Is madden building on a broken foundation?

[BezO]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Nice discussion...

I'd say simulation & realism are the same, but simulation & difficulty are different.

Many talk about scores, stats, ect when talking simulation. I don't include those because, well, anything can happen. Who thought of a RB running for 2,000 yards until OJ did it? Who thought of running & receiving for 1,000 yards until Craig did it? 50 TDs? 5,000 passing yards? 300 rushing yards in one game? I'm sure all of this sounded crazy until someone did it.

When I think simulation, it's more about the how. In video game speak, animations & AI determine how sim a game is. Are players moving realistically? Responding realistically? How many yards & points you get will ALWAYS be up to the user. Some of us will ALWAYS be more/less skilled than others.

This is why I think it's possible to make an ultra realistic football game and not alienate casual fans. You want to pop in the game & blow out the CPU. Fine. Set it on easy and go. The game doesn't have to be any less realistic to put up 70. 70 points has been scored before. So the easy level only needs to reflect how a team would have 70 put up on them. Bad play calling, turnovers, bad reads, simply getting out performed, ect. But it doesn't mean you can't have contain AI, realistic pass rushing animations, ect.

In other words, if the animations & AI are realistic, everything that happens will LOOK possible, thus realistic.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

QB is not only the most important position on the field, it's the toughest to play. There's a line to draw where a developer has to ask "is this going to be fun?" How far does one have to take it? While we all speak of "sim" football, we also want a video game. I don't want to study a playbook all week long just so I can play my video game.

There's a point where EA has to ask whether something is fun or not for the majority of the gamers. And on top of that, whether a feature is even financially responsible. We need to understand that this forum is in the minority, when it comes to play-style. EA Sports is not selling Madden as a football simulation that can be used as a teaching aid. It's a video game, and they're trying to be as true to life as possible while still maintaining the fun.

Agreed.

My point wasn't to try to convince people that everything needs to be replicated exactly like real life in order for it to be a good game. Trust me. I don't care how hardcore people on this site think they are, there are very few, if any, that would want to play my ideal Football sim. I was just using the passing game as an illustration of how even the sim community can have very different views of what is, and is not acceptable, in a sim game.

And while, again, I agree that devs have to tow the line between realism and fun, you will never convince me that they can not implement a passing system with much more realism than there is currently, and not still have it be fun for the masses. Don't believe that.

If that is true, I give up on Football videogames right here and now. If I can play the most important position on the field with my eyes closed in a sim Football game, what is the point in playing?

There is definitely something between the extremes of what we have now and playing QB with Kinnect, that would more sim and still playable. I'm pretty sure you would agree with that as well. The question is, will Tiburon ever go back to the well, after the Vision Cone experiment, and try to find it?

[Broncos86]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Agreed.

My point wasn't to try to convince people that everything needs to be replicated exactly like real life in order for it to be a good game. Trust me. I don't care how hardcore people on this site think they are, there are very few, if any, that would want to play my ideal Football sim. I was just using the passing game as an illustration of how even the sim community can have very different views of what is, and is not acceptable, in a sim game.

For sure, I see where you're going with it. And yeah, "simulation" is very subjective.

And while, again, I agree that devs have to tow the line between realism and fun, you will never convince me that they can not implement a passing system with much more realism than there is currently, and not still have it be fun for the masses. Don't believe that.

If that is true, I give up on Football videogames right here and now. If I can play the most important position on the field with my eyes closed in a sim Football game, what is the point in playing?

I certainly agree here. I've been a vocal advocate of a redesigned passing game. Though I'll say that, right now, we also play for the love of the game. I still play "Ice Hockey" on the NES, and Tecmo Bowl when it strikes my fancy. I love hockey and football, and I love those games.

There is definitely something between the extremes of what we have now and playing QB with Kinnect, that would more sim and still playable. I'm pretty sure you would agree with that as well. The question is, will Tiburon ever go back to the well, after the Vision Cone experiment, and try to find it?

I don't know how one could really simulate where a QB is looking without manipulating an indicator of where he's looking. That's what vision cone did. I don't know how I feel about vision cone 2.0 making its way back into the game. I'm more interesting in refinement to ball trajectory and touch, route-based passing, and cleaning up the defensive pass AI (e.g. superman LBs and mind-reading CBs). I'm personally fine not needing to simulate where the QB is looking, and I'm curious to see how this new pump-fake mechanic plays out in Madden 12.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

For sure, I see where you're going with it. And yeah, "simulation" is very subjective.



I certainly agree here. I've been a vocal advocate of a redesigned passing game. Though I'll say that, right now, we also play for the love of the game. I still play "Ice Hockey" on the NES, and Tecmo Bowl when it strikes my fancy. I love hockey and football, and I love those games.



I don't know how one could really simulate where a QB is looking without manipulating an indicator of where he's looking. That's what vision cone did. I don't know how I feel about vision cone 2.0 making its way back into the game. I'm more interesting in refinement to ball trajectory and touch, route-based passing, and cleaning up the defensive pass AI (e.g. superman LBs and mind-reading CBs). I'm personally fine not needing to simulate where the QB is looking, and I'm curious to see how this new pump-fake mechanic plays out in Madden 12.

Totally respect your opinion, and probably the majority agrees with you. I am of the opinion that simulating the QB's vision in some way is a crucial aspect of sim Football.

I also think that going through reads is integral to a Football sim, and therefore, skycam needs to die a horrible death.

I agree on ball trajectory. I also agree on RBP, although ideally I'd like to control the location of the pass. And Precision Passing is not what I mean lol.

Just another illustration of how we all differ in our opinions of what is sim, or how much sim we need in all aspects of the game, yet we all want realism.

As for your question about the new pump fake, the answer is it won't work. Without a mechanic to simulate where the QB is looking, there is no way that a pump fake can work. It's useless. Regardless of what they say in their video diaries, press releases, etc.

[SageWonder]

I think a great way to replace the vision cone would be to use eye tracking via PS Eye and Kinect. I always thought it was silly to have to scan my receivers with my own eyes, then do it again with the vision cone. Obviously, eye tracking isn't truly accurate at this stage, but I think they could get some basic functionality out if it, such as judging which side of the field you are currently looking at.

Posted using the power of knowledge.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I think a great way to replace the vision cone would be to use eye tracking via PS Eye and Kinect. I always thought it was silly to have to scan my receivers with my own eyes, then do it again with the vision cone. Obviously, eye tracking isn't truly accurate at this stage, but I think they could get some basic functionality out if it, such as judging which side of the field you are currently looking at.

Posted using the power of knowledge.

That's fine for those that have the Move or Kinnect, but the majority does not, and that would be nothing more than a niche add-on, much like taking apart your gun using the Kinnect in Ghost Recon.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I don't know how one could really simulate where a QB is looking without manipulating an indicator of where he's looking. That's what vision cone did. I don't know how I feel about vision cone 2.0 making its way back into the game. I'm more interesting in refinement to ball trajectory and touch, route-based passing, and cleaning up the defensive pass AI (e.g. superman LBs and mind-reading CBs). I'm personally fine not needing to simulate where the QB is looking, and I'm curious to see how this new pump-fake mechanic plays out in Madden 12.

With the new disc format coming out soon for the 360. Which will provide more disc space. I feel all that you mention can be accomplished in Madden 13.

That will all depend on what they have as a priority, or in this case their vision.

[Broncos86]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Totally respect your opinion, and probably the majority agrees with you. I am of the opinion that simulating the QB's vision in some way is a crucial aspect of sim Football.

I also think that going through reads is integral to a Football sim, and therefore, skycam needs to die a horrible death.

I agree on ball trajectory. I also agree on RBP, although ideally I'd like to control the location of the pass. And Precision Passing is not what I mean lol.

Just another illustration of how we all differ in our opinions of what is sim, or how much sim we need in all aspects of the game, yet we all want realism.

As for your question about the new pump fake, the answer is it won't work. Without a mechanic to simulate where the QB is looking, there is no way that a pump fake can work. It's useless. Regardless of what they say in their video diaries, press releases, etc.

When I play, I do have my reads. When I get to the line, I look at safeties, LBs, CBs, and pick a pre-snap primary WR. On the snap, I make a quick read to that WR and see if it's viable. If it's not, I immediately check down to my next option. I never just snap the ball and just look. Things happen too quickly for me to just hope I'll see it. I need to see if a LB is blitzing, if a CB is blitzing, whether a safety is in the box and pulls out at the snap. All these things determine what I do when I snap the ball and look to pass.

From what I've read, the pump takes into account the direction you press the right analog. So push it towards a WR, and the CPU understands you've pump-faked to that WR specifically.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

When I play, I do have my reads. When I get to the line, I look at safeties, LBs, CBs, and pick a pre-snap primary WR. On the snap, I make a quick read to that WR and see if it's viable. If it's not, I immediately check down to my next option. I never just snap the ball and just look. Things happen too quickly for me to just hope I'll see it. I need to see if a LB is blitzing, if a CB is blitzing, whether a safety is in the box and pulls out at the snap. All these things determine what I do when I snap the ball and look to pass.

From what I've read, the pump takes into account the direction you press the right analog. So push it towards a WR, and the CPU understands you've pump-faked to that WR specifically.

I can't wait for the day to come where you have to read the defense after the snap of the ball. I want to see defenders bluffing moving around and really disgising what they are going to do.

This is what I see on NFL sunday, not players standing in a exact form of a 4-3 defense or which ever defense is selected.

When I see that I know for sure things are going in the right direction.

Now that is NFL FOOTBALL!!!

[Broncos86]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I can't wait for the day to come where you have to read the defense after the snap of the ball. I want to see defenders bluffing moving around and really disgising what they are going to do.

This is what I see on NFL sunday, not players standing in a exact form of a 4-3 defense or which ever defense is selected.

When I see that I know for sure things are going in the right direction.

Now that is NFL FOOTBALL!!!

You're talking about looking off defenders. I'd personally say that's different than reading the defense. In what you quoted, I just described how I read the defense post-snap.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

You're talking about looking off defenders. I'd personally say that's different than reading the defense. In what you quoted, I just described how I read the defense post-snap.

I mean when reading a defense, not looking off defenders.

Teams today do a lot of moving around before the snap of the ball, some will even stand. Each team have their ways of disguising their defense.

Ravens and Jets are huge with this method. Where they are moving around a lot so you can not determine where the pressure is coming from. Thus making you have to read what the defense is doing after the snap of the ball.

you now have to see what coverage they are playing and also where is the pressure coming from. It is another element of chess which lies in the game of Football.

Looking off the defense is something else, and does not relate to what I 'am describing.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

When I play, I do have my reads. When I get to the line, I look at safeties, LBs, CBs, and pick a pre-snap primary WR. On the snap, I make a quick read to that WR and see if it's viable. If it's not, I immediately check down to my next option. I never just snap the ball and just look. Things happen too quickly for me to just hope I'll see it. I need to see if a LB is blitzing, if a CB is blitzing, whether a safety is in the box and pulls out at the snap. All these things determine what I do when I snap the ball and look to pass.

From what I've read, the pump takes into account the direction you press the right analog. So push it towards a WR, and the CPU understands you've pump-faked to that WR specifically.

Not going to go down this road on this thread lol.

Very quickly, you make pre-snap reads, yes, but I'm talking about going through reads after the ball is snapped. You don't do that in Madden. You see everything at the same time.

Play Backbreaker. That is going through reads. The only way you know someone is open is to actually look at them. Just like real life. In real life QB's don't have an eye in the sky.

It is a totally different experience when you can actually miss someone being open because you were looking elsewhere, or not see a defender coming because you don't have a 360 view of the field.

In this regard, Madden's passing game will ever only be Arcadey as long as these points aren't addressed in some way.

[bucky60]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Many talk about scores, stats, ect when talking simulation. I don't include those because, well, anything can happen. Who thought of a RB running for 2,000 yards until OJ did it? Who thought of running & receiving for 1,000 yards until Craig did it? 50 TDs? 5,000 passing yards? 300 rushing yards in one game? I'm sure all of this sounded crazy until someone did it.

Except that doesn't happen EVERY year or EVERY game. That's what makes those moments so unique. If it is continually happening, then that is FAR from realistic. That's why you have to add scores, stats, etc when talking simulation (or realism).

[Lakers 24 7]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

Ding, ding, ding lol. That is correct.

This is an illustration of how sim isn't black and white. You would be perfectly fine to call a Football game a true simulation even with a mechanic, like the current passing system, which is as Arcadey as it gets.

That's fine. Like I said though, we all have our own interpretation of what sim is. Simulation is replicating key elements of something real. That's an ambiguous definition. Maybe for you the passing game isn't a key element and therefore, doesn't need to be replicated realistically. maybe for someone else, line interaction isn't a key element and doesn't need to be replicated realistically.

It's easy to say "I know what sim is, and such and such is, and such and such isn't", but when you get down to it, how can it be that absolute, when the definition of simulation has no absolutes in it?

At the end of the day, as I said at the beginning of the day, we all want realism, but how much of a stickler we are for every element to be real, will vary from person to person. That's why it is never black and white.

I still think we have to separate realism from simulation in order to be on the same page. You don't need every ounce of realism to produce a simulation of events. A simulation just needs to spit out realistic data and outcomes, and isn't contingent on the game looking realistic. I can build a football game that's 2d and uses only X's and O's as player representation - and have that be more sim than anything that's on the market.

[Only1LT]

Re: Is madden building on a broken foundation?

I still think we have to separate realism from simulation in order to be on the same page. You don't need every ounce of realism to produce a simulation of events. A simulation just needs to spit out realistic data and outcomes, and isn't contingent on the game looking realistic. I can build a football game that's 2d and uses only X's and O's as player representation - and have that be more sim than anything that's on the market.

That's your interpretation of what is sim though. That's not a fact. The very definition of simulation (to recreate key elements of something real) leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so how can anyone say, definitively, what is sim? What qualifies as a key element? What exact number of key elements needs to be recreated?

Your X and O game might be more sim than anything out to you, but it might be less sim than Madden to someone else. I'm not sure that anyone could say that either of you are wrong.

The devs, and our focus, should be on getting as many realistic elements in the game as possible, and making what is already in the game, more realistic than it currently is. What is sim, is a question that we shouldn't even be wasting time debating, because there will never be a winner.

There can't be.