Remove this Banner Ad

AFL 2006 Talk

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Crawf said:
Not too sure if this has been posted yet but their is an ok preview of the game on playstation.com.au

http://au.playstation.com/ps2/games/a/aflprem2006.jhtml

doesnt go into a great amount of detail but its got a few more pics and the cover art looks cool:thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Players, ground and stadiums look great in the screen shots, lets hope the gameplay can match.
 
B-Rock said:
So ah Fiery Hawk, have you guys fixed the name generator this time around? Coz if we get like James Riewoldt, Paul Hird or Peter Giansiracusa... many people will be fairly p.o-ed!
Click to expand...

You may still get those but we have added a heap of new surnames and first names along with commentary to suit them. No more cries of 'Urch' for every new player...
There is a larger database of names for generated players in 06.
 
I have a question that needs some feedback peoples...

When it comes to difficulty what do you want from the hardest level of difficulty? LEt me pose a couple of hypotheticals to let you know where we may head with it...

1. A hard difficulty where you can still win a game by 40pts. You can do this by simply using the default setups for tactics and player positions on the field.

or

2. A hard difficulty where if you don't explore player matchups, team tactics and use the ball wisely (i.e. move the ball on quickly, kick to space, wait for a free man etc) you will lose by 6-7+ goals.

Essentially what I am asking is should you be rewarded on the highest difficulty for exploring all the strategical aspects of the game and exploiting your opposition through them? Let me know what you think as it's quite an issue here. Personally I am fearing that the hardest level is being dummed down too much and the User is not being encouraged enough to explore the games features in order to succeed at the highest level.
 
Fiery Hawk said:
I have a question that needs some feedback peoples...

When it comes to difficulty what do you want from the hardest level of difficulty? LEt me pose a couple of hypotheticals to let you know where we may head with it...

1. A hard difficulty where you can still win a game by 40pts. You can do this by simply using the default setups for tactics and player positions on the field.

or

2. A hard difficulty where if you don't explore player matchups, team tactics and use the ball wisely (i.e. move the ball on quickly, kick to space, wait for a free man etc) you will lose by 6-7+ goals.

the hard option is there for a reason. If this was a FPS, you make the enemy tougher and have more of them - so you need to take it slower and involve some tactics. I cant see why the HARD difficulty shouldnt be HARD. If you can just enter into it and beat it then why not just have "easy" and "normal".

Essentially what I am asking is should you be rewarded on the highest difficulty for exploring all the strategical aspects of the game and exploiting your opposition through them? Let me know what you think as it's quite an issue here. Personally I am fearing that the hardest level is being dummed down too much and the User is not being encouraged enough to explore the games features in order to succeed at the highest level.
Click to expand...

I'd go for option 2. I know for a fact my brother has always loved mucking around with the match ups in the 2004 game - even if nothing really changed. If it's worthwhile to change the tactics and match-ups then I'm all for it.

It should be hard. Why else have the difficulty? If you can beat it without making changes to your game style it's too easy. In a FPS in hard there are more enemies and tougher enemies. You need to adjust your game plan. Cant see why it should be different here.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Fiery Hawk said:
I have a question that needs some feedback peoples...

When it comes to difficulty what do you want from the hardest level of difficulty? LEt me pose a couple of hypotheticals to let you know where we may head with it...

1. A hard difficulty where you can still win a game by 40pts. You can do this by simply using the default setups for tactics and player positions on the field.

or

2. A hard difficulty where if you don't explore player matchups, team tactics and use the ball wisely (i.e. move the ball on quickly, kick to space, wait for a free man etc) you will lose by 6-7+ goals.

Essentially what I am asking is should you be rewarded on the highest difficulty for exploring all the strategical aspects of the game and exploiting your opposition through them? Let me know what you think as it's quite an issue here. Personally I am fearing that the hardest level is being dummed down too much and the User is not being encouraged enough to explore the games features in order to succeed at the highest level.
Click to expand...

Definately option 2 Fiery Hawk, but make sure the opposition would defeat you by 7-8 goals by playing smarter, having the better team or better use tactics etc. In AFL Premiership 2005, I would lose on hard by large margains but just feel generally cheated by the A.I. It felt as though i was playing against the flaws of game and not the CPU. Im happy to be beaten by better use of tactics by my opposition but not by the fact that they have better control of the players on the field than i do.
 
B-Rock said:
Definately option 2 Fiery Hawk, but make sure the opposition would defeat you by 7-8 goals by playing smarter, having the better team or better use tactics etc. In AFL Premiership 2005, I would lose on hard by large margains but just feel generally cheated by the A.I. It felt as though i was playing against the flaws of game and not the CPU. Im happy to be beaten by better use of tactics by my opposition but not by the fact that they have better control of the players on the field than i do.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
DaSawx said:
FH, when you have decided the outcome of this inquiry can you let us know?
Click to expand...

Will do...you guys have pretty much backed up my thinking...now I just need to convince the decision maker. He favours the other way but now I'm armed with some ammo...
My philosophy is that this needs to be a footy experience and dumming it down isn't the way to provide it to people who (like me) are passsionate about their footy and who have suffered in previous versions of the game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DaSawx said:
If you made all the right moves and everything and played really well yourself, would an Adelaide or St. Kilda still be able to get a good win on hard against a Carlton or Essendon?
Click to expand...

Yeah they should. Recently I played as Geelong against Sydney in Sydney. It was night and wet. I held on for a 1pt win after leading by as much as 4 goals. A great game and I had to change my players around a lot as well as setting some key tagging scenarios.
Looking forward to one day having the time to play an entire season on Hard with full length quarters...
 
Fiery Hawk said:
Looking forward to one day having the time to play an entire season on Hard with full length quarters...
Click to expand...

Yeah I love those challenges. Love my sports games to be as realistic as possible, and it looks like you guys are getting as close as any AFL game has ever gotten, whis is fantastic news
 
Fiery Hawk said:
I have a question that needs some feedback peoples...

When it comes to difficulty what do you want from the hardest level of difficulty? LEt me pose a couple of hypotheticals to let you know where we may head with it...

1. A hard difficulty where you can still win a game by 40pts. You can do this by simply using the default setups for tactics and player positions on the field.

or

2. A hard difficulty where if you don't explore player matchups, team tactics and use the ball wisely (i.e. move the ball on quickly, kick to space, wait for a free man etc) you will lose by 6-7+ goals.

Essentially what I am asking is should you be rewarded on the highest difficulty for exploring all the strategical aspects of the game and exploiting your opposition through them? Let me know what you think as it's quite an issue here. Personally I am fearing that the hardest level is being dummed down too much and the User is not being encouraged enough to explore the games features in order to succeed at the highest level.
Click to expand...
DEFINATELY 2. I would be very very disappointed if the game was released and option 1 was the go. We want a challenging, fun game and 2005 was an Option 1 game. We want it as reasistic as possible. Oh and tell that decision guy this --> OPTION 1 WOULD MAKE THE GAME UNPLAYABLE LIKE 2005.

If option 2 was given the all-clear, would it be in 2006 or would we have to wait until 2007? Surely it could be in 2006 given the game still has over 2 months until release.
 
Obviously option 2 is the go. Did you even have to ask?

One add on to option 2 is that we can still have blowouts if we play really well, it just doesn't happen all that often.
 
Fiery Hawk said:
Yeah they should. Recently I played as Geelong against Sydney in Sydney. It was night and wet. I held on for a 1pt win after leading by as much as 4 goals. A great game and I had to change my players around a lot as well as setting some key tagging scenarios.
Looking forward to one day having the time to play an entire season on Hard with full length quarters...
Click to expand...
In 2006, will this actually let you kick realistic scores? In 2005, I tried it and the final score was something like (on hard):

Eagles (me): 51 34 360
Hawks (CPU): 38 1 228

Staker kicked 27 from full forward and Sampi bagged a smooth 16.

For the Hawks, Dixon kicked 34.

The scores may be give or take 30 points but I know the player goals. They are actual player goal tallies.

A realistic game would have been

Eagles: 16 13 109
Hawks: 11 9 75

In 2005, you have literally an invincible team if they all ahve high marking stats. Boot the ball out of goalsquare in kick-in, CHB marks torps CHF marks bomb to square FF marks in the square goal. Then ball up, hold left/right on analog, press O your ruck rover runs past sprints to 50 and boots either a goal or in the arms of the FF. Total Time Taken: 35 seconds. Repeat. This is on Hard you know.

Unplayable. Is this fixed in 2006?

EDIT: Egad!
aflprem2006large5.jpg
See the Eagles player on the end? Who is that and what is his hair like that for? Its like a blonde afro with dark sideburns. Good thing is I can recognise Richo :)

EDIT 2: Hey I can recognise Barry Hall! Very impressive stuff FH (These are screens from http://au.playstation.com/ps2/games/a/aflprem2006.jhtml) One question: Are banners back? They were a sad omission from 2005. But very impressive screenshots *thumbsup*
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Fiery Hawk said:
I have a question that needs some feedback peoples...

When it comes to difficulty what do you want from the hardest level of difficulty? LEt me pose a couple of hypotheticals to let you know where we may head with it...

1. A hard difficulty where you can still win a game by 40pts. You can do this by simply using the default setups for tactics and player positions on the field.

or

2. A hard difficulty where if you don't explore player matchups, team tactics and use the ball wisely (i.e. move the ball on quickly, kick to space, wait for a free man etc) you will lose by 6-7+ goals.

Essentially what I am asking is should you be rewarded on the highest difficulty for exploring all the strategical aspects of the game and exploiting your opposition through them? Let me know what you think as it's quite an issue here. Personally I am fearing that the hardest level is being dummed down too much and the User is not being encouraged enough to explore the games features in order to succeed at the highest level.
Click to expand...

option 2 for sure, dont no why you would even consider using option number1.One of the big things the last games have been missing is the lack of tactics or no need to use them because if we can win without them(option 1) why would we bother using them. If you dont use option 2 i think it will take alot away from the game
 
Jim Boy said:
Nah, they'd be mad to.

While yes, they would make more money from the AFL deal if they did, it would hinder them in the bigger struggle, and I don't mean the battle being fought out for gaming consoles, but the bigger battle for blu-ray.
Click to expand...


Isn't this what happened last year!
Came out on ps2 in September and then 3 months later THQ published it on PC/DVD
Sony would not really be worried about a PC version as compeition, as it is not a console system, their main revial is Xbox
Correct?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL 2006 Talk

Similar threads

BigFootyNews
News & Events Palo Alto Networks in talks to buy CyberArk -
Replies
0
Views
236
BigFootyNews
BigFootyNews
BigFootyNews
News & Events Insurer Aflac investigating possible data leak -
Replies
0
Views
67
BigFootyNews
BigFootyNews

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top