Is madden building on a broken foundation?

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I don't disagree, but to add to that, there have been a number of changes(doubling the game play team, bringing in a new Director for both games that has a strong SIM background and was a QB in College Football) and so the future also looks bright too.

Only time will time will tell. Changes can be a good thing.

Didn't know that.

Does this mean that after 20 plus years of the same passing game, that there is a chance that this area will finally get some kind of... any kind of love lol????!!!!!!

[roadman]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Makes me just a little disappointed that it took this long.

Agreed, but I've learned in life, things I can't control, I can't worry about. If I did, it would be an early grave for me. Even things that I do have control over, don't always work out.

[ryan36]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

After you asked if it was a joke....

the first thing I thought of for LB Jump+ was Linebacker Jump+. So what was the actual joke? What does LB Jump+ really mean?

It's linebacker jump... I was just poking some fun at one of my pet peeves with madden... the super LB.

[Lakers 24 7]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I think what we have to keep in mind is that they have to cater to their core audience. Doubling the gameplay team and bringing in people with a football background, doesn't mean the game will become more sim. I'm sure we'll see more added to the game, better improvements, but I still doubt that they'll be the improvements that sim players crave.

Look at CoD and MoH, they bring in military experts to help with their games. Soldiers who have been on the battlefield. Despite that, their games are still arcade because that's what the customers want. Again, until the public changes their wants, EA will continue down the same path.

If simulation sold - ArmA would be the most popular shooter, Decisive Action most popular strategy game, and 2k the most popular football franchise. Unfortunately, the majority of gamers just don't care for that type of realism, so EA isn't going to alter their game whereas it alienates a large segment of their buyers.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I think what we have to keep in mind is that they have to cater to their core audience. Doubling the gameplay team and bringing in people with a football background, doesn't mean the game will become more sim. I'm sure we'll see more added to the game, better improvements, but I still doubt that they'll be the improvements that sim players crave.

Look at CoD and MoH, they bring in military experts to help with their games. Soldiers who have been on the battlefield. Despite that, their games are still arcade because that's what the customers want. Again, until the public changes their wants, EA will continue down the same path.

If simulation sold - ArmA would be the most popular shooter, Decisive Action most popular strategy game, and 2k the most popular football franchise. Unfortunately, the majority of gamers just don't care for that type of realism, so EA isn't going to alter their game whereas it alienates a large segment of their buyers.

I don't know about that.

I think that there are plenty things about Madden that the devs steadfastly believe are sim, that you or I may not. I think that they strive to implement realism in the game. My personal opinion is that they just aren't the best at going about making a realistic game.

Sim is not a black and white thing to quantify. Although there are large areas of the sim definition that people will agree on, there are also many areas in which people disagree, so just because the game isn't my interpretation of sim, doesn't mean that the dev team was going for Arcade. Like I said, I think they try to be as realistic as possible in many areas, and that they believe that they have succeeded in areas that we may disagree.

Now that isn't to say that I think that they don't do anything against realism on purpose. Their philosophy of wanting the user to always be in control is obviously not realistic, and so blatant that there is no way that they could not know that this is not sim. They do make concessions to try to retain mass appeal, but I think that they go for realism more than you might think. Regardless of the actual resulting product.

Take 2K for example. I think that they strive to make the most realistic sports game possible, and yet there is no denying that there are still many parts of their games that aren't realistic. Does that mean that they want unrealistic facets in their games, or that they can't make a perfectly realistic game? I would tend to think it's the latter.

I also don't think that they think realism will scare off customers. While being totally realistic in some areas will make the game not as fun for some, there are many areas that the game could benefit form more realism that pretty much everyone would appreciate, like animations, interactions, and presentation.

Tiburon and 2K both set out to make realistic Football sims. I just think that 2K was more successful than Tiburon was. That's all.

With new people in place, and ultimately new points of view, that may change.

[Smoke6]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I guess people forgot that Olinemen that worked for EA on the game during the PS2 era when everyone finally thought that the trenches were getting the love they been missing for years?

Having a QB background is just what it implies, "its just a background", and until we see this "background" in action, then I am not taking this serious at all!

Next madden or this one for that matter should have the tools in place that shows us the passing game is being worked on and will be what we expected it to be next year.

But dont hold your breathe, I do know that EA has an engine prepared for the nex gen games and hopefully this time they have learned there lesson about "bare bone" features in there new games all because the GFX look good!

[roadman]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I think what we have to keep in mind is that they have to cater to their core audience. Doubling the gameplay team and bringing in people with a football background, doesn't mean the game will become more sim. I'm sure we'll see more added to the game, better improvements, but I still doubt that they'll be the improvements that sim players crave.

Look at CoD and MoH, they bring in military experts to help with their games. Soldiers who have been on the battlefield. Despite that, their games are still arcade because that's what the customers want. Again, until the public changes their wants, EA will continue down the same path.

If simulation sold - ArmA would be the most popular shooter, Decisive Action most popular strategy game, and 2k the most popular football franchise. Unfortunately, the majority of gamers just don't care for that type of realism, so EA isn't going to alter their game whereas it alienates a large segment of their buyers.

I don't think the "core audience" will mind a better sim experience. They probably wouldn't even notice the differences under the hood.

Also, I guess "College Football" background was too loose a term to use. Cam Weber, the new Football Director, was a starting QB and captain for a division 2 football team. The year after he graduated, he was their QB coach. So, no, he doesn't "just have a background" in college football, he has lived and breathed it. I'd rather have someone like that steering the controls vs someone with a Farmville background or whatever the non-sports game of the moment is.

Here is the full interview. Anyone not a bit excited about the direction Madden is taking needs to read this article and Q @ A.

http://www.operationsports.com/featu...-gm-cam-weber/

[Smoke6]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I don't know about that.

I think that there are plenty things about Madden that the devs steadfastly believe are sim, that you or I may not. I think that they strive to implement realism in the game. My personal opinion is that they just aren't the best at going about making a realistic game.

Sim is not a black and white thing to quantify. Although there are large areas of the sim definition that people will agree on, there are also many areas in which people disagree, so just because the game isn't my interpretation of sim, doesn't mean that the dev team was going for Arcade. Like I said, I think they try to be as realistic as possible in many areas, and that they believe that they have succeeded in areas that we may disagree.

Now that isn't to say that I think that they don't do anything against realism on purpose. Their philosophy of wanting the user to always be in control is obviously not realistic, and so blatant that there is no way that they could not know that this is not sim. They do make concessions to try to retain mass appeal, but I think that they go for realism more than you might think. Regardless of the actual resulting product.

Take 2K for example. I think that they strive to make the most realistic sports game possible, and yet there is no denying that there are still many parts of their games that aren't realistic. Does that mean that they want unrealistic facets in their games, or that they can't make a perfectly realistic game? I would tend to think it's the latter.

I also don't think that they think realism will scare off customers. While being totally realistic in some areas will make the game not as fun for some, there are many areas that the game could benefit form more realism that pretty much everyone would appreciate, like animations, interactions, and presentation.

Tiburon and 2K both set out to make realistic Football sims. I just think that 2K was more successful than Tiburon was. That's all.

With new people in place, and ultimately new points of view, that may change.

It is! Its just that everyone has an opinion toward what they feel it should but it is "black and white"!

There are soo many animation flaws and people knowing exactly how to trigger certain animations is the biggest flaw in the game from keeping it from being SIM. When a true 'dynamic player performance' engine is figured, then we would be out of the 'arcade' realm of this game.

I'm tired of opponents doing the exact same thing getting the exact same results and animations when throwing off there back foott or running backwards!

The full speed 'ice skating' animations on handoffs and during cuts running on the field!

All QBs can accurately throw on the run and take hits that would make a grown man cry, only to continue doing it again without fear of getting there star QB injured!

Every using the same defensive and offensive schemes and getting the same results no matter the team!

You can run 45 different pass formations and throw to that exact same route and be successful most of the game!

No look catches being made all the while the routes havent fleshed out and the QB is in panic mode due to the pressure he is getting while he tries to gather himself and stay composed (or try to be).

Playing SIM, is just not about the plays and the rules, but the rules of physics and those true to the NFL. How can we have a game this day and age with virtually no penalties? Most of us here jumped into this gen, buying into the HD TV marketing blitz with only this image in mind when it comes to this series...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ajPL3Kna4

In this video here, i would like you guys to take a close look at the grass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SfCrbrmIaY

Our imaginations may have gotten the best of us from those trailers and the great direction madden was already heading in from 05 and that momentum carried us with it so hard that we are here 7 years later in this discussion.

Within those 7 years, there have been numerous "Madden Wishlist" threads on quite a few sites like this one where the devs interacted with the consumer and yet, a majority of the good from those threads that would have helped put madden in a better light than it is now has been overlooked for gimmicks and one hit wonder features.

Yet, at the sametime, things like MUT, get the most requested feature put into there mix before madden gets the most requested feature thats been asked and banned over for the past 7-8 years or more. This ideaology ( i hope its the right word) is whats been bringing the madden community to come to the conclusions and thoughts we have come to over the years.

Sorry for the long post, but the "identity" factor to all this goes beyond knowing who to cater too, its the simple "fundamentals" of this game that are broken within its foundation.

[Lakers 24 7]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Naturally anything that's more realistic is going to be inherently more complex and difficult to play, so I don't agree that most would hardly notice a difference. When you actually have to read coverages, shells, and deciphering how the defense has disguised itself - everyone should notice a difference. In fact, if no one notices a difference then obviously EA hasn't done their job.

As far as what should be considered sim, of course no game will ever be perfect. However, without the X's and O's replicated properly it's hard for me to consider the game a simulation. Which, actually makes the categorization very much black and white. Either it depicts (simulates) what happens in real life, or it doesn't. In other words does the 3-4 (for example) work exactly how it does in real life, am I calling the same plays that they do in real life. For the most part, the answer to that is no.

Basically, what it comes down to is this. First, let me admit that I'm a huge simulation fan, for me it's sim or bust, so I'm a tough critic. As I'm sure everyone is probably tired of seeing by now. But, anyway let me draw a comparison to racing sims. The best racing sim out right now is easily iRacing. The reason why it's the best sim is because you don't have to figure out and adjust to the way the game wants you to play. Instead, you play as if you're driving a real car. I'm butchering someone's quote right there. Essentially, everything you do in real life you apply to the game. What works and doesn't work in real life, is almost exactly the same on the game.

Is this the case with Madden? Year after year we're adjusting to the nuances of the game. Finding out which routes are the most effective and coming up with gamey ways to defeat them. Until we're applying the same strategies as a coach would in real life, then we're not playing a sim. That's what a sim is, it has to simulate what would happen in real life under the given circumstances. Currently, we're not close to having that with Madden.

[bucky60]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I think you also have to add realistic stats to being sim. If you can get a QB to pass for 7000 yards in 16 games, that's not sim.

A game has to be a reasonable representation of what might happen in a real game. And a season has to be a reasonable representation of what might happen in a real season.

[roadman]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Naturally anything that's more realistic is going to be inherently more complex and difficult to play, so I don't agree that most would hardly notice a difference. When you actually have to read coverages, shells, and deciphering how the defense has disguised itself - everyone should notice a difference. In fact, if no one notices a difference then obviously EA hasn't done their job.

Well, sure, that is more game play related, everyone should notice a difference with tier play calling. I was talking more along the lines of player movement, ball trajectory, etc...... where the core audience wouldn't notice changes..

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

It is! Its just that everyone has an opinion toward what they feel it should but it is "black and white"!

I understand all the issues that you listed. There are few (if any) that are more intimately familiar with Madden's shortcomings than I, but the fact remains that as long as people are different, then sim will mean different things to different people.

We all agree that sim = realism, but what is and isn't realistic will vary from person to person on SOME issues. It just will. That's what I was getting at.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Naturally anything that's more realistic is going to be inherently more complex and difficult to play, so I don't agree that most would hardly notice a difference. When you actually have to read coverages, shells, and deciphering how the defense has disguised itself - everyone should notice a difference. In fact, if no one notices a difference then obviously EA hasn't done their job.

As far as what should be considered sim, of course no game will ever be perfect. However, without the X's and O's replicated properly it's hard for me to consider the game a simulation. Which, actually makes the categorization very much black and white. Either it depicts (simulates) what happens in real life, or it doesn't. In other words does the 3-4 (for example) work exactly how it does in real life, am I calling the same plays that they do in real life. For the most part, the answer to that is no.

Basically, what it comes down to is this. First, let me admit that I'm a huge simulation fan, for me it's sim or bust, so I'm a tough critic. As I'm sure everyone is probably tired of seeing by now. But, anyway let me draw a comparison to racing sims. The best racing sim out right now is easily iRacing. The reason why it's the best sim is because you don't have to figure out and adjust to the way the game wants you to play. Instead, you play as if you're driving a real car. I'm butchering someone's quote right there. Essentially, everything you do in real life you apply to the game. What works and doesn't work in real life, is almost exactly the same on the game.

Is this the case with Madden? Year after year we're adjusting to the nuances of the game. Finding out which routes are the most effective and coming up with gamey ways to defeat them. Until we're applying the same strategies as a coach would in real life, then we're not playing a sim. That's what a sim is, it has to simulate what would happen in real life under the given circumstances. Currently, we're not close to having that with Madden.

You are also confusing my black and white statement.

We all know what reality is. At least I hope we do. When I say sim isn't black and white, I am talking about the fact that there are some things that people will have differing opinions on whether it is sim or not.

You say you are all about realism? So that means that you hate 2K Football right? That game is NOT a simulation. It is more sim than Madden, but it is not sim. It would take too long to point out all the ways that it isn't sim, so I'll just go with the easiest and most obvious way it isn't. It has the same ridiculously unrealistic passing system with one button press and no look mechanic and skycam view as just about every other Football game ever made. Yet I'd wager that you love that title, even though you are all about sim.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to illustrate that even the most hardcore of the hardcore sim players makes concessions ALL THE TIME to play any sports game, because there is not a single sim sports game on the market.

If I were to tell you that you like arcade games because you play 2K, which is not totally sim, would that be black and white?

[bdolan33]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

The answer to this question is the same that is every year: YES

[Lakers 24 7]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

You are also confusing my black and white statement.

We all know what reality is. At least I hope we do. When I say sim isn't black and white, I am talking about the fact that there are some things that people will have differing opinions on whether it is sim or not.

You say you are all about realism? So that means that you hate 2K Football right? That game is NOT a simulation. It is more sim than Madden, but it is not sim. It would take too long to point out all the ways that it isn't sim, so I'll just go with the easiest and most obvious way it isn't. It has the same ridiculously unrealistic passing system with one button press and no look mechanic and skycam view as just about every other Football game ever made. Yet I'd wager that you love that title, even though you are all about sim.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to illustrate that even the most hardcore of the hardcore sim players makes concessions ALL THE TIME to play any sports game, because there is not a single sim sports game on the market.

If I were to tell you that you like arcade games because you play 2K, which is not totally sim, would that be black and white?

No, I know 2k isn't a sim either, but it's closer and at least shows a valiant attempt. If a sim is suppose to replicate (to a reasonable extent) what would happen in real life, given the input variables. Then clearly the most important sim aspect would have to be the X's and O's of the game being replicated properly. So that when I call XYZ play out of X formation, with X shell, it plays out similarly as it would in real life. The strengths and weaknesses are the same as they are in real life.

With that, you're gameplaning and strategizing as coaches would, with similar effects. You have plays functioning properly which leads to a realistic simulation of events, and realistic outcomes, realistic stats, etc.

That's sim. APF 2k8 had the grounds and the fundamentals in place to accomplish this. I feel that they just needed another cycle or two, to fix a few issues, before their title could be considered a simulation.

A sim, just has to simulate events in a realistic manner. If we're going to say that every view and manner of input has to be realistic, then there's no such thing as a simulation. Gaming is too limited to mimic each and every real life behavior or input. But, FWIW I believe it was NFL 2k5 that introduced first person football, whereas you actually had to scan the field when passing. At the end of the day, such features actually make the game less realistic, because the field of view and reactions are less natural compared to real life.