First off, thanks to all of who you wrote in about the Brooklyn Superhero Supply Company. Michael Hughes was first, and he let me know that there's quite a bit more to BSSC than meets the eye:
What you might not know is that this was actually the brainchild of the writer Dave Eggers. You might know him best as the co-writer of the screenplay for the recent film adaptation of "Where the Wild Things Are", though his semi-autobiographical novel "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" is quite good too.
Anyway, this is actually the second of these sorts of shops, the first being a Pirate supply shop (Pirate Supply Store ). This shop was the first of now many shops affiliated with Egger's charity 826Valencia, a tutoring and mentoring organization dedicated to helping kids learn to write competently. They even publish their work and sell it in the shops.
If you're interested in knowing more about the history of the project, Eggers gave a TED talk in 2008 detailing the organization as well as providing a variety of touching anecdotes about it and how you can get involved if you wish. Here's the link: Eggers at TED.
Let me just add one note: the screenplay for "Where The Wild Things Are" was an absolutely brilliant piece of writing.
Okay, let's get this staring at your computer screen and clicking on links party started.
This is a wonderful story about Chelsea Baker, a 13-year-old badass knuckeball pitcher--who was taught by lengendary knuckleballer Joe Niekro.
Seriously, this is the greatest single catch I've ever seen.
From Brad Ruminer, and this is related to some of the atmospheric nuclear test links from the past two links, it's a video map of every nuclear explosion in history (well, up to 1998, anyway). What makes this video stand out is the artistry inherent in the design choices made in its creation--it's incredibly striking. And creepy.
From Amy Leigh, a clever and entertaining article about video game inspired shoes. Some, naturally, are entirely epic.
Frank sent in a link to a video demo of the Microsoft 3D technology I mentioned last week, and it's quite impressive.
From Andrew, and this is very funny, it's epic bear struggle (and it's not what you think).
From Clayton Lee, a tremendous music video parody titled Newport (Ymerodraeth State of Mind).
From Rob, a video of the funkiest looking shark you've ever seen, and it's positively prehistoric.
From Sirius, the discovery of buckyballs--in space. Also, and this is remarkable, it's Antarctic octopuses found with cold-resistant venom. Also, it's the world's smallest flowering plants.
From Tim Jones, a fantastic story about a man who has converted an organ into a chiptone keyboard.
From my boss, a story about the discovery of Shackleton's whiskey: and it's still drinkable, apparently.
From Nicholas Czekalski, a fascinating story about hidden underground fires.
Here are some wonderful vintage PC advertisements.
Frank Regan sent this in, and it's hard to describe, but it's basically a 3D display created with an LCD monitor (or an iPad, in this case) and a pyramid shaped screen. Also, a great story by Ken Levine titled Me & The Hells Angels.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Fail
EA has acknowledged the issues with progression in NCAA 10. From the EA NCAA 11 Blog (excerpted):
I'm happy to report that a title update is coming soon. Look for this in about two-to-three weeks or so (currently estimating mid-August)...
WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD FOOTBALL GAMES
Some of you may wonder, and rightfully so, "how did they miss that bug?!!" The same thing goes on here at the studio, "HOW DID WE MISS THAT BUG!!" usually with some colorful expletives thrown in for good measure.
But why does this happen? To start with, software development is a complex science and this is why nearly every game and software company on the planet is continually challenged and often frustrated in the pursuit of software perfection...
Now let's consider video games. Sports games are some of the most complex video games in existence today, and I'd argue that the logic and sophistication of football rivals them all. The real-world game of college football is complicated enough with its massive and constantly evolving rulebook, schedules, and even conference realignments. Now try to imagine the complexity of a video game in full HD running at 60 frames-per-second while attempting to mimic not only visual photorealism in 5.1 stereo but believable simulated behavior of 22 individual players, refs, coaching staff, broadcasters, and fans. And now connect that same experience to hundreds of thousands of players through a broad array of servers and databases across the country all in real-time over a far-less-than-perfect Internet...To give you some perspective, the NCAA Football 11 codebase contains more than 10 million lines of source code and script combined with over 350 gigabytes of graphics, sound, and data files.
Over the past year we logged tens-of-thousands of hours of QA on the game in addition to tens-of-thousands of hours more in scripted game testing through networks of automated game consoles here at the studio...
This isn't an excuse for not getting things right the first time, but I did want to provide some context...
Now, before I have an absolute and complete meltdown here, let me mention the positives. NCAA is vastly improved this year, it's clearly going in the right direction, and it appears that the progression problem is going to be fixed. I like this game--a lot--and if the problems are fixed (and they appear to be eminently fixable), then this could be the best NCAA game the franchise has ever produced.
Also, before the meltdown, let me just mention that the person who made the post I excerpted is probably a nice guy. Please note that this is in no way directed at him.
Having said that, let me be clear: this is complete bullshit.
If it was a game from one-man development "team", and it cost $10, then "games are hard" is an excuse which can garner a significant amount of sympathy. But you can't charge $60 for a game, gross $25 million in the first week after release, and then trot someone out there to be Skippie the paper boy.
This isn't the neighborhood kid who peed his pants at the talent contest and you feel sorry for him. This is a mega-corporation that had net revenue of almost four billion dollars last year. "Games are hard" not only isn't an excuse, it's an insult to our intelligence.
Anyone with a pulse who was also conscious would have seen that Dynasty progression issue if they simmed more than even a few seasons. So there are only three possibilities here: either no one on the development/QA team ever simmed multiple seasons (incredible, with the 10K+ man hours they spent on QA), they did sim multiple seasons and (more incredibly) didn't notice, or they did notice and shipped the product anyway (is there a bigger version of incredible to use here?).
None of those three possibilities are flattering.
Seriously, EA, just fix the damn game. We're not going to feel sorry for you.
I'm happy to report that a title update is coming soon. Look for this in about two-to-three weeks or so (currently estimating mid-August)...
WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD FOOTBALL GAMES
Some of you may wonder, and rightfully so, "how did they miss that bug?!!" The same thing goes on here at the studio, "HOW DID WE MISS THAT BUG!!" usually with some colorful expletives thrown in for good measure.
But why does this happen? To start with, software development is a complex science and this is why nearly every game and software company on the planet is continually challenged and often frustrated in the pursuit of software perfection...
Now let's consider video games. Sports games are some of the most complex video games in existence today, and I'd argue that the logic and sophistication of football rivals them all. The real-world game of college football is complicated enough with its massive and constantly evolving rulebook, schedules, and even conference realignments. Now try to imagine the complexity of a video game in full HD running at 60 frames-per-second while attempting to mimic not only visual photorealism in 5.1 stereo but believable simulated behavior of 22 individual players, refs, coaching staff, broadcasters, and fans. And now connect that same experience to hundreds of thousands of players through a broad array of servers and databases across the country all in real-time over a far-less-than-perfect Internet...To give you some perspective, the NCAA Football 11 codebase contains more than 10 million lines of source code and script combined with over 350 gigabytes of graphics, sound, and data files.
Over the past year we logged tens-of-thousands of hours of QA on the game in addition to tens-of-thousands of hours more in scripted game testing through networks of automated game consoles here at the studio...
This isn't an excuse for not getting things right the first time, but I did want to provide some context...
Now, before I have an absolute and complete meltdown here, let me mention the positives. NCAA is vastly improved this year, it's clearly going in the right direction, and it appears that the progression problem is going to be fixed. I like this game--a lot--and if the problems are fixed (and they appear to be eminently fixable), then this could be the best NCAA game the franchise has ever produced.
Also, before the meltdown, let me just mention that the person who made the post I excerpted is probably a nice guy. Please note that this is in no way directed at him.
Having said that, let me be clear: this is complete bullshit.
If it was a game from one-man development "team", and it cost $10, then "games are hard" is an excuse which can garner a significant amount of sympathy. But you can't charge $60 for a game, gross $25 million in the first week after release, and then trot someone out there to be Skippie the paper boy.
This isn't the neighborhood kid who peed his pants at the talent contest and you feel sorry for him. This is a mega-corporation that had net revenue of almost four billion dollars last year. "Games are hard" not only isn't an excuse, it's an insult to our intelligence.
Anyone with a pulse who was also conscious would have seen that Dynasty progression issue if they simmed more than even a few seasons. So there are only three possibilities here: either no one on the development/QA team ever simmed multiple seasons (incredible, with the 10K+ man hours they spent on QA), they did sim multiple seasons and (more incredibly) didn't notice, or they did notice and shipped the product anyway (is there a bigger version of incredible to use here?).
None of those three possibilities are flattering.
Seriously, EA, just fix the damn game. We're not going to feel sorry for you.
Poker Face
Since it's Eli's birthday this week, I'm having more stories about him than usual.
Eli 8.11 learned how to play poker while he was in Shreveport with his mom a few weeks ago. Then, while he was channel surfing one night (channel surfing for him is Disney XD, Nickelodeon, ESPN, and the NHL Network, basically), he found one of the World Series Of Poker shows, and he was instantly hooked. Now, we play Texas Hold 'Em every night for at least thirty minutes.
Last night, he came to me and said, "Dad, let's play OFFICIAL poker tonight, just like on television." I said that would be great, and when he came to the table, he looked like this:
His game needs some work, but I think he's already got the look down pat.
He also has a favorite joke, one that he never gets tired of telling. "Dad, there are two muffins in an oven," he says. "The first muffin says to the second muffin, 'It's getting hot in here.' The second muffin looks at the first muffin and says, 'OH MY GOD--A TALKING MUFFIN!' "
The first time he told it to me, he said, "See, it's FUNNY because the second muffin is ALSO talking."
Eli 8.11 learned how to play poker while he was in Shreveport with his mom a few weeks ago. Then, while he was channel surfing one night (channel surfing for him is Disney XD, Nickelodeon, ESPN, and the NHL Network, basically), he found one of the World Series Of Poker shows, and he was instantly hooked. Now, we play Texas Hold 'Em every night for at least thirty minutes.
Last night, he came to me and said, "Dad, let's play OFFICIAL poker tonight, just like on television." I said that would be great, and when he came to the table, he looked like this:
His game needs some work, but I think he's already got the look down pat.
He also has a favorite joke, one that he never gets tired of telling. "Dad, there are two muffins in an oven," he says. "The first muffin says to the second muffin, 'It's getting hot in here.' The second muffin looks at the first muffin and says, 'OH MY GOD--A TALKING MUFFIN!' "
The first time he told it to me, he said, "See, it's FUNNY because the second muffin is ALSO talking."
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Oh, Come On
One of the reasons I dislike writing about gender -- even when I think my gender might provide useful perspective -- is that someone will always use it as an excuse to point out self-victimization. You cannot make any observation about gender without someone demanding that the perfect reverse be also true, and you're a misogynist/misandrist if not. According to commenters I am either of these at any given time.
When I first started writing professionally, having a gender-neutral name as I do, I wouldn't even disclose that I was female unless asked directly, not just because I feared backlash, but because I didn't want to make it relevant. I think I've done only a handful of articles that are specifically oriented around a female perspective, and usually only when asked directly by an editor -- nonetheless, I think the most vocal commentary I receive about my work has to do with whether I am sexist. That, or the fact that I can't even bring it up without being accused of 'using' it for something. To hear forumgoers and commenters say it, when I am not setting back the women's movement a hundred years, I am emasculating and victimizing men.
I'm bummed that many commenters on Kotaku have distilled my recent feature down to: "I play as a jerk as a man because men are dicks, but I have a deeper experience when I'm a woman." That's not it at all -- whenever I play video games that let me create my own character, I develop a "concept" of what kind of person I want to play that is gender-independent; usually this concept has nothing to do with who I am, but more to do with what kind of character I think makes for an interesting story, something I said plainly in the article.
I liked the concept of an aloof, manipulative person as the Persona 3 protagonist. This was easy to execute when I played as a male, but hard to execute when I played as a female -- because I am a female, and only then did I notice how much social ideas about how women should behave were weighing on me. If I'd played the game as a woman first, I might have had the same revelations regarding what I unconsciously think men should "be like", and then it'd be a different article to a similar end.
That I played as a jerk the first time had nothing to do with the fact the original protagonist is male (as far as I'm consciously aware). What I'm saying here is I didn't think about gender at all, until this second playthrough of the game -- where only the gender had been changed, for the most part -- made me realize my idea of the kind of character I wanted to play was coming into conflict with preconceptions of how women are taught they should act, things I would have never expected would influence me.
This seemed to be obvious to most of the commenters -- many players, their own gender aside, shared experiences of feeling more sympathetic toward Yukari's jealous insecurities when they played as a woman, or feeling more annoyed or threatened by Junpei's questioning their authority (two stand-out differences for me as well).
It was an article about how a player's reactions to characters and situations can change based on your character's gender, and how those are being informed by social lessons you may have been unconsciously taught. I think that's an interesting self-exploration experience that only video games can offer, so I shared it. Many commenters pointed this out, but anyone is making it into "men are this and women are that, huh?" is disappointing, so I figured I'd be absolutely clear.
Most of the comments in the thread are on point, but I didn't want to see the conversation derailed into misandry complaints without stating my firm objection.
When I first started writing professionally, having a gender-neutral name as I do, I wouldn't even disclose that I was female unless asked directly, not just because I feared backlash, but because I didn't want to make it relevant. I think I've done only a handful of articles that are specifically oriented around a female perspective, and usually only when asked directly by an editor -- nonetheless, I think the most vocal commentary I receive about my work has to do with whether I am sexist. That, or the fact that I can't even bring it up without being accused of 'using' it for something. To hear forumgoers and commenters say it, when I am not setting back the women's movement a hundred years, I am emasculating and victimizing men.
I'm bummed that many commenters on Kotaku have distilled my recent feature down to: "I play as a jerk as a man because men are dicks, but I have a deeper experience when I'm a woman." That's not it at all -- whenever I play video games that let me create my own character, I develop a "concept" of what kind of person I want to play that is gender-independent; usually this concept has nothing to do with who I am, but more to do with what kind of character I think makes for an interesting story, something I said plainly in the article.
I liked the concept of an aloof, manipulative person as the Persona 3 protagonist. This was easy to execute when I played as a male, but hard to execute when I played as a female -- because I am a female, and only then did I notice how much social ideas about how women should behave were weighing on me. If I'd played the game as a woman first, I might have had the same revelations regarding what I unconsciously think men should "be like", and then it'd be a different article to a similar end.
That I played as a jerk the first time had nothing to do with the fact the original protagonist is male (as far as I'm consciously aware). What I'm saying here is I didn't think about gender at all, until this second playthrough of the game -- where only the gender had been changed, for the most part -- made me realize my idea of the kind of character I wanted to play was coming into conflict with preconceptions of how women are taught they should act, things I would have never expected would influence me.
This seemed to be obvious to most of the commenters -- many players, their own gender aside, shared experiences of feeling more sympathetic toward Yukari's jealous insecurities when they played as a woman, or feeling more annoyed or threatened by Junpei's questioning their authority (two stand-out differences for me as well).
It was an article about how a player's reactions to characters and situations can change based on your character's gender, and how those are being informed by social lessons you may have been unconsciously taught. I think that's an interesting self-exploration experience that only video games can offer, so I shared it. Many commenters pointed this out, but anyone is making it into "men are this and women are that, huh?" is disappointing, so I figured I'd be absolutely clear.
Most of the comments in the thread are on point, but I didn't want to see the conversation derailed into misandry complaints without stating my firm objection.
Tidalis
Chris Park, creator of the terrific A.I. Wars, has a new game, and it's called Tidalis.
It's hard to believe that a guy who can make a hardcore game like A.I. Wars would follow up with a puzzle game, that that's what Park has done, and even more incredibly, he's created a gameplay mechanic that is entirely unique.
Seriously, this guy is a badass.
Here's a screenshot:
If you match three blocks, they disappear, and when the block above them lands, it sends off its own beam in the direction that it's pointing.
That's basically how it works, but in no way am I doing it justice. It's sensational in action--not the easiest concept to grasp in words, but totally addictive in action. There's urgency here as well, because blocks are falling from the top of the playing field, so even as you try to figure out long and multiple chains, you need to manage the time element as well.
I think there's only one less than stellar aspect of the game--for me, at least--and that's the story. It's very well-written, and it's quite clever, but I think it would be fair to characterize it as "lightweight." In a commercial sense, that may well be an excellent decision, but I feel like the main gameplay mechanic is so incredibly weighty that I wanted to see a weighty, dramatic story paired with it.
It's hard to believe that a guy who can make a hardcore game like A.I. Wars would follow up with a puzzle game, that that's what Park has done, and even more incredibly, he's created a gameplay mechanic that is entirely unique.
Seriously, this guy is a badass.
Here's a screenshot:
Sorry, that's not the greatest screenshot (the graphics and backgrounds are actually very appealing), but take a look at the blocks and the directional arrows, because that's what important. When you touch a block, it fires off a beam in the direction the arrow is pointing. The beam can also pass through two blocks of a different color before it disintegrates, so if the same-colored block is three squares away, the beam will reach it. Then the beam is redirected based on the orientation of the block it just reached.
If you match three blocks, they disappear, and when the block above them lands, it sends off its own beam in the direction that it's pointing.
That's basically how it works, but in no way am I doing it justice. It's sensational in action--not the easiest concept to grasp in words, but totally addictive in action. There's urgency here as well, because blocks are falling from the top of the playing field, so even as you try to figure out long and multiple chains, you need to manage the time element as well.
This is easily the most interesting, unique gameplay mechanic I've ever seen in a puzzle game. It's terrific.
Plus, there are a huge number of variations on the basic gameplay, depending on the level. Some levels don't have falling blocks or at a time. Some levels have different movements for the beam (one where gravity affects the beam is particularly cool). There are obstruction blocks, wild card blocks--every kind of freaking block imaginable.
I think there's only one less than stellar aspect of the game--for me, at least--and that's the story. It's very well-written, and it's quite clever, but I think it would be fair to characterize it as "lightweight." In a commercial sense, that may well be an excellent decision, but I feel like the main gameplay mechanic is so incredibly weighty that I wanted to see a weighty, dramatic story paired with it.
I highly encourage you to check out the demo and see for yourself. Tidalis has a ton of content, it's high quality, and it's only $9.99, which is a great price. Here's the Tidalis website, and you can find the demo link from there.
Squee Mode
In a predictable state of affairs, writer Leigh Alexander swathed her entire blog in a romantic Persona 3 Portable theme, tweeted on numerous occasions about how she failed to sleep due to Persona 3 Portable, changed her desktop wallpaper from MGS3's final boss scene to the above image, and then stopped blogging for two weeks. Guess what she has been doing all this time.
Actually, while I have been playing a lot of Persona 3 Portable, I've mainly been writing a lot, once again developing bunches of stories that I can't wait to share with you as they materialize. Lately, though, I've been talking to a lot of developers about the high-stress environment of the game industry. Lots of people get into game writing because they hope to "cross over" -- that's never been me. I feel like there's nothing that could make me want to work on the other side; let's pretend I actually did have any game design skills, which I certainly don't. Writing for the trade I've learned something big: I don't envy them, to say the least!
And having been in games writing for a while now, there are a lot of times, to be honest, that I'm terribly stressed out, too, by the challenges of covering such a specific business -- and by the culture of the audience, and I know I'm not alone. And if the audience is capable of causing me so much fatigue and disillusionment sometimes, it makes me wonder what's wrong with them, too.
I wrote Who Cheers For War last month at Kotaku because I've been curious about digging into the darkness I often observe in our hobby -- there's no other way of putting it. Sometimes it even feels like illness. The often unspoken pains that all three spokes of this wheel (devs, media and audience) endure was something I think it's important to continue to call attention to and examine, and I did this at Gamasutra late last week. Please do check it out and discuss if you missed it. The discussion thread on it has grown epic.
Today at Kotaku, an article about -- surprise! -- Persona 3 Portable. In my last post I said I hoped to write more about how playing as a female feels different this time around, and I had the opportunity to do that in this month's feature column. For reference, here's how it felt for me the first time around, from the archives of my old Aberrant Gamer haunt.
You heard yesterday that GameStop bought Kongregate -- Kongregate's founder, Jim Greer, an industry veteran with whom I've had several conversations that make me feel he cares very much about developers, would like you to think twice before applying the "home for indies sells out" narrative to this one, or that's the message I got from my interview with both companies about the deal.
In other acquisition news, Disney spends quite a sum on third-place Facebook game developer Playdom, and one analyst thinks it's an over-spend with unclear ROI potential (how's that Club Penguin thing working out now, I'd like to know?). The contentious environment around social game investments, players and developers, is certainly becoming increasingly fricative, and nothing's made this clearer than the polarizing response to Ian Bogost's commentary game, Cow Clicker. For now, check out the heated discussion on his blog about it, and stay tuned for an in-depth follow up from me at Gamasutra coming soon. The whole issue's fascinating, to say the least.
Speaking of social media, you will notice Blogger has kindly added buttons to allow you to tweet, FB, email and Buzz my posts directly whenever you like. Go for it!
So, also StarCraft II is, uh... something that is happening... it is a game for your computer, a lot of people are playing it, I.. yeah, I don't know. I don't know anything about StarCraft. Blind spot. Sorry bros. Are you into it? Lemme know in the new SVGL poll on the sidebar!
The last poll, by the way, showed that the majority of you, at 58%, are not interested in new motion control solutions. 21 percent of you are interested in PlayStation Move, 16 percent prefer Kinect, and only 4 percent of you would like to have both interfaces in your living room. Innnnnnnnteresting! I'll have to ask you again after launch, when more titles are available...
['Today's Good Song' is actually an awesome music video! Check out Cosmetics' 'Soft Skin'.]
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
NCAA 11 Impressions (360)
Surely, this is the most schizophrenic sports game series ever created.
Most years, it's great and it's terrible. It's sublime and it's idiotic. The last two years, it was just idiotic, but this year, NCAA has returned to form. Once again, it's the beautiful woman with tobacco-stained teeth.
First, the positives:
--Off the field, the interface is clean, intuitive, and very functional.
--In online Dynasty mode, it's now possible to recruit from your computer instead of the console, which is a brilliant addition (when it works--more on that later). Recruiting in NCAA is complex (overly complex, I think), and being able to use a mouse instead of a gamepad is a substantial improvement. Plus, it's possible to set up a single-player online Dynasty, so that feature is available for solo players, too.
--On the field, the game feels more dynamic now, without feeling cheap.
--Run blocking has improved.
--The new animation system is a clear upgrade and looks much more realistic.
--Lee Corso is gone. Finally.
--Slider settings have a noticeable effect, and slider adjustments can make the game fairly realistic. Not as good as Madden, certainly, but a huge improvement over the last several versions of NCAA.
--Even though it's still completely idiotic that there aren't custom cameras, the default cameras are very good.
That's quite a lot of improvement, really. It's not as much of an improvement as Madden made last year, but Madden was a one-off in terms of its leap. This game has made big, big strides.
Now, unfortunately, the negatives, including one absolute dealbreaker:
--Online recruiting is great, when it works, but too often it doesn't. I don't mean servers not working for a minute or two-I'm talking hours at a time. It's ridiculous and embarrassing.
--Highly-rated quarterbacks have absolute rocket arms. I'm fitting throws into ridiculous spaces because my quarterback has a cannon. Way, way overpowered, and there's no slider adjustment possible for this.
--Three-man defensive fronts are far too effective against the pass, and for all the wrong reasons. Quarterbacks seem to hold the ball far too long against the three-man front (they're more effective against a four-man front, actually), and sacks are far too frequent. Coverage sacks are fine, but not like this. Yes, you can adjust the pass rush slider, but then you make the four-man front far too ineffective-there's no way to create the proper balance.
--Penalties are FUBAR again. Seriously, how ***damn hard is it to create functional penalty code? Like always, certain types of penalties get called all the time, and some (pass interference, for example) are just urban legends. This gets ignored every year, which is idiotic, because if was just fixed once, it would be fixed going forwards.
Actually, let's put the dealbreaker into its own section, because it is so inexcusable that it should have its own highlight. In short, Dynasty mode is useless for anything beyond single-season play.
Why? Bill Abner, Dean Of Sports Game Reviewers, lays it out very clearly here. The most important aspect of any progression system is stability over time. No matter the season, you want to retain the original ratings composition in aggregate, because if you don't, the game is going to play very, very differently.
Bill's post explains it in far more depth, but in only four seasons, there are no "A" rated teams left in the game, because the prospect creation and progression engine doesn't produce any great players (or, more accurately, far too few).
Oops.
How bad is it? In Bill's dynasty in 2014, 55 of 120 teams have a rating of "D+" or lower. In the default ratings when you begin the game, there were 17. That's right--almost half the teams are rated D+ or below.
Teams rated "A-" or higher? In 2014, there are zero. Zero. In 2010, there 12. And the change in "B" and "C" rated teams is almost as pronounced.
It's not just progression that's broken, either. The CPU can't manage a roster, hoarding players at certain positions and ignoring others.
Oh, and then there's kickers. Again, Bill nails the issue down very clearly--as soon as the default kickers graduate, they get replaced with scrubs. Basically, the best created kicker in NCAA the video game (beyond the default ratings) is going to kick as poorly as the worst kicker in real NCAA football
Bill was all over these progression issues, so big kudos to him.
Look, progression and player creation are broken. Even as the EA Fanboy Defense Force bleats away on the OS forums (including such laugh-out-loud thread titles as "I Love How Progression Is Done"), there is no discussion possible on this issue. It's broken. Period.
This is a game that's come out every year for what, the last decade? Progression was totally broken in the shipping version last year, then it was patched to be decent, and now it's broken again. And anyone, absolutely anyone, who simmed even a few years in Dynasty would have seen this happening. It's impossible to miss.
So what about all the reviewers who loved this game? Well, they obviously didn't run a multi-season Dynasty, did they? Look, the job of 90% of sports game reviewers is to have a review ready to drop on launch day. That's their job, and that's why they get paid. It's not their job to represent us and actually play the game the way we would play it, or explore all the game modes in depth. 80% of the text in most launch day reviews is ripped almost word for word from the preview.
That sucks, but it's the truth, and it's also the truth that many of them don't know what the hell they're doing. Seriously, did ANYONE mention this besides Bill? Was no one else paying attention? How freaking obvious does it have to be to get noticed?
So it's nothing short of a total embarrassment that a game released every single year STILL can't get one of its major features right. And it's also a total embarrassment that people who get paid to review this game can't do it in a thorough manner.
NCAA is still entirely salvageable if the online Dynasty servers actually stay up, and if progression is fixed. It's unplayable for multiple seasons in its current state, though, so if you're considering a purchase, be forewarned.
Most years, it's great and it's terrible. It's sublime and it's idiotic. The last two years, it was just idiotic, but this year, NCAA has returned to form. Once again, it's the beautiful woman with tobacco-stained teeth.
First, the positives:
--Off the field, the interface is clean, intuitive, and very functional.
--In online Dynasty mode, it's now possible to recruit from your computer instead of the console, which is a brilliant addition (when it works--more on that later). Recruiting in NCAA is complex (overly complex, I think), and being able to use a mouse instead of a gamepad is a substantial improvement. Plus, it's possible to set up a single-player online Dynasty, so that feature is available for solo players, too.
--On the field, the game feels more dynamic now, without feeling cheap.
--Run blocking has improved.
--The new animation system is a clear upgrade and looks much more realistic.
--Lee Corso is gone. Finally.
--Slider settings have a noticeable effect, and slider adjustments can make the game fairly realistic. Not as good as Madden, certainly, but a huge improvement over the last several versions of NCAA.
--Even though it's still completely idiotic that there aren't custom cameras, the default cameras are very good.
That's quite a lot of improvement, really. It's not as much of an improvement as Madden made last year, but Madden was a one-off in terms of its leap. This game has made big, big strides.
Now, unfortunately, the negatives, including one absolute dealbreaker:
--Online recruiting is great, when it works, but too often it doesn't. I don't mean servers not working for a minute or two-I'm talking hours at a time. It's ridiculous and embarrassing.
--Highly-rated quarterbacks have absolute rocket arms. I'm fitting throws into ridiculous spaces because my quarterback has a cannon. Way, way overpowered, and there's no slider adjustment possible for this.
--Three-man defensive fronts are far too effective against the pass, and for all the wrong reasons. Quarterbacks seem to hold the ball far too long against the three-man front (they're more effective against a four-man front, actually), and sacks are far too frequent. Coverage sacks are fine, but not like this. Yes, you can adjust the pass rush slider, but then you make the four-man front far too ineffective-there's no way to create the proper balance.
--Penalties are FUBAR again. Seriously, how ***damn hard is it to create functional penalty code? Like always, certain types of penalties get called all the time, and some (pass interference, for example) are just urban legends. This gets ignored every year, which is idiotic, because if was just fixed once, it would be fixed going forwards.
Actually, let's put the dealbreaker into its own section, because it is so inexcusable that it should have its own highlight. In short, Dynasty mode is useless for anything beyond single-season play.
Why? Bill Abner, Dean Of Sports Game Reviewers, lays it out very clearly here. The most important aspect of any progression system is stability over time. No matter the season, you want to retain the original ratings composition in aggregate, because if you don't, the game is going to play very, very differently.
Bill's post explains it in far more depth, but in only four seasons, there are no "A" rated teams left in the game, because the prospect creation and progression engine doesn't produce any great players (or, more accurately, far too few).
Oops.
How bad is it? In Bill's dynasty in 2014, 55 of 120 teams have a rating of "D+" or lower. In the default ratings when you begin the game, there were 17. That's right--almost half the teams are rated D+ or below.
Teams rated "A-" or higher? In 2014, there are zero. Zero. In 2010, there 12. And the change in "B" and "C" rated teams is almost as pronounced.
It's not just progression that's broken, either. The CPU can't manage a roster, hoarding players at certain positions and ignoring others.
Oh, and then there's kickers. Again, Bill nails the issue down very clearly--as soon as the default kickers graduate, they get replaced with scrubs. Basically, the best created kicker in NCAA the video game (beyond the default ratings) is going to kick as poorly as the worst kicker in real NCAA football
Bill was all over these progression issues, so big kudos to him.
Look, progression and player creation are broken. Even as the EA Fanboy Defense Force bleats away on the OS forums (including such laugh-out-loud thread titles as "I Love How Progression Is Done"), there is no discussion possible on this issue. It's broken. Period.
This is a game that's come out every year for what, the last decade? Progression was totally broken in the shipping version last year, then it was patched to be decent, and now it's broken again. And anyone, absolutely anyone, who simmed even a few years in Dynasty would have seen this happening. It's impossible to miss.
So what about all the reviewers who loved this game? Well, they obviously didn't run a multi-season Dynasty, did they? Look, the job of 90% of sports game reviewers is to have a review ready to drop on launch day. That's their job, and that's why they get paid. It's not their job to represent us and actually play the game the way we would play it, or explore all the game modes in depth. 80% of the text in most launch day reviews is ripped almost word for word from the preview.
That sucks, but it's the truth, and it's also the truth that many of them don't know what the hell they're doing. Seriously, did ANYONE mention this besides Bill? Was no one else paying attention? How freaking obvious does it have to be to get noticed?
So it's nothing short of a total embarrassment that a game released every single year STILL can't get one of its major features right. And it's also a total embarrassment that people who get paid to review this game can't do it in a thorough manner.
NCAA is still entirely salvageable if the online Dynasty servers actually stay up, and if progression is fixed. It's unplayable for multiple seasons in its current state, though, so if you're considering a purchase, be forewarned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)