letter to IGN for what its worth...

[Michael_Mullis]

My only problem with the IGN review was that I met the guy who wrote it on a trip to New York. He didn't even want to play the game back when we all got our first review builds. So I think there was a slant to the article even before he started writing it.

I've been reading a ton of "Fever sucks" articles here, and frankly I am suprised. To me, Fever was enough of a step up from last year that it grabbed my attention even at E3. And to be honest, I've reviewed both it and ESPN, and somehow just keep going back to playing Fever. Something about the Read and Lead passing system I am hooked on. But the IGN basically said all that good gameplay was ruined by the graphics. I respectfully disagree.

[griffy97]

I also read IGN's review and I think the reviewer gave the game a five-minute trial.

There are many improvements to Fever this year:

1. The graphics are, overall, better.
2. The player models are much better.
3. The sound is improved.
4. Read and Lead alone is a vast improvement.
5. The ball physics are much better. The "floaty" pass is gone, unless you just tap the R trigger.
6. Player control is slightly better, except for the animations taking over on a play.
7. Game speed is adjustable.
8. 8-minute quarter option in 2004.
9. Player control is MUCH better on defense. Pre-snap adjustments for disguising defensive packages is COOL.
10. Online play has been dramatically improved.
11. The defensive AI is now very good. In 2003, it was very bad. I have a much better time playing defense this year because my cpu-controlled teammates are smarter.
12. Tackling animations are improved.
13. You can take the Houston Texans to the playoffs in Dynasty mode this year!

Now, some things stayed pretty much the same and this was disappointing:

1. Game engine simulates correctly only on 5-minute quarters.
2. Dynasty mode is unchanged.
3. Uniform editor remains unchanged. (For 2005, let the user keep the current team logo and just modify the uniform)
4. Calabro and Pitts are still mediocre. I actually liked [censored you naughty boy] Stockton better.

Needless to say, FEVER 2004 is much better than last year and deserves to be scored accordingly. If last year's was a 7.8, this year's should be an 8.5.

Also, I realize scoring can be subjective. But, a score should only be based on the merits of the game being reviewed, not how it compares to the competition. In other words, if a game rates an 8.5, it should be an 8.5 regardless of what the same reviewer rated, say, Madden. If the reviewer feels Madden is better, then Madden should receive a higher score. But, to rate Fever LOWER than last year's game based on how its improvements compare to ESPN's or Madden's is unfair.

[griffy97]

Quote:

---

griffy97 said:
I actually liked [censored you naughty boy] Stockton better.

---

Uh, okay, how does Richard or Dikie sound?