Maximum Football???

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

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?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Erik Rutins

I'm seeing some polarization here and I think it might help if we kept positive, neutral and negative threads as separate as possible until things cool down

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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?

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

[Greyroofoo]

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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?

Lots of naked pics of Neuqua.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Lots of naked pics of Neuqua.

Dammit! I knew I missed something.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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?

Slacker

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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

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

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Slacker

So that's a 'NO' then?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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

Rock on. Thanks Ant.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by FirstTexan

This game is absolutely atrocious. It looks really really ... really bad. The player animations are not even up to 1995 levels and that's over ten years ago.

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

[Antmeister]

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

Just wanted to correct some crack smokin' official that was quoted in a previous thread (that was locked for other reasons).

quote:

Wrong....if it is a designed draw play, it is not counted as a sack. Check out this old archived file at NFL.com:
http://images.nfl.com/fans/rulesschool110201.html
quote:


1) Do sacks go against a QB's passing yards or rushing yards? What if the QB is tackled behind the line of scrimmage on a designed draw play? Is that a sack or just a tackle for a loss?

Loss of yardage on sacks goes against the QB's rushing yards. If a QB is tackled behind the line of scrimmage on a designed running play, this is not considered a sack. It is merely a tackle for a loss of yardage.

No wonder there we so many bad calls throughout the playoffs last year, a senior director of officiating, Mike Pereira, is stating that sack yards count again a QB's rushing yards in the NFL...heh, that is incorrect. Just look at the stats for the last Superbowl on NFL.com: Superbowl

Hasselbeck ran 3 times for 35 yards. He was sacked 3 times. So if sacks were counted against his rushing yards he should have had 6 rushes for 21 yards. Also notice that Hasselbeck threw for 273 yards, yet on the team total it is listed as 259 yards passing (sack yards counted against the pass not the run) same for the Steelers when you add up their numbers. Sacks do not count against the individual's stats, but they count against the team's passing stats. You can see this in the players season and career stats as well.

As far as a quarterback being tackled behind the line not counting as a sack that is incorrected as well. I'm sure that everytime Mike Vick is tackled behind the line officials run over and ask him if it was a designed run or not...the only way this could possibly be applied would be when the QB downs the ball (which is counted against the run) or when the QB is tackled while trying to hand off.

Good job digging up that quote Antmeister, unfortunately that official doesn't know about the stats in a game he's supposed to be an expert in. By the way his second answer in that link is technically not correct as well - if the defense recovers the block it is their ball, no kick on 4th down.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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

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).

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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

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...

FM

[FrogMan]

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

[bbor]

Does MaxFB allow endzone celebrating?

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by FrogMan

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

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

[spcd]

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)

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by spcd

That explains the reasoning behind the good review. As long as no one gets around to playing it then all will be well.

Given that not one of the diehards at Matrix has yet reported playing the damn thing, I would recommend another highly customizbable Football game which will allow them to create uniforms, teams and logos to their heart's content:

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ITS/info/traini...aint/paint.gif

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

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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

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.

[QuikSand]

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

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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

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

[Groundhog]

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

[kentontrace]

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!

[dawgfan]

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.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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.

[Bee]

*sigh of relief*

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

[Antmeister]

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

[Antmeister]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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

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.

[Passacaglia]

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...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think 67% would be very generous for where it's at.

Bite your tongue.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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

[cartman]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Bite your tongue.

LOL. hey i said that would be very generous

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[stevew]

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

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by stevew

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.

[Antmeister]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

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.

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.

[Blackadar]

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cartman

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?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cartman

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?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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.

[Antmeister]

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:

The main attraction of Maximum-Football is its high level of custom options and three rules variations: American (both college and professional), Canadian, and Indoor. Will this be enough to make it worth your while and pry you away from the siren song of Madden? His voice is so dreamy!

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.

Originally Posted by David Winter

What?

This just is not the way things are in the NFL and if Pro Football

Please show me, anywhere, where I claim this to be an NFL product?

Edit, actually, I've gone over my FAQ on the web page and nowhere does it even mention the world 'simulation' or "pro football simulator". The only reference to 'professional' and 'amature' is in regards to the size/style of the playing field.

Seriously, I have never once, ever in the complete history if this project claimed that I was intent on building an NFL or 'professional football' simulation game. If there is any reference to such a claim on the maximum-football website, or someplace on the matrix games site, I will take action to correct it and I appologise for the eronous information.

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

However, compared to football management games, the graphics in Maximum-Football are quite good, mainly because they are in 3-D, instead of the usual 2-D text simulation.

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

Like most everything else in Maximum-Football, you can customize a league to essentially you’d desire, altering the number of teams, divisions, and conferences, the season length, skill level, roster size, and team characteristics, including name, location, stadium name and size, playbook, and any custom artwork you’ve made.

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

Another one of the main features of Maximum-Football is the ability to create you own playbook. This is done through the play development system, a utility that give the user the ability to create pretty much any play, as long as the formation follows the conventions of football. Because the play development system is powerful, it is also slightly difficult to learn.

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.

[Franklinnoble]

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

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

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.