WATCHING this made me realize he has a point

[Pokes404]

Quote: Originally Posted by NEOPARADIGM

That's exactly the point I was trying to make above, man: result > animation. It's just a missed/broken tackle - leave it at that, ya know? Maybe it doesn't look the way we'd like it to, but there's simply nothing explicitly wrong with the play either, especially considering the dozen or so ratings & attributes that factor into the play as well. I even understand "suction blocking" in this same way: guys get "sucked" into a block when they've "lost" the encounter, plain and simple. No it's not Euphoria, but it's how the engine works, and for what it is, it's fine. The sort of things you have to overlook in order to make these games "good" is so minimal, I'm literally shocked at how many people think they suck. I thought 08 on PS3 sucked because it had a crap framerate, but once they cleared that up in 09, I was peachy. I thought 10 was great, too. And I have no doubt 11 will be right up my alley. Does that mean I have bad taste in sports games, or does it mean I understand the engine? Heck, I'm to the point where all these "fix the gameplay" posts seem like nonsense to me. And is it any coincidence that people fawn over The Show around here, considering its gameplay is last-gen through and through? Heck, I've even seen people come right out and say "I want last-gen gameplay with next-gen graphics." Sorry for being so all over the place; this post is like five years in the making. My point is simply that getting too caught up in the game's animations is the catalyst for a lot of people's malcontent with this franchise. I look at results first then animation, and in so doing I don't have nearly the amount of complaints most everyone else seems to with the gameplay. Cheers.

I understand what you're saying, but you're also assuming that this play would have worked out the exact same way even if it had a different, better looking animation. This is not necessarily the case.

In the running play, the defender is in good position but is sucked into a missed tackle animation. It's not the fact that the defender misses the tackle (defenders miss tackles all the time), it's the way he misses the tackle. You may say that the end result is a missed tackle, whether the animation looks good or not, but the play turns out the same way regardless. However, what if the runningback had bounced off the defender when he attempted his tackle? What if instead of running straight through him and losing little to no speed in the process, he had been deflected back and to the right, losing his momentum, and been forced to regain his balance and accelerate back up to top speed? That may have given the other defenders time to tackle the running back for fewer yards than he got otherwise.

I agree that EA will never have 100% realistic collision physics in this generation; however, impact deflection doesn't seem like it would be that hard to add. All you'd have to do is replace that truck move seen in the video with an animation of the ball carrier breaking the tackle but getting deflected in the appropriate direction as well. That would go a long way toward making the game feel more realistic. There are some circumstances where the truck move is understandable, but it shouldn't ever trigger when a defender is in good position with a full head of steam and coming at an angle. This is where I feel Apex is right that if there is a broken tackle there needs to be deflection.

BTW, I'm OK with the second tackle. Yeah he probably would have gone toward the sideline more and probably could have fallen forward just a bit, but that's getting pretty nit-picky.