So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

[kehlis]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

if anyone submitted work like this on their job they would be fired in a week.
We know the suits at EA don't care a long as their pockets are lined.

Do you not see the contradiction here?


They created a product that is getting the company money.

How is that something that would get anyone fired????

[Hooe]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There's a world of difference between a game not designed to meet one's expectations and has a few non-showstopping bugs, and a game which is a profound technical failure and design nightmare. Take a look at Ride To Hell: Retribution, Big Rig Truckers, or Guise Of The Wolf for examples of the latter sort of game.

Regardless of your opinion on Madden NFL - whatever it may be - the series does not fit in with those three aforementioned games - it doesn't even begin to approach them with respect to lack of quality or lack of technical mastery. It is not the engineering abomination some in this thread are making it out to be. That's simply hyperbole.

[GiantBlue76]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There's a world of difference between a game not designed to meet one's expectations and has a few non-showstopping bugs, and a game which is a profound technical failure and design nightmare. Take a look at Ride To Hell: Retribution, Big Rig Truckers, or Guise Of The Wolf for examples of the latter sort of game.

Regardless of your opinion on Madden NFL - whatever it may be - the series does not fit in with those three aforementioned games - it doesn't even begin to approach them with respect to lack of quality or lack of technical mastery. It is not the engineering abomination some in this thread are making it out to be. That's simply hyperbole.

Nah, it's really not. You call it that simply because you like the game, and you don't agree with it, therefore the 1000s of other people who disagree must be wrong. Madden is not the worst game ever produced. You are right in that regard. It's a shoddy product in many ways in which it shouldn't be, and the same issues exist year after year. What may not be considered game breaking bugs for me or you, they are for others. Everyone has something that matters to them. For some guys it's the sim engine, which worked in past years games. Now it's a complete disaster. It's broken and prevents those players from enjoying an aspect of the game they enjoyed years before. Year after year, it's still broken.

There is no software that is bug free. However, when bugs stick around for nearly a decade, that's a serious issue.

[NicVirtue]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

I wouldn't say Madden is the worst game in gaming history. But I do think it's most consistently bad & sub par game in the past 8 years.

[TMJOHNS18]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There's a world of difference between a game not designed to meet one's expectations and has a few non-showstopping bugs, and a game which is a profound technical failure and design nightmare. Take a look at Ride To Hell: Retribution, Big Rig Truckers, or Guise Of The Wolf for examples of the latter sort of game.

Regardless of your opinion on Madden NFL - whatever it may be - the series does not fit in with those three aforementioned games - it doesn't even begin to approach them with respect to lack of quality or lack of technical mastery. It is not the engineering abomination some in this thread are making it out to be. That's simply hyperbole.

I would think Ride To Hell would look a bit different if the dev's where given the resources available to release yearly updates over the next 7 years. Granted, from what I heard, that games is one of the worst ever made, but I'm sure with the feedback it's received many of the game breaking issues would probably be addressed over the years.

Madden's issue is that it chooses to simply focus on adding new features (and rehashing old) without addressing previous issues in the game. So each year you seem to be presented with a game containing more and more problems then the previous years, simply due to previous issues that haven't been addressed and new features that may present new issues which happens time to time (Be a GM in NBA 2k kinda irks me).

I still enjoy M25, it's a fun game to pick up and play. It feels Franchise has sorta returned, though I still dislike the XP progression system, but with Owner in there at least I can somewhat enjoy a Franchise mode that somewhat resembles what was their prior to connected careers (nice financial stuff was added but don't really see purpose overall).

Sad I'd still rather play the Franchise mode with broken UDFA's over the same mode released years later though lol.

[Hooe]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

Madden's issue is that it chooses to simply focus on adding new features (and rehashing old) without addressing previous issues in the game. So each year you seem to be presented with a game containing more and more problems then the previous years, simply due to previous issues that haven't been addressed and new features that may present new issues which happens time to time (Be a GM in NBA 2k kinda irks me).

I still enjoy M25, it's a fun game to pick up and play. It feels Franchise has sorta returned, though I still dislike the XP progression system, but with Owner in there at least I can somewhat enjoy a Franchise mode that somewhat resembles what was their prior to connected careers (nice financial stuff was added but don't really see purpose overall).

Sad I'd still rather play the Franchise mode with broken UDFA's over the same mode released years later though lol.

EA's biggest problem - not just at Tiburon, but across most of the studios they own and operate - is that they are tone-deaf to what their fans want, and instead seemingly operate in a vacuum. The publisher obviously has the talent across their various studios to make good games, as evidenced by that over the past three years EA as a publisher has ranked 3rd, 1st, and 4th in the aggregate Metacritic publisher rankings; like it or not, Metacritic has become the assessment of quality in the gaming space for now, so much so that industry bonuses are tied to Metacritic scores.

However, EA studios tend to do things like: push things onto fans which aren't wanted (ex. online-only play in SimCity); develop games which exploit intellectual property and exist only to make money without any attempt to create compelling gameplay (ex. Dungeon Keeper); or, in recurring series, prioritize certain changes and additions over the ones their fans want (ex. any number of frivolous changes in the Madden NFL series, as you alluded to; for me personally, I would have rather seen Tiburon in Madden NFL 25 add more depth in the roster management mechanics in CFM than a retooled Owner Mode, so let's roll with that). Adding in the tumultuous launch of Battlefield 4 - a game many people enjoy and is a significant technological achievement big-picture, but for the longest time was rife with technical issues in its online gameplay and was obviously rushed out the door to meet the Gen-8 console launch window - doesn't do them any favors, either. These things are the primary reasons as to why EA has such a poor public perception, despite that EA is consistently among industry leaders with respect to quality of product.

Tying this back into the GameChangers program - the subject of the thread - it'd be nice to see some sort of quantitative assessment of the feedback the GameChangers have gathered over a development cycle and show how that feedback was used to make changes in the upcoming release. This would go a long way to change the perception that exists of the program as merely a promotional social media street team, and in turn helps the public perception of the EA Sports arm of the publisher in general (to the same end, it'd be nice to see any changes which get into the game from EA's IdeaScale platform get flagged as well). I don't know that we'll ever see that sort of transparency, however.

To be honest, until I see such tangible impact of the GameChangers program, I've stopped caring about it by-and-large for now, except as a source of information about upcoming EA Sports releases once that information stream starts to flow prior to a new release.

[TMJOHNS18]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

Tying this back into the GameChangers program - the subject of the thread - it'd be nice to see some sort of quantitative assessment of the feedback the GameChangers have gathered over a development cycle and show how that feedback was used to make changes in the upcoming release. This would go a long way to change the perception that exists of the program as merely a promotional social media street team, and in turn helps the public perception of the EA Sports arm of the publisher in general (to the same end, it'd be nice to see any changes which get into the game from EA's IdeaScale platform get flagged as well). I don't know that we'll ever see that sort of transparency, however.

It would be really interesting to see the level of impact the GameChangers are having on the releases year to year. Whether it be input that leads to changes in current features or inputs that have lead to the implementation of new ones.

But what you really see now is little to no feedback, or the fired GC who lashes out after leaving the program. Not too insightful.

[GiantBlue76]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

EA's biggest problem - not just at Tiburon, but across most of the studios they own and operate - is that they are tone-deaf to what their fans want, and instead seemingly operate in a vacuum. The publisher obviously has the talent across their various studios to make good games, as evidenced by that over the past three years EA as a publisher has ranked 3rd, 1st, and 4th in the aggregate Metacritic publisher rankings; like it or not, Metacritic has become the assessment of quality in the gaming space for now, so much so that industry bonuses are tied to Metacritic scores.

However, EA studios tend to do things like: push things onto fans which aren't wanted (ex. online-only play in SimCity); develop games which exploit intellectual property and exist only to make money without any attempt to create compelling gameplay (ex. Dungeon Keeper); or, in recurring series, prioritize certain changes and additions over the ones their fans want (ex. any number of frivolous changes in the Madden NFL series, as you alluded to; for me personally, I would have rather seen Tiburon in Madden NFL 25 add more depth in the roster management mechanics in CFM than a retooled Owner Mode, so let's roll with that). Adding in the tumultuous launch of Battlefield 4 - a game many people enjoy and is a significant technological achievement big-picture, but for the longest time was rife with technical issues in its online gameplay and was obviously rushed out the door to meet the Gen-8 console launch window - doesn't do them any favors, either. These things are the primary reasons as to why EA has such a poor public perception, despite that EA is consistently among industry leaders with respect to quality of product.

Tying this back into the GameChangers program - the subject of the thread - it'd be nice to see some sort of quantitative assessment of the feedback the GameChangers have gathered over a development cycle and show how that feedback was used to make changes in the upcoming release. This would go a long way to change the perception that exists of the program as merely a promotional social media street team, and in turn helps the public perception of the EA Sports arm of the publisher in general (to the same end, it'd be nice to see any changes which get into the game from EA's IdeaScale platform get flagged as well). I don't know that we'll ever see that sort of transparency, however.

To be honest, until I see such tangible impact of the GameChangers program, I've stopped caring about it by-and-large for now, except as a source of information about upcoming EA Sports releases once that information stream starts to flow prior to a new release.

Chris, I agree with you here. I do not feel EA is a terrible company like most do here. I buy some games published by EA that are outstanding games. I feel the majority of weakness is at Tiburon. That doesn't mean ALL of EA's studios follow this pattern. Tiburon struggles with football and basketball and it seems that no matter how much time or whatever excuse of the week it is can rectify it.

I also agree with you 100% about the "gamechangers" program. It's worthless, and we all know what it's really about.

[Rebel10]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There's a world of difference between a game not designed to meet one's expectations and has a few non-showstopping bugs, and a game which is a profound technical failure and design nightmare. Take a look at Ride To Hell: Retribution, Big Rig Truckers, or Guise Of The Wolf for examples of the latter sort of game.

Regardless of your opinion on Madden NFL - whatever it may be - the series does not fit in with those three aforementioned games - it doesn't even begin to approach them with respect to lack of quality or lack of technical mastery. It is not the engineering abomination some in this thread are making it out to be. That's simply hyperbole.

You're right, Madden is not Big Rig Truckers or Ride to Hell: Retribution, but it is Madden, and it is Madden NFL Football, which carries a lot more responsibility with it than "Big Rig Truckers," or some other truly horrible game. The NFL is probably the top brand in the United States, or at least up there in the top 10 of marketable US brands that can have products created around them. There are others as well that could arguably be #1 or #5, but the NFL is around the top (arguably, I'd say, the top producible brand in the United States). For that reason, there is a lot more responsibility to carry the brand and reproduce the brand as well as they can within the limits set by the brand.

If I had to fall on one side of the fence or the other, the "Pro-madden" or "anti-Madden" fence, I'd fall on the pro-Madden fence... I used to be an EA Community Leader (before it became the Game Changer program), I've generally been an "EA apologist" or at least a "Madden apologist," in that I don't think that game or the company is as bad as the gamer (eg, gaf) hivemind wants to think it is. But, nevertheless, the game is in dire straits. There was very little progress between Madden '06 on the Xbox and Madden '25 (2014) on the Xbox One. You might have singificant progress from one iteration to another, let's say, Madden '06 on 360 to Madden '07 on 360, or Madden 2009 to Madden 2011, but by and large, Madden stagnate for the entire 360/PS3 generation. I think a lot of it was because of the disastrous launch of Madden '06 and the disaster that 2005 - 2007 was for game publishers/developers in general (most of all, EA -- that was as dark a time for EA as there ever has been). But, here it is 2014, almost a decade later, and even as a "pro-Madden" guy, I really can't say that the Madden product being sold this year in 2014 is better than the Madden product being sold in 2005.

Now, I don't mean that the graphics were better in 2005 vs. what they are in 2014, or sound was better, or anything else. Generally, I see those things in Madden being similar to an economy, graphical quality, audio quality, and so on, has generally improved each year, but at a pace slower than the "graphical" or "aural" rate of inflation in the videogame industry. Madden 25 has done itself a pretty hearty disservice with the loading screens that show off previous versions of the game, because I look at those and wonder to myself -- "Is what I'm playing now really a lot better than what I was playing then?" In most cases, the answer is no. And, even more embarrassing, is that the M25 loading screens are like a montage of failed ideas that EA has tried to push into the game over the last 10 years... ANd these were all key back of the box features in those years. Vision cone, weapons, ProTak... It makes you look at the back of the box of Madden 25 and, eventually, Madden 15, and ask yourself "Are we going to make fun of these features in Madden '19, just like how we're making fun of those features in Madden 25 (2014)?"

None of these gripes would really matter if it were Big Rig Truckers because nobody cares about the Big Rig Truckers brand. But people care about the NFL brand and, frankly, people care about the Madden brand, so you have a higher set of expectations.

[roadman]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There are some GGer's that are worth the cause, though. I just wish more GCer's were more sim in nature vs tourney.

Please take a look at the last post in the Vidoegraphy thread in this forum. The thread is stickied at the top and it's post #171.

There needs to be a toggle switch for tourney mode and sim mode. That way, you can have all the tourney players play "perfect football, no bad snaps over the center or punter, no penalties, no wind direction, and winner take all 200 grand prizes.

Sim mode for all the folks who have needs for penalties and bad snaps in the game.

Here is the link, Sim does a nice job of pointing out the bad and the good.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ox-one-18.html

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

Chris, I agree with you here. I do not feel EA is a terrible company like most do here. I buy some games published by EA that are outstanding games. I feel the majority of weakness is at Tiburon. That doesn't mean ALL of EA's studios follow this pattern. Tiburon struggles with football and basketball and it seems that no matter how much time or whatever excuse of the week it is can rectify it.

I also agree with you 100% about the "gamechangers" program. It's worthless, and we all know what it's really about.

The problem with Tiburon, I suspect, is that they are gamers first and NFL fans second (look at their online job application: being a gamer is a requirement, being an NFL fan, not so much).

If it were FOOTBALL PEOPLE leading, we'd get something great (remember that game from 2004-05 of which we may not speak?). But it's VIDEO GAME PEOPLE leading, or rather, video game people chained by dollar people.

[NDAlum]

Re: So who do we believe when it comes to the GameChanger program?

There are some GGer's that are worth the cause, though. I just wish more GCer's were more sim in nature vs tourney.

Please take a look at the last post in the Vidoegraphy thread in this forum. The thread is stickied at the top and it's post #171.

There needs to be a toggle switch for tourney mode and sim mode. That way, you can have all the tourney players play "perfect football, no bad snaps over the center or punter, no penalties, no wind direction, and winner take all 200 grand prizes.

Sim mode for all the folks who have needs for penalties and bad snaps in the game.

Here is the link, Sim does a nice job of pointing out the bad and the good.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ox-one-18.html

Couldn't agree more man, well said.




Sent from my iPhone 5