Creating Greatness in Basketball Games Part 1: Passing

      As a basketball gamer, I get jealous when I see a StarCraft Tourney or EVO Finals. It's not just the hundreds of thousands of viewers on stream or the sponsors, but the competitors themselves. When I watch Justin Wong fight Infiltration in Grand Finals, I know that I'm looking at two of the best in the world. They are there as a result of hard work, practice and high levels of competition to practice against. You have just as much a chance of beating Infiltration in Street Fighter as you do in beating Lebron in a game of one on one.

      Real competitive games have room for expertise.

      Basketball games have come a long way, but in this series of articles I'm not going to spend a lot of time praising all the new features and improvements. If you're reading this article, it's for the same reason I'm writing it. You love basketball games and you want them to continue to get better. The one area above all others, where basketball games have failed to truly improve is in competition. This isn't for lack of players. Millions play 2k and millions will play NBA Live when it makes its return on next generation consoles this holiday season. 

      We don't have great competition because there is no room for it in the games themselves. The word "cheese" is thrown around a lot, but exploits is much more accurate. In a competitive game, when a cheese tactic doesn't have a counter, it's an exploit of the gaming system flaws. When that happens, the game is either patched or it sees a death in the competitive scene. With basketball games, the exploits take over all competition and no one takes it seriously because that's not fun to watch. 

      Besides the rampant exploitable systems, we have a different problem. Even if you took out all of the 1-3-1 zone cheese, the Eurostep cheese, the quick 3-pointer cheese, you'd still have a game that is far too simple in execution. 

      Accessibility is important, but we need layers, not dumbed down systems. In order to be both accessible to casual gamers and challenging to experts who want to elevate competition into an art, you have to create a stable, balanced system that works on both of those levels. That's not easy. That's not a quick fix. That can't be done with Bounce Tek or the right Slider set. That's going to take imagination, cooperation and hard work both by the gamers and the developers. 

      In order to find the opportunity to take what is a simple, automated system and transform it into something subtle enough and great enough for a true competitive experience, we're going to have to tackle each issue, break it down and build it back up. As always, the Simnation will use basketball fundamentals as its guide. 

     Passing into a Shot 

     Seems straightforward, right? Pass it to someone and they shoot. 

     It's not. That's wrong. 

     In real basketball, many factors influence the success of the journey from pass to swish. In basketball games, you press pass and you hold shoot until the player gets to the top of their jump and you let go of shoot. As a starting point, this is fine. If two scrubs just want to sit down and relive their Double Dribble days with better graphics, have at it. Press those two buttons and score 70 pts in five min quarters. When you're not dunking, anyway. 

     Sim gamers need an extension of this gameplay mechanic that takes into account positioning, defense and timing beyond the shot release. High level of competition isn't just fail/success. There are degrees from ultimate failure to ultimate success. For this part of the discussion, we'll remove the possibility of the defender stealing the ball and focus solely on pass-shoot execution. 

 --Ultimate failure = the offensive player does not catch the ball in a clean shooting position. Defense has a chance to fully recover 

 --moderate failure = the offensive player makes a clean catch, but the shot will be contested before the release. 

 --moderate success = clean catch, late defensive recover. Good success rate for highly rated shooters, lower % attempt for someone rated 75 or below 

 --ultimate success = the catch is perfect, passed right into the shooter's pocket at the moment they set their feet. High chance of success for all but the worst of shooters.  

     This is a basic outline shortened to keep this article from turning into a book. In between each of these, there are smaller, more subtle degrees, modified by signature passing and the ratings of each player, along with hotspots and fatigue. Those factors are more influential in the middle degrees, but if you find yourself way on the bottom or top of that list, you should get predictable miss/make results, regardless of those things. 

     Reward execution, planning and knowledge of the game. 

     If a competitor's defense allows the perfect pass-shot execution, everyone including his(or her) momma knows that it's his(or her) fault (s)he's getting torched. On the flip, if you're forced to attempt contested shots by mediocre shooters, you need to powwow with your inner D'Antoni and make some changes on the clipboard. Let's get into specifics, starting with the passer. 

 --GREAT PASS = Shoulders squared to the shooter. No defender in the lane. The higher the rating of the passer, the bigger the window of timing you have to make the PERFECT PASS. Example: Chris Paul is not being pressured in any way, JJ Redick is running a clean cut, the defenders are thinking about that Blake Griffin oop and pay the price. Cash. Just like practice. Give up this play too often and you're not sim enough to cry about fatigue or FG%. 

 --VERY GOOD PASS = Same situation, but the passer is moving. They had to sell the penetration or give a setup dribble to freeze the D. Highly rated passers get the same basic success rate as the GREAT PASS but the window of timing to hit the shooter's pocket is tighter. 

 --GOOD PASS = Ratings take more of an effect now. The D is applying decent pressure to the passer but not influencing the passing lane. If the passer doesn't have a high passer rating, the timing window is now too small for a GREAT PASS and high success is more on the shooter and the close out defense. Highly rated passers who aren't too fatigued will find the most benefit from their rating in this situation. Low rated passers might be passing into a contested attempt, because the ball won't travel as fast or clean. 

 --MODERATE PASS = The defense has done their job. This ain't Stockton to Hornaceck. This is Fisher to Kobe or if you're unlucky, Farmar to Nick Young. The passer is pressured the shooter catches it alright, but this is really about their ability to hit a fadeaway, leaner or contested jumper. Requires higher execution and rating on the shooter's end. Rely on these shots too much and you'd better be winning the war on the glass. 

 --POOR PASS = Highly rated passer is passing when there is a defender in the passing lane. They aren't in position to steal, but the pass must occur outside of the shooting window in order to avoid the turnover. Low rated passer should avoid this attempt. Could lead to a deflection or a bobble. Shot clock is ticking. Move the ball. 

 --TERRIBLE PASS = Highly rated player is feeling themselves and doing something they shouldn't do. Low rated player is doing the same, but this might just be a POOR PASS if they were Kyrie Irving. Shooter is way early or way late on their cut but this pass has to be made because the defense saw what you were setting up. Look for another option on offense because this will not be a clean reception. This is the kind of pass that allows the defense to really settle in on your stars while not giving your role-players enough room to be specialists. 

     For the shooters, the basic principle is the same whether we're talking about a baseline cut to the corner 3, a transition 3 or a curl to the elbow. There is a magic window with the signature gather, signature base and signature release that will result in a smooth shot with a very wide margin of error. If the pass is made into this timing window, the defense absolutely has to recover into a full contest. If they are recovering late to this kind of cut, they have failed to pressure the passer and bump the cutter. Now their only resort is to gamble. Jump at the shooter, risking a foul and possibly an and-one. Jump at the shooter and risk getting pump faked. Mash Turbo and hope that your opponent is scared into a pump fake, but you stop short and reset the situation into an isolation opportunity. 

    Wrap It Up 

    When we play the games, this should feel right. We should feel the difference between almost perfect and super perfect. In Street Fighter, there are 1 frame links that expert players hit for big combos. That's one frame and sixty frames per second, meaning they are executing these two button presses at a 1/60th of a second window. Greatness. In StarCraft, there is a perfect timing between being supply capped (look it up) and having the right amount of resources to build that next unit. Expert players nail this while scouting their enemy's base. Greatness. 

     Basketball gamers deserve to be able to reach this level. 

     For casual players, most of this isn't important. They won't be running the plays with these kinds of cuts. They won't be aware of the perfect window, watching the footstep-animation of their shooter's as their digital hands reach out to catch the ball in the pocket. They can have a good time, tapping pass until it's time to hold Turbo and X. That will still work against casual defense. 

     For serious competitors and even single player simheads, adding these layers and subtleties will not only allow us to be great, but it'll replace cheese. Killing cheese isn't just about removing exploits, but also about making sure that most effective tactic is a balanced expression of basketball fundamentals. 

 --Books

Sex Boox Part I

We're Not Gonna Take It

In the last few months in comics, female readers, professionals and critics have been expressing their discontent over the way the industry has treated them, both on and off the page. Inarguably, this is justified. Sex sells and superhero comics in America have been a boy's club for a long time. This has resulted in an imbalance of exploitation and the growing pains of integration in many areas in our books, interviews and in our conventions.

Sometimes the hand of revolution wields a hammer where a scalpel is better suited and angst is allowed to lead in place of measured, problem solving thought. Applying blanket, abstract ideas and lumping people's actions together is distracting and divisive. It's understandable that many women are hurt by insulting stereotypes and depictions, but expressing that hurt in place of a reasoned dialogue might slow progress.

Mr. Me Too

Personally, I'm interested in progress, and I mean that literally. It may sound like a pandering platitude to say that I have a lot of female friends in the industry, or that an above average portion of my fans are female, but I do and they are. I've consulted with some of them, asking their opinions on opportunities for characters and women in the industry, and the replies represented a diversity that illustrates the complexity of the issue.

Not only do I always want to be respectful of them, but I have my own tastes to consider as an artist and storyteller. I like strong, complex female characters that reveal a truth about real women. Male characters with a female shell and no vulnerabilities appeal to me almost as little as stripper heroines gyrating their way through fight scenes. At the same time, I am a straight male and I do love the beauty of women. It's obvious in all of my work and the more I create, the more that love will be represented. I try to depict the characters as they are. Some are strong, some vulnerable, some care how they look, some don't and hopefully readers see some of themselves in that.

When discussing the issue of female characters, professionals and creators, I'm invested and have to consider myself a potential part of the problem or solution. It affects my friends, my work and my enjoyment of reading the work of my peers. All things considered, I hope we can improve the discussion.


The Boobies with the Bathwater

We need to be fair, but free. The problem is the mainstream perception and treatment of female characters is unflattering, insulting and dishonest. The dishonesty is the key to the solution. Frankly, some books are going to be from and for the boys' locker room. Guys shouldn't be robbed of the freedom of saying "chicks" and "boobs" and reading books that indulge these aspects of the human experience. Is this the most noble expression of storytelling? Of course not, but comics are entertainment and entertainment can be an opiate and if we want people to dig into their pockets and spend their hard earned cash, we must give them the right to buy whatever they want.


The New 52 DC Relaunch has been the primary target of criticism. In Laura Hudson's passionate call for balance, she addressed the depictions in Catwoman, Voodoo and the Red Hood book with Starfire. I wish Wonder Woman had been included in the article for the sake of contrast. In many ways, Wonder Woman doesn't represent the problems being addressed in the article, but she does represent the DC relaunch. If the relaunch is referred to in general language, then a full and fair depiction of DC's various creative voices should be represented. This is not to disparage the passion or hurt any female reader feels when looking at demeaning imagery, but to take that hurt and focus it towards applicable solutions.

Putting the Hero back in.

An important specific point that Laura made strikes the heart of the discussion. To paraphrase: Superhero comics are aspirational, and the depictions of these characters don't represent what women should aspire to be. That's pretty spot on, but it's only reasonable to mention that Catwoman and Voodoo are not superheroes. Voodoo has been a stripper for over a decade and a half so seeing her strip on splash page shouldn't really be a part of the discussion. Catwoman presents a more interesting problem, because it seems like people are more upset with the execution then the actual root content of the story. Still, Catwoman is a criminal and while we should discuss how she's handled, it shouldn't be within the context of her living up to an ideal. Like the Punisher, she's a cool character that doesn't bear the burden of being a role model.

Starfire, while not an iconic superhero, represents the disease more truthfully. For the reader's attention, she's twisting this way and that, pointing the rewards of puberty wherever we care to look. It's not a part of the scene, it's just the way Kenneth draws. Kenneth is a buddy of mine, being a Top Cow alum, and it's worth mentioning that he's one of the nicest guys you'll meet, and has more fun drawing than most of the industry. Divorced from this issue, watch Kenneth draw and you'll see that it'd be a crime to police anything that he puts down on paper, gyrations and all. The solution? It's up to the editors to figure out what books are appropriate for Kenneth and his ever growing audience. Was Starfire the right place? That's for the critics to decide.

The only way to police this is for creators and editorial to be honest and respectful when they tell stories. The tales can be about sex, or very flawed characters who happen to be women, but you know as a creator when you are shoehorning those elements into your story. When these elements are in a story, critics need to step back and consider what that story is about.


Eye rolling at D-cups isn't going to cut it anymore.

We need to speak up about books that handle female characters well and represent the ideals that female readers and creators aspire to. Specifically, we need females in the industry, pros and fans to be very vocal about the successes, perhaps even more so than the times we fall short. For dollars and cents, we need those books to do well so that the bottom line folks are encouraged about promoting these positive creators and characters. For every article about Starfire, there needs to be two about female heroes you like. Some culprits of exploitation are just running on autopilot and following the traditions of sexism in comics without meaning any harm. Forming a clear vision and direction for the future of positive, honestly depicted, strong women in comics is essential if we want things to improve.

Next Part: The Boobie Issue, Penciler in the Headlights

Compassion: Amy Winehouse vs. Norway

On the weekend of July 22nd 2011, the San Diego Comic Con raged on in a storm of film, comics, video games, superheroes and celebrities. The convention has become one of the biggest spectacles in all of entertainment, but remains a communal celebration of dragging out that costumed skeleton in the closet. For those interested in both entertainment and world news, the weekend brought a macabre dichotomy.

In Norway, Anders Behring Breivik expressed his political displeasure by murdering about 100 Norwegians at a Labor Party rally . At the same time, pop music icon Amy Winehouse passed away at the iconic age of 27 and under the radar many Chinese civilians died in a train crash. In the social internet soup, most focused on the death of Winehouse and the Norwegians, with two polarizing sentiments emerging.

A) It’s acceptable to feel compassion for the tragedy in Norway, but the case of Winehouse must be met with less sympathy.

B) Death is death and sad is sad. We shouldn’t prioritize our mourning according to moral scale.

These two differing ideas present a conflict of personal and societal morality. On the societal side, there is an unquestionable difference between the two incidents. One is murder and the other is a prolonged suicide. To deepen the chasm between the two issues, the murder is a massacre, rather than a personal crime of passion open to the debate of causality. Breivik killed innocent people. Being complicit in her own death by engaging in a publicized lifestyle of substance abuse, Miss Winehouse is not an innocent where her death is concerned.

Developed western society’s stance is clear, but our laws are a result of our morality and the reverse shouldn’t be true. There should be an empirical morality divorced from the law or conventions of a community. The shift has to be in perspective. The law looks at the result of an incident and tries very hard not to be bothered by circumstance or motivation. We have no such luxury, as our lives are a shared soup of circumstance and motivation. We can’t divorce ourselves from that responsibility and still expect to maintain a reasonable position from which to judge, because lack of participation disqualifies us from the panel.

At the outset, we must acknowledge that Amy Winehouse did not live and die in a vacuum. Her world of rock stars, paparazzi, celebrity and pop music is the same world we live in. There is a prevailing sentiment that if you live a certain life, you are not allowed sadness and depression. The ignorance of that thought cannot bear its own weight; that’s now how depression works. Moreover, the very thought contains the lie that leads many to misery:

All you need is to get rich and/or popular, and you’ll be happy.

Miss Winehouse found out this wasn’t true and for her own reasons could not see herself as a person worthy of happiness. This low self image resulted in self destruction, but the blast radius was contained to one. In others, this low self image manifests in other ways. People become empowered by predator dogmas built to feed on a mind drowning in isolation or oppression.

Self empowerment becomes attainable by the destruction of others.

Our participation in the world doesn’t make us responsible for it’s current construction. There aren’t too many of us who poured Amy a drink or sold Anders his guns, but if you’ve blogged, tweeted or message-boarded in our acidic culture, you’ve seasoned and tasted the soup. There is an imbalance of mechanisms that succeed off of our weaknesses compared to those that encourage our strengths. From our governments on down to our YouTube comments, we largely focus on the negative and are content to vent at one another rather than problem solve, yet problems cause the aberrant behaviors we post about.

Feeling sad or deciding which death is more tragic does very little to make things better. Instead, the moral answer is to analyze our participation in a culture that makes it so easy for young people to view personal happiness as a fantasy. How much of our personal interactions are dedicated to finding a communal ideal and carving a path towards it? Does happiness have an acceptable definition in western developed society?

It’s one thing for a young person to not do what they should be doing, but it’s another when society doesn’t even tell them what that is. Our empirical morality has been an absentee father and they deserve better. All of them.

--NB2

A Simple Introduction

I should have never gone on Twitter.

How many athletes and celebrities have started their morning with that thought? I say this with my tongue firmly in cheek. I like Twitter. I credit Rob Levin with my introduction to social networking. After ignoring Myspace(personally, that is. I have several bands on Myspace), Face book and my own blog for some time, Twitter finally got to me. Rob started a fake Twitter account where he’d practice quips and unleash them on our mutual friends in my name. The result was a few snickers at gatherings and people thinking I’m much more clever and whimsical than I am.

Eventually the account got too big for its own good and I took it over, further confusing those who were in on the joke. I post in fits and spurts; such is my relationship with the internet. I’ve reached my limit on meaningless blurbs of 140 characters or less. Well, not really. However it is time to balance out this interaction with an honest thought or two. Hence, this blog.

I can’t promise any consistency of subject matter, updates or format. I can promise honesty. Through right and wrong, these will be my honest opinions and anecdotes. I’ll do my best to find a balance between candor and sensitivity. When I fail, take my word that I don’t intend to be restrained or callous.

I’m not advertising this blog anywhere yet, so for the few that read it, I hope your time was well spent.

--NB2