Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[tabulaRasa]

OK to be fair 360 version
06 75
07 81 (on xbox it got 82,00)
08 83
09 84
10 87
In other words, in 5 years they still haven´t surpassed the score they got with Madden 2005 (where they have competetion)

[Rocky]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Rutgers has a better record over the past 3 years than Florida St. Therefore, Rutgers is a better football program than Florida St.

See the problem. There is 25 years of evidence and you only choose to highlight several.

[Peninc]

quite simply sir....you are wrong

[kbmnm247]

Wow, well at least alot of these posts agree with my thoughts on this blatant shock article.

First, the whole review scores thing... I don't want to sound like a broken record so I'll keep it short. You shoot down all of our opinions about the game or even a whole forum or fanbase's opinions on a game yet you based an entire article around paid reviewers' scores. You do know these people are generally nerds who do not play nor care about sports games, right? They were simply hired to review a multitude of games which are mostly NON-sports games so taking their thoughts (after playing these sports games for a MAXIMUM of like a week and a half, another big point the writer fails to mention/acknowledge) as truth on SPORTS games is not scientific in any way.

Second, let's go through those scores you posted anyway and shine a different light on it...
NBA Live - 64, 59, 73, 77
NBA 2K - 81, 84, 81, 84

I could say 2K kept with the times and produced a solid game year after year, they had no need to innovate or put in a game changing feature because they were the king of the castle, getting more sales, and better review scores. What they did though was keep themselves polished and control market share... the competition between these two series is why you see Live increase it's score a ridiculous amount the last 2 years that the data is shown for. That can definitely be attributed to competition, whereas you said this doesn't show competition. Both scores have risen (Live's dramatically) over those 4 years and you discredit competition? That makes no sense and does not relate to the rest of your arguments. Anyway..
EA's NHL - 79, 85, 88
2K's NHL - 75, 78, 71, 69
To think that EA's huge jump in quality of their NHL series wasn't due to NHL 2k slowly taking away sales is ludicrous. As shown here in these scores you can see NHL dramatically improved because they knew they were putting the same thing out there year after year and were behind 2K in that gameplay department so they dramtically improved in that area and now they are the king and make NHL 2K look outdated, hence why 2K is now receiving worse scores.

To be honest those are the only sports you can legitimately compare scores and the games and competition. You can't compare Madden scores without competition because as has already been stated many many MANY reviewers slap a 8.5-9.2 on Madden every year and that's that. Same goes for NCAA. The Show compared to 2K isn't fair because it is only on one console and pretty much The Show has exclusive rights to PS3 games because no one is going to buy 2K baseball over the Show, no one.
Also, if you can't see that Tiger is basically the same game every year then there is something wrong with you. I can play Tiger 08 and I have no desire to get Tiger 10 because there have been hardly any noteworthy improvements. The game is great don't get me wrong but I imagine there would be a lot more new features every year if there was decent competition.

And another thing, you state that quality of developers, time for the cycle, money available are the factors in creating a good game... ok, this might be hard for you to fathom.... ready? You don't think that if there was decent competition out there that a brand like EA would put more time, better quality developers, and more money into a cash cow like Madden? Hell, they f*cking BOUGHT the NFL license just to eliminate NFL2k from their competition in the football market. They didn't want competition, they didn't want to have to improve their game to beat an obviously up-and-coming NFL2k. They knew that that $20 price opened the eyes of alot of people out there that a better football game was being made and so they spent $$$ to eliminate it rather than spend that on developers/innovation. Rather than improve their game because of competition they bought out the competition because they could. (what a joke)

I just think the whole using review scores as your only measure is dumb and in no way believable. You ask people how else you can do it and everyone responds with different ways and you still conveniently read over that line of their post and quote everything else and then say that "well, show me another way". Here are your ways ... # of new features every year (legitimate new features, not ones that were taken out and added back in 2 years later), presentation updates, OS forum general views, reader reviews (who actually play games longer than the 1 week or so paid reviewers alot to a sports game).... etc

Cliffs: You can't base an article where you claim an age-old myth is debunked off of paid reviewer nerds who play a sports game for a week MAX. Especially when sports games are different every time you play them for the most part and many features can not even be tested after only a brief time playing the game.

whew, sorry for the length, but at least this wasted some time at work.

[StormJH1]

EvanRG, I think I get your general point, which is "I want more choices as a consumer, and competition doesn't hurt, so why wouldn't I want competition." We'd probably agree on that point, but Guitar Hero/Rock Band is a poor example because the people who initially developed Guitar Hero left to create Rock Band after Guitar Hero 2. Thus, the "competitior" you credit with creating the innovation of selling eleventy billion instruments with a music game was actually the same company that made Guitar Hero in the first place.

But the fact is that we DON'T have direct competition for Madden right now, and no amount of whining about will change it. Therefore, the only relevant question is: "How much (if any) has the absence of competition hurt?"

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's hurt as much as people think it has. And the reason is because EA never was never really concerned about NFL 2k5's competition in "game quality", or even in "sales", but rather saw NFL 2k5 as a threat to EA's ability to charge $49.99 (now $59.99) for its product. That was the forgotten reason (and the primary one) for why the exclusive deal came about in the first place.

And I think the thing that people aren't being honest about is that an NFL 2k10 very likely would not have evolved very much since 2k5 either. Nothing 2k Sports has done with any of their other franchises suggests that they would've "pushed the envelope" with new feature sets. 2k Basketball is a good game, but it has not fundamentally changed at all since the days of the PS2. And APF 2k8 was a chance for them to create a clearly superior next-gen football product, and they didn't do it. True, many hardcore gamers prefer 2k football to EA football, but the overwhelming majority of consumers don't, so Madden was never going to become a 2k clone.

Finally, I disagree that there's no harm that could've come out of an open competition. There's simply no time in a 10-month development cycle to completely reinvent everything you do as a football game, while eyeballing your competitor and copying their good ideas. Rather, we probably would've seen much more gimmicky changes, such as vision cone (2006) and weapons system (2008), which did nothing to the gameplay, but merely added a marketable layer to the underlying engine, to create the perception of a "new" game. Also, if 2k ever did successfully cut into Madden's sales (which would've been unlikely), that would only leave Madden with less resources to take on theincreasingly expensive process of making next-gen games.

[sanders]

You're argument is completely flawed. For one it's not about the review scores at all. It's how much is done to improve the games!

If EA, for example, implements a bunch of new features and some work and some don't work all that well it will receive a decent but not super high rating. If the game is basically the same as last years with new grachics and a couple of new features it will get the same rating.

When there is no competition and the company knows they will sell x amount of units as long as the game at least meets a certain bar there is little incentive to do anymore because the only thing that goes up is cost.

Now if they currently have say 30% of the market they will be spending time and money to try and capture the other 70% of the market.

[Rocky]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

EvanRG, I think I get your general point, which is "I want more choices as a consumer, and competition doesn't hurt, so why wouldn't I want competition." We'd probably agree on that point, but Guitar Hero/Rock Band is a poor example because the people who initially developed Guitar Hero left to create Rock Band after Guitar Hero 2. Thus, the "competitior" you credit with creating the innovation of selling eleventy billion instruments with a music game was actually the same company that made Guitar Hero in the first place.

But the fact is that we DON'T have direct competition for Madden right now, and no amount of whining about will change it. Therefore, the only relevant question is: "How much (if any) has the absence of competition hurt?"

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's hurt as much as people think it has. And the reason is because EA never was never really concerned about NFL 2k5's competition in "game quality", or even in "sales", but rather saw NFL 2k5 as a threat to EA's ability to charge $49.99 (now $59.99) for its product. That was the forgotten reason (and the primary one) for why the exclusive deal came about in the first place.

And I think the thing that people aren't being honest about is that an NFL 2k10 very likely would not have evolved very much since 2k5 either. Nothing 2k Sports has done with any of their other franchises suggests that they would've "pushed the envelope" with new feature sets. 2k Basketball is a good game, but it has not fundamentally changed at all since the days of the PS2. And APF 2k8 was a chance for them to create a clearly superior next-gen football product, and they didn't do it. True, many hardcore gamers prefer 2k football to EA football, but the overwhelming majority of consumers don't, so Madden was never going to become a 2k clone.

Finally, I disagree that there's no harm that could've come out of an open competition. There's simply no time in a 10-month development cycle to completely reinvent everything you do as a football game, while eyeballing your competitor and copying their good ideas. Rather, we probably would've seen much more gimmicky changes, such as vision cone (2006) and weapons system (2008), which did nothing to the gameplay, but merely added a marketable layer to the underlying engine, to create the perception of a "new" game. Also, if 2k ever did successfully cut into Madden's sales (which would've been unlikely), that would only leave Madden with less resources to take on theincreasingly expensive process of making next-gen games.

Real blanket statements here. First the claim that 2K wouldn't have progressed that much. There is really no way to tell...true. But then you go on to compare it to other 2K games which aren't very good arguments considering that other 2K games aren't developed by 2K's main developer (VC) or were overhauled in the middle of the last gen cycles (NBA2K5). It's all about context. You can't go on to say that we have no way of knowing how NFL2K10 would've been and then use completely different situations to frame an argument on how it would've been a bad game.

Secondly, let's forget 2K for a second. Have we moved so far along that we have forgotten what Gameday did to Madden? Or hell, what Madden did to Tecmo. Let's not forget Fever who pushed NFL2K series to innovate graphically (a VC employee even quoted as much). There is a whole history of competition continously innovating the genre and we choose to ignore it.

Madden as we know it might not even exist today. THQ's NFL Showdown may be the number one game on the market. If you would have told me in 1991 that Tecmo Super Bowl would be gone in 1996, I would've LOL'd in your face.

[rondoman]

Wow.

Possible worst article ever written at OS?

Using metacritic scores to dismiss competition breeds better games is laughable.

I suspect the author wanted to write a controversial article to get a lot of hits, and sure enough, that is what he did. If he does truly believe what he wrote, I don't know what to say. . .

You can't take a subjective thing such as metacritic scores and have them as the be all end all on why competition does not produce better games. Horrible.

[Dynamite]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

I'm simply arguing against direct-sport competition being the leading cause of why a game is either good or bad. I see nothing wrong with the conclusion that direct-sport competition isn't even close to the main reason why a game is good or bad. Given the data presented, I would say it's pretty clear that it isn't. If direct-sport competition is the reason why games succeed or fail quality wise, I simply have to ask for a more reliable and better way of measuring it?

If you were not saying that competition does not create better gameplay, then you shouldn't have titled your article and built your premise around that very point. In here, when people have called you out for some of your logical flaws, you've attempted to tighten your focus and claim it's direct-sport competition that you're arguing against. It's a lame cop-out, to be honest. If you really believe that competition doesn't create better games, then stand by it, why backtrack after writing so extensively about it?

Further, since review scores are imprecise, and there are not definable metrics for sports games outside of what strikes the greatest balance between sim and fun, isn't the best case for competition that you then have the option as the consumer to see which one is worth your time? I would say that's true. Looking at the NFL 2k5 versus Madden 2005 arguments would almost certainly prove you wrong as well. No one really likes to bring up the flawed versions of 2k before 2k5, but they were getting destroyed by Madden in sales and reviews, then in response to that competition...2k5. The response to competition is what drives the improvement.

[rondoman]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

MMChris wrote a BS article.

First, in the article, he claims competition as a reason for better games is baloney. Not true.

Now, after numerous posters have called him out, he is saying it is not the MAIN reason for better games, but it stilli s kinda sorta a reason. . . ?

He doesn't even believe what he wrote in the first place which is the worst kind of article you can write. One to rile people up and get a reaction.

Well done Chris, it worked, but don't expect me to waste my time reading another one of your articles.

[jdareal21]

One thing that was truthful in this blog, and one thing 2K fans tend to forget, is that Madden 2005 played better and was scored damn near equally from all major review sites and magazines across the board. MOST people had both games, and if 2K was normal price, they might not have been the case

[JEM]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Look at what 2K is doing with their MLB game.. The Show has pulled away and so they put the big dogs on the game ( VC ) and I expect over next couple releases for 2K to get up to the level of The Show.

Now from some companies competition just breeds fear and jealousy ( EA buying the NFL License for example ) while others strive to knock the big boy down ( 2K Football for example ).

As far as Madden scores.. EA gives tons of these guys ( probably OS too ) paid trips to EA HQs and other perks like gear and games.. You think these reviewers and fan sites are ready to give that up over a low score review?

[jhawkmike]

Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

That competition leads to better products at better prices is an economic law that has very few exceptions, and this isn't one of them. There are a few things wrong with your analysis. First, ratings are subjective. Competition could theoretically lead to both a better product and a lower rated product. Maybe the game is actually better, but reviewers judge it more harshly because they have something else to compare it to. Or maybe their expectations are simply higher. A more accurate measure of product quality would be a consumer satisfaction survey, but that's probably not available. Price is the best way to measure the effect of competition on an industry, but since the pricing in games is basically standardized, that won't help us either. So I agree that review scores are the best measure available to us, but it's definitely imperfect.

You shouldn't compare review scores across genres. Let's say that there is heavy competition in the widget market, but that EvilCorp, after buying out its competition, has a near monopoly in the gizmo market. Yet for some reason, gizmos still cost less than widgets. One should not conclude from this situation that competition doesn't lead to lower prices. There could be many other reasons why widgets cost more than gizmos. Competition is a factor in price, but it obviously isn't the only factor. The way to measure the effect of competition on the price of gizmos would be to compare the current price of gizmos to the price of gizmos before EvilCorp bought out the competition. Relating this to games, there could be many reasons why football games are, in general, rated higher than basketball games. Maybe the sport translates over better, or maybe football games are more profitable and so these games get bigger budgets than basketball games. The way to measure the effect of direct competition on Madden's review scores is to compare the scores of editions that faced direct competition to the scores of editions that didn't face direct competition. So let's do that. Below are Madden's scores from gamerankings.com on whatever console was dominant at the time.

97 (PS) 85.63
98 (PS) 84.29
99 (PS) 83.5
00 (PS2) 86.27
01 (PS2) 90.52
02 (PS2) 91.69*
03 (PS2) 91.40*
04 (PS2) 92.04*
05 (PS2) 90.33*
06 (360) 74.96
07 (360) 80.99
08 (360) 83.21
09 (360) 84.56
10 (360) 87.45

*Years in which Madden faced competition from 2K Sports NFL game

AVG with direct competition: 91.37
AVG without direct compeition: 84.14

There is no way to know exactly how much of the difference in rating should be attributed to having competition from 2K, because there are other factors to consider. I think 2K did bring out the best in Madden, but I also think that many people on this board overestimate its impact. Because the truth is, even without 2K around, Madden still faces competition. Madden's most direct competition right now is the previous year's version of Madden. So they do have incentive to improve the game each year. Madden also faces substantial indirect competition. There are other games you can buy instead of a football game, and there are other forms of entertainment that you could spend your money on instead of videogames.

[HiTEqMETHOD]

I'm gonne be 100% honest, even though I don't agree whatsoever with your conclusion I was hanging in there with you until you started using review scores....for one some reviewers simply don't know what they are talking about (hence madden's score every year etc.) and two you don't think that the varied decline & rises in scores have anything to do with companies trying new things in order to 1up their competitor? This could result in a success (improved score) or failure because the new feature/animations just don't work right (decreased score).

[StormJH1]

Fair. But I think we're really pushing up against the ceiling of how much more you can improve these games from a graphical standpoint, and the types of innovations that were needed to make a game "realistic" in the mid-90's made up a much larger laundry list than the things we complain about now. And given the cost of everything, I think this was the direction we were heading anyway.

Let's not forget that if not for Grand Theft Auto IV, 2k Games may very well have been BOUGHT by Electronic Arts, and this whole 2k vs. Madden debate would've become moot anyway. With the exception of SCEA's excellent baseball game (The Show), 2k is the only company even bothering to try and make games that compete with EA, and they're losing money on all of them.

Everything is bigger now. It's analagous to the movie industry--something like Star Wars could never happen now, becuase people would never tolerate an action film on a bare bones budget. Throw in a copy of some of these 1990's football games you're talking about, and you'll realize just how bad they are. So, it's tough to look back on those "glory days" and pretend like it's realistic for 2-5 different game developers to split up all their sales making NFL football games--it just can't happen anymore.

As long as we see improvements in Madden like we saw this year (FINALLY), I'm fine with EA having the only game in town, so long as they continue to improve their product and hire the creative minds that would've gone to make rival games at 2k and the like.