Playing Smart: Why Realism Is Not Always the Answer

[thunder008]

people want OPTIONS. nba 2k9 already has the options 'arcade' and 'simulation.' so if you have some of your 'casual' gamer friends over to play, then put it on arcade simple enough. I don't think learning the controls should be overly hard though, because the skill can come by other things like timing and strategy. as long as their are OPTIONS it's fine - like EZ iso in nba2k games. realism is what fans of any sport usually want (especially if you're going to buy a particular game called a "simulation.") if some casual fans don't like realism, then don't buy a simulation game. the reason nba 2k has grown and become more popular is BECAUSE of realism. more people began to discover that nba2k series was more like the real thing so they switched from the arcadey nba live.

[Wiffyjustus]

I suppose what I want to see in a game is this... (I'll use basketball as the example)

You get rewarded for playing like a basketball player. The guys who win are the ones who can read the court better than anyone else, find the open man, drive when they find an opening.

When I want to play a basketball game I want to be sucked into the game of basketball. If I want to memorise Street Fighter like controls then I will play Street Fighter. (which is an awesome game btw)

Sports games elevate themselves to another level when you start thinking the game and you are no longer thinking about the controller.

Last night I had a great online game with some dude, We were seeing open lanes, running plays, getting out on fastbreaks, finding open men (Boy that sounds dodgy). It was a game between two basketball nuts. Not a game that has some schmuck pwning a noob.

There is no getting around the fact that you need to practice / learn a control scheme. I put a bit of time into NBA Live 09 and I am now seeing results on the court. (in both wins and enjoyment)

Bottom line: the more intuitive the devs can make their controls the better.

[DC]

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

people want OPTIONS. nba 2k9 already has the options 'arcade' and 'simulation.' so if you have some of your 'casual' gamer friends over to play, then put it on arcade simple enough. I don't think learning the controls should be overly hard though, because the skill can come by other things like timing and strategy. as long as their are OPTIONS it's fine - like EZ iso in nba2k games. realism is what fans of any sport usually want (especially if you're going to buy a particular game called a "simulation.") if some casual fans don't like realism, then don't buy a simulation game. the reason nba 2k has grown and become more popular is BECAUSE of realism. more people began to discover that nba2k series was more like the real thing so they switched from the arcadey nba live.

Don't know what game you have but my copy doesn't have arcade or simulation

[UGA-Showstoppah]

I can't speak for the basketball genre because I'm simply a football guy.

'Realism' or some semblance of it has been wanted since the days of Madden on the Apple and Techmo on Nintendo. The problem lies where it always lies....with us; the football gamer. We, as gamers, can take average quarterbacks and make them all pro or all-american because the cpu can't, won't, and will never simulate play as well as another gamer. We control the players on the field so when they don't perform....we complain because the deep ball is completely gone.....I'm averaging 2 yards per carry......there's too many interceptions....the line blocking sucks....my linebackers can't tackle. However, when we destroy our competition we say "The deep ball is cheese...the cpu calls stupid plays....the cpu never throws deep.....the defense needs to be able to pursue better....There's never a solution, even with sliders because something will take a hit on our own percieved 'realism' scale. What may be 'real' to one gamer, might be completely unrealistic to another gamer or game developer.

We can play online; but then we take the risk of playing in a game of 'cheese' that's not enjoyable and is as far from real as it can get tactically.

If we actually did get a game where 'Red right - 323 Texas X post Y stick Z zoom C scat" was the offensive play; we'd complain that it stupid to have 'real' play calls instead of Strong HB circle.

Basically, we're screwed. That's not a criticism; it's just an observation. I have played Madden/NCAA (Bill Walsh Football) for almost 20 years. Real or not....I still will play just like the rest of you because of the sport...not the game on the console.

Great topic and glad I could visit today for the first time in a while....keep it up OS boards members. You've all made great points on this subject. Back to work for me.

[Jingling]

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

I think realism is the key to sports games. It is the only way to LEARN something about the sport. Having to critically think about strategy and actually use your mind is also a benefit of realism in sports.

I absolutely agree.

I don't see why realism has to = difficult controls (as the article kind of implies and states repeatedly).

I disagree. Realism = difficult moves in real life should be made more difficult to perform in a simulation game. In other words, making a pass should be one button... deking through your legs, spinorama, then threading a cross-crease pass should be more complex combination of buttons. Think of streetfighter/mortalkombat games, you should need to perform some type of button combo to perform the more difficult martial arts moves.

[mgoblue]

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

While I want games to be realistic, there's a limit.

The day I have to review tape for a week of various defenses in order to have a fighting chance at Madden is the day I stop being a sports gamer.

I want realism, but you also have to realize that we're all not elite pro athletes or coaches. I don't know how to throw a curveball. I don't know the intricacies of the Tampa-2 vs. various offensive sets. I don't know all the ins and outs of basketball.

When a video game starts requiring me to know all the minute boring crap it takes the fun out of it. I don't have time to learn all that stuff. My gaming time is limited enough as it is, I don't want to be forced to stare at scouting reports for an hour before I play my game.

[Bornindamecca]

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

Thanks. It was actually something I had been thinking about lately (probably because of my disappointment with series I used to love: MLB and NBA2k, mainly because of the controls), so it was kind of a coincidence to see this topic show up here.

You know there is an option to map isomotion to the right stick, right? With that setting, the controls are much simpler.


Another note on isomotion: it is totally optional. You don't have to be well versed in crossovers to score in the game. In fact, even among guys who are excellent at isomotion don't usually score directly off of a crossover or spin. It just helps break down the D. Setting a screen is a simple button press, and that's much more effective in getting some freedom from your defender. Just because it's in the game, doesn't mean you HAVE to learn it.

That's the whole point of it all, really. Put a lot of stuff in the game and let people choose what they want out of it. NBA 2k9 is extremely accomodating to two people who want to play a sim game against each other, as well as two run and gunners. For offline gamers, a short visit to 2kshare will give you all of the sliders and rosters you need. Most of the very high rated sliders and rosters are pretty good, and some are great, so it's not a long search to find what you like.

Realism is important, but BASIC realism is most important. Regardless of what happened yesterday on ESPN, the fundamentals of each sport are constant. In basketball you still pass it to the open man. In football you don't throw into double coverage. As long as the basic fundamental realism is the foundation for the the game, all kinds of gamers will appreciate it. Nuanced realism should be an extra layer of depth on top of fundamentals.

A semi knowledgable sports fan should be able to pick up on these games and rely on his sports knowledge as a blueprint for success.

[Skyboxer]

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

While I want games to be realistic, there's a limit.

The day I have to review tape for a week of various defenses in order to have a fighting chance at Madden is the day I stop being a sports gamer.

I want realism, but you also have to realize that we're all not elite pro athletes or coaches. I don't know how to throw a curveball. I don't know the intricacies of the Tampa-2 vs. various offensive sets. I don't know all the ins and outs of basketball.

When a video game starts requiring me to know all the minute boring crap it takes the fun out of it. I don't have time to learn all that stuff. My gaming time is limited enough as it is, I don't want to be forced to stare at scouting reports for an hour before I play my game.

I co-sign to a degree. I don't want the game to be a chore that takes away from the fun. I do want the game to be as real on the field as possible though.
I love the depth of HC Football where you need to get your players educated on the plays etc... as well as the other items in the game.

Just to use football as an example. I simply HATE that we still are at the "Push button X for X receiver" stage. NFL Fevers read and lead was a step in the right direction IMO. It wasn't perfect but it was an advancement.
It wasn't over complicated but added more user ability into the game. You got a real sense of accomplishment when you had a good passing day.
I spent many hours on John Elway QB arcade machine as well as my first ever Madden on the Aplle IIe. Both games passing mechanics featured "throw anywhere on the field" modes.

This is one of the reasons why I let the QB throw for me in Madden 09.

I'll gladly take the "review tape for a week of various defenses in order to have a fighting chance at Madden" but make it an option or be able to delegate it to an assistant coach.

Anyways there's different realism for different people. For me seeing a 190lb WR break 3 tackles or a QB throw off the back foot and be deadly accurate obviously takes away from the realism.
As well as hitting a high inside pitch for a 400ft opposite field hr.

There are many things in todays games that could be fixed to make the games ton more realistic that wouldn't require complicated controls or a total re-write.

[Bornindamecca]

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

Anyways there's different realism for different people. For me seeing a 190lb WR break 3 tackles or a QB throw off the back foot and be deadly accurate obviously takes away from the realism.
There are many things in todays games that could be fixed to make the games ton more realistic that wouldn't require complicated controls or a total re-write.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If you pursue the QB and get him to throw off of his back foot, you expect the throw to be less accurate. If you're a sports fan, that's the logical conclusion. Realism in games should reflect the logical outcomes of sports fundamentals in most scenarios. If you stand between a man and the rim, he shouldn't be able to dunk it. Same for the QB issue. That makes people(casual and hardcore gamers alike) say "ok, since real life defense doesn't work, how do I play D in this game?"

That's not what we want. I introduced a casual gamer to 2k9 yesterday. After I told him to play like real life, the quality of his game doubled instantly. Games would be more pick up and play if they followed fundamental principles, not less so.

[baa7]

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

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

MLB 2K8's pitching system wasn't complicated, it was just stupid. And I'll take that back the day I see Chien-Ming Wang move his arm sideways to the left, and then quickly spin it counter-clockwise in a circle, in order to throw his sinker.

As I get older I care less and less about 'complicated'. I like running in straight lines towards the goal -- to heck with learning tricks and spin moves. At the same time, I have to know my input as a user makes some difference, which is why I play using manual passing and shooting controls in a game like FIFA.

In other words, game controls can still be innovative without being overly complicated. Button pushing is fine for pitching, but if a simple system can be incorporated into the game that mimics the pitcher's windup and release -- like the golf swing in Tiger Woods -- then I'm all for that.

[IntheGame305]

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

great article