My question on Sports video games

[lowkey69ac]

Do you think that they have people developing sports games who ACTUALLY either watch or play the sports? Or do they just want anyone working on them? It seems that if you had people who actually watch or played the games that they are making, that they would be more realistic than the games comming out. It just seems that over the past couple years, people making the sports games DONT watch or play the games they make! Anyone else think this? Comments?

[milkncrackas]

no offense to any game developers out there, but they don't appear to me as the athletic type. they get techies to develop games, and as is the case with EA, they get the pros to give input (ala John Madden for Madden football). judging by the quality of MLB 2k8, i highly doubt 2k spent one penny on actual input from players/coaches.

[sleepytercel]

Well, considering I don't find Madden very realistic, I guess that doesn't help either. Also, I don't find that MLB2K8 is this unrealistic game that some make out. I'm sure designing CPU calculations to represent reality isn't some easy task that many seem to think it is. A CPU is limited, and reality is not. Even in First Person Shooters you have enemy AI that doesn't react realistically to situations.

The visuals can mae these games seem realistic, but there will always be events that happen in videogames that break the reality. It's possible that a lot of the tech guys aren't huge fans of the respected sports, but considering that many of these games represent their respected sports pretty well, I'm sure we can assume that there are knowledgable people who oversee the work. You can know your sports completely through, but doesn't mean you can design code that represents it properly, and vise-versa. Gilbert Arenas was with the Live development team and giving pointers and direction, but that game still failed to represent realism. It also doesn't help that each individual has a different perception of what "realistic" is.

I'm sure there are not many people who play sports and then get into game development. Afterall, in school, the jocks usually made fun of the computer geeks. They usually don't co-exist harmoniously.

[b-Dub]

I'm a developer. Worked briefly in the game industry, and am now working on other software. I love sports, and play sports as well. I agree that there are few like me. When I was going to school, most were into other games, certain TV series, anime, and the like. Few were really into sports. Some knew about their local sports team from where they grew up, but that was about it. Now, producers and other people who aren't directly involved in programming can be more into sports, and you would almost expect them to be bigger sports buffs if they are producing the games.

That being said, it can be very tough to accurately represent a sports game, due to sports' dynamic nature. Programming complex AI is really difficult and it can use up a lot of a system's CPU power. And if you use up too much of the CPU on AI, then you have little left to do other things, like graphics, physics, animations, lighting, etc. Also, it's not really feasible to program in some of the crazy things players can do in a game, on the fly, like they do. How do you program something to act like a Brett Farve, or a Sidney Crosby? It's darn near impossible right now.

[lowkey69ac]

I'm a developer. Worked briefly in the game industry, and am now working on other software. I love sports, and play sports as well. I agree that there are few like me. When I was going to school, most were into other games, certain TV series, anime, and the like. Few were really into sports. Some knew about their local sports team from where they grew up, but that was about it. Now, producers and other people who aren't directly involved in programming can be more into sports, and you would almost expect them to be bigger sports buffs if they are producing the games.

That being said, it can be very tough to accurately represent a sports game, due to sports' dynamic nature. Programming complex AI is really difficult and it can use up a lot of a system's CPU power. And if you use up too much of the CPU on AI, then you have little left to do other things, like graphics, physics, animations, lighting, etc. Also, it's not really feasible to program in some of the crazy things players can do in a game, on the fly, like they do. How do you program something to act like a Brett Farve, or a Sidney Crosby? It's darn near impossible right now.

Thanks for replies, but I do have one thing to comment on. Its my opinon that if game developers and consumers didnt HAVE to have a brand new sports game every year, that the quality would be much better. If developers had a few years to make a game, and we consumers had a few years in between, then I think this would be WAAYYYY better for all. The developers would have time to work out bugs etc, and could simply provide roster updates for the older games (I mean, really. There is NOT that much difference in sports games from year to year, and most are simply known as a "Roster update" with a few new features anyways). Also, if we had a few years between games, things like the pitching interface, skill stick in hocket etc would seem like VAST improvments, over clicking X. The problem is that a year or less is not enough time to develop a great game, you can only get a GOOD game out of being able to develop for a year. Look at ANY great game (Sports or not), and I guarentee, it took a lot longer than Oct-Aug to make! I think both parties need to take a year or so off from each game. Then maybe BOTH will have less to complain about!

[b-Dub]

Thanks for replies, but I do have one thing to comment on. Its my opinon that if game developers and consumers didnt HAVE to have a brand new sports game every year, that the quality would be much better. If developers had a few years to make a game, and we consumers had a few years in between, then I think this would be WAAYYYY better for all. The developers would have time to work out bugs etc, and could simply provide roster updates for the older games (I mean, really. There is NOT that much difference in sports games from year to year, and most are simply known as a "Roster update" with a few new features anyways). Also, if we had a few years between games, things like the pitching interface, skill stick in hocket etc would seem like VAST improvments, over clicking X. The problem is that a year or less is not enough time to develop a great game, you can only get a GOOD game out of being able to develop for a year. Look at ANY great game (Sports or not), and I guarentee, it took a lot longer than Oct-Aug to make! I think both parties need to take a year or so off from each game. Then maybe BOTH will have less to complain about!

I agree completely, but this is a trend that people got used to years ago, and I think way too many would complain too much if they didn't get a "new" game each year. Back before the internet allowed for roster updates, the only way to get the rookies, or even major trades was to get the new game. This was started back in the Genesis/SNES days. And, sadly, I think this trend will continue, since not everyone is hooked up to the internet and therefore wouldn't be able to get the new rosters in the off years. Unless the companies would be willing to release a roster disc for a low, low price.

It is something that I, personally, would like to see happen, but I don't think it will.

[2K Admin Ron]

I think sports games are a challenge (even as far as these forums go) because they have to appeal to two markets: the passionate sports fan and the passionate gamer. Tweaking things have to please both markets. Now there are a couple things that should have been done better but probably were coding mess-ups (like the homefield advantage going to the wild card). But for the most part, the issue is an attempt to make both happy.