The Witness: A Game Flawed by its Mechanics

Puzzle games are interesting. Although there are a variety of puzzle games on the market, there are really four main groups of puzzle games. There are more story-based puzzle games (like Ghost Trick and Professor Layton), platformer puzzle games (like Portal and Braid), and pure puzzle games (like Tetris). The Witness, however, falls under the fourth category of puzzle games, exploratory. Exploratory puzzle games make the player explore the environment to find hints and solve puzzles. Yet The Witness has several features that make its gameplay stale and uninteresting, unlike other exploratory puzzle games. In this post, I will go over what The Witness does wrong in its game design and ends up being a dissapointment.

First, I would like to explain the game mechanics of The Witness to people who haven't played the game. In The Witness, the player goes around a static island and find areas of puzzles. Once they complete an area of puzzles, they trigger a laser which helps them open the final area of puzzles. Individual puzzles consists of a grid with symbols, and are solve by drawing the correct path through the grid from the start of the puzzle to the exit. The symbols in the puzzle dictate the rules of the puzzle. For example, black dots and white dots must be separated in the puzzle, therefore, the solution is constrained. The core game mechanics of The Witness on paper seem quite sound. Yet these symbols are the first major problem I took note of in the game.

A typical puzzle in The Witness

The Witness takes pride in the fact that the player is supposed to find out everything about the game, from how to create lines to what each symbol does. While learning how to create a line is as easy as pressing a button or key, learning the rules of each symbol is much more difficult. Most areas of the island has something new to teach the player, and they can go to any part at any time.

Before finishing this line of thought, let's take a little detour and talk quickly about the open world of The Witness. As stated before, The Witness is set up on a small static island with no sound but amazing visuals. After the player complete the first area of puzzles, the whole island is open to them to explore. Aside from the main puzzle areas, they can find secret areas and hidden environmental puzzles, both of which are fun to find and complete. Yet the combination of this open world and figuring out the entire game on their own leads to much confusion as they often come to a section that requires them to know a certain symbol that they have never seen before. This experience either leads the player to run around the island looking for the tutorial for the symbol, or repeatedly trying the puzzle until they give up. Some more dedicated gamers may figure out the rules by trial and error, but most won't be able to understand the puzzles without the tutorial.

To beat the final puzzle area, the player needs to know what certain symbols mean. This fact means that they need to travel to certain sections of the map no matter what, giving the illusion that the player has the ability to choose and explore the world, when in reality they are already set on a mostly determined path. If the player's sense of direction is not good, this faux exploration can lead to thirty minutes to an hour for each mismatched symbol. By making the game longer this way, The Witness adds an artificial level of difficulty to the game; it's not hard to travel the open world (even though they player can't jump, and the sprint is slow), just time consuming. The combination of the open world and the lack of given instructions make for a frustrating first-time experience.

Another problem that I have with The Witness are the puzzles themselves. Don't get me wrong, The Witness has some amazing puzzles. Many of the environmental puzzles that make the player observe their surroundings are fantastic puzzles that deserve at least a little praise. But many of the puzzles in The Witness counteract one of the major gameplay elements in the game: exploration. Whenever the player activate a puzzle, the camera zooms in on the puzzle and locks. During this time, if the player leaves the puzzle, they lose all of the current progress on the puzzle. By changing the camera, it breaks the player from the stunning environment. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but most of the puzzles are just panels and are just filler. These types of puzzles are the least interesting because it only challenges the player to find the correct path.

A puzzle hidden in the trees. How clever!

The last puzzle area in the game, the mountain, is a perfect example of great puzzles and terrible puzzles. Let's start with the good. The mountain has possibly the best puzzle in the game, where the player uses  a series of puzzle panels to create bridges until he can create the bridge to the exit. The solution requires the player to swap between two panels and create a new bridge that satisfies one puzzle using the solution to the other panel. It's a very clever puzzle, requiring one to constantly be aware of the bridges and the environment. These types of puzzles are more of what The Witness needed. On the other hand, the mountain area sports some of the worst puzzles in the game. These puzzles range from mesh obstructing the player's vision to puzzles that spin and invert their controls when they move. These puzzles are difficult, they are just annoying. Furthermore, these puzzles seem to be just tacked on to add more puzzles for the player to solve, instead of being used as challenging obstacles that the player needs to complete.

Just because the puzzle is hidden, doesn't make it difficult. It makes it annoying.

Although I give the environmental puzzles plenty of praise, they are not excluded from bad puzzle design. One of the environmental puzzles requires the player to hold their cursor for approximately one hour as a movie goes through its entirety. This infamous puzzle is known for being the sole reason why 99.8% exists as a speedrunning category for The Witness. This puzzle adds nothing to the game. The only challenge that this puzzle provides is that the player has to realize that the puzzle exists, and by that time, they can't complete the puzzle and have to wait an hour for the movie to conclude. Another set of environmental puzzles that are questionably designed are the audio puzzles. While optional, some puzzles (most notably the ship audio puzzle) have ambiguous sounds that make the player eventually brute force the solutions. When a puzzle makes the player guess the solution, the puzzle has failed. I do understand that some people don't have any problems with the puzzles and how they are designed but, in my opinion, many of the puzzles in The Witness are flawed and don't work well in the game.

ENDING SPOILERS COMING UP!!! SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED!!

The final problem I have with the game are the endings. My first issue with the endings is that the secret ending can be found by pure coincidence at the beginning of the game. If the player finds this secret ending (like I did), they are greeted with a fifteen to thirty minute video of a person going through their house and touching the surroundings around them until they go to sleep. This ending is way too long and is very boring to watch. Since The Witness only has a story if the player really believes it does, there is little to no context to this ending. The only conclusion that the player can make is that a unknown person (possibly the game's developer) was dreaming of the game the whole time. It's an ending that makes very little sense. Some people, however, might say that the games secret ending is supposed to be watched after the game's actual ending. Yet after the game's actual ending, I did not want to play the game ever again. Throughout the game, the player slaves though hours and hours of puzzles to get to the final conclusion. At the end, they expect a satisfactory ending, but are greeted by a brief flyby of the island with a couple of voice clips. When the flyby is done, the player finds themselves at the beginning of the game with all of their progress reset. This cheap joke of an ending is possibly worse than just displaying a "Congratulations!" at the end. If the player wanted to start a new game, they would have just deleted their save file. I know at the end of the game I didn't want to play it anymore, and I know that many feel the same way. The ending for The Witness leaves much to be desired and does not feel like an ending at all.

The Witness is a good puzzle game. If you are looking to solve puzzles over and over, this game fills the part. However, it's not a very good exploratory puzzle game. Many of the puzzles do not use the game's mechanics effectively. By limiting the solving area to a grid, The Witness doesn't take risks to create abstract puzzles. By forcing the player to figure out the rules, the game makes the open world a chore to explore. There is no reason why the open world exists in the game. The game would be much better if it was linear, or if it was a series of grid puzzles on a tablet. In the end, The Witness' insistence to grid puzzles and have an open world, combined with the very lackluster ending, is why it is a disappointing game.



As always, everything stated in this post is my opinion. Like it? Don't like it? Feel free to leave a comment below!

Why Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Holds Up Well Today

About a month ago, Matt, the co-writer for this blog, posted his thoughts on why Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the worst game ever. And while it's not a perfect game, OOT shows many great gameplay elements as well as a riveting story. In this post, I'll analyze the game and show why OOT still stands up as a good game even years after its release.

However, let's start off with what OOT does wrong. The camera isn't the best in the world, I'll admit. During combat, even if you Z-target, the camera sometimes points towards walls and floors. The only way to adjust this camera is by centering it behind you, which isn't always optimal in some cases. Moreover, the combat in OOT is lacking in several ways. Many enemies either consist of consistently slashing them over and over, or waiting for several seconds until they are vulnerable over and over. Stalfos, Wolfos, the Gerudo thieves, and the Iron Knuckles are prime examples of this linearity of combat.

Even though this fight goes fast, it demonstrates the poor fighting mechanics.

There are also a couple of things that OOT does that are not good or bad. The game doesn't really tell you the specifics on where to go. Although Navi and Saria are available for you to ask for help, their messages are not really useful. However, if a younger me could get through the game with no problem, maybe it really isn't a problem. Also, the inventory system is a bit clunky, but that can be attributed to the console that it was played on. Lastly, the game not saving your exact location when you restart the game is a minor issue, but this issue can also be attributed to the power of the N64. These minor issues don't really affect the quality of the game.

Everybody knows the terror of putting the iron boots on and off.

But OOT really shines in other places. The story of this game is great and keeps me addicted to the game no matter how many times I play it. At the end of the game, you feel that the long, hard journey that you traveled was well worth it. Furthermore, the music is fantastic. Who doesn't fondly remember the Gerudo's Valley music or the Lon Lon Ranch music? When you're not blindly swinging at enemies, combat feels amazing. With Z-targeting, one on one combat feels fast and exciting. The game's dungeons are difficult, but not too difficult. Even the water temple is not extremely difficult, even though most of the community says that it is. Moreover, there are plenty of things to do even if you're not progressing the main story. From the bombchu alley, to getting all of the pieces of hearts, to fishing, there's always something to do in the game.

While OOT does have it's share of flaws, it's not "the worst game ever" as my co-writer would say. It's actually pretty good. If you have the time, you should definitely take a look at one of gaming's finest classic. Trust me, you're in for a good time.

Don't like what I said? Like what I said? Please, leave a comment in the section below. Also, if you want to see someone bad at OOT, take a look at the video shown below for our series on OOT.

Why Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the Worst Game Ever

For the past few nights after getting back to school with my friends I have been playing Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game released on the N64 in 1998. After playing about 4 hours worth of game time and only making it to the first adult Link temple I have reached a conclusion about the game. 

For those who don't actively play video games, the change in controls, graphics, and story lines between 1998 and now has been immense. These three changes were drastic from playing the remastered version of Halo CE to playing OOT. Ocarina of Time is a game designed so badly that it is near impossible for a casual gamer such as myself to even come close to ever understanding the controls for the game.

The video clip above is a recording of me attempting to play the game during my second sit down. 

The first flaw in the game's design is with the controls, although this is more the fault of the N64 than it is of the game developers. For some reason Nintendo figured that a controller for a game system should look like this:

That's right, a controller with three hand grips, a misplaced joystick, and a poorly implemented secondary D-pad/button arrangement for the C stick. 

I don't know how any console developer expected players to use these controls for supposedly next generation (at the time 3-dimensional games were all the rage) games such as Super Mario 64 and OOT. 

The game design stems from the poorly designed controller to affect the overall button system for the game, having to use the C buttons to equip weapons is simply too difficult compared to relatively modern weapon switching mechanics present in games such as Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, and GTA V. 

The next huge pain that presents itself in OOT is the camera system, which also happens to plague other games also released on the N64 around the same time. The camera most of the time will follow the player forcing the user to control Link while watching his actions at completely odd angles. There is a fix for the system that requires the player to repeatedly press the Z button to re-focus the camera behind the player. There are however other bugs present in this camera system including the targeting system, and also when entering certain parts of the maps where the camera is static and simply pans to wherever the player is located. 

The final gripe that I have for this game is the lack of concrete storyline for the player to follow, this would be understandable if OOT were a completely open world game. However, since the game play revolves around the plot too closely there is no excuse for not providing in depth side-quest information for the player.

Ultimately the only reason I will end up finishing this game is to laugh about these flaws and make jokes along the way with my friends. if you are considering picking up this game and trying to play it I highly suggest that you step back and look into a more modern game that has at least better controls and graphics.

As always feel free to sound off in the comments with your opinions, and make sure to follow us on Twitter @SageDiscussions and like our page on Facebook.

The Problem with Social

Social media is currently broken, and most people don't even notice. Thats right those 5 or more social apps on your phone, tablet, computer etc. are serving a completely different use from what they were intended to do when being developed. 

A quick intro about the current flaws of social media, and why Beme was created.

Social media apps mostly share the same goal, to allow people to share their perspective of the world/their day with others. However with the recent launch of the app Beme launched by popular video maker Casey Neistat showcased the exact problem with social networks, that most apps have become a way for people to stylize their life or to filter what they show to other people. Social media is no longer about sharing your true life it has become a way to share a filtered view of yourself.

The problem, highlighted in the Beme video above extends to Beme itself. The fact that the app has to be opened and has to be activated in some fashion automatically means that the content shared will be picked and chosen by the individual. This is a vital flaw of most social media apps. 

No matter what app you use to share your life with others, you will be sharing a filtered version of yourself, these problems don't lie in the intent behind the app but rather the designs of the applications. 

Apps are designed to work certain ways, mostly for ease of use, which is why apps like Snapchat, Beme, Instagram, Facebook and others don't share every single little part of your life, every one of these apps allows you the user to choose whether or not to share that moment.

These design choices become accepted by the public and then become simply part of the status quo. People use apps like Snapchat because to them it seems like the current best method to share photos and videos that will disappear after a select amount of time. 

More and more companies will arrive to the social media market, claiming to fix the issues of all the previous applications in the same space, and most of the time these apps will fall to the same issues that all their predecessors have encountered. A word of advice when developing a social media application, don't claim that it is going to completely change the way people will share their lives.

As always feel free to sound off in the comments if you think these problems don't matter or don't actuall exist, or if you think that there is some interesting insight in the post you agree with. Also make sure to check us out on Twitter @SageDiscussions and on Facebook Sage Discussions.

Why the AUDL Might Not Succeed

... (As much as people want it to)

The American Ultimate Disc League just got off of another season of expansion, expanding into a Southern division adding teams from Atlanta, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Nashville, Raleigh and adding a few other teams to their existing divisions. This rapid expansion for such a young sports league might signal either the league has been making a lot of money from existing teams or that the league is willing to take a hit financially to get into markets that can provide returns in the coming years.

However besides the rapid expansion there are two other flaws with the league that might force the AUDL to ultimately collapse. The first problem with the AUDL is that there is no centralized marketing for all teams we will dive into this a bit deeper below about what this really is and what it will mean for the league. The second problem is the lack of prominent game footage for fans to watch this is a slightly smaller problem that many people tend to gloss over but is a vital part of making a sport go mainstream in this day and age.

The first problem that I mentioned above is the lack of a league marketing team that oversees all teams in all divisions. When looking at other sports leagues in the United States and across the world for that matter, most if not all have a centralized marketing team. This team develops a brand strategy that teams conform to so that no matter the team or city the league should be advertized the same way. This expands beyond just basic advertising on team websites but also apparel and associated swag. Currently the league sells products such as mugs, shirts, hoodies, and other basic merchandise, but there are a few teams that have their own stores with more products than what are available on the AUDL's shop.

This lack of cohesive brand management and marketing leads to issues where some teams might not be perceived as part of the league and leads to different and confused experiences for many fans that go to games for different teams. 

The second flaw I introduced above was the lack of game footage available to fans. I happen to be from Seattle and go to school in New York, so when I am in New York I am unable to attend any of Seattle's games and therefore since the team doesn't provide live streams for all games, nor provides the game's full footage online via video anywhere I end up missing a lot of the action. This is not an isolated case, the only games that were freely available for fans this last season in the AUDL were the championship games and that was it. So there was no way for people who have just heard of the sport to go and watch game footage from the AUDL teams without paying for a subscription through ESPN/TSN or using some third party streaming website for the few teams that offered those streams.

This lack of free content from games severely limits the publicity and rate of growth of the league because it limits viewership to only fans that pay for streaming services or even worse limits viewership to only those who are going to the games.

These two problems with the AUDL will, in my opinion, severely limit the growth of the league in regards to fans and spectators and might just doom the league from ever reaching the heights of leagues such as the NFL, MLS, MLB or the NBA within the United States.

Think what I said above is wrong, or believe that the AUDL has what it takes to grow to a large recognized sports league? Let me know in the comments below or via email: sagediscussions@outlook.com. 

As always make sure to follow us on Twitter @SageDiscussions and like our Facebook Page: facebook.com/SageDiscussions.

The Problem with Modern Games for Consoles

I am unlike any of my friends at college or from high school, the newest gaming console I have played on is my families Wii U. My family has mostly stayed a complete Nintendo platform only kind of family except for our PS2 which I incredibly enjoy. However most of my friends have Xbox's and PS4's so my only experience I have with these consoles comes from my friends where I spend most of my non-work time at school. 

One of my recent conversations with these friends started off like this:

Spencer: I only have 34 GBs left on my Xbox

 A few quick notes about this, Spencer is my friend with an Xbox One, it has a 500Gb internal hard drive, and Spencer only has 6 games installed on his Xbox. 

The conversation continued on about how video games now days take up incredible amounts of digital space on consoles, he recently bought Halo the Master Chief Collection which was a total of 68 GB's worth of data that had to be both ripped from the disks and also downloaded for the whole game. Granted Halo MCC is kind of a one off game where it is actually a collection of the first four Halo games remastered, yet when most games take up 30-70 GB's worth of storage there is a problem.

The central problem as to why these games require so much storage falls down to how games are played on modern consoles and how the game is actually packaged. For those who haven't played any games on these modern consoles, most games no longer require the disk to remain inside the console in order to play them. In many ways this is an incredible advancement from older consoles, no longer would you need to sort through tens of games just to look for the one you want to play. However most games require a ton of files, textures, game logic, and most importantly audio files. Textures can easily be compressed simply because they are basic images and 3d files. Surprisingly the audio files for all modern games aren't compressed, this causes these game files to remain so large even with advancements in console processors.

So what's the takeaway? Well game developers need to find a way to compress the entire game, audio files included to make them easier for players to install and save space so people can install more games on their consoles, also Microsoft and Sony really need to start selling 2 TB internal hard drives for their consoles to offer more game space.

The Four Major Reasons Why MLU is Boring to Watch

For an avid Ultimate player and fan like myself, finding quality Ultimate streams and videos is a very tough chore. Among the monotony of Callahan videos, Frisbee trick shot videos, and how-to videos, there are very little actual games on the net. And amid these very few videos, most are of low quality and are very hard to get interested in.

But if you're talking about professional Ultimate, there's only two places to turn to; MLU and AUDL. Both are regarded as the top level of Ultimate in the US. With only three years to grow its program, both leagues have many impressive things. However even with all the advancements in professional Ultimate, the MLU is still boring to watch for four major reasons:

1: Lack of Movement

Now any Ultimate players may be confused about why I say that a lack of movement is making the MLU seem boring. Surely Ultimate is a high speed sport? Let's first look at how a typical Ultimate player sees the game. On offense, if you do not have the disc, you usually are running around. As a cutter, you typically look at your handler with the disc, the field in front of you, and the defenders around you. If you have the disc on offense, you are always looking for cuts and handler movement. On defense, players look for these same things, but in a different way. As a player, area that you can visually sense is dynamic and constantly changing, leading to a very exciting experience.

Now let's switch perspective and take a look at how a viewer of a typical MLU game sees the game. First, the camera is zoomed out to see a larger view on the field. However, this makes all the players look slower than they actually are. This camera perspective is not really a MLU problem though; most, if not all Ultimate games are filmed in such a way. It allows viewers to get a better grasp of the field as a whole. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it didn't directly interfere with another part of the camera; central focus on the person with the disc. When the disc is actively moving, the game is exciting. Unfortunately, for a majority of the game, the disc is stationary in the handler's hands. While it makes sense, keeping the disc in one space slows the game down and makes it less fun to watch.

2: One Strategy   

This problem has been a huge problem for me specifically, but probably for other fans of Ultimate as well. When I play Ultimate, I try to stress the point of having what I like to call "smooth flow". This "smooth flow" is the act of having cuts happen at a time where the disc can be pushed up the field in one smooth motion. This movement leads to a faster paced game than playing more conservative. Yet this is not the best strategy in the meta today. The best strategy in the game right now is to wait for a long drive opportunity. There are several reasons why this strategy is considered the best. First and most obvious, it's one of the quickest ways to score. No doubt throwing the disc across the field for a score is a great and exciting way to score. Moreover, the downside for missing a long huck is very minimal. The defending team would usually get the disc at the front of their endzone, which is pretty bad field position. The problem is that this strategy is used so much during professional play that it gets repetitive. In my experience, a typical professional Ultimate game has around fifty to eighty-five percent of scoring plays using this strategy. In any sport, a play done over and over quickly gets stale, whether it be the long hucks of Ultimate, or a hail mary play from football. The monotony of the same play happening over and over again get tiring to watch. It doesn't help that most defenses usually play a mix of one to three defenses. But this is the most optimal way to play the game. Although boring to watch, it's understandable that teams play this way. 

3: Monotonous Commercials

Now while the above two points can be attributed to how the sport of Ultimate Frisbee is played in general, the next two points are purely MLU problems. Like football, Ultimate has commercials during idle parts of the game. Also, like soccer, Ultimate(at least the MLU) is plastered with ads around and across the field, on players, and perhaps other places. Usually, I would be mad about this as I am with hockey, but I do understand that MLU needs the money, as Ultimate as a sport has just started up. I am confused, however, that as of the last game I have seen, all commercials during the MLU games are about MLU. Furthermore, the MLU must have hired a single intern to make commercials, because there are a grand total of around seven commercials that constantly cycle over and over. As I previously stated, repetition leads to staleness and all around less interesting content. The MLU also switches to commercial break extremely often. Sometimes, the commercials overlap with game footage, making viewers miss parts of the content, although they have been getting better with this recently. Furthermore, most MLU commercials have very bad songs to go along with them. All of these advertisement gaffes makes watching an MLU game painful to watch.

4: Commentary

The last point that I want to make is that commentary for the MLU is sub-par. First off, the microphone volume for the two commentators are off. One commentator may be too quiet, while the other is too loud. But it doesn't really matter which is louder because the commentary itself is dry. Most commentary consists of saying who caught the disc, what penalties are called, and if the disc is caught when thrown deep. The problem is that this style of commentary doesn't add anything to the game. Commentators need to do analysis on key plays on the field. Now, I know that Ultimate isn't like football; after a play you can't go to Starbucks and get yourself a cappuccino and come back to see the next play. Nevertheless, MLU commentators need to go more into detail when commentating. The MLU also suffers from having boring commentators in general. I like to say that commentators in the MLU would be better on radio because they speak as if nobody can see the game. Unfortunately, Ultimate is a game that is streamed, so these voices are ineffective here. Commentators need to have more excitement when they commentate. If they can do that, the game will be more interesting and the MLU will get more viewers. 

This game highlights several of the problems I've already stated.

Also, this is the state of the game footage after the livestream. It's not great.

I understand that the MLU is still very young, and will take time to get to a truly entertaining level. But at this rate, MLU will get overtaken by its major rival, the AUDL. MLU needs to make major changes in its upcoming seasons, or drop out.

If you have any opinions or questions, please leave a message in the comments section below! I'm always interested in other's opinions.

The Silliest Rule in Ultimate

When I was watching Major League Ultimate the other day, I noticed a strange event happening on the field. The pulling team, called a timeout before the pull. Afterwards, the started the pull from midfield.

Now for those of you not versed in the rules of Ultimate Frisbee, usually pulls are thrown from your end zone. This is done to assure that the defense has the time to set up an offense. It was a big surprise to me that the pull was taken from midfield. At the time, I thought that there was some kind of weird rule going on, so I checked the rules and sure enough, there was. From the head of the MLU rulebook, Ian McClellan,

If the pulling team calls a timeout between points (before readiness is signaled), they will get to pull from midfield after that timeout. This provides an exciting strategic option for using a timeout between points apply some extra defensive pressure to start the next point. Hopefully this becomes a useful tool for teams that are behind to create some break opportunities to improve comeback chances. 

From http://mlultimate.com/head-of-rule-committee-ian-mcclellan-explains-2015-rule-book-changes/ 

Now, let's get to the point. I believe that this rule change is a terrible decision. Let's first talk about how this effects the starting field position and starting flow of the game. Normally after the pull, the offense has about one or two uninterrupted throws before the defensive team can set a play on the offensive team. This short freedom allows the offense to solidify the beginnings of their offense. Furthermore, the disc after the pull usually ends up outside of the end zone, giving the offense better field position. These two things allow the offense to get a slight advantage after previously losing a point. Unfortunately, with the new timeout rule in place, both of these slight offensive advantages are lost. When pulling from midfield, the defense can both easily set up a defense and apply massive pressure to the offense because of the imbalanced field position of the two teams. With the defense starting from midfield, it is much easier to set a defense due to the shortened space between the two teams. Coupled with the fact that any good puller can pull half the field, the defense is in an unfair advantage over the offense with this rule.

But to say that this rule wouldn't achieve its purpose is a false statement. I'm sure that this very advantageous defensive position could be, as Ian McClellan says, "a useful tool for teams that are behind to create some break opportunities to improve comeback chances." However, the converse could be true. This rule could also be used to solidify leads. Now, I'm always excited to see a huge comeback and I would be happy to see a reasonable rule that favors comebacks. Yet this rule is not it. This call, when used when a team is two or three points ahead, could further increase a teams lead by causing turnovers, or even worse, Callahans. This would make a losing team's comeback that much harder, rather than make it easier.

In a sport where the rules are already confusing enough to understand, is this rule worth adding in for the "hype factor" or excitement? In my opinion, it's just poorly designed. A rule that promotes unfair advantages and potentially kills comebacks is a big pass in my book. As an Ultimate player myself, I know that I would be annoyed if I lost or won a game because of some silly rule.

But maybe that's just me. If you have any opinions or want to call me silly for not knowing what I'm talking about, please leave something in the comments! I'm always ready and willing to discuss anything about Ultimate!

Why Ultimate Frisbee’s IOC recognition isn’t as Valuable as Everyone Thinks

Recently if you have been following the Ultimate Frisbee news cycle you would have heard that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) officially recognized Ultimate as an Olympic sport which means that in just a few short years a lot more people might see the sport played during a summer olympic event.

However the problem that the Ultimate community at large has had is that it believes that becoming an Olympic sport is the final goal for Ultimate. 

Olympic recognition is not the final step in a sport’s evolution, and it doesn’t offer true growth for the sport in the long run. - Click here to tweet

---

Simply because Ultimate gets played in the Olympics doesn’t mean that flocks of new people will begin to start playing the sport. Sure there will be some growth for the sport as new people will get introduced to the sport, but the best opportunity for the sport to truly take off is to develop a true world cup event for Ultimate. Now I realize that there are the world games events for Ultimate and there is World Ultimate Club Championships but there really isn’t an event that is on par with the soccer/football world cup.

If Ultimate has its own world cup scale event every four years or every two years then there will be enormous growth in sport because it won’t get drowned out by potentially 27 other sports or sporting events. With an Ultimate world cup event, the sport can be introduced to millions of people without needing to compete against other sports. The key to making a world cup format introduce the sport to more people then falls into the hands of sports broadcasting on TV.

Once the sport has a true world-scale event that is broadcast internationally on TV, then will we begin to see widespread growth in the sport.

---

TL;DR: Don't worry about Ultimate Frisbee in the Olympics, make a new World Cup event for it.