Madden NFL 13 Video - Gameplay With Jim Nantz and Phil Simms In-Game Commentary

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by at23steelers

I think the person means that it had great potential if they expanded on it. I agree, I thought it was clever and made the game more fun to listen to outside of gaming. No one is denying it had some problems with it, but if it was expanded on, could've been something that added to the franchise immersion.

It did have potential, I can't deny that. The only way I think stuff like that works is if you take specificities out of it though. It could be awesome if you just have like a huge array of different fans calling in based on who's doing well and poor in your season. It would literally have to be a TON though just so it didn't get repetitive.

The same goes for the commentary. They need to shy away from mentioning specific years and events from the past when talking about guys because once you get a few years into a franchise those comments don't ever apply anymore.

[SweetBabyJebus]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

It did have potential, I can't deny that. The only way I think stuff like that works is if you take specificities out of it though. It could be awesome if you just have like a huge array of different fans calling in based on who's doing well and poor in your season. It would literally have to be a TON though just so it didn't get repetitive.

also with draft classes being designed instead of random, commentary could be implemented for the studs created for the drafts

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

It did have potential, I can't deny that. The only way I think stuff like that works is if you take specificities out of it though. It could be awesome if you just have like a huge array of different fans calling in based on who's doing well and poor in your season. It would literally have to be a TON though just so it didn't get repetitive.

Makes me wonder why it's not done that way.

Have an xml or something that listed out all the fans, etc, and give them lines based on the record of the team, some team stats, if there's any players near milestones, any low morale or negative roles, maybe if a guy lost DPP a lot last game, etc.

All this data is in the game, just needs to be tapped into and used

[jmurphy31]

Ive read through the this thread again even when I posted before and as much as the first video sounded poorly, the podcast did sound a little better. But we need to see video with the commentary before we can make positive or negative remarks. will it be perfect the first year, "no" as others have said. However, the thing EA needs to get right in year one is making sure the commentary makes sense. I dont want to hear about a WR and how well he threw the ball or how the safety went for the pick on a kick return.

If you want to complain about the original commentary video that is fine, but it is said to be an earlier build. But we also shouldn't praise the podcast without seeing a video.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmurphy31

Ive read through the this thread again even when I posted before and as much as the first video sounded poorly, the podcast did sound a little better. But we need to see video with the commentary before we can make positive or negative remarks. will it be perfect the first year, "no" as others have said. However, the thing EA needs to get right in year one is making sure the commentary makes sense. I dont want to hear about a WR and how well he threw the ball or how the safety went for the pick on a kick return. If you want to complain about the original commentary video that is fine, but it is said to be an earlier build. But we also shouldn't praise the podcast without seeing a video.

That is fine and dandy, and I agree. We have till June 4th to wait for that, in between, I think one could have an opinion between the old mix and the podcast.

[jmurphy31]

Anyone can have an opinion, I am not saying people cant. Even I said the podcast sounds better, but until you can see and hear the commentary together you cant make a solid analysis. What if the commentary is off by 3-5 seconds or its wrong. Also, maybe the podcast was jsut recorded lines before they were even implemented into the game.

Personally, I think the commentary will be better than last year , but not anything special in year one.

I really hope they stick with this new technology and announcing teams for more than two years. it seems like every two years they are switching one of the two and starting back from the beginning.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmurphy31

Anyone can have an opinion, I am not saying people cant. Even I said the podcast sounds better, but until you can see and hear the commentary together you cant make a solid analysis. What if the commentary is off by 3-5 seconds or its wrong. Also, maybe the podcast was jsut recorded lines before they were even implemented into the game. Personally, I think the commentary will be better than last year , but not anything special in year one. I really hope they stick with this new technology and announcing teams for more than two years. it seems like every two years they are switching one of the two and starting back from the beginning.

I think this is where most people defending it are coming from. At this point, we've heard and seen so little that it's absolutely impossible to judge anything. In my opinion, what we've heard so far sounds much better than what we had last year and isn't anywhere near enough to deem the commentary as a full-on failure yet.

Like with everything else it seems, June 4th is the day. After that we should be able to get plenty of more valid impressions.

[ryan36]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Wait a minute now, I don't intend to offer any excuses for Madden not being better but we shouldn't compare slower paced baseball commentary to play by play in football, imo. I think the pace of baseball lends better to flowing commentary than more action filled sports like soccer, basketball, football, etc. That's like comparing the commentary in golf to football, when we know full well it's apples and oranges. That said, when just showcasing the stitch tech for M13, that commentary had a nice flow but it's how it sounded during the actual game play, that was lacking. I think we all need to see how effective this new tech is at E3 before we critique the inevitable flaws it will have.

As someone who has broadcast baseball, football, and basketball professionally, basketball is the hardest to fit a color commentator into. More than 3 seconds of analysis and the play by play guy will miss a play. The 2k series does it perfectly nearly.

According to (I think it was a WSJ article) the ball is in play in a football game for 11 to 12 minutes of a 60 minute game. I've seen tv broadcasts where the color guy talks more than the play by play guy. The challenge in a radio broadcast is telling the listener what 22 guys are doing and all the potential angles you may want to describe. On tv, not so much. Football has a play clock, but in an NFL broadcast there is time for a replay and a telestrator and color commentary. The challenge of putting it into a video game is that a theme will go on for an entire drive / game. "That's why the Seahawks have big corners...to make plays like that." then 3 plays later, "again just look at the size of Browner. He's able to jump with Fitzgerald. Pete Carroll knew what he was up against in the NFC West and he knew he needed a big secondary." so on and so forth.

In baseball there is more time for a story, but the conversational element- the back and forth , is similar in baseball and football. They're more analogous than you think.