Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

[JayBee74]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

i probably won't be buying a football game this year. i'm leaning towards making it a year for soccer. but depending on what you guys say about the patch I'd be willing to snag this game for $20

Why is the game with a good patch, recommended by "us guys" suddenly only worthy of a $20 buy?

[Radja]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

i will be buying this as the patch drops if it fixes single player game play.

[boooey]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Why is the game with a good patch, recommended by "us guys" suddenly only worthy of a $20 buy?

well, its $29 already on QVC site.. only $9 more to go

[bkrich83]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

I agree. Some people always look for the easy way out in all aspects of their lives. I am really just getting around to playing this game, and I like it. I have heard some good things about them and what they are trying to accomplish. Time will tell, but this game represents certain aspects of football more appropriately than other games. I love the aggressiveness of the D-line. Gamers have been spoiled, and have no clue that QB's are not able to sit in the pocket for 10 seconds on every play. QB's are not able to see everyone on the field all the time. Although I hate to admit it, playing QB is difficult. I think this game does a great job at displaying that fact.

The running into the punter problem, and the speed of players needs to be patched. There also needs to be a more recognisable difference amongst players skill levels.

Oh please. It's about preference, has nothign to do with making the game easier. WHy is it whenever someone wants to make a change for something they don't like about this game, someone like you comes along and talks down to them as if they are somehow less of a player because of their preference.

And this angle being more "realistic" is a matter of opinion and definitely arguable at best.

[lofeazy]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

I agree. Some people always look for the easy way out in all aspects of their lives. I am really just getting around to playing this game, and I like it. I have heard some good things about them and what they are trying to accomplish. Time will tell, but this game represents certain aspects of football more appropriately than other games. I love the aggressiveness of the D-line. Gamers have been spoiled, and have no clue that QB's are not able to sit in the pocket for 10 seconds on every play. QB's are not able to see everyone on the field all the time. Although I hate to admit it, playing QB is difficult. I think this game does a great job at displaying that fact.

[RaiderKtulu]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Oh please. It's about preference, has nothign to do with making the game easier. WHy is it whenever someone wants to make a change for something they don't like about this game, someone like you comes along and talks down to them as if they are somehow less of a player because of their preference.

And this angle being more "realistic" is a matter of opinion and definitely arguable at best.

Camera A = Seeing all of the field and all of your WRs at the same time and being able to throw to whoever whenever,

Camera B = Seeing a limited view and being forced by the game mechanics to look at your receiver first - and not being able to throw to a guy you can't see.

You tell me how one of those isn't easier than the other.

[Fiddy]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Camera A would be 110% better..

[elgreazy1]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Camera A = Seeing all of the field and all of your WRs at the same time and being able to throw to whoever whenever,

Camera B = Seeing a limited view and being forced by the game mechanics to look at your receiver first - and not being able to throw to a guy you can't see.

You tell me how one of those isn't easier than the other.

Camera A = every football game ever made

Camera B = a more realistic approach to how the game is played

[foolish813]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

CAMERA B WINS! CAMERA B WINS! OMG, did u see that! CAMERA B WINS!

[JayBee74]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Camera A would be 110% better..

Why Fiddy? Because you said so?

Why is a pathetically easy passing system/camera better than one that actually challenges you?

[bkrich83]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Why Fiddy? Because you said so?

Why is a pathetically easy passing system/camera better than one that actually challenges you?

I don't think sensory deprivation in the name of "realism" is any better. It's a matter of preference, but it has nothing to do with ease. I see why people would think it's current form of camera is more realistic. It's definitely more of a challenge. But I don't need a challenge strictly for the sake of a challenge.

Camera A, gives no depth perception.. Also that innate feel of what is going on around you in the pocket is gone. And please, realism? In real life I can go from one receiver to another in no particular order in a blink of an eye. I don't have to cycle individually one at a time at a snails pace in a linear order. Not to mention I hate being locked on to a WR. If I want to read coverage, I am looking at the safeties first then advancing to my receivers. This cam and mechanic makes that impossible. That would be another knock on realism. Although 90% of the people who scream realism, wouldn't know true realism if it bit them in the face.

If you like the first camera, that's great. But the whole you only like the newer camera because it's easier, and don't want "realism" talking down is not only old, but it's inaccurate and lame.

[bkrich83]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Camera A = Seeing all of the field and all of your WRs at the same time and being able to throw to whoever whenever,

Camera B = Seeing a limited view and being forced by the game mechanics to look at your receiver first - and not being able to throw to a guy you can't see.

You tell me how one of those isn't easier than the other.

You missed the point, as usual. My preference for Camera A, has nothing to do with it being easier, but people who feel the need to mindlessly defend this game, don't seem to get that. The "the only reason you don't like the camera, because of difficulty" argument is simply wrong. Whether it's easier or not, has nothing to do with why I prefer one cam over the other. I know it's difficult for people like you to grasp, but some people have a different opinion than you do, and that's ok..

[RaiderKtulu]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

You missed the point, as usual. My preference for Camera A, has nothing to do with it being easier, but people who feel the need to mindlessly defend this game, don't seem to get that. The "the only reason you don't like the camera, because of difficulty" argument is simply wrong. Whether it's easier or not, has nothing to do with why I prefer one cam over the other. I know it's difficult for people like you to grasp, but some people have a different opinion than you do, and that's ok..

So why then? If it's not about the difficulty, or lack thereof, why?

Or is this one of those "I just do" things that we aren't supposed to question?

[bkrich83]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

So why then? If it's not about the difficulty, or lack thereof, why?

Or is this one of those "I just do" things that we aren't supposed to question?

What part of "a matter of preference" do you not understand. For me it's simply preference. I don't find the game mechanic nor that angle any more realistic nor enjoyable. It's that simple. The lack of depth perception, and being forced to lock on to recievers instead of being able to read the safeties kills it for me.

I am not sure why preference based on opinion is that difficult for you to understand. It's a pretty basic principle.

[Blzer]

Re: Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

Well, here's the thing, and this is what bkrich83 is trying to point out, which I wholeheartedly agree with...

The Backbreaker developers have created a Gears of War kind of fantasy with their camera in the football game that does not give us any sense of periphery, and I throw that word around often not to sound smart, but because that is the correct word to use. Yes, my TV has a 16:9 aspect ratio so I'm salvaged only slightly, but otherwise when combined with the terrible O-Line play, I am nearly obliged every time out to throw to my first receiver regardless. I think this is also a huge cause in many interceptions because that receiver tends to not always be the go-to guy.

In a "God mode" camera style, yes we have more ability to see what's going on because of the aerial view and our ability to see our blind sides as well. But we still have to see every receiver one-by-one in order to make a choice of who to throw to. Plus, now scrambling is possible because we can still look upfield and throw on the run. I'm not saying this stuff needs to be toned down so that we can make these Madden-like passes all of the time, I'm just strictly speaking about what is finally within the realm of possibility. Distinguishing between what is possible and what is probable in football games tends to be the hardest challenge that developers face.

Now, what if they give us a camera that is really only slightly further back (really not much at all), maybe even a head higher, and they give us a fish-eye peripheral view on the sides of the screen, maybe a little bit out of focus, so that we have a slightly better read of everything around us? Heck, even in Gears of War if there is gunfire on the right, there will be a meter that tells us so. Let's have that, too. If there are footsteps out of our vision, we need a threat meter to aware us of it (maybe some QB's have better attributes than others and it is less prevalent while in Focus mode).

Another great alternate control scheme would be kind of like the Madden passing cone, but down on the field. So like I said, keep that camera angle I was just talking about, and instead of using the right stick to run through the receiver progression, use it to rotate left and right. The face buttons et. al will be what your receivers are mapped to, and when you use Focus mode then you can run the progression if you'd like (it will focus on your receiver that leads it first). It obviously won't be too slow-moving because hey, you're a QB and realistically you can look from one side of the field to the other in "the blink of an eye" by doing an eye scan. That's why I think the peripheral vision is important (but for some sort of difficulty, again, maybe the distortion is needed). But I think doing something like this would be good because now you can pan and scan around the field not just for receivers, but also for whomever is trying to sack you. This would obviously be an alternative to what is already implemented, but I think it would be very useful.

The only place where I will have to draw the line is when you speak of preference. I, too, probably prefer the old way of playing in a God mode (at least for passing), but this intuitiveness is just so awesome for me that I don't think I would give it up, especially with the time they took making it. And that's just the thing... this game was made with this intention. It's kind of like how a movie is made with the intent of watching it in 3D or something, or black and white. Sure we will prefer something else perhaps, but if that is what we are forced to do then we can't say otherwise, and if we want to see a movie in 2D and color we will have to find another one. Unfortunately that's just how it is.

Anyway, as Backbreaker currently stands it is one of the most fun, frustrating games I've ever owned. A patch will make some fixes, but it will not overhaul the game or create an entire new QB passing system as far as I'm concerned. If they want to make serious improvements, they will have to seriously consider making a Backbreaker 2 and they will have to take another two years to do so. Some of their additions simply can't come in a year long cycle; I have dozens of sports franchises for proof of that statement.