Madden Serenity

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

Hmm, I don't know about that. I remember dropping back 20+ yards w/ the QB dating back to Madden '95 when I was just a pup. It could've only have been so realistic. More recently, I can't think of any last gen Madden that's more realistic than what we have now. You could say footwork and locomotion were better tuned then, but then I could raise you OL/DL interaction and while it's not to 2K's level, it's better than what we had last gen. I stick by the assertion that realism was never Madden's wheelhouse. I think it is now gearing towards realism and will continue to do so, but historically, it hasn't. It's always been about that fun/realism balance.

Actually, if you go way back to Madden's inception, it was originally designed to be the most realistic simulation of football ever. I believe it was FAR more realistic back in the day than it is today. You have to take into account the available technology, the competing products and what was already out there when determining this. AT THAT TIME - Madden was a realistic game. I would argue that today, Madden is more of an unrealistic game than it was back then given the technology, the competing products and the resources allotted to it.

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise408

Exactly, Madden sells because of the NFL brand, not because of any marketing or quality.

That's not entirely true. I believe Madden sells more due to it's legacy and its name. There was a reason why all of us (Especially older guys) started playing Madden. BECAUSE IT WAS AWESOME! I believe many people buy Madden for nostalgic reasons and what it once was ALONG WITH the fact it's the only NFL game.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

True but at what point does it becomes false or intentionally misleading? Most posts I read that have a negative or disappointed theme are based on what EA promoted Madden to be but didn't deliver on. I would like to know from EA is the bar for Madden video game fun with a NFL theme or NFL simulation fun, which comes through realism. If it's the former, then there is very little that separates Madden from NFL Blitz but at least be real about it and if it's the latter, then gamers need to keep criticizing EA about the lack of realism in Madden. Like I stated in the OP, EA doesn't just promote the NFL theme in Madden, they promote a overall commitment to NFL authenticity but it's consistently lacking in the final product, imo. Then, they make a few comments about "how things take time", "limited resources" and "maxed out hardware", then websites, reviewers and some in the community carry the company water, repeating those same talking points. Just think about how many times a reviewer or interviewer has referenced how football realistic Madden has been this entire gen and how it must be difficult finding something else to improve or add every year. Really? Also, when someone in the community talks about how "it's just a video game" so what do people expect, it's just about having fun. For me "fun", enjoying a video game, is all about the expectations of that video game, set by what it is alleged to represent. A video game doesn't have to be realistic to be fun but a simulation video game does and that's the point. To bring a conclusion to this rant I suddenly find myself on, if EA doesn't intend for Madden to be a realistic representation of NFL football in a video game, then they should stop claiming it or everyone should stop feigning surprise and making excuses when gamers rightly repeatedly criticize EA for not delivering that in Madden.

Big this is a company selling a product. We want integrity. We want fairness. The entire development team from the producers to the programmers may have that as their intent. But once that product leaves their hands and is into the hands of marketers who are thinking about legitimation and the survival and thriving of the company, you can take what we want and the producers and programmers want and ALMOST throw it out of the window. They have to push units and they will say what they need to say to do just that. It's unfortunate, but that's how corporations and institutions work.


On that last paragraph you have there. I think the producers and programmers are trying to do what they can to create a game that caters to markets. We might as well look at the tourney scene as a market, the offline franchise player as a market and we could keep going on and on. All of this while retaining their commitment to "simulation." Now we might have to admit, their picture of simulation is not the same picture we have in mind. When football game developers first used that word, it was in reference to player names and authentic uniforms, hence Tecmo Bowl. But that game was not even 11 on 11. As time progressed and Madden came along simulation took on a new layer of meaning. Not only was it player names and uniforms, but now stats, player ratings became a part of the equation. Next up, Franchise modes. Then we moved from there to the era where EA has always been weakest IMO. Animations, X's and O's. This is the era we are in right now.

[Franchise408]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

Just want to say you really hit the nail on the head here Road... Honestly, sometimes I think it's us at OS who need the reality check. We have a standard to which we hold the game too, and it's a great thing that we have EA's ear to a degree. At the same time, OS is one of the larger gaming communities and it has - what - maybe 100K members. 5M people continue to run out and buy the game. It begs the question, are we the ones who look at things in a vacuum?

Which is where my biggest problem of all lays - the exclusive license.

Without the exclusive, I was able to have an alternative to find that game that appealed to me, and I wouldn't have to play Madden.

Now that there is an exclusive, Madden now should be expected to cater to not only the 5M, but to the 100k that no longer have their alternative. So when Madden doesn't cater to what I want - after artificially eliminating the alternative that did cater to what I want - yes I am going to be vocal about what I see to be Madden's shortcomings.

If EA doesn't want these types of criticisms, then they shouldn't have bought out the exclusive license. But they did, so they brought these criticisms upon themselves.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Big this is a company selling a product. We want integrity. We want fairness. The entire development team from the producers to the programmers may have that as their intent. But once that product leaves their hands and is into the hands of marketers who are thinking about legitimation and the survival and thriving of the company, you can take what we want and the producers and programmers want and ALMOST throw it out of the window. They have to push units and they will say what they need to say to do just that. It's unfortunate, but that's how corporations and institutions work. On that last paragraph you have there. I think the producers and programmers are trying to do what they can to create a game that caters to markets. We might as well look at the tourney scene as a market, the offline franchise player as a market and we could keep going on and on. All of this while retaining their commitment to "simulation." Now we might have to admit, their picture of simulation is not the same picture we have in mind. When football game developers first used that word, it was in reference to player names and authentic uniforms, hence Tecmo Bowl. But that game was not even 11 on 11. As time progressed and Madden came along simulation took on a new layer of meaning. Not only was it player names and uniforms, but now stats, player ratings became a part of the equation. Next up, Franchise modes. Then we moved from there to the era where EA has always been weakest IMO. Animations, X's and O's. This is the era we are in right now.

This is it all right here. Kind of along my thought process, but you explained much better than I could do.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

Big this is a company selling a product. We want integrity. We want fairness. The entire development team from the producers to the programmers may have that as their intent. But once that product leaves their hands and is into the hands of marketers who are thinking about legitimation and the survival and thriving of the company, you can take what we want and the producers and programmers want and ALMOST throw it out of the window. They have to push units and they will say what they need to say to do just that. It's unfortunate, but that's how corporations and institutions work.

I believe companies can make money while also being legitimate to the medium/subject they are basing their product on.

I go back to my example with Koei - 30 years (I said 25 earlier), yet they don't hype up anything (I wonder if they even market in the NA region), but they, obviously, still make money.

They are known with their Nobunaga's Ambition and RTK series for authenticity to history. As stylized as Samurai Warriors and Dynasty Warriors are, it's still oriented around the real history. Lu Bu isn't ruling China in Dynasty Warriors because it "would be more fun to have to face him", etc.

So I don't necessarily believe that a company MUST hype/"overhype" something or take legitmacy and spin into something that's over the top and threatens to underperform in order to make money and thrive.

Koei, SquareEnix, Atlus, NIS, Creative Assembly - they don't - they've been around for years, some as long as EA (I know Koei has - I remember playing a PC ancient Nobunaga game along with an ancient "ECA" game.)

Not saying it's not "uncommon" but rarity <> impossibility.

And if the stock price is any indication, it's not as though the current model has help EA all that much either.

[Franchise408]

Quote: Originally Posted by rgiles36

Going to stir the pot a little bit: why should it be a given? When has Madden ever been the posterboy for unabashed realism? Is there an iteration of Madden that you can name that suggests Madden used to be uber-realistic and it's not now?

Why should it be a given?

Because they bought the exclusive license, and they are now solely responsible for providing a realistic football experience since they artificially eliminated any and all competition and alternatives.

[roadman]

I'm not so sure they(EA) risk changing their business model of marketing and advertising to being low key about things.

I believe we are part of the that, though. There are other sites, including OS, that people are chomping at the bit for any tidbit of information.