Now that EA is trying to work more with the ESPN license and improve what they consider true college atmosphere, I think a topic is in order to expand upon what the consumers think makes the "perfect" atmosphere for a college football game.
To start, let's discuss on the most superficial level, and that is the broadcast. How things look and sound while you are playing or watching a game.
First of all, in order to rate how well EA has done with their presentation, one should watch an actual game broadcast to draw comparisons. Even perusing clips from actual games you can easily tell things are askew.
Since this is the first year it seems that they are actually attempting to improve in this department, I suppose it isn't fair to expect too much. I will, however, be speaking in terms as if EA is going for a genuine TV broadcast, which you have to assume is what they hope to achieve. Realism has a lot to do with how immersive an environment is. If it doesn't feel, look, or sound realistic, chances are lower that the individual will actually become immersed in the environment. Instead they will detach and feel alienated at the lack of said realism.
To draw from another game, NCAA Basketball used two commentary teams and essentially two entirely different presentation packages which really helped things stay fresh and vibrant. The packages were also handled very well and played out much like a TV broadcast. These were probably the high-point of that game, sadly. NCAA Football could learn a good deal just from swapping ideas with the other development team, but their best bet would just be to sit down and watch TV broadcasts and go from there.
NCAA 11:
The presentation is simple. Fancy 3D graphics at the introduction of the game, as well as a 3D "scoreboard" used at post-quarter, halftime, and post-game intervals. Some of these graphics can be seen on ESPN, lending to the whole "ESPN integration." Some of the basics, however, are still missing. An actual ESPN score overlay (the graphics on the screen showing the game score, time, etc.) is not in the game. A fairly simple graphical replacement would be in order. No ticker, either, even only if it popped up on occasion. Instead there is nothing. There are no other ESPN-like graphics, either, including statistic overlays, player displays, schedule rundowns, and so forth. There are very limited statistical and factual pop-ups throughout the game, in general. This is merely the first misstep, but can easily be rectified.
The sound is the second misstep, and most likely the first or second to be noticed. This includes the out-dated commentary. In all fairness to Brad and Kirk, even Lee before '11, they are good commentators. We have, however, been hearing them for a decade now? I'm not sure exactly which iteration was their first in the franchise. It has been many years of them and their very similar-sounding chatter, and I think it is time for a change. Perhaps bring in some other ESPN talent to split time with these guys, or use one or two different teams altogether, and save the Nessler/Herbstreit/Corso tandem for other things, like highlight bits or wrap-up shows or the like. An increase in commentary depth is most likely also in order, as well as fixing of many bugs that have plagued the press-box talk for years.
Aside from the commentary, the crowd sounds are probably the second most irritating and disappointing aspect in the audio department. The cuts to small sections of fans at a game are nice to look at, as those characters are well rendered, but does it look like a crowd (or even a small section of crowd) at a college game? Of course not. These fans barely act excited, much less like [probably intoxicated] college students. The sound levels just aren't there even during these cuts. It almost sounds like three or four people clapping, whooping, talking, and hardly audible. Where is the yelling, the roar of the crowd? That entirely immersive experience that exists during an actual game?
One of the most obvious fixes for this issue is adding in "student sections" for the D1 programs, as well as team-specific chants. However, the depth of sound needs to be there. It should sound like tens of thousands of people being excited in unison, and not just a couple of people standing on a field somewhere recording audio. That roar needs to happen at specific times and increase exponentially in others, as well. Certainly there are times when a stadium will not be as loud. It won't run at the same decibel level all game (unless vuvuzelas are present). Big plays, kickoff, momentum changes, et cetera should all receive appropriate crowd reactions and sound depth.
Once you strip away the sights and sounds, what is left to the broadcast? Well, not much. Those are the backbones of the whole show. Those are the two key ingredients. That is why they both have to be spot on. If either is miscalculated, you end up falling flat, losing a sense of realism and true immersion.
What else does the presentation need? Again, the basics come into play. It doesn't take anything revolutionary from a creative standpoint. A lot of this is monkey see, monkey do. A mock version of Gameday would be a huge leap, and would likely require a good deal of innovation. Pre-game, halftime, and post-game shows have been achieved before, so they are doable. Those would certainly help the overall appeal. Player & coach interviews, rowdy college campuses and fans chomping at the bit (even storming the field in some cases), and all those little details that go into a broadcast would extend the reach of the game further, almost blurring the lines between virtual and reality.
I commend EA on making their first effort. That shows progress and willingness to change. Is it great, or even satisfactory for that matter? I wouldn't say so, but it will take work to achieve greatness, or a near-perfect emulation, as it were.
What do you think can be done to improve the broadcast & presentation?
My apologies for any typos or errors. I am tired at this point.
Let us discuss!
To start, let's discuss on the most superficial level, and that is the broadcast. How things look and sound while you are playing or watching a game.
First of all, in order to rate how well EA has done with their presentation, one should watch an actual game broadcast to draw comparisons. Even perusing clips from actual games you can easily tell things are askew.
Since this is the first year it seems that they are actually attempting to improve in this department, I suppose it isn't fair to expect too much. I will, however, be speaking in terms as if EA is going for a genuine TV broadcast, which you have to assume is what they hope to achieve. Realism has a lot to do with how immersive an environment is. If it doesn't feel, look, or sound realistic, chances are lower that the individual will actually become immersed in the environment. Instead they will detach and feel alienated at the lack of said realism.
To draw from another game, NCAA Basketball used two commentary teams and essentially two entirely different presentation packages which really helped things stay fresh and vibrant. The packages were also handled very well and played out much like a TV broadcast. These were probably the high-point of that game, sadly. NCAA Football could learn a good deal just from swapping ideas with the other development team, but their best bet would just be to sit down and watch TV broadcasts and go from there.
NCAA 11:
The presentation is simple. Fancy 3D graphics at the introduction of the game, as well as a 3D "scoreboard" used at post-quarter, halftime, and post-game intervals. Some of these graphics can be seen on ESPN, lending to the whole "ESPN integration." Some of the basics, however, are still missing. An actual ESPN score overlay (the graphics on the screen showing the game score, time, etc.) is not in the game. A fairly simple graphical replacement would be in order. No ticker, either, even only if it popped up on occasion. Instead there is nothing. There are no other ESPN-like graphics, either, including statistic overlays, player displays, schedule rundowns, and so forth. There are very limited statistical and factual pop-ups throughout the game, in general. This is merely the first misstep, but can easily be rectified.
The sound is the second misstep, and most likely the first or second to be noticed. This includes the out-dated commentary. In all fairness to Brad and Kirk, even Lee before '11, they are good commentators. We have, however, been hearing them for a decade now? I'm not sure exactly which iteration was their first in the franchise. It has been many years of them and their very similar-sounding chatter, and I think it is time for a change. Perhaps bring in some other ESPN talent to split time with these guys, or use one or two different teams altogether, and save the Nessler/Herbstreit/Corso tandem for other things, like highlight bits or wrap-up shows or the like. An increase in commentary depth is most likely also in order, as well as fixing of many bugs that have plagued the press-box talk for years.
Aside from the commentary, the crowd sounds are probably the second most irritating and disappointing aspect in the audio department. The cuts to small sections of fans at a game are nice to look at, as those characters are well rendered, but does it look like a crowd (or even a small section of crowd) at a college game? Of course not. These fans barely act excited, much less like [probably intoxicated] college students. The sound levels just aren't there even during these cuts. It almost sounds like three or four people clapping, whooping, talking, and hardly audible. Where is the yelling, the roar of the crowd? That entirely immersive experience that exists during an actual game?
One of the most obvious fixes for this issue is adding in "student sections" for the D1 programs, as well as team-specific chants. However, the depth of sound needs to be there. It should sound like tens of thousands of people being excited in unison, and not just a couple of people standing on a field somewhere recording audio. That roar needs to happen at specific times and increase exponentially in others, as well. Certainly there are times when a stadium will not be as loud. It won't run at the same decibel level all game (unless vuvuzelas are present). Big plays, kickoff, momentum changes, et cetera should all receive appropriate crowd reactions and sound depth.
Once you strip away the sights and sounds, what is left to the broadcast? Well, not much. Those are the backbones of the whole show. Those are the two key ingredients. That is why they both have to be spot on. If either is miscalculated, you end up falling flat, losing a sense of realism and true immersion.
What else does the presentation need? Again, the basics come into play. It doesn't take anything revolutionary from a creative standpoint. A lot of this is monkey see, monkey do. A mock version of Gameday would be a huge leap, and would likely require a good deal of innovation. Pre-game, halftime, and post-game shows have been achieved before, so they are doable. Those would certainly help the overall appeal. Player & coach interviews, rowdy college campuses and fans chomping at the bit (even storming the field in some cases), and all those little details that go into a broadcast would extend the reach of the game further, almost blurring the lines between virtual and reality.
I commend EA on making their first effort. That shows progress and willingness to change. Is it great, or even satisfactory for that matter? I wouldn't say so, but it will take work to achieve greatness, or a near-perfect emulation, as it were.
What do you think can be done to improve the broadcast & presentation?
My apologies for any typos or errors. I am tired at this point.
Let us discuss!
Comment