Raiders Infield Dirt

[SageInfinite]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I think the grass/field looks MILES better than PS2 of course, so I'd definitely much rather have what we have, but at the same time it might've been a tad bit short sighted to build and install tech that couldn't eventually support this feature.

I understand the trade-offs though....

[Hooe]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

If the "New Tech" EA/Tib is using for Madden is lacking to the point it won't allow a dirt infield, then the tech is inadequate.

Their tech is sufficient for at least 32 of the 33 asset use cases.

Since MLB's Miami Marlins moved, only O.co Stadium is simultaneously used for football and baseball. All other NFL stadiums, along with Wembley Stadium and the fictitious Draft Champions Stadium, never have baseball diamonds, and don't require dirt.

From a project manager's standpoint, given a nine-month development timeline, dirt that is harder to implement than just a texture change on the playing surface is very easy to cut. It's more effort than a texture swap and only a very small percentage of your players will ever see the change.

If the dirt infield previously existed and the new tech makes it impossible to have, then the new tech would be why it was removed.

For me, I guess the question would be, did the dirt infield exist before this "New Tech".

If you call a simple texture swap "dirt", sure. We both know that today's games demand more authenticity and realism than just a naive raster art swap can provide.

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Their tech is sufficient for at least 32 of the 33 asset use cases.

Since MLB's Miami Marlins moved, only O.co Stadium is simultaneously used for football and baseball. All other NFL stadiums, along with Wembley Stadium and the fictitious Draft Champions Stadium, never have baseball diamonds, and don't require dirt.

From a project manager's standpoint, given a nine-month development timeline, dirt that is harder to implement than just a texture change on the playing surface is very easy to cut. It's more effort than a texture swap and only a very small percentage of your players will ever see the change.



If you call a simple texture swap "dirt", sure. We both know that today's games demand more authenticity and realism than just a naive raster art swap can provide.

What does any of that have to do with whether the dirt infield was removed or not? If previous Maddens allowed dirt infields and the current tech does not allow for it, then the tech is lacking and the feature was removed. Simple as that.

[mestevo]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It's not that it was removed, it's that it was not included. It's a decision that affects ~4 of 256+ games in a season allowing them to move forward w/ the tech that is currently used. That's a pretty easy decision to make.

[SageInfinite]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It just comes down to this not being a priority for Tiburon. It's unfortunate that it hasn't been a priority in 10 plus years, but that's just the reality of the situation.

Overall Madden is a much more authentic game than it was in gen2....

[brent3419]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

What I think some are failing to realize is that back then it was a flat texture and the diamond was painted on, but with these it is a different thing as the fields now have full blades of grass on them.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It's not that it was removed, it's that it was not included. It's a decision that affects ~4 of 256+ games in a season allowing them to move forward w/ the tech that is currently used. That's a pretty easy decision to make.

You're playing word games. Whether it's worth the time or not has no bearing on whether it previously existed in the game or not. If it previously existed and is gone, then it was removed, for whatever reason.

You're playing the "depends on the definition of what is, is" game.

[Hooe]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

What does any of that have to do with whether the dirt infield was removed or not? If previous Maddens allowed dirt infields and the current tech does not allow for it, then the tech is lacking and the feature was removed. Simple as that.

The current tech allows for swapping textures on the field just fine - you can easily see this by looking at the playing surfaces of grass stadiums vs turf stadiums; they look and behave differently (with respect to particle effects on footsteps and stains on player jerseys).

The issue is that the current tech on top of modern video game graphics expectations doesn't support a dirt infield which would meet consumer expectations. That tech has never existed in Madden. It requires more than a texture swap to pull off convincingly. If Tiburon were to just port over the functionality from Madden 2005 or whatever, they'd have something that would vaguely look like dirt but wouldn't behave like dirt at all. It wouldn't kick up dust on footsteps, and it wouldn't dirty player uniforms differently from grass or turf; it would behave the same as the rest of the field, as if the dirt infield wasn't there at all. It might even have brown 3D grass on it depending on how Tiburon's 3D grass tech works, which would obviously be stupid.

So sure, they turned off the ability for a dirt infield graphic to be displayed on top of the football field. If you are looking for something to complain on the internet about without even attempting to entertain the circumstances around why a change was made, there you go.

However, if you do want to understand why things change - if Tiburon had left the infield dirt texture swap in exactly as it existed on PS2, absolutely no one would be happy with it. It wouldn't look as good or behave as well as the other playing field surfaces in the game, and it would break immersion when a player falls on it and basically behaves as if he fell on concrete. To that end, the feature as we want it to exist in fact does not exist. It is an entirely new feature. Expectations are higher, the previous implementation was not sufficient for modern expectations, and it costs too much to update relative to what little it adds to the game, so it gets turned off.

This is how the business of building video games works. The bar of expectations is always rising with all the new hardware / rendering techniques / coding tricks / whatever, and if an old game component lags way behind or is too expensive to update compared to the amount of benefit it offers the total package, it gets axed.

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

The current tech allows for swapping textures on the field just fine - you can easily see this by looking at the playing surfaces of grass stadiums vs turf stadiums; they look and behave differently (with respect to particle effects on footsteps and stains on player jerseys).

The issue is that the current tech on top of modern video game graphics expectations doesn't support a dirt infield which would meet consumer expectations. That tech has never existed in Madden. It requires more than a texture swap to pull off convincingly. If Tiburon were to just port over the functionality from Madden 2005 or whatever, they'd have something that would vaguely look like dirt but wouldn't behave like dirt at all. It wouldn't kick up dust on footsteps, and it wouldn't dirty player uniforms differently from grass or turf; it would behave the same as the rest of the field, as if the dirt infield wasn't there at all. It might even have brown 3D grass on it depending on how Tiburon's 3D grass tech works, which would obviously be stupid.

So sure, they turned off the ability for a dirt infield graphic to be displayed on top of the football field. If you are looking for something to complain on the internet about without even attempting to entertain the circumstances around why a change was made, there you go.

However, if you do want to understand why things change - if Tiburon had left the infield dirt texture swap in exactly as it existed on PS2, absolutely no one would be happy with it. It wouldn't look as good or behave as well as the other playing field surfaces in the game, and it would break immersion when a player falls on it and basically behaves as if he fell on concrete. To that end, the feature as we want it to exist in fact does not exist. It is an entirely new feature. Expectations are higher, the previous implementation was not sufficient for modern expectations, and it costs too much to update relative to what little it adds to the game, so it gets turned off.

This is how the business of building video games works. The bar of expectations is always rising with all the new hardware / rendering techniques / coding tricks / whatever, and if an old game component lags way behind or is too expensive to update compared to the amount of benefit it offers the total package, it gets axed.

What does any of that have to do with whether the dirt infield was removed or not?

I didn't ask you WHY it was removed. That other poster said it was removed and he's being told it wasn't.

So just say to that other poster "Yes it was removed, the current tech doesn't allow it and it appears EA/Tib doesn't think it's worth the time and effort".

If you would have answered the guy with the above, I would have LIKED your post and I'd have been done with it.

So all that you said, what did it have to do with whether the dirt infield was removed or not?

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It just comes down to this not being a priority for Tiburon. It's unfortunate that it hasn't been a priority in 10 plus years, but that's just the reality of the situation.

Overall Madden is a much more authentic game than it was in gen2....

Should it ever be a "priority" though? Its 4 games a year. ****, Oakland may be out of that stadium in the next year or 2. I would hate for Madden's art team to waste time and memory on this when it wont likely matter long term. So many other things they can work on.

[SageInfinite]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Should it ever be a "priority" though? Its 4 games a year. ****, Oakland may be out of that stadium in the next year or 2. I would hate for Madden's art team to waste time and memory on this when it wont likely matter long term. So many other things they can work on.

I mean it was priority enough for them once to include it, so I don't think it's a stretch to bring it up. It's not like this is a year or 2 after it's been absent.

Again I understand them not making it a priority, it's just a nice detail that was once there, that is now absent. It would've been nice for them to add it back with the jump to this generation.

Personally I'd rather have them add mouth pieces back, lol, but I digress....

[iFnotWhyNoT]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

What annoys me the most is when people try to convince others what is necessary or more of a priority without understanding what the other side is truly asking for.

This falls under what us OS guys call "the little things". I'm sure Madden has a ton of other "little things" in the game, but we are seriously spoiled by The Show and NBA 2k ; for gods sake, there's even a thread dedicated to spotting and sharing these.

Personally, i would lump the infield dirt as being part of my "living world"/"the little things". It's definitely not necessary but its also not a waste of time to consider these things. I don't look at it as just dirt, its part of Oakland's world and character.

However, i agree wanting something and understanding how long it would take to implement these things to our standards is something you have to consider. DeuceDouglas made an incredible thread on CFM and there are a TON of "little things" in there that I [me personally] would rather they focus on first. For example multiple broadcast packages, since this is an art project were talking about. Sage would like mouth pieces, others want a better sideline. We seem to have much better looking/acting Head coaches this year. Kudos to that. No one is more right or wrong on this. Just more of "the little things" would be nice...you know?

[mrprice33]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

What annoys me the most is when people try to convince others what is necessary or more of a priority without understanding what the other side is truly asking for.

This falls under what us OS guys call "the little things". I'm sure Madden has a ton of other "little things" in the game, but we are seriously spoiled by The Show and NBA 2k ; for gods sake, there's even a thread dedicated to spotting and sharing these.

Personally, i would lump the infield dirt as being part of my "living world"/"the little things". It's definitely not necessary but its also not a waste of time to consider these things. I don't look at it as just dirt, its part of Oakland's world and character.

However, i agree wanting something and understanding how long it would take to implement these things to our standards is something you have to consider. DeuceDouglas made an incredible thread on CFM and there are a TON of "little things" in there that I [me personally] would rather they focus on first. For example multiple broadcast packages, since this is an art project were talking about. Sage would like mouth pieces, others want a better sideline. We seem to have much better looking/acting Head coaches this year. Kudos to that. No one is more right or wrong on this. Just more of "the little things" would be nice...you know?

I think a lot of the reason why you see these threads turn into fights is when it turns into some sort of referendum on the game/EA. Of course we all want every possible detail crammed into the game, but some details will make it and some won't. However, when people say "well it was in the game in 2004 why isn't it there now?" and people explain why that might not be, it's very rarely accepted and moved on from.

This thread should honestly be 3 posts long.

Post 1: "Remember dirt? Why isn't that in M17?"
Post 2: "Well the tech to do so is much more complicated than it used to be, and it's likely that the time commitment isn't worth it, considering Oakland may only be in the stadium for another year or so."
Post 3: "Oh okay, that's too bad. Maybe they'll surprise us. Carry on, then!"

[kehlis]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Something I thought of today may or may not be of any relevance but I thought I would bring it up.

Back when they did have the dirt was when EA was still making MVP so they had the art simply because they used it in another game.

Again though, I don't know if that's an asset that could be shared or not.

[SageInfinite]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Post 1: "Remember dirt? Why isn't that in M17?"
Post 2: "Well the tech to do so is much more complicated than it used to be, and it's likely that the time commitment isn't worth it, considering Oakland may only be in the stadium for another year or so."
Post 3: "Oh okay, that's too bad. Maybe they'll surprise us. Carry on, then!"

I feel like if most of us did that, we wouldn't get half the stuff we request. It seems like equipment wasn't a priority for years, guys kept making noise and now we have a nice update this year. Just my perception, I apologize if there's any ignorance in my post....