Stick Skills vs. Player Ratings: The Great Debate - RaychelSnr's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

RaychelSnr's Blog

Stick Skills vs. Player Ratings: The Great Debate Stuck

Posted on February 25, 2011 at 04:15 PM.

(15)

Bird vs. Johnson. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Alabama vs. Auburn. Democrats vs. Republicans. Cats vs. Dogs.

Stick skills vs. player ratings.

Yeah, I went there.

One of the debates which has really simmered under the surface but I think is one of the biggest decisions sports game developers make is how to treat stick skills vs. player ratings.

In short: how much better can the guy holding the controller actually make the Cleveland Cavaliers without breaking through the realms of impossibility?

There are strong arguments for both sides. Guys with excellent stick skills simply point out it's a game, and if you feel that you can make Darko Milicic score 100 points in a game -- why shouldn't you be able to? Then there are the guys who see Milicic's nine points per game and his in game ratings and then scoff at anyone who prides themselves in getting Milicic scoring 30 points per game.

Stick skills guys don't appreciate realism and guys who think players should play to their ratings simply aren't good enough to beat the stick skills guys.

So you are told.

But is there a right answer in this debate? I'd argue there isn't, simply because there are different situations and different settings which lend to different types of styles of play. Tournament situations are built around finding the best players of a game while some settings like Online Dynasties want to find the best players within a realistic scope.

This might be another time to argue that games should be what players make of them -- but that's the easy way out here. In the spirit of rivalry we are here to set out to figure out which side is right in this debate.

I'm siding with the guys who argue players should play to their ratings -- as I'm on the side of realism first and foremost. Being able to take Cleveland to the NBA Championship on the default game settings is stretching realism more than imaginable. Many NCAA Online Dynasties consist of all of the user controlled teams being at or near the top of the rankings, despite those dynasties being played on Heisman.

In a game that strives for realism, you shouldn't be able to take Arkansas State and beat LSU regularly -- but put someone with enough stick skills behind the controller and it's a virtual guarantee. Ditto for the Cavs vs. Heat in NBA 2K11.

I think the true measure of a game's realism is how close to the real thing does the game play -- and if teams with much lower overall talent are able to consistently beat teams well above them in terms of talent given enough skill on the controller, then the game isn't as realistic as you'd think.

Of course, it's also quite hard to sell a game to fans in Cleveland if they can rarely win with their favorite team -- so once again we're left at the age old impasse of creating a game which gives players players multiple options within a single gameplay engine.

Want players to play to their ratings? Then set some sliders up that way. Want the game to be more dependent upon how well you actually play the game on the sticks? Sliders. Want the game to be a blend, which is what you could argue we sit at with most games today? Yeah, sliders.

But that doesn't solve the debate of who is right. And as with most problems, I don't think there is a real answer here since the answer solely depends on what a player is looking for. I want realism and think it's ridiculous if you are able to consistently win with a poor team -- but others simply think it's just part of playing the game.

If you want a game which is much more realistic, don't complain if you can no longer win with your favorite team someday in the future. Because until I see the day it's nearly impossible for anyone to win consistently as you play as the Detroit Lions -- I don't think we'll ever be able to claim games are close to their real life counterparts.

But for now, we'll settle with something in the middle -- where player ratings matter...until they don't.

Comments

# 1 vito100 @ Feb 25

I say If I have the Heat and somebody beats me with the Cavs Then I have to Practice more because I suck...

# 2 Hova57 @ Feb 25

the way I see it their ratings should allow me to what his ratings allow me to do. so if my qb sucks at throwing short when I'm in control if I throw short passes they should be bad passes. If my runningback is suppose to be super elusive i should be able to make cuts on a dime in relation to momentum . if my olineman sucks at passblocking he should get ate up by ends if that end is stronger and more awr than he is . I could go on but gotta get out of here. I'll be back

# 3 statum71 @ Feb 25

I keep ALL my sports game on 'player rating' instead of 'user control.'

I absolutely hate stick skill! People perfect the timing and have someone like Shaq hitting 3's all game long.....get the heck outta here.

Thats not sports gaming to me.

# 4 jyoung @ Feb 25

As a Lions fan, I take offense to their mention in this article.

Detroit lost a lot of close games this year, still ended up 6 - 10, and would've been 7 - 9 had Calvin Johnson not been robbed on his game-winning TD against the Bears in week 1.

# 5 jsquigg @ Feb 25

It's all about balance. Anyone who generalizes one or the other is exercising futility. The fact is that both stick skills and ratings come into play for any sports game. Many in the "sim" crowd whine about something happening in the game that wouldn't in real life. The fact is that the probability of any video game mirroring real life is zero. I remember people complaining in NBA 2k8 about too many stars getting traded in franchise mode. Anybody pay attention to the NBA's off season and trade deadline moves? The NHL series has had numerous people complain about "comeback AI" which was confirmed to not be in the game and has had many scientific studies done by different users showing that it's actually harder to win a game when trailing in the video game than in real life (for the CPU and user). In short, both stick skills and ratings are necessary, but acting like they are opposites is naive.

# 6 phant030 @ Feb 26

User controls the activity, ratings should determine the outcome. Developers want to eliminate 'dice rolls'...but IMO, this is what keeps the game 'real'. If i am 100 percent successful at a motion on the controller, this shouldn't lead to 100 percent success in the game.

I can get players more open shots, my perfect release should lead to the highest probability of success his ratings allow....it should not be a basket everytime. If I master analog fielding, i will make no errors with any player EVER. wtf? that is just not realistic.

The user can control everything, but we should not CONTROL everything. Actually some things have to be taken out of user control b/c we can make players play like they never will...make passive players aggressive, dumb players smart, impatient batters patient, those who dont jab, jab....the ratings allow this control to be balanced on some basis of realistic performance and user 'bending' reality...or in other words, playing a video game.

Example, how do u differentiate the effectiveness of a 99 rated back vs a 70 rated back with similar physical attributes? You have to program the game to not have as many holes, lineman to lose more...because if not, every back in the game will dominate under user control...

Stick skills are important when manipulating characters to their full potential with the tools given to you, not to exploit the game. I need my stick skills to crossover with Rondo (ratings determining success vs defender), stick skills and knowledge to make the proper pass out to Ray...use my stick skills to get a perfect release...and the ratings determine the success.

# 7 Hova57 @ Feb 26

exactly phant .
The ratings should allow the player whether cpu or user controlled to show results based on that rating. stick skills come into play by the user using the ratings to the fullest possible

# 8 Dazraz @ Feb 26

For me ratings have to take precedence over stick skills for the sake of realism. That said ratings need to allow for a degree of random probability whereby a certain scenario can exist even if those ratings dictate otherwise. For instance, in soccer, once in a while a player not regarded as a shot specialist will score a screamer of a goal completely out of the blue. As long as these events occur at a believable rate then the sim experience is not affected.

# 9 charter04 @ Feb 26

It is really hard to make some positions play realistic in sports games. When you play a Basketball game you see the entire court. It makes no look passes easy. It makes finding the open man easy. But then again I don't know how you could fix that. If you play most football games your qb's awareness rating is meaningless because you are the awareness. If someone sucks at reading the defense then they can't make Payton Manning any good. If your really good at finding the open man, then you could end up with a crazy completion %. Real QB's can't see the whole field when throwing. When a RB runs the ball he can't see the whole field. That is my problem with the whole issue until they can correctly make a first person game it will always be easy for good players to outdue the real team or player. I'm a sim player so it drives me crazy when I have to make a slider set to conteract my skill against the CPU.

# 10 Stickz24 @ Feb 27

One big factor missing is the quality of players. The Cavs vs the Heat wont be close if the two players are of the same quality. There has to be a huge gap in quality for the Cavs to consistently beat the Heat. I'll give 2 that much. There a few team exploits in the game for players of the same caliber.

# 11 ajf14 @ Feb 27

I tried the realism way once, but i just couldn't do it. i felt like i wasn't playing a game, just watching one.

# 12 detroitsun @ Feb 28

I think a good player should be able to beat a bad player. Maybe the bad player would get some "nudges" from the game. But in real life upsets DO happen. Besides it is a game that folks (like me) spend hours developing their skills. I don't think that players should play outside of their position-- Shaq bombing threes effortlessly-- but this is a great discussion

# 13 Mos1ted @ Feb 28

Phant030 sums it up beautifully: all of the stick skills in the world should not allow the user to make a player play "above himself" on a consistent basis. After all, that's should be the primary focus of any game and genre that calls itself a simulation: to be as close to realistic as possible. I understand that there needs to be a fun element involved too, but to me it's possible to have a game be both realistic and fun. I think the NBA 2K, NHL, and MLB: The Show series have proven that.

# 14 DaSmerg @ Mar 2

I just want to start off by agreeing with wEEman33...the use of the Lions was a confusing as they really aren't that bad a team per say but have a culture issue. But that can also serve as part of this conversation.

Next I just want to again gripe that when speaking of Madden and NCAA football, yeah those ratings numbers really don't mean anything. They are akin to the colour of a player's jersey or the brand of shoes he/she is wearing.

There are bad players. There are mediocre players. There are good, heck even great players and then there are the elite players. Pick a sport and you can through a bunch of folks in with each of these categories. Even on our side of the control stick you could classify sports games players into these easily digestible categories. You can also move up a level and put teams into each of these categories.

Now I think MMChriss and a few of us are on to something when speaking about stick skills meaning something but not completely overriding the "reality" of a player. statum71 is exactly right in saying that a game is broken if someone can just go out, master the timing of a tres and rain 3's with the lowliest of the lows.

The trick is coming up with a balanced system that allows for a highly or even elite skilled player to go out and be at a minimum competitive with a bad team against a another bad stick skill player with an elite team. Also, we've seen it happen a number of times, usually from the mediocre ranks, players rise up to become great players and even elite players. Jose Bautista anyone?

Team should factor in to that equation too.

I'm old enough to remember the roll the dice days. I cringe at the thought because the algorithms from back in the day were pretty simplistic and the results were awfully frustrating. But maybe this is the way?

In the end, I just don't think I should be "punished" because I'm pretty decent at a game and playing with a team that isn't particularly good. I enjoy a challenge and many times I take up playing with a crap team just for the challenge of making them good.