Pucking Ridiculous (The OBG Chronicles): Realism, Really?

[adembroski]

I think the key to making a good "sim" game and still having it be a good user experience is to identify what needs to be done in abstract and making sure that area is dealt with in a manor that doesn't detract from the experience.

One of the advantages that exist in American football that other sports don't have is that the actual on-field play time is only about 15-20 minutes per game. That means, I believe, we can be as realistic as we want to be without forcing the player to sit through a 3-hour game. Baseball shares this advantage, and that's why, I think, the most realistic sports games thus far have been baseball games (High Heat, MVP, and now The Show)

Hockey, Basketball, and Soccer on the other hand, have to deal with a continuously running clock that rarely stops, and is almost never running during dead ball situations (well, it does in soccer, but then it runs after the 90 minute mark to make up for it). So certain areas of the game have to be treated abstractly in order to make up the difference.

In basketball, this is generally the play setup. Meaning, watching the NBA, you tend to see a lot of situations where the ball is held in a spot for a long period of time while players get position, the point guard reads the play, etc. NBA 2k11 glosses over this, getting right into the ball movement. This allows the user to play shorter quarters but end up with a realistic number of possessions.

For hockey and soccer, it's a bit of what basketball does... you rarely see a man in FIFA hold the ball on a spot for an extended period of time... but also a lot of transition play. In FIFA, you don't see back-and-forth 50/50 balls as much as in real life, and in NHL, you see fewer changes of possession between the blue lines. The games encourage you to get into attacking position. Less time in transition equals more time on attack, and thus you can create a realistic number of chances on goal in NHL.

I tend to setup clock settings to create a realistic number of scoring chances. For NHL, I'm looking at time on attack and shots on goal (not just shots, as anyone can put up 30 shots, but how many of them were quality chances?). For FIFA, I'm looking at shots on goal and corners. In Madden/NCAA, it's total offensive snaps, and for NBA, I'll generally get the field goal percentages right then adjust to get the scores close.

In closing; no, I don't want to play a 2-3 hour game in order to have realism. I recognize the need to abbreviate some aspects of, particularly, basketball, hockey, and soccer. But within what the game decides to focus on, I do expect realism.

[dickey1331]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

I think the key to making a good "sim" game and still having it be a good user experience is to identify what needs to be done in abstract and making sure that area is dealt with in a manor that doesn't detract from the experience. One of the advantages that exist in American football that other sports don't have is that the actual on-field play time is only about 15-20 minutes per game. That means, I believe, we can be as realistic as we want to be without forcing the player to sit through a 3-hour game. Baseball shares this advantage, and that's why, I think, the most realistic sports games thus far have been baseball games (High Heat, MVP, and now The Show) Hockey, Basketball, and Soccer on the other hand, have to deal with a continuously running clock that rarely stops, and is almost never running during dead ball situations (well, it does in soccer, but then it runs after the 90 minute mark to make up for it). So certain areas of the game have to be treated abstractly in order to make up the difference. In basketball, this is generally the play setup. Meaning, watching the NBA, you tend to see a lot of situations where the ball is held in a spot for a long period of time while players get position, the point guard reads the play, etc. NBA 2k11 glosses over this, getting right into the ball movement. This allows the user to play shorter quarters but end up with a realistic number of possessions. For hockey and soccer, it's a bit of what basketball does... you rarely see a man in FIFA hold the ball on a spot for an extended period of time... but also a lot of transition play. In FIFA, you don't see back-and-forth 50/50 balls as much as in real life, and in NHL, you see fewer changes of possession between the blue lines. The games encourage you to get into attacking position. Less time in transition equals more time on attack, and thus you can create a realistic number of chances on goal in NHL. I tend to setup clock settings to create a realistic number of scoring chances. For NHL, I'm looking at time on attack and shots on goal (not just shots, as anyone can put up 30 shots, but how many of them were quality chances?). For FIFA, I'm looking at shots on goal and corners. In Madden/NCAA, it's total offensive snaps, and for NBA, I'll generally get the field goal percentages right then adjust to get the scores close. In closing; no, I don't want to play a 2-3 hour game in order to have realism. I recognize the need to abbreviate some aspects of, particularly, basketball, hockey, and soccer. But within what the game decides to focus on, I do expect realism.

Thats a very good point and I have never thought of it that way.

[slickdtc]

He's absolutely right. If people want the game to be realistic, then they have to play realistic. You don't see players in real life do the things we can in the video games because it would not work in reality. But within a game, a limited intelligence game, players can get away with unrealistic things. The developers have to account for this while also making sure the realistic playing gamers aren't shortchanged either.

I, for one, recognize the incredibly tough balance. That's why, over the last few years, I've relaxed my stance on realism in games. I want developers to strive for realism, but if they can't deliver 100%, I realize that's just a fact of life. If the effort is there, I can't complain. If a game is thrown together sloppily, that's something I can not approve of.

[slickdtc]

Let me also touch on something else he touched on in his post: shortening games to account for the gamer's attention span. Let's face it, not many can sit through a 3 hour game of repetitive gameplay (like sports games). I've struggled with this more then ever; my Madden games take 1.5 hours to play (15 minutes accelerated clock). NHL games take 45 minutes-to-an-hour (10 minute periods). Baseball games vary based on scoring/hits. Funny, my FIFA games take the shortest (20-30 minutes, 6/7 minute quarters) when soccer has the longest matches of any sport. That's probably also due to me being a soccer video game fan and not necessarily following the actual sport of soccer too much. I know for a fact I don't play like they do in real life.

Anyway, what developers must do is add in-game save features. Can't tell you how many times I've saved mid-game in the MLB The Show series. Did it a lot with Madden 06 back on XBOX. Why has it been taken out? It'll be tougher to incorporate in NHL, but it SHOULD be in.

[15 Step]

wrong thread.