Gameplay or Graphics?

[jetsfansiny79]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigDofBA

I agree completely. Gameplay is important but graphics are important as well. It adds to the realism when player models and stadiums are accurately rendered.

I agree that graphics are really important but If the game looks real and doesn't play real then you don't have a complete football game. Example: Madden 06 on the 360 looked good and it made me use the replay option to look at all the cool stuff on the feild but after a week or so that got played out and the gameplay is what made me stop playing the game.

[JoseValentinWooo]

all they need to do is make one option that says Sim/Arcade.

The game would obviously start on arcade mode out of the box and would play like the ncaa of last year, and if we switch it to sim mode then it would play like a real football game

[blacksun]

Quote: Originally Posted by jrivera34

That being said, IMO, great gameplay (AI) can be programmed on a PS2. The excuse that it takes time to learn the hardware in order to code great AI is bull. The increase in hardware really only helps in the graphics and animation department. If a programmer writes good code, they can transfer it from one platform to another with a few modifications here and there. Code stating "if ball carrier is near 3 defenders then all three defensemen should attempt the tackle". This code should work on the PS1 actually.

If two systems run the same engine (like PS2 and XBox versions of 06), porting the AI should be pretty straightforward (depending on how similar the API's are). The 360 has a completely new engine, so porting the AI code could be substantially harder. It could also be just as easy. Also, even if the code can be ported easily, optimizing it so it runs at an acceptable speed on a new platform can take more time.

Quote: Originally Posted by jrivera34

I do have some programming experience but I am no expert and I do not claim to be. What I stated above is my opinion and not a fact. I will say that programming is very hard and I am sure coding for a game is 1000X harder than creating some financial product software. So at the end of the day, I think EA needs to hire more talented programmers and if they don't, we will continue to get this garbarge year after year. I hope that the next generation of video game programmers are hardcore gamers first and not programmers first (which I am assuming most of these people are).

EA has good programmers. VERY good. Tiburon in particular. I've been to their recruiting presentations and they have pretty stiff minimum qualifications. Anyone who works at Tiburon is a gamer. They may not be hardcore sports gamers like the people here at OS, but nobody tries to get a job there without liking games a lot. That being said, it doesn't really matter what the programmers want. They could want (and able) to give us a great sim football game, but if there producers tell them to make it more arcadey, they will. Or they could not care at all about games period but give us great sim football because there producers told them to. The people who make decisions are the producers and executives. There number one goal (especially the executives) is to make money. In their opinion (and I think they are correct) arcade football is more profitable than sim football, and even adding "hard-core sim" options is not worth the cost (since us OS types all buy the game anyway).

[Skyboxer]

Quote: Originally Posted by blacksun

EA has good programmers. VERY good.

Then they need to start showing it because they haven't done much of anything noteworthy for a while except come up with excuses.

[Juggernaut XX]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skyboxer

Then they need to start showing it because they haven't done much of anything noteworthy for a while except come up with excuses.

I agree 100%. I am also dead tired of their excuses.

[Juggernaut XX]

Quote: Originally Posted by blacksun

If two systems run the same engine (like PS2 and XBox versions of 06), porting the AI should be pretty straightforward (depending on how similar the API's are). The 360 has a completely new engine, so porting the AI code could be substantially harder. It could also be just as easy. Also, even if the code can be ported easily, optimizing it so it runs at an acceptable speed on a new platform can take more time. EA has good programmers. VERY good. Tiburon in particular. I've been to their recruiting presentations and they have pretty stiff minimum qualifications. Anyone who works at Tiburon is a gamer. They may not be hardcore sports gamers like the people here at OS, but nobody tries to get a job there without liking games a lot. That being said, it doesn't really matter what the programmers want. They could want (and able) to give us a great sim football game, but if there producers tell them to make it more arcadey, they will. Or they could not care at all about games period but give us great sim football because there producers told them to. The people who make decisions are the producers and executives. There number one goal (especially the executives) is to make money. In their opinion (and I think they are correct) arcade football is more profitable than sim football, and even adding "hard-core sim" options is not worth the cost (since us OS types all buy the game anyway).

Once again I have to make the comparison to the 2K series. If they are so good, why did the Visual Concepts team blow them away for two years? Why did they just allow us the ability to assign defensive back matchups with wide receivers, when 2K did it for years? Why did they finally start showing crowd interaction after 2K did it? Why does 2K cheerleaders still look a lot better? Why does 2K have better player interaction? Why does 2K's presentation still blow EA's away? Why does 2K have a halftime show and EA does not? Why does 2K have a post game show and EA does not? Why does 2K show actual game highlights during the week and EA does not? Although 2K5 is almost two years old, why does the graphics still look as good as NCAA 06 and Madden 06? Why are you able to assign your defensive backs to inside or outside coverage in 2k5 and not NCAA or Madden? Why does 2K's announcers have way more dialogue and comments during a game than EA? The list goes on. and finally; if EA is so concerned about the casual gamers being able to feel like they are part of the game, why not include the First Person mode like 2K? I would have to give them a failing grade or an incomplete, instead of saying they are good. I am sure that the casual gamers would not object to having the aforementioned things in the game. So logically one can assume that they are either bad programmers, do not know much about football, or they just lack talent. NO MORE EXCUSES!!!

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Juggernaut XX

Once again I have to make the comparison to the 2K series. If they are so good, why did the Visual Concepts team blow them away for two years? Why did they just allow us the ability to assign defensive back matchups with wide receivers, when 2K did it for years? Why did they finally start showing crowd interaction after 2K did it? Why does 2K cheerleaders still look a lot better? Why does 2K have better player interaction? Why does 2K's presentation still blow EA's away? Why does 2K have a halftime show and EA does not? Why does 2K have a post game show and EA does not? Why does 2K show actual game highlights during the week and EA does not? Although 2K5 is almost two years old, why does the graphics still look as good as NCAA 06 and Madden 06? Why are you able to assign your defensive backs to inside or outside coverage in 2k5 and not NCAA or Madden? Why does 2K's announcers have way more dialogue and comments during a game than EA? The list goes on. and finally; if EA is so concerned about the casual gamers being able to feel like they are part of the game, why not include the First Person mode like 2K? I would have to give them a failing grade or an incomplete, instead of saying they are good. I am sure that the casual gamers would not object to having the aforementioned things in the game. So logically one can assume that they are either bad programmers, do not know much about football, or they just lack talent. NO MORE EXCUSES!!!

All good points, and why my vote is simply EA programmers aren't that good. Knowing EA they probably pay them peanuts compared to what the 2K guys got paid, so EA can save some money.

[Fiddy]

its all about the gameplay