More Links

spankdatazz22 · 04-11-2004, 11:04 AM

I agree w/both points being made in terms of additional momentum vs. transitional animations. I think it's a little of both; maybe they're both the same thing in a way. Madden has too much momentum, ESPN too little. Yesterday while running a punt back, I ran near the sidelines and the defense attempted to push me out of bounds twice. The second push had me right at the out-of-bounds line. I hit the spin button because of the person in front of me and was able to take it to the house.

When I did the replay, on the second push the upper half of my body was actually leaning out of bounds. Now, in Madden, you go into this animation where the player tries to tip-toe down the line (which ESPN should have). But because of the precise control in ESPN, when I hit the spin button, the player "defied gravity" and momentum, his body completely changed direction, and was able to take it to the house.

I've read in the past that VC is very fond of the directional control in their games, but hopefully they'll see that it's really the only major thing that's holding the game back. This is the reason I think many Maddenites think Madden is more realistic - it's not the gameplay, it's the way momentum is depicted. I agree about the transitional animation comments, because I feel the same. But I can see where people would prefer Madden's overstated momentum than ESPN's understated momentum.

LBzrule · 04-11-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

spankdatazz22 said:
I agree w/both points being made in terms of additional momentum vs. transitional animations. I think it's a little of both; maybe they're both the same thing in a way. Madden has too much momentum, ESPN too little. Yesterday while running a punt back, I ran near the sidelines and the defense attempted to push me out of bounds twice. The second push had me right at the out-of-bounds line. I hit the spin button because of the person in front of me and was able to take it to the house.

When I did the replay, on the second push the upper half of my body was actually leaning out of bounds. Now, in Madden, you go into this animation where the player tries to tip-toe down the line (which ESPN should have). But because of the precise control in ESPN, when I hit the spin button, the player "defied gravity" and momentum, his body completely changed direction, and was able to take it to the house.

I've read in the past that VC is very fond of the directional control in their games, but hopefully they'll see that it's really the only major thing that's holding the game back. This is the reason I think many Maddenites think Madden is more realistic - it's not the gameplay, it's the way momentum is depicted. I agree about the transitional animation comments, because I feel the same. But I can see where people would prefer Madden's overstated momentum than ESPN's understated momentum.

Ahhh yes, I've seen this. The defender pushes the ball carrier, but he stays on that one foot and keeps running up the sideline. That's annoying, probably has all to do with the way agility plays in the game. But yeah I can see how maddenites think madden is more realistic for that reason. As one of them quoted to me, "ESPN is really nice graphically, playbook wise, running game, but a bit too robotic." What he was getting at was the player movement. He doesn't like turn on the dime and he was annoyed with the school of fish mentality by the defenders. And to think I bought it for him as a free gift

At least he kept it and plays it off and on.

I'm really not much for adding more momentum. I think the bigger issue is transitional movement. If that were there it add an entire new dimension to the gameplay. I still want my players to move fast and control fluidly. I play madden, but I do not want ESPN to go that far. Everytime I play it I just start passing. Running is annoying. It can be done but it's just annoying. I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game.

Kanobi · 04-11-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

LBzrule said:
I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game.

How?

spankdatazz22 · 04-11-2004, 01:13 PM

lol - sounds like you have a friend like me LBz. I got into a really heated argument awhile back w/a friend of mine about ESPN. He was one of those "EA can do no wrong; EA rulez" kinda guys. The main thing he pointed to was how the players in ESPN move; so he equated that w/the game seeming arcadish. He's in the Air Force reserve and got called to active duty for Iraq - while still here he decided to give ESPN a chance. Since he allowed himself to look past the directional control and weird running animations, he now LOVES the game and can't believe he was so biased against it.

I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed.

It may sound stupid to say, but perhaps if VC had more of a control scheme similiar to NFL Street, it might be a good mix of precise control w/momentum factored in. I traded that mess in after a couple months, but it actually reminded me of ESPN in the way it controlled. I think Tiburon did a decent job w/the directional control; if you were playing on a wet surface and tried a drastic directional change the player would slip - or you could juke someone heading in one direction and they would slip based on their momentum. I think something like this would add immeasurably to ESPN. I really hope they get the transitional animation stuff correct because the game really could shine this year.

LBzrule · 04-11-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Kanobi said:

Quote:

LBzrule said:
I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game.

How?

While this following pic is not a RB, it is a defender returning an INT. Look at the way his legs are captured and look at the guy trying to tackle him. That's NEVER been in EA's games. Generally if a guy gets that close the ball carrier automatically falls backwards and is down for the count because tackling was MAGNETIC

Ughhh Image not working so just go here Harrison INT
That does not appear to be the case here in this pic. Additionally when you look at that Holmes pic with the Giants DB on his legs, it's the same thing. Generally in Madden the RB is not going to make a move when a defender gets that close, the tackling animation just takes over. But in that Holmes pic, it LOOKS like Holmes will break that tackle and keep going. I'm willing to bet they did work on it, how much is a different question.

LBzrule · 04-11-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

spankdatazz22 said:
lol - sounds like you have a friend like me LBz. I got into a really heated argument awhile back w/a friend of mine about ESPN. He was one of those "EA can do no wrong; EA rulez" kinda guys. The main thing he pointed to was how the players in ESPN move; so he equated that w/the game seeming arcadish. He's in the Air Force reserve and got called to active duty for Iraq - while still here he decided to give ESPN a chance. Since he allowed himself to look past the directional control and weird running animations, he now LOVES the game and can't believe he was so biased against it.

I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed.

It may sound stupid to say, but perhaps if VC had more of a control scheme similiar to NFL Street, it might be a good mix of precise control w/momentum factored in. I traded that mess in after a couple months, but it actually reminded me of ESPN in the way it controlled. I think Tiburon did a decent job w/the directional control; if you were playing on a wet surface and tried a drastic directional change the player would slip - or you could juke someone heading in one direction and they would slip based on their momentum. I think something like this would add immeasurably to ESPN. I really hope they get the transitional animation stuff correct because the game really could shine this year.

It's funny you mention Street, I was thinking about it as well. I actually think Madden will incorporate some of that too. Look at the player models for starters. Upper body especially the arms are almost NFL Streetish. I'll even go on record to GUESS that ESPN will have those transitions.

Quote:

I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed.

This is definately an issue. The same thing happens when the RB slips a tackle too. Doesn't even slow down. And the way we can turn makes jukes moves pretty much arbitrary. Why juke when turning is much more convenient? Yeah this SHOULD be addressed in this year's game. I'll go out on a limb and say it has been addressed.

wwharton · 04-11-2004, 04:15 PM

thanks lbz. my answer was short b/c i'm out of gas arguing this point. momentum is not the problem. it's the buzz word everyone likes to use. for every example you give me that claims to be a momentum issue i can easily explain how it's really lack of transition animations. i only entertain the discussion at all b/c people keep crying for momentum and VC will keep adding until the game is like madden but still without transition animations desperately needed (not going to happen but you get the point). Quick example? The one given earlier about the guy going up the sideline. If there was an extra animation for that guy to plant before turning the corner or spinning either he would've stepped on the endline. Problem solved.

BTW, Warrick Dunn running over people is also not a momentum or physics engine problem. It's an overeffective shoulder charge problem.

I don't want to jump on you guys but it's important that we talk about these things as specifically as possible if we want VC to listen and make the changes that truly will make the game better. They HAVE added momentum every year but still people don't notice b/c it never was the main problem. A new physics engine? None of the issues are so complicated that that's needed. There are actually small tweaks that I think would surprise you guys how much of a difference they'd make in gameplay.

LBzrule · 04-11-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

wwharton said:
thanks lbz. my answer was short b/c i'm out of gas arguing this point. momentum is not the problem. it's the buzz word everyone likes to use. for every example you give me that claims to be a momentum issue i can easily explain how it's really lack of transition animations. i only entertain the discussion at all b/c people keep crying for momentum and VC will keep adding until the game is like madden but still without transition animations desperately needed (not going to happen but you get the point). Quick example? The one given earlier about the guy going up the sideline. If there was an extra animation for that guy to plant before turning the corner or spinning either he would've stepped on the endline. Problem solved.

BTW, Warrick Dunn running over people is also not a momentum or physics engine problem. It's an overeffective shoulder charge problem.

I don't want to jump on you guys but it's important that we talk about these things as specifically as possible if we want VC to listen and make the changes that truly will make the game better. They HAVE added momentum every year but still people don't notice b/c it never was the main problem. A new physics engine? None of the issues are so complicated that that's needed. There are actually small tweaks that I think would surprise you guys how much of a difference they'd make in gameplay.

That's all that's needed transitional movements. I'm VERY confident that theses have been added.

As we've been saying, transitions will make all the difference in the world.

04-11-2004, 11:04 AM	#49
spankdatazz22 All Star OVR: 21 Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,220	Re: The Running Animations I agree w/both points being made in terms of additional momentum vs. transitional animations. I think it's a little of both; maybe they're both the same thing in a way. Madden has too much momentum, ESPN too little. Yesterday while running a punt back, I ran near the sidelines and the defense attempted to push me out of bounds twice. The second push had me right at the out-of-bounds line. I hit the spin button because of the person in front of me and was able to take it to the house. When I did the replay, on the second push the upper half of my body was actually leaning out of bounds. Now, in Madden, you go into this animation where the player tries to tip-toe down the line (which ESPN should have). But because of the precise control in ESPN, when I hit the spin button, the player "defied gravity" and momentum, his body completely changed direction, and was able to take it to the house. I've read in the past that VC is very fond of the directional control in their games, but hopefully they'll see that it's really the only major thing that's holding the game back. This is the reason I think many Maddenites think Madden is more realistic - it's not the gameplay, it's the way momentum is depicted. I agree about the transitional animation comments, because I feel the same. But I can see where people would prefer Madden's overstated momentum than ESPN's understated momentum.

04-11-2004, 12:32 PM	#50
LBzrule Hall Of Fame OVR: 40 Join Date: Jul 2002 Blog Entries: 8	Re: The Running Animations Quote: *spankdatazz22 said:* I agree w/both points being made in terms of additional momentum vs. transitional animations. I think it's a little of both; maybe they're both the same thing in a way. Madden has too much momentum, ESPN too little. Yesterday while running a punt back, I ran near the sidelines and the defense attempted to push me out of bounds twice. The second push had me right at the out-of-bounds line. I hit the spin button because of the person in front of me and was able to take it to the house. When I did the replay, on the second push the upper half of my body was actually leaning out of bounds. Now, in Madden, you go into this animation where the player tries to tip-toe down the line (which ESPN should have). But because of the precise control in ESPN, when I hit the spin button, the player "defied gravity" and momentum, his body completely changed direction, and was able to take it to the house. I've read in the past that VC is very fond of the directional control in their games, but hopefully they'll see that it's really the only major thing that's holding the game back. This is the reason I think many Maddenites think Madden is more realistic - it's not the gameplay, it's the way momentum is depicted. I agree about the transitional animation comments, because I feel the same. But I can see where people would prefer Madden's overstated momentum than ESPN's understated momentum. Ahhh yes, I've seen this. The defender pushes the ball carrier, but he stays on that one foot and keeps running up the sideline. That's annoying, probably has all to do with the way agility plays in the game. But yeah I can see how maddenites think madden is more realistic for that reason. As one of them quoted to me, "ESPN is really nice graphically, playbook wise, running game, but a bit too robotic." What he was getting at was the player movement. He doesn't like turn on the dime and he was annoyed with the school of fish mentality by the defenders. And to think I bought it for him as a free gift At least he kept it and plays it off and on. I'm really not much for adding more momentum. I think the bigger issue is transitional movement. If that were there it add an entire new dimension to the gameplay. I still want my players to move fast and control fluidly. I play madden, but I do not want ESPN to go that far. Everytime I play it I just start passing. Running is annoying. It can be done but it's just annoying. I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game.

04-11-2004, 01:00 PM	#51
Kanobi HF Clss f '09 OVR: 14* Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,980 Blog Entries: 17	Re: The Running Animations Quote: *LBzrule said:* I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game. How?

04-11-2004, 01:13 PM	#52
spankdatazz22 All Star OVR: 21 Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,220	Re: The Running Animations lol - sounds like you have a friend like me LBz. I got into a really heated argument awhile back w/a friend of mine about ESPN. He was one of those "EA can do no wrong; EA rulez" kinda guys. The main thing he pointed to was how the players in ESPN move; so he equated that w/the game seeming arcadish. He's in the Air Force reserve and got called to active duty for Iraq - while still here he decided to give ESPN a chance. Since he allowed himself to look past the directional control and weird running animations, he now LOVES the game and can't believe he was so biased against it. I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed. It may sound stupid to say, but perhaps if VC had more of a control scheme similiar to NFL Street, it might be a good mix of precise control w/momentum factored in. I traded that mess in after a couple months, but it actually reminded me of ESPN in the way it controlled. I think Tiburon did a decent job w/the directional control; if you were playing on a wet surface and tried a drastic directional change the player would slip - or you could juke someone heading in one direction and they would slip based on their momentum. I think something like this would add immeasurably to ESPN. I really hope they get the transitional animation stuff correct because the game really could shine this year.

04-11-2004, 02:51 PM	#53
LBzrule Hall Of Fame OVR: 40 Join Date: Jul 2002 Blog Entries: 8	Re: The Running Animations Quote: *Kanobi said:* Quote: *LBzrule said:* I can tell from the new screens though that EA has worked on their running game. How? While this following pic is not a RB, it is a defender returning an INT. Look at the way his legs are captured and look at the guy trying to tackle him. That's NEVER been in EA's games. Generally if a guy gets that close the ball carrier automatically falls backwards and is down for the count because tackling was MAGNETIC Ughhh Image not working so just go here Harrison INT That does not appear to be the case here in this pic. Additionally when you look at that Holmes pic with the Giants DB on his legs, it's the same thing. Generally in Madden the RB is not going to make a move when a defender gets that close, the tackling animation just takes over. But in that Holmes pic, it LOOKS like Holmes will break that tackle and keep going. I'm willing to bet they did work on it, how much is a different question.

	MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
	New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
	Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?

04-11-2004, 03:05 PM	#54
LBzrule Hall Of Fame OVR: 40 Join Date: Jul 2002 Blog Entries: 8	Re: The Running Animations Quote: *spankdatazz22 said:* lol - sounds like you have a friend like me LBz. I got into a really heated argument awhile back w/a friend of mine about ESPN. He was one of those "EA can do no wrong; EA rulez" kinda guys. The main thing he pointed to was how the players in ESPN move; so he equated that w/the game seeming arcadish. He's in the Air Force reserve and got called to active duty for Iraq - while still here he decided to give ESPN a chance. Since he allowed himself to look past the directional control and weird running animations, he now LOVES the game and can't believe he was so biased against it. I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed. It may sound stupid to say, but perhaps if VC had more of a control scheme similiar to NFL Street, it might be a good mix of precise control w/momentum factored in. I traded that mess in after a couple months, but it actually reminded me of ESPN in the way it controlled. I think Tiburon did a decent job w/the directional control; if you were playing on a wet surface and tried a drastic directional change the player would slip - or you could juke someone heading in one direction and they would slip based on their momentum. I think something like this would add immeasurably to ESPN. I really hope they get the transitional animation stuff correct because the game really could shine this year. It's funny you mention Street, I was thinking about it as well. I actually think Madden will incorporate some of that too. Look at the player models for starters. Upper body especially the arms are almost NFL Streetish. I'll even go on record to GUESS that ESPN will have those transitions. Quote: I don't think VC has to totally get rid of the precise control in their game to improve, but they should do something about the momentum and directional/transitional changes. I went into practice mode, offense only, using the Eagles on both ESPN and Madden. In Madden, if you're heading full speed in one direction and decide to head in the opposite direction, the player has to slow down some, plant his foot, then head in the other direction. In ESPN w/the same player, he simply heads spins and heads back in the opposite direction. No sacrifice in speed. This is definately an issue. The same thing happens when the RB slips a tackle too. Doesn't even slow down. And the way we can turn makes jukes moves pretty much arbitrary. Why juke when turning is much more convenient? Yeah this SHOULD be addressed in this year's game. I'll go out on a limb and say it has been addressed.

04-11-2004, 04:15 PM	#55
wwharton ll Str OVR: 28 Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 26,978	Re: The Running Animations thanks lbz. my answer was short b/c i'm out of gas arguing this point. momentum is not the problem. it's the buzz word everyone likes to use. for every example you give me that claims to be a momentum issue i can easily explain how it's really lack of transition animations. i only entertain the discussion at all b/c people keep crying for momentum and VC will keep adding until the game is like madden but still without transition animations desperately needed (not going to happen but you get the point). Quick example? The one given earlier about the guy going up the sideline. If there was an extra animation for that guy to plant before turning the corner or spinning either he would've stepped on the endline. Problem solved. BTW, Warrick Dunn running over people is also not a momentum or physics engine problem. It's an overeffective shoulder charge problem. I don't want to jump on you guys but it's important that we talk about these things as specifically as possible if we want VC to listen and make the changes that truly will make the game better. They HAVE added momentum every year but still people don't notice b/c it never was the main problem. A new physics engine? None of the issues are so complicated that that's needed. There are actually small tweaks that I think would surprise you guys how much of a difference they'd make in gameplay.

04-11-2004, 04:40 PM	#56
LBzrule Hall Of Fame OVR: 40 Join Date: Jul 2002 Blog Entries: 8	Re: The Running Animations Quote: *wwharton said:* thanks lbz. my answer was short b/c i'm out of gas arguing this point. momentum is not the problem. it's the buzz word everyone likes to use. for every example you give me that claims to be a momentum issue i can easily explain how it's really lack of transition animations. i only entertain the discussion at all b/c people keep crying for momentum and VC will keep adding until the game is like madden but still without transition animations desperately needed (not going to happen but you get the point). Quick example? The one given earlier about the guy going up the sideline. If there was an extra animation for that guy to plant before turning the corner or spinning either he would've stepped on the endline. Problem solved. BTW, Warrick Dunn running over people is also not a momentum or physics engine problem. It's an overeffective shoulder charge problem. I don't want to jump on you guys but it's important that we talk about these things as specifically as possible if we want VC to listen and make the changes that truly will make the game better. They HAVE added momentum every year but still people don't notice b/c it never was the main problem. A new physics engine? None of the issues are so complicated that that's needed. There are actually small tweaks that I think would surprise you guys how much of a difference they'd make in gameplay. That's all that's needed transitional movements. I'm VERY confident that theses have been added. As we've been saying, transitions will make all the difference in the world.

More Links

The Running Animations