Maximum Football??? - Page 3

stevew · 01-31-2006, 12:11 AM

Those screenshots look like Lego characters playing Football.

biological warrior · 01-31-2006, 01:27 AM

Bring back Legends of Football.

Bonegavel · 01-31-2006, 01:31 AM

Without intending to sounding too negative, this game is going to suck the most enormous donkey testicles that have ever been produced by ID/Evolution.

There isn't one post on that forum that leads me to believe that this game will be anything but a waste of time.

Besides, more money has been thrown at the madden franchise than any other football game in history and they still can't get the 3d aspect of the game right... how does this game have any chance?

Folks that play these types of sim games demand absolute accuracy. There is no way on earth this guy is going to be able to accomplish anything near satisfactory simulations.

At least madden has pretty graphics... from a simulation standpoint, madden is terrible. At this point in technology, you cannot have a football sim with the spreadsheet power of FOF and an accurate on the field simulation (again,that not even the front-runner madden gets right). Football is just too complex for our slow computers.

Someday? Yes. Now? No, especially by an indie developer with only a track record of missed deadlines.

sabotai · 01-31-2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Football is just too complex for our slow computers.

I could not disagree with this statement more.

Everything said about Maximum Football, however, I do agree with.

gstelmack · 01-31-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

At this point in technology, you cannot have a football sim with the spreadsheet power of FOF and an accurate on the field simulation (again,that not even the front-runner madden gets right). Football is just too complex for our slow computers.

B.S. Madden hasn't done it yet because Madden focuses on joystick jockeys, not armchair coaches.

Ragone · 01-31-2006, 07:07 AM

Hmm... i may get this game.. just to see if a 8088 processor can handle those bad ass graphix!

Samdari · 01-31-2006, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

At this point in technology, you cannot have a football sim with the spreadsheet power of FOF and an accurate on the field simulation (again,that not even the front-runner madden gets right). Football is just too complex for our slow computers

To pile one, you are really wrong about this.

The reasons that nobody has released a game that does both well is economics. To develop such a game would cost more money than developing a game that does one well, and they would not be able to raise the price (since the only acceptable price for a new game is $50).

Football pro 97 did both well, and was released in 96. I don't think football has gotten much more complicated, or computers slower, in that time.

ice4277 · 01-31-2006, 09:54 AM

I just re-read some of what SD posted on page 1 from the Maximum Football forum. I loved this from the designer/programmer/whatever:

"I posted a new build for the testers on Sunday night. Lets see what happens with that."

Gotta love the confidence!

Bonegavel · 01-31-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

I could not disagree with this statement more.

Everything said about Maximum Football, however, I do agree with.

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Somebody needs to include this in a memo to the Madden Team.

I may not have the most knowledge of football, but I know it when I see it. The current state of computer power isn't enough to model the game exactly as we watch it on Sundays.

I don't want a graphical representation of the game until it can perfectly match life (and someday technology and programming will get there), otherwise-- what is the point? We nitpick with Jim and Arlie to get the text portion of it right; imagine how crazy you would be watching the game unfold in 3d on your screen and you see the AI doing stupid shit.

Maybe Jim or Arlie could weigh-in on this and tell me I'm full of shit and that we can do this with today's machines, but I highly doubt it.

rkmsuf · 01-31-2006, 10:42 AM

I've never seen so much talk about such a ham and egg project.

gstelmack · 01-31-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Yes. Or at least close enough for gaming purposes. Heck, most of the football games out there really only have one or two annoying AI gaps, and they don't focus on AI really much at all (again, they're building AIs that are good opponents for joystick jockeys, not AIs that are good football players). If this were the focus of a game (a 3D football SIM rather than a 3D football action game), there's no reason it couldn't be very solid.

John Galt · 01-31-2006, 10:43 AM

I think the only thing missing from this thread is a post by Wrongway saying "this will be the greatest selling game of all time. And Wie sucks." Sadly, that can't happen.

MizzouRah · 01-31-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Somebody needs to include this in a memo to the Madden Team.

I may not have the most knowledge of football, but I know it when I see it. The current state of computer power isn't enough to model the game exactly as we watch it on Sundays.

I don't want a graphical representation of the game until it can perfectly match life (and someday technology and programming will get there), otherwise-- what is the point? We nitpick with Jim and Arlie to get the text portion of it right; imagine how crazy you would be watching the game unfold in 3d on your screen and you see the AI doing stupid shit.

Maybe Jim or Arlie could weigh-in on this and tell me I'm full of shit and that we can do this with today's machines, but I highly doubt it.

You may be right with the "perfectly match life" portion of your statement, but the FPS series was/is/might always be the best of both worlds. It had some problems, but it did a lot right. The series was evolving like Madden does in terms of graphics, but Sierra pulled the plug.

dawgfan · 01-31-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Absolutely. The reason they don't doesn't have to do with computational power so much as it does economics - the amount of time and energy to tweak the AI algorithms to approach 95% of reality is simply not worth the payoff.

And even if they did, people would still bitch. Think about every time an AI player misread/forgot/blew the play call and was wildly out of position (just like what happens every Sunday in reality) - the gamer would bitch and moan about what a "stupid" AI it is.

Now, what may also be limiting the AI is the connection to the 3D engine. There's a range of possibilities that can happen when you connect the logic code of the game to the 3D engine, ranging from the logic has absolute control over the movement of the players at the expense of the animations to the animations have complete control at the expense of the logic. Madden runs closer to the first extreme - they realize it's more important to get the player in the right spot than to have the animation run smoothly. That's why you see foot sliding and awkward looking transitions. But I think they do provide a slight amount of concession to the animations at the expense of the logic to keep the animations from looking too awful.

As game console processors get more powerful, this will allow for more sophisticated blending systems to be integrated into the 3D engines which will allow the logic code to completely govern movement in the games while also providing very realistic animations and transitions.

Surtt · 01-31-2006, 02:45 PM

It is a trade off.
AI takes lots of cpu time.
Graphics takes lots of cpu time.
Which do you think Madden chooses?

CraigSca · 01-31-2006, 02:48 PM

I'll be the lone dissenting vote here. If I was a solo developer, I'd be pretty damn proud if these were the graphics I was able to offer.

Bee · 01-31-2006, 02:54 PM

The graphics don't bother me at all, I'd be more concerned about how well the AI and career play turns out (assuming the game is actually released at some point).

astrosfan64 · 01-31-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Somebody needs to include this in a memo to the Madden Team.

I may not have the most knowledge of football, but I know it when I see it. The current state of computer power isn't enough to model the game exactly as we watch it on Sundays.

I don't want a graphical representation of the game until it can perfectly match life (and someday technology and programming will get there), otherwise-- what is the point? We nitpick with Jim and Arlie to get the text portion of it right; imagine how crazy you would be watching the game unfold in 3d on your screen and you see the AI doing stupid shit.

Maybe Jim or Arlie could weigh-in on this and tell me I'm full of shit and that we can do this with today's machines, but I highly doubt it.

They can do it in SIGAMES Football Manager. What makes you think they can't do it in American Football.

astrosfan64 · 01-31-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surtt

It is a trade off.
AI takes lots of cpu time.
Graphics takes lots of cpu time.
Which do you think Madden chooses?

Wrong.

Graphics are generally done with the video card now. The Processor has very little to do with the graphics.

sovereignstar · 01-31-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

My face

Wrong!

astrosfan64 · 01-31-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Wrong!

I don't get it.

dawgfan · 01-31-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Wrong.

Graphics are generally done with the video card now. The Processor has very little to do with the graphics.

This is correct - most (if not all) of the graphics processing is handled by the GPU, not the CPU.

JeffR · 01-31-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

They can do it in SIGAMES Football Manager. What makes you think they can't do it in American Football.

If anything, the real trick is having the players make mistakes. An AI quarterback can look at all his receivers on a play and make the highest-percentage pass 100% of the time. To be a realistic model, though, he has to make bad choices occasionally, and his reaction time has to be slowed down to something less than instant.

gstelmack · 01-31-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Wrong.

Graphics are generally done with the video card now. The Processor has very little to do with the graphics.

Hehehe. You're funny.

Maybe for actually DRAWING the graphics, but there is still a TON of setup work in deciding what to draw. Trust me, the rendering folks still want access to PLENTY of CPU for their work.

Bonegavel · 01-31-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

They can do it in SIGAMES Football Manager. What makes you think they can't do it in American Football.

I'll concede that Soccer must be a little more complicated than just running around on a big field trying to kick a little ball in a giant goal, but please, American Football is way more complicated than Soccer.

sabotai · 01-31-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

So you are of the opinion that it is possible to accurately model 22 individual A.I.s on the field so as to be indistinguishable from the real thing?

Absolutely.

Quote:

I may not have the most knowledge of football

And exactly how knowledgable are you in the field of computer programming and artificial intelligence?

astrosfan64 · 01-31-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I'll concede that Soccer must be a little more complicated than just running around on a big field trying to kick a little ball in a giant goal, but please, American Football is way more complicated than Soccer.

I don't think so. American football is only 4 to 10 seconds long per play. Soccer is continous flow.
When a player has a ball in soccer he must make a ton of decisions.

In football, a lineman either blocks or well blocks. Granted he must decided who to block. But, in general he either man blocks or zone blocks. Now there are positions that require more thought such as the QB, but in general on a play a person is given a command. He is supposed to perform the action the playbook tells him too.

Either game can be modeled accurately. I believe both would take years of tweaking the engine and input from experts in the field. Years meaning, it took SI Games about 8 years or more to accurately depict 2d gameplay. I don't believe you can say one is easier or harder then the other.

All I want is a 2d model, simple x and o for a football game. That will prove the engine.

Bonegavel · 01-31-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

And exactly how knowledgable are you in the field of computer programming and artificial intelligence?

I forget which version of Quake it was (maybe III) but John Carmack (a man that knows a little about this stuff) spoke about AI and how extremely difficult it is to code. He also mentioned the amount of CPU that needs to be dedicated to each "bot" and the number wasn't small (even for that time), and that is just for simple FPS games.

Keep in mind that this is all way beyond simple if/then logic.

Yes, I know you are a coder. I've written my share of c++ apps in my day, so, while I'm not making a living at it, I at least can look at this with some knowledge of how this stuff is structured.

moriarty · 01-31-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I forget which version of Quake it was (maybe III) but John Carmack (a man that knows a little about this stuff) spoke about AI and how extremely difficult it is to code. He also mentioned the amount of CPU that needs to be dedicated to each "bot" and the number wasn't small (even for that time), and that is just for simple FPS games.

Keep in mind that this is all way beyond simple if/then logic.

Yes, I know you are a coder. I've written my share of c++ apps in my day, so, while I'm not making a living at it, I at least can look at this with some knowledge of how this stuff is structured.

I think the issue is that a FPS like Quake has to run at so many frames per second to look good (regardless of whether the GPU is doing the rendering work). If you have multiple logic/movement decisions going on, they all have to be able to occur within that frame rate timespan. Perhaps if you took a less graphics intensive appraoch like FM, you can get by with a lower framerate and have more time to run logic intensive routines between each frame.

sabotai · 01-31-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I forget which version of Quake it was (maybe III) but John Carmack (a man that knows a little about this stuff) spoke about AI and how extremely difficult it is to code. He also mentioned the amount of CPU that needs to be dedicated to each "bot" and the number wasn't small (even for that time), and that is just for simple FPS games.

Keep in mind that this is all way beyond simple if/then logic.

I spend more time reading, designing and coding AI than I do any one other thing, so I know a bit about this too. And if the AI bots for Quake 3 were the pinnicle of his AI expertise, I hope he sticks to just the math and graphics engine programming (Carmack is a genius, and I do look up to him, but he's not going to be god at everything. For instance, he's just not that good of a game designer and he's even acknowledged that. And AI is more about design than it is technical.).

Besides, an AI bot for Q3 is not an AI bot for football. They are two very different things.

I have a pretty good idea as to what would be needed to create a (2D top down) simulation of football and the AI required (and yes, well beyond simple if/then logic). It's very do-able.

Groundhog · 01-31-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I'll concede that Soccer must be a little more complicated than just running around on a big field trying to kick a little ball in a giant goal, but please, American Football is way more complicated than Soccer.

Out of the major sports, I can think of few that would be easier (note: this does still not mean easy) to have a fluid 2D display for than American football, except for of course baseball. Basketball/soccer/ice hockey/rugby etc. are all fluid sports that are, by and large, continous. With American football it's a down at a time, and the offense and defense are both coming out with set plays. Of course there's still a heck of a lot that goes on down on the field, but after the play is over, the whole thing resets and everyone is back in position.

kcchief19 · 01-31-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samdari

To pile one, you are really wrong about this.

The reasons that nobody has released a game that does both well is economics. To develop such a game would cost more money than developing a game that does one well, and they would not be able to raise the price (since the only acceptable price for a new game is $50).

Football pro 97 did both well, and was released in 96. I don't think football has gotten much more complicated, or computers slower, in that time.

Largely I agree. To have a game with the graphics of a Madden game with the financial engine of FOF has nothing to do with CPU resources, video cards or anything else -- it has to do with the fact that you are talking about double the development time and resources. You're essential designing two games.

Sierra's FPS was a hybrid -- but I'd say that rather than double development time, they spend the same amount of development time as say Madden did, but re-allocated resources from graphics to the spreadsheet side. As a result, you got a game that wasn't as good as Madden graphically and a game that wasn't as good as FOF spreadsheet wise. I think Sierra also wisely built onto the game each year rather than starting from scratch. Unfortunately, with '99 they decided to do just that and showed that you can't do high-end graphics and high-end spreadsheet within the traditional development cycle. Given another six months and another $15/game, they could have pulled it off.

You can't get a football game with Madden-esque graphics and a FOF-esque engine without adding another $15 in price at least, and the market simply won't bare that. Joystick jockeys won't pay it.

stevew · 01-31-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Out of the major sports, I can think of few that would be easier (note: this does still not mean easy) to have a fluid 2D display for than American football, except for of course baseball. Basketball/soccer/ice hockey/rugby etc. are all fluid sports that are, by and large, continous. With American football it's a down at a time, and the offense and defense are both coming out with set plays. Of course there's still a heck of a lot that goes on down on the field, but after the play is over, the whole thing resets and everyone is back in position.

Yeah, especially because of the set plays. Which is not to argue that other sports dont have them, but in football, you'd already have a basis for where the AI is planning to run/pass the ball, so that you could work the options off of that. And in many cases, 2-3 members of the defense wouldnt even be involved in the first level of the play, so you could probably mimic their AI without much intensive use.

gstelmack · 01-31-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

I spend more time reading, designing and coding AI than I do any one other thing, so I know a bit about this too. And if the AI bots for Quake 3 were the pinnicle of his AI expertise, I hope he sticks to just the math and graphics engine programming (Carmack is a genius, and I do look up to him, but he's not going to be god at everything. For instance, he's just not that good of a game designer and he's even acknowledged that. And AI is more about design than it is technical.).

You ain't kidding. I call the original Quake AI a "PacMan" AI, because that's pretty much all the monsters did. It boiled down to:

Do I see the player? If so, attack!
Have I seen the player in the last 5 seconds? If so, run after him!
Otherwise, go back to stomping around in the room I was placed in.

That's pretty much it.

DaddyTorgo · 01-31-2006, 10:33 PM

you mean this game STILL hasn't been released?? I thought we were assuming it would be out weeks ago!!

QuikSand · 01-31-2006, 10:40 PM

According to the web site, its release will coincide nicely with last year's Superbowl. Fear not.

duckman · 01-31-2006, 10:42 PM

Best. Thread. Ever.

DaddyTorgo · 01-31-2006, 10:43 PM

oh i don't fear, because i have no intention of buying it. i fall in the same camp as SD really...if the game took this long to come out, i can't imagine the support for it is going to be where it needs to be for a first-gen game.

MizzouRah · 01-31-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

According to the web site, its release will coincide nicely with last year's Superbowl. Fear not.

Desmond · 01-31-2006, 11:29 PM

Give the dude some time god damnit, Matrix is still working on the box and manual.

Desmond · 01-31-2006, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I've never seen so much talk about such a ham and egg project.

Ham and Eggs you say? Tell me more.

JPhillips · 01-31-2006, 11:40 PM

They should offer a pre-release discount like OOTP.

Groundhog · 01-31-2006, 11:41 PM

I finally went to the website just now and as soon as I saw the first screen shot I went "Oooooohhh...... THIS game, I remember looking at these screenshots 3 years ago and thinking that this had potential"...

Bonegavel · 01-31-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desmond

Ham and Eggs you say? Tell me more.

FUNEX?
IFX.
FUNEM?
IFM.
IFMNX.

sovereignstar · 02-02-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

We are in the home stretch, no question about it, but we are not going to make it before the weekend. Keep an eye out for a gone gold press release and it shouldn't be more than a week after that. Given the way things are going, I would say a February release is certain and likely to be by mid-February.

Regards,

- Erik

.

rkmsuf · 02-02-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desmond

Ham and Eggs you say? Tell me more.

Calling someone a ham and egger back in the day meant you were a street tough.

CraigSca · 02-02-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

.

This is great news. I wonder if it comes with the 2002 rosters?

Bee · 02-02-2006, 03:43 PM

Taking a step into fantasy land for a moment and assuming the game is released mid-February...considering the game's been in development for 5-6 years (or whatever it is now), how smart is it to release it AFTER the football season is over?

SFL Cat · 02-02-2006, 03:50 PM

After 5-6 years, i would think just getting the thing out is something of a moral victory, whether football season is over or not.

bbor · 02-02-2006, 04:00 PM

I'm thinking of releasing a hockey sim....the day baseball season starts.

I am a marketing god.

01-31-2006, 01:31 AM	#103
Bonegavel Awaiting Further Instructions... Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Macungie, PA	Without intending to sounding too negative, this game is going to suck the most enormous donkey testicles that have ever been produced by ID/Evolution. There isn't one post on that forum that leads me to believe that this game will be anything but a waste of time. Besides, more money has been thrown at the madden franchise than any other football game in history and they still can't get the 3d aspect of the game right... how does this game have any chance? Folks that play these types of sim games demand absolute accuracy. There is no way on earth this guy is going to be able to accomplish anything near satisfactory simulations. At least madden has pretty graphics... from a simulation standpoint, madden is terrible. At this point in technology, you cannot have a football sim with the spreadsheet power of FOF and an accurate on the field simulation (again,that not even the front-runner madden gets right). Football is just too complex for our slow computers. Someday? Yes. Now? No, especially by an indie developer with only a track record of missed deadlines. __________________

01-31-2006, 10:42 AM	#110
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	I've never seen so much talk about such a ham and egg project. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

01-31-2006, 10:43 AM	#112
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	I think the only thing missing from this thread is a post by Wrongway saying "this will be the greatest selling game of all time. And Wie sucks." Sadly, that can't happen. __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

01-31-2006, 02:48 PM	#116
CraigSca Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Not Delaware - hurray!	I'll be the lone dissenting vote here. If I was a solo developer, I'd be pretty damn proud if these were the graphics I was able to offer. __________________ She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah! She loves you, yeah! how do you know? how do you know?

01-31-2006, 11:40 PM	#142
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	They should offer a pre-release discount like OOTP. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

01-31-2006, 12:11 AM	#101
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Those screenshots look like Lego characters playing Football.

01-31-2006, 01:27 AM	#102
biological warrior High School Varsity Join Date: Dec 2005	Bring back Legends of Football.

01-31-2006, 07:07 AM	#106
Ragone Pro Rookie Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kansas City, Mo	Hmm... i may get this game.. just to see if a 8088 processor can handle those bad ass graphix!

01-31-2006, 09:54 AM	#108
ice4277 Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkley, MI: The Hotbed of FOFC!	I just re-read some of what SD posted on page 1 from the Maximum Football forum. I loved this from the designer/programmer/whatever: "I posted a new build for the testers on Sunday night. Lets see what happens with that." Gotta love the confidence!

01-31-2006, 02:45 PM	#115
Surtt College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003	It is a trade off. AI takes lots of cpu time. Graphics takes lots of cpu time. Which do you think Madden chooses?

01-31-2006, 02:54 PM	#117
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	The graphics don't bother me at all, I'd be more concerned about how well the AI and career play turns out (assuming the game is actually released at some point).

01-31-2006, 10:33 PM	#135
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	you mean this game STILL hasn't been released?? I thought we were assuming it would be out weeks ago!!

01-31-2006, 10:40 PM	#136
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	According to the web site, its release will coincide nicely with last year's Superbowl. Fear not.

01-31-2006, 10:43 PM	#138
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	oh i don't fear, because i have no intention of buying it. i fall in the same camp as SD really...if the game took this long to come out, i can't imagine the support for it is going to be where it needs to be for a first-gen game.

01-31-2006, 11:29 PM	#140
Desmond Banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Hatch	Give the dude some time god damnit, Matrix is still working on the box and manual.

01-31-2006, 11:41 PM	#143
Groundhog Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia	I finally went to the website just now and as soon as I saw the first screen shot I went "Oooooohhh...... THIS game, I remember looking at these screenshots 3 years ago and thinking that this had potential"... __________________ Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. --Ambrose Bierce

02-02-2006, 03:43 PM	#148
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Taking a step into fantasy land for a moment and assuming the game is released mid-February...considering the game's been in development for 5-6 years (or whatever it is now), how smart is it to release it AFTER the football season is over?

02-02-2006, 03:50 PM	#149
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	After 5-6 years, i would think just getting the thing out is something of a moral victory, whether football season is over or not.

02-02-2006, 04:00 PM	#150
bbor Pro Starter Join Date: May 2001 Location: toronto	I'm thinking of releasing a hockey sim....the day baseball season starts. I am a marketing god. __________________ Pumpy Tudors Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (0 members and 10 guests)