Gamespot NCAA 08 preview

[TurboTitan]

I sure am glad they didnt address not ONE SINGLE flaw from the previous version. Why no mention of if the player editing is back? Thats a CURRENT gen "feature" that still hasnt made it to the "next" gen. I am not excited for this game at all, even less after reading that. Great.....we get to play in high school playoffs.....I sure am glad they WASTED time implementing BS like that, instead of fixing any one of the MANY glaring flaws that this "sim" has. Looks like ill be playing on current gen yet another year.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

Maybe it was my own unreasonable expectations, but I had really high hopes for great improvements in all the other areas of the sports gaming genre. Adaptive A.I., advanced collision detection, logical C.P.U. game and organization(drafting, recruiting depth chart) management, reasonably accurate polls and simulation engines.

That was my beef with the rush to next gen in the first place. While the graphics have been maxed out on current gen, I don't think the hardware of current gen was limiting the AI improvements. AI improvements are limited by the programmers for the most part and not the hardware. I'd really like to know a single AI improvement in the major sports games that could NOT have been done on current gen. Its a nice excuse saying we need to jump to the next system to fix things but other than extra storage space on hard drives, you have often seen greater flaws in the programming than on current gen.

The five year console cycle is dead - it needs to be lengthened. These programmers need to stay focused on making true improvements year to year rather than getting a base engine together and slapping on a new coat of paint every year until the next system comes out.

[MassNole]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

That was my beef with the rush to next gen in the first place. While the graphics have been maxed out on current gen, I don't think the hardware of current gen was limiting the AI improvements. AI improvements are limited by the programmers for the most part and not the hardware. I'd really like to know a single AI improvement in the major sports games that could NOT have been done on current gen. Its a nice excuse saying we need to jump to the next system to fix things but other than extra storage space on hard drives, you have often seen greater flaws in the programming than on current gen. The five year console cycle is dead - it needs to be lengthened. These programmers need to stay focused on making true improvements year to year rather than getting a base engine together and slapping on a new coat of paint every year until the next system comes out.

Well said.

I don't even think the game needs a new engine, take the NBA 2k series, the engine has been the same for 7 incarnations of the game and instead of changing the engine to upgrade systems they ported and kept tweaking it. The engine in NCAA 2004 was great, had they chosen to tweak that engine instead of nearly killing the franchise in NCAA 2005 and ported the improvements we would have had had a much better NCAA 2007 on the next gen.

The bottom line is EA is just lazy today and catering the game to less sophisticated market. You want to implement trick plays, fine. That being said I don't want to see Air Force running the Statue of Liberty, but I am quite confident we will see **** like that on a consistent basis. If for no other reason than EA doesn't know how not to go over the top with new features.

EA has me scared about this game with the new feature. Jump the Snap was a great idea, until people could master it. The CPU's mastery was also impressive, no matter how much I altered my snap count the CPU would get a perfect jump when they needed it in a big situation. Hell, my OL would jump more than the CPU would jump off sides. Before that we had EA try to implement Home Field Advantage. HFA more or less killed online play for me. Lets not forget the first incarnation of the Impact Player, nothing better than seeing a 180 lb running absolutely truck a 340 lb Defensive Tackle in the backfield like he was Bo Jackson running over a nun with a walker.

Lets also not forget the lack of their ability to fix the AI when it comes to QB scrambling. That has been a problem since at the very least NCAA 2003. They have improved it when it comes to slower QBs not looking like Michael Vick, but it is still an insane problem. Give me a QB with 80 or better speed and I know I have a 1000 yard rusher.

Maybe this is just a problem with getting older, but the fact EA insists on catering their game to the immature market who doesn't know a Tight End from a Punter means I am one consumer who will probably soon stop buying their products. I fear that the decisions that killed the NBA Live franchise will soon kill the NCAA Football franchise.

[BrianFifaFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

That was my beef with the rush to next gen in the first place. While the graphics have been maxed out on current gen, I don't think the hardware of current gen was limiting the AI improvements. AI improvements are limited by the programmers for the most part and not the hardware. I'd really like to know a single AI improvement in the major sports games that could NOT have been done on current gen. Its a nice excuse saying we need to jump to the next system to fix things but other than extra storage space on hard drives, you have often seen greater flaws in the programming than on current gen. The five year console cycle is dead - it needs to be lengthened. These programmers need to stay focused on making true improvements year to year rather than getting a base engine together and slapping on a new coat of paint every year until the next system comes out.

I agree with you about the AI, but here's a problem with your theory. The main factor with running all of the graphics and AI is the CPU and RAM. You can only ask the CPU and GPU to do so much before you hit a bottleneck. And the last-gen systems had hit that wall. It was at the point where developers had to chose which to put their limited memory budgets into. Now we have 512MB of RAM which allows for a lot more data to be processed at the same time.(not to mention the tri-core CPU) And as to the 5-year cycle, Moore's Law states that all computer equipment is basically obsolete in 18 months. I just wish that you could upgrade consoles like PC's. Of course then you'd have the inevitable compatibility issues. But I agree about the game engines. They need to get an engine together that is open-ended enough to make the smooth transtion to the next-gen system without going back to square one. The hardware architecture doesn't normally change that dramatically, this time you had the entire GPU change on both next-gen systems, which madfe things more complex.

[MassNole]

Quote: Originally Posted by Briankingsfan

I agree with you about the AI, but here's a problem with your theory. The main factor with running all of the graphics and AI is the CPU and RAM. You can only ask the CPU and GPU to do so much before you hit a bottleneck. And the last-gen systems had hit that wall. It was at the point where developers had to chose which to put their limited memory budgets into. Now we have 512MB of RAM which allows for a lot more data to be processed at the same time.(not to mention the tri-core CPU) And as to the 5-year cycle, Moore's Law states that all computer equipment is basically obsolete in 18 months. I just wish that you could upgrade consoles like PC's. Of course then you'd have the inevitable compatibility issues. But I agree about the game engines. They need to get an engine together that is open-ended enough to make the smooth transtion to the next-gen system without going back to square one. The hardware architecture doesn't normally change that dramatically, this time you had the entire GPU change on both next-gen systems, which madfe things more complex.

I understand your point, but I must ask, how would the hardware limitation explain why a game like Front Page Sports Football from the mid-90's had better AI than games in the year 2007? We weren't even dreaming about the amount of RAM computers have now back then, yet that game was years ahead of EA and in some ways, still is.

[BrianFifaFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by MassNole

I understand your point, but I must ask, how would the hardware limitation explain why a game like Front Page Sports Football from the mid-90's had better AI than games in the year 2007? We weren't even dreaming about the amount of RAM computers have now back then, yet that game was years ahead of EA and in some ways, still is.

I feel you on that. Here's my best stab. I've never played FPS but if I'm correct it was a game that was text-based,correct? That saves a lot of resources that can be used for the various if-then scenarios that would come up. Now a perfect example of a game that used both exceptional AI and real-time graphics was the High Heat series. But it was evident that the graphics took a backseat to the gameplay engine. A developing choice is made as to how much processing power is devoted to running what code. Now EA and most developers are going to go with the "wow" factor,i.e. Graphics. I feel that you will get some better AI in this-gen based on the amount of processing power you have with the new machines. But I still don't feel that you'll have the hardcore approach to simulation that you get with OOTP, FPS,FOF or even High Heat.

We have to remember that videogames are mainly programmed for the large, casual audience. It isn't that they can't do it. It's that they won't alienate the masses to make the most realistic experience possible. And the developers will always chose to spend the largest part of their memory allocation on what is easily identifiable: graphics, sound and fluffy features. It takes the real discriminating gamer to really notice all of the under-the-hood stuff. And that stuff is probably the hardest to get right. And probably the most costly, in that the more you mess with it, the more it affects something else.And it probably complicates the de-bugging process. Hopefully EA has spent the time and effort to work the gameplay to better represent the sport of football, but I wouldn't hold my breath on the FPS total-sim approach.

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by Briankingsfan

I feel you on that. Here's my best stab. I've never played FPS but if I'm correct it was a game that was text-based,correct? That saves a lot of resources that can be used for the various if-then scenarios that would come up. Now a perfect example of a game that used both exceptional AI and real-time graphics was the High Heat series. But it was evident that the graphics took a backseat to the gameplay engine. A developing choice is made as to how much processing power is devoted to running what code. Now EA and most developers are going to go with the "wow" factor,i.e. Graphics. I feel that you will get some better AI in this-gen based on the amount of processing power you have with the new machines. But I still don't feel that you'll have the hardcore approach to simulation that you get with OOTP, FPS,FOF or even High Heat. We have to remember that videogames are mainly programmed for the large, casual audience. It isn't that they can't do it. It's that they won't alienate the masses to make the most realistic experience possible. And the developers will always chose to spend the largest part of their memory allocation on what is easily identifiable: graphics, sound and fluffy features. It takes the real discriminating gamer to really notice all of the under-the-hood stuff. And that stuff is probably the hardest to get right. And probably the most costly, in that the more you mess with it, the more it affects something else.And it probably complicates the de-bugging process. Hopefully EA has spent the time and effort to work the gameplay to better represent the sport of football, but I wouldn't hold my breath on the FPS total-sim approach.

Yep. All that sounds about right.

[King_James]

Front Page Sports was not text based.