• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GA Review: NCAA College Football 2005 [#2]

HAOHMARU

Member
Ernie Halal

Since nobody looks at the front page. I can't get the original review right now. It is being linked back to the second review...I'm sure it will be fixed soon. I think that one got a -A written by Brian Peterson.
 

DMczaf

Member
YES! My fight won! This gives me hope! Keep hope alive! Keep hope allllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiivvvvvvvvvvveeee!

687.jpg
 

Maverick

Member
Yes, I know there's a thread for the review already. However, this deserves its own thread since no one cares about the first.

Ernie, you are my man. Ernie had the nuts to actually play NCAA Football 2005 for more than a day or two and give it an honest review. While IGN and Gamespot rushed out cookie-cutter reviews, probably based on beta copies, Ernie breaks NCAA down.

The special teams are weak. There's slowdown. The "rubber-band A.I." sucks. The drops are weak. The A.I.'s perfect air attack is very weak, especially when teams like NAVY go 9/10 for 130 in 2 drives.

Every other review simply glossed over these glaring gameplay problems and talking about "improvements!" Oooooh, how NCAA 2005 has improved yet again! Improved A.I.! Improved graphics! Improved sound! Now it's truly the perfect football game!.

Spare me. Every year it is the same with NCAA. The game has 0 competition in the college market, so the big reviewers play the game for a day, push out a review based on past experience with the series, and don't take the time to actually become frustrated with the terribly unbalanced passing game or the slowdown.

NCAA 2005 isn't a bad game. It's still a good game of football. However, compared to its predecessors, this game, for the first time in its history, is a step back.

It is a C- and as a hardcore sports gamer and a former Gaming-Age Reviews Writer, I applaud Ernie for giving us a real review.
 

Wellington

BAAAALLLINNN'
We did it DM!

2003%20song%20contest%20celebration.jpg


AI Playcalling

College football teams, a vast majority of them, run the ball much more often than they pass. Maybe someone writing the code for the past three years was confused and thought they were making an Arena football game. If teams like Penn State, Oklahoma and LSU passed as often as they do in NCAA '05, they'd lose most of the time.

LOL! Someone in the original impressions topic tried to tell me that they pass a lot more in NCAA games justifying the horribly weak for runs playbook.

Defensive A.I. and Difficulty

Scenario: You're facing a Cover 2 - a common zone defense. You flood the left side of the field with two receivers, a back and a tight end. You see your TE about to be wide, wide open as he finds the soft spot of the zone, your quarterback fires a bullet right into his hands. In '05 one of two things will happen: He'll drop the ball or a defender (regardless of his "awareness" score and regardless of the A.I. slider setting) will cross the field in plenty of time to knock the ball down. Worst yet, that defender may not be alone. It's very common to see four to six people with plenty of time to smack the ball down (maybe Ronnie Lot has a big family). If you get lucky and the ball gets through all the defenders and you have good enough timing to manually catch the ball, it may help, but not often enough to make it ok.

If you crank up the difficulty, short passing is so migraine-inducing that attempting it becomes a complete waste of time - the above examples just get worse. If you crank it down, short passing is still difficult and long bombs threaten to become money plays. You still get four downs. Throw four bombs and you won't be disappointed, unless you wanted a game that played like football.

And on the other side of the ball: If my created school is going to get burned long by a horribly untalented passing team it should be because there's no one covering the receiver. It could be blown assignments, biting on a fake, take your pick. But if my dumb, slow DB's manage to get there - three of them! - when the ball does, it shouldn't avoid their hands like the magic loogie on Seinfeld. I called the right formation and they played it perfectly. How many times should a Navy QB and receiver hook up on a long bomb in perfect coverage before someone says, "that's ridiculous!?" The defensive backs didn't get outjumped, outrun or outsmarted over and over again. They got out-programmed, and that's unacceptable.

YES.

You da man, Ernie!
 

fennec fox

ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
mu
College Dropout said:
It is a C- and as a hardcore sports gamer and a former Gaming-Age Reviews Writer, I applaud Ernie for giving us a review I agree with.
 

Maverick

Member
No, a review with factual accuracy, not based on hyperbole and hype.

Michigan passes more times than they run on you in NCAA. A lot more. LSU does. Oklahoma does. Everyone does. On any difficulty. Wide open passes are dropped, while long bombs always connect.

This is fact, and it is a step back. And if you refute that fact, you haven't played the game, nor do you deserve to comment.
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
It seems like the reviews of these games (NFL2K5, NCAA, both of which I enjoy overall mind you) are about as well thought-out and thorough as the annual rehashes of the series' themselves.

EA/SEGA: "Let's add crowd rumbling/new juke moves and use last year's games!"
EA/SEGA Reviewer: "Let's mention the new crowd rumbling/juke moves and use last year's review/score!"

I agree completely, we need to tone down this shit with all of these games getting 9.5s constantly with reviewers glossing over huge flaws.
 

Wellington

BAAAALLLINNN'
AstroLad said:
It seems like the reviews of these games (NFL2K5, NCAA, both of which I enjoy overall mind you) are about as well thought-out and thorough as the annual rehashes of the series' themselves.

EA/SEGA: "Let's add crowd rumbling/new juke moves and use last year's games!"
EA/SEGA Reviewer: "Let's mention the new crowd rumbling/juke moves and use last year's review/score!"

I agree completely, we need to tone down this shit with all of these games getting 9.5s constantly with reviewers glossing over huge flaws.

I agree... that first review didn't even mention those new additions, which is why I was suspect. Does that Brian guy post on GAF? Reveal yourself!
 
Top Bottom