Chatting With Josh Looman About Madden's Franchise Mode

[nighttrain32]

Player roles were in Madden on the PS2. its nice to see them return

[cocacolaman]

Heck I'd just be happy if they put back in what they took out over the years.
I still don't understand why the PS2 version has more features then the "Next Gen"
Systems like PS3 and Xbox360.

Having multiple custom uniforms and create a uniform would be nice, being able to do this to your team in franchise. Also if moving a team keeping the uniform. Heck when the Raiders went to LA nothing changed but the city.

Same with Stadiums. If you but the stupid upgrades have them actually show up. Even be able to upgrade and design a new stadium with current team...not having to move the team to do so.

Those are two simple things that should be in franchise. I'm so sick of EA taking things out of games how about actually adding to the games and making them better for a change.
I hate exclusive rights to sports games, having different companies making games made for better games, and gave the consumer the option to buy. With only one NFL or MLB maker the company that got the contract got super lazy and made horrible games. Madden hasn't come out with a good version in almost 5 years.

But they had a great game with Head Coach and dropped it????? But they keep pumping out watered down versions of Madden each year....makes no sense.

[Tecmo Bowl]

Quote: Originally Posted by cocacolaman

Heck I'd just be happy if they put back in what they took out over the years. I still don't understand why the PS2 version has more features then the "Next Gen" Systems like PS3 and Xbox360. Having multiple custom uniforms and create a uniform would be nice, being able to do this to your team in franchise. Also if moving a team keeping the uniform. Heck when the Raiders went to LA nothing changed but the city. Same with Stadiums. If you but the stupid upgrades have them actually show up. Even be able to upgrade and design a new stadium with current team...not having to move the team to do so. Those are two simple things that should be in franchise. I'm so sick of EA taking things out of games how about actually adding to the games and making them better for a change. I hate exclusive rights to sports games, having different companies making games made for better games, and gave the consumer the option to buy. With only one NFL or MLB maker the company that got the contract got super lazy and made horrible games. Madden hasn't come out with a good version in almost 5 years. But they had a great game with Head Coach and dropped it????? But they keep pumping out watered down versions of Madden each year....makes no sense.

Whoa settle down buddy. I am sure EA tries as hard as they can with their games. I don't think being lazy or the exclusive license is the problem. Coming to a new system it takes time to redevelopment things. They can't just take the features from the PS2 game and throw them into PS3. Takes man hours research and development.

Besides. I know I am just grateful that we are getting these features back! Great job EA and keep up the great work you have done, especially over the last 5 years.

[brza37]

When can we expect Part 2 Chase?

[Argooos]

Quote:

Eventually, we’d like to get something in there where players refuse to sign with you or something like that, but we have to be really careful when we do that and make sure it’s very clear why something like that is happening so it doesn’t frustrate the user. So if they desperately need a corner and Asomugha is sitting there in free agency, only some users just cannot sign him, they need to know exactly why and figure it out.

Why not have certain players just have certain demands and refuse to even consider offers from teams that do not meet those demands. Veteran players signing their last contract may have as their demand "Will only sign with a playoff team", which would mean only teams that made it to the playoffs the previous season could bid on the player. Another demand could be "Will only sign where I have a chance to start" - this role could be assigned to players who are among the top-32 in the league at their position. You would only be able to bid on those players if your starter at that position is comparable or less than that players' rating. Other demands could be "team must have a quarterback with >80 OVR" or "team must have x number of mentors on the roster". These demands would only be for certain players, and you could have some that are easy to meet, like "team must have had at least a 6-10 record last season"

Most players would still have no demands except the most money possible. And if you didn't meet a player's demands, you would not even have the option of bidding on them. That button would be greyed out or something, but you'd still be able to view their demands in case you were able to meet them (say they wanted the team to have a certain type of player - you could go out and sign that type of player first).

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

Why not have certain players just have certain demands and refuse to even consider offers from teams that do not meet those demands. Veteran players signing their last contract may have as their demand "Will only sign with a playoff team", which would mean only teams that made it to the playoffs the previous season could bid on the player. Another demand could be "Will only sign where I have a chance to start" - this role could be assigned to players who are among the top-32 in the league at their position. You would only be able to bid on those players if your starter at that position is comparable or less than that players' rating. Other demands could be "team must have a quarterback with >80 OVR" or "team must have x number of mentors on the roster". These demands would only be for certain players, and you could have some that are easy to meet, like "team must have had at least a 6-10 record last season" Most players would still have no demands except the most money possible. And if you didn't meet a player's demands, you would not even have the option of bidding on them. That button would be greyed out or something, but you'd still be able to view their demands in case you were able to meet them (say they wanted the team to have a certain type of player - you could go out and sign that type of player first).

Same thing I suggested:

Quote: Originally Posted by Thinking Out Loud

.....Nothing major, just a simple check box system where players have their wants listed and teams have checks in the box of the wants listed, they are ABLE to promise. Obviously, Green Bay couldn't promise warm weather to a player, 2011-12 Vikings couldn't promise a RB to be a starter or a 2-14 team couldn't promise a playoff appearance. So if any of those wants were listed for a player, those teams wouldn't have those wants checked/promised . The team that has most wants that a player has listed, checked, wins the player. For example, if a player just listed/wanted money then that's all that matters. If a player listed/wants money, playoff contender and elite QB, teams that have all these checked/promised, are the contenders for that player. In case of a checks/promises made stalemate, the most money is the tie breaker.....

[Argooos]

Some combination of both our ideas would probably be best.

[Hellisan]

Wait... How is "fumble prone" or "injury prone" a role?