Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney

Feature Article

Submitted on: 08/28/2009 by Chris Sanner

Everything you have been told about competition in the sports-gaming industry is a lie.

There is something that happens when someone tells you that everything you believe in isn't true. It shakes you at your foundations. You tend to want to resist the change. You sometimes want to brush aside any information that could radically change your way of thinking, instead opting for the normal and ordinary.

However, the change has arrived today. The information you are about to read will change your perceptions of the sports videogame industry forever. The information below is going to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the theory that competition creates better games for the consumer is pure baloney.

A myth. A tall tale. An urban legend.

People believe that the consumer gets two high-quality games when two companies compete against each other in the same sport. Not only is that not true, it is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

But the argument that competition creates better games does sound good on paper. Two companies, competing against each other for sales, will end up producing better products in order to vie for the consumers' almighty dollar. The sports-gaming marketplace is a crowded place after all, and there are only a limited amount of dollars to spend on games.

It sounds good. But so does the concept of saving a cow's life by eating a soybean burger. Then you take a bite.

If the theory that competition creates better games is true, we will see a few very important indicators in our study below. First, we will see meaningful increases in review scores for both games over time, because both companies are competing against each other to produce better products. Second, we will also see the overall quality of these particular games outranking the games without competition. If they don't, the theory simply does not hold weight.

The methods for this experiment are simple. We will take the average review scores from the Xbox 360 versions of each game (sans MLB: The Show, which we will use PS3) from Metacritic. I feel that this is probably the most unbiased and easy way to average the scores for each game. From there we will simply analyze the data and see what the numbers say to us.

So why don't we start with a sport where there is competition, basketball. People like to claim that the competition has made NBA Live rise up to try and compete with NBA 2K, which is in turn trying to fend off the competition. But in reality, the stats show a different story. Remember the conditions for the theory to be true as we look at these numbers from the last four years:

NBA Live - 64, 59, 73, 77
NBA 2K - 81, 84, 81, 84

Neither the first or the second conditions of the theory are true here. While NBA Live has risen in quality the last two years (an impressive +18 low-score to high-score difference), the series did falter during its second year. Beyond that, NBA 2K has meandered around in the same area the past four years. Competition hasn't created better games in basketball, yet.

Next up is hockey:

EA's NHL - 79, 85, 88
2K's NHL - 75, 78, 71, 69

Nope. The theory would hold weight with EA's NHL series, which has been rising in quality year over year -- it has a big jump from beginning to end (+9). However, NHL 2K not only declined in quality after the second year, it finished a full six points below its initial quality, and nine points below its peak score.

Will our trend be apparent in baseball?

MLB: The Show - 77, 85, 90
MLB 2K - 66, 79, 70, 64

It's not even close, and this one is uglier than the rest. Again, The Show does meet the qualifications, but MLB 2K not only fails, but it fails miserably. The game is a full 15 points below its peak score. If competition created better games, wouldn't both game show improvements?

And now for a sport that was full of competition, but then dropped to a single game, college basketball:

College Hoops 2K - 71, 80, 82
March Madness- 67, 69

These scores represent the time before 2K folded its college basketball franchise and March Madness was renamed NCAA Basketball. Keep in mind the license was bought by EA after 2K folded the franchise, so NCAA Basketball is a single player by default. Its latest outing had an overall score of 70 last year.

Before the competition faded away, college basketball did seem like it might meet both criteria. Nevertheless, the data is now inconclusive at best since the competition was cut short. The results are open for consideration, but keep in mind that the other 2K games all declined at some point, and the rate of ascension for College Hoops 2K slowed considerably after the first year.

At this point we leave the realm of hard numbers and start speculating as to whether college hoops would have continued to improve, which is not evidence enough.

Next up are the sports that lack competition. If the theory that competition creates better games is true, none of these games will see meaningful increases in game quality, nor will they see consistent year-over-year improvements since the developers are resting on their laurels, right?

First, Madden:

Madden - 74, 80, 85, 84, 88

Not only has Madden improved every year except for one, it has also registered the highest front-end to back-end improvement ratio (+14) out of all of the sports games on the list. But what about NCAA Football? It has caught a lot of flak for not improving as much over the years, so is the theory that competition creates better games true in this department?

NCAA Football - 79, 81, 83, 84

What? Not only has NCAA Football not recorded a decline in quality since arriving on current-generation consoles, it has also outperformed many other sports games that have competition.

Another game to consider is EA's Tiger Woods series. While it's not an outright no-competition game -- there are several golf spin-offs out there -- not many games try to emulate golf like the Tiger series. So let's just look at it:

Tiger Woods - 71, 80, 80, 84, 80

Tiger is what we would probably expect from a game that doesn't have competition. It stays relatively even through the years and kind of meanders around the 80-84 range for four years. But Tiger does have an impressive low score to high score difference of +13.

So it seems like review scores indicate that game quality does not increase year over year when there is competition. But they also indicate that overall game quality is not necessarily better in the sports with competition. Consider the fact that NCAA Football, Tiger Woods and Madden were similarly scored in reviews when compared to the yearly leader in basketball, hockey and baseball this last release season.

Another popular theory, at least in the pro-football camp, is that Madden is denying NFL 2K5 a chance to compete -- this part is true by default because of the exclusive NFL license -- and that 2K5 was a superior game. In addition, the other belief is that NFL 2K would have been a far-superior product to Madden today. But let's test that theory.

First, both Madden 2005 (91 rating) and NFL 2K5 (92 rating) were similarly scored. So in reality, we're arguing about personal preference when it comes to either game because the critical acclaim for the titles was similar.

Secondly, the only current-generation 2K football title that we have seen was only so-so -- All-Pro Football 2K8 received a 75 rating. While the game didn't have the budget an NFL title might have otherwise had, 2K basically stripped down NFL 2K5 and delivered it onto current-generation consoles. Basically, 2K did exactly what EA did with Madden 06, and 2K's title scored worse than every Madden title but Madden 06.

Thirdly, given the realities of the industry today, the assumption that NFL 2K would have continued to be a successful franchise is making a logical assumption that holds no weight. None of 2K's games have seen year-over-year increases in quality since the current-generation consoles launched. Only one title (NBA 2K) is getting better review scores today than it did when the first current-generation version was launched years ago.

Sure, NFL 2K10 might have been a great game, but the trends within 2K's company point towards steady quality at best, but declining quality on average.

But just to test this theory out with one more sport, let's look at the competition in the soccer realm.

PES - 80, 76, 74
FIFA - 80, 73, 82, 87

Not only is one game (PES) declining in quality year after year, but the other game (FIFA) witnessed a sharp decline before rising again. Neither one of the characteristics that we established to prove that competition creates quality is present.

So what have we learned here today? Well, if you believe in review scores -- the only measurable game-quality tool you can dig up to compare games -- we have learned that the competition-creates-better-games theory is simply not true.

If anything, competition might be a hindrance to overall game quality. Consider this stat again: When it comes to review scores, Madden owns the largest low-end to high-end quality jump (+14). When it comes to sports with competition, the biggest increase belongs to MLB: The Show (+13).

So the question then becomes what does impact game quality, assuming you now believe it's not competition? I personally believe that the amount of money available for development, the amount of time given to develop a game, and the actual talent making the game all play far bigger roles than competition.

The age-old myth that competition creates better games is not the reason why games ultimately succeed or fail. The stats show plain as day that competition is not the biggest factor when it comes to quality.

So it's time to stop letting myths rule our sports-gaming minds. It's time we decide there is a better way, a way paved with logic and sound reasoning.

And it's time we put the competition-creates-better-games theory to bed once and forever because the theory is baloney.

Member Comments

# 61 wurstman3000 @ 08/29/09 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jump


	Just because game reviews are the only quantifiable source to use for something like this, does not mean that you can draw such clear cut conclusions from them.

Agree.
And about the scores: The main problem is that the context of giving review scores is nearly totally neglected: There is no unified standard on all sites. Most compare relatively with what's on the market (either a specific genre, sports or games on a whole; mostly a mix of those) at the reviews time. Most great games I remember liking playing are really only great still in memory - if played today, they wouldn't score that high anymore - A lower score today can be given to a game, which is better than a back then higher scored game, but be better. Otherwise, many games would get scores near 100% by now, only to indicate them being better than past iterations - year after year a little step. Granted, some exceptions would be there.

This is the second article within a few days (the other being the ill-informed piece about NHL 2K10) of which I wonder, how it made it to OS.

# 62 CreatineKasey @ 08/29/09 10:27 AM

It's tough, because what we want and what other gamers want are two different things. We want realism, some people want the arcade feel. We automatically assume our viewpoint is correct, but really neither is as they are merely opinions. This ties in to the game reviews. The reviewers probably aren't hardcore football fans like we are, so they want other things in a game. So, for our standards it is hard to accept those game reviews. Honestly, I don't think they are reviewing the game for our market, as we probably know more about the game before they even get an advance copy. We want different things, that's just it.

In defense of the exclusive license: It allowed EA's developers to come here and interact in detail with the realism community and really get a feel of exactly what we want. That helped us tremendously. There were so many things that I wanted and mentioned that got into Madden 10, and I'm just absolutely loving this game. They created it just how I wanted them to, and I can accredit much of that to the interaction with our community. They couldn't do that if 2k was competing with them.

In defense of competition, I do think that the games can reach different parts of the market. For example I feel APF 2k8 was the most realistic football gameplay ever made. Madden 08 still annihilated it. Does that make me wrong for liking it? No. I'm just part of a different area of the market. I feel like everyone's wants can be better addressed with competition in games as developers will skew their game towards one area of consumers therefore getting the most sales out of that area and garnering their approval.

Those are just some random comments, not really defending either side. I'd still choose competition over no competition though if I had the choice.

# 63 spursfan @ 08/29/09 04:05 PM

To clarify what most of these companies seem to care about is money. I seem to remember the then ceo being quoted in egm saying "that 2k could give away its football game for free with a ham sandwich for free and they still would outsell them". 2k and Take Two promtly released the game for 19.99, and people finally gave the game a try. Months later ea locks up and exclusive with the nlf, ncaa, and the arena league, essistenly shutting 2k out of the video game football business. The only reason ea did all this because 2k finally cut into their profits, Ea could no longer wait to drop the price on madden till after the super bowl. They had to cut the price to keep up the sales momentum. I remember some of my hardcore maddenhead friends finally giving 2k a try. The look on their faces and their lame excuses for not likeing it. It wasn't as good as madden in the eyes of most football heads, but they weren't very far off. I loved both games for what they were good at. 2k had great presentation, and I loved the "feel" of the game. Madden was a bit more strategic because you had to do the work, the wouldn't do it for you. I loved the owner mode, hit stick and playmaker. If I could just take what I liked out of each game. Man, I'm thinking about getting that madden back, still have 3k5.

# 64 Shinyhubcaps @ 08/29/09 08:58 PM

The problem with review scores is that each is compared to its competitor. For example, Madden scores have risen because they are being compared to previous iterations. NBA Live scores have been inconsistent because they're being compared to NBA 2K AND previous iterations. To say that these are apples-to-apples comparisons is not correct; the fact of the matter is that competition-less games are scored differently than games with competition.

It's like teams in Major League Baseball. At some point, the Pirates realize that they are a distant 6th place in baseball's only 6-team division. The other 5 teams, when healthy, are all concentrated atop the standings, but Pittsburgh is way back. So what do they do? They sell off all of their Major League talent for prospects. Naturally, as they can't expect to make great strides with their new prospects, they develop them at the expense of future poor seasons.

The same is true for video game developers. If a company has a bad game one year (compared to another), they have to either go back to basics (which results in fewer new features, a perceived lack of improvement, and a lower score) or add new features atop a cracked foundation (which nets a lower score for obvious reasons).

Everything about economics tells us that competition is good. Otherwise, you're like me, paying way too much for spotty internet and cable.

# 65 michapop9 @ 08/29/09 09:30 PM

I hadnt read all the comments yet but im not sure if this has been said or not,
the idea that "innovation in the gaming industry is only truly the borrowing of ideas when it comes to competing games in the same genre " is only partly true.
start with comparing 2k5 and madden 05, 2k5 had qb avoidance, more ratings, far superior presentation, and far better physics to name a few things. Madden 05 was a good game in its own right dont get me wrong.

Qb avoidance did not come into madden until ps2 madden 09, more ratings didnt come to madden until next gen, superior presentation still has not come to madden, although its been attempted.

Now all these ideas were indeed borrowed from NFL 2K5, which, in turn made Madden BETTER! So in a roundabouts way two competing entities although maybe just borrowing ideas from eachother, do improve the quality of games.

Imagine what 2k could have borrowed had still been able to make an NFL game, and vice versa, In essence its putting more heads together to improve game quality.

# 66 Uncle Stumpy @ 08/30/09 07:43 AM

You make an interesting argument, but I disagree with it, for the most part. As with most things in life, reviews are completely subjective. Of all those reviews that you researched, did the same reviewer do all the reviews? (eg did Madden 06 have the same reviewer as in '10? Doubtful . In reality there is no way to truly judge improvement numerically, as it's personal opinion. I can garauntee there have been reviews of ANYTHING, food, movies, games etc where I wonder if the writer played the same game i had, or same movie. As well, I can promise you here that NO ONE on this website decides whether or not they get a game based on a review rating.

What I partially agree with is that sports game may not necessarily compete against each other (2k vs EA) directly, but all games in general. Every year they are going to try and try to revolutionize the game to attract the casual sports gamer, because they know they already have or HAD ( judging from the madden haters) the hardcore gamer in their pocket.

I haven't slept in two days. i hope this was coherent. If not, sorry lol

# 67 RamzaLugria @ 08/30/09 02:29 PM

I wouldn't base the quality of a game on metacritic. I think competition does have an impact, but fan complaints (which can be very loud at times) plays a bigger part.

# 68 EvanRG @ 08/30/09 09:12 PM

How does competition NOT create better games?

- Company 'A' creates a new innovation that rapidly changes the way a game is played. Company 'B' who WAS the better game before is now lagging behind and must either introduce the feature into their game or face losing a share of the market.

Example:

Rockband comes out and allows for player to play drums, bass, sing etc. Guitar Hero up to this point was simply a lead guitar game and must now either expand the game to cover other instruments or face losing a share of the market.

From what you stated earlier, A music game feels the same pressure to beat Madden as it does to beat another music game? That is just silly.

Your point is that Games score the same, but regardless of scores, Ian feels pressure to beat a game that hasn't even been made in 5 years. So how much pressure do you think he would feel if the game (NFL 2k5) was actually still being produces yearly alongside Madden?

# 69 tabulaRasa @ 08/31/09 08:38 AM

FIrst check this guys sources.
Quick reference for MAdden FOR EXAMPLE(from game rankings)
Madden 2003 89,64
Madden 2004 89,00
Madden 2005 89,5(no more NFL2k after this)
Madden 2006 84,11(decline)
Madden 2008 74,80(decline)
Madden 2009 80,00(worse than any game before 2k5 was put down)

This author is a joke.

Author, check your facts....your story is bogus ....

# 70 tabulaRasa @ 08/31/09 08:42 AM

Didn�t mean to sound too harsh (which I did, sorry) but I was able to debunk the story after one quick check over at game rankings.

# 71 tabulaRasa @ 08/31/09 08:50 AM

OK to be fair 360 version
06 75
07 81 (on xbox it got 82,00)
08 83
09 84
10 87
In other words, in 5 years they still haven�t surpassed the score they got with Madden 2005 (where they have competetion)

# 72 Rocky @ 08/31/09 10:31 AM

Rutgers has a better record over the past 3 years than Florida St. Therefore, Rutgers is a better football program than Florida St.

See the problem. There is 25 years of evidence and you only choose to highlight several.

# 73 Peninc @ 08/31/09 11:18 AM

quite simply sir....you are wrong

# 74 kbmnm247 @ 08/31/09 01:48 PM

Wow, well at least alot of these posts agree with my thoughts on this blatant shock article.

First, the whole review scores thing... I don't want to sound like a broken record so I'll keep it short. You shoot down all of our opinions about the game or even a whole forum or fanbase's opinions on a game yet you based an entire article around paid reviewers' scores. You do know these people are generally nerds who do not play nor care about sports games, right? They were simply hired to review a multitude of games which are mostly NON-sports games so taking their thoughts (after playing these sports games for a MAXIMUM of like a week and a half, another big point the writer fails to mention/acknowledge) as truth on SPORTS games is not scientific in any way.

Second, let's go through those scores you posted anyway and shine a different light on it...
NBA Live - 64, 59, 73, 77
NBA 2K - 81, 84, 81, 84

I could say 2K kept with the times and produced a solid game year after year, they had no need to innovate or put in a game changing feature because they were the king of the castle, getting more sales, and better review scores. What they did though was keep themselves polished and control market share... the competition between these two series is why you see Live increase it's score a ridiculous amount the last 2 years that the data is shown for. That can definitely be attributed to competition, whereas you said this doesn't show competition. Both scores have risen (Live's dramatically) over those 4 years and you discredit competition? That makes no sense and does not relate to the rest of your arguments. Anyway..
EA's NHL - 79, 85, 88
2K's NHL - 75, 78, 71, 69
To think that EA's huge jump in quality of their NHL series wasn't due to NHL 2k slowly taking away sales is ludicrous. As shown here in these scores you can see NHL dramatically improved because they knew they were putting the same thing out there year after year and were behind 2K in that gameplay department so they dramtically improved in that area and now they are the king and make NHL 2K look outdated, hence why 2K is now receiving worse scores.

To be honest those are the only sports you can legitimately compare scores and the games and competition. You can't compare Madden scores without competition because as has already been stated many many MANY reviewers slap a 8.5-9.2 on Madden every year and that's that. Same goes for NCAA. The Show compared to 2K isn't fair because it is only on one console and pretty much The Show has exclusive rights to PS3 games because no one is going to buy 2K baseball over the Show, no one.
Also, if you can't see that Tiger is basically the same game every year then there is something wrong with you. I can play Tiger 08 and I have no desire to get Tiger 10 because there have been hardly any noteworthy improvements. The game is great don't get me wrong but I imagine there would be a lot more new features every year if there was decent competition.

And another thing, you state that quality of developers, time for the cycle, money available are the factors in creating a good game... ok, this might be hard for you to fathom.... ready? You don't think that if there was decent competition out there that a brand like EA would put more time, better quality developers, and more money into a cash cow like Madden? Hell, they f*cking BOUGHT the NFL license just to eliminate NFL2k from their competition in the football market. They didn't want competition, they didn't want to have to improve their game to beat an obviously up-and-coming NFL2k. They knew that that $20 price opened the eyes of alot of people out there that a better football game was being made and so they spent $$$ to eliminate it rather than spend that on developers/innovation. Rather than improve their game because of competition they bought out the competition because they could. (what a joke)

I just think the whole using review scores as your only measure is dumb and in no way believable. You ask people how else you can do it and everyone responds with different ways and you still conveniently read over that line of their post and quote everything else and then say that "well, show me another way". Here are your ways ... # of new features every year (legitimate new features, not ones that were taken out and added back in 2 years later), presentation updates, OS forum general views, reader reviews (who actually play games longer than the 1 week or so paid reviewers alot to a sports game).... etc

Cliffs: You can't base an article where you claim an age-old myth is debunked off of paid reviewer nerds who play a sports game for a week MAX. Especially when sports games are different every time you play them for the most part and many features can not even be tested after only a brief time playing the game.

whew, sorry for the length, but at least this wasted some time at work.

# 75 StormJH1 @ 08/31/09 01:53 PM

EvanRG, I think I get your general point, which is "I want more choices as a consumer, and competition doesn't hurt, so why wouldn't I want competition." We'd probably agree on that point, but Guitar Hero/Rock Band is a poor example because the people who initially developed Guitar Hero left to create Rock Band after Guitar Hero 2. Thus, the "competitior" you credit with creating the innovation of selling eleventy billion instruments with a music game was actually the same company that made Guitar Hero in the first place.

But the fact is that we DON'T have direct competition for Madden right now, and no amount of whining about will change it. Therefore, the only relevant question is: "How much (if any) has the absence of competition hurt?"

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's hurt as much as people think it has. And the reason is because EA never was never really concerned about NFL 2k5's competition in "game quality", or even in "sales", but rather saw NFL 2k5 as a threat to EA's ability to charge $49.99 (now $59.99) for its product. That was the forgotten reason (and the primary one) for why the exclusive deal came about in the first place.

And I think the thing that people aren't being honest about is that an NFL 2k10 very likely would not have evolved very much since 2k5 either. Nothing 2k Sports has done with any of their other franchises suggests that they would've "pushed the envelope" with new feature sets. 2k Basketball is a good game, but it has not fundamentally changed at all since the days of the PS2. And APF 2k8 was a chance for them to create a clearly superior next-gen football product, and they didn't do it. True, many hardcore gamers prefer 2k football to EA football, but the overwhelming majority of consumers don't, so Madden was never going to become a 2k clone.

Finally, I disagree that there's no harm that could've come out of an open competition. There's simply no time in a 10-month development cycle to completely reinvent everything you do as a football game, while eyeballing your competitor and copying their good ideas. Rather, we probably would've seen much more gimmicky changes, such as vision cone (2006) and weapons system (2008), which did nothing to the gameplay, but merely added a marketable layer to the underlying engine, to create the perception of a "new" game. Also, if 2k ever did successfully cut into Madden's sales (which would've been unlikely), that would only leave Madden with less resources to take on theincreasingly expensive process of making next-gen games.

# 76 sanders @ 08/31/09 03:12 PM

You're argument is completely flawed. For one it's not about the review scores at all. It's how much is done to improve the games!

If EA, for example, implements a bunch of new features and some work and some don't work all that well it will receive a decent but not super high rating. If the game is basically the same as last years with new grachics and a couple of new features it will get the same rating.

When there is no competition and the company knows they will sell x amount of units as long as the game at least meets a certain bar there is little incentive to do anymore because the only thing that goes up is cost.

Now if they currently have say 30% of the market they will be spending time and money to try and capture the other 70% of the market.

# 77 Rocky @ 08/31/09 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormJH1


	EvanRG, I think I get your general point, which is "I want more choices as a consumer, and competition doesn't hurt, so why wouldn't I want competition." We'd probably agree on that point, but Guitar Hero/Rock Band is a poor example because the people who initially developed Guitar Hero left to create Rock Band after Guitar Hero 2. Thus, the "competitior" you credit with creating the innovation of selling eleventy billion instruments with a music game was actually the same company that made Guitar Hero in the first place. But the fact is that we DON'T have direct competition for Madden right now, and no amount of whining about will change it. Therefore, the only relevant question is: "How much (if any) has the absence of competition hurt?" All I'm saying is that I don't think it's hurt as much as people think it has. And the reason is because EA never was never really concerned about NFL 2k5's competition in "game quality", or even in "sales", but rather saw NFL 2k5 as a threat to EA's ability to charge $49.99 (now $59.99) for its product. That was the forgotten reason (and the primary one) for why the exclusive deal came about in the first place. And I think the thing that people aren't being honest about is that an NFL 2k10 very likely would not have evolved very much since 2k5 either. Nothing 2k Sports has done with any of their other franchises suggests that they would've "pushed the envelope" with new feature sets. 2k Basketball is a good game, but it has not fundamentally changed at all since the days of the PS2. And APF 2k8 was a chance for them to create a clearly superior next-gen football product, and they didn't do it. True, many hardcore gamers prefer 2k football to EA football, but the overwhelming majority of consumers don't, so Madden was never going to become a 2k clone. Finally, I disagree that there's no harm that could've come out of an open competition. There's simply no time in a 10-month development cycle to completely reinvent everything you do as a football game, while eyeballing your competitor and copying their good ideas. Rather, we probably would've seen much more gimmicky changes, such as vision cone (2006) and weapons system (2008), which did nothing to the gameplay, but merely added a marketable layer to the underlying engine, to create the perception of a "new" game. Also, if 2k ever did successfully cut into Madden's sales (which would've been unlikely), that would only leave Madden with less resources to take on theincreasingly expensive process of making next-gen games.

Real blanket statements here. First the claim that 2K wouldn't have progressed that much. There is really no way to tell...true. But then you go on to compare it to other 2K games which aren't very good arguments considering that other 2K games aren't developed by 2K's main developer (VC) or were overhauled in the middle of the last gen cycles (NBA2K5). It's all about context. You can't go on to say that we have no way of knowing how NFL2K10 would've been and then use completely different situations to frame an argument on how it would've been a bad game.

Secondly, let's forget 2K for a second. Have we moved so far along that we have forgotten what Gameday did to Madden? Or hell, what Madden did to Tecmo. Let's not forget Fever who pushed NFL2K series to innovate graphically (a VC employee even quoted as much). There is a whole history of competition continously innovating the genre and we choose to ignore it.

Madden as we know it might not even exist today. THQ's NFL Showdown may be the number one game on the market. If you would have told me in 1991 that Tecmo Super Bowl would be gone in 1996, I would've LOL'd in your face.

# 78 Dynamite @ 08/31/09 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMChrisS


	I'm simply arguing against direct-sport competition being the leading cause of why a game is either good or bad. I see nothing wrong with the conclusion that direct-sport competition isn't even close to the main reason why a game is good or bad. Given the data presented, I would say it's pretty clear that it isn't. If direct-sport competition is the reason why games succeed or fail quality wise, I simply have to ask for a more reliable and better way of measuring it?

If you were not saying that competition does not create better gameplay, then you shouldn't have titled your article and built your premise around that very point. In here, when people have called you out for some of your logical flaws, you've attempted to tighten your focus and claim it's direct-sport competition that you're arguing against. It's a lame cop-out, to be honest. If you really believe that competition doesn't create better games, then stand by it, why backtrack after writing so extensively about it?

Further, since review scores are imprecise, and there are not definable metrics for sports games outside of what strikes the greatest balance between sim and fun, isn't the best case for competition that you then have the option as the consumer to see which one is worth your time? I would say that's true. Looking at the NFL 2k5 versus Madden 2005 arguments would almost certainly prove you wrong as well. No one really likes to bring up the flawed versions of 2k before 2k5, but they were getting destroyed by Madden in sales and reviews, then in response to that competition...2k5. The response to competition is what drives the improvement.

# 79 jdareal21 @ 08/31/09 09:03 PM

One thing that was truthful in this blog, and one thing 2K fans tend to forget, is that Madden 2005 played better and was scored damn near equally from all major review sites and magazines across the board. MOST people had both games, and if 2K was normal price, they might not have been the case

# 80 HiTEqMETHOD @ 09/01/09 05:10 AM

I'm gonne be 100% honest, even though I don't agree whatsoever with your conclusion I was hanging in there with you until you started using review scores....for one some reviewers simply don't know what they are talking about (hence madden's score every year etc.) and two you don't think that the varied decline & rises in scores have anything to do with companies trying new things in order to 1up their competitor? This could result in a success (improved score) or failure because the new feature/animations just don't work right (decreased score).

« Previous 1 2 345 Next »

More Links