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?