First Madden/NCAA 2006 Screens - New Details

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:16 am

athletics_fan wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:
JRod wrote:All I'll say is this. If they can make it complete like MVP, what exclusive license.
You truely are the king of quotes JRod...

Funny stuff.

Ditto

Oh and I did find the first glitch (possibly) since there is nothing more fun then breaking down screen shots of games. To be honest the Texas Longhorn player doing the Heisman pose had me do a double take and led me to look closer.

Texas in the home uni's in what appears to be Memorial Stadium and they have a Tennessee logo in the background. That sure is not Neyland Stadium so unless they are playing a bowl game, a tiny glitch in the Matrix....

Actually odd logos would come out during NCAA 2005 and only when played during certain times of the day/weather. I played a season or two with Montana and if I played a game in the afternoon with certain weather the stadium would replace all the Grizzly logos with another teams logos. Hopefully that is not the case and someone at Tiburon was confused.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:34 am

wco81 wrote:Some details about the control mechanics:

What QB Vision does is add a virtual field of vision to represent the real life field of vision an NFL QB has. It does this on screen by adding a lighted cone starting from the QB and getting larger as the distance increases. Everything outside of the lighted cone is shaded darker and the passing icons are dimmer. Each QB’s rating affects how large or small the cone is. Manning, for instance, would have a large field of vision and Vick would have a smaller one. If you decide to scramble, the cone will get smaller as you run and then go back to normal size as you slow down and come to a stop. Your QB is set to look at your primary receiver (orange) upon the snap of the ball but that can be changed pre-snap by simply holding the R2 (PS2) and tapping the receivers assigned button. After the ball is snapped you have two ways you can change the QB’s vision to another area. 1. You can hold down R2 and push the button corresponding to the receiver you want to look at or 2. You can use the right thumb stick to manually move the cone across the field and back. Here is how the QB Vision affects the passing game. .
1. You can only use precision passing if the receiver you are throwing to is in your field of vision. Meaning, if you want to lead a receiver using the thumbstick as your throw that receiver has to be in the lighted cone projecting from your QB. Note: you can still throw to a receiver out of the cone but the pass is less likely to be accurate and you cannot use precision passing. Also note that you may be looking directly at receiver X who is dead center of your cone of vision but other receivers close to him may still be in your cone of vision.
2. The second rule to remember is that the receiver icons are now on a timer (the length of time on the timer was not final yet). What this means is if you decide to take off with your QB and scramble around and then bring back up your passing icons only receivers inside your cone of vision will have a passing icon above their head and the option to switch the cone by using the R2 selection is gone. You now have to use the right thumbstick to move the cone around. What this simulates is if you get flushed out of the pocket in the NFL and take off running you are going to lose site of your receivers and not know exactly where they are when you look downfield again. Note: You can still throw to any receiver without the icon above their head and not in the field of vision but the pass will most likely be a really bad pass. (I tried this and it was a really bad pass)
Elsewhere, I read that it's suppose to be an optional mode. However, the Home Field Advantage and Matchup Stick (player poise meters) in NCAA 2005 were suppose to be optional too except in all online games, they were on.

And I'm going to do all of this in 2.3 seconds? I can just see it now, as you look down the field to find a receiver with the new Field Vision (TM) you get raped by a 330 lb DT.

TCrouch · Post by **TCrouch** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:51 am

Never in my life have I thought EA finally got realism dead on...

Phillip Buchanon and Denard Walker getting burned? NOW THAT'S REALISM!!!!

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:01 am

A few more from Madden Mania

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:22 am

A few I missed from Gamespot

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:36 am

bdoughty wrote: Texas in the home uni's in what appears to be Memorial Stadium and they have a Tennessee logo in the background. That sure is not Neyland Stadium so unless they are playing a bowl game, a tiny glitch in the Matrix....

Good catch...that was the first thing I noticed in that screen as well.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:35 am

Drew Briese Looks a bit anorexic in a couple of the screenshots! I didn't realize that NFL players were into binge and barf!

Best wishes,

Doug

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:40 am

Badgun wrote:And I'm going to do all of this in 2.3 seconds? I can just see it now, as you look down the field to find a receiver with the new Field Vision (TM) you get raped by a 330 lb DT.

That thought crossed my mind too. But from reading the whole thing it sounds like a lot depends on your read before the snap (you can switch who the QB looks to for the primary receiver) and it's not like you can't throw to the receiver outside the cone just like normal when there's no time to move the cone. The QB will just be less accurate. As long as they don't turn every pass outside the cone into a lame duck, that's okay by me. It's about time the QB awareness rating meant something. Worst case, you could probably up your offensive line ratings to gain some extra time in the pocket while learning to use the feature. For a change, I really think the Madden guys are on to something good here.
---Todd

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:43 am

Seems like the vision cone thing is an attempt to do away with the 'mad scramblers,' or at least heavily punish them for that style of play. From that long description, it sounds like it could be a pretty good new feature, but then again, there's still an equal chance it will screw up the gameplay.

But hey, at least they seem to be trying to hamper the deep-drop, mad scramblers.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:55 am

Thanks for all the info and screens, BD. I see where Badgun is coming from about being able to do this -- I feel like I'm going to need three hands if I don't want to turn into Ryan Leaf. But this does look like a cool feature, and I hope you can trick DBs by looking away. Plus this could really, really improve head-to-head play and cut down on the scrambled cheese.

The Heisman Mode in NCAA 2006 sounds really fun -- I like these sports role playing modes. Could give dynasty mode a ton of replay value (like it doesn't have it already) by creating different players and playing different positions.

anchester · Post by **anchester** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:55 am

EA is a joke....this screens look exactly like 2002. They don't maximize for any system (except the crappy ps2). I am sure the xbox 360 will also only be slightly enhanced. They will wait for next year's ps3 to do any real changes.

I do think the QB cone is a good feature if implemented correctly.

Ever notice that the bigger the player is the more they suck (example)

Game sites - IGN: totally suck, biased and bought out (scores are always above 9 for big games).
Game developer: EA: totally sequelize, buy licenses, and stifle innovation
Game Hardware: Sony: make crappy hard to program systems, w/ nothing std, and pure hype (emotion & cell engine)

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:10 am

anchester wrote:EA is a joke....this screens look exactly like 2002. They don't maximize for any system (except the crappy ps2). I am sure the xbox 360 will also only be slightly enhanced. They will wait for next year's ps3 to do any real changes.

I do think the QB cone is a good feature if implemented correctly.

Ever notice that the bigger the player is the more they suck (example)

Game sites - IGN: totally suck, biased and bought out (scores are always above 9 for big games).
Game developer: EA: totally sequelize, buy licenses, and stifle innovation
Game Hardware: Sony: make crappy hard to program systems, w/ nothing std, and pure hype (emotion & cell engine)

I'm not an EA fanboy by any stretch, but they have been the most innovative console sports developers in recent years. Their games have been hit or miss as a whole, but they have made a lot of great control innovations like freestyle, the pitching meter, the hit stick (which I liked and which was actually a strategic tool for defense). The QB vision thing (if done right, of course) could really make passing more realistic.

I'm not happy with their business practices, but it's not like they've sat on their hands. And frankly, Sega left a sour taste in my mouth this year with their Sierra-esque QA testing.

ubrakto · Post by **ubrakto** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:51 am

Brando70 wrote:The Heisman Mode in NCAA 2006 sounds really fun -- I like these sports role playing modes. Could give dynasty mode a ton of replay value (like it doesn't have it already) by creating different players and playing different positions.

That Heisman Mode thing is certainly intriguing. Been wanting to see more in the way of player "RPG" features built into sports games, but the preview hasn't sold me on the implementation yet. That whole girlfriend thing is just silly, but whatever. I just want receivers who can catch the ball.

---Todd

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:53 am

Another what the heck was EA thinking image. It's like they do not even pay attention to the screens they put out. They need a beta tester just to give out screenshots.

You have Indy and Tennessee playing at Arrowhead Stadium (Chief logo at midfield)? Also Arrowhead stadium has a grass field, the screen has turf. I am guessing it is supposed to the be the RCA dome but boggles the mind as to how the Chief logo got there.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:56 am

LOL...it's still damn near 4 months until release, I think everything will be okay.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:57 am

ubrakto wrote:
Brando70 wrote:The Heisman Mode in NCAA 2006 sounds really fun -- I like these sports role playing modes. Could give dynasty mode a ton of replay value (like it doesn't have it already) by creating different players and playing different positions.
That Heisman Mode thing is certainly intriguing. Been wanting to see more in the way of player "RPG" features built into sports games, but the preview hasn't sold me on the implementation yet. That whole girlfriend thing is just silly, but whatever. I just want receivers who can catch the ball.
---Todd

Yea I am still up in the air about it. I like the idea of it but certain aspects like the door room are useless to me (just as the Crib was in 2K5). I would prefer they spent their time on the AI and Collision detection (especially the part in 2005 where balls could magically fly right through your body).

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:01 pm

anchester wrote:EA is a joke....

Yeah, successful companies are a joke.

anchester wrote:Game sites - IGN: totally suck, biased and bought out (scores are always above 9 for big games).

I just love how some people rationalize irrational behavior by making claims that are easily discounted. While IGN is not perfect, your claim that every big game gets a 9 or better is BS.

anchester wrote:Game developer: EA: totally sequelize, buy licenses, and stifle innovation

Yeah, successful companies have no business trying to improve on their market share and profitability. How DARE THEY!

On a more serious note, the theory that EA will not innovate and sit on their incredibly expensive licenses is nonsense. What EA has done is pushed themselves into a tricky rock and a hard spot. If they DO innovate and create a game that people will purchase, then your theory is flawed. If they DON'T innovate and the game flops, then THEY screw up and lose $MILLIONS. Do you not think that EA is looking at every conceivable feature that could make a difference in units sold? If you don't, you simply don't "get it".

anchester wrote:Game Hardware: Sony: make crappy hard to program systems, w/ nothing std, and pure hype (emotion & cell engine)

Yep, yet another success story. When you consider how many millions of units Sony has sold, they have been wildly successful and so have the users of their product.

You might want to take your bowl of Post Toasties that someone crapped in and get you a fresh bowl....

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:02 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:LOL...it's still damn near 4 months until release, I think everything will be okay.

I am sure it will.

Oh wait they left the baseball field in Qualcom last year.

They still need my services.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:12 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
anchester wrote:EA is a joke....
Yeah, successful companies are a joke.

anchester wrote:Game sites - IGN: totally suck, biased and bought out (scores are always above 9 for big games).
I just love how some people rationalize irrational behavior by making claims that are easily discounted. While IGN is not perfect, your claim that every big game gets a 9 or better is BS.

anchester wrote:Game developer: EA: totally sequelize, buy licenses, and stifle innovation
Yeah, successful companies have no business trying to improve on their market share and profitability. How DARE THEY!

On a more serious note, the theory that EA will not innovate and sit on their incredibly expensive licenses is nonsense. What EA has done is pushed themselves into a tricky rock and a hard spot. If they DO innovate and create a game that people will purchase, then your theory is flawed. If they DON'T innovate and the game flops, then THEY screw up and lose $MILLIONS. Do you not think that EA is looking at every conceivable feature that could make a difference in units sold? If you don't, you simply don't "get it".

anchester wrote:Game Hardware: Sony: make crappy hard to program systems, w/ nothing std, and pure hype (emotion & cell engine)
Yep, yet another success story. When you consider how many millions of units Sony has sold, they have been wildly successful and so have the users of their product.

You might want to take your bowl of Post Toasties that someone crapped in and get you a fresh bowl....

Even though I don't care for EA's practices Divot Maker is correct. People just take that hatred of losing NFL 2K6 and roll it into EA SUX. I got over that hatred when I realized this is a business and there is not anything we can do about these exclusive deals.

As for the IGN comment Anchester you kind of shoot yourself in the foot. The guts of any review is the TEXT. You sound like a typical forum drone from IGN who spends countless hours complaining about review scores. Take Jade Empire. IGN gives it a 9.9 and Gamespot gives it an 8.4. So which is it? Or do you realize both are simply opinions of the game with a score thrown in simply to amuse the "reading challenged".

I dont even get the Sony comment but then again they are so far ahead in this generation sales they could care less.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:15 pm

Oh and Gamespot has updated with previews and dev interviews.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/ncaa ... media.html

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/madd ... media.html

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/ncaa ... 22225.html

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/madd ... 22221.html

anchester · Post by **anchester** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:37 pm

ok, let me get this straight....Yall say EA and Sony are both making huge amounts of money so the must be great. Well my point is the exact opposite. I think the leader or monopoly companies stifle innovation b/c focusing on marketing instead or real game development.

Sure EA and Sony make a ton of cash. I said nothing about their ability to make money. M$ is a monopoly in the Operating system arena. Do they make cash. Yes. Are they smart business wise. Yes. Is their product the best it could be. Hardly. Apple's OS (even though they have tons less money) is a hell of a lot better.

Lets look at each of my arguments.

IGN. Every game is "major" is a game that gets hyped by previews by a major gamesite. This is most EA games as well as other games. Lets look at reviews of major games.
god war 9.8. Midnight club 3 9.2. Jade Empire 9.9, Doom 3, 9.3, SC3 9.6, Timesplitters 9.0, Brothers in Arms 9.3, MVP 9.2, Fightnight 9.0, Nba Street 3 9.4. Gamespot is a hell of a lot better. But even they overrate most games.

I remember when IGN gave Full Spectrum Warrior for Xbox a 9.2. That game was pretty bad. Any sequel to a major EA sports game will get 9.0 or better, even though the game has barely changed in 3 years (madden).

EA. What has EA created that is good. Madden is a good game, but the same. MVP is good. Fightnight is decent. Burnout 3 was really another company the bought last minute. Sims sux and the milk that franchise. NFSU sux. Goldeneye = trash. All their movie games are shallow (LOTR and Harry Potter). Medal of Honor series going downhill, etc. With all that money, I would think they could at least optimize a game for the xbox instead of having framerate problems and bad textures.

Sony. PS2 is ancient. The jaggies and flickering hurt your eyes on a big screen TV. Why don't they have 4 ports on their machine. The only "emotion" i get from their engine is anger and disappointment. Load times from Hell. No video ram. Bad online gameplay. God of War is good. GT4 is sh$t.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:42 pm

I highly recommend downloading the NCAA Dev interview as it plays (what I assume is NCAA 2006) in the background. OU vs. USC. OU went the whole 2 minute clip without allowing a touchdown and even forced a punt.

I love NCAA 2006

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:45 pm

We have no way of knowing how well this will be implemented but this is, IMO, by FAR the most creative and risky feature for an EA Football game since the launch of the PS2 and Xbox. I think on paper this is absotively wonderful.

I cannot remember the last time I saw a fact sheet/feature list for a Madden game and my eyes widened with surprise like it did yesterday. The DB awareness stuff combined with the Passing Awareness stuff has me all aflutter with anticipation. Is the day finally here where Awareness matters for a human controlled QB? Will QB accuracy finally matter? And it's EA SPORTS that's doing it? I gotta play the lotto today.

I assume NCAA is getting the shaft with these features, though.

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:49 pm

Sounds like the NCAA team spent all their time with this Race to the Heisman gimmick rather than fixing last year's game. I guess we'll get a better impression of the gameplay at E3, but this isn't good news so far.

Why such a desperate ploy in the name of innovation? There is a ton of things that have been done by others or even done by themselves that just need to be redone or improved upon to really bring their football into a solid "above the crowd" level. If they fart around the whole time they have these exclusive licenses by hurling cheap gimmicks at the wall to see what sticks, they'll be sitting on their thumbs at the end of those licenses with games that are just 4-5 years more tired than they are now.

The Madden vision passing thing does look like a step in the right direction though. I'd like to see blind passes downfield be way off target, but blind underneath stuff still a viable option. Need to have some way to have a QB make his reads downfield and still have the option to dump underneath quickly... but not just fire to a 15 yard curl that is on the complete opposite side of the field out of view.

Is it just me, or does it seem like EA swapped several key NCAA and Madden developers after NCAA 2004?

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:58 pm

anchester wrote:ok, let me get this straight....Yall say EA and Sony are both making huge amounts of money so the must be great. Well my point is the exact opposite. I think the leader or monopoly companies stifle innovation b/c focusing on marketing instead or real game development.

The only thing you seem to get "straight" is your intense dislike of each of the companies that you are flaming. Since you seem to be hell-bent on requiring flame-retardant suits for discussion, I think I will pass as I have not the time, nor the interest in trying to reason with someone who seems to be so unreasonable. Flame away...