I stopped buying this turd a few years ago when I realized that EA never made any improvements to basic AI. Every year, the same shit - DT's running down WR's; the AI suddenly becoming All -World when they were down 21 in Q4; and (my personal favorite) vacuum blocks. All the Snickers commercials didn't help, either.
LOL. The kid recording on #10 is just as hilarious. He turned his camera trying to get the backside of the receiver.
What do you call those "gamers" who twists their whole body with every turn and every jump?. I had a roommate who needed a whole goddamn couch to play Prime because he would literally swerve his controller and body.
Sonira - not a zombie! promoted this comment
Edited by That mop mutant from NES. at 08/21/09 11:34 AM
That mop mutant from NES. was starred
That mop mutant from NES. was unstarred
@Cognoscento: Reminds me of a vintage Playboy cartoon. A coach is sitting in front of a big hulking linebacker with an "M" on his jersey. The coach has a white board with a big "M" written on it, points to it, and says to the dumb jock "There. Now study this till you can memorize it, and don't tackle anybody wearing it!"
@Jed Whitaker: I think it failed, horribly. It was the NFL that wanted to sell out their exclusive rights; if EA didn't buy it, god forbid Acclaim or Midway could have gotten their hands on it. As a private business, the NFL has the right to sell out their license. Same as say McDonalds or Walmart to sell out their name to whomever they want. It is their prerogative to do so. While EA seems to have a "monopoly" over the NFL, it doesn't have one over football and let's not forget, these two are completely separate things. One is a private conglomerate and the other is a publicly traded commodity. You can have a "monopoly"* over one but not the other.
*using monopoly in a very loose sense here.
The game may have glitches, but that goes with any other game. Show me a perfect game and I'll show you a lie.
In any case, it's far from broken. 08? Now that was broken.
@SpishackCola is The Black Squiggly!: It's $69.99 everywhere in Canada, as is all games. So...errr...yeah we Canadians always get suckered, every time with every game.
Ain't that the truth. Remember that Ravens-Redskins match last week? When Joe Flacco's leg started rotating like a helicopter, and he fell under the turf while McGahee tried to tackle an ethereal referee?
@ShaggE wants to join the Egg Council.: Sorry, I was too busy listening to the Snickers advertisements to pay attention to what was going on on the field.
@Yossarian: Haha, just be glad it's only Snickers ads. I know sporting events are 70% commercials, 30% game, but I could swear that they went 80%-20% last week. Maybe it was just me, but it felt like every other down brought another commercial break with it.
The commercial breaks are ridiculous. I don't even remember the game because it was so impossible to keep interested (and I'm a HUGE sports fan). It was a good excuse to get drunk, but I can do that at home for 1/100th the cost.
Is it really hard for sports franchises who release a yearly game to start thinking about a $40 retail price. I've been thinking about this point for a while, but this seems like a good post to bring it up. I remember buying NFL 2k5 for $20 and being so amazed at the overall quality of the game for such a low price point. Sure, it was a move to get those who don't usually buy sports games to do so, but it worked. EA has a goddamn factory of these games, and decide to bring a new one every year, claiming this new feature and that new feature, but in the end it's still the same base as the previous one. Those of us who don't bother buying into them is because we all know that next year there will be a better, stronger, faster (in Madden's case this year slower) version next year. I think the allure of Modern Warfare 2 is that we not only had a great game when the first came out, but we actually had to wait a whole two years for the sequel, and this is true for most non sports games. Why don't they get this. Even if they don't want to go to a bi-yearly model, at least price the games accordingly. Or am I missing something here, which I'm sure someone here will inform me?
@geiko: The major point missed is that EA paid something $400 million (trying to find sources for that, but can't track down a link with the exact number) over 5 years for the rights to the NFL.
So they're paying like $80 million to the NFL, $10 million to Madden, and then the normal development and marketing overhead each year to produce these games.
You won't see prices below $60 for a game with that much overhead.
@geiko: Hockey and baseball have exclusive deals as well. EA and 2k Sports had a battle after the NFL deal and signed them all up. Those deals aren't nearly as big, though, so in that case it pretty much comes down to people being willing to the pay the price to pick it up.
@geiko: Why would he have to? He brought up the point that EA paid for the exclusive rights and has a higher overhead than most. With that on their shoulders, it would be hard to lower the price as it stands now. If anything, I would have expected it to be more not less. The point you brought up explains your own question perfectly. They can charge less because 1) their overhead is not as high 2) they are in competition with others. EA is not but they still have to cover their pockets.
Don't get me wrong. I would love love it if the game came out for $40, for competition to come back into the NFL game circuit, and for the Saints to make it to the Superbowl, but reality is reality, and sometimes it sucks.
@expansionsss - the jaded gamer: Sigh. It was the NFL that wanted to sell their license. If I were EA, I would be stupid not to place a bid on the offer. So...umm...fuck the NFL for starting the trend?
@expansionsss - the jaded gamer: It's up for debate whether the 2K series was better than Madden or not, but the games were roughly equals...and, at least in 2005, NFL2K managed to be just as good as Madden with a $20 price tag.
This is why I miss the 2K games the most: I have no doubt in my mind that if they hadn't been crushed by the license acquisition, sports games would cost less now. EA doesn't seem to get this, but there is ZERO reason to redo the engine and graphics every year.
I know unless the developer hardcodes patch support into a game then the Wii games cannot be updated...and since nobody has dont that yet I dont imagine Tomb Raider does because I doubt Eidos would bother to write the code, and then run and maintain the update server.
This sucks for Wii owners, there is no question about it. Eidos really should recall the game and fix it for everyone and Nintendo needs to wake up and put the ability for games to be patched into the SDK and retail firmware just in case something like this happens.
They dont even need to go the 360 route where the game quickly checks and prompts an update. They can go the PS3 route where the user initiates the check or just downloads the patch from the shop.
@parad0x360: There's no real difference between the 360's and the PS3's update process. As long as you're connected to the PSN, the game automatically checks for updates and prompts you to download. Same as XBL.
But anyway, from a practical standpoint, you're right that Nintendo should get on it, because they - not individual developers - are the only ones who could implement a viable update system for the Wii.
However, they may be afraid that it will encourage a pandemic of glitchy rushed releases à la GTAIV, Fallout 3, Fable II... The Wii is all about out-of-the-box ease of use, and a considerable portion of the Wii's userbase wouldn't be as comfortable with patches as we blog-dwelling gamers may be.
Of course, one thing the userbase will be even less comfortable with is a broken and unfixable game, so if incidents like this one become more frequent and developers start adopting a "we-could-fix-this-but-the-Wii-won't-let-..." attitude, Nintendo may be left with no choice.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
2K was always the better franchise.
08/21/09
What do you call those "gamers" who twists their whole body with every turn and every jump?. I had a roommate who needed a whole goddamn couch to play Prime because he would literally swerve his controller and body.
Or, raising your toes in a rigor mortis position.
08/21/09
08/21/09
Hey, when Vincenzo calls and says, "cover the spread," you cover the damn spread.
08/21/09
08/21/09
Whatever happened to that lawsuit over NFL exclusive rights?
08/21/09
*using monopoly in a very loose sense here.
The game may have glitches, but that goes with any other game. Show me a perfect game and I'll show you a lie.
In any case, it's far from broken. 08? Now that was broken.
08/21/09
I'm sure most people paid $60 or less. You got suckered.
08/21/09
08/21/09
God, I love Asia!
08/21/09
Ain't that the truth. Remember that Ravens-Redskins match last week? When Joe Flacco's leg started rotating like a helicopter, and he fell under the turf while McGahee tried to tackle an ethereal referee?
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Redskins ? Are they a football team ?
-A Ravens Fan
08/21/09
The commercial breaks are ridiculous. I don't even remember the game because it was so impossible to keep interested (and I'm a HUGE sports fan). It was a good excuse to get drunk, but I can do that at home for 1/100th the cost.
08/21/09
A fellow Ravens fan
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
So they're paying like $80 million to the NFL, $10 million to Madden, and then the normal development and marketing overhead each year to produce these games.
You won't see prices below $60 for a game with that much overhead.
08/21/09
08/21/09
Until sales trend down, that's how it'll work.
08/21/09
08/21/09
Don't get me wrong. I would love love it if the game came out for $40, for competition to come back into the NFL game circuit, and for the Saints to make it to the Superbowl, but reality is reality, and sometimes it sucks.
08/21/09
Fuck EA for starting the trend. NFL2K series was far superior to madden
08/21/09
08/21/09
This is why I miss the 2K games the most: I have no doubt in my mind that if they hadn't been crushed by the license acquisition, sports games would cost less now. EA doesn't seem to get this, but there is ZERO reason to redo the engine and graphics every year.
08/21/09
08/21/09
*flexes* RAAAAAWWWWWWWWRRRRRR!!!!
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/27/08
12/27/08
You can all launch yourselves!
Unless you're playing singleplayer, which is kinda missing the point.
11/26/08
11/25/08
This sucks for Wii owners, there is no question about it. Eidos really should recall the game and fix it for everyone and Nintendo needs to wake up and put the ability for games to be patched into the SDK and retail firmware just in case something like this happens.
They dont even need to go the 360 route where the game quickly checks and prompts an update. They can go the PS3 route where the user initiates the check or just downloads the patch from the shop.
11/25/08
But anyway, from a practical standpoint, you're right that Nintendo should get on it, because they - not individual developers - are the only ones who could implement a viable update system for the Wii.
However, they may be afraid that it will encourage a pandemic of glitchy rushed releases à la GTAIV, Fallout 3, Fable II... The Wii is all about out-of-the-box ease of use, and a considerable portion of the Wii's userbase wouldn't be as comfortable with patches as we blog-dwelling gamers may be.
Of course, one thing the userbase will be even less comfortable with is a broken and unfixable game, so if incidents like this one become more frequent and developers start adopting a "we-could-fix-this-but-the-Wii-won't-let-..." attitude, Nintendo may be left with no choice.