I don't think the Head Coach interface is horrible, it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Cover lack of content.
Be a big speed bump.

Realistically, if there was a nice clean design, it would take me an half hour to get up to the draft.
That doesn't give someone much game play.
But with this pos interface it takes hours, most of which is spent looking at splash screens.
It makes the whole game "bigger."

YES, I do have a complete lack of programming - there is no debating that and I don't take it personal what you or anyone else says - this is an anonymous internet forum - I come here because I often find interesting things here, but I could care less if someone disagrees with me - quite frankly I have too many "real" friends I don't need anymore.

Back on point, I do know that over 10 years ago there were games that better simulated the NFL then there are now - the progress made in gaming has been made primarily in the graphics end. I could go play FBPRO with the VPNFL files and get much more accurate results - of course the graphics are extremely dated, it doesn't run very well on XP and the front office aspect is extremely limited - but to suggest it isn't possible is off base in my opinion.

Do I know who to do it? of course not - If I did I would write my own damn game. I believe the game doesn't work the way I would like it to, because EA believes to cater to a wider market they have to go in another direction - but I still believe the reason this game isn't a more accurate NFL sim is more a design decision then a logistical one.

Gary - I agree with you 100%.

EA is a frustrating company because they come so close to delivering what I want. But in the end, there are always serious flaws. However as a business man I understand they are extremely successful - no matter how much I (and many others) are looking for a more serious sporting experience, the problem is the $50 I spend is no better then the $50 some 12 year old kid who only cares about things like end zone dances and physically impossible moves. That kid doesn't even look at the league leaders much less care about them. of course there are a lot more 12 year old kids buying this game then there are grumpy old men - so EA caters to them, makes millions, repeat.

What is so puzzling about HC is it doesn't appeal to ANY market. My 8 year old son has played hundreds of Madden games and he doesn't care about anything other then playing the game - all of the stuff I care about in a game are boring to him. After watching me play head coach for 30 minutes he was bored out of his mind and on to something else. The only think he liked about HC was when I drafted Reggie Bush. But the game doesn't cater to the serious game either. what we ended up with is a game that really doesn't make either camp happy. this game is easily the most disappointed I have been in a game since FB Pro 99.

I guess the good news for you, is that if EA was ever able to make serious sports sims that incorporated the depth and realism of games like yours with what they do well (3D graphics) the market for games like yours would be dramatically reduced.

EA should have hired Gary instead of Joe Stallings.

Well, to be fair, I've never said it isn't possible.... What I'm saying is I think you're expecting too much out of a first generation attempt at this with the high-level of detail in the graphics and options that are being done here. I have to be honest and say that I never played the FPS version, but did it have wide a range of playbooks? Did it have the audible and play prep options? I'm guessing that it didn't, and that adds many layers of complexity.

Keep in mind that HC (and probably FPS, I don't know) is not playing a movie of a pre-determined play (what I sort of envision FOF doing).. it is making many individual decisions based on the interaction of the players on the screen.. if he suddenly cuts left, what does the LB do? What does the RDE do? What does the LDE do? Games such as FOF and strat-o-matic are not doing this to my knowledge.. they are making a "bigger picture" decision.. like... RB runs left... does LB catch him? No.. does RDE catch him? No... Does DT catch him, yes... I just think there is an extra layer of detail here. Because of that, I can see why the difficulty levels are needed.

All that being said, I have not bought this game yet because I'm not convinced I would enjoy it. However, I believe I will when all is said and done based on what cwill is doing. The fact that the stats are a bit off for now is not a killer for me, as I think you have to cut some slack for first-gen games with such big goals. If they're WAY off that's one thing... for instance, there was a year (2k4 maybe?) of Sony's NFL game that I just couldn't get into because the sim stats were WAY off. I do however enjoy Madden. Is it as accurate as FOF? Heck no. But it has the other advantages in the graphical engine.


To Gary... I think some of what I've said above explains why we are tougher on the text-sims than games like HC. In my mind (and I am by no means a programming expert, I have merely done some coding in the past and taken some college courses in CS) getting the stats accurate is not quite as tough a task in a text sim as a graphical sim. In addition, I think part of what I'm doing when I play a text sim is sacrificing the graphical piece to get that realism. I mean.. when it comes down to it... what is the point of playing a text-sim if there is a graphical sim that can do it just as well?

lol thanks but EA has no interest in the game I want to create. To be fair they're not the only one - I've been told as much by people who are either high up in these companies or know those who are - they don't want to waste time on this realism nonsense because "all new freestyle full control crossover dribbling" is more appealing to their masses than intelligent AI trading. Personally I think you can take the time and develop both into a game - especially when you've had say 10-15 years of developing the title but what do I know?

Yes, FPS had a play editor so you could create all kinds of plays and playbooks and of course could control the players themselves so not only did the AI have to react to scripted plays but to the motions of the gamer as well.


I'll respectfully disagree - getting the stats accurate in a text sim is every bit as difficult. Have you played Total College Basketball? You see those games played out in full motion 2D. Every decision that happens in the code is shown on the court and the stats are accurate. What is harder in a 3D model is the animations - in something like TCB with a 2D model you see the icon drive to the basket and get past his man - in a 3D world people can become much more nitpicky about how it happened. "The defender was playing him to force him left and yet he still crossed over to the right, how could that happen". Making the gameplay come to life in 3D is a much greater challenge than in 2D and that's more difficult that in the text sim games that don't have an actual on field/court display.

Never played TCB. At this point, my text-simming has been pretty football based.

At any rate, I think in your last sentence you said it a bit.

Idano, the wind of the sales in my argument are leaving a bit, but I still think that the expectations are lower for a first-gen game this ambitious.

FWIW also, in my text-sims I don't get as hung up in getting "exactly" right stats as others... I've defended FOF on many occasions when people question things like 4q logic, the weight of the qb's importance in it, etc.

I know we've been there and done that on this topic, but you're talking about two completely different things: (1) making a game that has world-class AI and world-class graphics; and (2) making a game that makes money.

I realize I'm cynical, but I think Madden with FOF's AI wouldn't sell as well as Madden without FOF's AI. The casual gamer doesn't want it. An 8-year-old button masher isn't going to want to analyze the long-term cap implications of signing a free agent back-up defensive end -- he'll think you're trying to trick him and make him do math.

We all revel in the glory that was FPS Football Pro, but follow it to the end of the page ... Sierra went belly up. If FPS had sold like Madden, it would have been a different story. A title that requires that much investment has to pay off. No one -- other than Daivd Winter -- will invest the time and money into doing a game that does it all only to sell fewer copies and make less money. I hope it happens one day, but I won't hold my breath.

Until that happens, it would be great to see a game like Head Coach try to evolve. Is the game perfect? No. But to me it's a million times more enjoyable than Madden because I'm not a button masher. I do think though that with the the weak reviews and I'm sure weaker sales that we either won't get much more of Head Coach or we'll just get bastardized roster updates for $39.99.

I still think the disconnect here is factoring our expectations. Yes, this is hard-core text sim community -- but one of the favorite games of all-time of this audience was Tecmo Bowl. Was that realistic? Not really? Did it have pretty 3D graphics? Not really. Was it fun as hell? You bet.

I do appreciate your honesty, Gary. I don't think that people were harder on TCB than HC because one has 3D graphics. I think my expectations of TCB were higher than my expectations for HC. I readily admit that my personal perception is that there were far more clicks to get something done in TCB than there are in HC. HC probably has the advantage of making it seem like fewer clicks because there is something else happening on screen.

But I haven't tried TCB in a while. To be fair, I should give the demo another shot before making any judgements. But in all honesty, my expectations for a text sim are different than for a sport RPG with no other real competition. If I don't like TCB, I have FBCB. If I don't like Head Coach, I've got nothing.

And that's exactly why it hasn't happened yet - but here's the thing - how many 8 year old button mashers play more than one or two seasons MAX in a career or even play a career mode at all? Is your average button masher going to know that the HBs in the league shouldn't be getting 500 carries a season? Maybe the one on his own team will through his own control but come on - in 15 years or whatever of Madden they can't get stats to at least be in the ballpark of NFL ones? They can add in all the cone precision passing and such to appeal to the arcade base which is by far the larger piece of the pie but why not an option to do the HC stuff (albeit in a much smoother design) in Madden?

I know a studio cannot make a game strictly for the sim group but I see no reason why the elements needed for a good sim can't be build into the button masher world. Granted I don't know the time and resources it takes to add the one new arcade feature they add every year - maybe doing that takes all the development time, I don't know. But they've taken the time to build a football game that has the pieces needed for a career sim - why not spend some time getting those pieces right?

You're very right on this - I viewed Head Coach as it would be something along the lines of a 3D version of FOF/TPF etc (obviously without the depth of those right off the bat). I viewed it as it was going to be a product line in the same arena as text sim games - not as some odd hybrid of Madden and The Sims which is the reason for my huge dissapointment in it. I fully expected it to not be as good as a FOF in the output of stats and trades etc but I expected it to at least be on the right path. Maybe that's why others aren't as dissapointed with it because you expected it to be what it is whereas I was expecting more of something of the beginning of Madden meets FOF. To be honest, I'm not even sure what EA expected it to be and that's another source of frustration. Have they said anywhere what the game is actually supposed to be?

[flip flop]

Im with you on this statement here, for sure.

As an aside, whats crazy to me, is that I seem to buy every single text sim game when they come out....missing maybe one or two along the way but inevitably I always seem to come back to the same few. at least thats the way its been for the past few years.

Very well stated.

Do you ever see in a Madden commercial, "Madden 2010, better GM AI, watch as teams trade for that one in a lifetime QB", nope.. it's always some goofy new feature that will sell the game.

actually FPS had a COMPLETE play editor - one that allowed you to make ANY play as, even ones that aren't legal (and if you ran them you would get the appropriate penalty) - FBPro was light years ahead of any EA product in this manner - was it perfect, no - not even close, it was a little TOO easy to make money plays - But with some in-house rules it was better then anything EA has ever done.

absolutely!!!! I couldn't agree more.

:D

NFL Head Coach screams Joe Stallings!

What is the "Joe Stallings" story? I don't even remember? Wasn't he part of Total Pro Football originally?

Is it time for a Maximum Football vs. NFL Head Coach thread?

I am surprise Gary wasn't this vocal with Maximum Football like he is with Head Coach.

This is a game that you really, really want to like. That you play in hopes that the flaws will fade away. But it just gets worse the more you play it.

The problem is that you are forced to do things, over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, that are inserted into the game in the guise of "simulation." I'm a serious hard core sports sim and career sim fanatic. But I'd just as soon take the hit in injuries, lack of player development, and the hit on my "work" ethic to keep from having to spend 15 minutes over and over and over and over on drills such as my running back trotting into a defensive back who touches him and then quits. 5 keystrokes (assuming I don't want to give instructions) for each repetition, 10 repetitions. No useful on screen feedback. Boring visual. And you are forced to do totally unrewarding tasks such as this each and every week. Why? So they can check off the "Practice drills! Individual and squad oriented!" feature box. The game is filled with crap like this. OK, let's set up our squad. I want to get a summary report of how my linebackers are doing: LB coach, tell me your assessment of your guys, how they are responding to training, their attitudes, who's getting better, who's getting worse. A side by side listing of their skills. Etc. Uh - no. Instead you get the awkward screens interface. OK, let's make some depth chart changes. Two and "sorry, no more allowed now." Bull. It's sports management sim with a lobotomy. Things are so obviously tagged on with no regard for how they help or hurt the game experience. Bah.

The story begins with some sort of twisted triangle between Joe Stallings, .400 Studios and Druez.

1. Druez writes a great review for Total Pro Football while being very critical of FOF. Seemed as though it was simply his opinion.

2. Somehow Druez and Joe get into some sort of back and forth arguement and it then Druez suddenly announces that he was prodded to write the bad review by Joe Stallings. Stallings mentions something about false accusations, but never appears on the board again.

3. Shortly after, .400 Studios lets go of Joe Stallings. It is still speculation, but many believed he was let go because of that and other things he was doing behind the scenes. A number of developers walked away from .400 before the announcement and no one knew why. No one knows if they are connected however since there was never an offical explaination.

4. A lawsuit occurs between the Rahn Family and Joe Stallings since he had part ownership of .400 Studios.

5. Grey Dog Software rose out of the ashes while they let .400 Studios wither away so that Joe Stallings wouldn't earn any more money on the titles from the past.

6. The lawsuit is finally resolved and .400 Studios is no longer in existence. Joe, Arlie and Farrah go their seperate ways.

To this day, no one know the full story, but everyone knows that he used to frequently overhype a game and it is still is question if he was practicing unethical business practices to drop the sales of his competitors.

He probably would be if he owned Maximum Football.

Okay, since I bought the game, figured I'd stick my 2 cents in.

The more I thought about it after I bought it, before I opened the package, the more I thought it was not going to be a good game. Consoles are made for fast action. The things that a computer aren't so great at. This is instead a game that I expect to sit down and have nothing happen. While I do enjoy the front office aspects of Madden, I buy it for the game.

If I want a sports sim, I turn on the computer, because that is a much better format.

very well put, this is exactly how I feel about this game.

after playing for 50 hours - I have put the game away.

NFL head coach the TV show...on ESPN right now, i shit you not.

highlights:

Levy - "ability without character will lose."

Question to Coughlin, "how'd you use Free agency to build your franchise" they sure are talking FA a lot if isnt in the game....anyone know yet?

I was just about to post this. It's like a giant commerical on ESPN, although the coaches are somewhat interesting and I find myself still watching.

so a friend of mine gave me this as a gift for the PS2 this afternoon...i played it for about 90 minutes before i left for work, and now i have spend just as long reading this thread and dont feel like going through the 15 pages i havent gotten to yet, so will someone please just tell me if i should thank my buddy or kick his ass for getting me this game?

Well, I finally gave up on Head Coach today after over 50+ hours playing and a team that I put together and really liked.

the game simply has too many flaws and takes way too long to play. I fired up Madden coach mode again and the only thing that HC has over Madden coach mode is the camera view and the draft.

the camera view I will miss, but after all that time I only had one draft - it would be weeks until I did another one - AND if the reported FA bug is true, well that pretty much becomes the final nail. How very disappointing.

Yep, we get the shaft again. :(

Yep

Now the question is do we take a chance with EA Madden 2007 and NCAA 2007?

Madden and NCAA are completely different games and also very well-established. We know what we're getting with those.

It is funny because I have said here that what I wanted was FOF with 3D graphics and that IS what I wanted. But I never expected that.

what I expected and would have been absolutely thrilled to have was a more detailed version of Madden coach mode.

keep the core of what Madden did well and add things like the improved draft, improved scouting, broadcast camera. do all that, stop teams from moving to Mexico and make it even remotely realistic and I would have easily paid whatever they wanted to charge for it.

sure that only appeals to a small target market, but this game in its current state doesn't really seem to appeal to any market. the button mashers will never even make it to the game and serious simmers have all but given up.

I've come to the conclusion that for me, the indie developers are the only ones who are going to meet my sports gaming desires any time in the near future, and probably forever. I've tried the Maddens and the MVPs, and they've just not done it for me. I didn't purchase this one, waiting for FOFC's input, and it turns out it was a wise choice. I'll continue to support with my time, input, and/or finances the efforts of Clay, Jim, Gary, Markus, Brian, Arlie, Shaun, and anyone else who endeavors to make a true text sim of the big 3 sports. Warts and all, the fact of the matter is that the guys I just mentioned focus their primary attention on depth, statistical accuracy, and the things that matter to me. Until I get overwhelming positive feedback about a game created from outside the text sim world, I'm done.

I have already pre-ordered both and I am cautiously optimistic, but with EA you just never know.

Last year I bought NCAA for xbox and really enjoyed it.

Bought Madden for XBox and PC and thought they were both the best Madden ever (still far from perfect, just better then previous versions)

Then I bought Madden for the 360 and the only reason I never returned it was the time it would take me to do so wasn't worth the 60 bucks. the 360 version of last years Madden was really, really bad - so much was missing and the game was obviously just thrown together to make it for release.

So while I am excited to see both of these games, EA really hasn't proved anything to me yet on the 360 platform.

Agreed for sure Ben, but I remember a time when console sport games were so much fun. Maybe I'm getting old and looking for too much in a console graphical game. I do miss something playing only text sims though, that visual element that the FPS series and games like High Heat did for me. Actually seeing my HR hitting rookie come up for the first time in a game and hit a bomb out to RF. Watching my newly acquired CB Deion Sanders pick off a pass and take it 90 yards to the house in a close game. Reading is ok, but I loved that visual aspect.

I couldn't have said it better myself - this is EXACTLY how I feel.

I agree with you to an extent, but I've realized one other thing: the time issue. As you know, I like to see players come into the league, mature, peak, decline and retire. Back when I used to play FBPro, I was single, and I lived alone. There were weekends back then when I would get home from the office in the early afternoon on Friday, and only stop playing for church on Sunday. There were *MANY* weeknights that I played that game from the time I got home until I went to sleep. If I recall, a full game (including the processing afterward) took well over an hour. Last time I played Madden, coaching a full game was also a pretty long process. These days, at that pace, I'd be lucky to complete an entire season and offseason in a month. That's just not as fun for me as going through much more time in a text sim. For that reason, I've given up on PBP. Maybe one day, when I retire, I'll again have the time to go through each play again. ;)

I think the biggest problem with Madden and NCAA the last few versions is the sim stats and pancakes problems and the AI draft(Madden).

If it was better, I think I can get into it more.

Last year version of Madden they had the lack of fatigue on sims games. It cause the starters to play majority of the game. Thus inflating the sim stats.

Just curious, but do you watch the PBP on FOF? It's weird, but I like seeing the plays happen so I like watching the game on NFL Head Coach. On the other hand, I don't watch the PBP at all on FOF. I fast sim the game and just watch the scoreboard.

No. I sim. I read the PBP in multiplayer, and in the fairly recent past I analyzed a whole bunch of SP PBP for research purposes, but when I'm playing a career, I just sim the game, check the basics of the box score, make depth chart adjustments, and sim the next one. I rarely even change my game plan from week to week in the regular season in SP.

How do you get into the game and know your players well and league players when you fast sim and don't look at the pbp?

Hey, in FPS football you could save a game in progress and come back to it later. :p It's amazing how great that series was.

Interesting. I just make defensive changes from week to week in SP. Offensively, I'll only make changes if someone is hurt.

I think this is a HUGE point for me and the main reason that I have not bought Head Coach...

It sounds like I'd like it, but it's just not a game I have TIME for.. and I don't mean the tedious stuff, I mean coaching the games... part of the reason that I play FOF is such little dedicated time is required, you can move quickly if you want...

I used to play Madden HARD core... I probably would play 12 hours at a time sometimes, often with buddies, etc.. going through many seasons playing every game...

Last year, I played not a single season of Madden and maybe 3 or 4 of NCAA, with quick simming some of the games... I just don't have the time anymore...

The more and more I realize it.. If the "next FPS" came out... the only thing I'd use it for would be MP if you could "replay" the games so I could watch them while doing other work.. Otherwise, I don't know that the rest appeals to me from a time management perspective...

Well, it usually takes me about 2 hours to play an entire season. I also keep a spreadsheet with my starter's abilities and stats of every year in my SP franchise.

That's pretty much how I play and how I've palyed since the first FOF. I think it's fair to say that you DO lose focus and immersion in the entire league, but (for me at least) this style of play is more about watching your team and players progress over their careers rather than following the details of a single season. This kind of 'fast play' allows you to play many more seasons with many more players, so I saccrifice focus on the rest of the league in favor of building a history and records and such for my team, which is actually MORE immersive for me. It speaks well for FOF that it can support so many different play styles....especially compared to the complaints of how entirely rigid Head Coach sounds.

In FBCB, I sim a month at a time during the OOC part and then a week at a time during the Conf part. In OOTP, I sim a month at time. I rarely look at box scores and never ever at logs. The goal, for me, in playing these games is to have players come in to the league, watch them mature, peak and decline and then look back a remember the good players and teams. In pro games, all of the fun is in contracts, trading, free agency and drafting and in the college games, recruiting. That's just a different way of playing. You definitely don't need to look at box scores and esp. pbp to see who's good and who's not. Just trust the game that it will take care of the details for you.

Just to add an opinion to this discussion, I'm with you here. I like building a team and then getting through the seasons to see how my team does. I have no interest in game logs. Box scores are nice in basketball and football, but box scores in a baseball game do nothing for me.

As much as I love the concept of being able to coach each game, I only do it at first for the novelty. After that, I'd much rather sim through or even watch the CPU run the game for me. When I played Earl Weaver Baseball, oh, maybe 12 years ago, I just created the MLB teams and then watched the computer play. I wouldn't really want to do that now, but if I was actually running a team in the game, I'd like to just watch occasionally. Most of the time, though, I just want to run through a few games really quickly and see how my team compares to all the others.

For the record, I think Total Pro Basketball is damn near perfect for that. NHL Eastside Hockey Manager is very good in that respect, also, although there's no option to watch your own team play. It's great for simming through several games at a time with minimal changes, though.

The only game that I really enjoy any type of micromanaging in is Worldwide Soccer Manager. Even then, I really only know the players on my team. I don't look at the stats or even the standings to keep up with the best players and teams in my division. I just want to know what I have to do to keep my team successful.

I wasn't always this way, but I think this is going to be my attitude about sports games from now on.

I agree about TPB. By far THE easiest game to get your team together and then just sit back and watch them play or sim weeks at a time. It's the ONLY Pro basketball game that I've ever been addicted to.

I've always wanted to buy TPB but could never justify spending the 35 bucks for it. I hope one day it's discounted so I could buy it. Or failing that updated in which case I'd probably but it then as well.

Threadjack alert...


Hey! You!

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...6&postcount=81

I pretty much feel the same way.


To me that's the heart of playing the game. I want to coach the players, and see the results. I don't want to sim the game in the background, and read the PBP to see what happened. To me FPS is the only sim that has come close.

This is how I feel as well. I am a long time lurker here and I also tend to wait for other fan feedback on games like this, such as on Abner's blog. From the sound of it this game just isn't going to fill my personal gaming needs. No harm done, money saved as far as I am concerned.

I think indie developers are going to drive my sports gaming as well. I am just not much of a gamepad jockey so games like ncaa and madden do not interest me because they dont do the things I want a sports game to do, or they do them in a way that I dont like. I am clearly not the target audience for EA Sports so if they'd make a game that I'd like to play it would probably be by accident.

Still, I think the future even in indie games is providing some sort of graphics rather than just text. I really enjoy Puresim Baseball 2007 and as simple as it is I really like the animated baseball. I'd love to see a deep baseball game even with simple 1980s graphics like Microleague Baseball. I guess I am just surprised that we had the beginnings of games like this back in the mid 80s and instead of building on that the industry went in an entirely different direction.

-mike

I forgot about that, man I loved that game.. I remember that I bought it before I had a computer and had to wait about 6 months to play it.. good times, good times..

good news from the madden 07 podcast

2 things on the PC that have been missing:

1. edit players in franchise - no more stupid #'s
2. toggle on/off team moves - no more Mexico City Bumble Bees!

these were 2 of my biggest frustrations of the past versions.

Mexico City Bumble Bees remind me of that guy on the Simpsons.

Interesting conversation at Maddenmania:

http://www.maddenmania.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=134570

Not that I would (since I like the game), but I was wondering if you could return the game for your money back since it is broken...in other words, it's stats engine is broken and doesn't produce accurate statistics. According to page 12 of the manual (PC version):


Guess not then.

I won't return it because:

1. who knows a patch or two and some 3rd party utilities and I could see playing this again.
2. I HATE returning things, seems like it is always a hassle.
3. not worth the $40 to drive down there and wast an hour to do it.

See, for instance, this post has a ton of validity in that other thread...

But it will never be seen by the person wanting to know if they should buy it...

actually i think it has a ton a validity in THIS thread since it was a direct response to the previous post in this thread regarding warranty and refund.

I understand you disagree with the 2 thread thing and I even agree with your reasoning, to a point. But to me a reply that crosses threads is not helping continuity at all.

Do those of you who have the game and have played it think that Head Coach 2 or possibly 3 will fix the gameplay issues, or is it a lost cause? I had high hopes for this game, but it sounds as bad as I feared it might be.

my biggest concern is with the overall philosophy of the game.

this is not Madden Coach Mode Plus

it is not the long lost second coming of FBPro98

and it is definitely not FOF with 3D graphics

what is is sadly, is more like the sims and extremely repetitive

I am not sure if EA cares to make the game that so many of us are looking for

There are some very good things the game does. In my mind, there is hope for Head Coach 2, but it obviously depends upon what areas (if any) that EA chooses to improve in the next iteration.

I would agree, let's hope that they see enough interest in the game to make some needed changes and upgrades.

Does EA ever listen to those of us who want more than just a pretty game?

I mean how long has Madden after Madden come out and things like pancakes are still f'd up?? They don't listen, period.

No, because we are in the extreme minority. They don't make games for gamers. They make games for profits.

I would actually change this statement to:

"No, because we are in the extreme minority. They don't make games for text simmers, they make games for gamers/profit."

Sad to say, we are not "gamers". At least, not by the definition I would use. We are the small group that want the game to be as close a model of NFL football in every way as possible. The "gamers" want to be able to have the qb with the most passing yards every year, go 19-0, be undefeated on-line, etc.

I'm not a "text-simmer" becuase that does not describe the game I want. I'm a simmer. I want a true graphic simulation, with game-play, stats, etc.

Ok, whatever, fix my statement to say "simmer" instead of text-simmer to be more accurate. The point still stands.

I suppose I chose my wording poorly. EA doesn't seem to make games for those that really care to model the sport. They give something familiar and the ability to perform at unrealistic levels for those that want to score 90 points or hit 10 home runs a game.

I recently watched a friend play some Madden while I was watching TV. His whole game was throwing long TD passes and doing on-side kicks to get the ball back. He probably ended up with 10 times the number of plays as the computer opponent. Some people like to play that way, and EA will make sure those people are not disappointed.

Agreed.

And, unfortunately, it's because that's what sells more games.

Although, I will say, for all of the knocks on Madden... If you don't play on-line and get good slider settings... as long as you call realistic plays, I think it is a relatively decent model of real football.

I have also even had good human vs. human games when I play with other friends that play "realistically". It's definately not perfect, but I think it does get a bit of a bad rap for what I see more as human issues vs. CPU issues (i.e. what you're saying your friend does)... If you play the game unrealistically, you'll get unrealistic results.

The problem I've tended to have with the game is that even people who play "realistically" will start exploiting the system when they are losing. Games always seem to come down to a rock-paper-scissors affair where only a very few offensive or defensive sets can be used and you have to hope to guess the right combination.

I've had decent games against the CPU with slider tweaks and realistic playing, but it seems like any loss can be turned into a win if you throw enough bombs late in the game. Since this is a realistic tactic which works way too well, it loses the feeling of realism.

Yeah, I can see your point there.

I definately think it has a long way to go to be truely realistic, I just feel that it does a better job at it than most here give it credit for. But I will definately grant you that that is a big problem when playing the CPU for "realism"... that you have to remove a specific part of the game if you don't want to pretty much guarantee yourself a win.

the biggest problem is lack of competition. there are 50 things I hate about Madden that I wish they would fix and I could care less about 90% of the "features" they add each year. Yet, there is no competition and I always end up buying not one but two versions of the game. One for the xbox (now 360) for my kids to play and one for the PC for me to play coach mode.

So as far as EA is concerned I am a "happy" customer, one that is so happy that I routinely buy 2 versions every year. Hell last year I bought 3 (xbox, 360 and PC) so as far as they are concerned their marketing and development "work"

now ESPN 2k5 is still one of the best games I ever played and I still occasionally play - of course the rosters are dated, it is not on the PC and doesn't run on the 360 - so it rarely holds my interest long term.

Even In the glory days of FB Pro around 1995-1998 I still bought Madden - but I hardly ever played it.

Again, we're talking about us being the minority of gamers. Sales figures would suggest that Sony had little success in taking sales away from EA. So, that would lend me to think that there's more to it than just competition.

When you talk about competition, that's a tough thing to have. I have found very few people who give me a "good game". Either I'm way better than they are or they're way better than me. By the second quarter it's pretty apparent who will win. It's those few people that are about my level that give me games that I remember. I don't remember the game that I blew someone out 70-0 in the first half (okay, I do remember that one). I remember the game where I came back being down 17 points in the third quarter to win with a two-point conversion with 3 seconds to go.

My two cents.

Not to be a broken record, but I think this is a "we're in the minority" thing again here, but I agree.

The few of us that want realistic games will remember those close games. The majority that want to rub it in the face of their opponents will remember the blowouts.

Sadly, the sports video game market has a huge entry barrier. Even without the licensing issues, making a complete video game the first time is nearly impossible. If you don't make a complete game right away, people go to the old favorites and don't try your game the next time around. Sega did well, but they never developed the momentum to keep going.

Can't disagree with anything you've said here. The 15+ years of development time that EA has on other would-be game creators is much more of a hinderance than the NFL License imo.

Exactly. Look at how little is added each year. A new company is going to have to reproduce most of those 15 years of experiene in one year. If the new company goes with a 3-year development time on the first game, their "new features" will be 3 years old by the time they come out. You can't start out as a direct competitor. It would be much easier to come out with a Head Coach type game, or even a Maximum Football type game, develop your own market and then slowly drift toward the Madden market once you have built some steam.

yes on "us" being the minority of gamers - that is no doubt.

However I think you are falling into to conventional wisdom trap on the sales numbers.

I know I was very surprised the first time I saw these numbers - I had no idea that NFL 2k5 sold over 3M units and in the xbox category almost sold the same amount as Madden.

I think EA was very concerned about 2k5 solid sales and the drop off in Madden sales from 2004 to 2005, a trend that continued in 2006. I am sure all of this was the prime motivating factor in EA pursuing the exclusive contract with the NFL




http://www.vgcharts.org/worldtotals....=&sort=America
http://retailindustry.about.com/od/s..._npd012703.htm

I held off because EA is unreliable (and it's a hassle getting games in Japan).

I'm glad I did. But don't fool yourself thinking that HC2 or 3 will be better.

The 800 rushes thing is a problem that no serious developer would make.

Honestly, I can't think of a game that was this big of a clusterfuck that became a good game in a later iteration.

But wait a minute, I think you're looking at that wrong...

You need to combine the PS2 and XBOX sales of Madden, and if you do, their sales for 2005 and 2006 INCREASED... I would argue that the reduction in Madden 2005 and 2006 sales on the PS2 had more to do with the sales of the same game on the Xbox than the Sony games. There was a small drop in totals from 2005 to 2006, but relatively minor.

I'm not argueing that Sega didn't sell a fair share of games, but they really did not cut into EA sales.

Completely untrue.


http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=301

"Maximum-Football delivers your imagination like a bullet pass through double coverage."*

*as long as your framerate is high enough.

The problem I see with HC is that it isn't going to appeal to the hard core sports sim gamer OR the arcade player. The previous is obvious - see the posts here. But what in HC is going to appeal to the person who loves to score 80 points in Madden? Not the "OK, it's that time again, pick a running back, pick a DB, pick a formation, click to start them, watch them jog into each other and bump each other, click no you don't want to talk to anyone, now click on a RB, click on a DB..." etc. Skip it/Sim it? Your players get injured, they suck, no skills increases, you work ethic rating goes down, etc. Are the arcade players, who may think it's cool to get job offers and role play, going to enjoy the purposefully limiting interface? "What do you mean, I can't make more than 2 changes on my depth chart?" "Well, see, that's what makes this REALISTIC!" I just have to believe this dog isn't going to hunt anywhere, and EA will conclude there is no real interest in a coaching sim.

Speaking purely as a designer, I would have done this differently.

First, what they did right is realize they already had the basis of a nice sim in Madden. This is something we talked about back when I had a lot of contacts at EA. The graphics engine is put together in such a way that you can use it as an API - just tell it some things about the play and it will model the play for you in 3D. If online FOF had worked out for them, we were going to add this engine to FOF and put together a Sportscenter like module around it for game highlights.

This game is different. What they're trying to capture is what life is like as a head coach in the NFL. But the reality of the situation is that head coaches in the NFL spend about 100 hours preparing for each game. EA realized that you can't literally spend 100 hours preparing, so they broke it up into a set number of half-hour bites. You get a taste of some of the activities, but nothing too involved. What you're doing is probably fairly realistic, but the effects aren't because coaching is largely a free-form marathon - your real genius is deciding what you can accomplish in a week out of the month's worth of work you realize you need to do to prepare for the next game. In Head Coach, the structure eliminates the opportunity for genius. What's left quickly becomes tedious, and that's enhanced by the wealth of splash screens.

My approach would have been to treat Head Coach like the old-time adventure games. You've reached the playoffs, and your goal is to take your team to the Super Bowl. You'd have a free-form world in which you have a limited amount of gaming time to put together a coaching staff, a playbook and a training program. By solving football-related puzzles, you might gain access to new plays. By having conversations with characters (like your staff, or like the famous coaches from the past), you might gain insight into your strengths and your opponents' weaknesses. In NFLHC, you give input, but you don't learn a lot. That's why people report so much frustration the more they spend some time with it.

What can I learn from Bill Parcells that will help me beat the run-happy Steelers? That's the kind of question that could make this type of game come alive.

During games, you call plays, get feedback from your staff. The beauty of this adventure approach is the replay value. Just by running a different team you can change the game completely. And the games themselves will have that random element that adventure games lack. Because of that, you need to provide a more concrete beginning and end.

I would also eliminate the draft. It's too repetitive. Drafting is something that begins with endless scouting. It takes four years to learn if you've done a good job. That's an eternity for a head coach - too much of one for a game like this.

Anyhow, that's just one take on this. I'd appreciate it if this were not quoted elsewhere out of the context of this particular aspect of the discussion. I don't want to be seen as having some axe to grind against EA - or even against Joe Stallings. As I've said before many times, my experiences with EA were very positive. Just bad luck that I'm not still working with them.

Wow. From your first paragraph, it is bad luck for us all that you aren't working with them!

Truer words are rarely uttered.

Jim:

I think you said what I was trying to say quite a bit better than I did in your first couple of paragraphs.

Essentially, this is realistic, just not necessarily fun. Which also goes to the other discussion about a "realistic" Madden...

I played my first game on the PC, using the mod for 7:00 quarters and more realistic stats. The core is there.. I felt like I was doing the right things as a coach.

I was playing as the Chargers against Green Bay, and worked with my guys during the week. I swapped out a lot of the passing game practice to focus on the running game, because I was confident that we could stuff the ball down Green Bay's throat. Lots of practicing of running plays (especially Off-Tackle/Sweepes) during practice.

Then on our first drive, we were forced to 3rd and 7 at about the GB 25, and I called a pass play, I wanted seven points, not three, damnit :) brees made a BAD decision and threw a pass that was in double coverage and picked off.

The second I called my first defensive play, I "pulled" brees aside and first tore him a new one for throwing the INT (Aggresive Motivation) which he responded well to, and then "fixed it" on the stratgey screen by telling him to hold on to the ball, even if it means taking a sack.

The next drive, he played better, and even stayed in the pocket on 3rd and 5, waiting till the last moment to throw the ball for a big gainer.

I felt like a coach must at that time...

One thing that bugged me though, is the return of the comeback code. I was leading 30-12 late (having run for 160 between Tomlinson and his backup), and with two minutes to go, Green Bay scored, converted the two point conversion, got an onside kick and scored again in just a minute, so suddenly it was 30-27 with :59 to play. They didn't need any timeouts or anything. Not proof.. but certainly suspicious

but there are no sales numbers here on xbox for 2004 - so you cannot draw a conclusion about the increase or decrease (neither can I since the data isn't here - quite honestly I didn't notice that missing data until you pointed it out)

however I still stand by my assumption that EA was "worried" about the 3M+ units that 2k5 sold, and that led them to the exclusive license. but that is nothing more then an assumption - the data I supplied was nothing more then "proof" that 2k5 did quite well, better then I would have guessed and better then I think most people assume.

as to whether they cut into their sales, that is a data analysis that would require much more data - I have watched my wife do that kind of analysis for over 10 years and I have a general idea of how they do it, so much more goes into category management then simple comparison of sales - trends in the category, the segment, etc, etc. I am sure EA knows whether sega cut into their sales - but I don't think a conclusion can be drawn from the limited amount of data that is available.

But he would have no draft.

I can't imagine that EA wouldn't have buried Jim under a landslide of beaurocracy and other people's "opinions".

:eek:

Please stop causing problems.

No draft? That seems really odd. I'm sure it could be done in a way that's acceptable without requiring 4 years of scouting. For people who enjoy these types of games, the draft is sometimes the most exciting part.

So, Jim, when will FOF Head Coach be released?