Some info off of the PSXSports.com forums...

[Nivek]

Now this is quite interesting...

Quote:

The running game has returned to the speed of the 2004 version with additional jukes and new tackling/break tackling animations. It's definitely better than last years Madden's. Will it finally be better than Madden's? I hate to say it but Madden 2006 will receive the highest sports rating ever. Madden 2006 will blow everyone's minds with how revolutionary it is. It was the hottest sports game at E3. Madden 2006 will more than likely receive a 9.7 from IGN and 10's from EGM. It really is that good! NCAA 2006 is perfect in every way. It is an amazing game in its own right without flaws, just not quite as revolutionary as Maddens. Maddens new passing system and tv style presentation is first rate. How do I rate this game? Is it as good as GTA: San Andreas? I would give GTA:SA a 10. It's hard for any game (other than maybe Zelda: Wind Waker and Metal Gear Solid 3) to receive a 10. But as far as sports games only. It deserves a 9.5-10. Madden 2006, hands down 10. NCAA 2006, slightly less, but such an improvement over every other version before it. The biggest leap so far in the series.

[pastapadre]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nivek

Now this is quite interesting...

yeah thats quite interesting cause there was no way to get a good feel for Madden considering it was on 1 minute quarters set to Pro level. The vision cone on Pro doesnt even affect the passes. While I expect Madden to be great and all of those things, theres simply no way to say all that with any certainty based solely on E3. We didnt even get to see any presentation improvements unless you want to call the bar at the top of the screen a big improvement. And Madden simply wasnt the hottest thing there because of the crappy settings. NCAA got a better reaction in part due to that factor. So saying all that is a bit curious to me.

[GTheorenHobbes]

I understand that most everyone on this board only wants to read positive things about this game and Madden. But "revolutionary"? C''mon. Last time I checked, Mario running was still in both games, there still isn't any half-time or end-game highlight shows or custom stadium soundtracks, and QB's still lob the long ball with pin-point accuracy time after time (if the 100 or so IGN videos are any indication). The guy seems to be most impressed that he could knock down 2 guys with one stiff arm. Sounds like the EA kool-aid has worked its magic again with the press.

Sorry...I'll let you guys alone to enjoy your game now. I guess none of us will really know how much has changed until the games are released.

[Garydee]

It was also mentioned that the CPU can't defend against the deep lob very well. What I don't get is that after all these years(and Madden fixed this problem last year) why can't this get fixed?

[MachoMyers]

Wow...Corners now run with the wideouts even on runs...Corners might not actually lead the team in tackles anymore

[Nutzzz414]

Quote: Originally Posted by 8bit

See, thats why i like OS's impressions better. No ratings, strictly gameplay. WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT RATINGS!!!! You can change them!!!!!!

I so tired hearing saying "who give a damn about ratings". Well, obviously alot of people care, if you keep having to ask about it. I realize that it probably will get very tedious if you started to type off every little rating of a player because he is your best friend's cousin. But one of the things that caught my eye about this site was that Steve (i think) posted screen shots of ratings. I think it was NCAA 2002, he would show screen shots of the depth chart. That was sweet to me because that it was something that stuck out to me. That is something that I could see and no one could lie about of have a different opinion on. Every year, you hear the same thing by the people who preview the game, no matter what site.
"the pass defense is better"
"the computer actually runs the ball"
"the recruiting is better"
"the offense line is better"
"this is the best one yet"
But every year we are asking these same questions every year, because we find out that they haven't changed. If you can show me one preview post on 2005 that said that the game was garbage (which it was), then I'll eat some humble pie. I don't know, do people think that if they give HONEST feedback on the preview, that EA might not give then one for next year? Or maybe it is just that they are so pumped to play the game that their perception of the game is blurred. There was one website last year (the one with poo diddy) that had a preview copy. They said the same typical preview stuff like every one else did. But he also took out some time to spit off the ratings of some teams by request . Not every attribute, but the player jersey number, and their overall rating. He did them by team. Not one player, but the whole team. Every one was praising him for taking the time to answer the questions that people who couldn't play wanted to hear.
I know that the previewers want to play the game and not take the time to just spit off ratings to people. But there are ways of compromising. But don't keep saying that no one wants to hear ratings, because that is just not true. I don't think that isnt is not too much to ask to ask to dedicate an hour or two a day to post some ratings for people who don't have the ability to play the game a couiple of weeks early. But to say that on one wants to hear ratings, is like saying "I don't feel like talking about something that I don't care about." and not what everybody thinks.
This is not a shot to just this site, because I think that this is true to almost every site. And I expect to hear alot of rebuttals in honest self defense. And by some people who wants to suck up to the powers that be. But I feel that this a site based on opinions, and on one should be shut up (or banned) on their opinions if it dosen't agree on the majority. I do believe that gameplay is the most important part,and the main point of the previews. Just don't say that "No one wants to hear about ratings." because I don't think that is true

[RubenDouglas]

the problem lies at the fact player ratings DO NOT (and really should not) detemine whether someone purchases a game. For those people unsure about the purchase of the game on release day, who gives a crap about ratings, people want honest impressions of the gameplay. And there isnt alot of time or resources to provide ALL the gameplay answers... so we should weed out the things we can change like RATINGS.

it all comes down to money and the intangibles in the gameplay. Ratings are just ratings and should have zero affect on your purchase.

[Programmed2Kill]

Quote: Originally Posted by mpk2beacpa

names to go with the ratings.... Kenneth Phillps - Miami - SS - (85 ovr) Derrick Williams - Penn State - WR - (84 ovr) 97 spd, 98 acc, 84 cth Justin King - Penn State - CB - (84 ovr) 96 spd, 95 agi, 97 acc Jonathan Stewart - Oregon - HB - (84 ovr) Fred Rouse - Florida State - WR - (82 ovr) 85 cth Marlon Lucky - Nebraska - HB - (82 ovr) 92 spd, 95 agi, 93 acc, 82 car, 80 btk Jason Gwaltney - West Virginia - HB - (80 ovr) 82 car Ryan Perrilloux - LSU - QB - (82 ovr) 84 spd, 84 agi, 85 acc, 93 thp, 83 tha Desean Jackson - Cal - WR - (82 ovr) 95 spd, 95 agi, 98 acc, 84 cth Rashaad Jennings - Pittsburgh - HB - (82 ovr) Mark Sanchez - USC - QB - (80 ovr) Demetrice Morley - Tennessee - CB - (80 ovr) Kevin Grady - Michigan - HB - (80 ovr) James Davis - Clemson - HB - (80 ovr) Leon Jackson - Nebraska - HB - (80 ovr) Jerrell Powe - Ole Miss - DT - (78 ovr) 90 str Josh Portis - Florida - QB - (78 ovr) Maurice Wells - Ohio State - HB - (78 ovr) 92 spd, 91 agi, 95 acc Rey Maualaga - USC - MLB - (76 ovr) Jamaal Charles - Texas - HB - (74 ovr) i looked over at PSX forums and did not see this info though....

Does that mean Kenneth Phillips is the highest rated freshman in the game?