Only NFL Game This Year Gets Lukewarm Response

aendeuryu writes "The first reviews are in for Madden '06, and the reception is underwhelming -- it's scoring an average rating of 79% on gamerankings.com (at the time of this submission). The reviewers on Gamespot (7.8) and 1up.com (9.0) have different takes on the game, but the readership of both sites doesn't (7.4 and 7.8 respectively). Gamespot's criticisms put the game in a less-than-exciting light: the new QB-vision feature adds realism but takes away from basic fun, and (perhaps most damning) the graphics rate a 7 out of 10 on what was supposed to be a next-generation title. Normally, a mediocre game release isn't a big deal, except that, because of EA's negotiated exclusivity deal with the NFL, this is the only NFL title you'll get to play this year. So, what are the players to do?"

Comments

Learn a real sport

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what are the players to do?

Learn how to play a real sport, like rugby?

Madden

[mfh]

I happen to love football, the actual game, not really most of the video games (for a number of reasons). Before we get a slew of comments making fun of Madden's often repetitive commentary, I wanted to add my 2 cents. NFL football is a game that does not change every year... the rules are pretty much the same from one year to the next, and the real life games themselves were far more interesting in the seventies and mid-eighties than they are today, barring of course some of the big plays (and big win streaks) you see from time to time. New players and annual player turnover only makes the competition slightly more interesting, but the actual systemic variance between each year is minimal.

Systemic differences and improvements are what drive the typical gamer's series purchases. Video games, for the most part, try to deliver a REVOLUTION on each upgrade. About the only revolution you could get with a series like Madden is having the guy come up with something original to say (hasn't happened yet), improving the UI, and making the players look more realistic. But there is a time when this effort stalls, because the game of football itself doesn't change enough to keep fans as interested in purchasing an upgrade to a game that they already own.

Any football fan here would agree that there is very little difference between each new Madden release, except for possibly the player names, stats and some minor UI changes, and Madden saying something slightly different from time to time. But most of his old bricks stay in the game.

Someone could easily reskin and redevelop the game using Madden's engine to make it far more interesting. Like how about a game of medieval football where you have to slit the guy's tendons with your sock-knife, like they used to do back in the day? Seriously... there are a lot of different avenues game developers could be taking to add some spice to these types of games.

If you break it down and see Madden 04 and Madden 05 sitting in either the week rental or the 2 night rental, you'll pick 04 so you can have it a few more days... or at least I would.

My point is that they have to really do something different if they want to improve their ratings and this has to be one of the hardest challenges facing any game designer in the world right now. How do you take a regular sport and make a game out of it that will release a new title each year, without boring the hell out of your fans? It's hard.

Re:Madden

[Skim123]

Any football fan here would agree that there is very little difference between each new Madden release, except for possibly the player names, stats and some minor UI changes, and Madden saying something slightly different from time to time. But most of his old bricks stay in the game.

Serious footbacll fans who dig their video games upgrade each year primarily because of the one item you didn't list - the evolving team roster. A player might have a favorite team or two and want to be able to have his video game playing mimic the real season in the sense that he can have the 'real' QB throw to the 'real' wide out and so on. Plus, usually the graphics do improve year after year.

Personally I'm an NBA fan, never really into football. My purchases in the Sega basketball series (NBA2k2, 2k3, and then the ESPN line) were primarily driven by roster changes. Wanted to be able to play the Lakers when they had Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton; then wanted to be able to play with Shaq and D-Wade, or a Nash-led run and gun Suns team.

Speaking of the basketball series of games, though, one thing they do seem to do a good job of is introduce some nuisance each year. For example, in early versions of 2kX the fast breaking was horrible, players would come to a dead stop to catch a pass rather than having one player lead the other with a pass - very frustrating when you have a 2 on 1 break and you pass it to the lead man who stops dead in his tracks and waits for the ball to arrive. So they fixed that with lead passes, but then they made the computer's point guard too good, always able to blow by you defending him. Even if you were a long, atheletic NBA guard who is well-known for his defensive prowress, and guarding an old, slow guy who is all thumbs in real life, you'd get taken to school every time. It would end up where the other team might score 50 points in a game w/their PG racking up 40 of those. So they improved that in the next year's game, but then went and made the post play too easy. Throw it down low, do the drop-step, and you're shooting like 90%, doesn't matter who you are or who's guarding you. Etc., etc.

The point is, there always seems to be a nagging reason to upgrade, and the developers always seem coy enough to always add some new, 'This sucks, can't wait til next year's release' "feature."

Re:Madden

[kfg]

Serious footbacll fans who dig their video games upgrade each year primarily because of the one item you didn't list - the evolving team roster.

I understand that this is, in fact, the driving force behind sports game sales. I can't say I've ever really understood it.

I play sports games for the game, so when I find one I like I'm perfectly happy sticking with that edition until a truely superior simulation comes along.

. . .the developers always seem coy enough to always add some new, 'This sucks, can't wait til next year's release' "feature."

And I'm alergic to being treated like a hamster who is expected to keep dropping fifty dollar bills into the slot just to be allowed to run on a wheel that goes nowhere.

KFG

Re:Madden

[BackInIraq]

I agree. I don't really have much desire to spend $40/$50 on a game that really only updates the stats that it draws upon. However, I may be interested in buying a game that had updates that cost say around $10 per year. That way, I cut down on my expenses, get to play a game that has up to date stats and not have to re-learn a new game.

Here is an idea that might make me interested in sports games again. I can see it now...all the team/player information is kept in a consistant database across versions (perhaps even uniform textures, if storage space allows). That data can be downloaded via a service such as Xbox Live (or the publisher's own service), allowing updates of data across versions...so 2005, 2006, 2007, and so on could all draw from the same standardized database. Then players could actually stick with the version they enjoy (which for many is NOT the current one), and just update the rosters.

Granted, this will never happen. They LIKE making you pay 50 dollars every year. At least, EA does. But imagine you are a small/independant publisher...you could put all the development time in just once (maybe twice) over the course of a console generation, and still bring in small yearly update revenues in addition to actual title sales. Every year you could press a new copy with the updated database, to keep the rental market fresh. And if your graphics/controls were good, you might find yourself selling a lot more copies than you'd expect. I think a majority of people want off the EA treadmill.

Of course, the rosters and team data are property of the league, so you'd have to find a way to woo them away from EA (or at least get them to cheat on EA)...and I imagine most leagues are an expensive mistress.

Anyway, I imagine there are a lot of people like me who don't buy sports games anymore. And it isn't really even the price...usually I find I don't like the newest version as much as some of the older versions, but I want updated rosters. Since that simply isn't available to me at any price, I choose to keep my money. Haven't bought/rented a sports game for about two years now.

Re:Madden

[BlueStraggler]

Verging on flamebait, but I'd mod it as insightful...

Americans seem to love sports where nothing happens. Football has a lot of standing around while the clock is running. Baseball is even worse - football at least celebrates its moments of high action, but baseballs' great feats are all ones where nothing of interest to spectators happens. Imagine a sport where a "perfect game" is one that you could sleep through and not miss a damn thing. Even a home run involves precious little action--and yet it's guaranteed to make the evening highlights!

And it's not just Americans. The British are even worse! British football (okay, soccer) pretends to have more action since there is actually movement on the field for 90 whole minutes, but when you actually distill it down to the highlights, it's clear that almost nothing happens. And cricket - all the excitement of baseball, except the games last several days.

The French once had the right idea with fencing - a couple of guys having at it with swords seems like a good recipe for spectator fun, but for some reason that dropped off the radar. Now their idea of fun is the Tour de France - ie. waiting for hours on a god-forsaken country road for a glimpse of--oh shit! there they go!--and then fighting the crowds for hours trying to get home.

The Japanese, like the French, once had a thing for sports where two guys beat the tar out of each other. But with all the salt throwing and whatnot, specators there eventually turned to baseball for some action, so they clearly lost their way...

I give points to the Canadians for fast-paced, violent games like hockey and lacrosse. On the other hand, the dirty secret of Canadian sport is that the most popular game in the country is curling, so the broken noses and missing teeth is all just an elaborate charade. Ditto for the Aussies and their Aussie rules football--it's just a decoy for the fact that they're all actually playing cricket.

As for the big international events, you have the World Cup (but I've already dissed soccer), Formula 1 (will somebody please pass somebody else? Anyone? Please!???), and the Olympics (which is gradually being taken over by judged sports in which the competitors wear sequins).

Face, people around the world don't much like watching sports, so the successful spectator sports are ones that you don't really have to watch. The real point is to sit around with your buddies for a couple of hours, and drink a few beers. If sports were really that interesting to watch, you'd stay sober and tell your buddies to fuck off 'cuz you're busy.

Re:Madden

[aiken_d]

You're right that football involves a lot of standing around. However, if you think that's the sport, you're seriously missing the point.

The *reason* there's so much standing around in football is that the 4-10 seconds when a play is happening is a pretty serious exercise in complexity. You have 11 people on offense and 11 on defense, all dynamically reacting to each other.

In a basic play where things go pretty much right on both offense and defense, there are probably about 100 human interactions in 5 seconds. In more complex plays, and plays where something doesn't go right, that number is much higher. Between planned blocking assignments, adjustments to blocking by the QB, center, or defensive captain (often a linebacker), then the defensive backs who are trying to 1) cover a receiver, but 2) come back in to help if it's a running game, but 3) not get tricked by play action, and 4) either block the reciever or not be blocked themselves... the permutations can get pretty enormous.

It takes some time to reset and get ready to go again, because if you didn't stop, you'd have something more like rugby, basketball, or (everywhere else in the world) football. All of them great sports, mind you, but all of them too fluid to allow for highly compelx plays, let alone highly complex gamesmanship by coaches.

The reason Americans like football is that sense of stop/start. Everyone lines up, and other than what players are on the field (it's different each play), nobody knows what's going to happen in the next few seconds. But *something* involving about 5,500 pounds of human flesh is going to go down.

Because football has those stops and starts, coaches have time to play a mental game with each play. It's 3rd and 2; will they go for the (relatively likely) run play, or will they bet that the defense is heavily stacking against the run and therefore more vulnerable to play action or a pass?

As you might guess, I'm a huge football fan. I hate TV timeouts (commercials), and there are certainly times when the game grinds to a halt. But you're dead wrong in thinking that 1) not a lot happens in football, and 2) football fans like it that way.

Now, baseball I can't explain the appeal of.

Cheers
-b

Re:Madden

[FatRatBastard]

The French once had the right idea with fencing - a couple of guys having at it with swords seems like a good recipe for spectator fun, but for some reason that dropped off the radar.

I say this as a fencer: fencing isn't exactly the greatest spectator sport. Points are determined very quickly -- the action last a few seconds at best -- and without the lights/official its damn difficult sitting in the stands knowing who actually scored. Don't get me wrong, its a great sport to play, but a spectator sport it ain't.

Suggestion

[swordgeek]

"So, what are the players to do?"

Um...buy a football perhaps?

Re:Suggestion

[Mathonwy]

It's not a peripheral, silly!

It's a boot device!

*boot!*

orrr.....

[Anonymous Coward]

or they could just charge you a subscription fee to add new rosters and occasionan texture/model updates. Then you only buy it once, and assuming the fee is reasonable, it would make more sense.

But that's not nearly as moneymaking as having 10 million people just rebuy a small update every year...

Easter Egg

[PeeAitchPee]

Word has it there's a "hot cocoa" mod available showing hidden footage of a naked John Madden being dragged onto an airplane, lashed into a jumpseat and flown city-to-city over the course of the season. Decency advocates, NFL officials and Hillary Clinton are already threatening to sue . . . :-P

Don't Buy It

[BobPaul]

If sales drop, maybe the NFL will look to renegotiate their deal
--
Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up

Monopoly and Inovation

[ilyaaohell]

I'm sure there'll be a lot of comments here about the whole monopoly not causing innovation thing, except for one thing. EA is currently in the same position as Microsoft is regarding their Office suite. They may be a monopoly, but if they don't offer significant upgrades on a regular basis (once a year for EA, maybe some extra time for Microsoft), nobody will buy their product.

Nobody will buy these games just to upgrade the rosters now, since you can download this information online. If EA wants to keep selling titles (monopoly or no monopoly, they still cost millions to produce each year) they better offer something good with each new upgrade.

Another misleading Slashdot summary...

[aixou]

If you'll notice, it's the PC version of Madden 2006 that has a collective 79% rating. The Xbox and PS2 versions (presumably more popular than the PC game) are at 87.4 and 88.2 respectively, only 1 or 2 points behind the score of Madden 05.

Hmmm, what to do? What to do?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> because of EA's negotiated exclusivity deal
> with the NFL, this is the only NFL title
> you'll get to play this year. So, what are the
> players to do?"

Have a little pride and refuse to buy it? And thus punish both EA and the NFL?

Dave Swanson visted my class once

[DesiVideoGamer]

For computer graphics class , Dave Swanson, the Director of Madden, gave us a lecture about the "process" of making a new Madden game. I decided to joke around and ask him "Why do you need to do anything? Don't you have a monopoly?". He replied saying that he actually still works as hard as he did before the monopoly; and that his current aim is to get people who were not intrested in the Madden series before-hand into the game.
He also said that all the stories in the press are mostly an exaggeration of what is really going on.

Little Improvements that Matter

[jtwJGuevara]

I agree with your argument for the most. However, I own Madden 2005 and have recently rented '06. In doing so, I have noticed small little improvements that go a long way with the more meticulous football fan, such as myself.

For example, the article's aforementioned QB vision light, which is based on the QB awareness rating and determines the field of vision for a QB. You can control this yourself with the right analog stick or focus in on different receivers. Make a pass to someone not in your field of vision and you will make a duck pass. This feature will need some tweaking, but it is one step closer to making the game realistic and prevents previously awseome madden players from exploiting passing the ball all game.

Another small improvement has been in line play. The animations that determine positioning of linemen during the play are improved. Defensive lineman in a 4-3 now finally line up as they are supposed to (in gaps instead of headup), and the ability to slide your offensive line protection, while not perfect, definitely lets you control logic for your lineman that never existed in previous games.

The last one I'll mention are smart routes. In older games. WR's were restricted to predetermined routes based on the play you call, or you could hot route them, but the distance they run in the route is always the same. Now you can make their curl routes and in/out routes go all the way to first down marker. Again, a small improvement, but one that makes the play in this game a bit better.

In all honesty, I think people expect too much of this football game series. There are only so many things you can add each year and each year everyone wants something revolutionary. All I want is steady improvement so that when I play this game in 2015 (assuming it is still being produced) it should be much closer to the real thing. Just look at at how far it has advanced in 1995 to see what I mean.

Well then

[mcc]

If EA says their monopoly isn't harmful, then that's good enough for me.

After all, if you can't trust a multibillion dollar corporation with no accountability to anyone except their shareholders, who can you trust?

Re:Who's gonna pay

[Hellasboy]

EA was in serious danger of losing the football crown.
LINK

ESPN NFL FOOTBALL (2004)
216,000 units sold
$10.1 million in sales

MADDEN NFL 2004
3.4 million units sold
$167 million in sales

ESPN NFL 2K5
1.2 million units sold
$24.4 million in sales

MADDEN NFL 2005
2.3 million units sold
$111.4 million in sales

A 50 million dollar drop and 1/3 drop in numbers sold with sega's strategy of selling 2k5. Imagine if they had a 2k6, especially with the buzz they had with 2k5 (2k5 was/is so much better than madden 2005/2006). that's the general consensus.

Madden has "fixed" the same damn problems year after year. I mean, how many times can they fix a same passing game problem? or fix the same running game problem? Hopefully someone will release a 2006 roster update for NFL2K5 (basically what EA does with Madden, but charge an extra 40$ for).

Re:I'm shocked!

[TrappedByMyself]

The quality of a product dropped after it became a monopoly?

It did? Hmmmm, lets actually look at the Gamespot scores over the years.

Madden NFL 97 6.4
Madden NFL 98 8.1
Madden NFL 99 8.8
Madden NFL 2000 7.4
Madden NFL 2001 7.0
Madden NFL 2002 6.7
Madden NFL 2003 9.2
Madden NFL 2004 8.8
Madden NFL 2005 8.8
Madden NFL 06 7.8

Hmmm, seems pretty inline doesn't it? It's amazing what facts can do to FUD.

Duh

[timothykaine]

So, what are the players to do?

That's simple. Don't buy the game. All a company that would seek out a monopoly cares about is money. If you arent giving them money, they dont have any money. If they dont have any money, theyll do anything it takes to get money. In this case, make a decent game.