Beyond the Sideline Football go beyond SOM FB and DKS FB!

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by thecrunchtackle

Disagree with this as the Football Manager series do not have good graphics at all and sell very well worldwide. They do have a very basic 3D match engine but it is nothing spectacular. For me it's about playability and not graphics. If I want graphics then I will play a console.

Crunch, you didn't post any sales figures or comparisons, so I don't know if you are correct. What is your evidence?

Even if what you say is true (and I don't believe that it is), That does not prove that the game would not sell even better with a better graphics package.

I'll give you an example: In the genre of space strategy games there were two very similar games (in quality) called Stars! and Galactic Civilizations. Both got rave reviews. Stars! had a minimal graphics package, and Galactic Civilizations had a very good one. So how did this difference in graphics packages play out? Stars! didn't even make enough money to publish a sequel, while Galactic Civilizations published 2 or 3 sequels, became one of the finest computer games ever published, and is currently designing a completely new version for 2014.

The results are simply overwhelming. Good graphics improve sales, and does not detract from any other aspects of a game's design. And also, keep in mind, I have never advocated that this graphics package be included in version #1. All I said was that when it is included, it will help to improve sales.

No one has mentioned this but improved sales add to the stability of the franchise. The more money a game makes, the more resources (and people) the company can put into the game to make it even better - in all aspects. Isn't that what all of us want?

I'll even give you another example: The Sims has a wonderful graphics package and they have worldwide sales all over the world. They have sold copies in the hundreds of millions! Their core people are all millionaires! If they had been satisfied with little dots running around a screen, they probably wouldn't be about to release their 4th version this year. Their franchise may be the most successful computer game in history. What other game has even come close in sales? Fllight Simulator was good, but only because they improved their graphics. BTS should do this when the time is right.

And Crunch, you continue to make the same erroneous mistake: A game doesn't need to be a console game to have good graphics. What I have been advocating all along is for BTS to be a simulation game with good graphics. I don't even play console games, and don't want to - but I appreciate good graphics in any computer SIMULATION game.

[gord]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

Crunch, you didn't post any sales figures or comparisons, so I don't know if you are correct. What is your evidence?

Even if what you say is true (and I don't believe that it is), That does not prove that the game would not sell even better with a better graphics package.

Football Manager 13 sold 940,000 copies.

Football Manager 2013 best-selling game in the series • News • PC • Eurogamer.net

Why would you assume he's not telling the truth?

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by gord

Football Manager 13 sold 940,000 copies.

Football Manager 2013 best-selling game in the series • News • PC • Eurogamer.net

Why would you assume he's not telling the truth?

Thanx for the info Gord, I'll admit that the number is impressive. That said, It doesn't change what I have been saying all along, that any game with good graphics will sell better than it would with mediocre or poor graphics.

As for Crunch's comment, I never 'assumed' that he wasn't telling the truth. As I mentioned, I doubted his statement because he sighted no figures or examples. That is why I didn't believe it. It had nothing to do with my 'assuming' that he wasn't telling the truth. I never said that, and do not say that now.

Since that was the only point that you disagreed with, I will assume that you are in agreement with everything else that I said. Thank you for your agreement.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

Thanx for the info Gord, I'll admit that the number is impressive. That said, It doesn't change what I have been saying all along, that any game with good graphics will sell better than it would with mediocre or poor graphics.

While I agree with that statement in general I disagree in regard to FM.

FM is the best selling sports simulation (as opposed to EA type game, which aren't really simulations) in the world by a huge, huge margin and is generally considered to be one of the finest games and series ever produced.

I don't see how it's going to be likely to ever sell much more than it currently does. It's pretty well reached a saturation point for a game in its genre. Pretty much everyone that's going to play it does and a big boost in graphics is unlikely to change that imo. Its biggest boost in sales would simply be likely to come from soccer making further inroads on the US, which would add many more customers to its potential pool of buyers.

[ZMan]

I think imagination is still king when it comes to these text simulations. So I'm cool with dots, boxes, X's and O's, etc.

'Tis true that baseball is far easier to visualize from a plain text description (think about listening to a baseball game on the radio, vs. football). There are just a lot fewer moving parts to keep track of in your head.

I've seen a number of games that employ dots and boxes and simulations of movement on the gridiron / basketball court / hockey rink, etc. And the biggest detractor with a lot of these games, at least on the football side, is the speed of movement. It often either comes off ploddingly slow (anyone remember NES Play Action Football?) or feels herky-jerky in the kind of way that takes you out of the versimilitude.

But I think that if you could get those dots/boxes to move in something really closely approximating real time, imagination could do wonders to fill in the details. Because if it ran at that kind of speed, it really would allow you to envision a breakaway touchdown, or to see a huge tackle by a defender.

And if you had something that ran at real speed (perhaps with an option to have it run slower?), you'd then want to give users more visual aids for determining what those heroic gladiator dots are doing.

I would enjoy having the option for visible but semi-transparent tracking lines (perhaps white lines for the offense, yellow lines for the defense) showing the movement of every player during the play (perhaps you could have check-down options for the screen to track All 22, All But Linemen, Skill Players Only, etc). If you had tracking lines, you might cut down somewhat on the "floating ghosts" effect that you get when you just have a bunch of dots/boxes moving at once.

And if you had tracking lines, think of how much that would benefit watching replays within the game. It could yield major strategic benefits, too, that would really enhance gameplay. Like the coordinators perched above the field, you could watch a replay and see at a glance how well covered your team's receivers were, which linemen are being double-teamed, where the pressure against the QB is coming from. And you could adjust your gameplan accordingly.

Throw in color coding for the player with ball possession, and I'd be more than happy with a system like this.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

I'll give you an example: In the genre of space strategy games there were two very similar games (in quality) called Stars! and Galactic Civilizations. Both got rave reviews. Stars! had a minimal graphics package, and Galactic Civilizations had a very good one. So how did this difference in graphics packages play out? Stars! didn't even make enough money to publish a sequel, while Galactic Civilizations published 2 or 3 sequels, became one of the finest computer games ever published, and is currently designing a completely new version for 2014.

Correlation is not causation. The mere fact that one outsold the other is not proof that it did so on the basis of graphics alone. You'd have to adjust for a myriad of other factors.

As with OOTP, I'd approach this game from the point of view of a simmer, so any detailed field-level graphics would be wasted effort. I want to assemble the team, manage the finances, perhaps set up the play strategies, and then sim out the week.

[IanC]

Spot on. Text based sims have always been about getting the playability right before anything else. Get the main priciples of the sport down first and get them working. Thats the secret of making a great simulation. They do not have to have fancy graphics of any sort to sell well at all. If that was the case then the examples put forward by Ambermonk would of made Maximum football a big selling simulation.

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by IanC

Spot on. Text based sims have always been about getting the playability right before anything else.

OK, I'll say it one more time. You talk about getting the playability right, and I AGREE, I HAVE ALWAYS AGREED, and I WILL ALWAYS AGREE!!! But I note that you talked about getting the playability right before anything else. What you didn't say was to get it right instead of anything else. I am advocating playability and graphic quality both.

Originally Posted by IanC

They do not have to have fancy graphics of any sort to sell well at all. If that was the case then the examples put forward by Ambermonk would of made Maximum football a big selling simulation.

I disagree with you. Maximum football had a wonderful graphic package (and it was fast). Their problem was that they didn't have anyone there who could build a game around it. Graphics without a game is even worse than a game without graphics. What I have advocated all along was to have both.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Correlation is not causation. The mere fact that one outsold the other is not proof that it did so on the basis of graphics alone. You'd have to adjust for a myriad of other factors.

As with OOTP, I'd approach this game from the point of view of a simmer, so any detailed field-level graphics would be wasted effort. I want to assemble the team, manage the finances, perhaps set up the play strategies, and then sim out the week.

False. The single most important factor in creating a money making text sim is providing consumers with the ability to set hot dog prices. Game. Set. Match.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

False. The single most important factor in creating a money making text sim is providing consumers with the ability to set hot dog prices. Game. Set. Match.

And finding a place to put a Beer Tent!

[Royy13]

Originally Posted by gysgtam

I remember Super Bowl Sunday 1983 Raiders Marcus Allen off-tackle....works everytime!!! haha

Ah yes, the old Commodore 64. That was my first football sim. Micro league baseball for the C64 was my first baseball sim. Those games began an addiction.

[T-rade]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

False. The single most important factor in creating a money making text sim is providing consumers with the ability to set hot dog prices. Game. Set. Match.

This was an option in premier manager 99 actually

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by ZMan

I think imagination is still king when it comes to these text simulations. So I'm cool with dots, boxes, X's and O's, etc.

Originally Posted by IanC

Spot on. Text based sims have always been about getting the playability right before anything else. Get the main priciples of the sport down first and get them working. Thats the secret of making a great simulation. They do not have to have fancy graphics of any sort to sell well at all.

I think it should be recognized that, at least for version 1, BTS will largely be a 2D simulation game - not a text-based game.

Francis has stated...

The main thing is the 2D engine - (e.g. all those dots running around - there's a video in another thread I think of it a few years ago).
There will also be the playhistory in text form, e.g: something like:

(13:37) M.Schaub pass O.Daniels for 8 yards (N.Clements).
(13:21) D.Jones punts 41 yards to CIN 38, Center-J.Weeks. A.Jones to CIN 38 for no gain (22-A.Ball)

However as far as text like:
"Pennington hands off to Martin, Martin jukes to the right" etc. I don't think that will be in V1, and I'll have to think hard about how it would work in the long run

So, to get everyone on the same page, BTS will not be a 'text simulation' or 'text-based simulation,' but rather a 2D-based simulation - at least for the initial release. After that, people should have ample time to lobby for how the game evolves in future versions.

What Francis' comments make clear is that, like it or not, BTS will primarily be a visual-based simulation - a 2d simulation, rather than a text simulation. I personally am fine with this, but I hope that the people in the text-based community are not too disappointed.

[USF]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

I have a modest proposal that, if possible, would greatly improve graphics in the football game. There was a company called 'Maximum Football' that had a great graphics package, but they were hard-pressed to put a game around it, and it never really went anywhere.

If BTS could purchase the rights to Maximum Football's graphics package, they could put a game around it and have the best of both worlds. Sort of what OOTP did in acquiring the face graphics for their baseball game.

Here's an example of what the Maximum Football graphics looked like...

Poor #82 missing a foot

[kghst18]

StickWillet is right; graphics are needed to capture more consumers to the pc football market. Graphic based games use stats and season options so why do sim based games not use graphics? For example, I have OOTP15 and like it but would like it more with better graphics. I also have a PS4 and enjoy MLB 15. I would never expect OOTP to produce graphics anything like MLB 15 as it is more of a sim than a graphics based game but I also would never expect MLB 15 to have stats as realistic as OOTP but the point is MLB 15 HAS STATS. What would MLB 15 sales be if they only produced a game that was graphically stunning but only offered single player games with no stats for a season or a career? My guess is that their sales would suffer tremendously.

Eventually there will be a football sim that will use graphics to show the “fruits of the player’s labor” (that freshly designed play put into action, the #1 draft pick in action, the perfect gamplan, etc… all coming to life to add a little more realism to the player’s football sim). The company that adds the graphics will get almost all of the consumers that like the idea of a true simulation but are turned off by test based games. I believe a lot of consumers that prefer stats over graphics have moved over to the graphics games exclusively (Madden, MLB, etc.) because the stat games provide no acceptable graphics whatsoever. I also believe the company that adds the graphics to the sim game will get the majority of consumers that play the various text based games to at least purchase their game to try it out.

NOTE: I do not believe the graphics have to be anything like Madden or MLB 15 to be accepted by the majority of the consumer market, especially when the game is marketed for the stats (vs graphic based games) and the graphics only against other sim based games (i.e. We have graphics and the competition does not.) The Matrix Games Football graphic model or similar model would be fine to differentiate from other sim based games that only provide text. (no need to begin with high cost NFL and or NFLPA TM issues).

As a former owner of Super Bowl Sunday and Fourth and Inches (C64) and current owner Microleague Football 2 (DOS Rom emulator), and Front Page Sports Football Pro 98 (from Win 95 to current on Win 7), I can say that I still play FPS98 because it offers the five things I want in a football game: (i) the ability to customize everything from the league, league size and teams from the team name to team colors; (ii) good stats (nothing compared to today’s sims but good nevertheless); (iii) the ability to manage a league over multiple seasons (the program keeps some stats such a past champions) but many team and individual stats are kept and can be printed to .pdf or notebook files and kept by the commissioner. It also does a good job of retiring players and conducting a 3 round draft based on order of finish and then a supplemental draft to make sure each team has 53 players (so if Team A has 5 players retire, it can get 3 in the draft and 2 in the supplemental draft.) These concepts and abilities were revolutionary in 1998; (iv) graphics (again not very good but I like to see my plays and players perform); and (v) sound (horrible for this game. Very repetitive and clunky but I would not turn the sound off). Sound is needed to watch the graphics for the football game. This was one of the major flaws in the Matrix Football Game presentation.

I have waited almost 20 years for the successor of FPS98 and it seems like I will have to wait a little longer. The first developer who realizes that there is untapped potential in the gaming consumer market for a football based sim that has graphics and sound will reap the benefits. Not every Madden purchaser is a graphics guy but some (myself included) need some form of graphics to keep them happy.

[Enforcer]

Hell instead of graphics.. I will takes x's and o's if they could include an online head 2 head career multiplayer.. many ppl work love that.

many ppl would love accuracy and a h2h multiplayer over that madden crap they dishup!