Monday Tip-Off: We Can Wait Until It’s Ready

We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on features that are implemented before they’re truly ready, and how we can and should be willing to wait until then.

Here’s some trivia for you: the first can openers were invented several decades after tin cans themselves were devised as a way of preserving food. Obviously there were ways of opening tin cans before that – knives, primarily – but the point is that tin cans were in use for a long time before a specific tool to easily open them was invented. Mad as it may seem, the two technologies – sealing food in a can for preservation, and then opening the can when required – were not developed simultaneously. Sometimes, that’s just the way it goes.

What does this have to do with basketball gaming? Well, as we’ve often seen, game development can be very similar. NBA 2K21 Next Gen introduced brand new contact dunks, but contact blocks had to wait until NBA 2K22. User control settings for shot timing were added in NBA 2K23, but because they were a late addition, there wasn’t a “normal” setting. Whether it’s a new mechanic lacking an appropriate countermeasure, or a feature that isn’t fully fleshed out, it feels like NBA 2K has a habit of giving us a can while neglecting to provide a can opener. In short, and all metaphors aside, we should wait on new features and mechanics if it means they’re properly implemented.

After all, this isn’t the first time that this has happened with basketball games. It’s a rare feature that isn’t overpowering, or in need of adjustment, on the first try. When NBA Live introduced Freestyle Control in NBA Live 2003, the defense couldn’t keep up with the offense. Freestyle Superstars in NBA Live 06 wasn’t quite as bad – we also had sliders to tune the gameplay by that point – but it still heavily favoured the offense for the most part. It’s tough to say whether the EA Ignite engine would have ever lived up to its promise, but when it debuted in NBA Live 14, it certainly didn’t have the polish that we were hoping for following such a long hiatus for the series.

NBA 2K provides us with some examples as well. The new motion system that was implemented in NBA 2K18 clearly wasn’t ready. Developer blogs for NBA 2K19 openly admitted as such, revealing that the removal of multi-actor animations and nerfing of layups – touted as improvements – were in fact bandaid fixes for problems with the motion system that were discovered too late. The new shooting mechanics in NBA 2K21 Current Gen didn’t feel good at release, and though patches did improve them, they were still clunky. Forget what the elitists and shills bleat: shot aiming was unpopular because the mechanics weren’t well-designed, not due to a lack of skill.

As far as cosmetic examples are concerned, NBA 2K20 launched with generic icons in the MyCAREER menu, with the proper ones being patched in later. The PC version originally used the NBA 2K19 icon. Neither of those issues were gamebreaking, but they’re a symptom of rushed development. It was a far bigger problem to launch a new generation of games with contact dunks that admittedly looked and felt awesome when you pulled them off, but had no counterpunch in the form of contact blocks. It didn’t help with gameplay balance, and it seems myopic to implement one without the other. So, why do we get features and mechanics before they’re seemingly ready?

I’d suggest it’s a combination of eagerness and pressure to implement a notable new feature or gameplay mechanic every year. Annual sports titles are already so often derided as being overpriced roster updates, so it’s understandable that developers – who are creative people that care about the games they’re working on – want to pack as many improvements and additions into a release as possible. The suits obviously want a shiny new feature that they can heavily market, too. As consumers, we also add pressure by demanding games demonstrate progress and not simply feel like last year’s game with a new cover, updated rosters, and a couple of flashy new gimmicks.

In the best case scenario, a new game will take some steps in the right direction, if indeed it doesn’t make a huge leap. We’ve seen these milestone releases in both the NBA Live and NBA 2K series, and both brands have enjoyed runs of successful titles that saw continual improvement and consistent quality, lasting a few years before a noteworthy misstep (or serious decline, as is the case with NBA Live in particular). At a certain point however, the one year development cycle and demands for a major innovation will catch up to them. When it does, there’s a much higher chance that a new feature won’t be ready. It may be functional, but not completely fleshed out.

And so, we’ll get something cool like new contact dunks, contact alley-oops, and alley-oops to teammates off the backboard, because they’re ready and their addition will enhance the game. However, there’s only so much that can be done in the space of a year; only so much that will be ready and working well enough to make it into any given release. In NBA 2K21, that meant blocks and collisions that prevent the dunk (albeit with a foul) didn’t make the cut. It’s understandable, but the result was that contact dunks were overpowered. Without the ability to add the appropriate hard collision and blocking scenarios, there was no viable way to defend against them.

It leads one to think that maybe it would’ve been better to wait until those scenarios could be implemented, since a welcome improvement nevertheless created a new issue. Sure, it was awesome to see those new contact dunks and alley-oops, but it was rough not being able to prevent or at least try to hinder them. That’s why my message to developers is that if something isn’t ready, we can wait. I’ll pose the question to the community, too: as much as we want to see improvements year after year, wouldn’t it be better to wait longer and get the best version of a feature, rather than get it sooner but have to wait until near year for it to be fixed and actually working as intended?

I know what my preference is. Obviously, there will be ideas that don’t pan out as well as we all hoped. These can sometimes be salvaged with fixes in future games. Innovation requires risking making mistakes, but if an idea is half-baked, or missing vital functionality, it’s not worth getting a taste of things to come if it detracts from the experience in the short term. If technology can’t be in the state it needs to be in by the time a game has to ship, it’s not ready, and we can wait. Unfortunately there will be occasions when bugs with new tech are discovered too late, as was the case with NBA 2K18. To that end, I do realise that the developers are faced with a difficult decision.

Furthermore, I understand and appreciate the desire to cram as many improvements and new content and features into a game as possible. I also understand how it could be useful to make a couple of last minute additions – such as the shot timing settings – to gauge gamer response that will help develop future titles. Of course, if those ideas aren’t fully fleshed out, they can easily have a negative impact on the gameplay in the interim, which will likely skew the feedback accordingly. If it’s a choice between less depth or a lack of choice, and something that isn’t quite ready yet, I’m opting for the former. As I’ve said before, when there’s quantity without quality, more is less.

It also leads to previews and developer blogs that are far less trustworthy. Obviously, no previews are going to openly admit to problems; they’re trying to sell the game, after all! However, it’s impossible not to be sceptical when we’ve had previews that try to paint bandaid fixes and tech that isn’t polished as being major improvements, only to admit they were riddled with issues when previewing a new game a year later. It’s always gratifying when the “get good” shills shout down criticism, only for the subsequent previews to admit there was in fact an issue in the previous game. We’ve got the receipts, and should hold those shills accountable as we do the devs and suits.

For a long time now, I’ve felt that the early releases are hurting NBA games. From the early roster cut-off dates and long wait until the start of the real NBA season, to the seemingly ever-shortening development cycle and its crunch, finishing up a game for a release in early September isn’t helping the games to be as good as they could be. Maybe I’m overestimating what could be done with a few extra weeks of development time, but surely it couldn’t hurt. If nothing else, maybe with some additional testing, they could pull back on a few ideas; dummy out some problematic dunk animations and so forth. Unfortunately, the NBA insists on the earlier release dates for games.

There’s plenty of other pressure, too: the edict from the suits, the expectations from those of us who play the games, and the goals that the developers set for themselves. Bigger, better, more than a mere roster update; in the pursuit of that, when a chance to add a shiny new feature presents itself, most of us wouldn’t say no. Of course, history suggests that sometimes, we should. It isn’t always a disaster when one game proves to be the stepping stone to a great idea being fully realised, but there are times when a concept isn’t ready, and the game will feel lacking as a result. In that situation, the logical course of action would be to wait and keep polishing it for future releases.

Now, with that being said, this is a game that the developers can’t possibly win. Even if they can hold off on introducing new tech and features because they aren’t ready, some of us are bound to grumble that a game feels too similar to its predecessor. If we get a taste of a feature that isn’t ready and it has too big of an impact on the game, we won’t be pleased with that, either. Still, my message to the developers would be to err on the side of caution, while advocating for patience on our part. If something new is only going to benefit the game on one side of the ball, it’s going to upset the balance. The last thing that we want is more canned scenarios, with no way to open them up.

The post Monday Tip-Off: We Can Wait Until It’s Ready appeared first on NLSC.