Sports games aren't well designed*

Seriously sports games aren't well designed.

*Ok, so that title probably deserves a bit more of an explanation and here it is:

Actually it's more like the sub-set of sports games dealing with the actual sport of football that aren't well designed. Now, before we get too much further it is still very possible for a poorly designed game to still be fun and popular(see also: the ~20 years they've been making 'Madden' games). That said this article was inspired by a podcast between ESPN/Grantlands BillSimmons and a friend of his Gus Ramsey discussing the newest 'Madden' football game. Over the course of the podcast they went through some of the changes from the previous version, discussed strategies, evaluated player ratings, etc. However what really stuck out to me was when Gus mentioned that he was tired of playing “jerks” online. To him jerks where those who tried risky tactics in order to get a edge (onside kicks, two point conversions, etc.) and/or those who quit the second they got behind. Now the issue of ragequitting is something I've addressed in a previous article and I believe that the solutions I proposed for fighting and FPS games are just as applicable for sports games so let's look at Gus' first complaint: the “jerks”.

According to Gus the jerks are those who play a game that's supposed to simulate an actual football game nothing like how an actual football game is played. Again ignoring the ragequitting issue when their risky strategies don't work let's look a little deeper at what they're doing and why. In the actual game of football you rarely see onside kicks because when they don't work it's either the end of the game or a huge momentum shift. The onside kick works best when it's well disguised, used in a non-obvious situation (so that the opponent has the wrong personnel on the field) or basically the opening kick-off the second half of SuperBowl XLIV between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints. A calculated gamble designed to catch your opponent with his pants down. In a video game world most of the risk is already gone as you're no longer talking about a game with huge financial ramifications for winning or losing you're talking about a video game. This makes it so that people are naturally going to be more inclined to take risks. However that's only part of it. The other part is the system that rewards such risk taking. What people seem to be looking for in these gambles are where the risk of failure is outweighed (usually significantly) by the crippling blow that a successful gamble yields. What I gathered from Gus' complaints was that whether the player was using the surprise onside kick, a new feature to which they are limited to two attempts per game, or the regular onside kick that the (successful) application thereof would quickly turn a game into a boring route that bares little resemblance to an actual football game and that in general the players implementing such tactics would, were their onside kicks unsuccessful, quite. It is also interesting to me that in researching this article that the developers (EA Sports) specifically mentioned that the surprise onside kick being limited to two attempts per game was specifically implemented in an (failed) attempt to curb dick-ish behavior. This is a very heavy handed and seemingly ineffective solution.

So onside kicks are an issue. So too are two point conversions. So too are probably a lot of other mechanics. Too many to discuss here. Going back to the original point the 'Madden' games are well designed games if you're looking for a fun football simulation but they are terribly designed games if what you're looking for is a near 1:1 replication of how an actual football game plays out. It also seems that EA Sports' solution to these issues/complaints are as mentioned somewhat heavy handed. In a real football game nothing other than common sense (and being overly predictable) is stopping a coach from calling for a “surprise” onside kick after every score so why are those who coach digital players prevented from doing so? The best solution, it seems to be, would be to implement some sort of AI tweaks under the hood that would, nearly independent of player skill, affect the success rate for such tactics. That is let the players do whatever they want but don't tell them the likelihood of what they're doing being successful. Obviously that's not an easy addition to make nor is it guaranteed to limit such player behavior but hey it's a start.