Would you buy this game if all they worked on was gameplay?

[Mauer4MVP]

Quote: Originally Posted by PowerofRed25

Please stop posting false information on a subject you know absolutely nothing about. You do a disservice to yourself and the fools that believe what you and others like you are posting. I encourage you to read the actual case law on the subject. Case law, not hyperbole and heresy that you seem to enjoy posting, the actual decisions by actual legal professionals who presumably know one or two things about the law. Transformative use is a subsidiary of fair use, itself a subsidiary of copyright laws which in turn are subsidiary to free speech. Fair use allows people (or in this case a company) to use content as an expression of their own unique ideas, in this case virtual reality. Transformative use is in the same mold, allowing you to "transform" another's work in order to make something new or different. It is the same law that protect impersonators and cover bands from lawsuit by the original artist. Andy Warhol's silk screens of various celebrities needed not receive permission from the original person (or their estate, since many were dead) because they were transformative expressions of art. It is because of that law and the use of it in interpreting Hart v Electronic Arts Inc that EA's rights in this matter are all but guaranteed, no matter how close a likeness is. NCAA's rules have no matter here and in fact NCAA's rules actually further limit the player from claiming financial stake in his likeness. Had these guys won their cases, no financial gain would have come of it. THAT is against NCAA rules, nothing you are mentioning. So again, please stop posting things like this because they only serve to promote a false understanding of the situation. The legal system has already spoken on the subject and given the precedents now established, I don't see what recourse these players would have against EA. However, if these players wanted to take legal recourse against their likeness being used for commercial game, they can and should sue both the NCAA and their parent institution. That is the only recourse that exists for both current and former players. If you're interested in reading the 67 page opinion on the lawsuit by the US District Judge who ruled on it, feel free, you can find it here. I think I did a pretty good job of summarizing it for you though and if you want more legal opinions on the subject, you may google Hart v Electronic Arts Inc, I know it has been written about by a number of lawyers and legal professionals.

One of my favorite cases that I looked at this past semester in school.

http://www.aaronsanderslaw.com/blog/hart-v-ea-are-publicity-rights-in-the-game

[PowerofRed25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

I think i've read like 3-4 of your post that somehow seem to go on a rant when ever someone brings up a lawsuit in regards to player likeness. I'm just curious what if the NCAA themselves told EA to chill out on the player likeness? Now whether they are or not the bottom line is someone is always trying to take EA to court over the situation (Player Likeness). So, regardless if any of the lawsuits stand a chance of winning against EA or not......the accusers still have the right to file a lawsuit right? Now on OS if i recall you don't make the rules on here buddy... You can post all the legal documents/literature you desire but you telling any other poster who mentions anything about lawuits in regards to player likeness to stop posting just because you disagree with them is just as foolish. They have every right to post on the forums just like you do and aslong as they are being respectful to other posters. I don't recall any OS policy telling them they can't post if they don't understand or know court laws. I'd rather a guy give his opinion and be respectful to others even if he's 100% wrong about the situation than a guy who might be 100% right but show no respect towards others who post an opinion.... That is how your post sometimes come accross to me calling people fools who you know nothing about just because you don't agree with someones post.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing, it has to do with fact vs fiction. I am tired of people going around these boards with the "EA doesn't want to get sued" excuse for everything when that is purely false. Because then that mindset spreads around and you get an entire message board filled with a false information. So yes, I will tell people to stop posting false information because that is just what it is, FALSE. It isn't opinion, it is fiction. Anyone is more than free to post what they want, but I am more than free to correct them when they are very clearly wrong.

I've had to study the Hart v EA Inc decision beginning to end. It is 67 pages in PDF form. You can see why it annoys me when someone who very clearly does not understand the background of the situation goes around passing simply false information. Again, not opinion, fiction. I'd be more than happy to have an opinion v opinion discussion, but the law is pretty black and white as it pertains to this subject. The precedence set by this lawsuit all but assures any future case is dismissed. The exception however is...

The Keller lawsuit, which is still pending. It does not begin trial until next year and I am actually kind of interested to see where that goes (if it goes at all). That lawsuit includes the NCAA and college licensing and has a lot of merit, but more so against the NCAA and the CLC than it does EA (which had originally been dismissed from the case). Obviously a decision against NCAA/CLC would impact EA, but in what way is yet to be determined.

To answer your hypothetical, about the NCAA addressing the issue to EA directly, it could happen if the NCAA felt it was in danger of losing that case or did lose that case, it would certainly force the NCAA's hand on all their licensing deals, not just the one issued to EA. But keep in mind, these licensing deals are as important to the NCAA as they are to the licensee and they'll fight to the very bitter end to protect them.

There are a lot of questions still up in the air from an NCAA licensing perspective but as far as EA stands, they are free and clear to do exactly what they've been doing, even more if they were so inclined. I'm not saying NCAA licensing changes won't impact EA somewhere down the line, but as the law stands now, EA has the case law on their side and any lawsuit would likely be dismissed.

I apologize if it comes off brash, but I've had to devote a lot of time towards reading that case and determining its impact. It does not sit well with me to see conjecture and hearsay passed off as an informed analysis of the situation.

Now if you wanted to know my opinion on that decision, well, that's a whole different story.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Matt10

Sometimes the guys who think it hard are the ones that are thinking about vision, gameplay, direction, art direction art asset creation, sound design, sound direction, sound effect creation, content pipeline, QA, playtesting, and so forth as you say... instead of JUST FREAKING DOING IT - and stop talking about doing it. Because if they truly focused on all that junk - then they wouldn't even fathom the chance of something not "Making" it in the final build.

The problem in your assertion is that the two things - those being: the planning, the thinking, allocation of resources, the design, the QA, the process; and the actual implementation, the just doing it - are inseparable. Without the former, there is no latter; either there is no finished product - an example being Duke Nukem Forever before 2009, when 3D Realms exhausted their cash reserves attempting to build the game over a course of 10+ years - or the released product is a cluster-you-know-what - an example being Duke Nukem Forever upon its ultimate release after Gearbox rescued the game. (disclaimer: I actually thoroughly enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever, but I also am able to put it in perspective).

To get completely tangential and to elaborate my examples: the "just do it" approach is actually what 3D Realms employed on DNF; it's the reason that acronym rings so true. George Broussard, the creative leader and co-owner of 3DR, was an obsessive perfectionist, and anytime he saw a feature in another game or thought of a new good idea for his game, he decided that it had to be in DNF. So his guys implemented it, regardless of whatever else they were doing, at his instruction. This went on for years, and with no end-game in mind. It's easy to see how that project got derailed, and it's the go-to example as to what can happen if a video project isn't even poorly planned. It's easy to see why EA can't afford to "just do it", particularly with the licenses they have likely requiring an annual release.

All that said, and getting to the second point, you are correct in that the end consumer doesn't care about said process, only the result. To that, I respond that the end consumer also has the unique and powerful opportunity to vote with his or her wallet if he doesn't like the result of the process. If the result doesn't meet consumer expectations, the process changes, or the product ceases production.

[PowerofRed25]

Great post CHooe.

I think the next step for this series is simply determining an end game. What is the goal, how are they going to get it there. Sometimes it seems like NCAA tries to do too much adding features without finishing/polishing others. I get where they are coming from, but I can't help but think the resources are best used elsewhere.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a disconnect between the planning and implementation of the NCAA series. Because they've had some great ideas in recent years (teambuilder, Heisman Challenge) but when those ideas are put into the game, the execution falls flat. I don't know if that disconnect exists, but I've wondered it.

[Matt10]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

The problem in your assertion is that the two things - those being: the planning, the thinking, allocation of resources, the design, the QA, the process; and the actual implementation, the just doing it - are inseparable. Without the former, there is no latter; either there is no finished product - an example being Duke Nukem Forever before 2009, when 3D Realms exhausted their cash reserves attempting to build the game over a course of 10+ years - or the released product is a cluster-you-know-what - an example being Duke Nukem Forever upon its ultimate release after Gearbox rescued the game. (disclaimer: I actually thoroughly enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever, but I also am able to put it in perspective). To get completely tangential and to elaborate my examples: the "just do it" approach is actually what 3D Realms employed on DNF; it's the reason that acronym rings so true. George Broussard, the creative leader and co-owner of 3DR, was an obsessive perfectionist, and anytime he saw a feature in another game or thought of a new good idea for his game, he decided that it had to be in DNF. So his guys implemented it, regardless of whatever else they were doing, at his instruction. This went on for years, and with no end-game in mind. It's easy to see how that project got derailed, and it's the go-to example as to what can happen if a video project isn't even poorly planned. It's easy to see why EA can't afford to "just do it", particularly with the licenses they have likely requiring an annual release. All that said, and getting to the second point, you are correct in that the end consumer doesn't care about said process, only the result. To that, I respond that the end consumer also has the unique and powerful opportunity to vote with his or her wallet if he doesn't like the result of the process. If the result doesn't meet consumer expectations, the process changes, or the product ceases production.

Man, I understand what you're saying - and where you are coming from. The problem is...all that doesn't matter to me - and the majority here. We respect said process, we are aware of it - but what the hell does it matter if the first meeting they have is about how to revolutionize something that doesn't need to be done?

It's nothing to do with the technical process, but everything to do with common sense.

Watch a football game, try to make your video game as close as possible. THAT IS THE GOAL. That is the the "Just Do It" command I'm talking about.

Did I say honor the Heisman players and create mode that noone will ever use?

Oh wait...no...I said watch a football game...and make it as close as possible to that - and just focus on that (after all, that is the topic of this discussion).

I appreciate your comments, quoting me - and what not - but honestly, if the base is far from the fundamentals of Football (notice I didn't say Video game football) - and the goal isn't to represent what we see on TV...then why the heck even do it...

I can't bring my video game knowledge up to your level, all I can approach this is with PURE EMOTION. I work off emotion in my job daily, it's where I go. And I'm going to quote lsutygurfan yet again - because I hope it sinks in, we are approaching this on an emotional level at this point. All the other approaches (enter all technical jargon you want to put here ____ ) have failed in the FOOTBALL FAN's eyes and they have left us with nothing but scratching our heads for SEVEN YEARS.

I have every right to let everything you said fly over my head. It doesn't matter. EA needs to get back to basics, back to the pigskin - the love - the dirt - the rain - the mud - the grit. I don't care how they do it, how many meetings are needed to do all the technical what not - I DO NOT CARE.

So yeah, "just do it" - I rest my case. Here's the best quote in this entire thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by lsutygurfan

I'm not a game designer, but I do have some common sense. I have an overly-simplistic hypothetical that might help some of the guys that defend how hard it is to create a game. Noone is denying that it is hard. I think alot of the complaints come when they spend HEAPS and heaps of time on useless features, and wasted space. Hypothetical: 2006- Game Company introduces next gen NCAA football game with basic features. Game community was expecting more says, ok thanks for the effort, but gameplay needs work for next year, please work on gameplay. 2007- Game Company releases next years version. VERY similar gameplay with almost exact same way the game plays, OH, and we are introducing 2 new features that most of you wont play or rarely. Ok, game community says, we were expecting more with the year you had to work on it. Please work on gameplay, put the useless added features away, and work on gameplay. 2008- Game Company releases this years version. Almost exactly the same as the year before with two new useless features. Game community begin to wonder if Game company is even listening, then begins to get a bit more critical of Game Company. Please work on gameplay, it is the most important feature. GC responds to community, and says "sorry, we couldnt get that in this year" Game community says, ok, great...thanks we'll look for it in 2009. 2009- Game company releases this years version. Exact same gameplay as year before, minus the 2007 features, and adds 2 new useless features, and online play. Game Community says, wait, you told us in 2008 that "THIS" would be fixed added. WHere are the upgraded / enhanced gameplay features you promised lat year? Game company responds by saying, "we have got some EXCITING new features coming next year, Get Ready!!" rinse and repat for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The gaming community is getting tired of the same song and dance, the same exact gameplay for 7 years (going on 8). We have had our fill of heisman features and other crud they feed the community. For all the time they spent on Heisman mode, and instead put all of that effort into, say, a Physics engine, then maybe the community wouldnt be as angry as it is. Just use some common sense.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Matt10

Man, I understand what you're saying - and where you are coming from. The problem is...all that doesn't matter to me - and the majority here. We respect said process, we are aware of it - but what the hell does it matter if the first meeting they have is about how to revolutionize something that doesn't need to be done? It's nothing to do with the technical process, but everything to do with common sense. Watch a football game, try to make your video game as close as possible. THAT IS THE GOAL. That is the the "Just Do It" command I'm talking about. Did I say honor the Heisman players and create mode that noone will ever use? Oh wait...no...I said watch a football game...and make it as close as possible to that - and just focus on that (after all, that is the topic of this discussion). I appreciate your comments, quoting me - and what not - but honestly, if the base is far from the fundamentals of Football (notice I didn't say Video game football) - and the goal isn't to represent what we see on TV...then why the heck even do it... I can't bring my video game knowledge up to your level, all I can approach this is with PURE EMOTION. I work off emotion in my job daily, it's where I go. And I'm going to quote lsutygurfan yet again - because I hope it sinks in, we are approaching this on an emotional level at this point. All the other approaches (enter all technical jargon you want to put here ____ ) have failed in the FOOTBALL FAN's eyes and they have left us with nothing but scratching our heads for SEVEN YEARS. I have every right to let everything you said fly over my head. It doesn't matter. EA needs to get back to basics, back to the pigskin - the love - the dirt - the rain - the mud - the grit. I don't care how they do it, how many meetings are needed to do all the technical what not - I DO NOT CARE. So yeah, "just do it" - I rest my case. Here's the best quote in this entire thread.

I question the broad-brush oversimplifying assessment that lsutygurfan provided about the progression of the NCAA Football series; it's clearly coming from the viewpoint of someone who has a bone to pick with EA in the first place.

I do particularly question it with regard to football gameplay. NCAA has advanced incrementally each year, as should be the expectation; the main gameplay mechanics of every simulation sports game series ever has advanced incrementally with each iteration. To say NCAA Football hasn't done this is simple denial, and to expect more than that is outlandish.

A point also on the "same game every year" argument - does football really change much in real life year-over-year? How much fundamental change gameplay-wise (referring to video game gameplay mechanics and football mechanics) is one really expecting year-over-year? If one is expecting a revolution, one's expectation's are probably way offbase because the sport EA Tiburon is attempting to emulate certainly doesn't mirror that sort of progression.

On a personal note with regard to gameplay, I couldn't even play the first couple NCAA Football (or Madden NFL) games on the XBOX360. The 09 iterations were the first year they really got to a playable level for me personally, having rented the 08 versions and deeming them unsatisfactory and having downloaded demos of the 07 versions and being entirely disappointed. To me, EA football has quite obviously advanced - iteratively - since then; for example, the ridiculousness of linebackers has been toned down over time and pass coverages in general have become more consistently reliable in terms of expected results with given personnel, offensive line play is leaps and bounds better than what it once was, and this year in particular the passing gameplay might as well be all-new. I'm not going to claim NCAA is a perfect game, but it is clearly moving forward.

I also don't see what features NCAA ever took away besides Season Showdown? I could be misremembering, however. Omitted entirely in lsutygurfan's gloss-over is the addition and progression of one of the game's most popular modes, online dynasty, which is the only reason I personally play the game in the first place, as well as the addition of the popular Road To Glory game mode (a mode I haven't touched much personally, but many players enjoy it according to online polls I've seen in various places).

As to whether Race For The Heisman was a wanted mode, I respond that EA isn't making the game for only Operation Sports. (It's also an easy win from a dev side - it's basically Road To Glory with a predetermined player - but you have made it quite clear that you don't care about the developer side of things, and for a legitimate reason).

The big picture thing I question, is that I don't know for sure that true simulation football is EA Tiburon's goal. Do they want a product that resembles simulation football? Certainly, having a product that allows a user to reasonably reproduce what he might see on Saturdays is what is going to sell the game. They have that. At the end of the day, however, EA Tiburon is making a video game, a video game which must be accessible to new players, deep enough to bring previous players of the series back for a new iteration, and it must be fun for both demographics of players. Real-life football is arguably is something many of us on this forum even won't have a solid grasp of, and arguably would be so complex as to be completely inaccessible, and as such could be seen as counterproductive to the end of bringing new players in. I never played organized football on any level, for example, so such a simulation football game would probably alienate me. This isn't to say that I don't enjoy simulation-style gameplay, however.

As to what the goal is if the goal isn't to make a simulation football game - I'd argue it's to make a football video game which represents the sport to a reasonable level of detail which is simple enough for newcomers to pick up and deep enough to satisfy football junkies like those on this forum. To that end EA is succeeding in spades.

That last part is not the answer any EA football critic on this forum wants to hear.