For what it's worth, not everyone is hung up on a demo with this or any game. I wouldn't want the overall impression to be that a demo is the single issue here.

This game, with its year after year of teasing about its forthcoming release, with the rather laughable excuses for each broken promise, simply got things off on the wrong foot. Once the product was nearing and then actually released, the continuous stream of indications that the game produced near-complete garbage in a lot of areas that football sim gamers are actually interested in furthered the bad impression. The developer's own, and proxied, attacks on the critic community, added some fuel to the fire. The continued lack of any real evidence that the game even now really "gets it" just seals the deal for me, and many of us, I'm sure. This is unfortunately just going to go down as a product that never really delivered on even a fair fraction of the things that it promised, in a way that's acceptable to the core football simming community.

While I'm not that sensitive to money issues, as far as the apologist act goes, I really get tired of the whole "he's just a one man show" routine, too. It's been said time and time again in this thread and elsewhere... once you decide to charge real money for the game, you lose absolutely all claim to sympathy over who you are, what else you do in life, or anything else. Now you are in commerce, and your objective is to convince me that your game is worth the money you are asking for it. So far, no sale. And no groveling for sympathy based on special circumstances or contrasts with the circumstances of big software companies alters that at all.

And just in case that was too tame... let's call it as we see it. When the move from the features list to the actual game is going to prove a grave disappointment to the vast majority of potential buyers, it quickly becomes in one's best financial interests to decide against a free demo.

So, in an odd way, I don't really blame Daivd for not offering a demo. It doesn't matter to me much at all, I can see the game for what it is from here, at no cost. And based on what we can see of the game itself (as opposed to the impressive feature list and those screen shots that didn't inadvertently reveal embarassments about the game) I think I'd do the same thing, were I in his shoes.

My point is that asking anybody who has read this thread to buy this game (or any other product from this developer) without a demo is just absurd.

Some do have demos, and some don't. I could show you games that have great demos but the game is crap. What does that prove?

As I stated, having a demo would be nice, but there have been other priorities.


It is more difficult. Why is that hard to understand? If doing the 3D gameplay was easy, FOF would have featured it long ago.


I didn't say it was easy. I said it was easier.


Monday Night Football, Football Strategy, and Stat-O-Matic Football did a pretty good job, but they didn't have to worry about physics and graphics either.


I agree, the AI is very important. I certainly don't downplay it.

My computer league used Professional Football Simulation, which was a game developed to test real world coaching plays on a UNIX mainframe that was ported to the Amiga. PFS has a better AI than any computer football game I have seen to date. It did have graphics, but they were not animated more than squares on a screen.

AI is very important, but is FOF really AI or is an approximation of an AI? Does the game keep track of where the players are on the field in real time. Does it check the actual flight of the ball? Are vector forces and physics taken into account?


The greater difficulty comes what creating a 3D game with a realistic AI.


I agree on both points.

I have considered FOF for an online league because of this.

Alas, my home league must have graphics and on-field play.


Did I say any of you sent the threats? No I did not, so why did you assume it was so?

I said some of you believe this whole thing is a game. People have nothing vested in it but complain like they do. My point was that there is much more to this than a rivalry between one game and another, and that sometime people come off as harsh because there are other variables in play.

You seem to be missing the point. No one disagrees that producing a 3d football game is much more difficult than producing the kind of text sim that we here are all familiar with and fond of. Now one might say that a good developer would have realized the size of the task he was attempting and set more realistic goals, but that's beside the point.

The crucial point is that David Winters and Maximum Football are a laughable attempt at producing a game. 3d or otherwise. The only thing Maximum Football simulates is a piss-poor developer with a persecution complex trying to fleece some gullible gamers. The idea that we should cut MF some slack because it's "hard" is like excusing robbery because "unemployment is up."

Until such time as Maximum Football can be shown to actually provide, you know, a game, it's ludicrous to expect anyone here to shell out a dime for it. From what I've seen, Maximum Football is so bad I wouldn't waste the time to download a demo. Fortunately, many here have a higher tolerance for crap, and would probably try out a demo. Then again, since you have no interest in providing one, that point is moot.

I for one, do think this is a funny game. Time after time Matrix representatives have attempted to mollify the crowd here, and time after time they've failed because they haven't addressed the core problem: the product is of terrible quality. No amount of forum posting is going to change that. If you expect this board to take Maximum Football seriously, David needs to get the product to the point where it produces realistic results. Period. Get that done, get a demo done, and you'll have the beginnings of a fan-base and customer-base here. Keep blowing smoke up our asses, and we'll keep laughing at you, because you are just another Iraqi Information Minister to us.

Just in case things aren't clear Marauders:

Here are some bugs I've taken from the Beta Forum within the past month:

Penalties are not functioning properly when you decline a penalty. This is with 1.3.139. My defense stops the opposing team on 3rd down. There is a penalty on the offense. I can either accept the penalty and make it 3rd & 18 or I can decline the penalty and it is 4th & 8 and they have to punt. I declined the penalty and the offense is now at 3rd & 8. Next play another penalty on the offense. I again decline the penalty and instead of it being 4th down, it is again 3rd down.

I was reading the game log from a game in our online league, and I noticed that one of the entries had the opponents QB throwing a TD to a WR that is on my team.

followed by

I've encountered the same bug in the CFL leagues I'm running, but the QB's passes are "Intended for" a DB on the other team when Quick-Simming.

I have also never seen a league game that had the weather be displayed as [anything other than] 'indoor 68 degrees', and I don't use any custom stadiums.

Still have an occasional problem where players get "stuck" on each other and end up just running in place forever. I've noticed that it usually happens after a TD when the player that scores tries to run to the center of the endzone . If his path is blocked by other players (who remain motionless during this animation) then he will just run in place forever.

Marauders.. this is from the last month. This is how many months after the scheduled release date? This is how many months after the FINAL Release?

Brillig,

Do you own Maximum-Football? Have you played it recently? What authority are on this are you? What makes your post credible in any way?

If I came into the FOF forum and based the game on the bug reports, I'd think it is incomplete and bug ridden.

While I agree that Maximum-Football was released prematurely, and that is one reason I joined beta, the game has come a long way.

I do not work for Wintervalley Software, and I do not work for Matrix Games. I did not post here to bash FOF, which I believe is a very good game, and I did not come here to try to get you to purchase the game. I came here to clear up some misconceptions about what is going on with Maximum-Football and what is not.

That is why this thread was created in the first place, after all.

the misconceptions are yours, Marauders. The game is still in beta, as best as I can tell.

This was a follow on bug. You act like this was there from the start. I had not seen it until a recent build, and David squashed it quickly.

Should I assume all of the bugs at the release of FOF 2007 were there throughout FOF 2006? Should I assume the bugs in Madden 2007 were bugs from Madden 2001 and onward? Obviously not.

As I stated above, Maximum-Football should be locked down for an end build and just tested for those features. Although it is close to that, David has been adding many features that the community has been asking for. As far as I know, a full lockdown will be coming soon, and that should eliminate follow on bugs, so all standing features can be tested and any small remaining issues can be addressed.

As I stated above, this game was not supposed to be the end all of football games. It was supposed to allow different rulesets to be played on a 3D field for fun. It wasn't even supposed to have career mode or many other features that have been added. It evolved into larger game because David listened to the community. Some of you guys make it sound like listening to the community and taking the time to add features is a bad thing.

No, we're making it sound like dressing up a turd still leaves a turd.. just in fancy clothes.

Has the post release beta testing been completed? That was still going on the last time I checked a couple months ago.

edit: Nevermind...I just read Marauders post again and realize they are still working on the feature list and haven't actually entered beta yet.

FOFC = Fire
Marauders = Grease

Marauders,

You seem incapable of being able to separate the number of bugs versus the severity of bugs. Yes, there are still bugs out there if FOF2K7. I would challenge you to compare the severity of the bugs in FOF2K7 two months after release to the severity of the bugs in M-F one year after the release. That in and of itself is what drives this community away from the M-F game.

As for your other comment about FOF keeping track of players in space, I can't say for certain, but I believe that is done with the new version, as Jim has alluded to implementing a 2-D overhead display of plays in action in a future version.

Marauders: Since there is no demo and as far as I can tell no discussion of stats at Matrix, can you please post season stats so we can see how realistic things are at this point?

I'm quoting cartman because he's hitting on the main thing I wanted to point out.

Marauders is pointing to 80 posts in an FOF Bug thread. A thread for a game that I'm confidant has a LOT more customers than M-F, but even if you disregard that, certainly on a forum that has a LOT more posters, a LOT LOT more than the M-F forum does.

So, these 80 posts you have 33 in the last month.

So, when you actually read them, very few of the actual posts are new bugs. They're discussion about a bug, etc.

Ok.. so let's look at the bugs... they're all VERY minor. You'll see that the latest patch was within about a month or so of release and we're at the point where the bugs existing are so minor that must of us never see them.

However, with M-F you have many bugs that effect the very fundamentals of gameply. Things that it is impossible not to see if you buy the game and play. Things that make the game unplayable if you want a realistic game - and this is nearly a year after release.

I'm sorry, do not come in here trying to compare the bug situation for FOF to the bug situation for M-F, they are just completely in different universes.


In this whole discussion, I've noticed you've not really tried to claim that the game produces realistic states or delivers what it claims it is. That is very telling to me. That is the first thing several of us asked you to do - show us that it is not the buggy, unrealistic game that we know it to be and you have made no attempts.


And also, nice to see you went to this tried and true tactic that I mentioned in my first post that is a load of crap from the M-F folks:


So again, we have to throw our hard earned money on a load of crap to call it a load of crap? Our basis comes from everything that M-F supporters have posted on their board. Unrealistic stats, crazy game-killing bugs, etc. This whole concept that you have to buy it in order to be able to critcize is just a load.

You know, you can make a statement like this in an attempt to defend yourself, but then it just makes it even less likely that anyone would take you serious.

I'm going to paraphrase one of my all-time favorite quotes to explain my feelings about the quality of MF:

Treating Maximum Football as if it were a playable computer game is something like being pelted with random tornado ejecta and calling it an especially resource-intensive form of massage.

I would be happy to compare the bugs in the demo, which I have installed, of FOF 2K7 with the bugs in a demo of MF.

Perfectly sane and intelligent people choose to back seemingly strange things all the time for a myriad of reasons. The more their choice is criticized or deconstructed, the more they are likely to dig their heels in. It's human nature.

Best of luck with Maximum Football. I truly hope that all the volunteer time you invest in the game brings you everything you are hoping for and none of the abject frustration.

I prefer drunk Subby.

The second you charge $50 for a game no further excuses can be made about it being put out by 1 developer and it being hard to code.

You're right, this game does not need a demo. Since you agreed that the game was released too early, I don't understand why you can't see a point for this game to have a demo.

You are trying to convince me that the game is in a more stable state and all most of us are saying is to show us a demo since we don't want to purchase it without at least seeing if what you say is true.

If this game had glamorous reviews and by word of mouth people were saying good things about the game, I wouldn't be asking for a demo.


Ok, my point wasn't saying that text representation is easier than 3D modeling/collision detection/physics. What I was saying is that creating a realistic AI is harder than both. And that is what most people perceive to be the weakness of the game as well as the way it creates stats. That is why I didn't understand why more focus wasn't put on that instead of creating a new PDS. A new PDS won't improve the game since you can still easily exploit the computer opponent.



Ummmm....what the heck is an appoximation of an AI? There is no such thing. This is what I am talking about when I am speaking about AI. Take any game, whether it is turn based and real time, and with the options and features available in the game, I am going to make my decisions/moves.

A well programmed AI is going to counter your moves as close as it can to a human opponent. Ball flight, physics and vector forces are not elements of an AI at all. An AI is only decision maker.

Otherwise what you are saying is that computer chess or any turn based game is just an "appoximation of an AI".



Definitely agree with this, but much more of the difficulty comes with the AI. So if the focus is only on graphics/physics, you are doing the most easiest part of the game.



That's nice and all, but how do you play an online league with this game. You can't actaully play this game against another player online. So you are basically left with a commisioner who is playing out CPU vs. CPU games that no one else can watch. They just wait for the results as if it were a text based game. So how does graphics and on the field play help you for an online league?

So what kind of league are you running? Am I wrong in how I am speaking about running one?

I am drunk. I thought it was obvious.

You obviously have learned nothing from reading this thread.

from a page back, I'm quoting the Warlord of Coffee for truth...

FM

I just wanted to emphasise this again. If David was charging $20 or something, I might feel differently. But as soon as you put yourself on an even price plane with every other game out there, you are held to the same standards.

And I can't speak to how much money he gets per purchase, but I bet it's more than you think it is.

LOL.....does this thread seriously have 102 pages of posts about a game that's not even worthy of purchase?

By way of comparison, Markus charged $20 for ITP, which I bought. He clearly priced it taking into account the status of the game, and although many people ultimately didn't love it or think too highly of it, I don't recall a backlash about having paid too much for it. That's not the case when you charge regular price (and more than the typical text sim, I might add) for a game that not only doesn't meet expectations, but so clearly falls flat on its face.

Of course, by way of comparison, if ITP was reasonably priced at $20, then Daivd owes every person who has heard of MF $23.85.

Just as a side comment, I'd love to see an ITP2. :D

This game intrigues me. Tell me more.

Try the demo.

Amazing...this thread has it all.

First, I believe Jim has already pretty much destroyed any argument you can make *against* releasing a demo. It's earlier in the thread if you'd like the exact quote. At this point, refusing to release a demo speaks to the (total lack of) confidence the creator has in his product. Yes, it is essential in this day and age to have a demo of a sports-sim, "3D" or not. You simply cannot make an argument otherwise. I'd like to see you try, actually.

What should Daivd not worked on? Um....everything? Don't you think he'd get better, more valuable positive feedback on the game engine (and everything else) if the pool of beta-testers included more people than the current customer base of fanboys and uniform designers?

And I suspect "being in the trenches" doesn't mean being a part-time moderator of a message board. I've never heard The Dark Jedi claim he was in the trenches, so I can't imagine you even know what a trench looks like.

But thanks for brining this thread back to life - it's the best legacy M-F will ever have if you think about it.

I should also point out that Gary just released his pro basketball game with a demo from day 1.

Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but I don't believe teleportation is included in Gary's game. Maybe if he spent less time on the demo we could have had that feature.

Marauders,

I think you are missing some of the point here, or purposely ignoring it. I dont think you are a disengenuous person just based on posts here & when I check in occassionally on the Matrix boards, so I tend to think maybe you arent grasping people's valid reservations about the game.

By not releasing a demo, DW continues to prove to would-be customers that his game, which has been ripped for many reasons, (some invalid, but most extremely valid) is not a reasonably realistic representation of football. By contrast, developers with a finished product do everything in their power to motivate & advertise to would-be customers to purchase their product by giving them a sample of it, not simply tell them "if you havent purchased the game, you cant judge it" nonsense. Developers who are trying to finance a beta until it is working properly do not release demos because it showcases the flaws of their game. It is actually that simple, and that is the perception reasonable people come to when researching the game. I too have enough money to lose on it, if I really hate it, but the apparent lack of intended features working properly & lack of expansive career mode make it an obvious choice that it would not suit me.

That may not matter to DW...but it also shouldnt surprise him, Matrix, or you, that there just isnt a huge market for "Madden-Lite" w/ CFL & Arena basic functions thrown on...oh & for the same or more money than Madden costs?? Come on...seriously.

pwned

Good points. And in addition, to argue that 9 months later he has so many bugs/issues to work out that he can't make time for a demo is very telling also.

Maybe he was pregnant.

Nothing better than a release day porking.

Yep...thats where I was going with it. If you are forced to choose between fixing bugs & releasing a demo 9 months after release...then you clearly do not have a product ready to sell for $50...maybe even at any price.

If it were my product & I wanted to grow my audience...at a minimum, I'd offer at least a 50% discount to any future MF-2 to anybody who purchased the original. Odds are there wont be one anyway, so I guess it wouldnt matter.

Seems we're nearing the point of two new releases in the Maximum line.

Message last edited 2/16/2006 by Marauders


I bet the imminent release of Maximum Hockey played a part in the death of EHM.

:D

Wow. Good find. I can't believe a man who took 1,000 years to develop his first half-baked game thought he could pump out too more in the next year. And what exactly the "Maximum mark?" Is it the beer tent or teleportation?

Customizable Canadian regional accents and the patented "HoserCam" view.

We are comparing apples and oranges.
I think the whole problem is in expectations.

Daivd built himself a toy. Matrix realized nobody wanted a football toy and forced him to build a game around it (which he had/has no interest in doing.)

We sit here and point out all the problems with the football game, you counter with all the problems he has fixed with his football toy.
Granted the "toy" needs to work for the game to be played.
It is the game aspect that interests most here.

I'm thinking Extreme Lacrosse provides better abbreviation opportunitites. But candidly, it's tough to beat plain ol' M-F.

I think that is a nice analogy to use. If he had not titled the word "Football" in the game...not used one ball...and allowed players a robust set of AI tools to develop their own mini-games, sports, outcomes, etc. it would be a more understandable outcome to not have realistic "Football" results if one wanted to try & model a "game" of football, rugby, soccer, or whatever it is they might use it for. As it is...it just tries & "seems" to fail at modelling a "game" of football, with no real advanced features to justify it's price or outstanding issues.

LOL!

The irony being, of course, that given MF's history, the production/release schedule for Daivd's Lacrosse game would likely be best described as "constipated."

It's shocking how little interest there is in stats. The Matrix forums have almost no discussion of stats and certainly nothing serious. Look as this customer survey, nothing regarding stats.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=660163167264

It's not that Daivd has tried and failed to produce anything close to realistic numbers, it's clear that nobody involved cares about the accuracy of results.

As someone who does own the game (but admittedly hasn't played it in months and hasn't played it with the current patches), I can tell you that it really wasn't the bugs that bothered me. Sure, it was frustrating to have totally unrealistic statistics (you know, quarterbacks being sacked for hundred yard losses, but throwing for 200 yard touchdown passes, that type stuff), but the design decisions of the game were what broke the deal for me.

I like leagues. I like simulating careers. I like building teams. For various reasons, you couldn't (I'm avoiding using can't, since I haven't played the latest versions) do that with M-F. You had 40+ round drafts each season, undistinguishable players, in terms of ratings and abilities, no career tracking, and a very poor scheduling function. I don't consider those bugs. It was a poorly designed league and career system, when, I think, what the game really was (maybe is) is a single game coaching simulation.

I finally found something about stats using the latest build.