Madden NFL 13 Review (PS3/360)

[lewski19]

in a free market competition drives innovation and when EA got the license exclusively the quality of the product dropped, it is not complicated to figure out why.

[BWHORN]

Quote: Originally Posted by lewski19

in a free market competition drives innovation and when EA got the license exclusively the quality of the product dropped, it is not complicated to figure out why.

That's true. What's difficult to figure out is how they got such great reviews. 8.5 from Operation Sports? "This is the best Madden ever"??? I bought this game completely on the advise I received from Operation Sports. I hated the demo. I was so disgusted with Madden 13 that I took my PS3 to the Salvation Army. I haven't been able to enjoy NCAA FOOTBALL in years, and Madden was even worse. I only bought a PS3 because they stopped making Madden for PC. I am washing my hands of EA Sports completely. Don't even discuss them in my presence.

[btemp]

Quote: Originally Posted by BWHORN

That's true. What's difficult to figure out is how they got such great reviews. 8.5 from Operation Sports? "This is the best Madden ever"???

1) Many people who review Madden (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.) are not Madden players. They maybe play Madden a few times with friends or for the review. It's not the equivalent of reviewing a game, say like Mass Effect 3, where the review is based upon hours and hours of play in which the game is "beaten" at least once.

Even people who are frequent Madden players are only reviewing Madden after a few hours/days of play. Many of Madden's problems come out after a week, too quickly for many of the real problems to come out. See Operation Sport's review of NCAA 12 (http://www.operationsports.com/revie...all-12-review/) which received an 8.5 even though it was so broken as to be flat-out unplayable for many.

1a) Some review sites actually farm out some of their reviews to other people on the cheap. So they'll pay some person on the internet say $40 (fictional number) to write a review of a game. This of course does not stop them from putting their name on the review.

2) Reviewers often have different goals and interests. First, they're looking at the game differently than a player. A great example of this is reviews of Diablo 3 which stated they were ignoring the log-in problems players were having because they can't review that. Well, as a player log-in problems have a huge impact on my ability to enjoy the game but many reviewers don't take that stance. I suppose in trying to be "objective" they remove themselves too far from a player's viewpoint (who the review is for). Second, reviewers are individuals who hold unique viewpoints. I play Madden only for franchise, so reviewers who weren't as invested in franchise won't capture the parts of Madden that are important to me (and related problems).

3) Review sites are often, intentionally or not, in the pockets of the companies they review. Because so much of the information and perks they receive is dependent on these companies, they will often , again intentionally or not, kowtow to these companies. A great example of this again is Diablo 3 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii) which saw high consumer dissatisfaction coupled with incredibly high reviews. This is not to say that this is always or even often the case but that it is a factor to keep in mind.

[assclown25]

wow! just when i didnt think it could get worse it does- just spent 3hrs editing and updating my roster to only find out i cant use it in my CCM Mode! EA what the hell have you done here? I paid 60 bucks for this crap? and i heard you also got rid of Franchise Mode for NHL 13- how the hell can you guys continue to regress????????????

[BWHORN]

Quote: Originally Posted by btemp

1) Many people who review Madden (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.) are not Madden players. They maybe play Madden a few times with friends or for the review. It's not the equivalent of reviewing a game, say like Mass Effect 3, where the review is based upon hours and hours of play in which the game is "beaten" at least once. Even people who are frequent Madden players are only reviewing Madden after a few hours/days of play. Many of Madden's problems come out after a week, too quickly for many of the real problems to come out. See Operation Sport's review of NCAA 12 (http://www.operationsports.com/revie...all-12-review/) which received an 8.5 even though it was so broken as to be flat-out unplayable for many. 1a) Some review sites actually farm out some of their reviews to other people on the cheap. So they'll pay some person on the internet say $40 (fictional number) to write a review of a game. This of course does not stop them from putting their name on the review. 2) Reviewers often have different goals and interests. First, they're looking at the game differently than a player. A great example of this is reviews of Diablo 3 which stated they were ignoring the log-in problems players were having because they can't review that. Well, as a player log-in problems have a huge impact on my ability to enjoy the game but many reviewers don't take that stance. I suppose in trying to be "objective" they remove themselves too far from a player's viewpoint (who the review is for). Second, reviewers are individuals who hold unique viewpoints. I play Madden only for franchise, so reviewers who weren't as invested in franchise won't capture the parts of Madden that are important to me (and related problems). 3) Review sites are often, intentionally or not, in the pockets of the companies they review. Because so much of the information and perks they receive is dependent on these companies, they will often , again intentionally or not, kowtow to these companies. A great example of this again is Diablo 3 (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii) which saw high consumer dissatisfaction coupled with incredibly high reviews. This is not to say that this is always or even often the case but that it is a factor to keep in mind.

Yeah, but Operation Sports is all about the franchise mode.

How did you get this so wrong?

[Bgamer90]

Quote: Originally Posted by daniel77733

I agree in regards to 2K8 but 2K5??? Yeah right. Metacritic Xbox 92/100 average 42 critics...all positives, no mixed or negative reviews. Includes a perfect 100 rating by this very site. PS2 90/100 37 critics...again, all postives, no mixed or negative reviews. EA/Tiburon/Madden fans may be sick of seeing, hearing and reading about Madden being compared to 2K5 every year but Madden will always be compared to 2K5 because 2K5 is the game that forced EA to buyout everything and challenge nothing. Eight years and a console generation later, EA/Tiburon still cant match let alone surpass 2K5. EA/Tiburon cant even match or surpass 2K5 despite the fact that its been gone for eight years. Hell, if EA/Tiburon cant even surpass 2K5 or currently, its spirit, EA better pay up for that exclusive license because if they dont and if 2K sports gets the NFL license (exclusive or not) 2K15 is going to crush them just like they did a decade earlier. Quite simply, ESPN NFL 2K5 will never ever be surpassed unless its by Visual Concepts and 2K sports themselves. Its just not going to happen because quite simply, if it was, it would have already. And for those who know about FlyingFinn's 2K5 editor, he did more with 2K5 than EA/Tiburon have done in eight years. Sad, so sad.

Comparing metacritic ratings like that is very flawed. A game from 8 years ago wouldn't get the same review scores if it released today.

People have said that Madden 13 is better than 2005 (calling Madden 13 the "best Madden ever") yet Madden 2005 has a better metacritic rating (Madden 2005 has a 91% while Madden 13 currently has an 82%).

Heck, I guess there's no better game than Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 then. The game has a metacritic rating of a 97.

Why can't devs make a game that's better than a skateboarding game that came out in 2001?

[comen]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bgamer90

Comparing metacritic ratings like that is very flawed. A game from 8 years ago wouldn't get the same review scores if it released today. People have said that Madden 13 is better than 2005 (calling Madden 13 the "best Madden ever") yet Madden 2005 has a better metacritic rating (Madden 2005 has a 91% while Madden 13 currently has an 82%). Heck, I guess there's no better game than Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 then. The game has a metacritic rating of a 97. Why can't devs make a game that's better than a skateboarding game that came out in 2001?

They cant make a better game than tony hawk or whatever! Its been 8 long and sad years for nfl football video game guys!!!!!!!!! Its like a drug tho and thats why people keep buying because they love some nfl football! You take what you can get because thats better than being sick for months on end! If we could all just get some rehab and live without it then we would see better days, but sadly to report, madden will never get to the pinnacle of football video gaming!! Either someone has to step in or we are all doomed!! Heck its 2012, we could be gonners in a few months lol! My point is, its been too long and its time for a CHANGE!!

[comen]

I give this game a 5.0 rating and the reason it is so high is because, it has NFL players in it (durr)... If this game did not have the NFL attached to it, then tecmo bowl could out sell it with the NFL players or atleast be close! The point is, that with the NFL license anything is possible! Its like, if you could only get water from one person on earth and everytime you went to buy water off this person, they spit in it? Would you still buy it? I would say yes you would because thats all you could get, so deal!! NFl football video gaming has been destroyed by these vampires and money is the blood!! This may sound dramatic but its true and my analogies are some what gross but still true! Gross is how I describe this game! Rating 5.0