Is madden Heading in the right direction or moving in a dead end?

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

what I was doing is pointing out how you, among others, that are able to accept Madden for what it is, often act as if that somehow changes the fact that its' goal/objective, as a simulation football video game, is to be as NFL authentic and realistic in applicable areas, as possible. You and them when posting or replying to post often seem to discuss Madden as if it is in some "gray area" genre, instead of the simulation video game that is supposed to be.

And this is where we are and continue to be in fundamental disagreement.

I don't think Madden tries to be a pure football simulation in every way possible by nature of being a video game, regardless of their marketing spin (such as their Super Bowl prediction news post which I'm sure you enjoyed). Rather, I think that Madden is trying to make an interactive video game based upon principles of real-life football with concessions for accessibility and mass appeal. The most immediate and obvious evidence to this end is allowing user control of any particular player on the field at all. A pure simulation would not allow in-play user interaction whatsoever; instead it would be closer to NFL Head Coach in implementation, lest the mid-play inputs of the user corrupt the results of the algorithms in play to generate the results of the on-field interactions. One step removed from that: a true simulation would simulate the coaches as well and would simply spit out results based on input parameters set up before an instance started; i.e. the simulation would call all its own plays, timeouts, and challenges as well. My point here - any addition or change that is considered for the game not only considers whether it improves the authenticity of the experience, but also whether it positively contributes to the direct user experience with the game.

That Tiburon's video game happens to double as a loose simulation of a real-life sport is a result of their game design intentions, which started from one obvious point in reality, that being the NFL. The designed components for the video game, while starting with the idea of mimicking real-life football functions found in the NFL, must also respond to user input and allow the user to have an obvious impact upon the game's result, necessitating the ability to break a simulation. To that end, I argue that your question about what components have become "more realistic" - as if realism is the only goal Tiburon is trying to achieve - isn't applicable.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

You're just constructing a context to something that you feel it is harder for people to disagree with is all. My purchase decision is based on expected playtime and improvements year over year. I don't stop and compare the version in my hand to several years of changes before walking to the register. I'm certainly not going to in the context of this question in order to gloss over the improvements from 12 to 13 and the post launch support it received. Right direction? Absolutely. Could/should they be much further along toward some idealized perfect sim game? That's a context I can agree with, but with M13 they are absolutely moving in that direction, not away. Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

No, what I am doing is pointing out what seems to be an inconvenient truth for some, that no matter anyone's personal POV of the game, it's supposed to be a NFL simulation football video game. The subjective POV of you, I or anyone else about enjoying the game is irrelevant to the games genre and stated objective.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

And this is where we are and continue to be in fundamental disagreement. I don't think Madden tries to be a pure football simulation in every way possible by nature of being a video game, regardless of their marketing spin (such as their Super Bowl prediction news post which I'm sure you enjoyed). Rather, I think that Madden is trying to make an interactive video game based upon principles of real-life football with concessions for accessibility and mass appeal. The most immediate and obvious evidence to this end is allowing user control of any particular player on the field at all. A pure simulation would not allow in-play user interaction whatsoever; instead it would be closer to NFL Head Coach in implementation, lest the mid-play inputs of the user corrupt the results of the algorithms in play to generate the results of the on-field interactions. One step removed from that: a true simulation would simulate the coaches as well and would simply spit out results based on input parameters set up before an instance started; i.e. the simulation would call all its own plays, timeouts, and challenges as well. My point here - any addition or change that is considered for the game not only considers whether it improves the authenticity of the experience, but also whether it positively contributes to the direct user experience with the game. That Tiburon's video game happens to double as a loose simulation of a real-life sport is a result of their game design intentions, which started from one obvious point in reality, that being the NFL. The designed components for the video game, while starting with the idea of mimicking real-life football functions found in the NFL, must also respond to user input and allow the user to have an obvious impact upon the game's result, necessitating the ability to break a simulation. To that end, I argue that your question about what components have become "more realistic" - as if realism is the only goal Tiburon is trying to achieve - isn't applicable.

From what I understand you are far more knowledgeable about video games and their development than me so the parts in your post about a true simulation being tantamount to simulating everything that happens versus a User actually playing and interacting in real time with a video game, I will just consider some attempt at funny word play. It's due to attempted semantic critiques like this, that a I try to be sure to spell out "simulation VIDEO GAME", which I clearly did several times in the post you quoted.

You can disagree all you want and are of course entitled to but that doesn't change the fact. I didn't choose the genre for Madden nor did I pull its' objective out my bum, EA Tiburon did. (not meaning EA Tiburon pulled it out my bum but that they chose the genre and set the objective for Madden) Anyone can continue to claim that a NFL simulation football video game is NOT EA Tiburon's objective for Madden all they want but that won't change the fact that EA Tiburon states that it is or make anyone choosing to call them to task for it an EA hatemonger, nonconstructive or whatever unfounded label some try to use.

[RGiles36]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I have stated many times, if EA was to make it known that Madden is NOT intended to be a NFL simulation, I wouldn't call them to task about making it so. However, as long as they do, it remains constructive and reasonable for anyone to point out how lacking Madden is at reaching its' clearly stated objective.

No offense, but how long are you going to beat the drum for how Madden is marketed? It's not going to change, nor is there logical reason for it to change. They call the game a simulation, and for all practical intents & purposes, it is. There aren't glowing running backs. There aren't mini-games that award first downs. There's nothing completely superficial about Madden that nullifies its claims as a simulation.

Let's not be naive here -- this is how marketing works across all consumer goods.

I spent a pretty penny last July on a LG TV (LS4600) that advertises 120HZ. Turns out the set functions much more like a 60HZ, but they've got some scaling in the background that allegedly produces a 120HZ effect. As such, they have the authority to market that feature even if it doesn't give me, the consumer, what I desired in a 120HZ set. Regardless of how disappointed I am in the TV, LG does not owe me an apology or clarification.

I think you're just in your disappointment with Madden this generation -- a lot of us are disappointed. But basing your discontent solely around how the game is marketed is a waste of your time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

No, what I am doing is pointing out what seems to be an inconvenient truth for some, that no matter anyone's personal POV of the game, it's supposed to be a NFL simulation football video game. The subjective POV of you, I or anyone else about enjoying the game is irrelevant to the games genre and stated objective.

I want the same simulation as you do. But the notion that a simulation videogame is all or nothing is invalid...

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

If Madden markets itself as a simulation, then it is fair to say that it should have a goal/objective of simulating the sport to the best of it's developers ability. If that is the goal, Madden falls flat on its face when compared to it's contemporary sports titles.

As far as direction goes, with simulation being the goal, its still hard to say. Like I stated above, it seems EA Tiburon has some long-term path in mind, but it comes down to whether they can execute it. They theorized a cool new format for their game going forward, but failed its first year execution. CCM felt rushed and incomplete. If they can get CCM to a level of depth, intricacy and fun as other sports franchises, then I would say they are succeeding. This question is a bit premature as we have no information of Madden 25 which would tell how Tiburon is decided to build and go forward.

I'll leave you all with this; I have little to no confidence in EA Tiburon to go the direction we all hope it will.

[roadman]

I'll throw in my short 02 cents.

I agree with youalreadyknow.

The developer management team changes every three years and therefore, the vision changes too.

There needs to be more stability moving forward for the game to stay the course the current developers goals.

In other companies, changing upper management on a consistent basis could suggest a unstable product.

[SageInfinite]

I mean technically Madden is an NFL sim, so guys who are satisfied with what it is are going to argue that point. While guys like me have seen what is possible in other games and feel that Tiburon should match or best that. I personally don't think they deserve any praise this gen because they haven't brought anything to the table that I feel was a substantial contribution to the history of videogame football. As far as them going in the right direction, of course they are, you can't get any worse than what we've gotten this generation. Madden 10 was the only real step they've taken imo. I think Madden 25 will be an improvement but will still lack because of what this team strives for, and that is to be just good enough if that. I hope the next gen allows for their just good enough approach to seem like more than what it is.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by RGiles36

No offense, but how long are you going to beat the drum for how Madden is marketed? It's not going to change, nor is there logical reason for it to change. They call the game a simulation, and for all practical intents & purposes, it is. There aren't glowing running backs. There aren't mini-games that award first downs. There's nothing completely superficial about Madden that nullifies its claims as a simulation. Let's not be naive here -- this is how marketing works across all consumer goods. I spent a pretty penny last July on a LG TV (LS4600) that advertises 120HZ. Turns out the set functions much more like a 60HZ, but they've got some scaling in the background that allegedly produces a 120HZ effect. As such, they have the authority to market that feature even if it doesn't give me, the consumer, what I desired in a 120HZ set. Regardless of how disappointed I am in the TV, LG does not owe me an apology or clarification. I think you're just in your disappointment with Madden this generation -- a lot of us are disappointed. But basing your discontent solely around how the game is marketed is a waste of your time. I want the same simulation as you do. But the notion that a simulation videogame is all or nothing is invalid...

I am glad this discussion is being had because it needs to be so posters wanting a sim game can stop being essentially trolled on Madden message boards. I am no wall flower nor to I get offended by what random people on the internet post so let's have a mature and honest discourse.

Madden as a sim video game is not just some marketing ploy, it's the stated objective for the game when it's being developed. "Marketing ploy" is just another cop out people like to use when it suits them, for when the elements of the game fall short of that objective. I don't see anyone affiliated with creating Madden during the dev cycle stating simulation, authenticity and realism are just marketing ploys. Physics, DPP, throw a receiver open, etc, aren't claimed to be marketing ploys until after they have fallen short of their touted authenticity and realism. In fact, anyone even trying to claim that they are just marketing ploys or gimmicks during the "hype train" are labeled EA hatemongers, perfectionist, etc but again once those same elements don't reach their stated intentions, those same labels are then attempted to be placed on people for not realizing they were just marketing ploys and gimmicks all along. So with regard to "sim is just a marketing ploy" it doesn't past muster, period, but if someone is going to try to make that claim with any chance of being taken seriously, they should at least make it consistently, not just after the "hype train".

" ..But the notion that a simulation videogame is all or nothing is invalid." I am a little surprised to read this kind of stuff come from you because I feel that you are better than this. "All or nothing" is just another way of saying perfect, which is what people use when when they can't support their POV about Madden as a simulation video game with the merits of the actual game, so they try to turn the discussion into something unreasonable. It's no longer about the elements of Madden and how well they emulate the NFL, it's "this is a pointless discussion because you want perfection and that doesn't exist". For the umptenth time, no reasonable person wants perfection, I have never played a perfect simulation video game nor do i expect to. I have however played sim football video games before and continue to play other sim sports video games, all of which even M13 still doesn't match the authenticity and realism of for its' respective sport. Madden is not created in a vacuum, where the only thing relevant is the last 8 years of Madden. All simulation football video games, NFL simulation football video games and the simulation sports video game genre as a whole, is what sets the bar for Madden and its' stated objective, not just next-gen Madden.

It's cool for anyone to enjoy Madden, or not for that matter, but that has nothing to do with the merits of it being headed in the right direction as a NFL simulation football video game. I attempt to constructively discuss the merits of the actual game in comparison with the stated objectives and what other games in its' genre have accomplished. Some people try to lump that in with other subjective things and make it out to be subjective too but it's not.