Some Madden NFL 16 Features Revealed, Pre-Order & Deluxe Edition Details

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by howboutdat

And that is the main issue right there. They end up watering too much down for the actual released product.Thats not saying JP isnt telling the truth of what he has already seen, but is stating ,we all know , that EA tends to water things down after that point before its released. Quite frankly i think the GC's tell what they see, but then it gets watered down, if i was a GC, id be pissed at EA for making me look like a liar so much, when really its EA who is purposely showing them one thing yet producing another IMO.

You know what after reading this I regret being so harsh on some of the game changers. What does EA gain from showing the game changers one thing then watering it down right before release?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by howboutdat

And that is the main issue right there. They end up watering too much down for the actual released product.Thats not saying JP isnt telling the truth of what he has already seen, but is stating ,we all know , that EA tends to water things down after that point before its released. Quite frankly i think the GC's tell what they see, but then it gets watered down, if i was a GC, id be pissed at EA for making me look like a liar so much, when really its EA who is purposely showing them one thing yet producing another IMO.

Is that really the case though? Sure they tinker with some things after the GCs visit but I find it hard to believe that the game is THAT much different than what they saw a few months before.

How many of you guys have ever been a GCer or played a sports game months before release? I have and this is what typically happens:

The developers show you things that they want you to see. They will have you focus on their biggest additions and features. When you get time to play the game, you will pay more attention to those things because thats what they are training you to focus on.

When you see bugs/glitches or ask about features that are missing, they will either assure you that those things will be fixed by release or that its something that they will look into for future versions. So you walk out thinking about how good the game looked, how you like the new features and assured that the game's issues will be fixed by release.

A game has to be REALLY bad to look to get bad feedback during this stage. The only game I remember that falls into that category was NBA Live a few years back. I heard the feedback was so bad that it played a role in EA canceling the game.

I do wonder sometimes though why it seems that if EA has some "sim" focused GCers, why we never get answers on some sim focused issues? For example, why hasnt a GCer asked about why gap assignments arent implemented? Live sidelines? Formation subs? CPU assigned playbooks?

Why hasnt one GCer has ever asked those questions? If they have, what are the answers?

[ggsimmonds]

Last year's Madden left a serious bad taste in my mouth. But the funny thing was that I thought it was the best Madden gameplay since the 05-06 glory days. The way they handled the sacks issue completely alienated me to the point where I am not sure if I will buy Madden. I probably will, but the meter is very low.

I know OS does not like when we call out specific developers so I will try to keep the rest of this respectful and constructive, but Josh Looman has been a huge disappointment. All we need to do is go back to when they first introduced "connected career mode" and see the pitches that were used. Now return back to today. The same core problems still exist, and most of what was missing from the old franchise is still missing. Instead of correcting those things and improving the basic foundation they added what I would call incomplete features (this is debatable) that actually makes the to-do list even longer. And maybe this is petty, but I will not forget his line about spending several months designing fictional uniforms when there is so much more important work to be done.

He has the NFL Head Coach pedigree and that is a game that is universally adored by the sim community. What is going wrong?

Gameplay wise I would call myself guarded optimistic. But CFM wise? Completely skeptical and dissatisfied.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

In their mind xp is a way to give users more control, and giving users more control is the fundamental flaw with madden in my opinion. More user control is what has led to the twitchy/unrealistic movement we have now. It's why acceleration and deceleration really don't matter, it's why weight strength and momentum make no difference. Xp would be fine in a single player mode where you control one guy and want to level up your skills as you see fit(2k my player, road the show) but in a franchise mode it's just too unrealistic(I don't play online franchise but I see it being an even bigger issue there). If I have a MLB who racks up 100+ tackles and 7 sacks why on earth should I be able to increase his man to man coverage?

Yes sir, I was thinking the same way, if they wanted to have XP limit it to one player and one coach in those modes but at least offer something more standard/traditional/realistic in some mode. This an example of what I was referring to earlier about waiting for the other shoe to drop in reference to sim/realism being priority, it either is or it ain't, you can't have it priority for wr/db interaction but not movement or for game play but not career modes or presentation but not player ratings, etc.

I think I've been asking this question for a few years now, glad people like Rex, Cam, etc are pushing for realism but what about the others and teams like, Moore/player ratings, Looman/CFM, Presentation, animation tiers, equipment, etc, are they on the same page? So far Moore and Looman sure don't seem to be and Looman will seemingly block and ignore anyone that doesn't support or believe in his CCM/CFM vision.

This all ties back into the interaction with EAGCers, JPdavis, Rex, Clint and anyone else touting what certain elements of the game are or intended to be, they can't stand alone, it all needs to come together to create a reasonably complete game.

Having stated all that, I thought Cam Weber was in charge of Madden as a whole, which I thought would include everything except maybe MUT. So if that's the case and he is all about realism being priority, which I think is the case based on his statements, why isn't that mantra being enforced or seen in all applicable aspects, not just game play? From what I understand Looman works in Austin, Tx, while Weber is in Florida, so does that mean that CFM is an island into itself, which Looman can almost do whatever he sees fit?

[4thQtrStre5S]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

As it stands xp is gained through team goals(rush for x amount of yards in a game/season, throw x amount of Tds in a game/seaso) and individual goals. The difference is team goals award xp to everyone on the team where as individual goals only award xp to the individual player. The problem isn't so much how it's gained its that you can use it to increase stats that have nothing to do with the reason the Xp was awarded.

Okay, thank you for the clarification..The XP system is not good then...Players should only potentially increase in areas they have trained for..

Also, to give XP for passing TD's or Rushing yards, etc. gives a great advantage to the human player, thus making CPU teams completely inferior after a relatively short amount of time...Even I can take a 65 overall QB and score a number of TD's..

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Is that really the case though? Sure they tinker with some things after the GCs visit but I find it hard to believe that the game is THAT much different than what they saw a few months before. How many of you guys have ever been a GCer or played a sports game months before release? I have and this is what typically happens: The developers show you things that they want you to see. They will have you focus on their biggest additions and features. When you get time to play the game, you will pay more attention to those things because thats what they are training you to focus on. When you see bugs/glitches or ask about features that are missing, they will either assure you that those things will be fixed by release or that its something that they will look into for future versions. So you walk out thinking about how good the game looked, how you like the new features and assured that the game's issues will be fixed by release. A game has to be REALLY bad to look to get bad feedback during this stage. The only game I remember that falls into that category was NBA Live a few years back. I heard the feedback was so bad that it played a role in EA canceling the game. I do wonder sometimes though why it seems that if EA has some "sim" focused GCers, why we never get answers on some sim focused issues? For example, why hasnt a GCer asked about why gap assignments arent implemented? Live sidelines? Formation subs? CPU assigned playbooks? Why hasnt one GCer has ever asked those questions? If they have, what are the answers?

Literally every one of those issues, I or someone else mentioned to the devs. I can't really say what the answers were either way due to NDA, but they had legitimate answers for all of them.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Is that really the case though? Sure they tinker with some things after the GCs visit but I find it hard to believe that the game is THAT much different than what they saw a few months before. How many of you guys have ever been a GCer or played a sports game months before release? I have and this is what typically happens: The developers show you things that they want you to see. They will have you focus on their biggest additions and features. When you get time to play the game, you will pay more attention to those things because thats what they are training you to focus on. When you see bugs/glitches or ask about features that are missing, they will either assure you that those things will be fixed by release or that its something that they will look into for future versions. So you walk out thinking about how good the game looked, how you like the new features and assured that the game's issues will be fixed by release. A game has to be REALLY bad to look to get bad feedback during this stage. The only game I remember that falls into that category was NBA Live a few years back. I heard the feedback was so bad that it played a role in EA canceling the game. I do wonder sometimes though why it seems that if EA has some "sim" focused GCers, why we never get answers on some sim focused issues? For example, why hasnt a GCer asked about why gap assignments arent implemented? Live sidelines? Formation subs? CPU assigned playbooks? Why hasnt one GCer has ever asked those questions? If they have, what are the answers?

I recall LBz mentioning when he was at Community Days, they would see a addition one way and when the game released, it came out another way.(not all additions)

Also, last year, during one of the blogonars, I recall specifically the EA team focused on a few errant throws by QB's. I was, at that time, happy they put it into the game.

This feature was not found at release time unless you really lowered significantly both QB ACC.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I've stated time and time again that CFM is one of the worst franchise modes in current sports games. Soooooooo many other games do it right (The Show, NBA 2k, Fifa) that all they have to do is just mimic those.

Madden should just straight up rip off The Show's progression where it is directed but not micromanaged.

Under team management let us set progression/development paths for each player. Let me tell Torrey Smith to work on his possession type WR attributes and his progress could be determined by a combination of inherent potential and production.

User has control but it does not limit the system in the same way the XP system does.