Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Questions Re: Beating Video Games

#41

(06-29-2018, 04:24 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-29-2018, 12:08 PM)Deacon Wrote: Very rarely will I re-start a game. I have been known to create a new profile to try the game from a different angle which may be seen as the same thing, but I usually will go back and button up all of the profiles.

Yes I buy used games. I am not a need-it-right-now player so I have no problem in waiting a bit and saving myself twenty bucks on a game.

I may use cheat codes on a re-play, but I want the purest experience of the game I can get.

Hey, we all need help from time to time right?

I think you misread my question.

Do you utilize game guides to help you beat a game?

Yes I did mis-read that question. I edited my response.

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.
Reply

#42

(06-28-2018, 11:58 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I thought about making this into an entirely new thread, but since it's about beating video games, I decided to add these questions here.

These questions involve, for lack of better phrasing, video game ethics.

If you get off to a bad start in a game do you have any qualms about re-starting the game?  For example, if you are playing Madden, and because you hit the wrong button on a pass play, you end up throwing a pick 6, do you play through or would you restart the game?  Why?  

If it is a sports game, if it became obvious you were going to lose, would you restart then to keep the loss off your record or play through the schedule?  Would your answer change if it were a playoff game?  What about a computer opponent vs. an online opponent or a friend at your house?

Do you buy/use video game guides?

Do you have any problems using "cheat codes" in games that give you things like unlimited lives, ammo, invulnerability, etc?

If you get stuck, do you have any qualms about going online and looking at a walk through?

If you believe in "going it alone" without any help of any kind, why?

Restarting - I used to be more of a "purist" when I was young and felt it was blasphemy to hit the reset button.  Now, I have zero concern about restarting a game (though only when playing solo.)  In the end, it's just a game and shouldn't be taken too seriously.  It's meant to be enjoyed.

Sports game - same rule applies above.  When I'm playing dynasty (or whatever they call that mode now) I simulate all the games on Madden because I prefer the management.  I do each game one at a time so I can assign experience points/progression manually.  So, if an obviously bad sim is thrown my way, I'll certainly do it if the outcome matters.  BUT... if my team is shaky due to injuries and/or doesn't match up well... I'm not going to keep simming it until I upset a team I shouldn't realistically beat.  I also don't reset/replay games if I get a significant injury to a key player as that's a realistic part of the game.  I typically shoot for "make the playoffs" if my team is a contender, so risk of being fired in an down season isn't really a thing.  With a "make the playoffs" goal you only need 8 wins - you don't actually have to make the playoffs (just qualify.)

Guides - I will occasionally buy guides for the big games.  (GTA series, etc.)  With the internet, you really don't need them as that information is usually available on the net.  Youtube, gamefaq, etc... all have content up pretty quickly.  I do enjoy the guides for games that are bigger than the missions where you can find a lot of easter eggs and do fun things that are off the beaten path.  I've never bought one for a sports game, only the big open world games.

I usually don't use cheat codes until I've beaten a game through.  I use them for fun, not for handicapping the game to beat it.

I have no problem at all checking youtube, etc for a hint when I get stuck.  Again, my aim is to have fun.  If a puzzle or onslaught isn't fun anymore, I don't continue to pound myself.  Usually all I need is one quick hint and I get back to the game rather than watch the full play through.  Usually I'm not seeing a door, walkway, vantage point, or it might be that I don't have an item I need to use, etc.  Something I'm just skipping over.  I never want to let a game frustrate me, as I don't want to enjoy it less.

I typically do like to try to go at it alone as much as I can.  Checking for hints is typically a last resort only.  Again, I like to balance the serious with the fun.  If I take the game too seriously sometimes I catch myself losing some of the fun.  I'm always trying to keep that in check and have a healthy balance of the two.
"You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think, and you don't say it honestly and bluntly." — Charles Krauthammer
Reply

#43

(06-22-2018, 09:45 AM)Deacon Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 06:06 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Besides the rare sports game that enabled you to play against the computer, or a game like Raiders of the Lost Ark, there was often no beating a 2600 game.  You just played and played with no real end point other than beating fatigue and your previous high score.

Despite these flaws and the obvious graphics limitations, I still had lots of fun with the system.  I have been tempted on occasion to get one of the retro systems, but never pulled the trigger.

I think I had the same issues with the Final Fantasy series, which is why I didn't buy any of them.

I know you have talked up Bloodborne quite a bit, but I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet.

Would you describe it as action, horror...or what?

I've heard Bloodborne described as "If Dark Souls is a love letter to Berserk, then Bloodborne is a poem written to Lovecraft" and I agree with that. It is dark, macabre and hints at things that are unsettling. The game is creepy with "jump back!" moments and "Oooohhhh shhhhiiiiiiitttt" scenes to spare. 

One thing the story is not going to be though is wrapped up in a neat, tidy bow at the end. And not in the sense of "well, I'll just wait for the sequel I guess" either. More like "there are other parts of the story left, aren't there? Because, what about [that guy/thing/place]?" It is incomplete with a deep sense of a dark past that I love. 

The game play is stamina based and that is only a part of what makes it so much fun to me. You can't wade in and start swinging and just decimate the bad guys. Nor can you just strike, block and then back away; You'll be chewed up underneath the more aggressive opponents and it'll feel like they haven't even broken a sweat. 

And I haven't even talked about the scenery and visualizations in the game. Just walking through Byrgenwerth is a site for the eyes!

Have I gushed enough yet?
I'm not sure if Bloodborne qualifies, but I never really got into horror gaming.  I played and beat a couple of horror games on PC in the 1990s, but that's about it.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#44

(07-06-2018, 11:14 AM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-22-2018, 09:45 AM)Deacon Wrote: ...
I'm not sure if Bloodborne qualifies, but I never really got into horror gaming.  I played and beat a couple of horror games on PC in the 1990s, but that's about it.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a horror fan. I've never seen any of the Saw movies, I don't like zombies and gore just isn't my thing.

And to me, Bloodborne is not horror; it's macabre. It's not overtly violent, but it is bloody. It's not gory, but there are horrific things that happen. It isn't Resident Evil, but it will give Silent Hill nightmares.

It does a very good job of being scary without being over the top with the graphic bloodiness.

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.
Reply

#45

(07-06-2018, 03:37 PM)Deacon Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 11:14 AM)Bullseye Wrote: I'm not sure if Bloodborne qualifies, but I never really got into horror gaming.  I played and beat a couple of horror games on PC in the 1990s, but that's about it.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a horror fan. I've never seen any of the Saw movies, I don't like zombies and gore just isn't my thing.

And to me, Bloodborne is not horror; it's macabre. It's not overtly violent, but it is bloody. It's not gory, but there are horrific things that happen. It isn't Resident Evil, but it will give Silent Hill nightmares.

It does a very good job of being scary without being over the top with the graphic bloodiness.

Yeah I'm not sure I'd categorize Bloodborne as "horror gaming" but the argument could be made. 

I used to LOVE the horror genre. Resident Evil, Dead Space, Alan Wake (severely under rated btw)

I have a bunch saved on my xbox currently but they just haven't had the same appeal recently.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#46

(06-29-2018, 09:33 AM)Kane Wrote:
(06-28-2018, 11:58 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I thought about making this into an entirely new thread, but since it's about beating video games, I decided to add these questions here.

These questions involve, for lack of better phrasing, video game ethics.

If you get off to a bad start in a game do you have any qualms about re-starting the game?  For example, if you are playing Madden, and because you hit the wrong button on a pass play, you end up throwing a pick 6, do you play through or would you restart the game?  Why?  

If it is a sports game, if it became obvious you were going to lose, would you restart then to keep the loss off your record or play through the schedule?  Would your answer change if it were a playoff game?  What about a computer opponent vs. an online opponent or a friend at your house?

Do you buy/use video game guides?

Do you have any problems using "cheat codes" in games that give you things like unlimited lives, ammo, invulnerability, etc?

If you get stuck, do you have any qualms about going online and looking at a walk through?

If you believe in "going it alone" without any help of any kind, why?

Bad start? Deal with it... regroup and face the challenge. I haven't restarted or shut down a game due to mistake or bad play since I was a child.
Piggybacking off what I already said, CPU or Human opponent doesn't matter. I think it's bad form to quit because you're getting beat. In the video game world, there is always another game (or life or continue or whatever)

I do not use guides (not since getting stuck in Chrono Trigger on an SNES emulator in the early 2000s) they are expensive and I'm not a "gotta get 100% completion" type player. I'm a "gotta beat the game" guy... and for that, I don't need no stinkin guide.

Cheat codes are for after you've beaten the game. Especially GTA series.

I go it alone for solo RPG types and but for multi-player FPS type games I really prefer working together with people that communicate.
As for help from guides and walkthroughs... just takes a little of the fun and accomplishment away if you are getting someone else to tell you how to beat a game, imo.

I am a beat the game guy too.  Some of the hidden items are cool to find, but for me, finishing the story and beating the game is the thing.

Another ethics question: are you willing or have you ever been willing to play all or part of a game on a lower than normal difficulty level to finish a game?

I suspect I know your answer, Kane.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#47

I don't go after "insane" mode from the start. I prefer whatever is the normal, challenging setting. I'll only crank it up over the top after I've beaten the game on normal/challenging setting.

I'll only back it down if I'm new to the game/genre and it just isn't working for me - just to learn the ropes if it's a game completely out of my comfort zone/experience. Then, when I've learned the system I continue with the original game.

That's what I liked so much about Metal Gear Solid on playstation. They had VR missions to prep you for the (then complex) control system and situational stealth strategy.

Better games do a great job of walking you through the control system and strategies, feeding you what you need before things get really hairy. So, I don't really recall dropping to easy but only a handful of times, and not for very long when I did.

I found Last of Us to be pretty doggone difficult as-is. I don't think I could ever beat it on the highest level (so little inventory.) I assume you can only finish it on the highest level if you avoid most enemies and take out only those you absolutely must.
"You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think, and you don't say it honestly and bluntly." — Charles Krauthammer
Reply

#48

(07-07-2018, 10:29 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote:
(07-06-2018, 03:37 PM)Deacon Wrote: Let me preface this by saying that I am not a horror fan. I've never seen any of the Saw movies, I don't like zombies and gore just isn't my thing.

And to me, Bloodborne is not horror; it's macabre. It's not overtly violent, but it is bloody. It's not gory, but there are horrific things that happen. It isn't Resident Evil, but it will give Silent Hill nightmares.

It does a very good job of being scary without being over the top with the graphic bloodiness.

Yeah I'm not sure I'd categorize Bloodborne as "horror gaming" but the argument could be made. 

I used to LOVE the horror genre. Resident Evil, Dead Space, Alan Wake (severely under rated btw)

I have a bunch saved on my xbox currently but they just haven't had the same appeal recently.

If you were an old school PC gamer, did you ever play the Phantasmagoria series?  Holy moly the failed endings got graphic.
Reply

#49

(07-10-2018, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote:
(07-07-2018, 10:29 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: Yeah I'm not sure I'd categorize Bloodborne as "horror gaming" but the argument could be made. 

I used to LOVE the horror genre. Resident Evil, Dead Space, Alan Wake (severely under rated btw)

I have a bunch saved on my xbox currently but they just haven't had the same appeal recently.

If you were an old school PC gamer, did you ever play the Phantasmagoria series?  Holy moly the failed endings got graphic.
Those were the games I played.

The acting sucked in those games.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#50
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018, 02:15 PM by imtheblkranger.)

(07-10-2018, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote:
(07-07-2018, 10:29 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: Yeah I'm not sure I'd categorize Bloodborne as "horror gaming" but the argument could be made. 

I used to LOVE the horror genre. Resident Evil, Dead Space, Alan Wake (severely under rated btw)

I have a bunch saved on my xbox currently but they just haven't had the same appeal recently.

If you were an old school PC gamer, did you ever play the Phantasmagoria series?  Holy moly the failed endings got graphic.

Unfortunately I haven't played them

(07-09-2018, 03:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote:
(06-29-2018, 09:33 AM)Kane Wrote: Bad start? Deal with it... regroup and face the challenge. I haven't restarted or shut down a game due to mistake or bad play since I was a child.
Piggybacking off what I already said, CPU or Human opponent doesn't matter. I think it's bad form to quit because you're getting beat. In the video game world, there is always another game (or life or continue or whatever)

I do not use guides (not since getting stuck in Chrono Trigger on an SNES emulator in the early 2000s) they are expensive and I'm not a "gotta get 100% completion" type player. I'm a "gotta beat the game" guy... and for that, I don't need no stinkin guide.

Cheat codes are for after you've beaten the game. Especially GTA series.

I go it alone for solo RPG types and but for multi-player FPS type games I really prefer working together with people that communicate.
As for help from guides and walkthroughs... just takes a little of the fun and accomplishment away if you are getting someone else to tell you how to beat a game, imo.

I am a beat the game guy too.  Some of the hidden items are cool to find, but for me, finishing the story and beating the game is the thing.

Another ethics question: are you willing or have you ever been willing to play all or part of a game on a lower than normal difficulty level to finish a game?

I suspect I know your answer, Kane.

Depends on the game. Shooters are always on the hardest difficulty. RPGs can vary, usually I play them on Normal. For instance, Dragon Age Origins I have on easy since my main purpose it to play it for the storyline that I missed out on years ago. Guess it really just depends on the game and if it's more story or action based.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#51
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2018, 03:21 PM by Kane.)

(07-10-2018, 02:12 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote:
(07-10-2018, 08:40 AM)Mikey Wrote: If you were an old school PC gamer, did you ever play the Phantasmagoria series?  Holy moly the failed endings got graphic.

Unfortunately I haven't played them

(07-09-2018, 03:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: I am a beat the game guy too.  Some of the hidden items are cool to find, but for me, finishing the story and beating the game is the thing.

Another ethics question: are you willing or have you ever been willing to play all or part of a game on a lower than normal difficulty level to finish a game?

I suspect I know your answer, Kane.

Depends on the game. Shooters are always on the hardest difficulty. RPGs can vary, usually I play them on Normal. For instance, Dragon Age Origins I have on easy since my main purpose it to play it for the storyline that I missed out on years ago. Guess it really just depends on the game and if it's more story or action based.

Agree... difficulty level always depends on the game.


I have been guilty of changing difficulty mid-game before. Though I'm not into making that any sort of habit lol
Don't piss off the Jack hammer.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#52

(07-12-2018, 03:06 PM)Kane Wrote:
(07-10-2018, 02:12 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: Unfortunately I haven't played them


Depends on the game. Shooters are always on the hardest difficulty. RPGs can vary, usually I play them on Normal. For instance, Dragon Age Origins I have on easy since my main purpose it to play it for the storyline that I missed out on years ago. Guess it really just depends on the game and if it's more story or action based.

Agree... difficulty level always depends on the game.


I have been guilty of changing difficulty mis-game before. Though I'm not into making that any sort of habit lol

I have been guilty of lowering a difficulty level, but that's rare.  I typically play games at the normal difficulty setting.  I tend to suck mightily at shooters like COD MW3, so the last time I played that I dummied it down so I could make some semblance of progress.  For Madden, while I have beaten the All Madden setting, I typically play at All Pro.

But I am not an extremist about the difficulty setting like some.  I know a guy who plays every game at the highest difficulty setting.  I wouldn't do that to myself.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#53

(07-12-2018, 03:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(07-12-2018, 03:06 PM)Kane Wrote: Agree... difficulty level always depends on the game.


I have been guilty of changing difficulty mis-game before. Though I'm not into making that any sort of habit lol

I have been guilty of lowering a difficulty level, but that's rare.  I typically play games at the normal difficulty setting.  I tend to suck mightily at shooters like COD MW3, so the last time I played that I dummied it down so I could make some semblance of progress.  For Madden, while I have beaten the All Madden setting, I typically play at All Pro.

But I am not an extremist about the difficulty setting like some.  I know a guy who plays every game at the highest difficulty setting.  I wouldn't do that to myself.

I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?
Don't piss off the Jack hammer.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#54

(07-13-2018, 09:36 AM)Kane Wrote:
(07-12-2018, 03:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I have been guilty of lowering a difficulty level, but that's rare.  I typically play games at the normal difficulty setting.  I tend to suck mightily at shooters like COD MW3, so the last time I played that I dummied it down so I could make some semblance of progress.  For Madden, while I have beaten the All Madden setting, I typically play at All Pro.

But I am not an extremist about the difficulty setting like some.  I know a guy who plays every game at the highest difficulty setting.  I wouldn't do that to myself.

I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?

Man I suck at Madden. All Pro at the highest, I get my [BLEEP] handed to me on All Madden. 

....but that's bc the game cheats.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#55

(07-13-2018, 09:36 AM)Kane Wrote:
(07-12-2018, 03:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I have been guilty of lowering a difficulty level, but that's rare.  I typically play games at the normal difficulty setting.  I tend to suck mightily at shooters like COD MW3, so the last time I played that I dummied it down so I could make some semblance of progress.  For Madden, while I have beaten the All Madden setting, I typically play at All Pro.

But I am not an extremist about the difficulty setting like some.  I know a guy who plays every game at the highest difficulty setting.  I wouldn't do that to myself.

I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?

(07-13-2018, 10:22 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 09:36 AM)Kane Wrote: I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?

Man I suck at Madden. All Pro at the highest, I get my [BLEEP] handed to me on All Madden. 

....but that's bc the game cheats.

One thing I realized about playing Madden is that when in Franchise mode, you have to switch playbooks every 3 or 4 games, otherwise the computer will adjust to your play calling, and you will end up with those games where they stop all of your runs and jump all of your routes.

I try to approach the schedule like NFL teams do. In the preseason, I use just Balanced offense and 4-3 defense for weeks 1, 2 and 4. In week 3, I use the main playbook to "reacquaint" myself with it.

Then in the regular season, I play mostly with the Jaguars playbooks on offense and defense. When I switch up, I try to use playbooks of teams that are similar in approach to the Jaguars, but have minor differences that will impact playcalling. Like the Chargers, Falcons and Seahawks run similar defensive schemes to us in real life. I will switch and use one of their defensive playbooks. Offensively, since Marrone was under Payton in New Orleans, sometimes I will use their offense.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#56

(07-13-2018, 10:44 AM)Bullseye Wrote: One thing I realized about playing Madden is that when in Franchise mode, you have to switch playbooks every 3 or 4 games, otherwise the computer will adjust to your play calling, and you will end up with those games where they stop all of your runs and jump all of your routes.

I try to approach the schedule like NFL teams do.  In the preseason, I use just Balanced offense and 4-3 defense for weeks 1, 2 and 4.  In week 3, I use the main playbook to "reacquaint" myself with it.

Then in the regular season, I play mostly with the Jaguars playbooks on offense and defense.  When I switch up, I try to use playbooks of teams that are similar in approach to the Jaguars, but have minor differences that will impact playcalling.  Like the Chargers,  Falcons and Seahawks run similar defensive schemes to us in real life.  I will switch and use one of their defensive playbooks.  Offensively, since Marrone was under Payton in New Orleans, sometimes I will use their offense.

I've noticed that, too.  I sim in franchise, so I see it on the stat line and scores.

It's also tied to your players and their attributes, and how they fit systems.

When I promote new players to starting roles at QB and RB you have to be extremely careful to watch production and be able to adjust the playbook.  I use the generic playbooks.  If your QB doesn't have the arm the previous starter had but is accurate you may have to go to quick passing game.  If you're replacing a stud RB that can handle a run heavy offense, the replacement isn't likely to be able to handle it - you'll have to go more balanced.

If you put a new starter in and you let him struggle, his confidence will drop with poor performance and it spirals downhill quickly (he'll lose awareness points) and what's bad gets worse fast.

Rookies can be more injury prone until you can get their attributes up as well.  Confidence and health can be a problem if you aren't paying attention as a coach/GM.
"You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think, and you don't say it honestly and bluntly." — Charles Krauthammer
Reply

#57

(07-13-2018, 11:03 AM)pirkster Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 10:44 AM)Bullseye Wrote: One thing I realized about playing Madden is that when in Franchise mode, you have to switch playbooks every 3 or 4 games, otherwise the computer will adjust to your play calling, and you will end up with those games where they stop all of your runs and jump all of your routes.

I try to approach the schedule like NFL teams do.  In the preseason, I use just Balanced offense and 4-3 defense for weeks 1, 2 and 4.  In week 3, I use the main playbook to "reacquaint" myself with it.

Then in the regular season, I play mostly with the Jaguars playbooks on offense and defense.  When I switch up, I try to use playbooks of teams that are similar in approach to the Jaguars, but have minor differences that will impact playcalling.  Like the Chargers,  Falcons and Seahawks run similar defensive schemes to us in real life.  I will switch and use one of their defensive playbooks.  Offensively, since Marrone was under Payton in New Orleans, sometimes I will use their offense.

I've noticed that, too.  I sim in franchise, so I see it on the stat line and scores.

It's also tied to your players and their attributes, and how they fit systems.

When I promote new players to starting roles at QB and RB you have to be extremely careful to watch production and be able to adjust the playbook.  I use the generic playbooks.  If your QB doesn't have the arm the previous starter had but is accurate you may have to go to quick passing game.  If you're replacing a stud RB that can handle a run heavy offense, the replacement isn't likely to be able to handle it - you'll have to go more balanced.

If you put a new starter in and you let him struggle, his confidence will drop with poor performance and it spirals downhill quickly (he'll lose awareness points) and what's bad gets worse fast.

Rookies can be more injury prone until you can get their attributes up as well.  Confidence and health can be a problem if you aren't paying attention as a coach/GM.
One of the big problems I have when playing franchise mode is the draft, especially evaluating QBs and offensive linemen.

In an earlier version of Madden, they had a "combine" where you actually controlled prospects and ran them through positional drills, to see if their actual performance matched up with their ratings.  Some skill guys would have high ratings, but were slow as molasses, while other lowly rated guys were fast.  You could test QBs on their accuracy or arm strength.  The downsides to that approach were:
  • The OL blocking drills were maddening and I can't recall ever successfully completing the drills, much less getting a gold rating
  • you could only work out 8 prospects in any given draft.   So out of roughly 300 players in a draft pool, you could only work out those 8.
  • Outside of having a photographic memory or actually reducing your list of targeted players to writing, there was no way to catalog the guys you wanted or not.
But I liked being able to work out the prospects and was sad when EA ditched the combine.

Now they have a more comprehensive draft board system where they have preliminary draft round projections, later combine results with 40 times, etc., and the ability to customize your own draft board within the game.  But inexplicably, QBs and OLs are ranked differently in their combine scores.  While the elite prospects at other positions usually have rankings above 7.0, typically the top ranked QBs and OLs have combine scores in the 5-6 range.  Without the combine/individual workout feature I described above, it is difficult to evaluate players at those two positions as they relate to other players overall.

I kind of have a better grasp on how to figure it out, and learning how to adjust your draft board is key, but it still makes it unnecessarily tough.  For QBs, I can see doing that.  OL's?  not so much.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply

#58
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2018, 01:37 PM by pirkster.)

I liked the old system better, too as far as being able to scout individuals in more detail.

What I do like about this version is that it does a good job of creating a value board as organizations do in real life, which I think is the real strength of the draft simulation.

I set up my scouting by first putting every player of need position on my draft board (rounds 1-7 projected players only.)  Then, for about the first 10 weeks of the season or so, I get the full (three level) report on the players who fall where my first three round selections fall in the draft (regardless if they are those need players on my board or not.)  Then, I work what's on my needs/draft board from highest to lowest round.  Rarely do I get through a season with more than 2-3 guys in the seventh I wanted to scout but ran out of points.  I use the "draft board" tab to keep track of the guys I want to scout, then remove them from the board after I get their grade.  That's the only way I use that tab - I use the "scouted" sort to actually draft, and the "draft board" sort only to keep track of scouting.  That's how I keep it organized.

A few observations and other strategies I use:

I never, ever take players with a red score.

When it's my selection, I look and select only players I've scouted by viewing the scouted tab and not the available tab.  I never select a guy I haven't scouted, unless I get to the seventh and I have no scouted players left on the board.  I prefer to trade out than select a player I haven't scouted.  I only select sight unseen if I can't trade out, since it's likely a player I'll have to cut anyway.

So many times I've seen an absolute wasteland of talent between early/mid second round through the third round.  Again, I won't take anyone scoring red regardless of whether it's the correct round score.  I will trade out before reaching down a round.  I will only reach when I can't trade.

Many times I've seen a FB be a top 10 talent, which you can pick up in the 5th round or later.

I play 4-3, so if the crop of LE and DE are not good - I overdraft 3-4 rush OLBs.  They typically make good ROLBs, MLBs, or LOLBs even if they don't fit well at RE or LE.

CBs are typically trash if you don't draft them high, and if they aren't playmakers, man to man, or balanced.  I can't recall a run support CB grading well or being anything good.  Otherwise, only depth.

You can find real superstar FS and SS in the later rounds.  I think I've drafted a superstar in about every round at these positions.

Depending on your offense, you can find great HB backups or potential starters in late rounds.  You may have to adjust the playbook for certain types to use them best.

If I have a player I know will be a staple for a long time, I sign them to a 7 year deal.  Then, I plan on replacing them prior to the final year (unless a QB, or K/P or situational where replacement might be difficult and I want to hold on for just a couple more years.)  Most players are done around age 30.  QBs, OL, and K/P may get a few more but not many.  I trade players in their final year rather than let them expire or re-sign for a short deal.  That helps your cap and keeps your drafts amazing.  That's also how I'm unable to trade sometimes - I hit the limit and the game denies further trades/picks because I've accumulated too many.  If I don't get a trade offer, I let them expire/walk.

As in real life, TE/FB (and other positions - CB/S, LB/DE) can be interchangeable depending on the player's talent and skillset.  You can even get by filling a hole temporarily if your draft wasn't good, then move them back a year later.  That also keeps you from cutting decent players by evening out the players across positions.

I use the roster auto-reorder feature to take a look at possible reassignments.  Sometimes an interior player may be better on the outside, an vice versa... or may be tackles need to change sides.  A bad draft also might call for a player to change positions to upgrade a starter or strengthen weak depth.  Though, if it makes the other position weak, I just start them out of position and leave their natural position alone.

I prefer players that match my scheme.  Pocket passing/strong arm QB only, best RB I can find (may change running style to fit the player style), fast/possession WRs.  Zone blocking linemen typically don't grade high except interior.  On defense mostly the prototype and balanced players grade best and work best for me.  Though, I've found sometimes the balanced players can sometimes end up being masters of none and need attribute bumps in key area's I'm looking for as strengths.  For FS, if not a playmaker I prefer zone FS and run SS.
"You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think, and you don't say it honestly and bluntly." — Charles Krauthammer
Reply

#59
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2018, 01:39 PM by Kane.)

(07-13-2018, 10:22 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 09:36 AM)Kane Wrote: I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?

Man I suck at Madden. All Pro at the highest, I get my [BLEEP] handed to me on All Madden. 

....but that's bc the game cheats.

Yeah... well.. cheats is a strong word... but the AI difference from all pro to all madden is crazy.

If I play a whole season on All Madden I usually end up with about 10 wins.
On all pro I can usually complete a perfect season (usually)

(07-13-2018, 10:44 AM)Bullseye Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 09:36 AM)Kane Wrote: I start at "normal" or some middle ground for most new games and then adjust accordingly.
For me... FPS is the majority of my play so I've gotten to where those are an automatic hard, veteran, hardened type setting.

Madden on All-Madden is the best challenge, but really pisses me off too much (i.e. CPU is losing and all of a sudden their D starts INTing everything) so like you I play on All Pro mostly.

I honestly don't remember the last time I played a game at an "easy" or beginner setting though.... Civilization maybe?

(07-13-2018, 10:22 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: Man I suck at Madden. All Pro at the highest, I get my [BLEEP] handed to me on All Madden. 

....but that's bc the game cheats.

One thing I realized about playing Madden is that when in Franchise mode, you have to switch playbooks every 3 or 4 games, otherwise the computer will adjust to your play calling, and you will end up with those games where they stop all of your runs and jump all of your routes.

I try to approach the schedule like NFL teams do.  In the preseason, I use just Balanced offense and 4-3 defense for weeks 1, 2 and 4.  In week 3, I use the main playbook to "reacquaint" myself with it.

Then in the regular season, I play mostly with the Jaguars playbooks on offense and defense.  When I switch up, I try to use playbooks of teams that are similar in approach to the Jaguars, but have minor differences that will impact playcalling.  Like the Chargers,  Falcons and Seahawks run similar defensive schemes to us in real life.  I will switch and use one of their defensive playbooks.  Offensively, since Marrone was under Payton in New Orleans, sometimes I will use their offense.

Honestly, I've never thought about switching up playbooks mid season....
It's so simple, yet brilliant.
Don't piss off the Jack hammer.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#60
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2018, 06:53 AM by Bullseye.)

(07-19-2018, 01:38 PM)Kane Wrote:
(07-13-2018, 10:22 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: Man I suck at Madden. All Pro at the highest, I get my [BLEEP] handed to me on All Madden. 

....but that's bc the game cheats.

Yeah... well.. cheats is a strong word... but the AI difference from all pro to all madden is crazy.

If I play a whole season on All Madden I usually end up with about 10 wins.
On all pro I can usually complete a perfect season (usually)

(07-13-2018, 10:44 AM)Bullseye Wrote: One thing I realized about playing Madden is that when in Franchise mode, you have to switch playbooks every 3 or 4 games, otherwise the computer will adjust to your play calling, and you will end up with those games where they stop all of your runs and jump all of your routes.

I try to approach the schedule like NFL teams do.  In the preseason, I use just Balanced offense and 4-3 defense for weeks 1, 2 and 4.  In week 3, I use the main playbook to "reacquaint" myself with it.

Then in the regular season, I play mostly with the Jaguars playbooks on offense and defense.  When I switch up, I try to use playbooks of teams that are similar in approach to the Jaguars, but have minor differences that will impact playcalling.  Like the Chargers,  Falcons and Seahawks run similar defensive schemes to us in real life.  I will switch and use one of their defensive playbooks.  Offensively, since Marrone was under Payton in New Orleans, sometimes I will use their offense.

Honestly, I've never thought about switching up playbooks mid season....
It's so simple, yet brilliant.
I have had some of my best overall games when I have switched playbooks.

Just do it often enough to throw off the computer who tries to play against your tendencies.

Oh yeah...I also will use Seattle's offensive playbook.

Thinking about it, one of the things I miss is playing against the Colts with Peyton Manning.

I would switch the defensive playbook to Cover 2.

He would audible so much, and I would audible in response.

I enjoyed seeing if I could outsmart him, even if it was only in Madden.
"“If Yan is fighting a grizzly bear, help the grizzly bear.” Myles Jack



Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!