Raiders Infield Dirt

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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.

So what about the this thread should be three posts long comment, it's certainly not a fact? That said, facts can be used to belittle, which those things were.

Also the OP never made the infield dirt out to be the opposite of "the greatest accomplishment EA has ever made in Madden", so those statements weren't used in the context of your example to counter/disagree with the OP's POV, again, they were used to belittle it.

[kehlis]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Is saying this thread should be three posts long belittling?

Belittling is a stretch but I would agree that it was very unproductive.

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.

This I can't agree with you on, this is a fact. It's not only one field, it's a very minimal impact of games. We're talking two preseason games and at more four regular seasons games. As an A's fan I'm sad to report last year and this year it will be at most one regular season game.

This conversation has spread to way more than "technical limitations" and you know that. Calling that demeaning is pretty hypocritical as it's pretty standard for us all to use factual real life events to discuss it's relevance in a game. You do it, I do it, everyone does.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Belittling is a stretch but I would agree that it was very unproductive.



This I can't agree with you on, this is a fact. It's not only one field, it's a very minimal impact of games. We're talking two preseason games and at more four regular seasons games. As an A's fan I'm sad to report last year and this year it will be at most one regular season game.

This conversation has spread to way more than "technical limitations" and you know that. Calling that demeaning is pretty hypocritical as it's pretty standard for us all to use factual real life events to discuss it's relevance in a game. You do it, I do it, everyone does.

I don't get why anyone keeps mentioning those statements being facts, that doesn't keep them from being belittling. If you go back to read the OP, those facts where never called into question, they were presented to belittle infield dirt in Raider's stadium. Whether that's ok to do or whatever, I'm not trying to get into or imply, I'm merely stating that they were used to belittle, by definition.

Like with my Atlanta Stadium analogy, if someone goes in that thread where it's being discussed in a favorable light, where no one has claimed it's the greatest accomplishment in Madden ever or anything close to that, saying those same things I referred to would clearly be understood to be belittling the accomplishment, so there shouldn't be ambiguity here.

[kehlis]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I don't get why anyone keeps mentioning those statements being facts, that doesn't keep them from being belittling. If you go back to read the OP, those facts where never called into question, they were presented to belittle infield dirt in Raider's stadium. Whether that's ok to do or whatever, I'm not trying to get into or imply, I'm merely stating that they were used to belittle, by definition.

Like with my Atlanta Stadium analogy, if someone goes in that thread where it's being discussed in a favorable light, where no one has claimed it's the greatest accomplishment in Madden ever or anything close to that, saying those same things I referred to would clearly be understood to be belittling the accomplishment, so there shouldn't be ambiguity here.

Big, you know me. You've seen me post both negative and positive about the game. I've contradicted others when I see the need to regardless of name, color, join date or post count.

The first post asked if the dirt would be in the game.

Since no one disagreed that they wouldn't like to have the dirt in the game, the conversations turned into reasons why it might not be in the game.

One of those points that has been made is an issue of priority and with that comes questions of why it might not be a priority which is why any of those facts were brought up.

I'm a very realistic person and am able to see both sides of the coin. There are many posters here who may not post but may PM you that can confirm that.

Simply stating logical reasons why EA may not have chosen to take the time to add dirt is NOT belittling, it's adding to the discussion.

Belittling would have been someone saying "Why would you want that in the game anyway? It only applied to 1/8th of the season. It's pointless."

If anyone said that, I would agree with you 100% but I haven't seen that.

[iFnotWhyNoT]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

To end this, let's all agree we don't have all the answers but common sense tells us there is a significant reason as to why its not there. Whether it's a time or financial reason.

Let's not try to dictate to others that what is more important, because we all value different aspects of the game more than others.

Lastly, i don't know any of you, but i love you all ... no homo ...unless you want it to be.

[aholbert32]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

I don't get why anyone keeps mentioning those statements being facts, that doesn't keep them from being belittling. If you go back to read the OP, those facts where never called into question, they were presented to belittle infield dirt in Raider's stadium. Whether that's ok to do or whatever, I'm not trying to get into or imply, I'm merely stating that they were used to belittle, by definition.

Like with my Atlanta Stadium analogy, if someone goes in that thread where it's being discussed in a favorable light, where no one has claimed it's the greatest accomplishment in Madden ever or anything close to that, saying those same things I referred to would clearly be understood to be belittling the accomplishment, so there shouldn't be ambiguity here.

Actually they were. The original posts states that it cant be that difficult to add it to the game but based on the facts that we know, its safe to speculate that it isnt easy.

The original post also calls it an "absolute joke" that the dirt isnt in the game. Based on how often dirt would appear in the game (which is a fact), people disagreed that its an absolute joke that dirt isnt in the game.

Again your Atlanta example doesnt work. The original post makes it seem like infield dirt is a significant missing feature from the game. People disagreed and stated why they dont think it is a priority.

If someone thought the Atlanta stadium addition was a significant addition. No one would object if someone said "its not a big deal because you only can play it in season 2."

There appears to be a bit of a persecution complex with people here who consistently make negative statements about the game. A negative reaction to a negative and aggressive post that isnt well thought through (which is how I would characterize the OP) should be expected. As long as that negative reaction is based in facts...there shouldnt be an issue with that. Even if someone takes that as they are being belittled.

[kehlis]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

To end this, let's all agree we don't have all the answers but common sense tells us there is a significant reason as to why its not there. Whether it's a time or financial reason.

Let's not try to dictate to others that what is more important, because we all value different aspects of the game more than others.

Lastly, i don't know any of you, but i love you all ... no homo ...unless you want it to be.

Over many years we have certainly seen many users attempt to dictate what should or shouldn't be important to others but this thread certainly is not an example of that as it hasn't happened once.

[Nemesis Enforcer]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Maybe the Raiders have asked that it not be put in...

[kehlis]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Maybe the Raiders have asked that it not be put in...

That's probably very unlikely (but is possible). I say unlikely though because this thread pops up every year and I think at one point over the last 10 (?) years or however long it's been since it's been absent someone from EA would have popped in and mentioned that.

[oneamongthefence]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

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

Nope. That came about around Madden 12 I think. Whatever year we got 3d grass. And that was just grass. As far as my knowledge goes the dirt or grass didn't kick up like that before.

Sent from my LG-AS991 using Tapatalk

[PVarck31]

Re: Raiders Infield Dirt

Well I think this thread has run its course. I don't see anything productive coming out of it at this point.