Some simulations can have different results depending on whether you actually play out the game or just use the quick simulation. Does 'DDS: College Basketball' use the same simulation engine in both methods?

Yes the same simulation engine is used for both styles of play. That doesn’t mean the outcome will be the same though if you sim as oppose to coach the game. You as the coach have many opportunities to influence the outcome of the game both positively and negatively through your sub patterns and play calling.

Statistical accuracy in the simulation is a big concern for any sports simulation fans. College basketball results can be even tougher than most sports to simulate with the wide variety of strategies used by various coaches. What tools do you and your testing team use to ensure that the results provide are realistic while still allowing for the occasional upset or surprising result?

We always use recent seasons as benchmarks to get our numbers around. This season in particular it was difficult because the NCAA is now changing the distance of the three point line in the upcoming season, which means we didn’t really know how that would affect the game. With the various playing styles in college basketball, we simulate hundreds of seasons and evaluate anything we see as an oddity to our acceptable range of stats and determine what strategies created that anomaly. If it isn’t a plausible situation, then I go back in and tweak the engine and we start all over again.

Are you happy with the depth of recruiting in the game? Is there any part of the recruiting process that turned out better than expected/worse than expected?

I love how recruiting turned out. In a college game recruiting plays a huge role and I think DDS: College Basketball does it better than any other game out there. One of my favorite new things is the ability to learn information about the recruit and his family. The motivations of the parents and recruit can greatly influence the recruiting process.

We also added the ability to “bribe” recruits. This is a feature we made optional in the game but I think it adds (perhaps sadly) another level of realism. You can call and find out a recruit had an upbringing without much money – you may think it would make sense to reach into the coffers and throw out a bribe to him. It might work – he may be convinced to bring his all-state game to your school for a year or two before going pro but it might not. Your illegal actions can be discovered, ending with your school on probation, you on the unemployment line and your reputation ruined to the point that only the most desperate of schools would give you a second chance. On the other hand, the kid could sign, lead you to a national championship and iconic coaching status and your illegal deeds go unpunished. The best thing is that YOUR single decision can set into effect a whole course of actions.

Recruiting creates a totally different game experience based on the school you wish to coach. If you’re a very small school, you will quickly learn that you don’t get much choice in who is interested in playing for you. Do you just take the few kids who actually want to play at your school or do you wait it out? You could risk losing those guys to anyone that will take them. In that case, you hope you can scoop up a junior college player that was overlooked or wait it out and take in a transfer with questionable grades or character issues. Recruiting is by far the best part of the game simply because you have so many choices that you can make and each choice has consequences in the short term and the future.

In 'DDS: College Basketball', you have a 2D simulation display for the game presentation. What do you feel works well in that engine? Is there anything you want to upgrade for future versions of the game?

I’d like to add additional animation and a smoother feel to it much like the CM/FM series. I think it works great though because it does two things. First, it gives you a chance to actually watch the action unfold. Sure, it’s not as pretty as the college games done by the big boys but once you really get into the game you’ll sit there and scream at your point guard that your shooting guard is wide open. Second, it “proves” what is going on under the hood. Every play is played out right in front of you so you can see how your strategies are working (or not working). There are no phony stats being generated simply to match ratings or anything of that sort. You get to see it all with the 2D display.

What segment of the game took up the most development time? What was the biggest contributing factor in the time consumed developing that aspect of the game?

The most time was spent on the new coach/player and player/team relationships. This was a tough thing to balance out but I think it came out really well and adds a whole new dimension to the game and again, more decisions. Sometimes you might have a superstar player but his personality tends to clash with you, the coach, or his teammates. You have the option of trying to ask him to have a better attitude or taking greater measures like suspending him for a week or two to show him that his attitude isn’t acceptable. Or you can do what many a coach would do and just ignore it. If he plays well then you won’t face many problems, but if the team is losing then the rest of the team might just get fed up and revolt. Do you take the chance of losing your team for one guy? As you can imagine, this was a very difficult dynamic to get the right feel. It had to be right because if it wasn’t, it would throw off the entire balance of the game.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss your game, Gary.

I want to thank you for this opportunity. It’s not often that small developers get the chance to get the word out about their company and their games. I hope that everyone will be willing to try one of our free demos and see that great games exist in other places than just the store shelves.

You can visit and learn more about Wolverine Studios at the company's website .