Sega Sports' Secret - First-Person Football

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to IGN Xbox's coverage of the newly revealed 'secret mode' in Sega's ESPN NFL Football for PS2 and Xbox - a full first-person mode. According to the article, "In first-person mode, you take the snap as the quarterback.. once the ball is thrown, you can either watch the ball sail toward your wideout from the QB's perspective, or quickly switch to control the receiver and attempt to catch the ball while looking through the point of view from players like Moss and T.O." There are also 'Bullet Time'-styled slow motion effects for receivers, as well as a threat meter that shows how close would-be tacklers are to your position. So, not content with just a name change from NFL 2K4, looks like Sega's football franchise is going all-out with new features to overwhelm EA's Madden series after last year's disappointing performance.

Comments

Bullet Time

[suineg]

I think I might die a happy man if some games never had "bullet time". This is getting old people come up with something new. Pretty soon kids are going to be hanging around in circles talking about the new Tiger Woods golf game and they are going to say "This one will be so much better you can go 'bullet time' and ease the ball into the hole." Why?

The march of progress

[lightspawn]

We need something like this every year, don't we?

2000 - Lens flare
2001 - Motion blur
2002 - Cel shading
2003 - bullet time
2004 - ?

Re:The march of progress

[baywulf]

2003 - bullet time
2004 - ?
2005 - profit!

Re:The march of progress

[nathanh]

We need something like this every year, don't we?

2000 - Lens flare
2001 - Motion blur
2002 - Cel shading
2003 - bullet time
2004 - ?

Well, lens flare was in at least NFS:HS which was... 1999? and bullet time was in Max Payne from... 2001? But yeah, your point is still valid. There certainly appears to be trends and fads within the gaming industry.

Re:The march of progress

[Imperator]

Bullet time was done first and best in 2001 by Max Payne.

Re:The march of progress

[PainKilleR-CE]

...and I went through the rest of the game without using it once I realized it gained no advantage the first time I used it (OTOH, Enter the Matrix makes it worthwhile, but isn't really worth spending the same 8 hours (it took me to beat Max Payne) playing).

GTA:VC has both Motion Blur and Lens Flare, and both irritate me to no end. Maybe some day they'll learn that these things are mostly caused by deficincies in camera technology and stop wasting graphics chip cycles on them, or not.

Bullet Time in a football game? OK, maybe I can understand that, but wouldn't you call it something different?

Re:The march of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you were playing as the Cowboys!

a href="rimshot.mid"

Re:The march of progress

[0x0d0a]

I'm impressed. You *did* beat *all* the modes, including the ones that you unlock once you beat the game, all without bullet time?

Re:The march of progress

[PainKilleR-CE]

Bullet time in Max Payne allowed the computer opponents to take more time to aim at you just as well as it allowed you to aim at them, which is why I chose not to use it.

As for beating 'all the modes', as I said, I played the game for ~8 hours, which implied that I played through it once. After that, regardless of what they put in the game to make you play it again, it wasn't worth it. I'm glad I only payed $20 for it, and I don't see why some people were obsessive enough about the game to play it any longer than that.

Re:The march of progress

[0x0d0a]

Bullet time in Max Payne allowed the computer opponents to take more time to aim at you just as well as it allowed you to aim at them, which is why I chose not to use it.

Wait, you're claiming that it makes them more accurate? The AI doesn't need time to calculate aim...or do you mean that it actually deliberately reduces the inserted error?

Re:The march of progress

[PainKilleR-CE]

It's simply a statement that the game doesn't give any advantage to the player by utilizing bullet time, assuming that the player can aim in real time. Bullet time in Max Payne slows down everything, so the only advantage a player gets is more time to aim, but the player has no more time to get away from opponents, because the player can't move any faster or adjust based on stimulus that were not already there.

On the other hand, if the player has trouble keeping up with the positions of everything in the game and with aiming quickly and accurately, then the bullet time will help them.

Hence the comparison to Enter the Matrix, where everything but the player is slowed down, so the player can do more in the same time period than the computer opponents can.

Re:The march of progress

[Lucia_Inverse]

im playing jetgrind radio for the dreamcast as we type this that game invented cel shading and did it right. it came out in 2000 your time line is WAY off

First Person Issues

[Arkaein]

I'm not too sure how well a first-person perspective will work in a football game. There are a few fundamental differences between first-person on a monitor and a fully immersive virtual reality or real life situation:

• In real life you have two directions you control: your body and your head. While you may be running in a straight line in real life, it is trivial to turn your head and shift your eyes to make a quick assessment of the world around you. This would be very difficult in a football game, even with a dual analog controller. Things just happen too fast (probably why the bullet time feature is necessary, ugh).
• You lack peripheral vision. Besides no being able to shift viewpoints easily, its like having tunnel vision, being restricted to typically 60 to 90 degrees field-of-vision.
• When I play defense in Madden, I usually start as a defensive back to give me the greatest range and attack the ball carrier rather than the QB. However I almost always switch to a closer player when the play moves towards a different area. It's hard enough to tell which player I'm getting control of with an overhead view; I've completely blown plays because I took a player beneath the ball carrier and moved him down (away from the play) instead of up, because I thought I would get control of a different player. This problem must be 10 time worse in first-person, where I can't even see most of my teammates at any one time.

In short, I think this looks like a very cool demo feature, and might be great if I had 10 real human teammates to play with, so I wouldn't worry about switching players. However, that doesn't seem to be the goal, and I bet this mode will not be used much in practice. I've experimented with most every standard camera view possible, and have concluded that while close-up views look cool, it's just not practical if you can't see every player. This may not be quite as realistic, but as indicated above first-person video games have their own realism issues, and are harder to play to boot.

Re:First Person Issues

[Babbster]

When I play defense in Madden, I usually start as a defensive back to give me the greatest range and attack the ball carrier rather than the QB. However I almost always switch to a closer player..."

Things work the same way in normal NFL 2kx (now ESPN) but better [IMO]. I would note, though that real players on a football field don't get to switch between bodies on a play so that they can be involved, and if a football fan were interested in such a first-person mode it would be because they would want to immerse themselves even more in the game, seeing what the players see.

It's worth noting (in response to some of your other points) that wearing a football helmet restricts one's peripheral vision pretty severely in any case, so not having that in the game wouldn't be too far off from reality. Also, as a wide receiver (in the example given) you're not going to turn your head to look for the ball until you have to do so - a fundamental at which any good wide receiver will be proficient.

The first-person view isn't going to replace third-person for most video game football players (even in the Sega game where it's only being offered as an option) anytime soon, but I think it's an interesting addition to the genre and could prove to be a lot of fun. In fact, it should be even more fun since most of the people who enjoy football don't imagine themselves as football coaches, making a game plan to win the big game - most imagine themselves as an athlete, making the big play to win the big game.

PS-
Why does every new feature like this in any game have to be picked apart before even playing the game, anyway? I'm not necessarily directing this at any one person as this goes on amongst gamers all the time. There's a bizarre traditionalist streak that seems to go through a lot of gamers and it seems very out of place considering the constantly advancing technical nature of the hobby...

Re:First Person Issues

[johndoejersey]

I largely agree with these comments, on the football/soccer/hockey field, you have nothing around you other than the field and your team mates and opponents.

In a video game you have all your surroundings, and you have to focus on the poor looking first person perspective.

Re:First Person Issues

[CrazyWingman]

In short, I think this looks like a very cool demo feature, and might be great if I had 10 real human teammates to play with, so I wouldn't worry about switching players. However, that doesn't seem to be the goal

Are you sure they're not getting ready to throw that feature into an Xbox Live version? 22-person gaming is pretty much common-place in PC on-line gaming, maybe they're moving toward the same on consoles.
Note: Try not to flame me too hard - I haven't been a console gamer since the NES (outside of a couple of games for a few minutes here and there), so I'm a bit out of the loop.

Re:First Person Issues

[Z0mb1eman]

Actually I've wanted to see this in a sports game (preferrably one of the FIFA games rather than an american football game) for at least 5 years now. The technology's been there forever, I'm disappointed that no one's attempted it yet.

There are many difficulties the developer would have to overcome, definitely. Guess what, that's why games cost so much to make. It is entirely possible - not easy, but possible - to make a good 1st person sports game, but it requires some original thinking. If you take one of the standard camera-above-the-field games and simply replace the camera with a first-person view, then obviously you won't have a good game. If you rethink the entire game - frankly, all the FIFA, Madden, NHL games are fundamentally built on the same principles, just different sport - then you can come up with something good.

There are tons of features I can think of to make even a single-player first person sports game work. First of all, switching players in first person would be WAY more confusing; build the game so that you don't have to (aren't allowed?) and can enjoy the game playing as only one player - potential for a true career mode and even a storyline. Naturally, this means that you need to have REALLY good team AI. You need to add cues that exist in real life but you don't need in a 3-rd person view: audio queues of your teammates shouting as they pass, so you know when they're passing to you; a trail behind the ball, so you can estimate its speed and direction better - much harder to do without depth perception, so you need the aid; an estimate of where the ball's gonna land on the field (a glowing circle on the field would do); etc. etc. This is me thinking about the problem for 10 minutes; I'm sure a team of developers planning for a month or two can do better.

You might argue that it wouldn't be as realistic; I think it wouldn't be VISUALLY as realistic, but I think it could be more immersive - and really, more realistic overall - than 3rd person games. And there are different challenges for every sport - football would be doable, I think - the main problem I can think of with soccer is being able to see the ball as you dribble - hockey would be much harder - but I really would say there is a LOT of potential. There's also potential for the development team to screw up every single chance they have to make it work; there's no way of knowing until the finished product.

And..... of course.... I haven't even touched multiplayer, where the real fun would be :)

Re:First Person Issues

[Arkaein]

22 person live games would be cool, but I'm not sure how well they'd work out. Football requires a lot of coordination, discipline and timing between its players. This is usually only achieved with a lot of practice and experience.

I think that, except for really hard core expert teams, much in the way of play calling would end up going out the window, as routes that require precision would not be run reliably. On defense it would be easy to blow coverage, and hard to coordinate things like line shifts or coverage audibles to adapt to the offensive formation. Maybe I'm wrong, but it all seems very complicated to execute.

Re:First Person Issues

[CrazyWingman]

True, but I know I've played a number of pick-up touch football games with somewhat random people. They have usually seemed to work pretty well. So, while you probably wouldn't have a great precision team all the time, it may still be fun.

Personally, I think one of the big things that would be missing from the multi-player on-line sports arena is voice. I know voice over IP continues to improve, but I don't think it's yet able to handle something like that, and I would have to say that yelling "I'm open" or "pass play" or "fake" or whatever is extremely helpful.

I also don't think you'd ever be able to map all of the useful sayings to "remote taunts" or whatever they're calling them these days (that's what they used to be in Terminal Velocity and Duke 3D) - especially not when you're limited by the buttons on a console controller.

Re:First Person Issues

[mckwant]

I read something about this a while back, and the producer/developer/whatever said that it would be really tough, if only because EVERYBODY would want to play the RB or QB. How long would anybody stick with it if they were playing, say, offensive tackle, and KNEW they would never get the ball?

Be honest...

Hopefully hype

[AvantLegion]

As someone that has enjoyed the NFL2K series (which has routinely been a better game than Madden, but lots of people just love the fat guy on the box), I'm wary of these moves.

At the same time, it may be pure hype. Maybe you can go into a first person mode, but if you choose not to, everything is just like the NFL2K games of the past few years. That would be a good idea. If someone wants to use the gimmick, they can. Hey, maybe they can even pull it off nicely. If they don't want to use it, they can avoid it.

That's how I imagine the implementation. It would be a grave mistake to do otherwise.

Re:Hopefully hype

[Arkaein]

I'm curious (especially as a later thread says something similar about NFL2K). I've never played any of the NFL2K series. In what ways would you say it's significantly better than Madden?

I'm genuinely curious, Madden seems very tightly put together to me. The AI seems quite realistic, the CPU knows how to manage the clock and the game situation quite well, the physics seem quite well developed, DBs will actually make interceptions regularly if you throw right to them (unlike many older football games), running works well and realistically both inside and outside the tackles, and the custom playbook feature gave me the one thing I felt was lacking in Madden 2002.

Most of my problems with it are pretty small. It's hard to defend passes whil controlling a DB, receivers don't make extra effort to keep feet in bounds along the sidelines and don't catch the ball in stride as often as they should. Things like that.

Are these features better in NFL2K, or is it just generally more refined and well tuned?

Re:Hopefully hype

[PainKilleR-CE]

I don't know about better/worse whatever (and I wasn't the previous poster), but I do know that all 3 of the major NFL 2003 football games scored roughly the same in reviews, and I eventually chose MS' game (because it was $10 cheaper), which is obviously neither Madden nor NFL 2K3.

I'd say rent it to give it a look. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people just stick with the 1st series they found that really satisfied them (in other words, didn't annoy them). I'm not a really big football fan, so I won't say that NFL Fever is the best football game or anything like that, or try to make comparisons, just that the overall feeling I got from the reviews is that what seperates Madden from the other 2 is Madden, and not a deficiency in the other games or anything that Madden does better.

Re:Hopefully hype

[AvantLegion]

Madden is a more polished overall product, with lots of cool features. NFL2K is a better pure on-the-field game. NFL2K has a much more deeply developed running game. Madden is very pass-heavy (not like the joke that is NFL Fever, but still more than reality). NFL2K has the best running game on the market, especially between-the-tackles. NFL2K is generally more influenced by the player's actions than Madden. Madden relies a bit less on player intervention. NFL2K requires a knowledge of football. A lot of Madden converts have floundered in online NFL2K play because they don't actually understand man-vs-zone, player matchups, and other dynamics of the game. (Not a blanket statement - some Madden players are very knowledgable and have played great ball in NFL2K - but the point is that the button mashers get by a lot easier in Madden than in NFL2K). I'm no Madden basher. Madden is a fine product, and I wish NFL2K had more of Madden's spit-and-polish throughout the entire package. But things like a better dynasty mode isn't as important to me as a better on-the-field game. I spend most of my playing time online anyway. And NFL2K isn't perfect on the field either. But I find it to generally be a step above in the gameplay department.

Re:Hopefully hype

[Arkaein]

The differences sound intersting. I was still curious, so I looked at some review sites, and there were a few surprises. One of the sites had some opposite views from you, saying that NFL2K3 was slightly more arcady and emphasized the pass more, while having a superior franchise style mode. Other sites had still different views.

Also I wonder if the people who don't translate Madden skills to NFL2K3 successfully play on the tougher modes very much. I play on All Madden currently, and against the CPU it seems that very good discipline and understanding of fundamental schemes is required for success.

I'm guessing that this just means that the differences between the games are quite subtle. I'd really like to try NFL2K3 (or 2K4 when it comes out), but apparently it is not available on Gamecube. Guess I'll just stick to Madden.

Re:Hopefully hype

[AvantLegion]

NFL2K3 is available on GameCube. NFL2K4, however, will not be. If you're into sports gaming, you're on the wrong console. :) (I love my GameCube, but it is the worst out of the three as a sports gaming console).

I can't speak as to what the reviewers say, but as someone that was on the Top 40 board (out of thousands) for NFL2K3 on Xbox Live before I stopped playing, I'd say my opinion is fairly well informed. I played against some of Xbox Live's very top players. Many of them played with a heavy emphasis on the run that smashed lesser men's defenses and broke their spirits. I'd argue pretty strongly against the notion of NFL2K3 emphasizing pass more. It took me (and many others) a long time to be able to pass effectively at all.

done that ... sort of

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1986 Activision came out with a first-person football game for the Commodore 64 called GFL Championship Football. It suffered from the major flaws people have commented on here, namely that you could't see the whole field at once and had no peripheral vision, so you would just dart about hoping that there was always an open lane in front of you...

1st person (European) Football

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an online soccer mod for Half-Life which is played first person (although 3rd person is optional).
The game is actually very enjoyable, although the ball will get away from you a lot until you have some practice.

http://planethalf-life.com/ios/

Not many servers, but always a game to play.
The ball physics are better than you'd expect from the Half Life engine, and it's currently the only sports game I play.

NFL 2k3 a superior product to EA

[MBraynard]

Nearly every publication that lined up the various football franchise games found that once Visual Concepts got involved (2k3) that the Sega product was superior to the EA. But EA has been in this game since ... 1996 and has a much much bigger following.

So give sega a few years to catch up - and continue to outplay Madden and you will see those figures improve. I think that this year they are going to be much much closer. Especailly with ESPN hyping their game full time.

Also, EA's refusal to go XBL will also help 2k3.

Re:NFL 2k3 a superior product to EA

[Mike Hawk]

Close, Madden has appeared on PC as early as 1989.

But then, Sega has been in the game since at least 1990 with Joe Montana Football.

I've actually been playing Sega Sports longer than EA now that I think about it. Sega is generally superior in my opinion, except for hockey and soccer, though Sega Soccer Slam is a great arcade style game.

I loved in the early Dreamcast commercials when they would have a digital Jim McMahon go off about the defense getting beat by the same stupid play again and again. Definitely the halfback pass in Joe Montana 2: Sports Talk Football.

Re:NFL 2k3 a superior product to EA

[PainKilleR-CE]

I loved in the early Dreamcast commercials when they would have a digital Jim McMahon go off about the defense getting beat by the same stupid play again and again. Definitely the halfback pass in Joe Montana 2: Sports Talk Football.

or the quarterback sneak in one of the old NES football games (made by Namco I think), though I'm sure they were tying into their own faults as much as the faults of everyone else. I just remember abusing the hell out of that play when my step-brother and I played against each other, and he never did figure out that there was nothing he could do to prevent it, that the game was just hosed. It was one of the first times I could really beat him in a sports game, because he had a better idea of what the plays actually were (in real life), whereas I had a better idea of what the game would actually do when I chose the play.

Re:NFL 2k3 a superior product to EA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously, since last time I pointed out factual errors I got moddded down as a troll...

a) Visual Concepts have been behind Sega's football game since NFL2k for Dreamcast. Also, NFL 2k3 was last year's game.

b) EA has been making Madden a whole lot longer than 1996.

c) Shut the fuck up unless you know what you're talking about.

How come Sega got the ESPN license? ESPN is owned by ABC/Disney, Madden announces Monday Night Football, Monday Night Football is on ABC...

Re:NFL 2k3 a superior product to EA

[MBraynard]

Good thing you are posting anonymously. Please continue so that folks need not waist points on lowering what you say. A) I know NFL 2k3 was last years game. There are no reviews for 2k4 or madden 2004. b) Technically, yes, Madden was out before 1996, but Visual Concepts actually was producing it until then, and EA has had the same crew working since then. c) I know more than you do. d) EA has nothing to do with MNF. And Madden has been with EA since before he was with MNF. So one entity - Madden - went with EA, while another, ESPN, went with VC/Sega.

D'oh!

[bryhhh]

When I first read this I assumed it was talking about football, as in the version known by everyone outside of the U.S. - I'm still waiting for EA to realease a version of FIFA in first person perspective.

Re:Shitty American Football

[Mike Hawk]

Quality troll, but you are right: We will all be dead one day. I hate it when a troll is factually correct.

It's been done

[trixy_1086]

EA already had this feature in Madden 2000 for the PC, and i can testify that it was no fun at all.

First person can work... case in point...

[gmezero]

Quarterback Attack by Crystal Dynamics. This game failed in the market pretty much on two counts #1 came out at the peek of FMV hype, #2 was on the 3DO. But truth be told, when I played the game I was really pleased with the experience and wouldn't mind someone improving and expanding on the game with modern hardware. (note, I wrote that linked review but it includes screen shots if you want to see what the game looked like)