Hey guys, I'm kinda late to this thread. I've missed the first 75 pages or so. Anyone care to give me an executive summary? :p

Parties over at the official forum. No more questioning the posters who say the game works great. Or the thread gets locked.

They haven't gotten around to toning down the white-fonts yet, that's all I know for sure. :)

wasn't there a thread that summed up a lot of this thread?

Lots of naked pics of Neuqua.

Dammit! I knew I missed something.

Slacker :rolleyes:

Yes there is.....Farrah check this out.
Maximum Football Media Index Thread

So that's a 'NO' then? :(

Rock on. Thanks Ant.

I hear that you can customize the game so that 1995 is actually five years from now.

Can someone please explain what he is talking about? I shown him a link to NFL.com and he is continuing to say that the information is invalid. Well actually he believes that the official smokes crack. I don't know what to say if he believes that any designed running play involving a quarterback results in a sack:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1099489

Ok this thread is gold. I love all you guys so much. You make me laugh and laugh and laugh.

This is just par for the course considering the arrogance he's already displayed in the past. You tell 'em Daivd - of course you, a professed CFL guy knows more about NFL rules than an NFL ref (or anyone that's been a long-time NFL football fan).

didn't you read what he wrote over and over? Nowhere has he said that his game his mimicking this NFL thing so why are you wasting his time sending him to the Nonsense Football League? Damn Ant, you should have learned by now... :D

FM

oh wow, Daivd is pulling his information from a book called "The Illustrated NFL Playbook", which he quickly points out is an official NFL publication and produced by NFL Properties.

Dear God, wow, just wow. I got the NFL ABC, a boardbook from DK publishin, which is also officially licensed by the NFL, if he wants to work on his spelling too...

FM

Does MaxFB allow endzone celebrating?

Yeah I had to chuckle when I read that. He should have the official NFL rulebook which is available at Amazon.com.

I don't know what you are making fun of, this book is all you need to be an expert in N*& (sorry, outdoor professional American Football)

Now THAT is an awesome game. Where do I sign up?

I can take somewhat of a hit on this one. I understand what he was trying to say now. He was pointing out that sack yards don't count against rushing stats and I was concentrating on the fact that he was saying that any play behind the line of scrimmage is always a sack. He was right in the first instance not applying to the NFL rules, but it does apply to college.

However a quarterback does not get a sack counted against them for a designed running play as I stated above. I gave two examples on the link above. Aaron Brooks and Michael Vick both had games in which ended in negative yards on their total rushing yards and they weren't just by kneeling.

Antmeister, in all seriousness, your level of decorum both here and at the M-F forums has been very impressive.

You'd ordinarily think that the "customization' line of jokes had run its course... but I think this proves that wrong.

This is the first time I can recall seeing this thread on the second page of FOFC...

This tread made me mad - i was keeping up with it for a while - but i missed 2 days worth of posts - and so I stopped reading it because I wasnt about to try to catch up! :p

You have to make a decision at some point to either keep up to speed with this thread every day or accept that it will move on quickly without you. I made the mistake of not checking in for a couple of days and it cost me.

Indeed. Back when the thread activity was at it's peak I made the mistake of not checking it for an entire weekend.

Suffice to say, it cost me a whole day at work on the Monday to catch up - and then to read what had gone on while I had been catching up.

*sigh of relief*

I just saw where a thread was deleted and had to come check...

Finally......someone posts an honest review about the game :rolleyes::
http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/

The first sentence alone shows that the rest of the review will be factual.:D

uhhh Ant...he gave the game 6/8. That's 75%?? There's no way this game in it's present state even approaches 75%. I think 67% would be very generous for where it's at.

I'm not sure what 'management' games that guy's referring to with 2-D representation. It's not BBCF (even though he linked to his review of that), or FOF...

Bite your tongue.

Just read that as "six-eighths", or 0.75 out of 10.

That review doesn't jive with the little bit of reports I've seen over at the Matrix forums. The only game that seemed to come close to accurate stats was the one game shot posted by Old Coach, and he admitted to coaching both sides.

If the reviewer was struggling to beat the computer with the default playbooks, he should be thankful there isn't a multiplayer option. :D

LOL. hey i said that would be very generous

One day someone will understand my sarcasm through text. I am trying really hard to get it across, but I haven't mastered the use of the smileys effectively.

More use of the rollseyes would be better to tip us off to your true nature.

Thank you sir, I don't think I have ever used that smiley. Going to edit now.

stevew....that is much better. Thanks for the netiquette tip and thanks goodness I have an edit button.

oh no i got it. it's just the smiley wasn't in your first post and i read and was responding before you posted your second so i didn't see that.

All that review proved is that reviewer isn't worth a flying shit and not to trust his opinion about any game on the market.

If you go to the Matrix forums and see who posted that the review was available, and compare it to the URL of the review, all will become clear.

How about giving me the summary version?

The same guy that announced at the Matrix forums that a review was available is the guy who wrote the review, a longtime Matrix forums poster.

A Jonah Falcon Fanboy special, eh?

Yep, and the funny thing is, the other people that have responded to the post haven't (or don't want to) acknowledged that he was the writer of the review. They are responding that they are glad to see a positive review out there.

Well I don't mind if someone likes a game regardless of flaws. Most of us have been there, done that. What I dislike is that he is leaving out a lot of vital information or just being somewhat dishonest:


Well we just had a thread arguing with David over this very point and David kept saying that he never said that professional rules are in the game. Heck the college game isn't even totally represented.



On top of that, he compares the game to a football management game (which links to BBCF):

Of course he leaves out the part that there is no draft, no trading, no true career stats and stats that are totally off.



Well he really leaves out the part that scheduling is horrid and it is left to the 3rd party developers to fix that as you can see here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1093216


Once again, he leaves out the fact that defensive options are very limited:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1082426


Most everything else, I don't really mind. People will like the game for different reasons, but to leave out what is wrong with the game is going to hurt it as much as someone thrashing it.

Ant... maybe it's time for an intervention, man... I'm starting to think you care too much about this game...

You got a point, I should probably give it a rest. It is just every so often (well actually more often than I can to admit), I get rubbed the wrong way, but I seriously want to like this game and was hoping Matrix was going to get it to a playable level. I have actually gained a lot of respect for a lot of the modders over there, but I can't say the same for the people who beta tested it.