Major Backbreaker Patch in the Works

[LegendaryC]

Quote: Originally Posted by shadowman

By the time they get the patch out most people will have moved on to other games. Not many are going to say "hey a patch came out, I think I will go buy backbreaker."

I agree with you. But as it stands now I do not trust 505 games or Natural motion because of how Backbreaker came out. However, if this "major patch" fixes most of the problems I have with this game (dumb offensive AI, Magnetic hands, overpowered DL) then I will consider Backbreaker 2. For now I never want to waste another $50+ on a video game made by them until they fix this one.

[gr18]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

I like APF the most. I like Madden/NCAA. While yes it's way zoomed out, I can read the defense vs. the play the way I was taught. BB's cam to me, while more difficult and closer to the field, is to restricting to be considered realistic. In real life, I can glance at the safety or the backside LB or whomever my key may be, out of the corner of my eye in a second and then instantly respond. With BB's mechanic, that's simply not possible. They are video games, so most realism goes out the door. Truth is, if a game was super realistic, most people would hate it.

Backbreaker has the most realistic camera view.Obviously it's from the first-person perspective.There's really no debating that.

Is it the easiest,most adaptive to football videogame camera view.No,you feel more helpless in being involved in the play.That's what many people don't like,but isn't that the true feeling of defense in 11-11 football?Having to depend on your other 10 teammates to do their job.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by gr18

Backbreaker has the most realistic camera view.Obviously it's from the first-person perspective.There's really no debating that. Is it the easiest,most adaptive to football videogame camera view.No,you feel more helpless in being involved in the play.That's what many people don't like,but isn't that the true feeling of defense in 11-11 football?Having to depend on your other 10 teammates to do their job.

In your opinion I guess.

[Card-me]

Quote: Originally Posted by gr18

Backbreaker has the most realistic camera view.Obviously it's from the first-person perspective.There's really no debating that. Is it the easiest,most adaptive to football videogame camera view.No,you feel more helpless in being involved in the play.That's what many people don't like,but isn't that the true feeling of defense in 11-11 football?Having to depend on your other 10 teammates to do their job.

I think everybody can agree that the field of vision is pretty realistic. The problem is that the right analog stick of the controller is not a replacement for a person's reflexes. In real life, it takes me a fraction of a second to glance at the glance at the safeties or switch progressions or look to my dumpoff receiver. I think, then I look where I want to, and that's it.

Backbreaker doesn't allow that. If I use Focus, not only can I only go through progressions one at a time (meaning I'm going to have to cycle through as many as four receivers before I can reach my dumpoff receiver, usually a halfback), and each change doesn't even happen instantly, which means that by the time I reach my dumpoff receiver, I'll probably be laying on the ground. Alternatively, I can use the right stick freely, but then I can only scan left to right or vice versa (i.e. I can't quickly shift from the left side of the field to the right), and it moves about as fast as a snail through molasses. On top of that, I then have no idea which receiver I'm going to throw to unless I go into Focus, and if it's the wrong receiver I then have to manually switch receivers again. Add in the fact that you (granted, somewhat realistically) only get about 2.5 or 3 seconds on average to get rid of the ball, and it's just too much. At the end of all that, the field of vision becomes about the only thing that is realistic.

The problem here isn't necessarily the game, it's the medium. A single 2D television and a hand controller are no replacements for the human body, where things are processed based on sound, sight, feel, and intuition in fractions of a second. So concessions have to be made. Backbreaker's system would work really well if it had a setup like Forza where you could connect up to 6 TVs to create a nearly 360 degree view. Add in head tracking like the PS Eye is capable of to determine which receiver you're looking at, and now you're talking. But even then, how many people would be able to afford 6 copies of the game, 6 TVs, and 6 consoles? Ask the guys who made Forza.

At the end of the day, the limitations of the technology means you're never going to be completely realistic. You have to make concessions. Backbreaker chose to concede reaction time for a realistic vision. Others chose to concede realistic vision for more realistic reading of the defense and reactions. Neither are particularly wrong, but neither are particularly right either. It depends on what you value more.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by Card-me

I think everybody can agree that the field of vision is pretty realistic. The problem is that the right analog stick of the controller is not a replacement for a person's reflexes. In real life, it takes me a fraction of a second to glance at the glance at the safeties or switch progressions or look to my dumpoff receiver. I think, then I look where I want to, and that's it. Backbreaker doesn't allow that. If I use Focus, not only can I only go through progressions one at a time (meaning I'm going to have to cycle through as many as four receivers before I can reach my dumpoff receiver, usually a halfback), and each change doesn't even happen instantly, which means that by the time I reach my dumpoff receiver, I'll probably be laying on the ground. Alternatively, I can use the right stick freely, but then I can only scan left to right or vice versa (i.e. I can't quickly shift from the left side of the field to the right), and it moves about as fast as a snail through molasses. On top of that, I then have no idea which receiver I'm going to throw to unless I go into Focus, and if it's the wrong receiver I then have to manually switch receivers again. Add in the fact that you (granted, somewhat realistically) only get about 2.5 or 3 seconds on average to get rid of the ball, and it's just too much. At the end of all that, the field of vision becomes about the only thing that is realistic. The problem here isn't necessarily the game, it's the medium. A single 2D television and a hand controller are no replacements for the human body, where things are processed based on sound, sight, feel, and intuition in fractions of a second. So concessions have to be made. Backbreaker's system would work really well if it had a setup like Forza where you could connect up to 6 TVs to create a nearly 360 degree view. Add in head tracking like the PS Eye is capable of to determine which receiver you're looking at, and now you're talking. But even then, how many people would be able to afford 6 copies of the game, 6 TVs, and 6 consoles? Ask the guys who made Forza. At the end of the day, the limitations of the technology means you're never going to be completely realistic. You have to make concessions. Backbreaker chose to concede reaction time for a realistic vision. Others chose to concede realistic vision for more realistic reading of the defense and reactions. Neither are particularly wrong, but neither are particularly right either. It depends on what you value more.

Very very well put.

[gr18]

Quote: Originally Posted by Card-me

I think everybody can agree that the field of vision is pretty realistic. The problem is that the right analog stick of the controller is not a replacement for a person's reflexes. In real life, it takes me a fraction of a second to glance at the glance at the safeties or switch progressions or look to my dumpoff receiver. I think, then I look where I want to, and that's it. Backbreaker doesn't allow that. If I use Focus, not only can I only go through progressions one at a time (meaning I'm going to have to cycle through as many as four receivers before I can reach my dumpoff receiver, usually a halfback), and each change doesn't even happen instantly, which means that by the time I reach my dumpoff receiver, I'll probably be laying on the ground. Alternatively, I can use the right stick freely, but then I can only scan left to right or vice versa (i.e. I can't quickly shift from the left side of the field to the right), and it moves about as fast as a snail through molasses. On top of that, I then have no idea which receiver I'm going to throw to unless I go into Focus, and if it's the wrong receiver I then have to manually switch receivers again. Add in the fact that you (granted, somewhat realistically) only get about 2.5 or 3 seconds on average to get rid of the ball, and it's just too much. At the end of all that, the field of vision becomes about the only thing that is realistic. The problem here isn't necessarily the game, it's the medium. A single 2D television and a hand controller are no replacements for the human body, where things are processed based on sound, sight, feel, and intuition in fractions of a second. So concessions have to be made. Backbreaker's system would work really well if it had a setup like Forza where you could connect up to 6 TVs to create a nearly 360 degree view. Add in head tracking like the PS Eye is capable of to determine which receiver you're looking at, and now you're talking. But even then, how many people would be able to afford 6 copies of the game, 6 TVs, and 6 consoles? Ask the guys who made Forza. At the end of the day, the limitations of the technology means you're never going to be completely realistic. You have to make concessions. Backbreaker chose to concede reaction time for a realistic vision. Others chose to concede realistic vision for more realistic reading of the defense and reactions. Neither are particularly wrong, but neither are particularly right either. It depends on what you value more.

Good post.I agree,we aren't going to see a football game without realism concessions.We can find fault either way.

[LingeringRegime]

That is a great point about the reflexes. Not sure why the controls aren't similar to a FPS in terms of the analog sticks. It would be great if it played liked a Call of Duty game, while still being in 3rd person of course.

[blackscorpion11]

sorry for being a little off topic, but id rather theyd postponed the release and fix the issues, than pass off this half assed effort. and of course patch it.