08:07 PM - June 25, 2010 by tjspeaks
A major patch for Backbreaker is in the works.
|
|||||||||
|
Backbreaker News Post
08:07 PM - June 25, 2010 by tjspeaksA major patch for Backbreaker is in the works.
Backbreaker Videos
Member Comments
# 61
Tyrant8RDFL @ 07/02/10 12:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
O'line play, A.I play calling, and the amount of interceptions.
They mentioned that they hope this patch really wows us , and its going to be a large patch
, so I feel very good that there will be some surprises.
# 62
RaiderKtulu @ 07/02/10 01:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
I really hope they don't ruin the game with this camera issue.
If they move it back too far they're going to kill the challenge.
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 64
Tyrant8RDFL @ 07/03/10 12:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Nothing like a traditional camera like we have seen in other football titles.
You will still be getting those blindside hits. They do not want to lose that, but at the same time they want to make viewing your receiver more comfortable.
|
|||||||||||||
|
i will be buying this as the patch drops if it fixes single player game play.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
And this angle being more "realistic" is a matter of opinion and definitely arguable at best.
# 69
RaiderKtulu @ 07/04/10 09:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Camera B = Seeing a limited view and being forced by the game mechanics to look at your receiver first - and not being able to throw to a guy you can't see.
You tell me how one of those isn't easier than the other.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Camera B = a more realistic approach to how the game is played
|
|||||||||||||
|
Why is a pathetically easy passing system/camera better than one that actually challenges you?
|
|||||||||||||
|
Camera A, gives no depth perception.. Also that innate feel of what is going on around you in the pocket is gone. And please, realism? In real life I can go from one receiver to another in no particular order in a blink of an eye. I don't have to cycle individually one at a time at a snails pace in a linear order. Not to mention I hate being locked on to a WR. If I want to read coverage, I am looking at the safeties first then advancing to my receivers. This cam and mechanic makes that impossible. That would be another knock on realism. Although 90% of the people who scream realism, wouldn't know true realism if it bit them in the face.
If you like the first camera, that's great. But the whole you only like the newer camera because it's easier, and don't want "realism" talking down is not only old, but it's inaccurate and lame.
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 75
RaiderKtulu @ 07/04/10 02:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
So why then? If it's not about the difficulty, or lack thereof, why?
Or is this one of those "I just do" things that we aren't supposed to question?
|
|||||||||||||
|
I am not sure why preference based on opinion is that difficult for you to understand. It's a pretty basic principle.
Well, here's the thing, and this is what bkrich83 is trying to point out, which I wholeheartedly agree with...
The Backbreaker developers have created a Gears of War kind of fantasy with their camera in the football game that does not give us any sense of periphery, and I throw that word around often not to sound smart, but because that is the correct word to use. Yes, my TV has a 16:9 aspect ratio so I'm salvaged only slightly, but otherwise when combined with the terrible O-Line play, I am nearly obliged every time out to throw to my first receiver regardless. I think this is also a huge cause in many interceptions because that receiver tends to not always be the go-to guy.
In a "God mode" camera style, yes we have more ability to see what's going on because of the aerial view and our ability to see our blind sides as well. But we still have to see every receiver one-by-one in order to make a choice of who to throw to. Plus, now scrambling is possible because we can still look upfield and throw on the run. I'm not saying this stuff needs to be toned down so that we can make these Madden-like passes all of the time, I'm just strictly speaking about what is finally within the realm of possibility. Distinguishing between what is possible and what is probable in football games tends to be the hardest challenge that developers face.
Now, what if they give us a camera that is really only slightly further back (really not much at all), maybe even a head higher, and they give us a fish-eye peripheral view on the sides of the screen, maybe a little bit out of focus, so that we have a slightly better read of everything around us? Heck, even in Gears of War if there is gunfire on the right, there will be a meter that tells us so. Let's have that, too. If there are footsteps out of our vision, we need a threat meter to aware us of it (maybe some QB's have better attributes than others and it is less prevalent while in Focus mode).
Another great alternate control scheme would be kind of like the Madden passing cone, but down on the field. So like I said, keep that camera angle I was just talking about, and instead of using the right stick to run through the receiver progression, use it to rotate left and right. The face buttons et. al will be what your receivers are mapped to, and when you use Focus mode then you can run the progression if you'd like (it will focus on your receiver that leads it first). It obviously won't be too slow-moving because hey, you're a QB and realistically you can look from one side of the field to the other in "the blink of an eye" by doing an eye scan. That's why I think the peripheral vision is important (but for some sort of difficulty, again, maybe the distortion is needed). But I think doing something like this would be good because now you can pan and scan around the field not just for receivers, but also for whomever is trying to sack you. This would obviously be an alternative to what is already implemented, but I think it would be very useful.
The only place where I will have to draw the line is when you speak of preference. I, too, probably prefer the old way of playing in a God mode (at least for passing), but this intuitiveness is just so awesome for me that I don't think I would give it up, especially with the time they took making it. And that's just the thing... this game was made with this intention. It's kind of like how a movie is made with the intent of watching it in 3D or something, or black and white. Sure we will prefer something else perhaps, but if that is what we are forced to do then we can't say otherwise, and if we want to see a movie in 2D and color we will have to find another one. Unfortunately that's just how it is.
Anyway, as Backbreaker currently stands it is one of the most fun, frustrating games I've ever owned. A patch will make some fixes, but it will not overhaul the game or create an entire new QB passing system as far as I'm concerned. If they want to make serious improvements, they will have to seriously consider making a Backbreaker 2 and they will have to take another two years to do so. Some of their additions simply can't come in a year long cycle; I have dozens of sports franchises for proof of that statement.
The Backbreaker developers have created a Gears of War kind of fantasy with their camera in the football game that does not give us any sense of periphery, and I throw that word around often not to sound smart, but because that is the correct word to use. Yes, my TV has a 16:9 aspect ratio so I'm salvaged only slightly, but otherwise when combined with the terrible O-Line play, I am nearly obliged every time out to throw to my first receiver regardless. I think this is also a huge cause in many interceptions because that receiver tends to not always be the go-to guy.
In a "God mode" camera style, yes we have more ability to see what's going on because of the aerial view and our ability to see our blind sides as well. But we still have to see every receiver one-by-one in order to make a choice of who to throw to. Plus, now scrambling is possible because we can still look upfield and throw on the run. I'm not saying this stuff needs to be toned down so that we can make these Madden-like passes all of the time, I'm just strictly speaking about what is finally within the realm of possibility. Distinguishing between what is possible and what is probable in football games tends to be the hardest challenge that developers face.
Now, what if they give us a camera that is really only slightly further back (really not much at all), maybe even a head higher, and they give us a fish-eye peripheral view on the sides of the screen, maybe a little bit out of focus, so that we have a slightly better read of everything around us? Heck, even in Gears of War if there is gunfire on the right, there will be a meter that tells us so. Let's have that, too. If there are footsteps out of our vision, we need a threat meter to aware us of it (maybe some QB's have better attributes than others and it is less prevalent while in Focus mode).
Another great alternate control scheme would be kind of like the Madden passing cone, but down on the field. So like I said, keep that camera angle I was just talking about, and instead of using the right stick to run through the receiver progression, use it to rotate left and right. The face buttons et. al will be what your receivers are mapped to, and when you use Focus mode then you can run the progression if you'd like (it will focus on your receiver that leads it first). It obviously won't be too slow-moving because hey, you're a QB and realistically you can look from one side of the field to the other in "the blink of an eye" by doing an eye scan. That's why I think the peripheral vision is important (but for some sort of difficulty, again, maybe the distortion is needed). But I think doing something like this would be good because now you can pan and scan around the field not just for receivers, but also for whomever is trying to sack you. This would obviously be an alternative to what is already implemented, but I think it would be very useful.
The only place where I will have to draw the line is when you speak of preference. I, too, probably prefer the old way of playing in a God mode (at least for passing), but this intuitiveness is just so awesome for me that I don't think I would give it up, especially with the time they took making it. And that's just the thing... this game was made with this intention. It's kind of like how a movie is made with the intent of watching it in 3D or something, or black and white. Sure we will prefer something else perhaps, but if that is what we are forced to do then we can't say otherwise, and if we want to see a movie in 2D and color we will have to find another one. Unfortunately that's just how it is.
Anyway, as Backbreaker currently stands it is one of the most fun, frustrating games I've ever owned. A patch will make some fixes, but it will not overhaul the game or create an entire new QB passing system as far as I'm concerned. If they want to make serious improvements, they will have to seriously consider making a Backbreaker 2 and they will have to take another two years to do so. Some of their additions simply can't come in a year long cycle; I have dozens of sports franchises for proof of that statement.
# 78
Kaanyr Vhok @ 07/04/10 03:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
http://forum.backbreakergame.com/showthread.php?t=7972
Call that camera C.
# 79
cancertoast @ 07/05/10 12:54 PM
If the patch fixes the majority of the big complaints, I will pick the game up (used of course.)
|
|||||||||||||
|
I think that would be best, but what I do not want is the standard madden cam. It's clear that passing is one of the weaker aspects of the game (not just because of actual passing, but also too good of safeties) ...so I want them to tweak that, but I don't want them copying that camera.
Post A Comment
Working...