2004-07-05
Sports - on screen, and IRL
I've always had a love/hate relationship with sports. As a kid, I remember doing a lot of physical activity - riding my bike around for hours at a time, or running to and from school (partly because I could, and partly so I could be at home as long as possible to watch TV or use the computer - walking just took too long).
I also remember despising "gym", or Physical Education as it was more properly called. I did well enough at track & field type events, but team sports, such as basketball and especially volleyball I *hated*. Well, serving the volleyball was okay - in fact, I could often place the ball just about where I wanted, so I'd pick some clueless girl and keep serving it at her, and often get all 5 points we were allowed. But when I was in the place of that clueless girl, with the ball coming at me, I'd freeze. Volleyball is always "do or die" - either you bump the ball back up at least well enough for someone else to get it back over the net, or you failed and let down the whole team. Sure, in hindsight, that kind of failure doesn't mean much. But at the time, being a failure in front of my peers, that was awful. I especially remember the time I inexplicably caught the ball, instead of bumping it back up, and being laughed at by everyone (including the "whole internet" now). Argh!
Soccer and basketball were a bit better, because sometimes you could screw up and play would at least still go on. Volleyball draws attention to the screw-up like no other team sport I can think of.
Okay, I guess that's not true. When a hockey or soccer goalie lets the puck/ball by them, everyone notices. Baseball and cricket (two of my favourite sports) are full of individual performances that are potential show-stoppers.
Maybe part of the issue is the indecision that I often felt in volleyball. I was often thinking "Do I have to get it?" and "I hope someone else gets it" right until the ball was on top of me. In baseball and cricket I almost always know what I need to do - for example, when I'm fielding, it's pretty clear when the ball is coming at me, and there's no one else near by (which is almost always) that I'm supposed to catch the ball, and possibly throw it afterwards.
One (possibly) strange thing is that I excel at sports video games. I posted before about video hockey - for the last number of years I've won nearly every tourney I've gone in, and when I've lost, I've taken second place. I even enjoy video volleyball.
What are the similarities and differences of playing the real sport and playing it on screen? Well, the rules are more or less the same. The strategies can often carry over as well. The sense of urgency and needing quick reactions can be the same as well, but what you do with those reactions is generally really different.
Leaving aside the obvious physical differences of sitting in a chair and running for all you're worth across a field, I think the difference comes down to the simplicity of the possibilities in a video game, and the infinite number of outcomes that happen in real life. I think this can be split into the modelling of the virtual athlete and how you control him/her/them, and the modelling of their virtual environment.
If you're playing video game tennis (I guess I haven't played a really modern one) you generally push the joystick in the direction you want the player to go, then hit the joystick button to swing the racket. In real life, you might think you just "swing the racket" but really, there's an infinite combination of factors when you actually hit the ball - each part of your body can be at a different angle, the speed of the racket will vary, all sorts of thing. These things can be modelled into the game to a degree, but while a good tennis player has all sorts of subtle control over these factors, consciously or unconciously, how can you possibly deal with all this in a real time video game. At least, how can you deal with all these things and still make it fun?
Likewise, the environment isn't going to be modelled accurately. In real life, subtle wind changes, slightly bumpy ground, etc. are going to affect the travel of a ball, for example. Are these going to be put into the game? I suppose they could be, to some degree, but how far can you go and still retain the fun factor?
So sports video games make a series of approximations and compromises to arrive at the end product. The best of these become some of the best games in all genres, across all platforms.
And now, I'm going to go play some real-life cricket with some real people, and probably get really sore again. Fun!
I also remember despising "gym", or Physical Education as it was more properly called. I did well enough at track & field type events, but team sports, such as basketball and especially volleyball I *hated*. Well, serving the volleyball was okay - in fact, I could often place the ball just about where I wanted, so I'd pick some clueless girl and keep serving it at her, and often get all 5 points we were allowed. But when I was in the place of that clueless girl, with the ball coming at me, I'd freeze. Volleyball is always "do or die" - either you bump the ball back up at least well enough for someone else to get it back over the net, or you failed and let down the whole team. Sure, in hindsight, that kind of failure doesn't mean much. But at the time, being a failure in front of my peers, that was awful. I especially remember the time I inexplicably caught the ball, instead of bumping it back up, and being laughed at by everyone (including the "whole internet" now). Argh!
Soccer and basketball were a bit better, because sometimes you could screw up and play would at least still go on. Volleyball draws attention to the screw-up like no other team sport I can think of.
Okay, I guess that's not true. When a hockey or soccer goalie lets the puck/ball by them, everyone notices. Baseball and cricket (two of my favourite sports) are full of individual performances that are potential show-stoppers.
Maybe part of the issue is the indecision that I often felt in volleyball. I was often thinking "Do I have to get it?" and "I hope someone else gets it" right until the ball was on top of me. In baseball and cricket I almost always know what I need to do - for example, when I'm fielding, it's pretty clear when the ball is coming at me, and there's no one else near by (which is almost always) that I'm supposed to catch the ball, and possibly throw it afterwards.
One (possibly) strange thing is that I excel at sports video games. I posted before about video hockey - for the last number of years I've won nearly every tourney I've gone in, and when I've lost, I've taken second place. I even enjoy video volleyball.
What are the similarities and differences of playing the real sport and playing it on screen? Well, the rules are more or less the same. The strategies can often carry over as well. The sense of urgency and needing quick reactions can be the same as well, but what you do with those reactions is generally really different.
Leaving aside the obvious physical differences of sitting in a chair and running for all you're worth across a field, I think the difference comes down to the simplicity of the possibilities in a video game, and the infinite number of outcomes that happen in real life. I think this can be split into the modelling of the virtual athlete and how you control him/her/them, and the modelling of their virtual environment.
If you're playing video game tennis (I guess I haven't played a really modern one) you generally push the joystick in the direction you want the player to go, then hit the joystick button to swing the racket. In real life, you might think you just "swing the racket" but really, there's an infinite combination of factors when you actually hit the ball - each part of your body can be at a different angle, the speed of the racket will vary, all sorts of thing. These things can be modelled into the game to a degree, but while a good tennis player has all sorts of subtle control over these factors, consciously or unconciously, how can you possibly deal with all this in a real time video game. At least, how can you deal with all these things and still make it fun?
Likewise, the environment isn't going to be modelled accurately. In real life, subtle wind changes, slightly bumpy ground, etc. are going to affect the travel of a ball, for example. Are these going to be put into the game? I suppose they could be, to some degree, but how far can you go and still retain the fun factor?
So sports video games make a series of approximations and compromises to arrive at the end product. The best of these become some of the best games in all genres, across all platforms.
And now, I'm going to go play some real-life cricket with some real people, and probably get really sore again. Fun!
