the content of this board says it all

[waltwa]

this is a great board. i always come here to read the interesting things that board members have to say. but

this board is supposed to be about fof4 and if it was a good game it would be. there is a topic i noticed today about the 3rd patch. this game does not need a patch it needs to be done over from scratch.

believe me i want and will play an average football game but fof 4 is not average and worse of all it is NOT FUN TO PLAY. i loved jims early efforts but with the introduction of the college game this whole series has ceased to be fun to play. a sim game has to be more than just bookkeepping.

jim is probably a great programmer but he does not understand sports. what i would like to see is for jim to dedicate himself to perfecting one game but also when he decides on what that game is- go to the source. ask john madden or bill walsh or some ex- coach what football consists of. that is where jim breaks down. is this criticism? absolutlely not if u understand where i am coming from. has jim spent 20 tears of his life coaching football, hockey, basketball or baseball .i doubt ,so go to people who can tell you how the game should be set up. ther are so many simple things that could have been done to make the college years or fof4 fun games. but i think jim gets a plan in his mind and then says- ok let's go.

after playing sim games for years and generally being disappointed but also supportive in the sense that i do buy the games i feel that a programmer must really listen to the choir when deciding on how a game should be programmed and that is where i think jim has always broken down.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by waltwa
jim is probably a great programmer but he does not understand sports.

I disagree. If anything, I think the problem is that he knows sports too well.

I had fun with FOF4. I didn't get hooked, though, like I have on other sports games, but it was fun. I think Jim tried some new things (chemistry, agents, home towns) and for the most part I don't think they worked. Why? They didn't add to the fun factor. They were either ignored, or they felt like chores.

I don't want Jim to talk to Bill Walsh. I'm sure Walsh could tell him a ton of stuff about football, but I don't necessarily want that in the game. Text sims should be fun first, realistic second. Much of what goes on in a real front office isn't fun, so keep it out of the game.

[scooper]

I disagree, Walt. But games are like that. Some enjoy them, some don't. There is no universally "fun" game. Many still find Jim's games enjoyable. If there are enough of us that do, and those are the games he wants to make, he should not change.

When he makes one that I don't enjoy, I'll stop buying them. Obviously, you've reached that point. There's no harm in that.

[Anrhydeddu]

I obviously agree with Maple Leafs except that I do believe Jim understands football very well. In my opinion, he does not understand his customers when 1) he chose not bounce ideas off of us, 2) does not solicit more public feedback, esp. during testing and 3) makes us feel that we should be so honored to be playing a game he developed for himself.

There, I got my monthly JimRant out of the way.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I obviously agree with Maple Leafs except that I do believe Jim understands football very well. In my opinion, he does not understand his customers when 1) he chose not bounce ideas off of us, 2) does not solicit more public feedback, esp. during testing and 3) makes us feel that we should be so honored to be playing a game he developed for himself.

I feel the same way. Didn't mean to imply that Jim doesn't understand football, though, only that he could still learn a lot from Bill Walsh. Who couldn't?

[Draft Dodger]

"jim is probably a great programmer but he does not understand sports"

sorry, I just don't buy this even for a moment.

"In my opinion, he does not understand his customers "

THIS is much closer to the reality, IMO.

[Franklinnoble]

I think Jim writes games that he would like to play. I don't think he's motivated by what his customers want - aside from the fact that in my experience, he's done a good job of providing great service, and his games are usually pretty solid out of the box, and quickly patched when necessary.

[CamEdwards]

I confess, FOF4's done nothing for me. On the other hand, I still love playing TCY. Maybe it's just the college vs. pro attitude, the lack of financials involved in the college game, or some sort of intangible, but I haven't played FOF4 in months.

[daedalus]

Jim may or may not know how to coach any of the sports you mentioned but that in no way implies that he does not know sports. And I definitely agree with Anrhy's first two points.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally posted by waltwa
this board is supposed to be about fof4

Since when?

[tucker342]

Anrhydeddu, I agree

[Mota]

Haven't even finished my 2nd season of FOF4.

It doesn't feel like you're managing a team of players, it feels like you're managing a spreadsheet of numbers. It's kinda sad actually, because I played through so many seasons of the older versions. Jim's games are no longer on my "automatic buy" list, at this point I'll have to sit back and read some reviews before picking them up.

I still come to this message board because of the people and conversations that go on here, it's always entertaining. You guys are the best!

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'll be honest. I haven't played an FOF product since FOF2 waaaay back when. I've bought them all, but never played.

FOF2, I loved. For all of its warts I played the hell outta that game.

I got FOF2001 a day before I got Champsionship Manager. That coupled with the fact the FOF2001 crashed my computer all the time made it unplayable.

I got TCY. Tried it a handful of times and never got into it. Too much micromanagement for players who would just leave after 3 or 4 years.

I got FOF4. Tried it. And just couldn't get into it.

I think Champsionship Manager spoiled me...

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
In my opinion, he does not understand his customers when 1) he chose not bounce ideas off of us, 2) does not solicit more public feedback, esp. during testing and 3) makes us feel that we should be so honored to be playing a game he developed for himself.

Ok, maybe it's the Up-With-People feeling generated by our mutual lack of appreciation of soccer, but I don't necessarily disagree with your perception on this.

Jim has often stated that his goal is to design a game that is fun to play for him, with the idea that if it is fun for him to play, it wil be fun for others. That's a different approach than say a company like EA, which designs games for the broadest possible audience. That being said, there is a lot of enthusiasm for TCY and anyone who followed the patch process for that game will agree that it was Jim's listening to input and tweaking the game in ways requested by his customers. I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised that Jim has not done a final overall tweak patch of FOF4.

I know that Jim has rubbed some people the wrong with his "emotional" posts in the past (which is reason No. 1 we don't see him anymore), but he has never made me feel honored to be playing his games.

As for waltwa, what are your exact complaints about the game? You're pretty vague on that. You might have some valid points, but who would know? As for talking to Walsh or Madden, I think that shows immediately that Jim knows a hell of a lot more about football than you do. If Jim consulted Walsh or Madden for advice at this point in their lives, FOF would include features that allow you to stab your head coach in the back, call players by the wrong name, and read game play-by-play consulting mostly of a breakdown about what turducken is.

[sabotai]

"I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised that Jim has not done a final overall tweak patch of FOF4."

He said he's going to this summer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't agree with the charge of not understanding sports that was levied here but I think the observation of the thread title is pretty accurate -- it'd take a major rally from the next release for the stature of Solecismic to be where it was one or more games ago.

[MizzouRah]

I've played FOF4 more than any other Solecismic game to date, this includes FOF2 and TCY.

I just 'get into' this game, even more so than ootp5 right now. Maybe it's because I haven't been to a Super Bowl yet, after 8 years. I say kudos to Jim for making a game that's been a heck of alot of fun to me.

Can there be ALOT of improvements? DEFINITLY!! ...but I've recieved my money's worth.


Todd

[Bee]

jim is probably a great programmer but he does not understand sports.

Like most of the others, I disagree that Jim doesn't know sports.

I think I might also disagree that Jim is a great programmer. I think there is evidence to the contrary IMO. When you look at the lack of customization, the comments from him about how it would be difficult to do multiplayer, the AI issues we've seen over several generations of FOF, etc.; one could determine that Jim is a good programmer but not a great one.

I think that's what is limiting advancing the game, not his lack of knowledge of sports. I don't think he's a bad programmer, but I don't think he's a "great" programmer either. JMO.

[Abe Sargent]

Personally, I think the fact that FOF4 isn't closer to simulating football that previous editions disappoints me.

Jim tries to make it a different game with astrological signs and removing some of the bugs that plagued the series like salary demands of backups. He adds the ability to call plays in a completely different way than previously.

But the game isn't a closer simulation of football. No transition tag, veterans counting less against the cap but increased prices, no signing of franchise tagged players, RFAs can't be made three offers and signed for compensation depending on the offer, there are no incentives, ,escalator deals, roster bonuses, guaranteed money and other hotly contested items negiotiated in contracts.

It is hte same game it was several incarnations ago, just with more bells and less dents. But is hasn't become closer to simulating real football GM'ing, and to me, that is a disappointment.

-Anxiety

[MizzouRah]

no signing of franchise tagged players

This bugs me, I can understand some players not wanting to sign for getting the FR tag, but loyal ones should at least negotiate with you.


Todd

[waltwa]

i have some time to expand on my opening post.

i have no idea whether jim is a good programmer or not but if i had to make a guess i would think he is. but my focus was on the coaching side of the game. i think the game could be improved on the gm side but that part of the game is further along. the coaching side is where i thinkj the game breaks down. someone in an earlier post suggested jim knew more about football than i do. well i am a lifelong fan but also coached for 27 years and played the game thru hi-school and college. when i used john madden or bill walsh that was just an example of asking people who have gone thru the yearly, monthly and primarily the weekly routine of coaching particularly in the game planning side.

i wouldn't mind the paper work aspect of fof gm as much if the coaching side of the game had more to offer. football is gameplanning and then taking that game plan to the game and then adjusting your gameplan to the situation. fof has too many plays that show up in the game- what i want is to see the plays on monday and at that time decide on a game plan that has the ability to be adjusted as the game is actually played out.

i think the real bottom line however is jim's lack of desire to finish a game. it seems that all the good games have a 3,4,5 etc in the title. they come out and if they are well received they continue to improve thru the years. i can't think of any game that i like that was better in the first edition than say the 4th edition. notice i said the games i like.
the mogul series and the fof series are 2 games that i have player quite a bit that have not seemed to improve over the years

[mrskippy]

This community has been talking about more than FOF for a very long time, even before FOF4 came out. It is a community of people who's common bond is a football game.

[scooper]

You need to remember a couple things, waltwa:

1. FOF is a GM simulation game. I'm not sure why the coaching aspect was added, I'm guessing to add more football to the business side of things. Nowhere have the FOF games been advertised as giving the full coaching experience. At least not the pro games. It is more about managing the team. It's Front Office Football, not sideline or coaching box football.

2. As for Jim's finishing the games, they are his games. He codes them alone. That doesn't exactly lend itself to speed and multiple upadates. Your argument that his games have not improved is a matter of opinion. As evidenced by others' replies there are many here whose opinions are the opposite of yours. Each opinion is as important as the rest, but as long as there are enough that still enjoy Jim's games as is, they'll probably not appeal to your tastes. Again, there is no universal idea of fun.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Interesting opinions .

[Neuqua]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
I think Champsionship Manager spoiled me...

That was the case for me. I bought FOF4 because I support Indy developers but I don't think I've played it after the first weekend of me getting it.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think Jim is a very talented developer and his knowledge of sports astounded me when I talked with him.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Marc Vaughan
I think Jim is a very talented developer and his knowledge of sports astounded me when I talked with him.

Agreed. I'd expect nothing less from a fellow Wolverine.

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Agreed. I'd expect nothing less from a fellow Wolverine.

If there's a more conceded lot than U-M fans and alumni, I've yet to see them. Man, I despise Wolverines. (Nothing personal HB).

Carry on.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Schmidty
If there's a more conceded lot than U-M fans and alumni, I've yet to see them. Man, I despise Wolverines. (Nothing personal HB).

Carry on.

Heh! Typical Sparty Spew! (Nothing personal Schmidty).

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I confess, FOF4's done nothing for me. On the other hand, I still love playing TCY. Maybe it's just the college vs. pro attitude, the lack of financials involved in the college game, or some sort of intangible, but I haven't played FOF4 in months.

Same here. Although TCY didn't do it for me, either.

For me, FOF4 could be drastically improved by simply going back to the G, T, WR, etc., labels, rather than the LT, WLB, etc., labels. I haven't been able to play more than 3 years of a career in FOF4 because every time I try, I end up quitting when I get halfway through a season, have a bunch of injuries, and have to cut half of my team just so I can sign that WILB that I lack. Drives me nuts. So I stopped playing.

[markprior22]

Originally posted by waltwa
this board is supposed to be about fof4 and if it was a good game it would be.

Have always felt this way about the FOF series....just never voiced it.

[Bee]

I think FOF4 is a good game, but it just hasn't been improved significantly over previous versions. An experienced gamer can totally dominate the game and there just hasn't been enough new features put in to provide additional interest.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Same here. Although TCY didn't do it for me, either.

For me, FOF4 could be drastically improved by simply going back to the G, T, WR, etc., labels, rather than the LT, WLB, etc., labels. I haven't been able to play more than 3 years of a career in FOF4 because every time I try, I end up quitting when I get halfway through a season, have a bunch of injuries, and have to cut half of my team just so I can sign that WILB that I lack. Drives me nuts. So I stopped playing.

can you show me the option that requires me to have a WILB? I can't find it and would like to have this feature.

[MizzouRah]

Originally posted by Fritz
can you show me the option that requires me to have a WILB? I can't find it and would like to have this feature.

This was confusing to me at first. You can use either WILB, SILB, or MLB from my understanding. 5 LB's total - 3 OLB and 2 ILB.


Todd

[Ksyrup]

Whatever the designations, I have to have a couple of each, and when one goes down, I now have an "illegal" roster and cannot sim the next game until I either switch one of the other guy's positions or cut someone and sign the specific type of guy I need to fill that one sub-category position. Again, it drives me nuts and has virtually ruined the game for me. I say virtually, but I haven't really even played it, so I guess it definitely ruined it for me. That's just not my cup of tea.

Despite the interface issues and a couple of other pesky things, FOF2K1 was clearly my favorite. And I played the hell out of it and FOF2, so I know Jim is capable of an addicting game. But TCy and FOF4 are not it.

I'm really afraid he's going to come up with a kick-ass baseball game that is going to get too in-depth for me to enjoy, and I'm going to be staring at my screen wishing that I could combine FOBB1 and OOTP5 into the perfect baseball sim.