Dynasty Musings: NHL 11's Be a GM Completely Misses the Mark

[Qb]

Quote: Originally Posted by patsfan188

Qb is there gonna be fixed trade AI in the next patch?

I have not heard anything about trade logic in regards to the patch. However, I've heard very few specifics about it, so the best answer is "I don't know".

[masterkembo]

You bring up some really good points in this article but I have to disagree with a few of them.

Quote:

1. Trade Logic - The trade logic is absolutely brutal. Any player under the age of 25 requires an extraordinary amount of effort to acquire... The game simply values cheap contracts way too much.

The game probably does value cheap contracts too much, however it's not as bad as you're making it out to be because the NHL (since the salary cap) places huge value on cheap contracts. I'm pretty sure every team that has won the cup since the lockout has had atleast one or maybe two players that have been a huge part of the team on cheap ELC's. There's no way that teams like Pittsburgh or Chicago could put together the teams they did without cheap ELC's.

I was screwing around last night and traded Kaberle to Atlanta for a 1st round pick and Bergfors (I think that's his name - the guy that Jersey traded for Kovalchuk). He's a low 80's overall with B potential. I doubt the Leafs could get that much for Kabby in real life and Bergfors is a cost controlled player I'm pretty sure. Maybe the real problem is that the game doesn't value draft picks enough...because almost nobody is throwing those around in the new NHL.

Quote:

5. 20-Year-Old Players Not Being Able To Play in the AHL - Junior hockey is junior hockey, not 20-year-old hockey. Once my player turns 20, I should be able to put the prospect in the AHL if I sign him. Again, that's not the case here. I had to send Jordan Eberle back to juniors even though he's not even eligible to play there.

Every team in the CHL is allowed to carry 3 20 year old (or overage) players. Technically, I'm pretty sure Eberle is eligible to play in the juniors. On that note, I agree that it would be nice to be able to stick them in the AHL.

Anyway, I don't think BEaGM is as bad as you're making it. The SIM engine needs work, but that always seems to be the case with every sports game as of late. The max experience thing sucks as well, but the rest of it I can deal with and still have a lot of fun with the game and the mode.

[zukes]

I am extremely disappointed that I do not enjoy this game. I am not one to worry about what I consider fairly minor bugs. When I play franchise, I try to keep my team fairly intact, making only the odd trade. I rarely get far enough to see more than one draft anyway as I play every game and having a wife and two small kids limits my playing time to say the least.

Usually this time of year, video game time is 100% dedicated to NHL. I have bought Madden every year since it debuted, but it usually takes a back seat the day NHL comes out, sometimes never seeing my machine again.

Madden sucks this year, and I didn't buy it, instead opting for NCAA 11. I played NHL for the first week or two it came out, but it hasn't been back in my PS3 since. This saddens me. I am not sure if it is the bugs mentioned, or the fact that despite the scores, every game seems the same in NHL, or that NCAA is just that good this year, or a combination of these.

This game, for the most part, is so polished, and used to be so much fun to me, and I suppose it could just be that I am just simply more invested in my football game this year than usual.

Anyway, I am sure that I will putting this game back in eventually (as I will with MLB The Show, just didn't play in the summer, not much wrong with that game either), just wanted to state my disappointment, whether it be in the game, or just in my lack of wanting to play NHL.

[Steven547]

Quote: Originally Posted by actionhank

While i understand the frustration, too many people take patching to be a negative instead of the positive it really is. Back before patching was possible (On PC it wasn't that common, and it's just now being done full scale for consoles) but now you have the ability to fix problems in the game post-release. Before you would have been stuck with the game as is. And while i'm sure it has in some cases lead to developers being forced to push a game out before it's fully complete, i don't doubt that it's less of an extreme, instead of the norm. I can't think of the last game i owned for the PC that didn't require at least one patch. It's just the nature of coding. As things get more complex, and more advanced, there will be more flaws and openings for people to exploit. It's impossible for them to be able to catch everything, despite the seemingly obvious flaws they missed in BeAGM

If you're talking about in the 80's, then no, patching wasn't common for PC games. But once the 90's hit, it was a constant deal. Front Page Sports football had bugs that were fixed about 2 weeks after release, with a patch. Only thing different, was that you had to go to the website and get the patch yourself. PC gaming was patched quite frequently.