Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

[bucky60]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

I know I am responding to a respond early in the thread but I wanted to clear up the idea of "Owning" the game upon payment. You actually don't own the game. You own a license to play the game. The game itself is still owned by EA.

Just like with Microsoft office. Just because you paid for Excel doesn't mean that you should have access to edit code to enhance your own experience. You have to use excel based on how Microsoft built it for you.

I think if people thought of it this way, there would be less complaints about how the game runs. Every year you pay $60 to update your license to the newest updates.

Except Excel, Word, etc are much more customizable than Madden. Previous Excel's and Word, or most software, the intellectual property of the code itself was still owned by Microsoft, but I owned my copy of Office to do what I wanted with it. Nobody is asking to have the ability to recode madden. Just asking for more options.

Microsoft is now moving toward a licensed based system where you rent the programs and OS for a year and then have to re-license.

I personally don't buy your analogy of why we should accept and be happy with lack of options in Madden. I really don't think anyone is asking for the right to recode Madden. But to each there own opinion.

[zoom zoom]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

One last thing. If your a player who likes the current XP progression system fine. I've had fun in my online CFM. It gets really competitive trying to build our players.

It's not sim or realistic though. It's arcade and that's fine if that's what you like. I just think the standard should be realism. They are pretty far from that with this system.

I mean one guy in our league drafted a 6'6 WR with 88 speed. He has won a lot and now that WR has 99 spd. That should not be possible. That's the problem I have with it.

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it.

And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it.

You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP.

But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat?

But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters.

One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same.

Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it.

The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles.

The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset.

Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

[Sheba2011]

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it.

And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it.

You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP.

But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat?

But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters.

One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same.

Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it.

The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles.

The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset.

Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

I agree if a game was 100% real life sim most would fine it boring and tedious and would never play it. The number one complaint would be "why can't I edit my players".

But there is no reason that the game can't be a video game with realistic sim elements. A realistic progression system with no XP at all. A realistic scouting system that never shows you any ratings just metrics and scouting reports. Real life contracts, practice squad, compensatory picks, full coaching staffs. These are all things that could be added to make the game more sim while still being a fun football game.

[charter04]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it.

And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it.

You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP.

But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat?

But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters.

One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same.

Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it.

The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles.

The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset.

Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

Well the thread is about if EA is sacrificing realism. The answer in my opinion is yes. Now is a football game fun if it's 100% realistic? Maybe. If you could chose what area's that you control and what area's you let be simulated.

I'm fully aware that Madden is a game. I even said that I have fun with it. I was just answering the question and discussing if they are Sacrificing Realism.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

Chris brings up a valid question here... say the goal is 100 yards for the HB, but what happens if he rushes for 99 yards but makes a key block on the game-winning TD pass, saving the QB from getting sacked? {A la Walter Payton back in the day when McMahon came off the bench to beat the Vikes.}

This whole goal system is geared towards casual gamers and leaves those wanting a true sim game out in the cold.

You say this as if the actual NFL gives some points for making a key block.

I think the system is fine. In every game, players will develop faster than others.

I think some of you simply want ultimate reality forgetting sometimes that it is simply a game.

A game that most will play for a few months, shelf it and then buy the new version next summer.

[zoom zoom]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

Well the thread is about if EA is sacrificing realism. The answer in my opinion is yes. Now is a football game fun if it's 100% realistic? Maybe. If you could chose what area's that you control and what area's you let be simulated.

I'm fully aware that Madden is a game. I even said that I have fun with it. I was just answering the question and discussing if they are Sacrificing Realism.

I was mostly agreeing with you. I think you made several good points, which kind of inspired my post.

[DeuceDouglas]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

You say this as if the actual NFL gives some points for making a key block.

I think the system is fine. In every game, players will develop faster than others.

I think some of you simply want ultimate reality forgetting sometimes that it is simply a game.

A game that most will play for a few months, shelf it and then buy the new version next summer.

I'm sure most people are completely aware that it's a game. It's not about "ultimate reality", it's about something that actually resembles reality.

Could you imagine watching some NFL Films show with a mic'd up coach where he goes up to his running back stretching before a game and says "We need you to run for 100 yards and three touchdowns today or you're not going to get any better".

[vrtkolman]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

I have long since accepted that the direction EA is taking Madden is not what I want in a sim football game. First it was XP and being able to increase attributes that shouldn't be able to be increased (speed?). Now the RPG system has been further implemented with these new goals during games. Most games are going this route now.

I'm surprised they haven't brought back player roles yet, like Road Grader or Team Leader (I think Madden 2008 had these). These would further the RPG aspect but also would make sense in a sim enviornment as it would help differentiate players with similar attributes.

[Rocky]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

They just need to take NCAA's Dynasty Mode and modify it for the NFL.

[SolidSquid]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

They just need to take NCAA's Dynasty Mode and modify it for the NFL.

Give us the coaching carousel already. Let us hire offensive and defensive coordinators, then let other teams sign them away to be head coaches if they are good enough.

[lgxjames]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

The drive goals can appear dubious, but how do you know it wasn't there all along in some way as a background process, and was just hidden from view? Not everyone will meet the goals, and some will, through normal game play and play calling schemes. If you decide to play for the goals, then it can become a mini-game for you inside the game, as someone mentioned, but could come at a loss of the game or other goal challenges. This also appears to be supplemental to normal xp/confidence gains.

Good point.

[Dr Death]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

You say this as if the actual NFL gives some points for making a key block.

I think the system is fine. In every game, players will develop faster than others.

I think some of you simply want ultimate reality forgetting sometimes that it is simply a game.

A game that most will play for a few months, shelf it and then buy the new version next summer.

Here is the You Tube highlight of the McMahon pass and the key block by Payton. You hear the announcers talking about how Payton picked up the blitz, enabling McMahon to get the TD pass away.

I don't know how I can be more clear, I felt this was a play engrained in everyone's mind. Maybe not. But here it is in the first minute of the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvcfAW42ClQ

[bucky60]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

Here is the You Tube highlight of the McMahon pass and the key block by Payton. You hear the announcers talking about how Payton picked up the blitz, enabling McMahon to get the TD pass away.

I don't know how I can be more clear, I felt this was a play engrained in everyone's mind. Maybe not. But here it is in the first minute of the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvcfAW42ClQ

Is that like the Kuhn block that allowed Rodgers to throw that deep pass to Cobb? (Part of me actually feels bad, but I had to do it).

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

I'm sure most people are completely aware that it's a game. It's not about "ultimate reality", it's about something that actually resembles reality.

Could you imagine watching some NFL Films show with a mic'd up coach where he goes up to his running back stretching before a game and says "We need you to run for 100 yards and three touchdowns today or you're not going to get any better".

It's an achievement. Why look at it any other way?

You have random midweek practices that affects a player's development and performance as well, no?

If a player hits an incentive, he has a greater opportunity to develop.
If he doesn't, then he won't.

I've gotten a player up to a 99 rating and it doesn't change the output of the game.

Why over analyze it?

[4thQtrStre5S]

Re: Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

It's an achievement. Why look at it any other way?

You have random midweek practices that affects a player's development and performance as well, no?

If a player hits an incentive, he has a greater opportunity to develop.
If he doesn't, then he won't.

I've gotten a player up to a 99 rating and it doesn't change the output of the game.

Why over analyze it?

I haven't seen too much difference between players and ratings; a player with a 99 overall compared to a player with maybe an 85 overall or so is really only going to have an advantage of maybe a couple plays a game, and then it may be up to the user to take advantage of the few opportunities that come about.

The difference in the NFL between a Pro Bowl player and a backup is really a couple of plays, as far as I have witnessed..