Raiders Infield Dirt

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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.

I would agree (and I do agree with you) if things are stated as an opinion and not as a statement of fact. There is nothing wrong with stating why such and such is not a priority for you and give your reasons why.

[TheGentlemanGhost]

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?

It's just weird lol. Why people try to argue down why something like dirt being on the field is supposedly impossible or too hard just seems like the devs job to do, not the fans to guess.

Let Madden be great, MAKE MADDEN GREAT AGAIN! LoL
This team is doing a terrific job thus far.

They've made great strides. I have enough faith in this team that they can create a way to get dirt on a field if enough people realize its absence. It's just a matter of it being overlooked or put aside or more complicated than it seems...either way I think it'd be something they can implement one way or the other.

[JayhawkerStL]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

If I had to guess, the NFL hates the dirt infield, and would love to pretend it wasn't there. I would half expect the NFL to ask EA to just make it grass, rather than highlight a holdover of dual stadiums.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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.

You are arguing semantics. Whether it was removed or not added in doesnt really matter.

I dont mind speculation if its based on known facts. Here is what we KNOW.

-The stadiums have been redone since Madden. Baseball fields havent been in the game since they redid the stadiums in its 360/PS3 review.

-Only one stadium has a baseball field and the field is only there for one month. This is different than open and closed stadiums that have a purpose throughout the season.

- The tech is much different than the PS2 version of the game.

I dont see an issue with speculating that the tech makes it difficult to add dirt. Why? Because if it was easy EA wouldve likely added in the past decade.

I dont see an issue with speculating that EA doesnt consider this a priority. Why? Because it seems like a lot of works for something that effects 1 team for at most 3 games a year.

What I dont understand why it seems to be OK for people to negatively speculate (EA is lazy, the tech is bad) but not positively speculate?

[Cowboy008]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It would be nice if it was in the game but I would want the team to work on other things before getting to that.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

It's just weird lol. Why people try to argue down why something like dirt being on the field is supposedly impossible or too hard just seems like the devs job to do, not the fans to guess.

Let Madden be great, MAKE MADDEN GREAT AGAIN! LoL
This team is doing a terrific job thus far.

They've made great strides. I have enough faith in this team that they can create a way to get dirt on a field if enough people realize its absence. It's just a matter of it being overlooked or put aside or more complicated than it seems...either way I think it'd be something they can implement one way or the other.

No one is saying they cant implement it. What some people are saying is that it may not be worth the time to implement it. I dont think anyone said this was impossible. What people have been responding to the original post where he said "it cant be that hard" when actually it could be hard.

[oneamongthefence]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

On the ps2 grass didn't really have a texture. It was just green if i remember it right. The infield was just a brown colored grass field.

Sent from my LG-AS991 using Tapatalk

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Is saying this thread should be three posts long belittling? How about referring to how it's just one field out of many in the game and how small an impact it has on games played as a whole? To me they goes beyond trying to offer an opinion about any technical limitations of this detail and goes into the literal definition of belittling it.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Is saying this thread should be three posts long belittling? How about referring to how it's just one field out of many in the game and how small an impact it has on games played as a whole? To me they goes beyond trying to offer an opinion about any technical limitations of this detail and goes into the literal definition of belittling it.

No its disagreeing with your opinion.

You could tell me that you think that the most important issue in the game is mouthpieces not being in the game.

I'm not allowed to disagree without being accused of belittling? I'm not allowed to speculate why they arent in the game? I'm not allowed to identify major issues of the game that could be considered a bigger issue?

Cause thats pretty much all people have been doing here.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

On the ps2 grass didn't really have a texture. It was just green if i remember it right. The infield was just a brown colored grass field.

Sent from my LG-AS991 using Tapatalk

Remind me. Did dirt kick up when people were talked on the dirt in the ps2 version?

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

You are arguing semantics. Whether it was removed or not added in doesnt really matter.

I wasn't arguing semantics. Somebody else was arguing semantics.

What I dont understand why it seems to be OK for people to negatively speculate (EA is lazy, the tech is bad) but not positively speculate?

I didn't say EA was lazy or the tech was bad. I said it was lacking. And it is if adding infield dirt is so difficult. It still may be good tech.

I don't mind people positively speculating. If they make it clear they are speculating. Guys like A&S are always saying how much they love Madden. I end up rarely responding to A&S because he mainly just says how much he loves the game. I don't recall him telling others why they can't dislike certain things about Madden. I mostly respond positively to A&S even if we disagree on certain things.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I wasn't arguing semantics. Somebody else was arguing semantics.



I didn't say EA was lazy or the tech was bad. I said it was lacking. And it is if adding infield dirt is so difficult. It still may be good tech.

I don't mind people positively speculating. If they make it clear they are speculating. Guys like A&S are always saying how much they love Madden. I end up rarely responding to A&S because he mainly just says how much he loves the game. I don't recall him telling others why they can't dislike certain things about Madden. I mostly respond positively to A&S even if we disagree on certain things.

I wasnt saying that you said those things specifically. I was talking about the thread as a whole.

I dont have a problem with guys like Big F'n Deal's post even though 90% of them are negative as long as they are based in fact or fact based speculation. Same goes with A&S and his positive takes.

I dont see anything wrong with me correcting someone if I think their speculation is incorrect based on known facts.

[bucky60]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I wasnt saying that you said those things specifically. I was talking about the thread as a whole.

I dont have a problem with guys like Big F'n Deal's post even though 90% of them are negative as long as they are based in fact or fact based speculation. Same goes with A&S and his positive takes.

I dont see anything wrong with me correcting someone if I think their speculation is incorrect based on known facts.

Then you and I are pretty much agreeing here and we are pretty much done. Thanks for the responses.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

No its disagreeing with your opinion.

You could tell me that you think that the most important issue in the game is mouthpieces not being in the game.

I'm not allowed to disagree without being accused of belittling? I'm not allowed to speculate why they arent in the game? I'm not allowed to identify major issues of the game that could be considered a bigger issue?

Cause thats pretty much all people have been doing here.

Those examples I used actually happened in this thread and they are belittling by definition. Of course simply disagreeing isn't, it's all about context.

Let's flip it, if this were a thread about Atlanta's new stadium, where the OP was wondering about how were they able to get it in, complimenting it being something like the attention to detail The Show would accomplish and just generally offering up discussion about the excitement of having it in, would someone posting, this thread should be three posts long, referring to how it's just one field out of many in the game and how small an impact it has on games played as a whole, be disagreeing then or belittling?

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Those examples I used actually happened in this thread and they are belittling by definition. Of course simply disagreeing isn't, it's all about context.

Let's flip it, if this were a thread about Atlanta's new stadium, where the OP was wondering about how were they able to get it in, complimenting it being something like the attention to detail The Show would accomplish and just generally offering up discussion about the excitement of having it in, would someone posting, this thread should be three posts long, referring to how it's just one field out of many in the game and how small an impact it has on games played as a whole be disagreeing then or belittling?

Stating facts isnt belittling. Oakland is one of 30 stadiums in the game and the infield appears maybe 3 times a year if that. Thats a fact.

Your Atlanta example doesnt totally work.

Using your example, if someone said "The fact that EA added the Atlanta stadium is the greatest accomplishment EA has ever made in Madden" (which is the opposite of what the OP said about Oakland), I wouldnt consider it "belittling" if someone responded "Really? Its a good add but you only see it in season 2 of Franchise and its one of 30 stadiums".

Thats just stating a fact. That fact happens to counter the OP statement. There is nothing wrong with that.