Madden 21 Reviews

[ChaseB]

Quote: Originally Posted by cirespieler

Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Haha user scores are so petty. They really should be off for games on like day one, it's always such a popularity contest of trolls trying to outdo each other. If people consistently looked at user scores, I think just about every game would bomb sales-wise.

Anyway, the review for OS is ready, but I'm going to post in the morning. Bob wrote it but obviously no score on it since we don't do that.

Quote: Originally Posted by ripcandlestickpark

While I'm not yet sure how much my opinions will differ or match up with those of the IGN reviewer (my physical copy doesn't arrive for awhile), I will say that it is oddly refreshing for one of the more mainstream video game websites to be that critical of Madden. I don't think it's much of a secret that the folks who generally review sports games for sites like IGN and Gamespot aren't as fanatical as we are. They're generally not the types to play certain titles year-round or keep track of how patches affect the game. Usually, it seems that as long as a sports game looks better than the previous year's iteration and has back of the box features function as advertised, it's almost impossible to garner anything less than a 7/10. In particular, I'm happy the reviewer mentioned presentation as an area where significant improvement is needed. While i'm happy that a surprising number of people on here seem to enjoy the new intros and whatnot, I firmly believe they're a step backwards. Generally, that's the type of thing mainstream reviewers gloss over. Not sure what to think of that Sporting News article, though. While I don't really have anything against That Franchise Guy (apart from him taking unnecessary potshots at Apathy's Xbox roster earlier in the year), I'm not sure Moody or the SoftDrinkTV dude are the best voices to represent the Franchise/sim community.

PS, I will go to bat for IGN here and mention a lot of their reviews are done by either former or current OS peeps at this point. Bob did the IGN review for Madden 20, for example, I've done multiple NBA 2K reviews for IGN, and I think like the last 5 years of 2K reviews in general have been done by alumni of OS. I think a couple of The Show games were done by former OS peeps as well.

I think one of the only sports games a former/current OS writer hasn't touched is FIFA -- and I could easily argue our soccer writer KG does some of the deepest breakdowns of both FIFA/PES for us and could easily handle the IGN reviews if he was asked. So while I get the idea that mainstream peeps don't get it and all that, I think IGN actually does try to cater to OS peeps more than you think. Whether we always nail it or not is up for y'all to decide, but I don't think they're getting people who don't know the games or sports or whatever to do the reviews.

Also, yeah I don't have anything against the YouTube creators either but I'll somewhat back this up in a sense. I try to feature a lot of their videos on OS because there is so much great work done on YouTube, but there is still an element of knowing your audience. For example, I think SoftDrink's new "fall of EA" doc was enjoyable, but more for the historical aspect and less for the flashy EA SUX aspect. Which isn't to say he can't have that view and get interviews with peeps who will say these things, but I think he also knows his audience and what his channel is about. Dunking on Madden and making fun of Madden is probably pretty good for traffic, especially on YouTube. It's a very common and easy talking point to stick it to the game that has the NFL license because it's an easy and safe target. A lot of YouTube does, sadly, revolve around praising a few developers in particular and ripping apart any large developer in general as well. Again, it's probably good in the algorithm and it's probably good for traffic.

Which, again, doesn't mean I think they're nefarious or not giving their real honest opinion, I just mean it's probably easier to garner attention if you end up feeling this way rather than not.

[Papadc73]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesumsports

I'm not really a fan of the madden series these days. Gameplay is always about the same. There seems to be no authenticity and its more arcade than sim. I'd play it to kill some time but there should be a good change to the franchise. EA is smart though. By the licensing and kill the competition lol. NBA live would be around if they could pull that same move just love gaming

"EA is smart though. By the licensing and kill the competition lol. NBA live would be around if they could pull that same move"

This above is all you need to know. That says it all.. The very reason why Madden has not put out a legit overall solid football game in years.. The fact that 16 YEAR OLD NFL 2K's Franchise, presentation, and gameplay still outshine Madden's football game with today's technology, says it all.. It's down right embarrassing.. Just think if EA didn't buy the License, Madden would be in the same boat that NBA LIVE is in now. There would be no Madden football period.. As much as I hate to say it, very smart move by EA.. smh..

[Anthraticus]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cusefan

I think it’s a little premature to say that Madden will sell well. I cannot recall Madden getting this amount of bad press before launch day. There is a very real backlash towards this game from loyal fans (like myself,) negative reviews will also hurt sales.

I think there's so many sport fans that aren't really video game fans per se, and they're only interested in that 1 game..and they're just gonna get it every year regardless like clockwork.

[ripcandlestickpark]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChaseB

PS, I will go to bat for IGN here and mention a lot of their reviews are done by either former or current OS peeps at this point. Bob did the IGN review for Madden 20, for example, I've done multiple NBA 2K reviews for IGN, and I think like the last 5 years of 2K reviews in general have been done by alumni of OS. I think a couple of The Show games were done by former OS peeps as well. I think one of the only sports games a former/current OS writer hasn't touched is FIFA -- and I could easily argue our soccer writer KG does some of the deepest breakdowns of both FIFA/PES for us and could easily handle the IGN reviews if he was asked. So while I get the idea that mainstream peeps don't get it and all that, I think IGN actually does try to cater to OS peeps more than you think. Whether we always nail it or not is up for y'all to decide, but I don't think they're getting people who don't know the games or sports or whatever to do the reviews.

Thanks for the heads-up on that, Chase. I didn't know that about IGN, specifically.

[ChaseB]

Quote: Originally Posted by pietasterp

I have a full understanding that this is how it works, which is precisely why I made the statement I did. 99% of game reviews from websites are worthless. Their business model is the reason for that. I admit my view is a purist view, but there is overwhelming evidence that access affects opinions. There is literally no other reason for companies to provide it. I am not impugning anyone's integrity at this (or any other site); I'm not even saying it's intentional. I like the OS community, as evidenced by the fact that I've been here forever. But the idea that favor or access has no effect whatsoever on how opinions are formed is nonsense.

I would like to point out the idea of "access" being getting a $60 game and that being the factor that eliminates any chance of being unbiased is relatively wild considering it's how basically all entertainment reviews have been done forever. "Access" being "yay I got a $60 game I now have to pour hours and hours into" is just about the crappiest form of access ever, and it would be pretty wild if large entertainment companies were banking their whole reputation on giving good reviews or whatever just to get a free game.

Now if you mean "access" in terms of "X outlet gave good score to get X interview or advertising dollars etc." you're still not really going to have much luck here with this "purist" view because sports games at these sites are a drop in the bucket. I think it'd be easier to make that case for random YouTuber Y falling prey to that than like a big gaming outlet.

All that being said, I still get what you're saying, I just don't think it's nearly as sinister as perhaps you might be making it out to be for the opinions involved.

Also also, every entertainment review is biased in some sense just FYI. That's the point of a review is you go in with personal biases which shape your opinion of anything you ever review. You can't really have an unbiased review, otherwise it would just be a product description more or less because your opinion is shaped by the game, and your opinion of the game is going to be different from someone else's opinion because you both have biases that shape said opinions in various ways. That can be anything from being predisposed to liking X genre, to expecting to hate/like X game, to having played the sport or not played the sport, and on and on it goes.

I would not get so hung up on the idea of "is this person biased or not?" and more think about "does this person generally like the same stuff as me or not?" or "have I ended up liking/agreeing with the stuff this person has written about X entertainment product in the past?"

[Calipup]

Quote: Originally Posted by mtmetcalfe

You proclaim this as if it’s objectively speaking. And “10 hours free” is not free. Time is a currency.

Ok...? I agree with the sentiment but I don't see how it applies here.

If you're on the fence about ever buying this game, then play the 10 free hours to see if you actually want to buy it. I agree with the other guy, your opinion matters most, not some random reviewer or people on a forum. It could save you $ if you were going to buy it or it could get you interested in the game if some bad reviews soured your opinion.

If you're not interested at all then move along. No one is making you play a game you don't want to play. Save your 10 hours and do whatever you feel is more worthy of your time.

[ripcandlestickpark]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChaseB

Also, yeah I don't have anything against the YouTube creators either but I'll somewhat back this up in a sense. I try to feature a lot of their videos on OS because there is so much great work done on YouTube, but there is still an element of knowing your audience. For example, I think SoftDrink's new "fall of EA" doc was enjoyable, but more for the historical aspect and less for the flashy EA SUX aspect. Which isn't to say he can't have that view and get interviews with peeps who will say these things, but I think he also knows his audience and what his channel is about. Dunking on Madden and making fun of Madden is probably pretty good for traffic, especially on YouTube. It's a very common and easy talking point to stick it to the game that has the NFL license because it's an easy and safe target. A lot of YouTube does, sadly, revolve around praising a few developers in particular and ripping apart any large developer in general as well. Again, it's probably good in the algorithm and it's probably good for traffic. Which, again, doesn't mean I think they're nefarious or not giving their real honest opinion, I just mean it's probably easier to garner attention if you end up feeling this way rather than not.

Fair points. Regarding SoftDrink, specifically, I don't hate the dude by any means. I'll certainly give him credit for his retrospective videos, which are very well-done (and I believe have been featured on OS before).

When he talks about the current state of the game, though, he does lean a bit too much on the "EA SUX" schtick for my personal taste. IIRC, the "IGN paid reviews" skit he did for his M20 review last year was not exactly well-received here, to say the least.

[ChaseB]

Quote: Originally Posted by ripcandlestickpark

Fair points. Regarding SoftDrink, specifically, I don't hate the dude by any means. I'll certainly give him credit for his retrospective videos, which are very well-done (and I believe have been featured on OS before). When he talks about the current state of the game, though, he does lean a bit too much on the "EA SUX" schtick for my personal taste. IIRC, the "IGN paid reviews" skit he did for his M20 review last year was not exactly well-received here, to say the least.

Yeah, I mean look, every person has a personal brand on YouTube by default, and Soft knows his and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And, again, things like Madden and IGN are easy/soft targets, and it's not like they don't deserve criticism either. It just probably is also good for the brand to show yourself as the indy darling going up against the big, rich companies and you as a viewer probably just have to put that through the needed personal filter.

Either way, you should know what he's about and either you take it in or don't. Or you pick and choose which of his videos you watch -- basically what I do. Like, I'm def going to post his College Hoops 2K retrospective on here right before 2K releases this year because I think it's great and I want to get attention on it all over again if possible at a time people will be thinking of 2K because it's great work and he deserves all the attention he can get on it.