Games surpassing TV, bringing us closer to 'real' sport

by James Ransom-Wiley { Jul 7th 2006 at 12:25PM }

New York Times has published an article examining the potential of virtual sports as a means for understanding the intricacies of success in real world sports. Using Madden as an example, NYTimes suggests that the future of EA's franchise "may lie in a renewed emphasis on teamwork and a new appreciation for careful preparation before the big game."

This year's cover athlete, Seahawk's running back Shaun Alexander, has pressed the development team to consider transforming Madden from a one-on-one experience to a team game. Imagine the emergence of Madden clans, each player dedicated to a skill position, all are working together to win. EA hasn't yet dedicated itself to this task, but with gaming headed online, it's certainly a direction the developers should pursue.

And, with games like the recently released NFL Head Coach, the Steelers' Bill Cowher reminds us that video games are already teaching us far more about the grueling process of success in the NFL than we could ever gather from watching 60 minutes of game time on Sunday.

[Note: NYTimes article requires registration to access online.]

Tags: EA, Electronic Arts, ElectronicArts, Madden, NFL

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Probot @ Jul 7th 2006 12:39PM

As awesome as a full multiplayer team vs. team football game would be, I don't see this coming from EA. It has nothing to with their ability to make the game, it's just they like to milk the formula as much as they can before moving on to new things. I expect to see a different company make a successful multiplayer football game, then EA will jump into the fray.

The other potential problem would be balance. Unlike, say WoW, where different classes have different skills and uses, I don't see how every necessary position in the game would be equally as interesting to play.

It seems possible and if done with enough care to balance, it could potentially be pretty good.

apoc06 @ Jul 7th 2006 12:55PM

http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com

Use these to view article w/o registering.

someguy @ Jul 7th 2006 12:57PM

Wow, having multiplayer online football would be great. But what would be greater would be if they worked on not selling the same game with different rosters every year. Use the internet to patch the game instead. Of course this will never happen, because people will keep buying the same game for 3 or 4 years in a row, and EA expects the money. Where would they be without that huge cash-in every year?

DBX00 @ Jul 7th 2006 1:06PM

Madden with six players online is the furthest you could go right now and still be efficient. I wouldn't want anymore than that number because lag would be too much of a hassle. Also, you couldn't control someone completely messing up the match without forming squads.

Jeff @ Jul 7th 2006 1:09PM

"Imagine the emergence of Madden clans"

Can we please retire this "clan" word? We're not talking about a medieval MMORPG here, with guilds and clans and whatever else. There's already a word for a group of people playing the same sport on the same side - it's called a TEAM. Not every online game needs to have "clans" - in most cases, that word is just not appropriate and sounds utterly geekazoid.

I suppose it could be worse; online gaming could have started with the wild west and now we'd all be talking about "Madden posses" or something.

vidGuy @ Jul 7th 2006 1:10PM

Presumably you would only have human-controlled players for the skill positions (QB, RB, WR, TE, LB, DB, K, P)... but Probot's right, some positions wouldn't be fun to play.

A solution would be to have the less-action positions vote on calling the plays. Either everyone could elect an Offensive Coordinator and Defensive Coordinator, or everyone could vote on the play and the highest vote is the one that's ran.

The point is, I could see it working. It'd be a lot of fun. They could have it as a separate mode in Madden, or a complete different game. For the record, I love NFL Head Coach. I've already logged 15 hours and I haven't even started the regular season.

As far as the actual topic, I feel that video games, because of their interactivity, do teach more about a subject than passively watching it on tv. As video games continue to mimic reality, they'll begin to become a substitute for some activities. This is the 'virtual reality' concept that sci-fi lovers have been dreaming about. Can't be an NFL quarterback? "Strap in to Madden 2021 and feel all the jolts and pressures of the quarterback lifestyle."

Personally, I'm not that excited about this concept. If I want reality, I'll go experience it (as much as possible - obviously, I can't go experience WWII). For the most part, I want artistic, creative games, something to help escape from reality for a short while.

Borat @ Jul 7th 2006 1:11PM

What would be really awesome is 11-vs-11 soccer(football) online play. I think I read somewhere that Konami is thinking about implementing that in the next version of Winning Eleven.

That would make some for some really crazy and fun matches.

Woody @ Jul 7th 2006 1:13PM

I think this is a cool idea. Sure there are positions no one will want to play but BOT those ones. You could set it up so that a player can be the QB and Safety all game or switch in quarters, or between plays, or just on every possission. Imagine how fun it would be to play if the QB Human changed every possession.

Ryan @ Jul 7th 2006 1:13PM

I think this is actually a bad idea...at least 10 on 10 is a bad idea. The problem with something like this is there is only so much realism that can go into a game. Could you possibly imagine how boring it would be to play a center all game? I mean really. You hike the ball and then move your joystick around making sure the guy doesn't get by you.....kinda dull sounding in my book. You don't get the understanding of what it really is like to play that position.

The whole idea is that when you play, you want to feel like you are actually doing something, otherwise it will just feel like you are watching people play over the internet.

That being said, maybe up to 3-5 players on a team would be more realistic and fun. That way there are plenty of postions for people to actually be moving around with something more to do than pass/run block and plenty to do on defense.

I really think this adaptation would be better suited for baseball, soccer, basketball. Those would be way more fun that football...and Madden is one of my favorite games....i just don't see it being successful.

birdguy @ Jul 7th 2006 1:15PM

the team concept doesn't work for football, there are too many positions that has little action compared to the more venerable position such as quarterback and runningback.

in real life, physical attributes and skill both determine what position a player plays, not to mention being forced by the coach.manager.

in video games (football), there is no difference in physical attribute, and no "coach" detemining your position--meaning anyone can be a quarter back / running back. why would most people want to create other position players unless it's forced by some sort of computer match up.

i can see this team concept work for hockey, baseball, soccer, where all positions have very similar amount of play action but it's just not good for american football.

mike @ Jul 7th 2006 1:16PM

Once EA can come up with a way to make playing linebacker fun, this will be a reality.

Probot @ Jul 7th 2006 1:16PM

#4 DBX00,

That is a good point. Even though MMOs can get dozens of people on screen at once, there is much less action and less precise controls necessary than a sports game. Plus, Madden seems to be going in the direction of even greater graphical and physics improvements, which make processing data over the network much more complicated.

Tucker @ Jul 7th 2006 1:21PM

Jeff, gaming clans have nothing to do with some MMO games' settings. It's a generic term, calm down. The first time I ever remember hearing it was for Quake 1 back in the day. I think this "medieval" association is one you've pulled squarely out of YOUR dark regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_clan

Like it or not, it's just what they're freaking *called*.

riffgod @ Jul 7th 2006 1:25PM

Could we also be one step closer to replacing the actual game. With technologies like eyetoy and the new Wiimote in addition to the cooperative play that is made possible over the internet.

How long before we play a game of pick up football online when it's cold outside and we don't feel like freezing.

How long before your cousins and uncle come over at thanksgiving and you play Sega tag football.

We won't see anything like this at E3 next year, but with the game developers striving for realism, could it be very far off?

copa @ Jul 7th 2006 1:31PM

"Once EA can come up with a way to make playing linebacker fun, this will be a reality."

Linebacker is the only fun position to play on defense. Linebackers have the flexibility to do pass coverage or run coverage, gamble or play bend-but-don't break. Cover a tight end, bump-and-run a receiver, smash the ball carrier, or blitz the QB. It's the position that lets you throw a bunch of different looks at a savvy online opponent.

arsamore @ Jul 7th 2006 1:41PM

This sounds like a fantastic idea. I am not an avid football fan, nor do I play any football videogames. Having said that, I believe this concept would fit extremely well into a game with smaller quantity of players on the playing field, I.E. hockey or basketball. Take it one step further now and the game could be played in a first person perspective. This would highlight the graphics engine (which in current games is pretty much only utilized in cut scenes), and allow for a much more interactive experience. Currently in a hockey game (my game of choice) first person perspectives would obviously not work because of the confusion caused by switching players. However if you had a team which was comprised of 5 players who were kept constant in a position (IE left defense despite line changes) this would allow for such a perspective as well increased strategy and team play. Furthermore, by allowing an FPS view, intricate details and nuances of the sport could be more accurately recreated (Such as stick handling, dekeing etc.). Now I don't believe this would be a suitable alternative in a one or two player game, but in a dedicated game mode were all players must have a 5 person team, with stats tracked and online seasons, This would make for one hell of a "next-gen" experience and I for one would be willing to purchase an updated game instead of waiting every three years to buy one just for the updated rosters. (I am positive all my friends would as well... EA or Sega get on it!)

that guy @ Jul 7th 2006 1:41PM

Sorry to be 'that guy' (heh heh), but it's Shaun Alexander, not Shawn.

I would love to see this, but I agree that I highly, highly doubt EA would do something like this.

I'm actually playing through Head Coach right now, as is a co-worker. He still can't wrap his head around the fact that you really don't actually 'play' the game, per se. It's definitely not for everyone, but there is definitely an audience out there for this kind of stuff.

Indiana Jones @ Jul 7th 2006 1:43PM

I would love to see a console version of UBO (www.ultimatebaseballonline.com) where each human player plays at their own position, you may go a whole game without getting the ball in the outfield but you still enjoy it. Imagine an NFL version of that, or full on 9v9 next gen baseball with tracked stats online like UBO.

Mike @ Jul 7th 2006 1:43PM

O"f course this will never happen, because people will keep buying the same game for 3 or 4 years in a row, and EA expects the money. Where would they be without that huge cash-in every year?"

You and everyone like you are such shmucks. I hate this argument. The games change. I understand they may not be earth shattering, but they change. They run smoother, add more realistic options (except for Madden 360!) and become more enjoyable to play. Why do you care what people buy or where EA gets their money? If that's what you want to do, than fine, play an out of date game for the next 3-4 years. Better yet, go out and buy a used Genesis and Joe Montana's Sports Talk Football. It can't be all that different, right?

B @ Jul 7th 2006 1:45PM

I'm sorry, but this is the WORST way to learn about football. I love football video games, but newly-converted football fans (aka- I bought Madden '03 and became a Rams fan) are the most obnoxious people to watch actual football with.

Learn by watching the games.

Also, just to be a dick:

-it's 11 on 11, not 10 on 10
-LB is probably the most fun you can have on defense
-This team concept is actually a pretty damn good idea. Thanks Shawn Alexander, shame being the cover boy means you'll get injured or have a mediocre season this year.

Eggfou @ Jul 7th 2006 1:53PM

I admit I haven't played Madden since the Genesis days, but I am surprised they don't already have team play. Sega was doing this back with NFL 2K1. One of the best times I ever had online was playing NFL 2K1 online with 3 of my friends against 4 other guys online, using the Dreamcast's built in modem. We each quickly picked positions to play, and could switch positions quickly if needed. We really sucked and got our collective butts handed to us, but I don't think I have ever had so much fun losing. The system was pretty basic, but had lots of potential. Online teams is really needed to help add some freshness to the series. Damn, I miss my NFL 2K?

Scooby Doo @ Jul 7th 2006 2:03PM

You know, it's kind of funny to read the responses, especially about the 'active' positions, considering the topic.

I personally play league football every season and am an avid fan of the sport. I know the difference between a 3-4 defense versus a 4-3, what is meant by cloud coverage versus sky, and what type of passing routes to call to beat them.

It should be noted that while playing Center in the current version of Madden 2006 IS boring, it's only because of how the game is designed. As a member of the O-line, there are a TON of things you have to think about and do with the guy(s) you are up against on the other side. You could build quite a complex system for taking a single position and creating a whole paper, scissors, rock situation to sucessfully block your opponent.

Throw in having to remember audibles, the fact the the center is usually considered the 'Captain' of the O-line, trying to remember if you're supposed to pull, guard, or block my and the position can become a lot more interesting than what you get in the video game.

I played a ton of football games in my time and I've honestly learned an awful lot from the simulation-heavy ones. I think the article's point is valid. We could learn something from a game like this, but you always have to balance fun, with real-life because some times, real-life isn't what we'd call fun.

PeteL @ Jul 7th 2006 2:09PM

You can play NHL Rivals on xbox as a team game. Up to 6 xbox's can connect on live for 3 on 3. If you have guests playing you can get up to 5 on 5. We had some good times with that game.
NBA 2K5 also supported team play, but I think it was only between 2 xbox's using guest accounts.
I'd like to see more sports games support this feature.

nojok3 @ Jul 7th 2006 2:21PM

EA isn't smart enough to do online leagues, how would they possibly be able to do this? 2k Sports has had online leagues for a while now.

Champ Burgundy @ Jul 7th 2006 2:57PM

I completely agree with #22. How many of you guys actually played organized football?

I played 6 years of football on the offensive line and loved it. It would be a blast to get to control the center again and call audibles, or make sure that I get the nose guard or defensive tackle out of the way so the guard can pull around me and seal off the end. To be honest, this is something that really annoys me with football games now. It's too hard to read the plays, because they always screw up the blocking with the linemen. I have a really hard time running plays off-tackle, because they cannot seal that end. It always seems to me that the running plays become a mess of players on the line. You have to wait to see a hole open, but it never opens how it's planned on the diagram.

However, it would never work because it would be way too complicated for two reasons. The first is that you would have to practice with your teams to make sure you have your timing down. It would take hours before you would feel competent enough to actually play a game. This would also lead to the second complication, which would be time. Who has enough time to actually get 11 people consistently to play another 11 guys?

It sounds nice, but I don't know how practical it would be.

Capta1n 0bv10us @ Jul 7th 2006 3:01PM

Take a look at NHL games. The team concept there is nothing new. Back in college, my friends and I would blast through NHL '97 with a full human lineup, excusing the goalie, courtesy of the PS2 multitap. Hockey and/or Basketball [not my personal favorite] are probably the best sports for this kind of play, due to the relative size and speed of the game.

vidGuy @ Jul 7th 2006 3:51PM

@Champ,

I played football for 6 years (RB, MLB) and I still stick by my opinion.

The real matter is that video games don't take into consideration a lot of things that happen in real life. As a QB, you wouldn't be able to snap the ball and throw a 30 yard pass on every play; you'd have to work through a progression, pump fake, etc. Games are getting better AI-wise, but you can still do bomb after bomb in some.

As a RB and an LB, I always credited my line because, without them, my job would have been a lot tougher. But, as it stands now, capturing what it means to be a linemen is a tough, near impossible task for video games. WR is a glam position, but try playing it in Madden when you aren't getting the ball. It's bad enough. Try working on the linemen drills in training camp mode... even if they improved on the controls and depth, would you really want to do it for more than five minutes?

While I agree that the O-lines in video games don't block like they should, there is a certain amount of accuracy to the play ran not matching up with the play as drawn. I rarely ran through a hole like it was drawn up; I often had to adjust a few feet one way or another, or take it outside if blocking allowed.

I think if you used 4 - 6 people, rotated positions, and delegated play calling duties, this type of online game would be pretty fun.

Scooby Doo @ Jul 7th 2006 3:52PM

Hear, hear Champ! I completely agree. I don't think I've played a single football video game that ever felt like they had the running game down right. Either you gain way too many or way too few yards per carry.

And the blocking? My off tackles usually turn into sweeps because some idiot lineman completely missed his assignment. I try to run on the inside only to find my center didn't get any penetration and it turns into an outside play. It's just atrocious and the plays rarely unfold the way they are scripted, if ever.

Maybe we're just not at the technological level for that kind of AI, but I'll take my Saturday league games over Madden any day. (But I'll admit, I think I've bought every version of Madden that's come out.)

Todd H. @ Jul 7th 2006 4:19PM

I can't wait until the new Madden comes out. It will be intersting to play the new mode where you can play 1 position throughout and entire career...Although, I still prefer NCAA Football...

obo @ Jul 7th 2006 4:34PM

LFM Cards raid vs. Hawks, need Block-specced OLs, PST

obo @ Jul 7th 2006 4:36PM

"Who has enough time to actually get 11 people consistently to play another 11 guys?"

You obviously don't play WoW.

Champ Burgundy @ Jul 7th 2006 4:58PM

@ vidGuy

You're right that the mechanics still would need to be fine-tuned. It would be very difficult to simulate the action of a lineman, but (and don't take this as being rude) I think you're being a little selfish when you mention that it wouldn't be fun, which is what I was arguing. Too many times we forget that it can be fun to be a role-player, which is what linemen are. If we don't do our job correctly, you can't do yours. We understand that, which is why we don't expect a ton of glory. I think there would be a ton of former linemen who would love the chance to try it again, even if it is a video game.

For example, when I would play Tecmo Bowl III, I never made myself the running back or QB. I was always the center. Could I control myself? No, but I have always felt awkward about making myself the star QB or RB, because I didn't play it. It's not like I'm trying to live some dream that I never achieved when I play a football game. I just want to have some fun for a bit.

By the way, as a running back you should know that you're not involved in every play as well with regards to touching the ball, but you still play a role blocking (or did you never block? -- just kidding) or selling a fake.

I still feel that it would be way too complicated to achieve, but I think it's the possibility that it could be fun that makes it worth looking at for a game designer. Besides, if we always talked ourselves out of trying something new because it might not seem fun, games would become stagnant. In my opinion, a truly good game developer can make almost anything fun.

@ obo - No, I don't play WoW, but I still laughed at your comment, because it reminded me of Parker Posey in "Best in Show." "You obviously don’t know my dog."

vidGuy @ Jul 7th 2006 5:20PM

Good post, Champ, and I truly see your point. If they could make it engaging, they should do it. After all, players wouldn't be FORCED to play that position if they didn't want to. But it would give people who wanted to try it the option to do so. And for a game that would stress realism, it would be a great addition.

As a player, I understand the importance of the line, and personally celebrate their achievements and effort. But because it's not a glam job in real life, it may be hard to translate it into video games, which tend to focus only on the glam aspects of the most glam areas. As I said, a QB can't always have a 400 yard passing day, but in the games it's do-able.

You know, adding human-controlled linemen (who knew how to block) would make the game a whole lot more enjoyable specifically for the lack of blocking AI.

obo @ Jul 7th 2006 11:41PM

Champ - I obviously don't know your dog, but I'd probably want him as a wide reciever on my football team. ^o^

If you ever end up in Azeroth, try to sit in on a 40-on-40 Alterac Valley battleground. See how many people are guilded - if you're lucky, it's guild-on-guild. People are certainly taking the time to fill a football roster's worth of slots - including backups - and practice, train together, and compete online.

What EA has to do is make it fun in a football environment - and deal with the lag of 22 players on one field while doing something as reliant on timing as running a West Coast offense.

Austin @ Jul 8th 2006 1:10PM

Good idea. I was just thinking about something like that last week. I told my friends that it would be cool if you could play online and have a special clan setup where you have people who have their own individual roles on the team. You could have one guy be the designated coach of the team and you could make up a team name and logo that everyone on the team agrees on and you could have games every weekend. Also, your team would get ranked, and as your team's ranking went up, you'd move to better leagues of online play where there are more skilled people and teams. Then, there would be one league that has the NFL teams in it and it would play out just like the NFL's regular season and whoever would win could get benefits and maybe a cash prize. You could trade players online also with each kids consent. This idea could also work well in a baseball game.