Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

[TeamBuilder]

Remember Madden 2006 for XBOX, with Donovan McNabb on the cover? That game had perfect progression.

-Young players would progress in their first few years (as they should).

-Every 4 weeks your players would progress if they played well.

-Pre-season was useful because if you played well your players would progress.

-Making a run in the playoffs would progress your players. Makes perfect sense, playoff experience.


I remember I would use the Cardinals and start 65 overall rated John Navarre. I played on All-Madden and threw 31 TDs and 34 INTs while going 15-1 (won 6 games by one FG). Navarre progressed up to a 72 OVR and then after the playoffs progressed to a 75 OVR. The next year I had 38 TDs and 14 INTs and he finished the year at 89 OVR after the Super Bowl. NOW THAT WAS PERFECT PROGRESSION.

EDIT: I think the current system would be okay if we were able to train a few players each year to increase their potential. I think that's a cool scenario instead of having everything set in stone.

[TeamBuilder]

There were no pre-determined potentials or anything like that. Imagine if this system of "A,B,C,D,F" potentials were used when Tom Brady was still a backup for Bledsoe. What would he be, "D" rated potential?

[radog99]

I stopped playing the regular Xbox version of Madden after Madden 2005. Madden 2006 was the first year of Xbox 360 if I recall (and didn't even have a franchise). But I agree, the progression system in those two years on current gen were perfect. I long for those days again.

Next gen has NEVER gotten it right.

[TeamBuilder]

Quote: Originally Posted by radog99

I stopped playing the regular Xbox version of Madden after Madden 2005. Madden 2006 was the first year of Xbox 360 if I recall (and didn't even have a franchise). But I agree, the progression system in those two years on current gen were perfect. I long for those days again. Next gen has NEVER gotten it right.

And that is the part the blows my mind. Why try and fix something that wasn't broken. It was perfect so why change it?

[rckabillyRaider]

I was just thinking about the same thing today. I loved the preseason and in-season progression.

[fahrenheit]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeamBuilder

And that is the part the blows my mind. Why try and fix something that wasn't broken. It was perfect so why change it?

I don't think it was a matter of change, I think they just haven't recaptured it on next gen. Madden had five years on PS2 before they produced (what some would call) the best madden (05). Madden 10 is the fifth installment and by far the best next gen game.

[tooldude79]

Quote: Originally Posted by fahrenheit

I don't think it was a matter of change, I think they just haven't recaptured it on next gen. Madden had five years on PS2 before they produced (what some would call) the best madden (05). Madden 10 is the fifth installment and by far the best next gen game.

What makes progression logic that hard to reproduce? I think they're just overthinking it.

[jip4]

Quote: Originally Posted by tooldude79

What makes progression logic that hard to reproduce? I think they're just overthinking it.

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repost here:

It's important to realize what "progression" is. It is a player increasing their ability level. It is not a re-evaluation of the players ability level (which is what mid-season roster updates are, and what mid-season/preseason progression simulates). It makes no sense to re-evaluate the a Franchise player's ability level, because we know precisely what that ability level is.

This isn't true in real life. Matt Cassel probably started last season with his Madden rating at ~70. He probably finished it at ~85. Now let's think about what happened. Did he really get 15 points better over the course of the season? Or was he really an 85 all along, and we just didn't know it (this one)?

The difference between real life and the game is that, within the context of the game (and more specifically, within the context of Franchise mode), we do know exactly how good every player is. It's in a nice little spreadsheet, with all kinds of sub-categories that we can sort. It's those numbers that determine how players perform, not how good they "really" are. Give a 70 OVR running back a great offensive line and he can have a great season, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 70 OVR. And just because I decide on a whim not to throw a single ball to my 99 OVR receiver all season doesn't mean he's suddenly a 65. Or even a 95.

The "performance-based potential" arguments mistake the cause and effect relationship between ratings and performance. High ratings are not a reward for performing well. High ratings cause you to perform well. If a bad player plays well, one of three things is happening:

1. There's a flaw in the game (and this is entirely possible: if you're getting 1600 yards with a 65 OVR running back, something ain't right)
2. You've designed your system around the player, and/or put him in a position personnel-wise to be successful (i.e. he's a product of the system)
3. You just got lucky (i.e. he's a one-year-wonder)

What isn't happening is that the player is suddenly 15, 10, or even just 5 points better. Heck just from knowledge the game, we know that players get better from practice, from working out, from studying film, from training in the offseason; but not from catching 6 balls instead of 3 on Sunday.

Sorry if this seems kind of rambling, but IMO performance-based potential is a franchise killer, and it worries me just how much some are pushing for it.