Re: FIFA 14
You are wrong, I was comparing it to PES and I think it is important to compare it to the competition.
I meant that nobody else here compared to PES before you did when you replied. A few of us were in agreement about the (lack of) quality of the FIFA gameplay... You chime in and pretty much go "Ohh but I think it's decent and I prefer it to PES". That's not relevant as a reply to such comments nor does it add anything to that discussion.
Of course, for deciding what you prefer you must compare to the competition... However, just because something is the best in it's field it doesn't mean it's a quality product. The phrase "best of a bad bunch" comes to mind.
I also look at the quality in terms of:
1. What EA's resources would be capable of.
2. The complexity of other sports games evidencing the capability of the current consoles.
I do think Fifa has depth as I have described and I have also said in nearly everyone of my posts that it can be a lot better.
But I also don't think it is fair to compare a football game to a driving game, comparing cars to humans just isn't right imo. Comparing Fifa to a basketball game, where you can use many more parts of your body in Football, there are more players on the pitch to deal with many more positions to play in, more teams in general etc etc
Why is that logic not sound? It was more a case of semantics than anything else (your "non-existent" remark) and how football fans aren't so fortunate to have the breadth of choice available to racing fans.
I'm not comparing the workings of a car with the workings of the human mind or muscles, nor am I saying "A realistic racing game is possible so why not football?".
Football is a different sport to basketball, but gameplay aspects of the NBA 2K series such as the complex teamwork, tactics, team styles etc. Clearly 2K couldn't just copy-paste it into a football game engine and come up with a good football game, but it proves that much smarter AI behaviours than FIFA are possible on the current consoles.
Imo gameplay encompasses a lot more things, my feelings when playing the game etc while controlling the players. So my points are not irrellevant at all.
You said this:
"The depth of a game is lots of different things for me, not just gameplay."
I appeciate that this is true, but when the discussions you were replying to were only on about
gameplay depth, defending or sounding appreciation of other aspects of the game is irrelevant to that discussion.
I'm not saying those views are insignificant or wrong, simply beside the point of the posts you were replying to.
One of my points was also the generalisation that Fifa is concentrating on online modes/other modes etc than gameplay (On the pitch gameplay) when they have introduced a new defending system, player physics and collisions, injuries which have enhanced the on the pitch gameplay quite a bit making the game deeper. Along with the other things that also enhance the gameplay and immerse me into the game I am playing.
That's correct, there have been some gameplay changes. The new defending and collisions systems are improved over their predecessors, and the introduction of 360 degree movement was important. These changes are welcome, but many of them seem almost done as an afterthought so they have a nice slogan to market and put on the box - remember "Pro Passing" for example? That sounded great in theory but the effects barely matched up to the description of it.
I think what some people are disappointed about is how most of the stuff EA works on and promotes is non-gameplay related - I don't really want to play a game with multitudes of game modes, options and a slick GUI if once you kick-off the gameplay is unrealistic and predictable.
See my point above about comparing a racing game to a football game.
See my point above responding to that.
True but just because it isn't a true simulation of football, doesn't mean it is shallow.
It's true that unrealistic games can have deep gameplay - look at Battlefield for example. In that game you can revive people from gunshots to the head with a defibrilator to the chest (n.b. I'm not comparing football to war)...
In a football game I think there is a correlation between realism and depth.
Accurate team styles = variation = gameplay depth.
Realistic inertia = more thoughtful play required = gameplay depth.
Realistic player individuality = variation/tactics = gameplay depth.
etc etc.
I think judging a game against the other games in its field (Football and pardon the pun
) is a good way of determining how a game is. Again my idea of gameplay is the whole package and how the Fifa plays on the pitch.
Also I have had some of the most realistic games of football on all manual online (With like minded people) than I have on any other football game. Realistic scorelines, battles, the use of key players, variety of goals and playing styles are all there for me......again but can be much better.
Covered the point about judging vs competition at the start.
I have also had some good games on FIFA 13, but they tend to be few and far between, and require both players to play with a certain mentality.
What is subjective is how deep you think a game is and how shallow a game is. This is what we were discussing. For me Fifa isn't shallow, it has depth just not as much as we would all like.
You talking about Mario Kart and rFactor and this has relevance, but me comparing Fifa to another football game is not relevant?
I agree that it's subjective, but the rFactor/Mario Kart comparison was just to prove that certain things can be said about the matter that are wrong.
.
