

[KG]

Re: Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

just have the games depict the dang sport accurately, and in a way that doesnt bastardize the game.

Is that too much to expect?

easier said than done man

[songa]

why not have both? or at least something very similar to both extremes? the option of having a super realistic game AND a fun, casual type game would make the most sense. after all, isnt that why we have different difficultly settings? for example, lets say we're playing madden. have a casual, once-in-a-while gamer, play on rookie or pro settings, while the hardcore, realistic gamer plays on allpro or even all madden for the ultimate challenge. shouldnt that make the most sense?

[songa]

now, i read somewhere that someone prefers live over 2k9 because 2k9 was too hard, although more realistic. ive owned both, but returned live, and i consider myself a casual bball player as well. the reason for this is, like i stated above, i just changed the difficultly settings! i may never takt eh time and practice to master 2k9's intricate controls, and i may forever just play 4 button basketball. in any regular settings, i would get crushed by the heat, even if i was the celtics. i usedt o get so frustrated that any shot i took, even only slightly contested, and every layup i took, only about 10% of them would go in. thats no fun, esp when you dont want to get into the intricacies of the game and of basketball and you just want to give the ball to KG and let him slam i thome. all i did was change difficulty settings and/or adjust game sliders, and right away, you have a game almost as arcadey as any bball game ever made but stilll REALISTIC. i guess...its REALISTIC, just not POSSIBLE. haha. in other words, you can make it with realistic gameplay with a team full of jordans in their prime. hahah impossible yes, but unrealistic? not at all!

[songa]

long story short, and im taking 2k9 as an example, any level of player, whether it be casual to hardcore, can beat the celtics with the heat by 40+ points every time if they really wanted to. that may not be fun for some, but may be very fun for others. for most, maybe winning by 15-20points is more fun, or maybe 5-10 points, etc. but for each level, you can just adjust the sliders or difficultly settings accordingly. i believe every game should have that flexibilty!!!