Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

[Jet Sufferer]

Quote: Originally Posted by MMChrisS

Jet Sufferer, So your only response is to simply try to call me a Marxist? Is that really your refute? I'm not saying competition doesn't create better games through the marketplace, I even said that it does in a post or two in this thread. But the point I'm making here is that direct-sport competition is not the biggest reason why a developer will create better games ultimately. So if you want to try to belittle me and call me a Marxist on a Sports Video Games message board, I guess that's your prerogative. I'd submit to you my political beliefs are almost in direct contrast on the other side of that theory though.

Try reading comprehension and not self pity, I didn't call you a Marxist.

Your premise has been proven wrong by history a milliion times over and the comparison between Capitalism and Communism is the perfect analogy.

The premise is so ridiculous that it's almost a joke/satire, or just meant to be argumentative/provacative.

If you're going to make a case AGAINST competition and use garbage data like video game "reviews" to prove your "point", you should expect a little criticism. Using game "review" scores is the equivalent of "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

Again, I didn't call you a Marxist, but if you're going to argue AGAINST COMPETITION, you shouldn't be shocked when the obvious comparison is made between the "success" of Communism vs. Capitalism.

[TracerBullet]

I just want to know where all this solid data people are talking about is... What is the solid data of showing that competition helps video games?

[Blitzburgh]

Agree!

[bigsmallwood]

Some people @apps80 & TreyIM2 have to understand that some of us are not let by a blind bias, but rather by common sense! You don't have to be a Fanboy to see the flaws in thinking competition would not influence games and their sales, promotions etc!

[RaychelSnr]

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?

Again: budget, time of development and talent developing the game. Those are most likely the factors which determine the games final quality and not direct sport competition. I've already said that the marketplace as a whole is competitive (football vs. basketball vs. FPS, etc.). On a massive scale, consumers are making the choices between Madden, NBA 2K or Call of Duty.

People at OS assume that more realism = better game. But at some point, a game becomes tedious and un-fun if realism gets too high. Plus there's the whole fact you will never come close to 100% realism in a sports game. Guys here are merely arguing they feel or think that this can't be true because they don't think Madden was realistic for a few years (for example). They are right, Madden wasn't the most realistic game for awhile, but from a pure fun factor standpoint in the wider gaming market, Madden was widely considered good but not awesome.

Realism is important to us here at OS, but in considering overall quality and competition, you have to consider the fact that not everyone thinks the same way.

[ChaseB]

I think at a base level, if I were to argue against this, I would argue against how Metacritic averages the final scores rather than the point about reviews being right or wrong. I think that's where I would disagree with Chris a bit because the accumulation of the final overall rating is sketchy at times.

[MeanMrMustard]

I guess I just don't see how a sample of 4 reviews per sport, given a bunch of unknown variables, necessarily disproves the basic premise "competition makes things better." (One such unknown variable is how brand name recognition affects sales, which may affect how much "better" a game would have to be to keep up with the competition.)

I don't fault the author for the lack of sample size - a necessary evil, given the content - I just don't think it tells us a whole lot. Maybe it takes a few years for game "quality" (as measured by reviews) to catch up to sales in sports. It's the sales, after all, that the companies care about with reference to competition.

Anyway, an interesting take, and it certainly sparked some good discussion. I just have a hard time swallowing the premise: "The information below is going to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the theory that competition creates better games for the consumer is pure baloney."

That's a bit presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

[NavigatorD83]

This has to be one of the most poorly conceptualized write ups about sports video games. You're using biased information to make a point that is not even valid.