But....we're not getting overcharged. It's the same price as every other crappy game out there, and great game out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
But....we're not getting overcharged. It's the same price as every other crappy game out there, and great game out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
You're missing the point. Call of Duty is a shitty game, but I'm not forced to to buy it to get my fix for a FPS. Where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can? That's the entire point.
The point of it is very simply that they have a lock on an entire genre, and they're not producing sufficient quality of products to cater to certain people. Those people are going to buy the game anyway because it's the only place they can get a football game, and if it continues lacking in quality, then yes, it should be lowered in price.
In regards to your first paragraph, there is still THREE+ months til release.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
In regards to the 2nd paragraph, it's a difference of opinion. Or as Lebowski says, that's just your opinion, man.
In re: this "argument"
#1 I agree with IOU that the exclusive license has been a bad deal for us as consumers. Competition/choice/free markets ALWAYS lead to better products for us the consumer. I do disagree with 11. It is not PERFECT by any stretch of the imagination but I have found it ENJOYABLE to play.
#2 However, what EA/NCAA/NFL done is totally legal and they have every right to make/license their intellectual property to only one company (EA). EA is very smart for making sure it is the only supplier by paying the NCAA/NFL for the exclusive license rights.
#3 The answer for us as consumers isn't in the courts. Rather, if you don't like EA's product do not buy it. If enough people hold the view EA will either improve the product or eventually lose $ and drop the license which will allow a new company to come into the fold. I did not buy 09 or 10 b/c I hated the demo and rented the retail version first and concluded the game was not enjoyable for me. IMHO 11 was a marked improvement and I deemed the game worthy of $60 from my disposable income.
Each of us has the power to decide for ourselves and the chips will fall where they may.
This is true, and trust me, I'm definitely not condemning it yet. I'll buy it like I do every year, but it does annoy me when I see stuff like Season Showdown and the perfection of grass being implemented when there's issues with the actual game play.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
Why is it that you belong to this site? If you hate the game so much, what's the point? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I have never understood this logic. I love football (I assume you do too), I think the Cleveland Browns put out a consistently "shitty" product. I'm sure there are a ton of Cleveland Browns Football forums, but I don't join them.Quote:
NCAA Football, IMO, is a shitty game
Quote:
but where else am I supposed to get my football fix since they have the exclusive rights to make the game and no one else can?
Wrong. No one else can get NCAA or NFL licensing, but anyone can make a football game. The "People's Champion", Backbreaker, showed the world how easy it is to make a football game. What a great game that was! :rolleyes:
I'm still amazed that people who have been part of the community for years try to pretend that they have no idea how EA releases game improvements and/or new features. The small stuff comes first. You are not that stupid.Quote:
Just like the bullshit I can tell they're going to pull this year. They released a blog 2 or 3 weeks ago about the improvements to grass. GRASS!
:fp: No game will ever satisfy everyone, and no one is forcing anybody to buy anything.Quote:
The point of it is very simply that they have a lock on an entire genre, and they're not producing sufficient quality of products to cater to certain people. Those people are going to buy the game anyway because it's the only place they can get a football game, and if it continues lacking in quality, then yes, it should be lowered in price.
Do you realize that there are different people who have different areas of the game they work on? The "grass guy" doesn't have anything to do with game play. Read the credits sometime, lol. In your logic, the guy who made the grass look better shouldn't do anything at work until the game play guy gets his area up to your standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
I don't have hate for the game. Between '04 and '07 on PS2, I played well over 2,000 online games. I think I've earned by right to provide feedback about where they have gone erroneous when it comes to developing on this generation of systems. That's precisely why I'm a member of a lot of NCAA Football sites. Feedback, if read and taken into consideration, is often times the difference between a bad game and a good game.
First of all, I want a true experience. I want to play with real college teams with real college rosters. Second of all, Backbreaker was an abortion. I'm not one of these people who just bashes EA for the sake of bashing them. If it's a bad game, I'm going to give my feedback on it, and from the time I spent on BB, it was terrible and not worth the $20 I spent on it.
Apparently I am that stupid. I've been waiting 5 years for improved line interaction and has never happened, so I have to assume it's not going to happen at all. Did you play online last year? The zone defense was so bad that you were basically conceding a touchdown just by picking a zone defense. Man defense was TOO good. The DB knew the route and would cut in front of the wide receiver before they patched it, which only made things marginally better. I have no problem whatsoever with them implementing small features like grass, season showdown, or whatever. HOWEVER, when there are BLATANT issues with the game play then they need to be addressed first and foremost.
The logic of "no game will satisfy everyone" works with shooters. It does NOT apply to football or sports games. If it's developed the way it should be developed, then everyone who enjoys the sport should enjoy the game, and there is no bigger college football fan than myself. It's because of my love for college football that I'm upset with how the game has been developed. I want to run a spread option offense, but I can't, because the run blocking from shotgun is 100% useless. I want to be able to run a zone blitz scheme, but can't, because zone defense doesn't even remotely work.
I mean, I know 99% of the members on this site don't play online competitively against random players, but I have since online was incorporated in '04. It worked great in '04. It worked great in '05. It worked great in '06, and it worked great in '07. As soon as they made the jump to this generation of consoles, there were a ton of problems and they still haven't been able to fix them. It's missing the balance that existed during the last generation of consoles. If you want the list of issues wrong with the game, I'll gladly post it for the 12th time. Either that, or just go play online and you'll quickly realize the problems that exist.
Yes, I'm fully aware that they have different teams. It makes no difference. Whenever a game has problems in the core game play and ANY team is focusing on grass, it's going to get on my nerves.
That's true. If it's contructive. Saying "NCAA is a shitty game" is not the best way to get your voice heard though. It's doubtful IMHO that being a vocal supporter of lawsuits against EA is the best approach to having feedback be taken into consideration. I don't play Madden anymore. The last Madden I bought was 09. I speak up about what I think needs to be done with Madden, but I don't come in here and say "Madden is a shitty game, it's about time someone sued them". I just don't buy it.Quote:
Feedback, if read and taken into consideration, is often times the difference between a bad game and a good game.
Agreed. Maybe programming a football game isn't so easy after all.Quote:
Second of all, Backbreaker was an abortion.
Yes, and you have reasonable opinions. We'll see what 12 is like. I don't play randoms though. Shooters and sports games can't be treated the same. Randoms will ruin any sports game, if you subject yourself to them.Quote:
Did you play online last year?
How doesn't this apply to shooters? If it's developed properly, and you like the genre, shouldn't you enjoy it?Quote:
If it's developed the way it should be developed, then everyone who enjoys the sport should enjoy the game
Remind me which game, in the history of video games, has satisfied everyone.Quote:
The logic of "no game will satisfy everyone" works with shooters. It does NOT apply to football or sports games.
So, because the first thing they released were visual improvements, you KNOW for a fact that no one is touching game play? Have you ever stopped to consider that the game is a WIP? It's not a finished product waiting to be shipped in July. I would venture to say that screenshots are released first because video would show an incomplete game (particularly from an AI/game play perspective). Would it make sense to put out a screenshot and say "We fixed zone coverage!"?Quote:
I have no problem whatsoever with them implementing small features like grass, season showdown, or whatever. HOWEVER, when there are BLATANT issues with the game play then they need to be addressed first and foremost...... Yes, I'm fully aware that they have different teams. It makes no difference. Whenever a game has problems in the core game play and ANY team is focusing on grass, it's going to get on my nerves.
Again, graphics people don't work on making the game play better, they make it look better. So you'd like the art guys, who may or may not know enough about football to program game play, to fix game play? Or would you prefer that the game look exactly the same forever, and they just fire the guy who made the grass look better?
For years I've watched a large number of people given constructive feedback to EA about legitimate issues surrounding the game, and they constantly get ignored. I'm 99% sure I know why, but it does not legitimize the fact that it's still broken. I would bet any amount of money that the problems that exist today(bad zone defense, bad line interaction, bad run blocking from shotgun, overpowered psychic man defense, poor defense pursuit angles, etc..) are issues with the engine they're using. It's the only thing that makes sense. It worked extremely well past generation and hasn't work yet on this generation and they're in their 6th year to attempt to correct it. I can't help but think all these issues are because of the engine being used and that they're not going to be fixed until a new engine is made. If they would just come out and say it instead of ignoring it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Never said it was easy. They had no problem making amazing games with NCAA Football '04-'07 on PS2, so I'm confident they have the ability.
Normally I would agree, but these aren't issues being taken advantage of by random players. I'm about a sim as they come and it's kind of hard to not abuse the issues. Just like when someone runs a zone defense. What am I supposed to do? Not throw the wide open post route and take a sack? Watch any video on youtube. There is literally one, maybe two stops a game defensively combined, and that's because of flaws in the defense that have existed in every game this generation. Some of it has to do with when the ball is on the hash marks, and some of it has to do with bad AI and play design, but it still needs fixed. Online is basically unplayable because of it.
Just like how powerful toss plays and outside running plays are. It's not because the person calling them is good, it's because the defensive AI is not tuned correctly to pursue the ball at the correct angle. It's a flaw in design. There's a million other things that come into play. I can identify these extremely easy because I've played on the tournament scene and I know what players look to exploit when the game comes out. If EA wants a successful game, they'll fix them.
It doesn't apply to shooters because each shooter is a bit different. The controls are different, the animations are different, different perks, different maps, etc...You can like one shooter and hate the other. Football games shouldn't be like that. If they're made to be realistic and there's not glaring bugs, seemingly everyone who likes football should enjoy the game.
No game has, no game ever will. However, like I said, if it's developed correctly and plays as it should, then everyone who likes college football should enjoy the game.
I used to have the mentality that you do in your last 2 paragraphs. I used to sit there when the first screenshot was released and think "this is going to be the year they get it right." I've done that for 5 years now, and I've been burned every single year. '08 was the rocket catch and super effective man blitzes. '09 was the complete lack of a pass rush. '10 was the year where the pass rush still sucked and it was impossible to play online because Quarter defense could shut down the pass and the power run all at once. '11 was the year where man defense knew your route, where running plays on the edge were near unstoppable, where zone defense is putrid, and for the 3rd year in a row...it was the lack of pass rush and blitzes.
I don't judge a game until I play it. I'm voicing my opinion with 100% legitimate issues and I've yet to see anyone prove to me that the issues I'm mentioning aren't legitimate issues. If EA were to release a game that is as good as I expect it to be, I'd be the first to sing their praise, just like I did back on the PS2 days. However, as long as there are legitimate issues negatively impacting the result of the game, I feel the need to give them feedback on it.
How about making a nice donation to TGT if they fix any of those things this year, lol.Quote:
I would bet any amount of money that the problems that exist today(bad zone defense, bad line interaction, bad run blocking from shotgun, overpowered psychic man defense, poor defense pursuit angles, etc..) are issues with the engine they're using.
I fully agree that there are issues with the AI, don't misunderstand. I just take exception when someone blasts EA and gloats about them getting sued. If I wanted to be a part of that kind of forum, I would still be at the one I was at for almost 10 years before this one started. I like TGT's vision of wanting to provide feedback in a way that EA will be receptive to. With the history of the admins of this site, I have no doubt that they know how to get feedback to EA. When I see that other sites are directing people to TGT for things like band locations and the use of cannons etc. it leads me to believe that there is an organized direction for that happening. I want to be part of a forum that can get my opinions to EA. When someone puts their frustration ahead of the vision of this forum, and thereby puts my ability to have my feedback heard at risk, I go on the defensive. I won't stand by and let anyone sour EA's relationship with TGT.
From TGT's guidelines....
Quote:
- With the ability for instant feedback on the internet and the relatively new policy by EA Sports allowing/encouraging members of the development team to post on community sites, The Gaming Tailgate will encourage and work towards making this site welcome for dev team members. For the vast majority in the NCAA Football community, they want to have this direct line of feedback. Any members who put their individual bias above the goals of the site and community will not be welcome.
I'm a negative-nancy too when it comes to EA and their video game creation process and I agree that, while it sucks that time is being spent on items that I will never use or don't really care about (Season Showdown, "prettier" grass, Mascots, Cannon locations, Band locations, etc) and I think that any type of resources (no matter how small) being used on those aspects of the game would be better spent getting a gameplay aspect to work as it should work (aka as close to real life as possible), I also understand that, sadly, I'm not the main target audience for their football video games. I want as real as possible (even if that means only having 1.5 to 2 seconds to throw the ball before getting creamed by the pass rush) but not everyone would enjoy that for what it was so, therefore, there has to be some compromise on both ends.
Just to make sure I'm clear on what I mean, I have no problem with constructive criticism. I have criticized parts of every version of NCAA ever produced. NCAA 11 is far from perfect, but it's closer than 10 was. Hopefully 12 will be closer than 11. I just want this forum to continue to be a "friendly" place for the developers of NCAA. They can handle feedback, they can handle criticism. I don't expect them to read through posts bashing them or saying their work is "shitty" just to try and find the constructive posts. Please don't mistake me for someone who will not call a spade a spade. I absolutely will. But, I make every effort to say things in a way that I would be willing to have someone criticize my work. If someone called my work "shitty" and was happy I had a lawsuit brought against me, I wouldn't give a fuck what they thought I could be doing better.
I'm not letting my frustration get in the way of anything. You're not going to see me cussing and calling out people for their beliefs. I also don't see how I would put the site in jeopardy of not being heard when I'm stating issues that they've heard before. The issues I'm pointing out are nothing new, and they've been pointed out by hundreds of people before me.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Like I said before, the only thing I want is a functional game that works the way it should. As soon as they are able to do that, I'll be the first one to say "good job." But until they get to that point, users like myself who play the game are going to have to provide feedback so that they know what we want and what's wrong with what they have.
Bingo. As with virtually all games these days, developers are starting to develop games with the casual players in mind rather than the "hardcore" players who have been supporting their products for years. It's a little less of an issue in sports games because it can still provide a realistic and fun experience. EA just hasn't got NCAA to that level yet where it is a fun experience for those players seeking a truly realistic experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
It's not like they even need to follow a whole ton of feedback.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
- Zone defense needs improved
- Man defense needs improved(improving it does not mean programming the AI to know the route)
- Run blocking from shotgun needs improved
- Timing on hand off in Shotgun needs improved
- Defensive pursuit AI needs tuned to better recognize an outside run
- Better blitz AI. Blitzes rarely ever get home, and when they do, it takes way too long
- Improve the pass rush. It's been improved over '10, but it's still way too ineffective
If they were to fix those things, I'd instantly shut up. Unfortunately, save for the zone defense and man defense(they take turns being bad some years and good the others), they have been issues with every single game they've released.
Quote:
I, for one, am thrilled to hear this is finally happening.
Quote:
it's about damn time someone called EA out on their bullshit when it comes to football games.
Quote:
Hopefully it gets them off their asses and gives them a little motivation to develop something as good as they were able to do during the PS2 days.
Quote:
EA Sports and Activision are the two huge jokes this generation.
Quote:
I just thoroughly enjoy when someone calls them out on the bullshit that they've been pulling.
Quote:
NCAA Football, IMO, is a shitty game
Well you certainly fooled me.Quote:
I'm not letting my frustration get in the way of anything.
I don't see how it's frustration when it's the truth. :D
It would probably be frustration if I actually made myself continually play it when I didn't enjoy it, but I don't. With NCAA '08-'11, I've bought the game on release day and simply traded it in towards Madden when the time rolled out. I refuse to be frustrated all the time simply because a game is not made how I expect it to be made. Life is way too short to waste it away being frustrated over a game.
FYI, I went ahead and edited out every thing I've said that I did not consider to be constructive before your last post, so considering it's pretty obvious we're never going to agree, there's really no point in continuing this argument. Your perspective is from one that is mostly against the CPU and maybe some online dynasties against players you know, while mine is strictly from an online perspective where I'm playing random people or whoever wants to play and even tournaments. You're not going to see the issues that I see, and considering I haven't played the CPU since '05 on PS2, my lone solution would be for EA to fix the issues that exist.
I agree with you, for the most part, about the issues you've listed, and, yes, I've seen them. I'm sure I've commented on most/all of them on this forum. I just believe that how you say something is as important as what you say. I spent a good 4 or 5 years on NCAA forums wishing EA would listen to our ideas. Now that the community has their attention, I want to make sure I do my part to get my message across without making any developer think "any therapist would advise against me reading this hateful nonsense, screw these people and their opinions."Quote:
Your perspective is from one that is mostly against the CPU and maybe some online dynasties against players you know, while mine is strictly from an online perspective where I'm playing random people or whoever wants to play and even tournaments. You're not going to see the issues that I see, and considering I haven't played the CPU since '05 on PS2, my lone solution would be for EA to fix the issues that exist.
ultimately, video games are over priced. They should be no worse than maybe $39.99 new
No, it's not. That's not the argument they're making. That may be the argument you want them to make, but that's not what they're arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
They're arguing that EA entered into exclusive agreements with the NFL, NCAA, etc, and solely because of those agreements, they now charge $60. They're ignoring that every other year of the PS2 generation, Madden and NCAA both cost $50. They're ignoring that every other game out there costs $60. They're ignoring that NBA, NHL and MLB games, which have competition (or at least have recently), cost $60.
They are saying nothing about bang for buck or quality. They're accusing price-gouging.
You want to argue that the game isn't as good, dollar for dollar, as the previous generation? Fine by me. I might even agree with you to an extent. But that's not what the suit is arguing.
I, for one, have never heard a negative comment about Pac-Man. Or the Turtles arcade game.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan