NCAA Next-Gen vs. Old-Gen

[Krebstar]

Quote: Originally Posted by matthewk

I decided to pick up 2k3 on the XBox since I found it for only $1.99. For a 5 year old football game, it's pretty good. I never played it before, but (as I expected), it's a lot like the NFL game but with some changes. The best thing I found in 2k3 so far is the ability to have a 16 team tournament. Screw the BCS, I can choose a champion the right way! The few staduims I've played in so far loko accurate. No alternate jerseys that I can find, and no 1AA teams either. The playbooks are somewhat diverse. Hawaii has a lot of sdhogun formations, while Wisconsin has more of a mix, along with a few option plays. Even run heavy teams seem to have a lot of pass plays in their playbooks, but the CPU will run the ball. As was mentioned before, it's not quite a polished as the recent NCAA games, but there is a lot of depth here and it's fun so far.

What sucks is that it's pretty much the NFL 2K2 engine. If it used the NFL 2K3 engine and had the graphics of 2K3...I would still play it today and not play an EA NCAA game.

However, it has it's flaws and recruiting isn't too great, but it's still fun to play now and then. The stadiums also look pretty nice and I always thought the fields looked better than all fields in last gen EA NCAA games.

I think I'm going to go play a game of this now, although it will most likely just end with a few games and nothing more. If only they made ESPN College Football 2K4 at least....that would've been incredible.

[TheShizNo1]

Is there a dynasty mode? And if so could you post what it's like?

[Krebstar]

Quote: Originally Posted by theshiznetno1

Is there a dynasty mode? And if so could you post what it's like?

You simply play week to week, there's rankings, etc. Bowl games at the end and then recruiting. I don't remember the recruiting well, but it isn't very deep at all. It's a very basic dynasty type mode, but it was also the second and last version of the game they made.

If you can find a copy it might be fun to play a game here and there, but I doubt many would stop playing the EA series and switch to it.

[Krebstar]

Quote: Originally Posted by PSU_DW2

What gameplay setting are you playing on. Heisman? If you want a challenge, set it to heisman, and try the following sliders if you want a slightly defensively-tilted game. I have been using these sliders and cannot stop playing this game. Some games get high scoring as I play 60:00 games, but really the scoring is very realistic in terms of possessions. The thing about this game is, when you gain momentum, the game can appear easy for you, even if you are navy. At the times when you feel like you are running free past defenders, do you have full or near full momentum? It's important to judge sliders when momentum is even, like at the beginning of the game. Gameplay = Heisman Quarter Length = 15 Minutes Offense - User / CPU same QB Accuracy = 55% Pass Blocking = 70% WR Catching = 70% RB Ability = 70% Run Blocking = 70% Password : oe6tlYJ3 (lowercase L 4th from last) Defense - User / CPU same Awareness = 90% Knockdowns = 70% Interceptions = 35% Break Block = 85% Tackling = 80% Password : QPMjsIn3 Special Teams - User / CPU same FG Distance = 60% FG Accuracy = 60%*** Punt Length = 99% Punt Accuracy = 70% Kickoff Length = 90% Password : YZP1MgD4 Penalties First four ON All sliders at 99%, except: Holding = 80%* Roughing the Passer = 0%** Roughing the Kicker = 0%** Intentional Grounding = 30% Unsportsmanlike Conduct = 0% *There is a lot of holding called, especially when momentum is against the offense. If you do not like this, then you might want to lower this setting even more. I don't mind it though, and most times it is called, it should be in my opinion. **They still occasionally call roughing the passer / kicker even when set at 0%. This is a bug. ***CPU FG accuracy slider does not work. You can block CPU FGs, but I have not seen them miss yet, even with it set to 0%. So I keep it at 60% for user vs. user games.

I can't see myself doing 15 minute quarters, but do you think these would still play a good game with 9-10 minute quarters? I plan on giving it a shot no matter what, but I just wanted your thoughts on it.

EDIT: I'm at halftime now with 10 minute quarters and I am loving how the game is playing. It feels so natural, although I'm stopping now since I'm tired but plan to start a game tomorrow with 15 minute quarters since it will work best that way. It sounds like a long time, but if you let the play clock run, it really isn't too bad at all. No commercial breaks or anything like that, haha. Great sliders sir.

[PSU_DW2]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheUglyOrgan

I can't see myself doing 15 minute quarters, but do you think these would still play a good game with 9-10 minute quarters? I plan on giving it a shot no matter what, but I just wanted your thoughts on it. EDIT: I'm at halftime now with 10 minute quarters and I am loving how the game is playing. It feels so natural, although I'm stopping now since I'm tired but plan to start a game tomorrow with 15 minute quarters since it will work best that way. It sounds like a long time, but if you let the play clock run, it really isn't too bad at all. No commercial breaks or anything like that, haha. Great sliders sir.

Thanks for the feedback, man. What I actually do a lot is this. I play a 30 minute half, then take a break myself (sometimes for 20 minutes like real halftime breaks) Sometimes i'll even pass out and leave the game on and play the 2nd half the next day when i wake up.

I'll actually even occasionally dream of potential strategy in the 2nd half as I sleep with the game paused at halftime, then wake up and play it out. a 60 minute game is a long game, and could take hours if you play a hurry up offense game with a lot of incompletes / out of bounds...

however, with a ball control game, where you keep the ball in bounds a lot and gain first downs, the game can start to fly by. I usually play very, very conservative in the first half of a 60 minute game to keep my ability to win the game by the 2nd half. playing 15 minute quarters is a challenge, and it will be difficult at times to come away with a win. to me, i embrace the challenge of a battle of attrition. the gameplay with these settings are so realistic and responsive, that it doesn't feel boring at all.

the key is to avoid mistakes and keep momentum neutral or on your side, especially early in a game. i try to go 15 minutes at a time, only taking a quick commercial break at the end of the quarter, or occasionally after a score awaiting the kickoff. you might want to turn the commentary off after the coin toss (so you can still see the gameday predictions prior to that), as the commentating can distract you in a long game.

When the clock is running and i have the ball, as long as the game is relatively close, i usually do use most of the play clock. my strategy is, the game has a much higher probability of turning into a shootout in the 4th quarter as there is really nothing to lose at that point. there is something to lose early in the game, like momentum. Momentum that can turn the game into a frustrating blowout if you are not careful. look at it like a boxing match. you don't want to get knocked out in the first round. you don't want to give up TDs in the 1st quarter and play uphill against momentum for the rest of the game. in fact, if this does happen when playing 15 minute quarters, sometimes the proper decision is to keep the clock running on offense, and punt, punt, punt and force the CPU to drive the field so you can GET to the half as soon as possible. when you get to halftime, whoever has momentum, their momentum will be cut in half coming out of halftime. this gives the team who is against the momentum at halftime a huge opportunity to come out in the 3rd quarter, score and even up the momentum...

you can play 10 minute games with these sliders, and if you are ever playing a human vs human game, your buddy might not have patience to play a full 60 minutes game, and 10 minutes might be appropriate when a person is first trying out these sliders. but, against the CPU, and against serious humans with patience, if you have the time, i think you will find yourself wanting to go 60:00 because it is so damn fun and challenges you in a way that you probably aren't used to. the thing is, for me, the more i play with these sliders, the more i want to go the distance and play 60:00. besides, when you play a 60:00 game, checking out the stats at halftime and postgame are so much more interesting. you can learn a lot from time of possession. also, you can unlock more pennant points in a 60:00 game in case you haven't unlocked all the bowl games yet...(i'd upload my profile but i am having trouble transferring my profile to my PC)

you might find yourself making better decisions in terms of playcalling. take your time when you are on offense. don't rush it. just call a smart play and start controlling the time of possession. punt when you have to, only kick a FG when you thin you can make it. sometimes it is smarter to punt from the opponent's 38 yard line than going for the FG. because if you miss the FG or have it blocked, you will lose all momentum...

if you are having trouble, try checking your user stats and see how efficient you are in user catches, user swats, etc..

i find these stats so telling i just want to play again and improve my user stats.

once you complete your first 15 minute game, feel free to post results (box score and any stats you think are important) and which team you are.

the thing i want is feedback. what do you like about the sliders? what don't you like? do you find any animation or collision bugs that bother you?

of course, keep in mind the teams you are playing with. when playing with A and A+ teams, the game has a higher probability of becoming a shootout. when playing with less talented players, the game is more tactical in my opinion.

the one thing that i would say is that these sliders give you balanced gameplay. the game can be pass oriented or run oriented, depending on a lot of factors. when i start falling behind in a game, i am not usually frustrated. i understand why i gave up a particular play and i am just itching that much more to get back and even it up with my offense.

I think playing on these sliders will make you a very smart player of this game. you will be forced to make a user swat occasionally and make split second decisions throughout the game.

are you playing the ps2 / xbox1? (i assume you are playing the old-gen engine)

i am thinking about playing a bowl game preview of bowling green / tulsa today. (the two teams play in the GMAC bowl tonight). i'd like to see what paul smith can do for 60:00... i'll let you know my results...

[Nza]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sausage

I believe the main reason for this is because the jump from PS2 to PS3 and XBOX to XBOX 360 is not that big of a leap. Many will disagree but the Big 3 moved on the there next consoles to soon. I hope we can get a longer life span for the 360 and PS3, can't forget the Wii. Peace.

I don't think it's so much the hardware jump isn't big enough, probably the opposite really - the problem is the jump in development standards required to take advantage on this hardware is too high and it is separating the pretenders from the contenders in the game developing world. Poly counts in models and texture resolutions aside, the real advancements seen by the latest hardware came in its ability to (at least partially) handle true physics and animation systems far advanced than the old traditional systems, not to mention the ability to handle far more advanced AI code. The new stuff this generation isn't as easy to get the hang of as it was in previous console generation moves, where the only changes in production more or less revolved around the 3D modeling, textures, lighting effects etc - the aesthetics. Engines improved but only marginally, where as now the engines hardware can take are comparatively much more advanced than the generation prior.

Basically, the hardware is moving at a faster rate than the rate in which developers like EA are taking advantage of said hardware in all facets and not just visually. When EA were making their PS2 code, they didn't have to worry about real time physics engines, rag doll, AI that isn't restricted by the console's power etc. They had stuff like motion capture which, while advanced at the time, pales in comparison to today's budding animation standards complexity wise. I think ultimately what we're seeing in NCAA and Madden 'next gen' is the result of a tight yearly release schedule gone wrong - standards are increasing in the gaming world but unfortunately developer prowess isn't increasing at the same rate so the same level of standards today relative to the industry 4 years ago are now taking longer to achieve.

Take LucasArts for example. They've been working on their next gen Star Wars/Indiana Jones engine from the beginning for the 360/PS3 and it hasn't seen retail release yet, and these guys are industry leading type programmers, not the disposable coders of EA. It takes much more time and skill now days to really push a system to its max and unfortunately EA are lacking in both. In hindsight, they should have simply ported the old engine across and gave it a facelift visually like they did with the previous generation shift, because that is seemingly all they can handle.

[PSU_DW2]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nza

I don't think it's so much the hardware jump isn't big enough, probably the opposite really - the problem is the jump in development standards required to take advantage on this hardware is too high and it is separating the pretenders from the contenders in the game developing world. Poly counts in models and texture resolutions aside, the real advancements seen by the latest hardware came in its ability to (at least partially) handle true physics and animation systems far advanced than the old traditional systems, not to mention the ability to handle far more advanced AI code. The new stuff this generation isn't as easy to get the hang of as it was in previous console generation moves, where the only changes in production more or less revolved around the 3D modeling, textures, lighting effects etc - the aesthetics. Engines improved but only marginally, where as now the engines hardware can take are comparatively much more advanced than the generation prior. Basically, the hardware is moving at a faster rate than the rate in which developers like EA are taking advantage of said hardware in all facets and not just visually. When EA were making their PS2 code, they didn't have to worry about real time physics engines, rag doll, AI that isn't restricted by the console's power etc. They had stuff like motion capture which, while advanced at the time, pales in comparison to today's budding animation standards complexity wise. I think ultimately what we're seeing in NCAA and Madden 'next gen' is the result of a tight yearly release schedule gone wrong - standards are increasing in the gaming world but unfortunately developer prowess isn't increasing at the same rate so the same level of standards today relative to the industry 4 years ago are now taking longer to achieve. Take LucasArts for example. They've been working on their next gen Star Wars/Indiana Jones engine from the beginning for the 360/PS3 and it hasn't seen retail release yet, and these guys are industry leading type programmers, not the disposable coders of EA. It takes much more time and skill now days to really push a system to its max and unfortunately EA are lacking in both. In hindsight, they should have simply ported the old engine across and gave it a facelift visually like they did with the previous generation shift, because that is seemingly all they can handle.

Great synopsis. As great as high textured graphics can look, it takes so much longer just to piece the game together and get it running from a programming layered perspective, that the game might appear prettier on the surface, but under the hood a lot of next-gen games are void of advanced game mechanics that could challenge the dexterity of the user. There are less unique options pulling through into gameplay.

I want game mechanics that challenge the user. i want game mechanics in which the user can perform specific motions and launch specific animations by good dexterity with the analog sticks in relations of the motion of other NPCs.

i like the victorious boxing games because, unlike fight night, you actually have to place your punch to a specific place on the NPC's body. it's not that fight night is bad. it's just a simple game in nature in terms of unique game mechanics. In fight night, you can either throw a punch to the head or to the body and it lands in basically the same spot. In the Victorious Boxing games, when a punch is landed, if the boxer getting punched is in the process of lunging in, the punches damage is increased. that is why it takes very sensitive and careful use of the left analog stick to get into good position. it is tremendously satisfying when you land a shot and see a realistic result from the other boxer. in victorious boxing, you have to sway, and as the boxer is in the process of swaying, the user has to time a well placed punch. where the punch lands flush could determine whether the boxer is knocked down. these types of game mechanics are much easier to program on a ps2 / xbox1 engine, because there is less variables that the programmer cannot control that could make implementing a mechanic like that harder given the high quality nature of the player models and the collision detection that would have to go along with that.

[babyfat9]

Old Gen has way more options which is fantastic but New Gen is the way to go, eventhough thus far EA has put out a lackluster product..but hopefully with time it will catch up to it's old gen predecessors as far as options go.