|
|
First of all, let me say that I have all of the Madden series of games since they were introduced. Also, I have all of the 2K series/ESPN games since they were introduced.
I am 45 years old (a bit old to many of you) and an avid football fan. My 17 year old son tends to beat me in both games.
I also want to note that I respect both companies for the efforts and product they have put on the field.
It would be apporpriate to note that my bias is to "realistic" gameplay as I also play numerous text-based computer football games (Strat-O-Matic, LHG, Action PC, etc.) were realism is their mainstay.
The comments below are not provided to do anything but help each company improve its product and my gaming experience.
I tested both Madden and ESPN on an X-Box system using a 60 inch 4x3 rear screen projection TV with a Bose sound system.
In total, my comments come after playing 20 games of Madden as well as 20 games of ESPN. These totals are from their respective release dates. In playing the games (the test games always involved me versus the console) I progressively used the latest rosters, game updates and what appeared to be the most used/discussed set of sliders (using 3 different sets for each game as better ones were released/updated).
General Conclusion:
In the end, I must say that each game is very strong and that there truly is a "tie" between the two of them. Though I did not start out to end up in a tie and while this may not be satisfying to some people - or fence sitting to others - it does appear to this writer that these two game makers have reached a level of parity that makes material differentiation impossible.
In fairness, it does say a lot about SEGA and VC that they have moved their 2K game series to the nearly holy level of Madden in a relatively short period of time.
While each has certain advantages over the other one, in the end, seperating the two appears more like a personal choice of "look and feel" versus any material and significant quantitative reasons.
I am uncertain how anyone can go wrong owning either game, something I never thought would happen in my lifetime.
The value of ESPN is however, undeniable if one believes that "value=price/quality", in that I obtained the ESPN game for 55% less then Madden. Conversely, Madden's price is reflective of a 15 year brand history and depth of gameplay and features that remains rock solid.
Overall Average of all the Below Ratings: (all scores out of 10)
Madden - 9.3 and ESPN - 9.3
Detailed Analysis:
I have broken my assessments into sections for ease of readability:
1) General Impressions, Pre-Game and Post-Game - For first time users of Madden especially, the use of video and real players is very attractive as it immediately gets one into the game mode, especially when you see your favorite players or icons on the screen promoting it. Ray Lewis is a very emotionally charged player and he tends to emote those same feelings to game players. The focus is on the "players and on the field". In ESPN, game loading is focused on "TV and the strength of ESPN". The use of Chris Berman is very attractive because Boomer also gets everyone charged up with emotion in a style that only he can deliver. As with much of the ESPN game and software code, loading is focused on "TV presentation" versus Madden's strongly flavored "At the Stadium" presentation. As in real life, watching the game on TV is always more analytical and in-depth (then going to the game and sitting in the stands - even with a radio or a newspaper - i.e., the weak Storyline Central that is too repetiive and the NCAA copied newspaper approach - which looks to lack depth and programming time) and this does emerge between ESPN and Madden. Madden makes me feel like I am at the game or near the players bench with the players/coach, ESPN makes me feel as if I am watching it in the living room and able to be the armchair quarterback/coach. I enjoy both and like switching between the games to give me my "fill" of each. ESPN clearly has a more indepth post-game show and player of the game review. ESPN's post game stats is also very nicely done along with the highlights of the game, which Madden lacks. While I enjoy the coaches shaking hands in MAdden I would alos like to see a summary of the game stats and key issues of how the game was won or lost. ESPN provides more depth here, undoubtly reflective of its ESPN partnership, which Madden maybe needs to counter somehow with a FOX relationship (ABC Monday Night to specific as it is only one night game for my tastes). In terms of overall presentation, I give the nod to ESPN as its glitch is hard to beat.
Madden - 9.2 and ESPN - 9.5
2. Setting up Your Favorite Team - Both games allow the user to set up their system to their "favorite team". While ESPN does it with a simple checklist approach and brings up a nice team background, Madden allows one to pick the favorite team very quickly and immediately have the user see his/her favorite team players in the background as well as the team.
Madden - 9.6 and ESPN - 9.1
3. Downloadable Rosters - Both games allow for this and provide a means to do it, via either X-Box Live or memory cards (which use 3rd party PC to X-Box USB-based hardware). Both games have many rosters available and each are updated constantly. Madden has the most rosters avaialble.
Madden - 9.8 and ESPN - 9.6
4. Adjustments - Both games provide a "sliders system" to make adjustments. Each game needs to be adjusted to be "realistic". ESPN provides a "Custom" slider setting category that is seperate from its level settings which Madden does not. Both game makers seem to be unable to "ship" a game that has realistic slider settings for each of its levels. I can never understand why Madden (or ESPN) can't ship a Pro, All-Pro and All-Madden set of pre-set sliders that are realistic. It strikes users as always either "lack of testing", "wanting users to test it for them"., or "unknowledge testers" or "compromising on a balance of arcade play and realism" that drives this. For example, ESPN's slider settings for interceptions on default make QBs completion percentages to opposing players enviable. Fortunately, game players quickly get sliders to be much more accurate, which is maybe what both game companies count on. Regardless, it is annoying. ESPN's slider setting of "fumbles" is unique and Madden needs to include this to provide a way to adjust such results. This is often frsutrating in Madden. Overall, both companies need to develop a set of sliders that are realistic on each level at time of shipping, Tough yes, expected, 10,000%. Ideally, a set of "realistic", "arcade", and/or "simulation", or something. How can this be so difficult, it is what drives a large number of gamers crazy. Furthermore, each company needs to clarfiy much more clearly (and implement it also so we can follow it) the affact of slider changes. Like each tick up will mean 10% more, or something that tells us what each adjustment means without having to figure it out through numerous games. Such disclosure and clarification is needed (though maybe a trade secret) to speed along game modification and player enjoyment. Too much time is spent adjusting "five sliders" to try and get "one result". Penalties are the same; both companies need to start to spend some more programming time on the number and kind of penalties called. For example, this year in Madden, Pass Interference is rarely called and receivers can be jammed almost 90% of the time at any point on the field. Fear the D, but make it more accurate. Also, computer false starts and offsides need to happen more frequently in both games. While I must say that I greatly apprecaite the idea and concept of sliders, both games implementations are "unresponsive to common sense adjustments". I apprecaiate how difficult this must be, but no area needs more attention by both companies then this one. Also, ESPN needs to examine its penalty calls on converts. I can can do anything to the kicker (kill him) and there is no penalty assessed on the kick-off. A small error, but this needs to be fixed as it is this small items that Madden does right that indicates programmming and gaming depth versus ESPN. The reader should also note that ESPN's system of audibles is much more extensive and easier then Madden, with a more advanced system. Madden conversely, has a much more complete as well as easier Hot Route and Back In-Motion system that are both more visual and realistic. Madden also has a much more extensive defensive alignment and adjstment system this year, with indiciual adjustments that ESPN does not yet have. Double teaming the receiver - a long desired need - is a very strong feature this year in Madden. Overall, Madden's 15 years of programming comes shining through in the depth of its defensive adjustment system and Hot Route selection system. ESPN will need to add a more individualized defensive system next year.
Sliders: Madden - 8.5 and ESPN - 8.3
Other Adjustments (audibles, in-motion, etc.): Madden - 9.6 and ESPN - 9.2
5. Visual Presentation, Audio, Graphics and Menu Interface - ESPN does accelerate at its player models (details on jerseys and players) and graphics. Its player models and offensive and defensive animations (at least on the X-Box system tested) as well as cut-scenes and crowds did surpass Madden. Receivers and running backs do look to me to be more realistic in ESPN then Madden, but not by a huge amount. Conversely, defensive backs in Madden do appear more realistic and graphically do appear to follow and react to receivers more realistically then does ESPN. Both games quaterbacks and linebackers are well presented and graphically respond similiarly. In the kicking game, Madden's punters and kick-off returners appear more realistic, while ESPN's field-goal kickers and punt retuners appear more realistic. Why one game beats another in one graphic aspect and not another is unclear to me - both companies still need to do more to more work. Madden and ESPN both need to improve the visualization of their kick return game (even with Madden's new reverse kick return angle). More graphic work needs to be done to get the graphically feel of the kick return game and to show console game players the "field". You know I love John Madden, but the commentary between him and Michaels is just not that good. While it is improved since Summerall was involved, it still has too many cliches that are highly, highly repetitive. We need 10,000 new lines, not 10 a year. For example, if he says "that is a good special teams play" once more on EVERY defensive kicking play, I may SCREAM. Perhaps I have played the game so long I just know every word. Also, refs in MAdden can not be heard no matter what audio setting you are on. I know the crowd is part of the game, but I would like to hear what the ref says. ESPN's depth and quality of commentary is better, but real life announcers are needed to bring a "well known" sound to the game. ESPN's Sunday Night crew would be great. Overall, a greater sound spectrum is needs in both games so that adjustments can be larger between crowds, commentary, on-field, etc. Stadium, field and weather is accurately depicted in both games with ESPN's visuals being a little more bright, stark and harsh and Madden's being soft and colorful. Both games do an excellent job.
Madden - 9.3 and ESPN - 9.7
6. Running Game - Madden has maintained its "visual slide" style of running where backs look to me as if they more or less slide on the field from left to right to pick holes and opening. ESPN provides a more "running up and down visual" where runners appear to juke and move left and right and pick holes and openings. Also, ESPN blocking schemes and lineman move more realistically and appear to execute more consistently then does Madden. Inside and outside running in ESPN is clearly more fun and varied then in Madden. Overall, both games need to work on improving their outside running games versus their inside games (where yardage often is to easy on any slider setting).
Madden - 9.2 and ESPN - 9.4
7. Passing Game - Madden's historical depth and time to correct old mistakes shines here. For example, Madden has learned and improved its passing game. Unlike old Madden games (i.e., 2001 and 2002) Madden QBs no longer are cemment shoes, they release the ball faster and more realistically - meaning less sacks and more wild throws off QB hits. Madden's QBs also throw off the run more realistically and fluidly. ESPN needs to improve all of these areas so that QBs often don't have the old Football Pro QB problems. Madden's development history and programming times is clearer stronger in the QB agility and passing game. Conversely, both temas need to figure out a way to get QBs to scramble more. While Madden leads in this (and has greatly improved it in the last few years) both games suffer from computer controlled QBs who don't run when they are wide open on the side line and only need 4 yards for a first down. No doubt a tough programming challenge, but one that needs to be solved. Conversely, Madden has dramatically solved its QB problem of throwing 50 yard bombs down the right sideline while running to the left and throwing off the QB's back foot.
Madden - 9.6 and ESPN - 9.3
8. Defensive Game - The hardest part of any computer/console game, since it remains during gameplay the key to victory. Computer controlled players (whether on my team or as part of the computer team) remains the key to realistic play. In this regard, Madden has taken dramatic steps forward last year and more so, this year. D-backs finally "close" (though some people say too much) on the ball and shut down huge time-after-time long bomb plays. The "Hit Stick" is smart and not over-done which is a big credit to EA Sports. ESPN needs to add a similiar feature as its strip feature is not nearly as fun or innovative. Also, ESPN needs to imporve the position of its DBs who often appear to come up and stop by receivers waiting for the ball. Overall, both games often very satisfying defensive gameplay now with limited "huge money plays and cheese". Nothing has been so nice to see and so satisfying. Good going Madden.
Madden - 9.5 and ESPN - 9.2
9. Kicking Game - The critical element of a football game - often the most unpredicatble - is the kicking game. However, in Madden and ESPN, it is never really captured or recognized. While both games allow for some return TDs, both games also seem to lack the level of needed excitment here. Though I must say, ESPN is dramatically better then Madden in my view. For example, both games (though admittedly ESPN is better) have insufficient punt or fieldgoal blocks (it happens so rarely that many players give up trying) and the excitment of it "possibly" happening is lost (the damaging part). Also, has anyone ever seen a snap on a fieldgoal or a punt dropped or a long snap fly over the head of a punter (even in a rain storm or a wind storm). Happens in real football. Somehow the companies need to come up with something that makes this possible and more importantly, exciting. Tough - very. Required - hugely. In fairness, ESPN does have a better kciking system - at least for field goals. For example, ESPN does shine in its field goal game as its kicking arrow (that moves back and forth) is much, much better then Madden's new kick meter. ESPN's moving arrow requires a seperate concentration from just the traditional golf-game meter and adds some real difificulty. Madden's new kicking meter - which does take a bit of time getting use to, is still to easy. Once you get use to it you can kick with your eyes (almost) closed. Both Madden and ESPN punting systems - which I believe should be different then the fieldgoal systems - need a revamp and improvement.
Madden - 9.1 and ESPN - 9.6
There it is. The above is not meant as an exhaustive review as many elements of both games have not been discussed (online, Crib, franchise, etc.). It is simply one passionate gamer focused on gameplay and both games. I hope it causes others to add to my comments and drive continued focused improvement by both EA and SEGA.
|
|
08-22-2004, 07:13 AM
Thank you for taking the time to not only document this but to share it with us. 
