Madden 16: Is Connected Franchise Sacrificing Realism? (Roundtable)

[4thQtrStre5S]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

I don't think people are complaining about having control I think is the unrealistic way we can control players. A real coach can control coaching the players and training them but, they can't automatically make every player on the team better just by winning or completing goals. Example. In the online CFM I'm in you really don't have to worry about having a QB. There usually 2-5 superstar development QB's in every draft and it only takes about one season to get them to 90 overall or higher. So we have about 5-10 99 overall QB's in our league. Russell Wilson now has 99 THP. The point is not having control it's giving us realistic control. Make the things we can improve the players on lifelike. I can only imagine how easy it would be to have a team of superstars if I was only playing the CPU in offline CFM. Should I have to give myself house rules, just for a mode that is supposed to be realistic, to be realistic? And yes I agree that the Head Coach way would be close to Ideal for me as well. I thought with Josh Looman at the helm from M13 to M15 we would be getting more like HC09 but, it's been this XP stuff. I can make the xp model work for me and I have fun in my league but, if things where done in a more real manner it would be that much more fun. Right now it's just too easy to build a unrealistic super team by winning a few SB's.

I have been thinking about the number of players that have ratings in the 90 plus range, and it seems to me, from my observations in building a team in MUT and also how the precision modifier operates, that a player needs to have 90 plus in their key attributes to truly be open to the full array of animations, and these animations is what helps separate player ability at the noticeable level to the user; even in the original details of the precision modifier it was stated that players would need a 90 or higher ratings in juke or stiff arm or trucking, etc to take advantage of the precision modifier itself...

I am beginning to think that madden uses qualifying number points to determine when a player increases in ability and gains animations which allow for the increase in abilities - thus qualifying numbers would be like: 70, 80, 90; thus you will not see a difference between players who have ratings between, say, 70 to 79, but once they hit 80, there will be a noticeable improvement; then ratings between 80 and 89 will not see much separation of improved performance, but once you hit 90, there will be a difference in performance that can be noticed, mostly through animations available....(this is merely a hypothesis at this time)

[JaymeeAwesome]

Quote: Originally Posted by capa

They are going backwards. Pretty soon it will be run for 2000 yards and unlock this player or that piece of equipment. All the stuff that the younger casual crowd gets off on that "realism" guys tend to despise. I paid for the game. Just let me have access to everything! And the observation is spot on - goals will make cheesing and exploits a high priority again. C

I know I am responding to a respond early in the thread but I wanted to clear up the idea of "Owning" the game upon payment. You actually don't own the game. You own a license to play the game. The game itself is still owned by EA.

Just like with Microsoft office. Just because you paid for Excel doesn't mean that you should have access to edit code to enhance your own experience. You have to use excel based on how Microsoft built it for you.

I think if people thought of it this way, there would be less complaints about how the game runs. Every year you pay $60 to update your license to the newest updates.

[Sheba2011]

I am not a huge fan of the over emphasis on goals. It is about as far from real life as you can get. Take my team for example: The Super Bowl Champion Patriots, during any given game Julian Edelman could be the centerpiece of the offense making 10+ catches for 100 yards or he could be used as a decoy making 0 catches. If the team wins it does not negatively affect him because he didn't catch the ball 3 times or score a TD. He doesn't become a worse player because of that. Player roles in real life change with each game plan.

Having said that I do think the changes to the scouting are more realistic than what we previously had, mostly because of the combine results being shown. There is still some work to be done but it is a good start and a change we haven't had in some time.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by JaymeeAwesome

I know I am responding to a respond early in the thread but I wanted to clear up the idea of "Owning" the game upon payment. You actually don't own the game. You own a license to play the game. The game itself is still owned by EA. Just like with Microsoft office. Just because you paid for Excel doesn't mean that you should have access to edit code to enhance your own experience. You have to use excel based on how Microsoft built it for you. I think if people thought of it this way, there would be less complaints about how the game runs. Every year you pay $60 to update your license to the newest updates.

Except Excel, Word, etc are much more customizable than Madden. Previous Excel's and Word, or most software, the intellectual property of the code itself was still owned by Microsoft, but I owned my copy of Office to do what I wanted with it. Nobody is asking to have the ability to recode madden. Just asking for more options.

Microsoft is now moving toward a licensed based system where you rent the programs and OS for a year and then have to re-license.

I personally don't buy your analogy of why we should accept and be happy with lack of options in Madden. I really don't think anyone is asking for the right to recode Madden. But to each there own opinion.

[zoom zoom]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

One last thing. If your a player who likes the current XP progression system fine. I've had fun in my online CFM. It gets really competitive trying to build our players. It's not sim or realistic though. It's arcade and that's fine if that's what you like. I just think the standard should be realism. They are pretty far from that with this system. I mean one guy in our league drafted a 6'6 WR with 88 speed. He has won a lot and now that WR has 99 spd. That should not be possible. That's the problem I have with it.

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it.

And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it.

You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP.

But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat?

But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters.

One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same.

Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it.

The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles.

The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset.

Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

[Sheba2011]

Quote: Originally Posted by zoom zoom

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it. And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it. You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP. But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat? But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters. One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same. Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it. The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles. The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset. Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

I agree if a game was 100% real life sim most would fine it boring and tedious and would never play it. The number one complaint would be "why can't I edit my players".

But there is no reason that the game can't be a video game with realistic sim elements. A realistic progression system with no XP at all. A realistic scouting system that never shows you any ratings just metrics and scouting reports. Real life contracts, practice squad, compensatory picks, full coaching staffs. These are all things that could be added to make the game more sim while still being a fun football game.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by zoom zoom

Honestly, I remember when the entire nature of career franchise play was considered anti-sim. There has never been a sports game, text-based or otherwise, that has exhibited the necessary AI to run a team over years. Heck, things go wonky in the first year unless a human steps in to fix it. And the moment you give the gamer any impact on career progression of a player, realism goes out the freaking window. Realism is how front offices deal with the ebb and flow of player ability, not control it. You want realism? That's guys dropping off our of nowhere. That's the highly rated FA you signed turning into scuffling albatross. That's the lowly rated minor league guy to cover for an injury turning into an MVP. But you can't model that without angering the multitudes of fans that play the game. You would literally sell a game to a kid and then have a model in which occasionally, Mike Trout falls off the map. Do that in a game in which a player like Matt Carpenter comes out of nowhere to be a an MVP threat? But yet, here we are, with grown men arguing about what's wrong with one of the least sim aspects of sports games as though it matters. One of the reasons I liked NCAA Football over Madden for Online Dynasty play is that it was easier to accept because we were all just churning through players anyway. You were trying to squeeze a few good years out of a kid before he moved on. It wasn't realistic, it was just a nice base in which a competitive game cold be played among friends. The recruiting mini-game was the same. Pro sports does not have the churn. The terrible simulation of career paths just magnifies and pretty much destroys any realism. But if you throw in some RPG stuff, simplify player movement via the draft and free agency, you can create a fun game to play with friends. But it's more like a board game that approximates realism, it doesn't simulate it. The one fact every sim gamer ought to realize is that, for the consoles, every bit of realism that tracts from fun has to be replaced with an element to make it fun. That's the market. It's always been the market. There has never been a golden age of sports sims on consoles. The golden age of sports sims was on the PC and, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, they were also highly flawed, and many found them boring. It would be asinine for EA, or any other company to adopt that mindset. Sure, bring up The Show. Then compare its sales numbers to EA's MVP series. Boring games are boring.

Well the thread is about if EA is sacrificing realism. The answer in my opinion is yes. Now is a football game fun if it's 100% realistic? Maybe. If you could chose what area's that you control and what area's you let be simulated.

I'm fully aware that Madden is a game. I even said that I have fun with it. I was just answering the question and discussing if they are Sacrificing Realism.

[bigeastbumrush]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dr Death

Chris brings up a valid question here... say the goal is 100 yards for the HB, but what happens if he rushes for 99 yards but makes a key block on the game-winning TD pass, saving the QB from getting sacked? {A la Walter Payton back in the day when McMahon came off the bench to beat the Vikes.} This whole goal system is geared towards casual gamers and leaves those wanting a true sim game out in the cold.

You say this as if the actual NFL gives some points for making a key block.

I think the system is fine. In every game, players will develop faster than others.

I think some of you simply want ultimate reality forgetting sometimes that it is simply a game.

A game that most will play for a few months, shelf it and then buy the new version next summer.