Madden NFL 16 Features All-New Controls to Dominate Air Supremacy

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by shaunlmason

His argument is true though...gap assignments should be ingrained into the game in such a way that laymen don't have to manage them, but an expert should be able to manipulate them. The difficulty is what happens when you have a front with a certain gap design coupled with a blitz that attacks other gaps and you don't have gap integrity...how does the layman know what they are doing wrong when they get gashed in the open gap? Of course, to do it correctly you'd have to decouple what the defensive line does from what the linebackers do, which would give you a lot more variety for experimenting, and a lot more potential to be punished if you don't understand.

Should be, yes. Absolutely. Zero argument from me.

However, Madden already exists as is, and we can't change the past. We also don't live in a vacuum.

Moving forward, does Tiburon prioritize a wholesale AI rewrite of how DLs and LBs play against the run - minding their gaps - over a new set of passing controls / a new package-based play calling paradigm / a new way to make plays downfield as a wide receiver or cornerback / Hit Stick 3.0 while making incremental adjustments to defensive AI to eventually get to the point we all want over the course of several years? I don't think they do on account of the audience of the game. The masses want the big-ticket new gameplay features to justify the purchase of the new year's game. That's all I'm really trying to say, that my expectations are ultimately tempered on that front.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I preface this by saying I absolutely agree with you that gap assignment AI is something that I want added see in the game as soon as possible. However, I want to make a point. I took a poll of my office at my day job - a wide variety of experiences with watching football and playing video games - asking the following: "in the context of American football, do you know what a gap assignment is? (yes / no)" Not a single person answered "yes".

I totally get what you are saying, but as I was trying to explain in the rest of my previous post -- and maybe I didn't do that good a job -- it doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. You're building a product for mass consumption. I would think you would want to build the best, most complete product imaginable. Steve Jobs insisted the the original iPhones be built with a specific type of glass while most everyone else was using plastic. It would have been easier and cheaper to go that route, but he felt there was a certain beauty, a certain elegance to that setup. He insisted on rounded corners, no stylus, etc.

Now he knew no one, consumers especially would particularly care about the details, but he understood that the details, even the most insignificant ones would add up to something elegant, something unique that the consumer would intuitively gravitate to.

That's what separates great design and prideful craftmanship from the mediocre. It's not ignoring the little details because no one is going to notice, because, actually, people will notice, even if they can't quite put it into words.


Now having said all that, gap assignments in my opinion don't even remotely fall into the category or minutae because it's just so elementary. Even if people have no idea how they work, even if they can't tell you that the WILL backer missing closing out the backside A gap and that's why the runner cut it back up the middle for a huge gain, they can tell when something if effed up on defense when it happens.

They can tell you in Madden that trap plays are unstoppable. Can't necessarily tell you why, and they shouldn't have to, but they know if they run 'em, they're gonna get five yards a pop.

I seriously hope the excuse after all these years of not having correct gap assignments is not because people don't care about them. Gap assignments are as basic to the game of football, almost as much as the ball itself.

Casual fans didn't care about double-team blocks, or the guard working up to the second level on zone plays in the running game, but the team continued to try to re-designed it anyway. They could have kept the same blocking and no one would have cared except the few hawks on sites like this. They're the ones who wanted to set the standard of realism. So, it's totally reasonable to expect the other side of the ball to keep pace.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

The entire post was truth but I wanted to highlight this in reference to the stuff that comes out EVERY YEAR about this time prior to a new Madden. Since the beginnings of this forum common sense has been posted time and time again, that any company making a simulation should always strive to make it as realistic as possible because through various options it's possible to arcade down a realistic game but it's impossible to real up an arcade game. No need to even go tip for tat with all the stuff Tiburon states about whatever, that above common sense point is the ONLY way to approach developing a simulation sports video game, anything else is NOT designed to develop a sports sim video game. There is no such thing as a sim/arcade hybrid sports video game, that's some fiction Tiburon attempted to make up to justify how Madden is, a sports video game is either being developed to be a simulation OR an arcade game, can't be both. So when Tiburon claims that a sports simulation, ie realism is their goal for Madden, all while developing arcade football aspects, they're either being disingenuous with their sim rhetoric or their arcade dev approach but they are certainly being disingenuous. If Nintendo claimed they wanted Mario Cart to be a racing sim but still true to Mario Cart's roots, no sane person would take that serious but otherwise sane people all over, entertain and even embrace something just as absurd about Madden every year because it's labeled "marketing", smh.

Damn near every sports game is a sim/arcade hybrid. EVERY GAME. From the Show to NBA2k to Madden. Out of the box NBA2k is a arcadey dunkfest with poor rebounding logic and hardly any fouls called. Once I tweak it with sliders and coach settings, I get it to play a realistic game of Basketball. Same goes with the Show.

The difference is some steer closer to a true simulation and others steer closer to an arcade game. Its disingenuous to act as if EA hasnt taken steps the last few years to make the game more sim. All of these features were added in the last version of Madden:

- Improved OL/DL interaction
- Improved man/zone logic
- Increased pass inaccuracy
- Playcalling improvements.

Now were all of those things implemented successfully...no. But the fact that the attempt was made shows that EA has an interest in bringing the game closer to a sim game. You are completely justified in being upset that they havent accomplished making this game a complete sim (and you can show that buy not buying the game). I just dont agree that the have an arcade approach to improving the game.

Finally "Mario Kart" is a poor analogy. Madden isnt "Mario Kart." Blitz was more like Mario Kart. A better analogy would be Gran Turismo vs. Forza. I dont know much about either game but I remember back in the day racing fans would tout Forza as the better racing simulation because of all of the options, tuning and realistic driving feel that game had.

GT didnt have the options that Forza had but people still bought it because for many it was close enough to a real driving simulation. Most people just want close enough. I know thats a hard pill to swallow but while there is a vocal minority here who would like EA to tear down Madden from the bottom up....most of us are OK if they continue to add simulation elements and fix parts of the engine that are clearly broken.

[PSUEagle]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

It's not a "feature" or addition that can or should be looked at as something a gamer would elect to use. It should be hard baked into the core of the game. Not having gap assignments is akin to building a video game of basketball game without a pick and roll, or a baseball game where the cutoff man doesn't get into proper positioning. It's basic stuff that doesn't have to be understood by the gamer unless they want to educate themselves. It's there because that's part of the sport at a rudimentary level.

This. Love the basketball analogy, too: it's so true.

And the way you "solve" the problem of users not understanding how this stuff works is two fold:

1. Create a tutorial module similar to what I believe they did with passing (a very good idea by EA). Explain run fits and responsibilities vs run and pass with each coverage. If that means that only basic coverages make it in the game, so be it: I'd rather have 10 total coverages/blitzes that operated correctly than the hundreds now that are mostly useless (and that savvy users don't touch, anyway).

2. This will be controversial, but I would also eliminate/severely restrict the ability to hot route. Especially defensively. Real life here, but I've never coached a game where we as a staff say "let's tell the DE to go into contain because we think a screen pass is coming." Or let's have two different zones (purple and light blue) for the flats, etc.

Offensively, the only audibles that should occur are either changing a play at the LOS entirely (totally reasonable) or changing a backside route combo (also reasonable). What isn't reasonable is changing four guys on the field to complement the one "money" route you found. The idea that Peyton Manning is going to the line and making **** up like a pick up game is insulting.

Defensively, allow users to build custom adjustments based on coverage, front, and offensive formation/personnel group. Considering that an offense can only line up a handful of ways (2X2, 3X1, 3X2, 2X1, 4X1, and 1X1) this shouldn't be that difficult, especially since the last two are pretty uncommon at the pro level. I know it would save me a ton of time/aggravation to have this stuff already done instead of having to do it every play, especially when users in Sim leagues now a days will no huddle.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Should be, yes. Absolutely. Zero argument from me. However, Madden already exists as is, and we can't change the past. We also don't live in a vacuum. Moving forward, does Tiburon prioritize a wholesale AI rewrite of how DLs and LBs play against the run - minding their gaps - over a new set of passing controls / a new package-based play calling paradigm / a new way to make plays downfield as a wide receiver or cornerback / Hit Stick 3.0 while making incremental adjustments to defensive AI to eventually get to the point we all want over the course of several years? I don't think they do on account of the audience of the game. The masses want the big-ticket new gameplay features to justify the purchase of the new year's game. That's all I'm really trying to say, that my expectations are ultimately tempered on that front.

Let add this one last point, because I don't want to derail anything and I posted that last post before I read this one.

You're right. In the grand scheme of things, Madden is what it is. It's been that way for a while and expectations should be tempered that way. I understand how business works. I understand cost to benfit ratio, and R&D; all of that.

But saying it's okay to leave something basic and fundamental to a game out because consumers won't know it's missing is just wrong on so many levels. And if... i want to emphasis IF... if that is the way Tiburon has been doing business all these years, then it justifies all of the negativity I've seen thrown at them over the years and I'm hoping that's just not the case.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Should be, yes. Absolutely. Zero argument from me. However, Madden already exists as is, and we can't change the past. We also don't live in a vacuum. Moving forward, does Tiburon prioritize a wholesale AI rewrite of how DLs and LBs play against the run - minding their gaps - over a new set of passing controls / a new package-based play calling paradigm / a new way to make plays downfield as a wide receiver or cornerback / Hit Stick 3.0 while making incremental adjustments to defensive AI to eventually get to the point we all want over the course of several years? I don't think they do on account of the audience of the game. The masses want the big-ticket new gameplay features to justify the purchase of the new year's game. That's all I'm really trying to say, that my expectations are ultimately tempered on that front.

Great point. I'd argue that 60-70% (this number may be too low) of the people who visit this forum buy Madden each year because they need a football fix and love the NFL.

Casual fans need big ticket features to entice them to buy the game each year. Something on the back of the box or in a commercial that makes them want the game.

Question: Its messed up but why should EA market to OS gamers? Most of us will buy the game no matter what changes are made. Even when the game was skewing more towards arcade, plenty of people here still bought the game each year.

There is a small contingent of guys who will never buy Madden no matter what because they preferred other games, think madden needs a complete rebuild or are upset about the exclusive license. Its useless to market to those guys.

Finally there is a small contingent of people who would buy the game if it EA added a few sim like features to the game. But is that contingent big enough to justify the manpower and marketing costs to add those features?

[shaunlmason]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Should be, yes. Absolutely. Zero argument from me. However, Madden already exists as is, and we can't change the past. We also don't live in a vacuum. Moving forward, does Tiburon prioritize a wholesale AI rewrite of how DLs and LBs play against the run - minding their gaps - over a new set of passing controls / a new package-based play calling paradigm / a new way to make plays downfield as a wide receiver or cornerback / Hit Stick 3.0 while making incremental adjustments to defensive AI to eventually get to the point we all want over the course of several years? I don't think they do on account of the audience of the game. The masses want the big-ticket new gameplay features to justify the purchase of the new year's game. That's all I'm really trying to say, that my expectations are ultimately tempered on that front.

You know you are preaching to the choir. Thought I replied to you, the reply was more erudite in point.=)

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Damn near every sports game is a sim/arcade hybrid. EVERY GAME. From the Show to NBA2k to Madden. Out of the box NBA2k is a arcadey dunkfest with poor rebounding logic and hardly any fouls called. Once I tweak it with sliders and coach settings, I get it to play a realistic game of Basketball. Same goes with the Show. The difference is some steer closer to a true simulation and others steer closer to an arcade game. Its disingenuous to act as if EA hasnt taken steps the last few years to make the game more sim. All of these features were added in the last version of Madden: - Improved OL/DL interaction - Improved man/zone logic - Increased pass inaccuracy - Playcalling improvements. Now were all of those things implemented successfully...no. But the fact that the attempt was made shows that EA has an interest in bringing the game closer to a sim game. You are completely justified in being upset that they havent accomplished making this game a complete sim (and you can show that buy not buying the game). I just dont agree that the have an arcade approach to improving the game. Finally "Mario Kart" is a poor analogy. Madden isnt "Mario Kart." Blitz was more like Mario Kart. A better analogy would be Gran Turismo vs. Forza. I dont know much about either game but I remember back in the day racing fans would tout Forza as the better racing simulation because of all of the options, tuning and realistic driving feel that game had. GT didnt have the options that Forza had but people still bought it because for many it was close enough to a real driving simulation. Most people just want close enough. I know thats a hard pill to swallow but while there is a vocal minority here who would like EA to tear down Madden from the bottom up....most of us are OK if they continue to add simulation elements and fix parts of the engine that are clearly broken.

Nah, Mario Cart was an apt description, going this route there is just as much of a chance that Mario Cart becomes "sim" as there is for Madden. Senator Palmer is stating the point way more eloquent than me but at the end of the day the result is still the same, an arcade football game that distorts or leaves out football fundamentals, for a myriad of reasons, with the only one that really matters being because the powers that be at EA don't care about actually providing the type of realistic game they claim. Why should they when they can just say they do, never deliver it and get a pass because they're trying. Again all the specifics behind why that is the case are besides the point, I don't have nothing against the latest workman on Madden, I'm sure they actually want to make Madden into the game they claim to, they just can't, no one can.

To bring this full circle, again, that's where Madden and Mario Cart are the same, there's no way to turn either into something they are fundamentally not designed to be. If this weren't the case EA wouldn't bother "marketing", ie fabricating, about building a new this and that from the ground up all the time. That's their admission right there that the game needs an overhaul to accomplish their realistic claims but again no need to actually allow anyone to do that, at least not on the large scale needed, when they can just market wholesale change while only incrementally providing some distorted version of it.

As far as any attempts at realism for Madden, it's very hollow imo, when they know full well upfront that it won't/can't function like they claim because the game isn't fundamentally designed that way. For example touting any manner of realistic line play when that would require a complete overhaul of how the game handles line play yet still claiming "the line play is the best ever in a football game" when that overhaul hasn't happened.