The more videos I watch, the less I seem to see the impact of the Infinity engine

[SteelerSpartan]

Quote: Originally Posted by tazdevil20

I don't know, I feel I have plenty of user control in APF, for example. However, one thing that I loved, was i couldn't take Brad Van Pelt and cover the entire middle of the field with him. Receivers will burn him every time, along with good receiving tight ends, just like in real life. Does that mean I had LESS control over him? Well, that depends on what you mean by that. I could still move him where I want, I can make him jump, reach, dive, etc. However, I can't simply move him at will and change direction like he's on a floating turntable. If I start running to my left, I need to plant my feet, turn my hips and shift my weight to run to the right. This is without a RTP engine. There is a lot of good talk here about length of animations, but I'd also like to stress one other thing involving this. It's not just the longer animations that render a game more realistic, but it's the chaining of animations in the right context. A perfect example of this is the line play in Madden. Just look at how ridiculous it looks when a DT goes up against a guard. I remember I used to laugh at last year's game when Chris Snee (our all pro right guard) would get abused by a mediocre tackle. It was a quick, one move animation that shrugged him to the side and he would stumble forward. There was no battle for position, leverage or anything. It looks as good as tecmo bowl does (actually, Tecmo bowl at least has a longer animation sequence). Instead of having this single "win or lose" move, there should be a chain of animations and exchanges that help determine who wins or loses. In APF, I might see the DE try a club, a bull rush, then go into a swim move. I might just see the DT actually push the guard or center INTO the QB. Madden needs to have these chained animations. Where Tiburon could really shine would be to figure out a way to allow the user to chain these moves together, without creating a simple win/lose outcome too quickly. This would succeed in making the user fell like they had some involvement in doing these moves, while also playing into the strengths and weaknesses of the player they are controlling. That's a conversation for another thread, though In any event, like I've said before, they would very easily be able to mimic this if their programmers actually watched NFL footage of lineman battling it out. It's clear they do not watch this footage, as what they have in their game is reminiscent of 15 year old games. This can also be applied to ball carriers and tackling, WR/DB jostling. There is never just "one" move. That's what made the other games movement and interaction so realistic looking - the chaining of moves together. Sometimes, there isn't just a simple win, either. Maybe a DE gets around the tackle, but he's still got one arm on him (holding) and is pushing him outside the pocket while he is attempting to grab the QB. Sometimes, he will push the OL into the QB forcing him to leave the pocket or even making him stumble. Maybe a receiver beats a DB, but only has a step or two on him and the DB is able to give him an arm bar while they are running.

Allow me to illustrate, because for both NCAA and Madden last year I spent an eternity trying to make it salvageable




This area of the game is as you say.... straight up Tecmo Bowl

Heres one of the ways(Should be a Variety) a "Win" for the DL, DTs in particular should look



And one for the OLBs



As for the whole "solid" debate.....it depends on how you view this game


The guys who want The Show, Fifa, GT/FORZA, NBA 2k type realism and authenticity are still going to be disappointed

Its not that type of game yet Sadly

At this point it is still more of a Novelty type game based on elements of football....I sort of think of it as a Movie Based on a book who had changed things because they thought it fit the format better

The movie is still fun for some but the hardcore Book followers of years can easily still feel like they didn't see the whole essence of what made them love the book so much

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by tazdevil20

This talk of not having any user control is not really accurate. I do agree that in order to have realistic movement you lose some control, but that's what makes it realistic.

I wouldn't even consider this a loss of control because it was my control that told the player to make that movement.

Why is that considered a loss of control? The action of the player making the cut is the player responding to my control. So if he has to plant his feet, shift his weight, flip his hips, whatever else, that's the player attempting to execute the instruction(s) I gave him.

To say that those things would be losing control is like saying when a DB flips his hips, he's not in control of his body.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

Cool, but regardless of whether you are flailing your limbs, you AREN'T in control. You can't stop yourself from free falling. It's all for naught. Likewise, in an example that isn't as extreme, if you lost your balance while cutting, you can try and right yourself, but if your momentum tipped past the point where gravity is making you its bitch, ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Yes, but my control could try to maintain my balance instead of being forced into a "tripping animation". While I can't right myself, I can stumble forward for some yards and maybe do a desperation lunge for those last few feet, and instead of relying on the game to "do it for me" I can take my performance in my hands and try to make it happen - or fail to do so - with the ease/effort of that depending on the player's ratings and the situation.

There is never a time a player is not in control of his body. Yes, there may be forces beyond his control that make his body unable to physically achieve whatever, but that doesn't mean he has zero control whatsoever. The player can minimize the negative impacts, such not taking as big a blow from an unavoidable hit, etc.

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

So while I agree it would be nice to be able to flail your arms in an attempt to defy gravity, if the system is realistic, what is it going to change? The answer should be nothing. If it changes nothing, why program it in? The answer should be because it's freaking cool and uber realistic.

Maybe as a WR, I could twist my upper body to protect a catch from Gholson coming to light me up. Perhaps I could try to land on someone to keep from being down by contact and squirt forward for some yards. Perhaps the DB flips me head over heels and have a chance to land in a way that doesn't have me impaling the crown of my head on the turf and avoid a concussion injury.

It could change lots of things. That's why it should be put in. Instead of trying to account for the millions of possible things that could happen. Let the hitboxes and physics determine what happens - just make the engine able to handle it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

I'm with you on that, but considering how unrealistic the Loco is now, do they really need to be worried about ancillary actions and animations that change nothing, when they don't even have critical actions and animations that change everything?

Yes because it's just an assumption that every possible action would achieve nothing and yes because the highest standard should always be the goal, imo.

Maybe it's just me but "good enough" - I'm tired of settling for.

Quote: Originally Posted by Only1LT

I get what you're saying, and agree that would be the MOST realistic Loco system, but before we get to that exact destination, we have to at least be on the right friggin Continent first.

But it has to be the destination. Which is why such control should be the goal, so that is the final destination we are navigating towards.

[Only1LT]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Yes, but my control could try to maintain my balance instead of being forced into a "tripping animation". While I can't right myself, I can stumble forward for some yards and maybe do a desperation lunge for those last few feet, and instead of relying on the game to "do it for me" I can take my performance in my hands and try to make it happen - or fail to do so - with the ease/effort of that depending on the player's ratings and the situation. There is never a time a player is not in control of his body. Yes, there may be forces beyond his control that make his body unable to physically achieve whatever, but that doesn't mean he has zero control whatsoever. The player can minimize the negative impacts, such not taking as big a blow from an unavoidable hit, etc. Maybe as a WR, I could twist my upper body to protect a catch from Gholson coming to light me up. Perhaps I could try to land on someone to keep from being down by contact and squirt forward for some yards. Perhaps the DB flips me head over heels and have a chance to land in a way that doesn't have me impaling the crown of my head on the turf and avoid a concussion injury. It could change lots of things. That's why it should be put in. Instead of trying to account for the millions of possible things that could happen. Let the hitboxes and physics determine what happens - just make the engine able to handle it. Yes because it's just an assumption that every possible action would achieve nothing and yes because the highest standard should always be the goal, imo. Maybe it's just me but "good enough" - I'm tired of settling for. But it has to be the destination. Which is why such control should be the goal, so that is the final destination we are navigating towards.

All of that is great, but now you're talking about a system where the control is sophisticated enough that it goes from control of your entire player, ie steering his whole body via his legs in a given direction, to it being smart enough to transition to ONLY controlling limbs, or hands, or a torso, or one leg, etc, in situations when you are off balance, in the air, head over heels, etc? Sign me up! Let me know in what decade this will be done lol.

To hearken back to my stance, you can not have total control and have a realistic system. Even in the system you and Big propose, which I am not at all against, I'm very much for, you STILL don't have total control. If you are in the air and try to brace yourself for impact, adjust so that you get a glancing blow, etc, you still have no control over the fact that you are falling. You have very little control over what you are able to do. If you didn't, people would never actually fall when they trip and stumble. People would never land awkwardly when they are upended. So if you are not completely in control at all times, then you lost control. You want to break down the % of control you have in every given situation? Knock yourself out. Point blank, you can not have a realistic Loco system and have complete control at all times as a user. Not happening.

As for the ultimate destination that we need to get to, again, that's great. Tiburon hasn't been, to this point, capable of mimicking the most basic, passable Loco systems that are currently in existence, and you want them to birth the most realistic Loco system ever seen?

Good luck with that.

[kjcheezhead]

The thing I hate about the user control/realistic movement arguement in Madden is that the movement is so fast alot of people actually lose control because of it.

GIFSoup

The defender downfield that the 2 lineman miss is moving so fast he is able to fly around both of them and then misses the tackle badly anyways. This is much worse than losing control to a realistic loco system imo. At least the realistic system looks better in motion if nothing else.

[Big FN Deal]

I feel like my original point has gotten lost in all of this so I will rephrase it. I think the branching animation tech in Madden, as I understand it, can allow for MORE User control to player movement than 2k without diminishing realism.

[SageInfinite]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I feel like my original point has gotten lost in all of this so I will rephrase it. I think the branching animation tech in Madden, as I understand it, can allow for MORE User control to player movement than 2k without diminishing realism.

Until EA/Tiburon shows it can without looking super awkward and goofy, I don't believe it.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by SageInfinite

Until EA/Tiburon shows it can without looking super awkward and goofy, I don't believe it.

This right here leads us back full circle to the concern about the Infinity engine. Like the branching animation system, Infinity is theoretically capable of making Madden the best football simulation game to date but will EA/Tiburon provide that and are they even trying to? I know some people don't like to consider this but reading back in the day on OS, there was someone espousing that EA/Tiburon held a meeting where they decided making Madden as complete a game as MLB The Show, would be the wrong business decision. When considering some things that have been stated from EA/Tiburon reps and the final next-gen Madden product, from this perspective, it definitely seems plausible the incremental improvements, at least up until this point, have been by design.

I will stop there because I will only succeed in frustrating myself about it all but end up supporting EA/Tiburon's calculated business practices with buying M13 anyway.

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I feel like my original point has gotten lost in all of this so I will rephrase it. I think the branching animation tech in Madden, as I understand it, can allow for MORE User control to player movement than 2k without diminishing realism.

That was their initial intention, but you see how it looks.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by LBzrule

That was their initial intention, but you see how it looks.

True, lol. In my defense, I am not advocating for trial and error in the final product and I have posted many times about I don't understand why EA/Tiburon doesn't use what's currently best until they have completed something better. That's a whole other can of worms about the Infinity engine, hoping that there is an actual plan for progressive implication based on what FIFA and NHL have done, not some figure it all out as they go stuff.

I fully believe that until the can complete the branching animation tech to provide more User control without diminishing realism, then the longer more realistic looking, even according to Ian, animations should be used.