Truzz Ability - goodbye

[sniperhare]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

They should do an ability system, and rank all players where appropriate.

Tie it into game features amd scouting.

So say for QB's, Arm Strength, Release, Cross Body Throw, Back Shoulder Fade, Looking off Safety, Zone Read, etc.

All would have a ranking from like 0 to 5.

0 would mean the player can't attempt

1 would mean it's not developed, but the QB can attempt.

2 would mean it succeeds maybe a quarter of the time.

3 the player is above average at the ability compared to NFL talent.

4 the player is high tier at this attribute or skill

5 the player is HOF or best in NFL history at this.

[roadman]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

It certainly means different things to different people, but if "realism goes out the window," why bother using "Next Gen Stats" to make player motion more realistic?


That comment was by a developer, and it was a cop out by the developer. Just like the comment that infuriated DeuceDouglas back in the day about how Franchise is fine and everyone always wants more.





Regardless, I can assure you that choosing to scramble your QB 5 times for 10 yards in order to be able to see blitzes is fairly far removed from realism, and lighting bolts come from Mount Olympus from the Scepter of Zeus when you read a play is absolutely as far from realism and sim as you can get (I recall seeing that in what I think was a Clint Oldenburg video; thankfully I always turn this feature off, so if that's in the game I have been blissfully spared of seeing it).

Sorry, I will always caution on the side of a Developer at NFL 2K vs calling their opinion, "copout." (or anyone here for that matter, including my own opinion)

As far as the eye candy lightening bolts, I don't run across it too many times if at all, but, at least there is a option to turn it off if there is too much.

[NinersFan49]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

Is the argument here really that since video games aren't carbon replicas of real life that it doesn't matter how far NFL video game strays from being a simulation because it'll "never" be exactly like real life so long as they're engaging for the player?

If that's the case I really have to disagree. Especially considering Madden itself had superstar and X Factor abilities in the game a decade ago. Only those "badges" or whatever it was called back then reflected real life much better than the cartoon-ish and over the top abilities we have now. Also, I don't get how removing X Factor abilities would immediately make the game objectively worse. There are plenty of people who turn them off and prefer to play that way.

Madden is literally by contract the only "NFL licensed simulation video game" allowed to be made so yes, I do think it's a bit weird to say that they shouldn't actually worry about being a simulation of the real game. At this point I would actually prefer if Madden just became a for profit, completely arcade style game that pushes "seasons" and mirco-transactions while another company can have their hand at manufacturing a simulation experience.





Why is this sentence formed as if you can't perform both? A lot of us crave for a detailed, deep, enriched and engrossing football experience that replicates real life. You think that if we got this it wouldn't be interesting and engaging?

Excellent points. It seems like there's a consensus developing that realism is neither to be expected or even desirable in madden.

[tg88forHOF]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

Excellent points. It seems like there's a consensus developing that realism is neither to be expected or even desirable in madden.

That's not what anybody is saying. It's also nowhere near that binary. There usually isn't an either/or choice between absolute hyper realism in all facets at all times, and pure, total fantasy; realism exists on a spectrum, not as an absolute.

What some people are saying is that there's a point where certain levels of realism need to be balanced vs. the benefits of certain gameplay decisions and elements. That doesn't mean "realism isn't desirable"...that's actually a pretty silly strawman.

It means that one more relatively minor level of realism isn't ALWAYS worth giving up the gameplay benefits that can come from a little abstraction or concession to the video game format....especially when the gameplay element in question can be completely removed from one's experience.

[jfsolo]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

That's not what anybody is saying. It's also nowhere near that binary. There usually isn't an either/or choice between absolute hyper realism in all facets at all times, and pure, total fantasy; realism exists on a spectrum, not as an absolute.

What some people are saying is that there's a point where certain levels of realism need to be balanced vs. the benefits of certain gameplay decisions and elements. That doesn't mean "realism isn't desirable"...that's actually a pretty silly strawman.

It means that one more relatively minor level of realism isn't ALWAYS worth giving up the gameplay benefits that can come from a little abstraction or concession to the video game format.

There are a certain percentage of people who can't accept this reality and therefore will always rail against these video game concessions, usually with hyperbolic statements.

[NinersFan49]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

That's not what anybody is saying. It's also nowhere near that binary. There usually isn't an either/or choice between absolute hyper realism in all facets at all times, and pure, total fantasy; realism exists on a spectrum, not as an absolute.

This is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

That doesn't mean "realism isn't desirable"...that's actually a pretty silly strawman.

Probably, but hopefully we can also retire this Straw Man:

There are a certain percentage of people who can't accept this reality and therefore will always rail against these video game concessions, usually with hyperbolic statements.

[Cory Levy]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

What some people are saying is that there's a point where certain levels of realism need to be balanced vs. the benefits of certain gameplay decisions and elements. That doesn't mean "realism isn't desirable"...that's actually a pretty silly strawman.

Personally, nowhere did I say nor would I say that Madden needs to be an absolute realistic replication of real life football. Obviously it's still a video game that needs to be fun first and foremost. The problem is trying to dismiss away a complaint (i.e. X Factor abilities are far too over the top, cartoony and not exactly good elements of a simulation experience, which again, Madden is the only video game allowed to be that) by saying that Madden is a video game abstraction of reality so it doesn't matter.

I find that a lazy excuse for not wanting the game to be better from a simulation aspect (again, we already saw abilities and factors implemented in a much more sim style a decade ago with the badges and such). It's also weird to put forth the notion that Madden being more sim like wouldn't increase enjoyment for a lot of fans.

[tg88forHOF]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

It's also weird to put forth the notion that Madden being more sim like wouldn't increase enjoyment for a lot of fans.

It depends on which elements are being removed to make it more "sim" (a definition we all can't really agree on anyway). We all value realism, but we don't all value it to the same degree and aren't all willing to sacrifice anything and everything to achieve a slightly more realistic experience. Not every move toward a more sim environment is created equally.

Is it also weird to you to imagine that some fans' enjoyment might be decreased by removing an element (one that can already be freely toggled off) in the name of more realism?

If it is, I submit you might be a little trapped by your own perspective.

[tg88forHOF]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

Sorry for the length, but honestly, this rant has been building for awhile.

Probably, but hopefully we can also retire this Straw Man:

Respectfully, that's not a strawman...it's not an argument he fallaciously put in anybody's mouth to make arguing against their position easier. In this case, you actually did hyperbolically misrepresent other people's positions. I can understand if, from your perspective, it feels like an unfair personal characterization to assume you did so deliberately...but it's not a strawman.

Regardless, I'm not terribly invested in picking a fight over the strict definition of a strawman...but what I said and what you said are still very different, and in a meaningful way.

Let's do something rare around here: let's assume we're all here in good faith, and are all invested in the game being more or better than what it is. Let's also assume that since we're all here on OS instead of someplace like MUThead, we all have at least some level of interest in a realistic gameplay experience.

There are a number of us who are just as interested in using video game elements and concessions to enhance gameplay as we are in a strictly realistic experience. There are many possible reasons we feel this way...although the two least likely are that we're ADHD "bright lights" children or not very knowledgeable about football.

For us, there's a point on that spectrum I talked about where the game is "real enough"...where further realism enhancements don't add as much to our experience as some video game concessions might. That doesn't mean we don't care about realism...it means that we're not always willing to give up a gameplay element that's interesting to us simply to move from 80 to 82 on that realism scale.

But when that gets characterized as "not wanting realism", it forces us to claw our way into every single conversation....we have to re-establish or "prove" that we do care about realism before we can talk about whatever it is we're talking about. It also undermines the validity whatever element we may actually want to see kept....it preemptively rejects the notion that any rational person would ever advocate for that element.

It's pretty transparent, and frankly, it's pretty underhanded. It also has the net effect of undermining everybody's position....even your own.

This thread is a great example. An endless campaign against every single unrealistic element...no matter the alternative...is embraced by some. It's weird to others that a change made in the name of more realism wouldn't automatically be seen as an unquestionable positive; they literally can't grasp that anyone would question it. At nearly every turn, the discussion is oversimplified to say "every change that enhances realism is a net positive", and that perspective is presented as being self-evident.

And it's fine that "more realism at all costs" as a perspective has a healthy representation....a lot of people do feel that way. But it's not self-evident..."more realism, sure...but let's talk about the cost" is not only equally valid, it's really not all that far off. It's actually a downright reasonable thing to think. And it's incredibly frustrating to constantly have that perspective misrepresented.

Basically...we live here too. We pay as much for the game as you do, and we're going to agree with you on probably 80% of the things we'd like to see changed anyway. How does misrepresenting our position so severely help anybody outside of maybe scoring a few internet points for a few minutes?

[Reed1417]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

When it comes to the addition of abilities I will say that I don't like how some are a "all or nothing" sort of deal. HOWEVER, I will take what we have now over what we had a few years ago when it comes to differences in players which was...well nothing in my opinion.

I feel like now I have to plan around guys like Aaron Donald, Lamar Jackson, Jamal Adams. For one I can clearly see and identify these players on the field through the indicators and with the way the cameras work in Madden and how many players are on the field having that information is key as a player. It's not basketball where there's only 10 on the court at one time.

But two, again in my opinion these abilities no matter what you think about them gives the user a clear indication of that player and the threat they pose. You now know "hey if I drop back to pass I better double team Donald or else I won't have time to do what I want to do back here". Before we didn't really have that and again in my experience I didn't "fear" these players like I do now. And yes football is a team game but one player can make things very difficult depending on their impact with their play. In the future I would like to see these abilities be opened up to work more like a badge or quirk system because there are "average/above average" players who are good at some of these things too and not just the super stars/stars of the league. I compare this to Ray Allen in the NBA, he's known for the corner 3 that's his hot spot and there are players in the NFL I believe who have similar things they excel at and they should be represented as well.

I think for me, that's the biggest thing abilities have done for my experience and enjoyment of the game. And I'm hoping they continue to expand on these things and maybe eventually get back to where not only do we have these on the field abilities, but the AI can recognize the importance of these kinds of players with off the field traits sorta like Madden 08's Player Roles. That will really make me happy but I'm not expecting that any time soon to make a return so as to not let my expectations get the better of me.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Aestis]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

"Realism goes out the window the moment you put a controller in the hands of Madden players"

Is a complete cop-out.

Realistic OUTCOMES go out the window, yes. A Madden player is going to make, in general, far less realistic decisions than an NFL player. (Years of playing an arcade style game to the point where it's now a self-fulfilling prophecy is the biggest culprit for this, btw, but that's a separate argument.)


However, AI can play realistically. Balance can be realistic. Movement, win rates, coverage logic, run fits, etc. can be realistic. So if a player wants to drop back 12 yards every time and wait for deep routes to come open and chuck it into sagging coverage when they don't, he should take 15 sacks and throw 8 INTs in a longer game. Those aren't realistic stats and a 15 sack 8 INT game is an unrealistic OUTCOME, but it's absolutely realistic gameplay--i.e. it's what would happen if an NFL QB made those same decisions. Instead EA solves for outcomes. They don't want 15 sacks so they keep edge rush nerfed to oblivion. They want 30 point games in 5m quarters so they keep defense bad. Etc. Unrealistic gameplay to deliver realistic scoring totals at the end.

So to say you can't solve for realism just because players make unrealistic choices is a legitimately moronic point of view, and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

[roadman]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

"Realism goes out the window the moment you put a controller in the hands of Madden players"

Is a complete cop-out.

Realistic OUTCOMES go out the window, yes. A Madden player is going to make, in general, far less realistic decisions than an NFL player. (Years of playing an arcade style game to the point where it's now a self-fulfilling prophecy is the biggest culprit for this, btw, but that's a separate argument.)


However, AI can play realistically. Balance can be realistic. Movement, win rates, coverage logic, run fits, etc. can be realistic. So if a player wants to drop back 12 yards every time and wait for deep routes to come open and chuck it into sagging coverage when they don't, he should take 15 sacks and throw 8 INTs in a longer game. Those aren't realistic stats and a 15 sack 8 INT game is an unrealistic OUTCOME, but it's absolutely realistic gameplay--i.e. it's what would happen if an NFL QB made those same decisions. Instead EA solves for outcomes. They don't want 15 sacks so they keep edge rush nerfed to oblivion. They want 30 point games in 5m quarters so they keep defense bad. Etc. Unrealistic gameplay to deliver realistic scoring totals at the end.

So to say you can't solve for realism just because players make unrealistic choices is a legitimately moronic point of view, and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

I am pretty sure the NFL 2K Developer meant realistic outcomes doesn't happen when you put a controller in someone's hands.

In that context, it is not a cop-out.

[JimmyK]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

Objectively NOT true. Reducing outcomes is why rules exist. Too many possibilities is just as problematic as too few. Moreover, these superpowers introduce metas which counterintuitively can further reduce possibilities to levels lower than removing them.

Being forced to play real football is not a downgrade anyway. It’s an upgrade.

You've had this rant elsewhere in a bunch of threads. Please tell me, when had Madden ever been what you're trying to argue it should be? You already know it's a video game, and it's nothing like real life, there isn't one title where that's the case. So why do you still play if you're so adamant about this?

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

You've had this rant elsewhere in a bunch of threads. Please tell me, when had Madden ever been what you're trying to argue it should be? You already know it's a video game, and it's nothing like real life, there isn't one title where that's the case. So why do you still play if you're so adamant about this?

Whatever I don't even care about this anymore. Want to know why?



THIS:

https://www.ea.com/games/madden-nfl/madden-nfl-22/news/gridiron-notes-madden-22-scouting-update-deep-dive

This is literally everything I've wanted with scouting, and scouting was by far the one thing I wanted changed about Franchise. I couldn't care less anymore if you guys want a Madden-Avengers crossover, because I can just turn the abilities off .


But this scouting update, as described in that deep dive? That takes the game's rating to 9 out of 10 minimum, no matter how "bad" it was prior, or how many bugs that have had to be ironed out.




So yeah, carry on.




(Edit — But just to answer your question, I preferred special abilities that more closely resemble reality, which is why I was arguing about it. The problem is, if we were being realistic about it, Mahomes would have like six or seven special abilities, which is a no-no. But the abilities I'd like to see are more like, throwing accurate under pressure, using the left hand to throw in certain scenarios, being especially good at knocking down passes (great hand-eye coordination or something). And so on. And I especially wouldn't want any "get in the zone" stuff to trigger it. Just give me skill ratings fluctuations for whether a player is "in the zone" or not. Mahomes isn't going to get a stronger arm because he's "in the zone."



But like I said, I'll just turn them off and be thrilled with what's going to be in the scouting update)

[Cory Levy]

Re: Truzz Ability - goodbye

Is it also weird to you to imagine that some fans' enjoyment might be decreased by removing an element (one that can already be freely toggled off) in the name of more realism?

If it is, I submit you might be a little trapped by your own perspective.

I would find it weird because I consider X Factor abilities, as they are currently implemented, to be cartoony and over-the-top in the only NFL licensed video game that is allowed to be produced and marketed as a 'simulation' experience.

If this wasn't the case and there was an option on the market that gave me more realism and a better replication of NFL football why would I care how cartoon-ish Madden is? There isn't so here I am. The current Madden product wants to have all its cakes and eat all of them at the same time. It's the only 'simulation' NFL game yet it continues to lean towards an arcade experience both in their most recent mode offerings as well as to how the actual on field gameplay is presented. One would think the introduction of the Arcade, Competitive and Sim styles of gameplay would have helped but has it really done anything remotely noticeable?

Everyone can want Madden to be whatever they want it to be like with or without regards to realism. My problem is that EA has bought itself the right to be the only licensed simulation product on the market yet when I want them to live up to that moniker it seems asinine to some.

I'm not trapped by my perspective at all, I'm trapped by having no other options for the NFL video game that I want.