Blog

Golf is famous for promoting handicaps in competitive play—an inferior player gets an advantage in strokes over the superior player.  While this dynamic may work well in many real-world games, where players still fully control the outcome, there may be a good case against providing certain handicaps in virtual and augmented reality game play.

EA Sports' NBA Live has for many generations promoted a "Keep Scores Close" option, which in essence is a method that allows the inferior player to stay within reach of the superior player, no matter how bad that inferior player is.  In contrast to the experience of real-world golf, the problem in the virtual/augmented game world is that it's the computer that's cheating--the computer waves a magic wand causing the superior player to miss the basket, lose the ball, succumb to a steal, etc.

While this may benefit the inferior player, this doesn't seem to be the right approach in building a loyal user base.  As you get better in the game, you're being penalized.  Not a great long-term strategy.  Obviously, users have the option of keeping scores close, but even still, the whole concept of "Keep Scores Close" is suspect.

That said, game designers are in a constant struggle between promoting free-market and socialized game dynamics. If inferior players fall too far behind, there need to be opportunities for them to catch up.  At the same time, they should not be able to catch up by unfairly handicapping the superior player.  Ultimately, while everyone must have reasonable opportunity to win, superior players should be rewarded for their prowess as they are in the real world.  Just imagine if every time the real Kobe Bryant tried to dunk the ball in a game, the basket arbitrarily threw the ball back in his face.  That would be pretty lame. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.  Where's the line between fair and unfair handicaps in the gaming world?