Perceived difficulty vs reality

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Thinking Out Loud

I honestly believe this has been the mantra for EA football games ever since QB Vision and this POV must change for Madden/NCAA to be complete reasonable simulation football games. Some people have already stated in this thread that, when making a simulation, the game needs to be CREATED as close to realistic as possible and reasonably represent real life risk/reward. This by default would give the game a close to realistic challenge, in the foundation of the game. Then, add a user interface with CPU assist options, in order to help users of various skill and comfort levels in playing the game. The lower the skill setting, the more assist options that are on by default and vice versa. It's like operating systems for computers that allow users to access advanced complicated computer programs through a simple user friendly interface instead of creating Fisher Price computers for everybody. Creating licensed football games with a foundation where fun trumps realism, is making arcade games, not simulations, IMO. Also, with AWR, I think it should affect the player regardless of if the AI or user are controlling them. AWR should be a modifier of position skill ratings that determines how well each player utilizes their skill set. A QB with 40AWR/99THP/99Accuracy, should have a 40% chance of throwing a pass at that skill set and 60% chance of some random throw. That way AWR would ALWAYS represent player consistency at each position, even if user controlled and add a realistic risk/reward in deciding to play lower AWR high skill set ratings players or mid-high AWR lower skill set ratings players.

Agree, but it should be because he makes bad decisions not because of inaccurate throws.

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Agree, but it should be because he makes bad decisions not because of inaccurate throws.

The reason I stated "random throws" and not specifically, weak or inaccurate throws is because AWR should represent multiple factors that go into proper execution. A talented player can have all the tools to be great but never mange to consistently apply them on the field, in games. If that QB I described throws random passes 60% of the time even on wide open receivers, that's simulating their general inconsistency at that position, not a reflection of an inferior skill set. The inconsistency could stem from lack of focus, poor mechanics, poor composure etc, in real game time situations but the "random throw" would just be a simulated representation of that inconsistency.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Thinking Out Loud

The reason I stated "random throws" and not specifically, weak or inaccurate throws is because AWR should represent multiple factors that go into proper execution. A talented player can have all the tools to be great but never mange to consistently apply them on the field, in games. If that QB I described throws random passes 60% of the time even on wide open receivers, that's simulating their general inconsistency at that position, not a reflection of an inferior skill set. The inconsistency could stem from lack of focus, poor mechanics, poor composure etc, in real game time situations but the "random throw" would just be a simulated representation of that inconsistency.

IMO it all comes down to forcing user/cpu to read defenses and making them pay for making the wrong pre snap reads based on AWR. I love the idea of the game tracking the plays I run and altering the plays they call. Right now football video games fail at simulating the chess game that football is.

[canes21]

What if a QB with higher awareness pointed out more presnap. Say you walk up with Payton Manning. If you sit there a second the game will let you know the defense is showing man, with a linebacker on your slot WR as a mismatch, and it also shows only one high safety. But you go up there with a rookie QB and it may not tell you nearly as much, or will sometimes identify the wrong defense. They may be in man, but that rookie QB may misidentify it as Cover 2. It should also highlight the most likely to be open, and that should also be wrong sometimes for QBs who aren't that aware.

[khaliib]

1302892800thumbnail-media.jpg

They could just transition over the Def Zone concept to the QB.
Have QB's throw to an area of the field (zone) vs coded to the player.

-The QB's skillset decides how big/small the zone window will be.
-QB's with lower skillsets, Zones (Blue) will be bigger making the throws less accurate to that location.
-QB's with higher skillsets, Zones (yellow) are smaller allowing the throw to more accurate to that location.
-Zones/windows will be Dynamic and adjust throughout gameplay.
-->Incompletes/Dropped Balls/INT's makes the zone larger or smaller with completions etc...
-->Each Def players skillset effects the size of the Zone/window
----->Playing against a Top DB/LB makes zone larger
----->Against weaker talent, the Zone becomes smaller

This will add difficulty while staying true to realism with risk/reward without gimmicky injections.

Throw in various throwing motions with different ball release speeds in that throwing motion to add even greater difficulty.
Gamers will need to know their personel skillset on the field to a greater extent.

Don't forget that there is a rush and coverage that effects all the above also.

This helps to take away the advantage of the Gamer having the ability to see the whole field with a video game.

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

Funny thing. While you said they shouldn't call themselves "sim" if they aren't going to be, I don't see where they call themselves a simulation football game. I looked at the box, the instruction book, and didn't see the words simulation or sim anywhere. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Oh wow so you can't find the word "sim" on the box?

lol is this a joke? Don't take everything so literally.

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

Yawn. You're so persecuted. Problem is strategy for the most part has been irrelevant in every console football game known to man. While I think there is some strategy involved in the game I dont think there is a great answer. Football is very complex to replicate. If you make it too realistic it will be over most people's heads and turn people off.

Persecuted? Nah.

Options. Difficulty level. Sliders.

Just because making it too realistic would turn people off doesn't give them a blank check to make an arcadey game every year. Just because it's tough to make a sim football game doesn't give them a free pass either. EA wants everyone to buy their game. They want the guy who loves going 12-0 every year with his fav team, but also want the "hardcore gamer" or whatever they call it. They try to play both sides while only making a game that caters to one. It's dishonest. They're the ones who put the hat on and try to market their game as sim and realistic, as long as they do it's fair game to point out why it's not.

Also you may be correct saying strategy has been irrelevant in every football game, but EA football games are the only ones coming out yearly. You get an all pro or backbreaker every once in a while, if those games were being released yearly and had the same issues I'd be mad at them too.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Oh wow so you can't find the word "sim" on the box? lol is this a joke? Don't take everything so literally. Persecuted? Nah. Options. Difficulty level. Sliders. Just because making it too realistic would turn people off doesn't give them a blank check to make an arcadey game every year. Just because it's tough to make a sim football game doesn't give them a free pass either. EA wants everyone to buy their game. They want the guy who loves going 12-0 every year with his fav team, but also want the "hardcore gamer" or whatever they call it. They try to play both sides while only making a game that caters to one. It's dishonest. They're the ones who put the hat on and try to market their game as sim and realistic, as long as they do it's fair game to point out why it's not. Also you may be correct saying strategy has been irrelevant in every football game, but EA football games are the only ones coming out yearly. You get an all pro or backbreaker every once in a while, if those games were being released yearly and had the same issues I'd be mad at them too.

But when do they market themselves as a "sim"? It's a "game", not a "sim". Kind of like how there are golf simulators, and tiger woods is a "game." EA has touted "realism" in the past for certain features, but I don't recall them ever marketing themselves as a simulation. They aren't a simulation. It's a game. A simulation wouldn't sell very well. Last year's game was fun, and did a lot of things really well, and it was one of the most "realistic" football games I've played.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

It's a "game", not a "sim".

Quoted for emphasis.

EA is in the business to make money, and they do that best by making fun video games foremost. While they keep making strides towards realism each year, some things are beyond the scope of what they want to do, IMO, and would hinder the game's fun factor, which again is the reason anyone ultimately plays a video game in the first place.