2004 - Good and bad ?

[rhombic21]

Quote: Originally Posted by spectralfan

Reading over your comments and my responses to them I notice a few trends. First of all, many of the issues are flaws that can be exploited to "cheese" but that don't come into effect when playing the CPU. In many cases I mentionned that you don't even have to force yourself to avoid these. The reason I went out of my way to specify that is that with 2005 and 06, I've seen house rules like "I only play man-to-man cause it helps the CPU passing" and "One deep ball per game cause they're too easy". These kinds of rules actually force people to change the way they play not to exploit flaws to win whereas in most cases with 2004 you could just play sound football and not exploit anything to your advantage. Next, almost all of the flaws are exact opposites of flaws that are in 06. Passing too easy VS passing too hard, poor zones versus ridiculous zones where 5 players converge to the ball as it is thrown, etc. Overall, they're both great games with some flaws.

I wasn't really comparing it to '06. I was just pointing out the gameflaws as I remember them. On the QB completion percentage, I actually played several games where QBs would have ridiculous days, completing 22-23, or something like that. But you're right, it was probably closer to reality than what we currently have, because it rewarded you for being patient and hitting the guys underneath, rather than just throwing streaks all game.

The only thing about 2006 that I really like over 2004 is that you have a better ability to adapt your strategy to what your opponent is doing. Things like coverage audibles, or hot routing guys to blitz or spy, as well as having the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5 defenses just make it better from an online perspective. Vs the computer they might not really matter as much, but in a head to head game, it's nice to be able to customize your defense to try and stop whatever your opponent is doing. And offensively, you have more options with motioning, packages, and the ability to change the direction of a run at the LOS, which keeps the defense from just loading up on the strongside, and leaving absolutely nobody weakside.

I think that the zone coverage on NCAA 2006 is fairly realistic. The only thing that I'd agree with you on is the fact that LBs are too athletic in being able to deflect balls. As far as having 5 defenders converge on the ball when it's caught, I'm actually having opposite problems, with nobody taking an intelligent angle or reacting quickly, regardless of AWR.

I will say this about 2004. For being 2 years ahead of 2006, it was WAY better for it's time. If you kept the 2004 gameplay, made some minor adjustments to zone coverages, and added in those little things that I talked about earlier (coverage audibles, flip the play at the line, package subs, etc...) then I think you'd have a MUCH better game than what we got with 2006 (or 2005). The core gameplay just seemed to be a lot smoother and more balanced.

[MassNole]

IIRC, there was a major problem in 2004 with the WR screen and drops, it was perhaps the most frustrating thing in the world.

One fond memory I have was my 3rd string QB leading me on a 21 point come back.

[Playmakers]

I think the drops in 06 are severly overblown. It depends on the individual skill IMO. Some guy's I think just couldn't deal with a 2-3 drops per game by college kids and assumed things were bads. I could complete 50-60% of my throws with QBA down and WR catch at DEFAULT.

I enjoyed 04 and it was very good back then but 06 is slightly better especially the CPU ground game which I always hated in previous years of NCAA. The CPU can actually punish you on the ground for 4 qtr's if your just picking plays wihtout any strategy to stop the run.

The IMPACT players are a huge steup aswell. As far as deep the ball just adjust the team playbooks and tweak sliders and it's much better than what people give it credit for as opposed to leaving every team at their DEFAULT setups. I see teams that very rarely throw deep and teams that work the ground game effeiciently aslong as you spend time with the playbooks.

[MassNole]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

The IMPACT players are a huge steup aswell. As far as deep the ball just adjust the team playbooks and tweak sliders and it's much better than what people give it credit for as opposed to leaving every team at their DEFAULT setups. I see teams that very rarely throw deep and teams that work the ground game effeiciently aslong as you spend time with the playbooks.

They are a step in the right direction, but were severely overdone in 2006, especially in regards to Impact Running Backs. There is nothing worse than watching an 84 OVR 'Impact RB' making Tecmo Bo Jackson look like nothing.

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Constipated Hippo

They are a step in the right direction, but were severely overdone in 2006, especially in regards to Impact Running Backs. There is nothing worse than watching an 84 OVR 'Impact RB' making Tecmo Bo Jackson look like nothing.

I control DL on every play and let my LB's roam free so I don't see any thing that looks wacky in terms of IMPACT RB's. They have huge games and bad games, they make great moves and sometimes you don't think it should happen but in college football most RB's and WR's are superior to most defenders.

The Heisman Level is the only level in which I think it gets overated in terms of their impact and performance based a realistic type of play.

[MassNole]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

I control DL on every play and let my LB's roam free so I don't see any thing that looks wacky in terms of IMPACT RB's. They have huge games and bad games, they make great moves and sometimes you don't think it should happen but in college football most RB's and WR's are superior to most defenders. The Heisman Level is the only level in which I think it gets overated in terms of their impact and performance based a realistic type of play.

I am thinking back to a dynasty game I had between FSU and UCF. I had 3 LBs all rated over 90 and UCF had an Impact RB with an OVR of 84, time and time and time again he would completely truck one of my star LBs, and more often than not he would take on an Impact LB and run him over. He wasn't even a Ron Dayne type of RB, he was a smaller speed back. The Impact Player feature has potential, but needs to be revamped drastically and hopefully will be in the next gen.

Now lets not get into the god mode of Adrian Peterson or Reggie Bush.

[MachoMyers]

I;ve played over 150 games of NCAA 04, easily my most played sports game ever.

05 (especially) and 06 just weren't the same for me
Im thinking of starting up a new franchise in 04.

[hyacinth1]

2004 was not just the best ncaa game in the ps2/xbox era, but one of the best if not the best sports game in the last 10 years. The only negative about 2004 was no rotating schedules. I dont know why ea took it out of that game since 2003 had it.

I also went back to play it after playing 06, and ya I really noticed how old it looked graphically. but gameplay wise, it still PERFECT!.