Fifa > Madden/NCAA

All too often I hear people getting all up in a tizzy about the newest madden or NCAA and I never really understand why. From my post about Tecmo to all of the NCAA footballs I have owned I can say that I, like any other person, enjoy a football game... but probably unlike the other folks in this horde of people, I am of the opinion that the more realistic you try to make it, the more likely you will run into problems that people will complain about. I think put simply, you could chalk this up to pathing and interactions between models, but I also have other areas of concern that make me lean towards the beautiful game instead of tossing the pigskin.

Ability to control the flow of the game:

From a fundamental standpoint, Soccer translates much better to video games than football. Passing and shooting is something that is easy to create and manage, whereas blocking, tackling, etc are much more of a problem. Soccer's interactions are pretty limited, with the only real problems coming from the occasional awkward challenge/tackle or goalkeepers, whom are always controlled by the computer when you do not have the ball. Other than those two things, most of the areas within the game are completely controllable by the human players. Unfortunately in football, the human player can only control one (possibly more if you consider rolling coverage or telling an O-line to block in a certain direction).

The importance of this here is that in soccer most interactions occur on a one on one basis (you can also control a nearby computer player to asisst in defense as well), but that is mostly it. You aren't relying on the computer to do most of the defending for you because you are fully capable of changing players to consistently keep up the one on one interactions. In football, once the ball is snapped, the human player can only control one player meaning he is only going to fill one zone, or cover one man. Now the computer is controlling 10 players that directly impact your ability to stop the opponent. On offense the same is applicable, the O-line is out of your control, the routes the computer runs are out of your hands, and any other outside blocking (TE, WR, RB, FB, etc) are outside of your area of control. The interactions become much more complicated, and in doing so, cause frustration. If one of your O-Line players gets beat (by an opponent who is a human or the computer if the opponent is controlling another player) you will not be pleased and might cry foul. These types of examples can go on and on, but the main point is that you cannot consistently make these games fair because the computer is far too inconsistent and the AI is not solid enough to simulate interactions that will please both players.

Broken Players:

Have you ever played NCAA or Madden and thought, "holy shit, this one player is breaking the game?" I know I have, and I think you would be lying if you said you hadn't as well. For example, it could be a DE that is repeatedly running all the way around OTs, TEs, and HBs that you assign to help block or a RB/WR that is unrealistically fast... the list can go on and on, but the point stands that certain players are capable of ruining a game because certain plays can be repeatedly run in order to exploit their unfair attributes.

FIFA really doesn't have these same problems to the extent that Madden or NCAA does. One extremely fast striker or midfield player can dramatically influence the game, but can be easily stopped without game-altering changes to be made in order to do so. Like mentioned earlier, the interactions in FIFA are 1 v 1 and 2 v 1 (when holding down "B" and having a computer player assist you on defense), which means that there is no one to blame but yourself if you get worked by an opponent. As opposed to some TE and OT getting caught up in awkward pathing that allow a human controlled DE to simply run around them and get an easy and unrealistic sack. Take home point here: FIFA doesn't allow ONE player to take over a game and cause extreme, game-altering changes to be made in order to defend against broken players (as long as the teams are comparable, and the same goes for all of my football examples as well). Yet this problem is highlighted by my next point...

Pathing/Routes:

It is no mystery that the pathing that goes on in Madden/NCAA can be abysmal and many times causes players to yell and scream while frantically and desperately watching instant replays in awe of the problems. I won't drone on too long about this, but the routes and pathing of computer controlled players in football is far too complex for a video game, and it is practically impossible to simulate the actual interactions and movements of players fairly for both players to accept. FIFA's pathing is somewhat simple, with the majority of the movements by computer players being on tracks up and down the field, which causes little problems. These straight lines back and forth will rarely be a “game breaker” and are consistent and reassuring. I suppose all the evidence I need for this is on any play where a running back (or WR, TE, FB, etc) can find that happy pathing line where the defensive players take the wrong angle and he is able to squeeze out 4-8 yards (sometimes more) when he really should have been hit 2 yards past the line of scrimmage. Like I said, I could drone on and on about terrible blocking patterns, bad blitz routes, etc. but it would become tedious.

________

I won't make this post into a novel, but I think my points stand with concrete legitimacy in regards to FIFA being a more well-rounded game than Madden or NCAA football. I think some important things to remember after reading this post, is that I am not saying FIFA is a better game than Madden/NCAA or that Soccer is better than Football. What I am saying, is that FIFA takes the game of soccer, and creates a better representation of how the sport is played than Madden/NCAA does with football. So before people get up in arms about how soccer is stupid, I am an idiot, yada yada, etc. just keep in mind the actual question here: Which game do you think actually creates the better representation of the real sport?

Well, what do you think?

SC

Some random thoughts

Since I know our huge reader base is wondering where I have been as of late, I figured I would just drop in to list off some games that have been occupying my time lately. I also wanted to use this picture I just found, because this kid looks funny. Tee hee.

Fifa 10- It isn't a huge secret that I am a fanboy of Fifa games, but lately this game has really been satisfying. I have probably played around 15 ranked games in the last week or so, and haven't run into a single frustrating game-related, balance problem while playing. Although people are only using the top teams (which I find boring and tedious), they aren't doing anything that makes the game "broken" or whatnot. There is a noticeable gap between those who know how to play the game well, and those who do not. The scores, as of late, have been either very close or a blowout. Overall, I have nothing to complain about here.. just a solid game, that continues to impress and keep me coming back.

Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising- I already posted about this game last week, but a second mention is in need because it really is amazing. For those who don't like RTS games, you aren't suddenly going to pick up the genre because of this game... but if you like RTS games, this one is pretty damn good and worth the 40 dollar purchase (for Dawn of War 2 and the Expansion, Chaos Rising). Besides the basic multiplayer gameplay online (1v1, 2v2, etc), I have found that I spend a lot of my time on the "Last Stand" game, which is a gametype where the player teams up with two other players to fight off hordes of baddies. You control one hero/leader/etc. character, and level them up in a sort of, World of Warcraft type fashion. I wasn't sure if it would be my cup of tea, but I am pretty hooked. At a certain point (around level 15 or 16) the waves become too much for my hero (regardless of the team combination I am playing with) and I inevitably die... but hopefully the more I play, the better off my character becomes and I can hopefully win once I keep leveling up.

I have also heard that the campaign is very entertaining, and it is also co-op. For those who are strict campaigners, I imagine it would tickle your fancy. Unfortunately I don't play many campaigns, so I will stick to 2 v 2 and last stand.

NCAA 10- Over the last 3 or 4 years my feelings in regard to football games have slowly declined to a point where I am reluctant to play them at all, let alone buy them (except Tecmo Super Bowl, I will always play this legendary game). But a couple of years back EA Sports introduced the "Online Dynasty" mode that turned my normally negative feelings into somewhat positive. Fighting for recruits, playing in the same conferences, and all of the other fun that comes with regular dynasties became significantly better, because it all involved other human players. Although the game is far from perfect, online dynasty mode seems to pull this game from mediocre, to above average and has grabbed my attention yet again.

Shout outs- I saw/played the demo for the new God of War game today and it was pretty ridiculous. The game was far from polished (the demo came out a while ago), but the gameplay was sick. Quick note: the execution moves in this game are hilariously over the top, but unbelievably awesome (see: pulling a cyclops eye out of his head, after just using him as a vehicle to rock little opponents, or breaking a horn off a creature and using that horn as a stabbing device to stick into the creature's eye.). Anyway, the demo was impressively long, and if the game turns out to be anything like the demo, I imagine it will be a force to be reckoned with.

I downloaded the demo for this little gem about 2 or 3 weeks ago, but I still find myself playing it occasionally. I am not sure if it is worthy of a full purchase, but the demo is a nice way to waste some time and relax. You build towers in a small, toy battlefield, and try to shoot all of the opposing army men who attempt to destroy your toy box. Sounds simple, and it is. You have the option of going first-person and firing the turrets/gun placements/planes/etc which adds a nice wrinkle. Again, not sure if it merits the actual download, but the demo is fun enough to leave on the ol' hard drive.

Oh, I have also been playing the basketball game I linked to a few days ago. I can only handle it in bursts because I start getting frustrated when I miss repeatedly, but I thoroughly enjoy trying to move up the rankings to something that is respectable. A friend had questioned whether people were cheating to achieve their scores, and although I wasn't sure, I wouldn't doubt it. So I probably won't be climbing into the top 10 from a general lack of skill and probable foul play by some of the other players, but it is still a great flash game.

Have a good one.

SC

The Online Cheese Factory

The current state of online gaming- Cheesing.


Since the advent of a running kill-to-death ratio, tracking of levels, win to loss ratios, total points, etc., online multiplayer gaming has taken a depressing turn for the worse. The problem begins with the players, who seem to all have an obsessive desire for a status symbol of some sort. Game companies quickly noticed this growing trend and started to tailor their games to this addictive wave that is crashing onto the shores of contemporary gaming. The days of simply joining a server and playing games without any tracking mechanism of kills, deaths, wins, or losses are long gone. Like previously mentioned, there are droves of players who would applaud the departure of pure, anonymous gaming... yet I stand firmly in the opposition of this. I would submit that games become disturbingly trimmed down, so that only the “competitive” weapons, characters, players, items, builds, units, etc. find their way to the forefront (which is fine for the strictly competitive leagues, not for the general population). In this scramble of metagaming and competition, the game loses its' original, true form and is stripped down to the bones. I will look at a variety of examples where I find this frustratingly true while continuing my discussion.

By genre, let's take a look:


First person shooters-

Around the introduction of the original Xbox, (Note: As Chilly P has mentioned before, this is Xbox-leaning blog, sorry Playstationers) console players were introduced to a flood of new games that were all revolutionary and exceptional in their own ways. Gamers were delighted to get running riots in Halo 1, snipe off heads in Unreal Championship with the lightning rifle, slink around the brush in Ghost Recon, or even leave the keyboard and dabble with Counterstrike on the sticks. Those days were glorious in my mind, because the gaming was seemingly innocent and pure. There was little attention given to any running statistic, and people generally played what they enjoyed playing... because it was fun. Hell, even if you drop back a generation, how many games of “Slappers only!” or “throwing knives” did you and your friends play because it was fucking hilarious and entertaining? Many, I would guess.

Somewhere around the release of Halo 2, I seemed to notice a trend in players that I had failed to see prior. People were absolutely obsessed with leveling up, and would do almost anything to do it. Boosting, cheesing, etc. were all strategies employed so that people could get their level up so people could see their apparent ability. I think anyone who played Halo 2 can fondly remember the days of “standby” and the like. All for a little number quaintly placed in some geometric shape to signify questionable progress and ability.

In the more modern gaming climate, each game seems to introduce new ways for players to become addicted to their stats or relative level. Halo 3 seemed to lure in their players with different ranks and level achievements that people would beat small children for (like super bouncing, standby again, etc.). When players were discussing whether or not people enjoyed the game, the inevitable question of, “What level are you?” always flew forth as if to create a hierarchy of those who were and were not worthy of speaking about the game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare continued the trend and also took it to new levels by introducing a system of “prestiging” that players would pursue. Players would do almost anything to move up the prestige ladder as quickly as possible, so it seemed as if only a handful of the “awesome/insane” guns were used to ensure fast leveling. (For those of you about to say, “I used other guns to get more points” that is fine, but we all know where your bread was buttered...P90, M16, etc.)

Recently, Modern Warfare 2 was dropped on the world, and the masses devoured it like a fat kid with cake. Infinity ward laced this little beauty with constant achievements and status symbols (all of the little funny sayings), as well as tracking almost all of each player's stats. What did this do for the game? Well, it began with a variety of broken items being discovered rather quickly so that people would advance through their prestiges as fast ( and annoyingly) as possible. The javelin glitch, a handful of akimbo problems (fuck the 1887), the “one man army” bullshit, the “care package” problems, getting out of maps, etc. were all annoying as hell, and caused flocks of players to leave the MW2 bandwagon. Assholes would join opposing teams to assist each others quest for some pointless title or getting a certain kill-streak. Why? To experience the nuke firsthand? No, so that they could “achieve” the title and have it so they could display it for all to see. Complete nonsense.


Real Time Strats-

In order to keep this post reasonable in size, I will go with one popular game to discuss here. Warcraft 3 had a system of leveling up which brought in crowds for years (still does), but unfortunately if you want to enjoy the game nowadays, you better know which heroes aren't “broken” and which are. You really cannot just hop onto Battle.net to enjoy a fun game anymore. There are a select few of functional “first heroes” that you need to use, or you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage. Why is this important here, you might ask: People are almost forced to use around 5 of over 20 heroes because they want to win more than their desire for ingenuity and their own cleverness. Not to knock those desiring to win, but the days of playing the game to have fun and thinking of your own strategies seem to be gone. Death Knight, Fiends, Lich, Stats, destros, and wyrms please! Demon hunter and mass talons baby ! Blade master and tech! Yada yada...


Sports-

Want to play NCAA online these days? Great, make sure you choose one of about 3-4 top 10 teams that have an extremely unfair player! If not, be prepared to severely alter a realistic game plan in order to stop the bullshit that is about to come your way. I think the best example of this would be last year's NCAA, where the university of florida was the ultimate cheese factory. Want insane speed? Great, Percy Harvin, demps or whoever else in the backfield, and one of their DEs had sufficient amounts of it to run about 3 plays in order to win. Awesome! Football at its finest. Go back three years in NCAA, and there were broken plays that snapped the ball directly to the wide receiver, or a blitz that always allowed the middle linebacker to penetrate the O-line. The running trend here? You will find these problems almost always hanging around the “ranked” games. Regardless of the year, these football games leave you wanting more... much more.

Well, what about FIFA you might inquire. Certainly the “Beautiful Game” cannot be tainted by the cheesefest that infects most sports gaming. Wrong. Here again people will only use the teams that have the fastest, most unfair player in order to win. Never mind the fact that game makers and designers took the time to put loads of teams into the game, make sure you stick to Real Madrid, Manchester United, Chelsea, and Barcelona. Screw those other teams! This type of attitude plagues online Fifa, and you will be hard-pressed to find an opponent that won't immediately select one of the powerhouses because they refuse to play any other team (even if they have a favorite team that is different from their powerhouse.)

Moral of the story here: People, once again, want to win (in order to up their level or ranking) bad enough to completely bypass hoards of entertaining teams because they are blind.

Online RPGS/MMORPGS-

Haha, assholes. I don't delve into these.

Conclusion:

How would I go about fixing most of this? Well, I would first get rid of most of the online stats for games. If people want to win, great, allow them to do it without rewarding them like a needy five year old with an achievement, title, or rank to satisfy this OCD like obsession for verification. For clarification, I don't actually mean you do away with the stats permanently; I think they do serve a crucial purpose by allowing the game to fit opponents together semi-appropriately. Rather, hide these stats from the players so they have absolutely no idea what their kill to death ratio is, or what their win to loss percentage is. I think you would quickly see players breaking the mold and using guns they enjoy because the game would become remarkably less life and death, and more fun. Losses wouldn't seem so bad, and wins wouldn't be such a big deal. Game types like “Slappers only!” or “throwing knives” would emerge once again, and people would loosen up.

I think this post has gone on long enough, but the list of nonsense could go on for a while. This type of playing, if allowed to continue, will produce a generation of rank-hungry assholes, who will do anything for a cheap victory. If that means using the imbalanced guns or accessories, units and builds, players and teams, plays or personnel packages, etc. then so be it. If there is a way for players to experience success by doing very little and relying on unfair aspects to games... then they will be on it like flies on poop.

A final thought- Some of you might think: “It sounds like you are just bitter because you are losing to these superior (sic) strategies!!!!!!!111oneone1!” or “ You must suck at competitive games and are taking it out on all of these heroes who play to win the game!”. Wrong, on both accounts. I rarely am consistently outclassed in the competitive video game realm, and I don't bring that up to beat my own chest, only to show how petty and trivial the opposition is to these sorts of discussions.

So go forth my tan faced children, use the FAL in MW2, proudly select the Richmond Spiders in NCAA, get lost in the magic that is the Seattle Sounders in FIFA, and by all means, have fun with the damn games.

SC