NCAA Football 06 Review (Xbox)

[GoodyBucs]

What I think we need now is someone to write a review of the review...

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Clay_OS

Hey! You can't say "Move on"! That's a Mod's job... OK, you heard him...Move on!

lol, sorry clay

[wildcatchild]

While I respect the opinion of people who DON'T like this game, I must say, I feel the expectations for this game far exceded absurd. It only seems like EA let us down because we were expecting a game for the next generation of consoles.

After playing an entire game at a local gamestop, I feel this game is far advanced over last year's version. The A.I. is much better in years past. The animations are more fluid. I feel like they made passing fun again (I had one drop for an entire game and I was Kentucky playing against Louisville).

While the running game still lags behind, it still allowed me to gain average yardage with my average backs. Louisville busted a 56 TD against my porous run defense...all in all, after playing for about an hour, this game is just fine and is a great farewell send-off for the current consoles.

[Bill_Abner]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanmac

It has nothing to do with opinion, it has to do with not accurately reporting elements of the gameplay, namely the slowdown, the drops, and the general composure-related issues. It would be one thing if the review addressed those problems and then came to the conclusion that they were incidental to the overall experience (I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion, but that's a story for another day), but that's not how the review reads. Sorry, not everything can be opinion, even if it's comforting that we are all entitled to ours.

It's a slippery slope, but everyone has a different approach when it comes to writing a review. I personally feel it's vital to not only point out the flaws in a game, but to search for them. Good reviews aren't supposed to be just someone's opinion (and I haven't read the OS or IGN review of NCAA I'm speaking in general). Taking that angle, I always feel it's much more important to point out what's wrong or screwy about a game than to simply talk about the good stuff (which is equally as important) even if the stuff that's a problem isn't a huge deal. It's like getting a term paper back that is covered in red ink but the professor still gives you an A. Let the reader decide if the "problem" is important to them.

Any review of NCAA, I feel, has to mention the crazy QB simmed stats, just as one example. It's a glaring problem and one that wasn't there in year's past. It's one that some won't care one whit about, maybe even the reviewer doesn't think it's a big deal, which is fine, but if you are given enough space to write a comprehensive review, the reviewer has to point that out and let the reader decide if it's a a big deal or not. Nothing is worse, and hoo boy have I been on this side of the coin before, when a reader sends an email to your editor saying, "Your reviewer gave Game X a great review but didn't mention that this part of the game is broken." Not a good feeling. It's why I am always leery of reviews that are all 100% positive. I just don't buy it. You can gave a game 5 stars and still find fault with it, but mentioning those faults I feel is crucial if you want to service the reader as best you can.

[wwharton]

that all makes sense but it's ignoring another side that i know you also know well... if your teacher said write a term paper on a 500 page book and you have 2 days to do it, chances are you're gonna miss some stuff. the culture here (meaning on the net) is to want reviews as soon as possible but also wanting them to include every issue that anyone has found after a week or so for every area of the game. it's possible that most people end up seeing all the things mentioned, but most things are only noticed after reading that someone else found it which means the forum has hundreds if not thousands of people to do this informal review in a longer timespan... i don't think that is fair ground for the criticism. a perfect example is that i don't sim games. after having the game for a while maybe i will but even if i thought to sim a season or two for a review, i could see not noticing crazy qb stats b/c it's one of a hundred things that need to be looked at with a microscope before putting the review out.

madden could've been the best game on the field last year and the ps2 version could've been flawless in every way. that'd usually mean most reviews would be giving it 9.5, maybe even a 10 if this stuff is true. that wouldn't change the fact that it freezes like crazy on the xbox and has serious shortcomings online. since i have an xbox and play alot online, in leagues particularly, then to me all of these reviews could have me up in arms like the people in this thread, right? i agree on the reviews that are obviously nothing but positive to the point of seeming fake, but for the most part reviews are good for what they should be good for, adding info to help make a purchasing decision. nothing more, nothing less.

[Bill_Abner]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

that all makes sense but it's ignoring another side that i know you also know well... if your teacher said write a term paper on a 500 page book and you have 2 days to do it, chances are you're gonna miss some stuff.

Yes, the speed at which websites publish full reviews is absurd. Most websites want reviews back in 1 week. I played the hell out of NCAA and there's no way I could write a review that I could really stand behind in a week's time. My thoughts on NCAA ran the gamut from great to crap almost every other day. CGM gives me 2 weeks, which is a lot better, but getting that "first" review means a LOT more page views for websites. It's a huge difference and why so many net reviews I feel are incomplete. It's hard to blame the writer, it's a problem with the system and the fact that there are a lot of unqualified people, IMO, doing sports reviews. I wouldn't review a flight sim for double the fee because I have no idea what I am talking about. That happens a whole lot more than it should in the sports genre.

[wwharton]

Quote:

there are a lot of unqualified people, IMO, doing sports reviews

Can't disagree there. But there's nothing we can do about that as visitors and readers of these reviews. What we can do is make a choice.

Do we want a review as quickly as possible so it can help us make a decision on the purchase quicker?

Or do we want an all inclusive review that may come out after many of us have already purchased the game?

I think it's a catch 22 and the answer doesn't really exist. I just don't understand why others can't see this delima and be more accepting of the GOOD reviewers and the job that they do under these circumstances.

[BDomon]

There are a lot of things that go into a review that adversely affect it – it’s true of any medium. Schedule, personal opinion, marketing hype, expectations, etc. The idea of objectivity is, by human nature, somewhat unrealistic.

What is no longer acceptable to me are reviews that seem to have no critical eye whatsoever, and the problem seems exacerbated for sports games. As an example, so many reviews of NCAA focus on the new feature every year and don’t even cite enough anecdotal evidence to illustrate what the game plays like over the short or medium term (forget long term). I don’t want someone to explain RftH to me, I want someone to tell me if the cpu has a clue in the closing seconds of a tight game – before I spend money on it.

Because reviews are, actually, supposed to represent much more than opinion. Everyone has an opinion. Reviewer’s aren’t tasked with simply offering theirs. They also provide expert analysis mixed with opinion. Roger Ebert doesn’t get on TV and say only, “I liked it. Thumbs up.” Restaurant critics don’t write about food they like because it’s their favorite and dismiss dishes their mother never cooked. There’s a lot more to it than that. That’s one thing that separates professional writing from everything else – a sense of responsibility beyond personal taste.

A professional reviewer should be able to tell me whether the cpu knows how to close a game or whether the computer is capable of simming stats. That’s not a matter of opinion.

Sadly, so many game reviews offer nothing beyond someone’s personal impression. After playing weeks of NCAA for myself, it’s obvious that OS’ review of NCAA ’06 provides only a summary of the writer’s personal taste. No analysis, no critical eye, just cheerleading. It’s simply irrelevant. To be fair, that’s also true of every other review I’ve seen so far. I’ve given up on waiting to see a decent review of sports games in most cases. Instead, I have a shrinking list of what’s worth reading.