Next Gen Football...where's the "fun"?

[dat swag]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWatcher

I said something once like what DatSwag said. But then at the same time, I realize that there are certain things that can't be quickly pulled off live-action that a cutscene can pull off ready-on-cue. But the whole problem that brought us to this point, is that the Madden Team had the right idea with the cutscenes they just didn't pour enough creativity into them to give them variety and spontaneity like they needed. The other thing is that, I think EA put far too much value on appeasing a few impatient people who can't just click 'A' to skip them, lol. And to do what they THOUGHT was remedying the situation, they just removed them... which remedied nothing, it just made the already thin presentation even worse. What they should have done was work on giving users the ability to turn cutscenes on or off, and perhaps have a frequency setting. It's really a no-brainer. Secondly, as stated, they needed to be creative and add more scenes. Those two things are what the answer was and it would've worked perfectly. Cutting them out was a perplexingly bad idea. Same thing with the frame rate. Aside from videophile junkies like you find on message boards, no one gives a crap about 30 frames or 60 frames and most people don't even perceive it like we would here. They made the decision to move to 60 and the graphics certainly fell in a lot of very noticeable ways, 08 was the better example as that game looked awful. But my point to that is, you don't make an upgrade to something (Frames) that's going to be inconsequential to the majority when you know it's going to negatively affect an important part that the majority (not OS'ers) cares about (graphics). It was one of those moves where you just wish you were in the room at the time and you could just stare at them in disbelief until they rethink it... ... Their decision-making just hasn't had good balance. There's just been a lot of cutting-off-their-nose-to-spite-their face decisions.

I totally agree...and here is what I believe is a perfect example:

THE VISION CONE

Now lets all recall how the VC came about...It was the craziness that we still see today concerning scrambling and mobile QB's...The sprinting rt and lft or the sprinting straight backwards 25 yards and tossing up accurate throws. The vision cone was instituted to calm all that down and bring a level of realism and normalcy to the QB position.

EA implemented it and many people (Myself NOT included) hated it...But what was it about the VC that they really hated????...was it the fact that a QB had to read a coverage, plant his feet or work a pocket before delivering a pass???...NO!!!...It was that damn BEAM of Light...Now tell me...what would most people have complained about regarding the vision cone if only they eliminated the BEAM OF LIGHT???...Would people have complained that a QB setting his feet, reading a coverage or remaining in the pocket to increase success is UNREALISTIC???

The following year EA pretty much eliminated it...I mean it was there but it now meant nothing...IT was just an extra chore as was the two button icon passing days of Madden's past that gave way to what we now know as quick passing. So my point is EA had a great idea and concept in adding realism to the QB position but they gave in to the pressure of people having issue with a beam of light...I would argue that it wasn't the issue of QB's having to read a coverage, set and pant their feet or attempt to pass from the pocket that was the problem...It was a poorly thought out and implemented change made by Tiburon in the years following the VC...Why not just remove the Beam of Light but continue to embrace the concepts and principles of the QB position???...then add an Arcade mode or option for those consumers who do not want realistic passing. They simply gave in to the people who do not respect the realism of football and want the ease and luxuary to just pass when and wherever they want with no risk...Thats fine...I don't have a problem with that...Thats where and when they should have implenmented an ARCADE mode. Allow arcade players to do their thing but do not turn your backs on the consumers who valued the realism they implemented into the game.

[RGiles36]

^^ I have to agree with the Vision Cone thing. Yeah, the cone itself was sightly. But it was a step towards innovation and realism which most of us can appreciate. Now the cone was a b*tch to use, but had they kept at it, and continued evolving it, it could be a well-matured feature by now. Could you imagine such a feature implemented along with proper OL/DL interaction?

There's so much innovation left on the table with the passing game. I look at games like NFL Fever 2004 which had 3 options of passing and wonder where the innovation has gone in football games?

[Kramer5150]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

I look at games like NFL Fever 2004 which had 3 options of passing and wonder where the innovation has gone in football games?

...I remember in Fever 04 using "read and lead" passing.
I thought this was absolutely great. It really felt like a qb in how you chose to place the ball.
I sucked at it...but it was cool as heck..lol

If this could have been expanded on (iirc,there were alot of button presses)...this could've been a great passing option for future football games.

[AlexBrady]

Presentation should not be a problem now that Rod Moye is gone.

[alliance4g63]

Quote: Originally Posted by dat swag

I totally agree...and here is what I believe is a perfect example: THE VISION CONE

Agree with ya. The two major problems I had with the Vc were:

The defense being able to see it the cone. That made no sense whatsoever especially for online play. I guess the reason they kept it visible for defense is because in offline head-to-head play, your buddy would see the cone, so they didn't care to change it online. Your online opponent can't see when you pull the play on the screen so they shouldn't have been able to see the cone either.

Secondly, the cone needed to be dynamic. By giving Manning, Brady, etc. the whole field, that pretty much negated it's use. Because most people just used those teams for their huge cone. They should have had it change based on how you are playing. If you make bads throws with Manning, his cone should get smaller and smaller. Or if you made good reads and throws with a Tyler Thigpien, his cone should get bigger. IMO.

[Ian_Cummings]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

Presentation should not be a problem now that Rod Moye is gone.

Ouch!

[dat swag]

On the bright side EA can give us what we want...They have the resources, support and talent...Just look at what has been done with NBA LIVE in a few short years...That game was a doormat less than 3 years ago and now its on the verge of equaling and surpassing 2k Basketball..I personally think its better than 2k but thats another thread for another time.

In mentioning LIVE there is just something innately FUN about the game...From art work, player models and animations there is a level of feeling like your experiencing something new in each game. The game is far from perfect but its fun and one thing its not is boring...If EA Canada can do it with LIVE and Hockey...why not Tiburon???..It can happen and I want very much to believe it can and will happen. Having bought my next gen consoles soley for Madden I need it to happen or else its boring *** board games and karaoke ...Lets Go Ian and Crew I'm counting on ya...Its time to have an energy grink and a few hallucinogens and take this game to the next level

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Quote: Originally Posted by alliance4g63

Agree with ya. The two major problems I had with the Vc were: The defense being able to see it the cone. That made no sense whatsoever especially for online play. I guess the reason they kept it visible for defense is because in offline head-to-head play, your buddy would see the cone, so they didn't care to change it online. Your online opponent can't see when you pull the play on the screen so they shouldn't have been able to see the cone either. Secondly, the cone needed to be dynamic. By giving Manning, Brady, etc. the whole field, that pretty much negated it's use. Because most people just used those teams for their huge cone. They should have had it change based on how you are playing. If you make bads throws with Manning, his cone should get smaller and smaller. Or if you made good reads and throws with a Tyler Thigpien, his cone should get bigger. IMO.

Homie your missing the whole point about the vision cone. While your concerns was that your opponents saw who u was staring down , is the same exact reason why I love it. You know how many times I looked one way to make the oppoenet go away from where I wanted to throw. It was insane. The vision cone made routes like the chair route a success, or the pump and go. The Vision cone was insane and very realistic to use.

I would stare down a slot wr doing a out, the player would jump to double team thus leaving my steaking WR 1 on 1 with no safety help. The vision cone also helped when player loved playing zone defenses only. It helped braking the zone apart.

I guess it all depends on how well you knew how to use it. Better Line make it a option. This way for those that dont get it they can turn it off for us that do know how to feak it we can turn it on.

Vision Cone was a feature that once learned it became a perk. U play me and see for yourself. You will qucikly learn to play your defensive assigment and not my looks cause ill have you running all over the place lol.

Players need to stop focusing on why it doesnt work , and put the same effort on how to make it work.