NHL2k6 XBox360 Preview

[bapenguin]

IGN (http://www.ign.com) has posted an interview (http://sports.ign.com/articles/660/660434p1.html) with Ben Bishop of Kush Games on the upcoming XBox 360 version of NHL 2k6.

IGN Sports: What can we expect to see visually from the game?

Ben Bishop: This is what we spent a great amount of time on, trying to give the game that next-gen look and feel. I think what's special about the Xbox 360 is all of the little details we can now throw in to make the total package that much better and more immersive. You'll see things like ice spray a lot more now. If you stop quickly in front of a guy and spray ice on him, the ice will actually stick to his uniform, so you'll see him skating around for a while with ice on his socks and probably on the lower part of his pants. The crowd is totally 3D now and they just look so much more like they're alive and vibrant and a part of the game. You'll not only see them going crazy at the right times, but we have specific reactive pockets. You check a guy against the boards and you'll see the fans in that area flinch or get up and bang the glass. The fans just feel like they're so much more involved.
There's also a new trailer for the game available for download. An HD version is available for insiders.

Holy crap...they nailed the look of the ice. Can't wait for this!

[Dr Quincy]

Next generation as the age of the 3D sports spectator. To think to someone who has played games for many years this is a big step, while to a newcomer it'll be unnoticeable.

[kickmybum]

If I were to get a 360 at launch, this would probably be the only one game I would buy with it.

[Wonka]

I agree that the ice has never looked so good.

[evilpenguin9000]

That ice does look nice. I'm not sure how well that crease control would work tho. Especially in multiplayer, although I'm sure it works well on XBox Live. Whatever happened to hanging with your boys and talking shit face to face?

[ezzkmo]

dammit i want this like yesterday.

[UnderHero5]

Holy crap...they nailed the look of the ice. Can't wait for this!

lol. Maybe it's because I'm not a sports gamer... but I could barely tell whether that was sarcasm or not, hehe.

I've got to say though.... is gameplay really going to change that much with the new generation?
Again, could be because I don't play many sports games (not since the Saturn days) but is the game going to be better because of 3d Spectators and pretty ice?....

[MajSheppard]

Not in game footage people, how often are you fools going to fall for that. Footage does not equal in game.
If it did, this would be the most impressive graphics for any sports game ever, period.
The crease control is how you teach goaltending, so once again 2k is progressing in realism. If only they could keep it going with football too...

[evilpenguin9000]

Yeah, I wish Sega could keep football hopes alive. Maybe they'll do a good college football game. Or has EA somehow wrapped that up too?

[IndependentGMR]

I must be looking at a different game; it doesn't look that good. I'm trying to figure out why the jerseys look so bad. Look at the shot of Roenick, the jersey is smudged, and rather blurry.

[Fubl]

Or has EA somehow wrapped that up too?
EA has all the american versions of football the only thing sega could get is CFL.......

[Ludoc]

EA has all the american versions of football the only thing sega could get is CFL.......

I'd buy it and the licensing fee would probable by about ten bucks.

Go Cats! Grey Cup next season...

[Wonka]

is the game going to be better because of 3d Spectators and pretty ice?....

Yes, I think it will. The improvement is fairly marginal, and I am sure it was a TON of work to get the ice to look that nice, but it's definitely better. And I certainly can appreciate it.

Some of you need to come to tems with the fact that gaming is hitting a wall in terms of production values. They can't impress you year after year by the leaps and bounds that you are used to because production costs for doing so are spiraling out of control. It doesn't matter how many processors they stick in there, or how much ram the system has if they can't afford to get it all textured and lit in time to ship...

I think that some of you are going to be disapointed with what the Xbox 360 can do, and those same people will be even more disssapointed when the PS3 also can't do the same unrealistic miracles a year later. It's not so much about the hardware anymore. It's about the game software that takes a hojillion dollars to produce. Someone needs to bring that cost down. Until that happens, expect that all these games are going to look like hi res versions with marginally better graphics than what you have seen before. And the gameplay? Well that's going to stay exactly the same as long as games are so expensive to make. Publishers don't like to make multi-million dollar bets. Can you really blame them? Would YOU risk it?

I also keep seeing people complain about gameplay in these tittles and I have to say that I think that your complaints are often a little bit unfair. I mean, what do you actually WANT them to do better? How can they possibly make the gameplay of hockey all that much better than what it is without completely changing the formula that people are already buying? Because this is like the umteenth iteration of Hockey in a yearly series, they have a sort of contract with their audience to make the game follow certain conventions. Therefore, I would submit that a major hockey gameplay makeover is probably an unreasonable expectation.

And if you have actual ideas about what games could be then PLEASE discuss those. Anyone can bitch about how gameplay has not evolved (yada yada). And just about everyone does. But what would YOU DO about it, thats what I'd like to know...

[lowlevel]

I also keep seeing people complain about gameplay in these tittles and I have to say that I think that your complaints are often a little bit unfair. I mean, what do you actually WANT them to do better? How can they possibly make the gameplay of hockey all that much better than what it is without completely changing the formula that people are already buying? Because this is like the umteenth iteration of Hockey in a yearly series, they have a sort of contract with their audience to make the game follow certain conventions. Therefore, I would submit that a major hockey gameplay makeover is probably an unreasonable expectation.

And if you have actual ideas about what games could be then PLEASE discuss those. Anyone can bitch about how gameplay has not evolved (yada yada). And just about everyone does. But what would YOU DO about it, thats what I'd like to know...

I'm not sold on the fact that people complain about "same-old-same-old gameplay" in sports games that that's what they are actually upset about.

I think that when people ask for "all new" or "revolutionary" gameplay changes, this is actually the manifestation of their displeasure with paying full price on a product that is typically a slight graphical upgrade with minor gameplay mechanic tweaks and a roster "update" that is already out-of-date by the time the game ships.

When a gamer pays $50+, they expect *something* that will make their experience better ... different ... more exciting. Since sports game developers generally fail to make major engine changes more than once per hardware generation, more often than not, the sports gamer is left feeling cheated. Obviously, with the devs only having a 14 month or less cycle for each iteration of a series, sports games will never see a change in gameplay mechanics and graphics like you see in a Doom 2 to Doom 3 within one year.

What would *I* do?

In theory, I would:
1) Start with statistical and graphics engines that are modular, and allow for updates (adding/modifying/removing statistical data and categories, textures, portrait art, etc.) via broadband connection (XBL, for example).
2) Commit a full team to the project and charge full price ($49.99-$59.99) ONCE per a platform's (or the base game engine's) life cycle, and then leave 8-10 people to handle the annual $12.99-$19.99 updates for the next 2 to 4 years.

Does this solve the issue of sports gaming conventions staying static for long periods of time? No.
Does it solve the problem of the sports gamer being lied to and being told that he or she is getting a "brand new game" for their hard-earned money each year? Yes, I think so. ;)

[jwbxx]

Wait a minute. People still watch hockey in America? Crazy!

[Kris]

Personally, I think grabbing the CFL license would be the smartest thing Sega could do. I'm sure people would buy a 2k football game if it contained fully fictional teams and players (I can't coun't the number of posts on various message boards I've read about how desperately people want another 2k football game (myself included)), so if they made a CFL game there would be no difference to all the people who just want another 2k game, and they would only be increasing the excitement of fans of the CFL. Two birds with one stone.

But maybe it's my bias talking. Personally, I would kill a man for a CFL football game.

[Wonka]

I'm not sold on the fact that people complain about "same-old-same-old gameplay" in sports games that that's what they are actually upset about.

I think that when people ask for "all new" or "revolutionary" gameplay changes, this is actually the manifestation of their displeasure with paying full price on a product that is typically a slight graphical upgrade with minor gameplay mechanic tweaks and a roster "update" that is already out-of-date by the time the game ships.

When a gamer pays $50+, they expect *something* that will make their experience better ... different ... more exciting. Since sports game developers generally fail to make major engine changes more than once per hardware generation, more often than not, the sports gamer is left feeling cheated. Obviously, with the devs only having a 14 month or less cycle for each iteration of a series, sports games will never see a change in gameplay mechanics and graphics like you see in a Doom 2 to Doom 3 within one year.

What would *I* do?

In theory, I would:
1) Start with statistical and graphics engines that are modular, and allow for updates (adding/modifying/removing statistical data and categories, textures, portrait art, etc.) via broadband connection (XBL, for example).
2) Commit a full team to the project and charge full price ($49.99-$59.99) ONCE per a platform's (or the base game engine's) life cycle, and then leave 8-10 people to handle the annual $12.99-$19.99 updates for the next 2 to 4 years.

Does this solve the issue of sports gaming conventions staying static for long periods of time? No.
Does it solve the problem of the sports gamer being lied to and being told that he or she is getting a "brand new game" for their hard-earned money each year? Yes, I think so. ;)


Most of that sounds like a good idea to me.

Except for the part about the 8-10 people for a minimal update. That part would never work (prolly not even last gen). Also are you planning to just lay off all the coders and artists after the total rebuild? And even if you are planning to toss out your unused talent, how you would get even just basic rosters, faces, and uniforms updated with only 10 people is escaping me. I guess I am just appalled at the lack of understanding about what has to go into even a "minimal update"... Try 30 people for a next gen "update". I'll bet even THAT would be pushing it pretty hard. Odds are good you would miss your release date by quite a bit.

But even so, you are still right that they really COULD charge you a lot less for these titles. They just don't do so because everyone is all too willing to pay it at the current rate. More often that you want to know, the extra revenue from these sports titles are funding travesties like "Catwoman" and "Marvel Nemesis". The high stakes nature of things means that these publishers are always trying to build "franchises" with "name recognition". And therefore we get a bunch of lame movie games to play...

[JediSanf]

Not in game footage people, how often are you fools going to fall for that. Footage does not equal in game.
If it did, this would be the most impressive graphics for any sports game ever, period.

I dunno, I could buy the behind the goalie (http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/748/748408/img_3161326.html) image as in-game. And with the rule changes, perfect looking ice or no, this is going to be a blast to play.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

Most of that sounds like a good idea to me.

Except for the part about the 8-10 people for a minimal update. That part would never work (prolly not even last gen). Also are you planning to just lay off all the coders and artists after the total rebuild? And even if you are planning to toss out your unused talent, how you would get even just basic rosters, faces, and uniforms updated with only 10 people is escaping me. I guess I am just appalled at the lack of understanding about what has to go into even a "minimal update"... Try 30 people for a next gen "update". I'll bet even THAT would be pushing it pretty hard. Odds are good you would miss your release date by quite a bit.

But even so, you are still right that they really COULD charge you a lot less for these titles. They just don't do so because everyone is all too willing to pay it at the current rate. More often that you want to know, the extra revenue from these sports titles are funding travesties like "Catwoman" and "Marvel Nemesis". The high stakes nature of things means that these publishers are always trying to build "franchises" with "name recognition". And therefore we get a bunch of lame movie games to play...

All good in theory, but not entirely possible. For all of the royalties that are paid to the Player's Union and the League, it would not be possible to sell the game new for that price.
A little known fact is that Take 2 (who makes the 2K games, not Sega) sold over 2 million copies of football at $19.99. The part of that fact that is not really known is that they only made 5 million off of that when the dust cleared. When you think of all of the manpower that went into this, clearing only 5 mill after selling 2 mill copies is terrible and risky. This is why when Take 2 did not win the football license from the NFL, their CEO (Eibler) was quoted as saying that losing the NFL license would not dent their business. Now you bring up a good point ... manpower. Last years NFL 2K games were only on PS2 and Xbox. Toss in added skus like Xbox 360 (next gen), PSP, and even DS ... that means you have to have at least 5 skus done by 5 different teams. Pretty pricey, even if only for updates ...

[evilpenguin9000]

Wait a minute. People still watch hockey in America? Crazy!
Actually with no major cable or network broadcasting deal it's nigh impossible to watch any hockey regularly. The only games I get broadcast at all is the Washington capitals... which isn't really my idea of a good time usually.

[jwbxx]

Actually with no major cable or network broadcasting deal it's nigh impossible to watch any hockey regularly. The only games I get broadcast at all is the Washington capitals... which isn't really my idea of a good time usually.I watch the sharks from time to time.

I heard the L.A kings got a 0 rating when they broadcasted their first game.

Putting the NHL on OLN was pretty stupid. They should have taken what epsn had to offer.

Because when hockey is on espn people will watch it from time to time because they dont have to hunt for it on OLN.

[Thenetcase]

The characters still look like complete shit.

[MajSheppard]

Actually with no major cable or network broadcasting deal it's nigh impossible to watch any hockey regularly. The only games I get broadcast at all is the Washington capitals... which isn't really my idea of a good time usually.

HA! Just have a team that Like Detroit, and you cannot get enough. Every game is not only on tv, but the networks fight over them. I feel for my Washington Brother, but come on spring for Center Ice and you can watch anyteam.

[MajSheppard]

I watch the sharks from time to time.

I heard the L.A kings got a 0 rating when they broadcasted their first game.

Putting the NHL on OLN was pretty stupid. They should have taken what epsn had to offer.

Because when hockey is on espn people will watch it from time to time because they dont have to hunt for it on OLN.

One, untrue. LA hockey is quite popular, don't know where you heard that bogus quote. In fact opening night of Hockey was the most popular it has ever been. Attendence was up to 98% and ratings were good on all the FSN networks.
Two, OLN was a horrible choice. Their coverage sucks and over 90% of American Households do not even have OLN! I hate it because I have to find someplace to watch it because I do not have it, so I will miss 8 games if I cannot find a bar that has it on.
Three, ESPN sucks. They shouldn't have turned to ESPN because they are a major part of the problem. They do not give it any good press and have morons in the booth. They really shoulda just expanded the deal with NBC to include a hell of alot more games during the year. Saturday night Hockey simular to CBC's Hockey Night in Canada would be a huge boom for them. The product has to go to the people like you said, they should walk into it wherever they go.
Lastly, they need to fire Bettman. He is trying his hardest to destroy hockey. Luckly I live in one of the few places that still value hockey. No matter what we will go on.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

Love the series, it´s a sure buy. THe feel is amazing in NHL2k6.

[jwbxx]

One, untrue. LA hockey is quite popular, don't know where you heard that bogus quote. In fact opening night of Hockey was the most popular it has ever been. Attendence was up to 98% and ratings were good on all the FSN networks.
Two, OLN was a horrible choice. Their coverage sucks and over 90% of American Households do not even have OLN! I hate it because I have to find someplace to watch it because I do not have it, so I will miss 8 games if I cannot find a bar that has it on.
Three, ESPN sucks. They shouldn't have turned to ESPN because they are a major part of the problem. They do not give it any good press and have morons in the booth. They really shoulda just expanded the deal with NBC to include a hell of alot more games during the year. Saturday night Hockey simular to CBC's Hockey Night in Canada would be a huge boom for them. The product has to go to the people like you said, they should walk into it wherever they go.
Lastly, they need to fire Bettman. He is trying his hardest to destroy hockey. Luckly I live in one of the few places that still value hockey. No matter what we will go on.http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-spw-tvratings14oct14,2,697877.htmlstory

http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/blog/2005/10/hockey-ratings.html
Check those out both games got 0 market share and a nearly 0 rating.

I agree that espn has morons in the booth. Especially the anchors, if they dont have the teleprompters they dont even know that they are talking about sports. And the guys who cover the games need the crew to tell them which player is which.

But even thought I think they suck. Mostly every american has espn and espn2. I would have thought it would be a good idea for hockey to stick around on those channels since most people turn to those channels for sports.

Anyways, go sharks. I remember I saw the box score and it said that the sharks scored 5 goals in one period wtf? I guess getting rid of that line and making the goalies pads smaller changed things around.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

you are missing out then, they score 2-3 goals more per game now, and to see scores like 6-1, 7-4 , 5-4 is common now.

[bapenguin]

The characters still look like complete shit.

Are you on fuckin crack?

[Thenetcase]

Are you on fuckin crack?

Nope. They just don't look real.

Look at the eyes-- they look like shit.
Look at the jersey-- it has blurred, smeared lines that look like shit
Look at the mouths-- they still look like shit and always have.
Look at the proportions of the body parts to the head and torso (and vise vesa) -- they are waaaay off and look like SHIT.

You guys seriously need to raise your standards for graphics and stop buying games that look like shit.
It they wanted to make it look good, they could (I could cite plenty of games that don't have these problems, but what's the point?).

-TNC-

[bjornbarspingvinen]

I can agree that the eyes look kinda weird at times, but the jerseys look nice , and the mouths? You really should put down that crackpipe. And about proportions, I guess you are one of those who think maddens oversized heads and upper arms means good proportions? Stay away from the crack...

[ColdForged]

Nope. They just don't look real.

Look at the eyes-- they look like shit.
Look at the jersey-- it has blurred, smeared lines that look like shit
Look at the mouths-- they still look like shit and always have.
Look at the proportions of the body parts to the head and torso (and vise vesa) -- they are waaaay off and look like SHIT.

You guys seriously need to raise your standards for graphics and stop buying games that look like shit.
It they wanted to make it look good, they could (I could cite plenty of games that don't have these problems, but what's the point?).

-TNC-

We'll have to agree to disagree. To my eye the player models are quite well done. At any zoom level where you can see the entire width of the blue line, minor details like eyes and mouths are not visible, even at high def resolution. During cutscenes the players are recognizable and their body proportions are believable. I look forward to playing this on the 360.

Regardless, by any definition one could not argue that the game "looks like shit." It may not look exactly like real life but it's getting closer. "Looks like shit" would mean this to me.

http://www.coldforged.org/images/_nhl91.jpg

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

I can agree that the eyes look kinda weird at times, but the jerseys look nice , and the mouths? You really should put down that crackpipe. And about proportions, I guess you are one of those who think maddens oversized heads and upper arms means good proportions? Stay away from the crack...

Looks like shit? People are entitled to have their opinions ... but to say this looks like shit is just overly harsh.

[Thenetcase]

Looks like shit? People are entitled to have their opinions ... but to say this looks like shit is just overly harsh.

Maybe a slight over statement. I believe that harshness might actually drive people who make games like this to try to put in the graphical detail that games like Gears of War and a few others have.

At least this game doesn't look near as bad as the new Madden game (the guys look like puppets or something... simply laughable).

Harshness drives developers to bust a little more butt and do a better job. If they can make a hockey puck that looks freaking real, they could do a little better on the player textures.

-TNC-

[ColdForged]

I believe that harshness might actually drive people who make games like this to try to put in the graphical detail that games like Gears of War and a few others have.
Harshness makes you sound like an ass whose opinion should be discounted. The way you stated it in this post is far more likely to reap any benefit than just saying "it looks like shit."

That said, I still disagree. Making certain that players' eyelashes are appropriately rendered is astoundingly less important than, for instance, making sure the animations are lifelike, believable, smooth and relevant to the gameplay. Again, the only time you see these facial characteristics are during cutscenes or replays for those who pause the game and zoom in to see "how real they look." I realize that somehow this equates to a better game in some peoples' eyes, but I personally would rather see the time spent on something that's visible during 99% of the actual gameplay.

Even then, the players are recognizable and amazingly detailed in my opinion. More than enough to suit me. Though I guess they could add the "sweat shader" so we can get as "lifelike" as the NBA games ;).