Question about 2004

[damaja]

Why is it that so many people think 2004 was so much more superior to 2005 (aside from Xbox porting problems)? Offense was way too easy with basically no resistance from the defense. Yes, the short passing game was a whole lot better, but a defense could not contain the slants, curl and hook routes at all. Most games I played ending up being very high scoring. Now I'm not saying 2005 was a better game, but I think its downfall was the "programmers cheating" as opposed to addressing gaming issues. EA basically suped up the D's ability and took away effective short passing plays.

I too think that 2005 did not make positive steps as far as gameplay, but I enjoyed playing against a "tougher defense (or programmer cheating)" than the one in 2004.

A lot of the things people say 2004 was better in than 2005, I don't really see. In both games, the cpu does not have an effective offense, no consistent passing or running. Drops were not a problem in 2005 for me, especially once I got better receivers.

I understand for the casual gamer, 2004 may be more fun than 2005 because of the ease of offense and the potential for higher scoring.

In my opinion in terms of gameplay, they are basically equal, which is not good. Then follow up game should be better than the previous version and address its issues. But hey its EA and I don't know if they will ever address the core gameplay problems we have had forever.

[SoxChamp]

To me, people who say that 2004 was better than 2005 were people that sucked at passing. Every single person that complained and moaned about 2005 were the same people that said they couldn't pass. Conversly, I was a very good passer on 2005, both long and short, and I loved the game. I was actually able to quite effectively carve out teams in the short game, so I don't know where all the criticism came from.

"2005 sucked" actually meant "I was horrible at that game".

[umd]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoxChamp

To me, people who say that 2004 was better than 2005 were people that sucked at passing. Every single person that complained and moaned about 2005 were the same people that said they couldn't pass. Conversly, I was a very good passer on 2005, both long and short, and I loved the game. I was actually able to quite effectively carve out teams in the short game, so I don't know where all the criticism came from. "2005 sucked" actually meant "I was horrible at that game".

lol typical response from someone who thought 2005 was better because everyone else "sucked". lmfao.

[ehh]

I hated '05 because even on Heisman w. sliders in the CPU's favor they were AWFUL on offense. I could Oklahoma to 3 points with friggen UConn.

I thought the offense was fine besides the Xbox slowdown, which was pretty bad though.

[ODogg]

People like it in general because it's a much easier game to play offense in.

[RubenDouglas]

for me, the CPU was somewhat more challenging throwing the ball. the CPU completion % was terrible all around the league and in game with 2005. in 2004 it wasnt as bad... that to me, makes 2004 better

[dereliched]

did you guys try lowering your defensive sliders or something? because i too had a great time with 2005, it was a challenging but still fun game. i too at first thought the passing game was awful until i figured out how to throw and put touch on my passes. the running game in my opinion is the best ever in a football game and that was on xbox and i didnt notice too much slowdown.

[PrimetimeWR9]

So far 2005 is my favorite NCAA besides '96, when I got hooked.