I think it's easy to get caught up in the wave of negativity on the boards. It seems those that don't like a game or go searching for bugs and glitches are always louder than those that enjoy the game. Of course, those people that enjoy the game are spending their time playing instead of posting on the boards.

Obviously, finding bus that cause big problems with a game are important and should be talked about. But, at the same time, most games do have workarounds. For some reason, NCAA and Madden get vilified for having bugs, yet you venture into The Show forums and guys are talking about workarounds instead of continually bashing SCEA.

I think everyone is entitled to expect certain amounts of realism in sports games, but what we have to remember is that these companies not only have to appeal to the hardcore crowd, they need to make the game fun and accessible to the ******s as well. I'd imagine it's a hard balance to strike and probably leads to some of the coding errors, not to mention the short development cycle.

Games like Uncharted, Batman, etc. have close to 2 years to work on a game, whereas sports developers get less than a year. That's a recipe for disaster and is why these games get shipped with bugs. The testing process could probably be improved, and that would help to an extent, but even then, there are no guarantees that the bugs could be fixed in time.

At the end of the day, we should remember that we play these games for fun, an escape from reality. I will admit to falling into the negative spin-cycle from time-to-time, but going forward, I'm just going to buy the games I want to play and enjoy them. If I don't enjoy the game, I'll trade it for something else.

Funny that I was just thinking about this while laying in bed this morning before I saw this. I think the comment from Weeman, and I am in no way trying to be disrespectful, is what is wrong with sports gamers. They look at these other games and ask themselves that exact question, "Why are they so good and sports games are not as good?" Well here is the answer. Sports games are meant to immitate "REAL LIFE EVENTS" and people want them to be exactly like them. When people compare sports games to games like Skyrim, Dark Souls, etc, you are comparing apples to oranges. Can either of those games be called a "SIM"..........no they cannot because they are "FANTASY" games. Some will say, yea, but Battlefield represents something real, war! Really, when was the last time that a soldier could get shot 3 times, hide in a corner, and then be able to go out and get shot 3 more times before being killed? They can't!! What really happens is they get shot, hopefully not killed by that shot, then they go to the hospital and if they are lucky enough (or not) they are fixed up, go to rehab, and then maybe back to the frontlines. How do you think a video game would sell if for every 30 minutes of game time you only shoot for 1 minute? It wouldn't and that is why comparing sports games to any other game is what will never allow sports games to meet expectations.

There are some great thoughts on here about how sports games are potentially chasing an unrealistic standard of realism while other genres have more freedom.

Perhaps I'll put up another blog shortly with these thoughts. REALLY GOOD STUFF!!!

My top 3 games this year:-

NBA 2K12 - Not an Online gamer so that aspect of the game doesn't affect me but it is crazy that 2K haven't nailed this yet. Online aside this game sets the benchmark for all sports games. From it's stellar gameplay, variety of modes, gorgeous visuals & way ahead of the pack broadcast presentation there is no doubt that every sport game would be improved if they included NBA 2K's level of detail.

Forza 4 - Jaw dropping visuals & great depth, Forza 4 is simply a must have racing game.

MLB the Show 11 - No ground breaking improvements from the previous year but despite that still captures the sport beautifully.

This years duds:-

NCAA Football 12 - Every time I play this game I can't help but feel how dated this game looks & feels. From it's sluggish menus, sketchy graphics, age old commentary & the predictable gameplay flaws I can't find a reason why anyone who owned NCAA 11 could justify buying this years effort.

WRC 2 - Great to have an officially licensed rally game 2 years in a row after a number of years without one but WRC 2 is inexcusably
poor. Where as the last years game was a solid initial release, developers Black Bean have managed to take a step back this year. Some of the visual effects are comical. The dust trails follow the car around like a big brown parachute stuck to the back of the car. You have to see it to believe it.

Not until there's more competition because once there's competition, they won't make the Hardcore Gamers $60 to test their game and send out 5 patches that fixes one problem and breaks something that worked completely fine before the patch because they'll know that specific gamer may go buy the other game, find out it's better and not buy Game A the next year.

Really good stuff here. Great read, Chris. A couple of things...

First and foremost, at least for me, is I am getting older each year (duh). As I age, more and more responsibilities start to enter my life, and other obligations take priority over gaming. Point being, I can't keep "waiting until next year" for these devs to finally get it correct.

Another point, here @ OS, it is a good mix of knowledge of both game development and actual sports fundamentals. I love it here for that btw. But it is no problem for issues to be dissected here one way or another. TBH, I wouldn't recognize some of the issues that are presented in these forums. But the fact that they know what they are looking for is great, and can only add to a better quality product down the road.

Lastly, when the consumer is overall satisfied, the quality of games will suffer even more. It will just be 60 dollar roster updates with no need to improve. We as consumers have to keep hammering home what we want, and NOT cease wanting more and more. That said, expectations on a yearly cycle have to be understood as well. Middle ground has to be met here.

But TBH, I don't like the fact that it seems some modes (here's looking @ you Madden and NCAA Football) have apparently regressed. Franchise mode in Madden was better this year... but last gen Madden had so much more to offer it's incredible to go back and play those. I mean, we still don't have restricted FA's in Madden. WTH. Suspensions in NCAA (although I read somewhere the NCAA didn't want this in). No excuse why current gen systems can't have all of those older features and more, especially @ this point.

In my opinion, I feel like a lot of this article was missing the point. It is not about realism VERSUS fun. The difference is that for a lot of us, NCAA and Madden destroy the fun by not being realistic in any way. Football, inherently, is a fun game. And for a lot of us, the more it plays like football, the more fun it will be. If our idea of fun was an arcade game and we just wanted to have fun, then we would go play NFL blitz.

For me, and I know I am not alone on this, most of us will never be Chip Kelly or Tom Brady. So, our idea of fun is being able to mimic the Oregon offense in NCAA 12 and give our opponents, online, or in a dynasty, nightmares. Or to pick up the controller and figure out a gameplan to stop Tom Brady, and when we do, in a realistic way, then it is incredibly rewarding.

The problem with NCAA 12 and Madden is that we are not able to do this realistically. I cannot mimic the Oregon offense and their zone-heavy run game in NCAA without breaking 17 tackles because holes do not open up properly.

For me, it's not just about the numbers to mimic stats. I want the game to play as much like as its real-life counterpart as the developers can make it. And that doesn't mean with complicated controls and a crappy camera angle like backbreaker. I'm talking about holes opening up realistically, no warping and sliding, no suction blocking. Basically, I want change of direction and height and weight to matter. I want realistic interactions between the players, things you would see on saturday or sunday. Physics of ANY kind. When that is the case, then the stats will naturally become much more realistic. Because that is so much fun. Superhuman LBs, Psychic DBs, a broken option game, a broken spread-run game are not fun in any capacity. It really sucks that the only way to keep the completion percentages down on passes across the deep middle is to have superhuman LBs because the defensive back AI is so bad and the interactions are horrific between the DBs and WRs. That's what I mean, it's not about completion pct or yards, it's about how realistic the INTERACTIONS are between the players.

It's fun to figure out what defense you are going to call to try your hardest to stop the 'Bama power run game in the National Title game. I have no problem losing to bama 45-10 if I lost in a realistic manner, believe it or not, it could be fun because it was like, wow, that's like really playing against Alabama.

I think that's what most of the people on here want, that's what I want. For me, and most of us, Fun is about re-creating our favorite teams on saturdays and sundays and not through sheer numbers and not through cheesing or calling 4-verts all day. That's NOT fun. Calling the same 7 plays bc the CPU can't ever stop it is unrealistic and NOT fun.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that realistic simulations ARE fun when they re-create their real-life counterparts as closely as possible. Look at NBA 2K12, sure, the online play may be broken, but a lot of people can live with that and wait for a patch because the gameplay is so realistic and so much fun. It's so much fun to run and gun and take a bunch of threes with the phoenix suns. It's also fun to run an offense through rajon rondo and paul pierce because even in a half-court setting, they can be electrifying. It's fun to muscle someone in the post for an easy deuce to take advantage of a mis-match. THAT is what's fun.

What's not fun in any way shape or form is NCAA 12 or Madden's unrealistic interactions and player movements.

That is what needs to change. Presentation for me is 2nd to gameplay. I'd rather have the game play as realistically as possible than to have an ESPN-style presentation with the NCAA 12 gameplay we have now. Then it would just be polishing a pile of turds.

Good topic, MMChrisS. Just my .02. I think a lot of ppl feel the same way I do.

TheTodd84 for Prez.

maybe I am I hate to say it a "******" gamer as this year I have truley enjoyed my gaming time. I only get to play 4 days a week and usually only 1 game on those days so my limited time gaming I have decided to just enjoy the fact that I am playing at all. Coming from the Nintendo/Sega Genisis era I respect the fact that games have come as far as they have

The best way to meet lofty expectations is to nail the core gameplay. Build the sim foundation, make it complete, then build the other RPG/GM modes. I'm sure it's tough to bring together gameplay, presentation, offline and online, etc. Narrow the focus. Make the category as close to perfect as possible. If a mode is broken, kill it. Save it for next year's game. Patches that erode rather than fix are not good.

I wouldn't consider myself a "******" sports gamer but games have gotten way too complicated for me. I'm in my mid-30's. I just want a realistic, fun game I can pretty much pick up and play. I don't want to have to spend a month trying to figure out the controls. Take MLB 2K11. Terrible game, but I only spent about an hour trying to play it. The learning curve just to bat and pitch was ridiculious. I don't know if other games are like me but maybe I want to come home and just pick up the game and play. I don't want to think too much. Gaming is my way to relax. When the game is so intense that I can't just chill and play a game I lose interest fast.

A lot of games are becoming too complicated. I don't want total control. Like a few other posters said, if I want total control I'll pick up a real basketball. I'm not asking for a simple game either. There has to be some kind of balance.

You would never see a blog like this about any other genre of games. You cannot make a game w/ a 12 month development cycle anymore. Only other game that comes out every year that I can think of is Modern Warfare and it's made by 2 different alternating developers. I stopped buying madden last year and I am not buying NCAA next year until they release all of the patches (then it's going to be a used copy).

Thanks bigbob... we can run together on the ballot. And oldschool27 makes a great point and is the point I'm trying to make. I don't need a zillion sliders in order to make the game work properly. I think that's the biggest issue with sliders is that companies use it as a cop out because they feel like users will tailor the game to their liking anyway. Maybe I am in the minority... but I rarely adjust sliders unless I have to. I feel like sliders are a cop out.

And another thing I don't understand is why realism is always associated with complicated? If I am not actually coaching the New England Patriots, then it should not be as complicated. Sure, it shouldn't be easy, but I play the game because I am NOT in the NFL nor am I coaching in the NFL, so when I play the game, I want to feel like I am both of those things.

Realism is not about complicated. It's about the game playing as closely to its real-life counterpart as possible. That can be done, and most importantly, it HAS been done before. There is no excuse for it not to happen now. And for people, or even sports games developers to just chalk this generation of systems up as a loss and not try and improve the games this generation and make them as best as they can because the new systems will drop in three years anyway is a crying shame, and frankly, unacceptable. That's a very childish and simplistic way to look at things.

The best part about NCAA is the great camera angles and the simplicity of the controls for most people. But the game can still play infinitely more realistically than it does now.

Stop adding fluff and work on GAMEPLAY.

this was awesome. i was thinking this a while ago. But as many other users here on OS are pointing out. It seems like we're not getting what is advertised at times and i dont like getting games that arent finished. but in the end. it is a video game. its only gonna be soooo close to perfect. we gotta enjoy what we can instead of over analyzing and getting pissed. a lot of that also comes from us being sore losers. yea these games may cheat but as ive found in every 2k title since 2k3 you can exploit the comp ai as well. we just gotta take the good with the bad.

I don't think that every series can meet the expectations every year, but it seems like each series will really step it up every 3-4 years and does some big changes and improves gameplay. That said, 2011 has been a great year for games, as most sports games were good or very good, with just a few small errors away from excellent. I do think that a competitive market for each license would help reduce the 3-4 year excellent cycle to maybe every 2-3 years, however, with where the current games are it will be hard for a new series to be able to build a game of greater quality from scrath (look at backbreaker).

I'd like to note also that improvements in presentation should be for the duration of a game and not for the introductions. I could care less about what each team does before kickoff in NCAA, if there is no tv display popups with situational/game/season stats. It seems like only MLB has actually figured this point out.