Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

joecrisp · 08-12-2004, 03:24 PM

I bought both games the day they became available in stores, and here's my initial impressions of both, with the caveat that I'm not here to get in a pissing contest about how many hours I spend playing either game:

I was initially a little uncomfortable with ESPN's controls, which is to be expected, as the only football game I've ever played aside from Tecmo Bowl (still the greatest football game ever made-- even after an all-night kegger, you can still rush for over 400 yards on your buddy!) is the Madden series. But after a few games, the controls became second nature, just like with Madden.

IMHO, the graphics and presentation of ESPN are more realistic, though the color saturation is a little extreme. I hate the way players run (read: "waddle") in ESPN, but everything else about the player animations is so cool that I began to overlook the ridiculous running form after a while.

I was very impressed with ESPN's attention to detail with the stadiums-- "Washington Redskins Stadium" really looks like FedEx Field, not a drab burgundy-and-gold amalgamation of some programming teams' collective impressions of what a generic Redskins stadium should look like.

I was also very happy to see that ESPN made a concerted effort to produce a Redskins playbook that resembles what Gibbs will probably be using this season. Madden pissed me off big-time in this category when I found the same damned playbook in 2005 that they proffered last year as Steve Spurrier's brainchild. The only noticeable difference is the new option routes for the receivers. There are no true "counter-treys" in Madden's Gibbs playbook, and few counter plays in general, whereas the ESPN Gibbs playbook is loaded with them.

One problem with both games: there is no true H-back spot on the depth chart, and Rock Cartwright is presented as a fullback. The thing that sucks about that on ESPN's game is that you can't replace Rock on the depth chart with one of the guys that will actually line up at the H-back spot, like Kozlowski, Sellers or Cooley. Nor can you change Rock to a runningback, which is where he belongs. At least in Madden, you can move Rock to runningback on the depth chart and put him in that rotation, while inserting Koz, Cooley and Sellers into both the fullback (H-back) and tight end rotations.

I really feel like Madden took a step back (or no step at all) with the overall impression of the graphics, player movement and game presentation. The player's bodies look bloated and 'roided up, making them look rather comically cartoonish. ESPN's players look much more true-to-life, aside from the facemasks, which look kind of goofy for some reason. I also noticed Madden 2005 seems to get a little choppy on me, especially when there's a replay going, or when there's just a lot happening on-screen. Last year's Madden was much better in this area, in my opinion. The overall presentation and gameplay of Madden 2004 was much more fluid, seamless and dynamic... kind of like ESPN 2k5.

These are just my impressions of the realism of the gameplay and presentation so far. I haven't done any franchise work with either of them yet, though I'm an avid franchiser, so I'll be moving onto that shortly. Thus far, I'm pretty pissed off about Madden 2005 essentially being a roster update, though I'm hoping the franchise stuff will boost my spirits about spending $50 for said update. ESPN 2k5 has been a very pleasant surprise to this point, and it's very close to being the best $20 I've ever spent (there's a lot you can do as a young guy with $20-- but that's for another forum!). If I don't find anything particularly compelling about Madden 2005's franchise mode, ESPN may have successfully converted me. Madden will have to step up their game big-time next year if they want me to keep paying a premium for their product.

08-12-2004, 03:24 PM	#26
joecrisp The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Age: 50 Posts: 1,501	I bought both games the day they became available in stores, and here's my initial impressions of both, with the caveat that I'm not here to get in a pissing contest about how many hours I spend playing either game: I was initially a little uncomfortable with ESPN's controls, which is to be expected, as the only football game I've ever played aside from Tecmo Bowl (still the greatest football game ever made-- even after an all-night kegger, you can still rush for over 400 yards on your buddy!) is the Madden series. But after a few games, the controls became second nature, just like with Madden. IMHO, the graphics and presentation of ESPN are more realistic, though the color saturation is a little extreme. I hate the way players run (read: "waddle") in ESPN, but everything else about the player animations is so cool that I began to overlook the ridiculous running form after a while. I was very impressed with ESPN's attention to detail with the stadiums-- "Washington Redskins Stadium" really looks like FedEx Field, not a drab burgundy-and-gold amalgamation of some programming teams' collective impressions of what a generic Redskins stadium should look like. I was also very happy to see that ESPN made a concerted effort to produce a Redskins playbook that resembles what Gibbs will probably be using this season. Madden pissed me off big-time in this category when I found the same damned playbook in 2005 that they proffered last year as Steve Spurrier's brainchild. The only noticeable difference is the new option routes for the receivers. There are no true "counter-treys" in Madden's Gibbs playbook, and few counter plays in general, whereas the ESPN Gibbs playbook is loaded with them. One problem with both games: there is no true H-back spot on the depth chart, and Rock Cartwright is presented as a fullback. The thing that sucks about that on ESPN's game is that you can't replace Rock on the depth chart with one of the guys that will actually line up at the H-back spot, like Kozlowski, Sellers or Cooley. Nor can you change Rock to a runningback, which is where he belongs. At least in Madden, you can move Rock to runningback on the depth chart and put him in that rotation, while inserting Koz, Cooley and Sellers into both the fullback (H-back) and tight end rotations. I really feel like Madden took a step back (or no step at all) with the overall impression of the graphics, player movement and game presentation. The player's bodies look bloated and 'roided up, making them look rather comically cartoonish. ESPN's players look much more true-to-life, aside from the facemasks, which look kind of goofy for some reason. I also noticed Madden 2005 seems to get a little choppy on me, especially when there's a replay going, or when there's just a lot happening on-screen. Last year's Madden was much better in this area, in my opinion. The overall presentation and gameplay of Madden 2004 was much more fluid, seamless and dynamic... kind of like ESPN 2k5. These are just my impressions of the realism of the gameplay and presentation so far. I haven't done any franchise work with either of them yet, though I'm an avid franchiser, so I'll be moving onto that shortly. Thus far, I'm pretty pissed off about Madden 2005 essentially being a roster update, though I'm hoping the franchise stuff will boost my spirits about spending $50 for said update. ESPN 2k5 has been a very pleasant surprise to this point, and it's very close to being the best $20 I've ever spent (there's a lot you can do as a young guy with $20-- but that's for another forum!). If I don't find anything particularly compelling about Madden 2005's franchise mode, ESPN may have successfully converted me. Madden will have to step up their game big-time next year if they want me to keep paying a premium for their product.