Raiders Infield Dirt

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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....

That doesnt mean it was priority back then. It was likely easier to add back then for the reasons CM Hooe has stated.

[jfsolo]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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!"

In a way the bolded part is the crux of the issue for most things here.

OS is good place to have long form conversations about things, but Twitter is where people should really go to advocate for the things that they really want in the game.

[mrprice33]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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....

I wasn't in those threads a ton, but I figure since they hired the person who started them every year that they were productive and not a lot of what we saw in this and some other threads.

[mrprice33]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

In a way the bolded part is the crux of the issue for most things here.

OS is good place to have long form conversations about things, but Twitter is where people should really go to advocate for the things that they really want in the game.

I wouldn't disagree. I would also say that the GCers that are still around here (like me) are a good petition place. I pass along just about everything I see on here.

[DeuceDouglas]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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.

I feel the same way. It's one of the things The Show nails like with the red seat at Fenway and little stuff like that. You'd literally never see it during gameplay and it's one of almost 40k seats in the stadium but it's a little nuance that adds to the authenticity. As a Raiders fan you're playing maybe somewhere between 4-6 of your 20 games with that on the field so it's a bit more than just a nuance. But it's something that should have definitely been taken into consideration when the switch was made. The Dolphins and Raiders were both playing on it back when they made the leap and there wouldn't be any need to create completely new tech now if it was something that was taken into account and executed with the first transition to 360/PS3.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I feel the same way. It's one of the things The Show nails like with the red seat at Fenway and little stuff like that. You'd literally never see it during gameplay and it's one of almost 40k seats in the stadium but it's a little nuance that adds to the authenticity. As a Raiders fan you're playing maybe somewhere between 4-6 of your 20 games with that on the field so it's a bit more than just a nuance. But it's something that should have definitely been taken into consideration when the switch was made. The Dolphins and Raiders were both playing on it back when they made the leap and there wouldn't be any need to create completely new tech now if it was something that was taken into account and executed with the first transition to 360/PS3.

Not even that much. More like 2-3 at the most since most teams dont have 4 home games in the first month.

Also its a much more difficult add then painting one seat red at Fenway.

[baconbits11]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

One thing they could possibly do is make another Oakland Stadium (like they do with the retractable roof stadiums - open or closed) with "Grass" or "baseball Infield".

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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!"

I completely disagree with this, going by this model, every applicable thread should be a simple Q&A, then everyone move on. "Is x in the game?" "No because of y", thread closed.

Instead, what fosters discussion is, for those that a simple Q&A is enough for them, remove themselves from the discussion/thread if they so choose and leave others that choose to discuss further, be. Choosing to participate, in a discussion or thread which in one's opinion is pointless and/or has run it course is illogical. I think the fights happen when people behave as if other people with differing POVs is a referendum on their POV.

Imo, regardless of the reasoning behind it not being in, I understand the OP wanting to have this detail back in by now.

[TheGentlemanGhost]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

You could not possibly be more wrong.

Well...It's not about who's right or wrong. I'm not trying to guess exactly why it was there in early Madden but not now. There's many reasons it might not be in the game, but we know they've done it and it would nice if they did it again. Whatever the issue may be, they should bring it back. Whether it's issues with the foundation the game is built on now, or time restrictions or whatever the case may be, it's something they should look into fixing or bringing back. I don't care if it was literally removed or not, that wasn't the point.

Your asking the question 'Why these threads turn into fights?' Well, your arguing against the people simply wanting a feature and guessing it couldn't be added due to internal issues from the outside looking in. You have to move on and let people voice their opinions on what they want and you can't just put words in the Madden teams mouth and think it should be a done deal. If the Madden devs say why they can't, then there's nothing more to say. But you're just going off guesswork. It's just a request, sometimes they get fulfilled, sometimes they don't. But ya gotta let people voice what they want from the game so devs know it's something we care to see or have, right? I know it was pretty great to see back then, I love to see it now.

[DeuceDouglas]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Not even that much. More like 2-3 at the most since most teams dont have 4 home games in the first month.

With the way Madden tends to schedule, anything is possible.

Spoiler

[Brightline]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I am not sure why these threads always devolve like this. But I also don't really understand how whenever someone requests something they are shouted down by others explaining EA's limitations/resources etc.

There are two very different conversions (dare I say agendas) animating many threads and they are largely talking past each other.

A says "I want X. We used to have X. It was really cool to have X. EA is bad because they took away X."

B says "Don't you understand that EA cant just give you X. It would be so hard to put X in the game and would not be worth it. Ea is good!"



Can we accept that it was nice to have X and would be great if we could have it again. X may not be easy to do and one of the downsides of technology evolving is that we have lost a lot of X's.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I am not sure why these threads always devolve like this. But I also don't really understand how whenever someone requests something they are shouted down by others explaining EA's limitations/resources etc.

There are two very different conversions (dare I say agendas) animating many threads and they are largely talking past each other.

A says "I want X. We used to have X. It was really cool to have X. EA is bad because they took away X."

B says "Don't you understand that EA cant just give you X. It would be so hard to put X in the game and would not be worth it. Ea is good!"



Can we accept that it was nice to have X and would be great if we could have it again. X may not be easy to do and one of the downsides of technology evolving is that we have lost a lot of X's.

So the point of this thread is just to vent about wanting something even though in reality its not likely to happen?

The original post says:

- Its a joke that this hasnt been added.

- That it cant be that difficult

But people are wrong for explaining that it actually is difficult and giving him probable reasons why it wasnt added? Huh?

[Brightline]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

So the point of this thread is just to vent about wanting something even though in reality its not likely to happen?

The original post says:

- Its a joke that this hasnt been added.

- That it cant be that difficult

But people are wrong for explaining that it actually is difficult and giving him probable reasons why it wasnt added? Huh?

2 responses. (1) No I dont think the OP was fine, it was trolling. (2) There is a big difference between saying on the one hand "this is harder to implement than you realize" and on the other "this is not a big deal to have in the game." The two may impact each other but one is explanatory and the other is belittling what someone else prioritizes.

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

So the point of this thread is just to vent about wanting something even though in reality its not likely to happen?

Whatever the OP's original point was, others are bringing up other points throughout the thread. Many of us don't see this as just a reason to vent. Some of us see this as a discussion of truth, or opinions on the subject.

I think sane people would agree that infield dirt used to exist in Madden. Infield dirt was taken out of Madden. It may or may not be difficult to add it back in. Some speculate that it would be. It may or may not be worth doing at this point with the current limitations on the new tech (if that is the real reason - it may or may not be the reason).

As far as I know, the ones saying why it's difficult are just speculating unless they have inside knowledge on EA's tech.

Some in the thread are going as far as to say that infield dirt that previously existed in Madden but doesn't anymore wasn't removed or taken out, it was just not added.

At some point, common sense should prevail where people agree that it was removed for whatever reasons, and these are some of the reasons why it may not have been added back.

People will go to illogical extremes to try and prove an opinion.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

2 responses. (1) No I dont think the OP was fine, it was trolling. (2) There is a big difference between saying on the one hand "this is harder to implement than you realize" and on the other "this is not a big deal to have in the game." The two may impact each other but one is explanatory and the other is belittling what someone else prioritizes.

Saying this shouldnt be a priority isnt belittling someone else. Its disagreeing with what that person thinks the dev team should prioritize. There is nothing wrong with saying that.

Infield dirt in Oakland isnt even in the top 50 things I would want the art/presentation team to work on. So I wouldnt want the dev team to work on infield dirt when I think there are a bunch of things that should come before that. There is nothing wrong with me expressing that opinion just like there is nothing wrong with someone disagreeing with my opinion.