Would "Fog Of War" Be An Acceptable Addition To Madden's Default Passing View?

[Only1LT]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

Good points! And I agree that there are certain things you'll give up in the name of it being a videogame. I think the vibrating controller was a helluva concept in thought (I had it on my wishlist after M08), but it's one of those things that IMO doesn't translate well into a football videogame. By the time you're controller starts to rumble, it's probably too late. That, or you're not paying it any mind anyway because you're concentrating on what's going on upfield. You only have a few seconds in the pocket to begin with. If I completely ignored the trenches and relied on the rumble, I'd get sacked every time. Football moves too fast for this feature to be a difference maker. This is when I hate the fact that they differentiate the games so much. Not sure if NCAA still has it, but a year or two ago they had a nice home-field advantage feature. I even thought the QB composure mini-game was interesting after INTs... I would love to have some semblance of home field advantage in Madden. Let me feel/see the difference when my rookie QB has to come in for the injured starter. I really thought NCAA did a good job with this.

Agree with this.

The home field thing might have been slightly gimmicky, but I thought it was cool none the less.

The QB composure minigame I thought was actually quite ingenious.

I wish they would borrow more from NCAA. Seems like the borrowing is always in the other direction.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

Agree with this. The home field thing might have been slightly gimmicky, but I thought it was cool none the less. The QB composure minigame I thought was actually quite ingenious. I wish they would borrow more from NCAA. Seems like the borrowing is always in the other direction.

I miss composure from the PS2 days. I thought it added a lot to the game in terms of playing older players who had "been to the dance" already.

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

Admirable attempt by the OP, but I don't think the idea has much merit. IMO, the way that the passing game is set up in Madden, is unrealistic and horribly outdated (it's over 20yrs old for crying out loud), and there isn't anything that can be done to make it more realistic, if you are going to impose a caveat of staying within the same unrealistic framework. Lot of work for no reason. From a mechanic standpoint, it doesn't work, because you don't want to change any mechanics. You have the FOW and depending on awareness the FOW is placed over specific receivers. Ok... if you don't want change any mechanics, how do you see those receivers? *Are you saying that the QB will be permanently blind to the same set of receivers, every play, through out the play? **He can't focus on the one that is blurred and have another go out of focus? That doesn't make any sense. You are simulating a QB going through reads or awareness at all then, it's just another unrealistic flourish added to an already unrealistic system.

*The user can't change the blinded receivers after the snap. In the playcall screen, they can set the primary receiver, which I think is in the game currently, to establish read progression for the FOW.
**No. That would require adding another mechanic, not currently available, which would defeat the purpose of this discussion.

I think you are thinking I m suggesting using FOW as some kind of a way to directly simulate a QB's physical view but I am not. In real life, any QB can look down field at receivers running around and quickly turn their heads to make passes. However, that becomes a lot more challenging when they have to deal with crowd noise, pass rushers, assorted coverage and remembering various receiver routes.

What I am suggesting FOW could realistically simulate is, each QB's ability to process all of that and get a mental picture of what's going on down field. It would be more of a QB minds eye than a physical QB view being displayed to the user.

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

Again, I understand what you are trying to do, and it's admirable. You want to make everyone happy. Making everyone happy is pretty much impossible to achieve. If you want the passing game to be more realistic, you are going to have to make significant changes too it. If the passing game was a small little tweak away from being realistic, it wouldn't be so unrealistic in the first place.

No. What I want is to get something better than we have now. I am not naive, I know full well there is no way to make everyone happy. However, given the history of Madden, I believe EA would be somewhat reluctant to implement a new passing system that is too unfamiliar. So because EA is the company that makes Madden and it's the only NFL game, I try to restrict my ideas, within my perceived EA paradigm.

I don't believe FOW is some instant savior to bring casuals, noobs, hardcore and Madden snobs together in perfect passing bliss. I just think the important thing is that, realistic discussions about how to change the passing in Madden, take place. That's the best way to get something better than what we have now, IMO.

Expressing my radical ideas for passing in Madden is more fun than trying to be practical but has little, if any, potential of being productive, IMO.

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

I don't believe for a second that EA would ever implement a system that would intentionally distort their high-resolution graphics that they spend so much of their budget on each year. Accordingly, I like the idea behind this approach but not the execution; I think looking at distorted graphics on only passing plays and only in areas of the field occupied by receivers would be terribly distracting. Honestly I think a good starting point for making the passing game more interesting would just be to bring over NCAA's system of masking the receiver icons and on-field play diagram pre-play with low-awareness quarterbacks, and also making hot routes and audibles more difficult to call with low-awareness quarterbacks.

I somehow missed this and while I agree very strongly with this point, it also speaks to my POV about EA and change in Madden. It makes absolutely no sense to me why this NCAA system is not currently n Madden. However, if they have been reluctant to even add something from another EA football game into Madden, I don't see much chance of getting other extremely unfamiliar things in.

Hopefully, this was just a result of NCAA and Madden competing the last 6 years. Now, since they are full partners and share all core tech, maybe this will be added to Madden 13.

[Only1LT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Thinking Out Loud

*The user can't change the blinded receivers after the snap. In the playcall screen, they can set the primary receiver, which I think is in the game currently, to establish read progression for the FOW. **No. That would require adding another mechanic, not currently available, which would defeat the purpose of this discussion. I think you are thinking I m suggesting using FOW as some kind of a way to directly simulate a QB's physical view but I am not. In real life, any QB can look down field at receivers running around and quickly turn their heads to make passes. However, that becomes a lot more challenging when they have to deal with crowd noise, pass rushers, assorted coverage and remembering various receiver routes. What I am suggesting FOW could realistically simulate is, each QB's ability to process all of that and get a mental picture of what's going on down field. It would be more of a QB minds eye than a physical QB view being displayed to the user. No. What I want is to get something better than we have now. I am not naive, I know full well there is no way to make everyone happy. However, given the history of Madden, I believe EA would be somewhat reluctant to implement a new passing system that is too unfamiliar. So because EA is the company that makes Madden and it's the only NFL game, I try to restrict my ideas, within my perceived EA paradigm. I don't believe FOW is some instant savior to bring casuals, noobs, hardcore and Madden snobs together in perfect passing bliss. I just think the important thing is that, realistic discussions about how to change the passing in Madden, take place. That's the best way to get something better than what we have now, IMO. Expressing my radical ideas for passing in Madden is more fun than trying to be practical but has little, if any, potential of being productive, IMO.

When I say "make everyone happy", I mean that you want to stay within the framework of what is here. That's fine, but if you really want to improve Madden, why not put forth your best ideas, regardless of whether they mean drastic changes or otherwise?

If someone is wearing a hideous shirt, I'm going to tell them they are wearing a hideous shirt and they need to stop wearing it. I'm not going to tell them to put a pretty handkerchief in the pocket to dress it up. To me, that seems like a waste of time.

Obviously, you do what you want, but my $.02, Tiburon isn't likely to change much of anything (the game has played extremely similar for at least 10yrs now), regardless if it's a drastic change or an easy one, so why waste time giving them your C level input? Give them your A level input. If they don't listen, that's their prerogative, but you've done your job as a member of the community. Given constructive feedback. What they do with it is out of your control.

You never know. Maybe the stars align and they actually like something you have to say.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

This is when I hate the fact that they differentiate the games so much. Not sure if NCAA still has it, but a year or two ago they had a nice home-field advantage feature. I even thought the QB composure mini-game was interesting after INTs... I would love to have some semblance of home field advantage in Madden. Let me feel/see the difference when my rookie QB has to come in for the injured starter. I really thought NCAA did a good job with this.

EA's in a tight spot with the differentiation thing; if they don't, then people will complain that they spent $60 twice on the same game, but if they do, then we have complaints like this (not that the complaints aren't legitimate, however).

And I absolutely agree that home-field advantage should play a part in the Madden games; maybe not to the same extent as NCAA (it's still there, but a bit toned down from what it was in the PS2 days when it was ridiculous), but it definitely should be there. The New England Patriots, for example, have won 86% of their home games since the start of the 2003 season.

[jth1331]

This won't change because its not something really practical to look into changing.
The Passing Cone was a nice idea, but in order for it to work you had to move an analog stick, while probably moving another analog stick with your finger on the buttong to pass to a receiver. Thats a lot to ask of in 3 seconds or less of time in these games to pass for a lot of video game players.
I just don't see the need to really change this at all, and I don't feel it will be changed. People always want the most realistic experience, but this is the best we can get to make the most people happy.

[Only1LT]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

EA's in a tight spot with the differentiation thing; if they don't, then people will complain that they spent $60 twice on the same game, but if they do, then we have complaints like this (not that the complaints aren't legitimate, however). And I absolutely agree that home-field advantage should play a part in the Madden games; maybe not to the same extent as NCAA (it's still there, but a bit toned down from what it was in the PS2 days when it was ridiculous), but it definitely should be there. The New England Patriots, for example, have won 86% of their home games since the start of the 2003 season.

I hear you, but I will never understand how someone can buy a College Football game, and an NFL Football game, that are both supposed to be simulations, from the same company, and expect them to be too different.

You should know what you are getting. If you need both, you can't realistically expect to NOT spend $120 for two very similar products.