OPM gives NCAA Football 2006 4/5.. Criticizes inside blocking..

[Jimplication]

Quote: Originally Posted by nxt

Everyone knows the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For most people, the key to a great game is gameplay. What seems to be the stance for many of us is that the foundation for a great game is there (in NCAA series) because of the great gameplay. Therefore, there is no way any company would overhaul and/or change a game (too much) that sells so well to the masses.

I agree, and I see NCAA Football in the same light I do MVP baseball. MVP was a 3 year project by EA, that made gradual improvements towards a final release. EA didn't necessarilly announce this plan with their College Football games, but it seems to have turned out that way regardless. They are at the point now where instead of making groundbreaking changes, they are tweaking the game so that it plays better from year to year. I think EA knows it has a solid college football game, with a solid fan base, and I don't think they want to risk losing that fanbase by making sweeping changes to the game and its engine.

Quote:

Having said that, I believe two things can be equally true: one can buy the game, play it and love it... AND one can still feel that EA could have done much more. That's why each year there are WISHLISTs for the next version. Since I know EA isn't going to overhaul the graphics, I feel adding a ton of new gameplay animations (i.e. dive over pile animation, etc.) could make the game feel fresh.

Regarding animations.. I agree. I am still playing 2004, and the "shot in the back" animation really bothers me. I am not sure if they removed it in 2005 or not, but it seems out of place to me, and ideally it will be replaced at some point.

The thing with animation is that it's best if they aren't memorable, because generally if it's memorable, it will be because it is occuring too often, or looks too out of place. In 2004, I've seen passes where the QB was looking left, throwing left, and the ball was magically thrown to the right.

I am not sure if these issues were fixed in 2005, because I only played it briefly before deciding to stick with 2004, but I think animations are a nice way for a company to improve a game without totally overhauling the graphics engine.

I am not buying NCAA 2006 based on a printed review, but instead off of opinions here as well as feedback from forum visitors, because ultimately they are better reviewers than the game than those writing reviews for mass audiences that may not necessarily appreciate the games nuiances to the extent that those who frequent forums do.

Ultimately, playing the game should be the deciding factor, and it generally is, but I get the impression that 2006 is a very solid game, and the fact that this particular review can only gripe about a CoH mode that seems to be more a result of the user's intent to "pump stats" makes me a little more confident that the game is solid and not a "flop."

[Freeze]

Quote: Originally Posted by ifiok25

You know what? You are exactly right. Best post all day. No one would be whining if the score was 5/5. There would be no flamewars. I do remember you saying that once the hype wares off then that's when the true review comes. Everybody was so excited about the game. Now that the review wasn't a perfect score, most everyone is angry. We haven't even played the game for ourselves. Once that happens then we can all whine like babies.

Honestly I couldn't care less what the score was. I never really base my game purchases off the scores they receive.

[ifiok25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Freeze

Honestly I couldn't care less what the score was. I never really base my game purchases off the scores they receive.

I just look at the reviews just to see what other people think. What I usually do is rent the game, then if I like it I buy it.

[Flawless]

What's wrong with the score? It's one person's opinion.

I don't really like the sports game reviews in videogame magazines, because they're usually very short, and based off a very early build. Most of these magazines are written 2-3 months in advanced. It just seems like they spend alot less time with the sports games, than other games from different genres.

I enjoyed 2005, and judging by the videos posting on IGN, most of the problems I had with the game, seem to be fixed, so i'll be happy. I was never into the RFTH mode.

[ifiok25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flawless

What's wrong with the score? It's one person's opinion. I don't really like the sports game reviews in videogame magazines, because they're usually very short, and based off a very early build. Most of these magazines are written 2-3 months in advanced. It just seems like they spend alot less time with the sports games, than other games from different genres. I enjoyed 2005, and judging by the videos posting on IGN, most of the problems I had with the game, seem to be fixed, so i'll be happy. I was never into the RFTH mode.

I can't understand why there is so much whining after one review.

[Nivek]

Quote: Originally Posted by ifiok25

I can't understand why there is so much whining after one review.

Niether can I...and the whinning isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Locked.