Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[RaychelSnr]

MeanMrMustard,

It definitely was, I worded the article to be a bit confrontational to spark some good discussion (I'm not ashamed in admitting that).

I think you misunderstand how the scores I quoted work though. They are based off of aggregate ratings which take 20-40 reviews into account much like RottenTomatoes does for movies.

Anyways, the brand name argument is simply an excuse. The conditions I set at the beginning of the article would have shown both games improving in quality against each other and overall if direct-sport competition indeed created better quality games would it not?

Unless you believe that there is a giant conspiracy that companies are paying off dozens or even hundreds of video game reviewers in order to get higher review scores. Which IMO, makes no sense since those very companies use Metacritic scores internally as one way to judge how successful they were on creating a quality title -- with the other being sales.

[matt8204]

I just think it comes down to motivation and human nature. If no on is threatening or challenging you, people tend to become complacent and don't focus on giving 110 percent. Think about it. If you didn't have to go balls to the wall, why would you? Where's the incentive if no one is breathing down your neck looking to take away business? EA knows that nobody can compete with them when it comes to making an NFL game. They also know that millions of people love the NFL and enjoy video games about the sport. Where else are they going to go? Madden, sad to say, truly is a "take it or leave it" proposition if there ever was one. For NFL video games, they're the only game in town. A lot of people will put up with the known flaws and glitches just so they have a new football title to play each year.

[RaychelSnr]

Matt,

You assume that OSers are the be all end all opinion on what makes a game great. We have a tendency to value realism and gameplay over the other aspects. When you take into account we are a niche market (10% of sports gamers or so), you can't assume we are going to speak for what makes a game great for everyone. But your points are solid nonetheless about reviews being subjective.

But sounding like a broken record now, what other methods would you use to test the theory that is necessarily better?

[matt8204]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

Matt, You assume that OSers are the be all end all opinion on what makes a game great. We have a tendency to value realism and gameplay over the other aspects. When you take into account we are a niche market (10% of sports gamers or so), you can't assume we are going to speak for what makes a game great for everyone. But your points are solid nonetheless about reviews being subjective. But sounding like a broken record now, what other methods would you use to test the theory that is necessarily better?

You're right; at the end of the day, there really is no other way to gague quality. I just tend to question the validity of those scores. For example, on another site, I remember that they gave Madden '07 a pretty good review score (mid-upper 80's) when the game first came out. Then when they previewed Madden '08, they pretty much stated that '07 wasn't all that good.

And you make a good point about our desire for realism and its relatively small impact on the overall market. For every one of us who nitpick about routes not being run properly or shoe/helmet/jersey color being wrong, there are ten who just want to get together with friends, throw bombs all over the field, run up the score Arena-League style and have a good time.

[RaychelSnr]

Logic Doctor,

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 the only type of competition for the race car to get better is competition by an outside entity, 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.

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.

Games don't operate in a vacuum. That is part of a review argument people have, as some do believe in judging a game in a vacuum even though it's pretty much impossible.

[Artman22]

The logic in this article is horrible.

[bigjake62505]

MMChrisS I have to say that I have read your article multiple times and I agree you make valid points based off of your study material and findings. But I will say, I will never accept the notion that competition makes no difference. I cannot accept the arguement that Madden 06, 07, 08, and 09 (on next gen) would have had the same issues that it did if 2k, acclaim, ect would have been making football games no matter the quality. Maybe I am just slow or dumb but I would much rather have a choice of what NFL game I bought.

[dhlord64]

EXACTLY MeanMrMustard!!! Thats what I was going to say. Madden scores are overrated and the game is absolute garbage. They run like robots...scores mean nothing. If 2k was back they would get off their asses. Monopolies are a bad thing all the time...the evils of Capitalism