AFL Evolution - Out May 5 - (Cont in LAUNCH THREAD - link in OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
EagleCanival said:
I suppose being funded **** all isn't a valid excuse.

How about I give you $10 and 4 years to go make an AFL game. No excuses, you have ample time.

Before I cop "AHA YOU WORK AT WICKET WITCH!!!1!". I'll like to point out that I wasn't much of a fan of AFLL2 and although they got a lot of things right, the gameplay was a massive step in the wrong direction.

But, I seriously hope you realise that there are dozens of factors other than how much time is put into a game o_O

But hey, if you get a kick out of mocking people for having a bit of hope, good on you.
Click to expand...

Other developers do a better job on similar games so not sure why we have to coddle wicked witch
 
GoldbergsGold said:
The AFL governing body are too interested in political correctness, rather than making money. We could have had an Football game with 2K or EA budget by now, with the amount they've thrown into PC ventures. If only The AFL were run by someone like Dana White, who actually likes his sport and who can make it very profitable.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but you are orders of magnitude off.

Big Ant's AFL Live 1 was made with the same yearly budget FIFA has for it's bloody menus.

And that's a direct Ross quote.
 
melbournemartin said:
Sorry mate but you are orders of magnitude off.

Big Ant's AFL Live 1 was made with the same yearly budget FIFA has for it's bloody menus.

And that's a direct Ross quote.
Click to expand...
Yes but if the AFL gave funding, then at least we could have a better AFL game then we have now. Maybe when the game goes global by 2050, EASports could be interested?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BRAB said:
Other developers do a better job on similar games so not sure why we have to coddle wicked witch
Click to expand...
Never said you had to coddle Wicked Witch. The thing about an AFL game is that the sport is an absolute bitch to code. It's very hard to get right because it's unlike any other sport in the world. With that being said, in order for it to be done right it needs more money to be invested into making the game worthwhile.

Would I prefer BigAnt to be making the game? Absolutely. But it's not Wicked Witch's fault that they're a smaller company that's willing to work for less.
 
Last edited:
GOTHELIONS16 said:
Yes but if the AFL gave funding, then at least we could have a better AFL game then we have now. Maybe when the game goes global by 2050, EASports could be interested?
Click to expand...

Well this goes without saying. But it's not just money that makes a good game. Even if 2k made an AFL game it'd take several iterations to get anywhere close to their NBA games, EVEN if they hypothetically had the same budget.
 
GoldbergsGold said:
If only The AFL were run by someone like Dana White, who actually likes his sport and who can make it very profitable.
Click to expand...
You dont follow the UFC/MMA very indepth do you? lol Dana White made the UFC profitable by paying the fighters 15% of revenue, no health care, keeping them as subcontractors, taking away sponsorship, paying entry level fighters well below minimum wage ect ect ect.
 
bomber_mad_1989 said:
You dont follow the UFC/MMA very indepth do you? lol Dana White made the UFC profitable by paying the fighters 15% of revenue, no health care, keeping them as subcontractors, taking away sponsorship, paying entry level fighters well below minimum wage ect ect ect.
Click to expand...

Not so different from The AFL, if you followed that sport. :) The UFC was worth only a few million in 2001, now it's worth billions. That's the difference. We can talk about ethics, but The AFL isn't an honest organisation, either.
 
melbournemartin said:
Sorry mate but you are orders of magnitude off.

Big Ant's AFL Live 1 was made with the same yearly budget FIFA has for it's bloody menus.

And that's a direct Ross quote.
Click to expand...

You're not following what I'm saying. They've blown millions on PC agendas and middle management. They could have been used for things people actually want.
 
Last edited:
EagleCanival said:
I suppose being funded **** all isn't a valid excuse.

How about I give you $10 and 4 years to go make an AFL game. No excuses, you have ample time.

Before I cop "AHA YOU WORK AT WICKET WITCH!!!1!". I'll like to point out that I wasn't much of a fan of AFLL2 and although they got a lot of things right, the gameplay was a massive step in the wrong direction.

But, I seriously hope you realise that there are dozens of factors other than how much time is put into a game o_O

But hey, if you get a kick out of mocking people for having a bit of hope, good on you.
Click to expand...

Why are the Wicked Witch camp making it sound like they have to make AFL game against their will? Like, they're being held at gun point?

It's unfortunate you believe being realistic about the game is destroying peoples hopes. All you have to do is research a little bit to come to these conclusions. We know exactly what the results gonna be.

And what's this about Live 2 getting a lot of things right? Love to hear some examples, because I couldn't spot one thing. It's was like 100 steps backwards from Live 1.
 
GoldbergsGold said:
You're not following what I'm saying. They've blown millions on PC agendas and middle management. They could have been used for things people actually want.
Click to expand...

I mean there have been many things blamed for poor AFL games in the past but blaming it on Pride Round is a new one, assuming that is what you are referring to.
 
melbournemartin said:
I mean there have been many things blamed for poor AFL games in the past but blaming it on Pride Round is a new one, assuming that is what you are referring to.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to their economic priorities being the issue. This isn't a new argument, I'm merely stating where their wasted money would be of more use.
 
GoldbergsGold said:
Why are the Wicked Witch camp making it sound like they have to make AFL game against their will? Like, they're being held at gun point?

It's unfortunate you believe being realistic about the game is destroying peoples hopes. All you have to do is research a little bit to come to these conclusions. We know exactly what the results gonna be.

And what's this about Live 2 getting a lot of things right? Love to hear some examples, because I couldn't spot one thing. It's was like 100 steps backwards from Live 1.
Click to expand...
Live 2 is the result of WW being underfunded and making a game in 6 months and you'd know that if you did any research yourself

If you bothered with Live 2 for more than 10 seconds you'd have found that there is a lot of potential there and it manages to get the contested side of footy right (which is something Live 1 doesn't have)

Enough already with this garbage about Live 1 being the greatest game ever created when the truth is it's good but not great and while it may have had a great 'feel' to it it also had incompetent Ai and absolutely no contested footy at all or any kind of ground game at all (there's only so many times I can play the same tired pick up the footy, run a bit, get tackled, handball forward and rinse and repeat)

I've spent time over the last week with Live 2 and I've had more fun with it (or at least the 2014 DLC edition) than I've had with Live 1 for a while

Before seeing anything from Live 1 we never gave big ant the kind of crap WW are copping even though big ants only other sports game was RLL1 which if we're being honest is a steaming pile of shit
 
Freo16 said:
Live 2 is the result of WW being underfunded and making a game in 6 months and you'd know that if you did any research yourself

If you bothered with Live 2 for more than 10 seconds you'd have found that there is a lot of potential there and it manages to get the contested side of footy right (which is something Live 1 doesn't have)

Enough already with this garbage about Live 1 being the greatest game ever created when the truth is it's good but not great and while it may have had a great 'feel' to it it also had incompetent Ai and absolutely no contested footy at all or any kind of ground game at all (there's only so many times I can play the same tired pick up the footy, run a bit, get tackled, handball forward and rinse and repeat)

I've spent time over the last week with Live 2 and I've had more fun with it (or at least the 2014 DLC edition) than I've had with Live 1 for a while

Before seeing anything from Live 1 we never gave big ant the kind of crap WW are copping even though big ants only other sports game was RLL1 which if we're being honest is a steaming pile of shit
Click to expand...

You sure like to twists thing and pretend I'm unaware of things I've brought up. I said they were a cheap solution, and when did Live 2 development time go from 12 months to 6 months? Again with putting words into my mouth, I never said it was the best, but if we're talking about a potential, they had it and Live 2 doesn't. The reason we bring up Live 1, is because that's the bar that's been set. I have no idea why you think WW should be immune from criticism. This "no budget or time" excuse is a poor one, since they're the ones accepting it. Meaning, they're fine with producing poor quality Footy games.

You bring up Rugby League Live 1, the difference is they rectified that in less than a year with AFL Live 1, and later with RLL2. Wicked Witch just brought out a pretty lackluster Union port, 3 years after AFL Live 2. What's your excuse for that?

Big Ant interacted with us, looking to make the best game before even having it out. Also, there was hardly a bar set when it came to Footy games, before theirs.

With contested gameplay, in Live 1, it's complex I've found from playing it long enough. You really need to over power your opponents by bumping them or getting first to the ball. Even if you win a contest, the next contest isn't a guarantee to get the ball out of congestion. You really need to find a clear team mate. That's the beauty of the Live 1, that Live 2 doesn't have, quickly moving the ball to find space. Live 2 is super slow in that department.

I have no idea why you're taking other peoples opinions personally. We're all wanting the best game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GoldbergsGold said:
You sure like to twists thing and pretend I'm unaware of things I've brought up. I said they were a cheap solution, and when did Live 2 development time go from 12 months to 6 months? Again with putting words into my mouth, I never said it was the best, but if we're talking about a potential, they had it and Live 2 doesn't. The reason we bring up Live 1, is because that's the bar that's been set. I have no idea why you think WW should be immune from criticism. This "no budget or time" excuse is a poor one, since they're the ones accepting it. Meaning, they're fine with producing poor quality Footy games.

You bring up Rugby League Live 1, the difference is they rectified that in less than a year with AFL Live 1, and later with RLL2. Wicked Witch just brought out a pretty lackluster Union port, 3 years after AFL Live 2. What's your excuse for that?

Big Ant interacted with us, looking to make the best game before even having it out. Also, there was hardly a bar set when it came to Footy games, before theirs.

With contested gameplay, in Live 1, it's complex I've found from playing it long enough. You really need to over power your opponents by bumping them or getting first to the ball. Even if you win a contest, the next contest isn't a guarantee to get the ball out of congestion. You really need to find a clear team mate. That's the beauty of the Live 1, that Live 2 doesn't have, quickly moving the ball to find space. Live 2 is super slow in that department.

I have no idea why you're taking other peoples opinions personally. We're all wanting the best game.
Click to expand...
WW had 6 months working on Live 2 prior to release and then 6 months after that working on the DLC. I don't think WW should be immune from criticism but let's at least acknowledge that WW have never been given the same chance that big ant were on Live 1. It seems that WW are working on the idea of short term pain for long term gain when it comes to Live 2 as they agreed to make a rushed Live 2 in return for a solid dev time and budget for Live 3(or evolution)

I wouldn't say Big Ant rectified RLL1 with an AFL game and one that had good gameplay but crap everything else. What's the criticism for RC3? It's a solid union game that plays well, looks good and has a decent number of game modes which WW added a be a pro mode and the fanhub mode. Bar the stadium creator the improvements from big ant in DBC 14 to DBC 17 are largely the same

Nothing about Live 1s gameplay is complex and any use of the bump or the handball over the head in that game results in your players being open in a tonne of space and a guaranteed 100+point win. It really seems like we've played a very different Live 1 as against the Ai it's ridiculously easy and Live 2 actually has contests around the footy and makes it hard to beat your opponent while in Live 1 if your opponent beats you to the footy you tackle them they cough up the ball (which should be holding the ball but isn't) and your next player picks up the footy and away you go, no contest whatsoever

Not taking others opinions personally just enjoying the debate/discussion (I mean we have nothing else to talk about)
 
Freo16 said:
WW had 6 months working on Live 2 prior to release and then 6 months after that working on the DLC.
Click to expand...

AFL Live 2 was a port of a Wii game that was a port of a mobile game that was a port of a PSP game.

They actually worked on that pile of garbage for many years.
 
Freo16 said:
Not taking others opinions personally just enjoying the debate/discussion (I mean we have nothing else to talk about)
Click to expand...

And that's still bloody annoying about these games, there is a history of revealing very little.... followed by an underwhelming product.

If WW/Tru Blu want people to give this game a fair chance they could do a lot worse then start changing things up now (or at least in the months before release) with a slow drip of information and promotion.
 
Freo16 said:
WW had 6 months working on Live 2 prior to release and then 6 months after that working on the DLC. I don't think WW should be immune from criticism but let's at least acknowledge that WW have never been given the same chance that big ant were on Live 1. It seems that WW are working on the idea of short term pain for long term gain when it comes to Live 2 as they agreed to make a rushed Live 2 in return for a solid dev time and budget for Live 3(or evolution)

I wouldn't say Big Ant rectified RLL1 with an AFL game and one that had good gameplay but crap everything else. What's the criticism for RC3? It's a solid union game that plays well, looks good and has a decent number of game modes which WW added a be a pro mode and the fanhub mode. Bar the stadium creator the improvements from big ant in DBC 14 to DBC 17 are largely the same

Nothing about Live 1s gameplay is complex and any use of the bump or the handball over the head in that game results in your players being open in a tonne of space and a guaranteed 100+point win. It really seems like we've played a very different Live 1 as against the Ai it's ridiculously easy and Live 2 actually has contests around the footy and makes it hard to beat your opponent while in Live 1 if your opponent beats you to the footy you tackle them they cough up the ball (which should be holding the ball but isn't) and your next player picks up the footy and away you go, no contest whatsoever

Not taking others opinions personally just enjoying the debate/discussion (I mean we have nothing else to talk about)
Click to expand...

I have no idea where you got the initial 6 months from. They said it took 12 months right here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=232654510218871&id=207609499390039

It's interesting how you're defending WW tooth and nail, even when you're in the minority insinuating their games are better and advancing quicker than Big Ants. I just don't see your point.
 
Freo16 said:
And does that sounds like it's the kind of development cycle that would help make a good game
Click to expand...

As someone said before, there should be no excuses this time for a poor product. And if I'm following your logic right, Evolution should be leagues ahead of Live 1.
 
EagleCanival said:
But it's not Wicked Witch's fault that they're a smaller company that's willing to work for less.
Click to expand...
It is their fault they accepted the job though. By accepting the job though they are open to any criticism. If you ask a builder to build a house in a day, and they accept but build a house that falls down, it's still their fault for accepting the conditions no matter how difficult.
 
GoldbergsGold said:
I have no idea where you got the initial 6 months from. They said it took 12 months right here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=232654510218871&id=207609499390039

It's interesting how you're defending WW tooth and nail, even when you're in the minority insinuating their games are better and advancing quicker than Big Ants. I just don't see your point.
Click to expand...
Always thought it was 6 months but will admit I was wrong on this one

At no point did I say WW games were better than big ants, all I'm saying is WW haven't had the chances Big Ant have had so maybe before we all sing the praises of big ant we can admit that they've always been in a better position for every project (this may have been because WW accepted the job but if I was in charge of a studio and wanted to make AFL games I'd accept any offer initially and then barter for better terms later on)

No excuses for WW this time though I will honestly admit that
 
SugarShane said:
Ha, nice find :thumbsu: There goes the 6 months myth. So they had 12 months on it, on top of the engine and base already being done on AFL Wii.
Click to expand...
This reminds of one of the reasons why I'm afraid of no one finding the positives of Live 2

AFL Wii had probably the best camera of any AFL game ever (one where you could see downfield ahead of you without the quick turn of the camera when the ball changed hands)

We get to Live 2 and the default camera is side on like Live 1 and even though the Wii camera is in the game (I'm pretty sure) WW felt the need to change the default to try and replicate Live 1

If WW read these opinions that are all positive for Live 1 then we'll end up with a game that isn't the best possible game it's just a Live 1 replica faults and all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Free Agent
AFL Evolution 2 Virtual Reality UEVR Mod
Replies
1
Views
1K
Archer_11
A
PowerfulPies2023
Are there any AFL Football games on devices these days?
Replies
9
Views
2K
m0nty
m0nty
dino_67
A FIFA-style AFL game idea
Replies
2
Views
1K
dino_67
dino_67

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top