Realism vs Arcade: EASports and MS

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:37 pm

After looking at some impressions of Links (waiting for Gamefly to deliver that game) this struck me as quite interesting.
 
 If you were to catagorize Top Spin, Links, Amped, Inside Drive you would say they are more geared to recreate the sport they mirror. In fact on the whole they do a pretty good job of it. Inside Drive, not being out yet but going off of last year, you could say that it´s probably either the best or atleast in the top two of BBall games for the year. Critics know it, players know it but the casual public might not. But then you look at the attitude of Top Spin, Links, Amped and all those are still more sim than arcade over the top play. And Top Spin is selling well, Amped might get over looked to EA´s SSX3 and Links will probably be the "father´s" gift to get for Christmas and Father´s Day.
 
 Those games are getting good reviews and more than likely get good sales. So that brings us to the other games by MS and their decision to make them arcade style. From the videos their hockey game doesn´t look too good. Fever as we all know is still over the top but getting better. Inside Pitch might make the move this year by merging it with High Heat Baseball. Although that would be gravy for baseball gamers and probably won´t see a true baseball sim until 2005, if that´s the direction MS takes.
 
 So it begs the question with Madden being the number one selling game in Sports gaming year in and year out, why do game companies still think that over the top play will get more sales? ESPN NFL 2k4 is outselling Madden on the Xbox. And to some it´s captures the NFL better than Madden. But no one would say it´s an over the top rough simulation of football.
 
 PES2 outsold FIFA last year. Most games have made the move towards "sim". NHL 2004. Fever, to some degree. NBA Live, FIFA tried. And then you have all the games previously mentioned.
 
 I suprising the game companies get scared to make the move because they are afraid of casual gamers getting turned off by a certain franchise so they make it accesable. Which makes you wonder how many gamers you through down $50 bones to buy a game refuse to by it next year becuase it was too difficult. Take a look at Triple Play. People stopped buying it becuase it was unrealistic and Triple Play never adjusted. FIFA has continued to lose sales becuase it never moved on from when the consoles were limited in what they could do and you could get away with over the top gameplay.
 
 It seems that game companies don´t really understand the market they are in. EA Sports knows how to market a game but they don´t know what a gamer will like. Most of the years they guess and come up wrong. But the shining examples in the EA Sports library aren´t followed throughout. SSX 3 clearly isn´t snowboarding but then again that´s not really the point of the game. It´s over the top racing and even EA Sports makes no mistake about it because EA Big makes the game no EA Sports. That small distinction atleast in the gamers mind says that EA Big is arcade style play while EA Sports´ games have the brand of simulation style. The NBA arcade game and the NFL arcade game are also listed under EA Big not EA Sports. And then you have Madden the flagship for EA Sports and I would imagine profitable. Clearly it´s not perfect but no one can question they it´s squarely intented to mimick football. And that brings us back to the original question?
 
 Do game companies understand gamers? Over the top games are fine as long as they aren´t over the top trying to be sims. Or sims trying to be over the top. Every game release the forums all over the net are littered with post like, "Do they even test these games", "The beta testers didn´t know what they were doing", and so on. But the question that should be asked is do the companies know what the gamers want?
 
 It seems to me that the good games are the ones get word of mouth. The causual gamers will here it from somebody else, the game X is really fun. Sure sometimes bad gamers get get enough marketing hype to do like a movie and have an impressive opening but soon after it´s played a bit, sales drop off.
 
 There´s an unwritten rule in campaigns that you get your base out first. If you can´t get your base to vote then you will lose. I think the same applies here. The games that please their base. For football it´s the ones that want to recreate the sunday experience. For soccer it´s the ones that want to recreate the ups and downs of league play and the ohs and ahs of the game. For golf it´s the want that don´t want to shoot what they do in real life, but be able to recreate the feeling of the Pros - feeling good after a birdie and the threat of a bogey. I could go on but it seems that most companies forget their base. Granted every game doesn´t have to be the same. With sometimes three games in every sport genre now, all three shouldn´t be clones. But also most games are choices for that one game with realism and fun. Most gamers don´t keep two of any sport unless they are drastically different or they are hardcore gamers. There´s room to keep an Amped and SSX3 because thoes games offer two differnt experiences. But there´s not room to own three basketball games when five are going to be released.
 
 In a roundabout way does the above statement answer why? Yes and no. In a crowded field you have to stand out. Most gamers pick one title no a certaint genre and stick with it. This might explain the Fever´s, NBA Live and others who aren´t really sims but a fun realistic time can be had. But in generes devoid of quality like NASCAR, in certain respects the US Soccer market, baseball yes baseball. Name one baseball game that rivals the quality of the top flight football games or baseketball games. And the third category is when you have a really great game but doesn´t sell rivalled with an unrealistic game that gets out markets the compeition, that underdog doesn´t do more to become a great seller when it´s in reach. PES3 comes to mind. It´s a Play´s License and League mode away from outselling fifa 2 to 1. High heat when it´s reached it´s apex was a graphics change away from reaching the pinnicle of baseball games.
 
 A lot more question then answers. But i would hope the the newfound successes of Top Spin, NBA Live, Links, serve as a reminder for the game companies to remember their base. The base is the ones that always SPENDS. You please the base and you get word of mouth this year and more sales but an installed base for next year. While if you fail to innovate you lose customers you lose the base etc Madden on the Xbox, FIFA.
 
 
 My rant for the next three months...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:01 pm

John:
 
 Interesting points, but you have a slanted view: The view of a hardcore sports video gamer. Even your sig at other sites says "JRod: A hardass on games."
 
 Let´s face it: Ninety percent of people playing sports video games aren´t as hardcore as us. They don´t dissect games like their Renoir paintings or Mozart symphonies. We do.
 
 So I beg to differ that EA doesn´t know what it´s gamers want. EA knows EXACTLY what its gamers want. If it didn´t, it wouldn´t sell a bazillion copies of its EA Sports titles and be the colossus of the industry.
 
 Sure, marketing and name cache help EA ring up mega sales. But so does knowing the customer. And EA knows its customers want watered-down sims in many sports.
 
 But give EA credit -- something I rarely do! -- the company does react to market forces quite well. When NHL 2K3 clearly was more realistic than NHL 2003, EA rebounded with the excellent NHL 2004. When Triple Play 2003 was slammed out of the park by every other baseball title on the market, EA countered with the vastly improved MVP Baseball 2004.
 
 FIFA seems to be the only odd franchise out of this cycle. NASCAR Thunder sucks, too, but it has no competition now that EA has locked up an exclusive deal with NASCAR.
 
 I can guarantee you that some of the arcadish elements of Tiger Woods will be toned down next year if Links 2004 sells well for the Xbox. Links 2004 is really the first "real life" competition for Tiger on consoles in a while. Every other golf game has been anime- or cartoon-based, even if it was more realistic than Tiger, such as the Hot Shots series.
 
 EA gets soft and complacent, like many other market leaders. But no gaming company circles the wagons better than EA when its major franchises are threatened. Part of that are huge marketing and development budgets that help it build and promote games more quickly than others. And part of it is knowing what its customers want in certain gaming genres.
 
 Finally, your figures on ESPN NFL outselling Madden on the Xbox are correct -- for September. ESPN NFL outsold Madden, 108,000 to 105,000, for the Xbox. But Madden sold 309,000 copies for the Xbox in August.
 
 So Madden has outsold ESPN by a 4-to-1 ratio in August and September combined. Sure, you can argue that ESPN NFL wasn´t released until September, but that´s not EA´s fault.
 
 The fact is, four times as many consumers have opened their wallets for the Xbox version of Madden 2004 than the Xbox version of ESPN NFL.
 
 Take care,
 PK

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:25 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-11-13 12:01, pk500 wrote:
 
 I can guarantee you that some of the arcadish elements of Tiger Woods will be toned down next year if Links 2004 sells well for the Xbox. Links 2004 is really the first "real life" competition for Tiger on consoles in a while. Every other golf game has been anime- or cartoon-based, even if it was more realistic than Tiger, such as the Hot Shots series.
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 PK,
 
 I hope this is indeed the case. I have played more Links 2004 in the past 18 hours than I have with TW2004 PS2 in the past 6 weeks. Why? Because Links 2004 does not have many of the "arcade-like" trappings (ball manipulation after the shot) that TW does. Plus, Links 2004 has a FAR superior putting interface. There are some things I do not care for in Links 2004, but they are far fewer than the dislikes I have with TW2004 PS2. I am not sure we will ever see the day that Links or TW on consoles become the kind of simulations that the hardcore crowd thirsts for, but Links 2004 is a big step in the right direction, IMHO. I can assure you that the TW Producers are going to be watching Links 2004 like a hawk and I hope they will take away some things from Links´ offering to improve the features in future TW titles.
 
 -Tim

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:37 pm

Tim:
 
 Thanks for your post.
 
 And I think I speak for everyone in here when I say I really appreciate your candid opinions on golf games, considering your affiliation with EA.
 
 You could come in here and be an EA puppet, dismissing all rival products. But you don´t. Sure, you´re proud of Tiger and advocate it, but you´re also objective and honest enough to compliment aspects of rival products that "get it right."
 
 Props to you, man! <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:58 pm

Great thread !
 
 Here´s my idea and tell me if you guys think it would require too much effort on the developers !?!?!
 
 
 Why not have either a slider or an option to go from Arcade to Sim ??? I know some racing games have this. Why not all sports games because ALL of the companies know there is a pretty big debate on the subject of Sim vs. Arcade.
 
 Why not have a game like Links that doesn´t just have the game get more Sim like as you go up in difficulty, but just go full out and have one mode for Arcade type style and an whole other mode for Sim style gameplay. i don´t think that they would have to create two entirely different game engines, not even close. Just take the idea of the differences in difficulty further and then completely separate them. It might be a little more work, but not that much and it would really help people make their own decision of what type they like to use.
 
 Imagine if we could all buy Tiger Woods and for those who want to play at a more leisurely level could leave it as is and those who want a more realistic approach could just simply turn the switch to ´Sim´ and have all of the arcadey elements wiped out with some other ´sim´ enhancements added.
 
 Am I making sense at all here !?!?
 
 BigBertha, any take on this ?: Would this be just too much work for the developers ? I mean, maybe initially it wouldn´t be perfect, but at least you´ve implemented it and then for the next versions you can begin to perfect it.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:28 pm

>>>Why not have either a slider or an option to go from Arcade to Sim ??? I know some racing games have this. Why not all sports games because ALL of the companies know there is a pretty big debate on the subject of Sim vs. Arcade.<<<
 
 Spooky:
 
 One of the overlooked gems of console racing games in 2003, World Racing for the Xbox, has this feature.
 
 World Racing has a slider setting that lets you adjust the driving model and computer car AI in 1 percent increments from 0 (total arcade) to 100 (total sim). When set at total sim, World Racing is the closest driving model I´ve played to the all-time greatest console driving model, F355 for the Dreamcast.
 
 Many reviewers rip World Racing for its clunky menu interface (true), for having only Mercedes cars (true, but there are tons of Mercs from 1930 until now) and for some collision-detection issues with off-road objects (true). But the graphics are amazing -- best draw-in distance I´ve ever seen in a video game -- the tracks are up to 15 miles long (!), and the driving model at 100 percent sim is sublime.
 
 EB is selling World Racing for $14.99 new, I believe. A steal of a deal.
 
 Take care,
 PK

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:32 pm

PK,
 
 Thanks for the kind comments. There was a time not too long ago that I was a bit naive regarding the TW franchise and I do not have fond memories of a number of responses I made to other users when TW2002 PC came out. Fortunately, I have learned a great deal about forums such as this and I hope to keep learning from them.
 
 It is also not difficult to acknowledge when a competitor has gotten it "right". So far, I think MS has offered up a refreshing new way to play Links and I am enjoying it as a gamer just like most of you here.
 
 At the end of the day, I hope that EA and MS keep trying to "one-up" each other because we, the gamers end up benefitting the most. Props to you for the kind comments and props to MS for making a refreshing product in Links 2004...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:56 pm

In addition to what PK said about the sales figures for the Xbox version of Madden and ESPN, I´m not so sure PES2 outsold FIFA.
 
 At least in Europe, EA claims FIFA2003 outsold PES2. Probably a different story in Japan but in every other region, given the licenses in FIFA, it wouldn´t surprise me if FIFA outsold the Konami game.
 
 And this year, although I´ve not seen hard numbers, there are indications that FIFA2004 is outselling PES3.

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:24 pm

PK,
 
 Exactly. World Racing was exactly the game I was thinking of when I made that statement. But, I really think that games should even blow off the slider thing (I think it leads to more of a headahce since you can spend all day moving the damn thing back and fourth just trying to figure out how much of a difference it made). Just give me a damn Arcade/Sim switch in the options and we´d all be happy. Although, then there would be no need for these forums as we would have nothing more to ***** about... <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 
 Edit: I guess we cannot say b-i-t-c-h here so let me replace the above *** with ´complain´. Did ´Sprots´ take over this site now with his born-again censorship ??? <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif"> [ This message was edited by: Spooky on 13-11-2003 14:26 ]