IMO, EA should be greatful for the business.
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by mva5580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And then you have to consider how far do you go with "Realistic?" For example say you're the Lions and you're playing against the Saints. Should you lose that game 99% of the time? ALWAYS, no matter what difficulty level the game is on, no matter how good you personally are at the game, etc? Because so often I hear people complain about "robo QB," defenders always batting balls down, too many injuries, and whatever else. Ok so if that stuff is actually set on a realistic level, we'd all be losing A LOT more than we do. If you really want the CPU AI to play you as the actual NFL team would play you, then you're not going 15-1, 14-2, 13-3 with very many teams in the game. If ever. And you'd rarely ever win the Super Bowl, as that's obviously REALLY hard to do. So are you ok with that? Or do you want it realistic, but realistic to the point of always being able to win? Where does it stop? And who defines where it stops?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I pick an inferior team, I'm doing it knowing it's a bigger challenge, so yes, I want it as realistic as they can get it.
But also, IMO, difficulty & realism are 2 separate things. One has nothing to do with the other. To me, realism is about how players move, what they key on, how they react, team identies, ect. These are animation & AI elements.
Inferior teams beat better teams all the time. There are upsets every week. When an inferior team beats a better team, it's usually because they were better prepared, played harder, made more plays, made less mistakes, and the "better" team did the opposite. Difficulty settings should effect those elements. So, for example, easier difficulty settings should weaken the CPU's gameplan, lower their effort, miss more big plays, make more mistakes, while the user controlled team does the opposite. IMO, there's nothing unrealistic about that.
Casual fans would enjoy a realistic game. It's what they see every Sunday. But again, realism & difficulty SHOULDN'T be related IMO. Casual fans only use unrealistic elements like dropping back 15 yards because they give the gamer an advantage. If EA made it more advantageous to stay in the pocket, they'd do that. The same way casuals & tournament style players find unrealistic ways to gain advantages, they'd find realistic ways if the game was made that way. They even have a perfect example on Sundays. I actually think it takes more work to COME UP with unrealistic strategy.
Realism is not how easy/hard it is to pass, for example. Just like some QBs have an easier time than others, so will gamers. Realism is how the d/o-line interact, how WRs run routes, how DBs/LBs cover, how the players move & react, ect.
Of course it's a matter of opinion, but to me, innovation in a sports game should make it more like the real thing. Though the vision cone did duplicate scanning the field and differentiated QBs, there was a flashlight on the field. And once you realized that all you had to do was hold R2(?) and double tap the pass button, the feature became useless.
For several years I suggested a similar feature. Replace the flashlight with QB head/shoulder movement, and only give icons to WRs in the QB's line of sight. Now you're adding a realistic football element without the arcadey intrusion on the visuals.
!!!!!!!
I could live without another "feature" until they get the players to move, interact, think & react like NFL players.