Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[vaderdog]

Just a thought, but if OUR (we the consumer) gut feelings and opinions do not count as statistical data relevent to your "experiment," why would a group of "reviewers" opinions and ratings matter? It would seem to me that they are giving a rating based off solely their opinion. What makes a reviewer's opinion worthy of statistical data? And Logic Doctor is dead on, great post

[RaychelSnr]

jsquigg,

You are right that money is what the game publishers are after. However, this article isn't about sales data, as that isn't what we're measuring game quality here with because we all know that while Madden and FIFA are consistently the best selling sports games, they probably aren't the best sports games on the market every year. Sales definitely aren't a good measure of quality but maybe of customer acceptance?

[kGinGreen]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

The reality is capitalism becomes socialism. It's not necessarily communism but socialism is a bridge, and all our resources are being funnelled into one entity. Yes that can create better games but it's not the foundation this country was built on. People with money ultimately call the shots which is good in some ways but it's also not good in others. They control things. Do you like Walmart? Do you think they always charge the best price possible? I don't. you wonder why inflation occurs its because all this money is being funnelled into one thing and we aren't paying for what we think we are half the time. There is a lot of stuff going on in the world that people aren't aware of. You wonder why games are $60 and gas prices are the way they are and consumers are being milked for their dollar. The reality it's not a free country. It costs money and we aren't necessarily making the decisions we think we are. Yes you tax the rich and this whole health care debate is because these things need to be paid for by someone, but it's also a control game. I think Obama has what he feels are the countries best interests at heart and i'm not against him at all, but people really should educate themselves as to what is really going on. These are just games but it's bigger than that. Do you guys know why we are fighting a war, and why you hear things like globalization? Do you understand what is really going on and why you see these large corporations trying to control markets?

[RaychelSnr]

vaderdog,

Because they write their opinions down and they are recorded with a rating. If you get down to the bottom of it, game reviewers are just as much of a game customer as anyone else, they are simply writing their opinions down. I'm not discounting popular opinion so much as trying to use the only method which is quantifiable. Again, if you know of a better way to measure game quality which can be measured in a meaningful way, I'm open to hear it.

[Logic Doctor]

MMchrisS :

Great way to make a point, but there are a few flaws with how you went about it.

First, who is to say the race car isn't being pushed internally to get even better? You assume , when you can have just as much of an internal pressure to perform as an external. Not to mention in the gaming business, you aren't operating in a vacuum, reviewers know what makes a good sports game and what doesn't.

Logic Doctor :

Let me clarify. I did not assume that the only pressure put on the race car to get better is pressure by an outside entity. I assumed that internal pressure/motivation would be an obvious given considering natural pressurized/motivating factors such as self-pride, the fact that you're being paid well and can be replaced, and genuinly wanting to make a good game.

Ironically, you yourself just assumed through a blanket statement that "reviewers know what makes a good sports game and what doesn't." Im not saying reviewers don't know what their talking about, but I also wouldn't say they ALL know exactly what they're talking about.



MMchrisS :

If your thoughts on review scores being higher for sports with no competition just because there is nothing to gauge them on is valid, that'd mean there was no point of reference to gauge Madden off of. You can simply look at what other games in the genre and other games in other genres are able to do and judge the games progress there as well. So in this instance, the audience could watch your race car and think it was fast, until they went to another track and saw another racecar going twice as fast.

Logic Doctor :

I agree to an entent that you can, in fact, compare games within a genre. That is if the only things you are gaudging are graphics, player (athlete) movement and presentation. However, beyond those broad comparisons everything gets a bit fuzzy. The intricacies of football are very different from basketball, baseball, soccer and hockey. Every sport has a uniquness about it which in turn means every "sports game" should have a uniquness about it. Based on that reasoning, you can only compare the specifics (and sometimes even larger portions of a game) to a competitor who's trying to emulate the same sport.

Point being, comparing sports games within the "sports games" genre does not offer a lot of depth and accuracy, especially when you have 1 main company supplying almost all of the games in that genre (EA and the sports games genre.)

As far as "out of genre" comparisons go, those comparisons would offer even less depth then "in genre" comparisons. You can only learn so much comparing Apples to Oranges.


Your right, games don't operate in a vacuum, but sports games operate on the basis of replication. Their sole purpose is to recreate something we already experience through an entertainment medium (TV.) So they (sports games) exist as a truly different animal among other genre's. They are judged on their ability to not only re-create what we see on TV, but to also make it fun, accessable and fullfliing to control and play with.

[vaderdog]

As opposed simply using a few dozen reviewers, there is a way to broaden your research criteria by visiting those same sites and quantifying user reviews. A consumer who decides to write up their own review, like you can do on gameFAQS and other sites, is doing so for other like minded gamers' benefit. Put together an average of several hundred reviews randomly. That would eliminate any bias a paid reviewer has. It would also give you a much more broad view.

Plus, our opinions would count to!

[vaderdog]

And to add to that, you'd also see quite a change in review scores from the initial release (I've got a shiny new toy to play with) compared to a reviewer who has spent time playing the game. The thing about sports games is replayability. I can remember playing the shhh out of Madden until it came out the following year. Last year, I played Madden for three weeks. Then I'd rarely touch it. Initially, I thought, this game is great, graphics are awesome, franchise is fun. Then reality set in, we all know how we felt after just a bit of time with the game. At that point, my review score would be a far cry from my impulsive initial response to the game. This situation would be reflected, I think more often than not, in the scores of consumer reviews across the board and give you (or whoever wants to do it, cause I'm sure not) much more accurate data to boldly claim "Competition Creates Better Games is Bologna"

[vick5]

what a horrible article...if anything you just proved yourself wrong...comp does make games better....and way to go basing your "quality" conclusion based upon internet scores from IGN and Gamespot...OS needs smarter writers...

[TheCreep]

I fully agree with MMChris, StormJH1, UFGators253, and Speels. Sorry, I'm not that articulate to get too deep into this through writing/typing, but I most definitely agree that competition is a VERY small factor on games improvement.

Has Madden NOT improved each year this generation? I would beg to differ, and guess what, there isn't ANY competition for them to worry about correct. Well....why is it getting better?

I would guess that its getting better because the devs are getting more proficient as each year passes with the hardware they are working with.

All Pro 2k8 was a stripped down football game just as the first Madden on this generation was stripped down. Know why? It was the devs first outing working with this hardware.

Bottom line, if competition is a major factor(2k5 IS NOT competition for Madden 10 at all), Madden wouldn't have improved from 06 to 10. What you're seeing is the developers learning the hardware.

People let their emotions get too involved in this. Most threads I read regarding EA and 2k, I can sense the disgruntled nature in the words. Its all about the people being mad at the exclusive rights, this that and the other.

Madden has improved without direct competition, that kills the comp argument right there.

[bigsmallwood]

@ TheCreep...you are dead wrong my friend. Madden has NOT improved. Go play Madden 06-10......don't worry I'll wait. Do your research before you speak...

[teamgt]

horrible review scores your point can't be made using review scores

[matt8204]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

jsquigg,

You are right that money is what the game publishers are after. However, this article isn't about sales data, as that isn't what we're measuring game quality here with because we all know that while Madden and FIFA are consistently the best selling sports games, they probably aren't the best sports games on the market every year. Sales definitely aren't a good measure of quality but maybe of customer acceptance?

FIFA seems to have cleaned up its act and was pretty well-received this year, however. A lot of people feel it was in reaction to so many saying that Pro Evo Soccer had overtaken it in terms of quality over the past few years.

[Jump]

Just because game reviews are the only quantifiable source to use for something like this, does not mean that you can draw such clear cut conclusions from them.

[Crimsontide27]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Considering the fact that even here at Operation Sports you cant get an unbiased review by the moderaters / staff writers should end all theory that you should use reviewers scores in any form of statistical gathering.

Its been stated before that people here at this site had rated Madden ( insert year ) higher than they should have , but feel the need to continue to giver higher scores for the ( insert year after ) Madden.

Reviewers on sites such as these are not a good judge of a game since there is usually an agenda behind them.

Take a random sample of 100 people from this site to review this game and it wouldnt even come close to a 7. Yet somehow those that do the reviews on this site and others are somehow " more credible" than those that actually play the game.

As far as competition... If Sega had never decided to challenge the Nintendo...we would all still playing a Nintendo. Sega came out with the Genesis....forcing Nintendo to come out with the SNES.... SNES and the Genesis were doing great but Sega came out with the Sega CD and Nintendo was working on their CD system ( eventually the PS1 ) ....

So now the Playstation comes out and destroys all....then Sega releases the Dreamcast.......until MS jumps in and releases the Xbox.... The 360 comes out and forces Sony to have the PS3 ready...etc...etc...etc...etc

To say that competition has nothing to do with the quality or the lack of quality in titles is absurd. Competition keeps everything moving, wether your head is buried in a sandbox or not.

This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read on this board. Since you dont believe competition makes games better, I suggest you head right on back to playing video games pre-atari, pre- odyesse, pre-colecovison and waste your time and effort reviewing those games.

[phant030]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

I most certainly agree with this. There are tons of shooters. Tons of racing games. Tons of rpg's that are str8 garbage. Competition really pushed those games to greatness.

Even sports games like Sony's NBA, 2k's MLB , Even Live for the past few years, have had stiff competition and weren't pushed above average games. So why was Live 07 atrocious? There just wasn't any competition for it. lol

The games are just like sports teams. It takes money; organizational leadership; great strategy and game planning ; developmental talent, skills, and tools; and even heart. If the tools are there but the time frame to implement the necessary changes aren't there....Or if the direction isn't the best...no tools or resources or licenses can help...U can only create/develop to the best of ur ability and see how the end product is recieved.

Competition may push improvement...but doesn't create improvement. In fact, it can push u into regression. Or even complacency. Forcing take unecessary changes, chances, and unfortunately mistakes. Or doing just enough to surpass miniscul competition. Improving just enought to be better than...u make a D, ill make a D+.... Competition isnt the end all of improvement or greatness..sure it can help...but the final determation is the abilities of the team, its direction for a title..implementation of new features...enhancement of the existing...and basically..what they want out of a title...if the artist is satisfied with his creation...no competition can force him to edit his piece.

I agree with you Chris. This a post I made a while back in a Madden Thread. Fits here too.