Everything you have been told about competition in the sports-gaming industry is a lie.

There is something that happens when someone tells you that everything you believe in isn't true. It shakes you at your foundations. You tend to want to resist the change. You sometimes want to brush aside any information that could radically change your way of thinking, instead opting for the normal and ordinary.

However, the change has arrived today. The information you are about to read will change your perceptions of the sports videogame industry forever. 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.

A myth. A tall tale. An urban legend.

People believe that the consumer gets two high-quality games when two companies compete against each other in the same sport. Not only is that not true, it is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

But the argument that competition creates better games does sound good on paper. Two companies, competing against each other for sales, will end up producing better products in order to vie for the consumers' almighty dollar. The sports-gaming marketplace is a crowded place after all, and there are only a limited amount of dollars to spend on games.

It sounds good. But so does the concept of saving a cow's life by eating a soybean burger. Then you take a bite.

If the theory that competition creates better games is true, we will see a few very important indicators in our study below. First, we will see meaningful increases in review scores for both games over time, because both companies are competing against each other to produce better products. Second, we will also see the overall quality of these particular games outranking the games without competition. If they don't, the theory simply does not hold weight.

The methods for this experiment are simple. We will take the average review scores from the Xbox 360 versions of each game (sans MLB: The Show, which we will use PS3) from Metacritic. I feel that this is probably the most unbiased and easy way to average the scores for each game. From there we will simply analyze the data and see what the numbers say to us.

So why don't we start with a sport where there is competition, basketball. People like to claim that the competition has made NBA Live rise up to try and compete with NBA 2K, which is in turn trying to fend off the competition. But in reality, the stats show a different story. Remember the conditions for the theory to be true as we look at these numbers from the last four years:

NBA Live - 64, 59, 73, 77
NBA 2K - 81, 84, 81, 84

Neither the first or the second conditions of the theory are true here. While NBA Live has risen in quality the last two years (an impressive +18 low-score to high-score difference), the series did falter during its second year. Beyond that, NBA 2K has meandered around in the same area the past four years. Competition hasn't created better games in basketball, yet.

Next up is hockey:

EA's NHL - 79, 85, 88
2K's NHL - 75, 78, 71, 69

Nope. The theory would hold weight with EA's NHL series, which has been rising in quality year over year -- it has a big jump from beginning to end (+9). However, NHL 2K not only declined in quality after the second year, it finished a full six points below its initial quality, and nine points below its peak score.

Will our trend be apparent in baseball?

MLB: The Show - 77, 85, 90
MLB 2K - 66, 79, 70, 64

It's not even close, and this one is uglier than the rest. Again, The Show does meet the qualifications, but MLB 2K not only fails, but it fails miserably. The game is a full 15 points below its peak score. If competition created better games, wouldn't both game show improvements?

And now for a sport that was full of competition, but then dropped to a single game, college basketball:

College Hoops 2K - 71, 80, 82
March Madness- 67, 69

These scores represent the time before 2K folded its college basketball franchise and March Madness was renamed NCAA Basketball. Keep in mind the license was bought by EA after 2K folded the franchise, so NCAA Basketball is a single player by default. Its latest outing had an overall score of 70 last year.

Before the competition faded away, college basketball did seem like it might meet both criteria. Nevertheless, the data is now inconclusive at best since the competition was cut short. The results are open for consideration, but keep in mind that the other 2K games all declined at some point, and the rate of ascension for College Hoops 2K slowed considerably after the first year.

At this point we leave the realm of hard numbers and start speculating as to whether college hoops would have continued to improve, which is not evidence enough.

Next up are the sports that lack competition. If the theory that competition creates better games is true, none of these games will see meaningful increases in game quality, nor will they see consistent year-over-year improvements since the developers are resting on their laurels, right?

First, Madden:

Madden - 74, 80, 85, 84, 88

Not only has Madden improved every year except for one, it has also registered the highest front-end to back-end improvement ratio (+14) out of all of the sports games on the list. But what about NCAA Football? It has caught a lot of flak for not improving as much over the years, so is the theory that competition creates better games true in this department?

NCAA Football - 79, 81, 83, 84

What? Not only has NCAA Football not recorded a decline in quality since arriving on current-generation consoles, it has also outperformed many other sports games that have competition.

Another game to consider is EA's Tiger Woods series. While it's not an outright no-competition game -- there are several golf spin-offs out there -- not many games try to emulate golf like the Tiger series. So let's just look at it:

Tiger Woods - 71, 80, 80, 84, 80

Tiger is what we would probably expect from a game that doesn't have competition. It stays relatively even through the years and kind of meanders around the 80-84 range for four years. But Tiger does have an impressive low score to high score difference of +13.

So it seems like review scores indicate that game quality does not increase year over year when there is competition. But they also indicate that overall game quality is not necessarily better in the sports with competition. Consider the fact that NCAA Football, Tiger Woods and Madden were similarly scored in reviews when compared to the yearly leader in basketball, hockey and baseball this last release season.

Another popular theory, at least in the pro-football camp, is that Madden is denying NFL 2K5 a chance to compete -- this part is true by default because of the exclusive NFL license -- and that 2K5 was a superior game. In addition, the other belief is that NFL 2K would have been a far-superior product to Madden today. But let's test that theory.

First, both Madden 2005 (91 rating) and NFL 2K5 (92 rating) were similarly scored. So in reality, we're arguing about personal preference when it comes to either game because the critical acclaim for the titles was similar.

Secondly, the only current-generation 2K football title that we have seen was only so-so -- All-Pro Football 2K8 received a 75 rating. While the game didn't have the budget an NFL title might have otherwise had, 2K basically stripped down NFL 2K5 and delivered it onto current-generation consoles. Basically, 2K did exactly what EA did with Madden 06, and 2K's title scored worse than every Madden title but Madden 06.

Thirdly, given the realities of the industry today, the assumption that NFL 2K would have continued to be a successful franchise is making a logical assumption that holds no weight. None of 2K's games have seen year-over-year increases in quality since the current-generation consoles launched. Only one title (NBA 2K) is getting better review scores today than it did when the first current-generation version was launched years ago.

Sure, NFL 2K10 might have been a great game, but the trends within 2K's company point towards steady quality at best, but declining quality on average.

But just to test this theory out with one more sport, let's look at the competition in the soccer realm.

PES - 80, 76, 74
FIFA - 80, 73, 82, 87

Not only is one game (PES) declining in quality year after year, but the other game (FIFA) witnessed a sharp decline before rising again. Neither one of the characteristics that we established to prove that competition creates quality is present.

So what have we learned here today? Well, if you believe in review scores -- the only measurable game-quality tool you can dig up to compare games -- we have learned that the competition-creates-better-games theory is simply not true.

If anything, competition might be a hindrance to overall game quality. Consider this stat again: When it comes to review scores, Madden owns the largest low-end to high-end quality jump (+14). When it comes to sports with competition, the biggest increase belongs to MLB: The Show (+13).

So the question then becomes what does impact game quality, assuming you now believe it's not competition? I personally believe that the amount of money available for development, the amount of time given to develop a game, and the actual talent making the game all play far bigger roles than competition.

The age-old myth that competition creates better games is not the reason why games ultimately succeed or fail. The stats show plain as day that competition is not the biggest factor when it comes to quality.

So it's time to stop letting myths rule our sports-gaming minds. It's time we decide there is a better way, a way paved with logic and sound reasoning.

And it's time we put the competition-creates-better-games theory to bed once and forever because the theory is baloney.