BobDylan

I haven't touched single player yet, but multiplayer is a nightmare. It's just a game of getting to the highest ground and camping out. The aim-assist is so heavy that anyone can hop on and tear the room apart. I guess that makes it 'noob friendly,' but I prefer to earn my kills by aiming instead of pressing the L1 button and letting the game engine do it for me. I guess I'll still play it, but as soon as MAG comes out, MWF2 is getting buried deep in the shelves. Too bad MAG got delayed, otherwise I could be playing that right now. I guess the beta will suffice.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:07 AM) This game is simply amazing. Online is sick so far, but the PSN just went down so it's campaign time. It's a firmware update.

If you're not into multiplayer, you're probably not going to find much enjoyment out of the PS3 or 360. Gamers are so coddled in single player modes these days that the games are barely worth playing. Games like Arkham Asylum, Drake's Fortune... they are ridiculously easy and the only real replay value is finding scattered 'goodies' around the levels that earn you a worthless trophy. While those games are fun for a bit, they're the games I trade in later for something that is heavy in multiplayer, like Killzone and MWF2. It's all about the multiplayer these days. I wish single player modes would make a comeback because it can be just as fun as multiplayer. The only real challenge I've found is in Demon's Souls. But I do love me some multiplayer, so I can live with the coddled single player modes if it means I'll get badass online games like Socom, COD, Killzone, MAG, etc.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 6, 2009 -> 07:26 PM) The MW2 multiplayer is supposed to be seriously flawed. No dedicated servers, everything is P2P (huge host advantage), hosts can drop/rage-quit causing the game to be delayed while it is shifted to another player, no modding, no server variables, no custom maps, no kicking cheaters/hackers, no console, only 18 players max... That's no different from COD4. In fact, it's a bit of an improvement. I don't recall any console game allowing custom maps and modding (except Unreal Tournament III). But I imagine you're talking about the PC version. Why does anyone care about how many people can play in a match though?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 6, 2009 -> 07:16 PM) My biggest problem is that I don't have 8 hours a day to play online an hone my skills so it's real hard for me to hold my own online with these obsessive gamers so I lose interest quick. Find a clan that knows how to highlight what you're good at and you won't need to put 8 hours a day into the game. Take our Killzone clan for example. We had two players that could compete with anyone. The rest were role players and understood that they needed to let the killers do their thing while they sat back and funneled players, did the objectives, etc. Meanwhile, the killers understood that they needed to get in the thick of it and take the grunt off everyone else. You might not be the 'star' this way, but when you play with people who are willing to play together, it reflects in your K/D ratio. We managed to go undefeated playing Warzone with lesser 'talent' and would beat up on the K/D stars and one vs. one players no matter which guys we threw in there. Even won a few games down a player or two. (We beat the #1 clan down a player, and the #11 clan down two players in a five player match.) Teamwork goes a long way, and if you're not a cock about it when you beat somebody, the 16 year old's won't call you a loser.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 08:44 PM) btw 1 I was up 45-10, if you don't belive me I guess winning the restarted game 87-13 won't have you believe me either 2. the 1 game I almost did lose, I never had the urge to restart 3. if you think injuries are a reason (only other reason I can think of) explain why Ty Hill and Chris Johnson have had bad injuries this year, 4. if you guys want to question my integrity because it is bulls*** that I am the 1st to be called out on restarts, then I will f***ing leave this league. I don't think he's calling you out for cheating, but Steve should probably shut his ass on this one with his week 4 restart. I see 3 restarts total and don't have any reason to believe that anyone cheated. (One of them was a human vs. human game that got DQ'd before we even got past the controller selection screen.) Disconnects happen. If the restart numbers start to get out of hand somewhere, then something should be said. Until then, we need to cool the engine down a bit here and start figuring out how we're going to beat each other in the playoffs.

Use the forums?

Here we go: http://soxtalkmadden.info

63 - 14 drubbing of Carolina. That felt good.

Haha, if you deem any of these unfair, nix 'em. Is there any demand for me to set up a forum for us? This thread is pretty cluttered.

I pulled the Gamble deal back, was wondering about this one: C N. Mangold (94) TE J. Kleinsasser (75) Vikings: C E. Heitmann (81) CB M. Trufant (88)

Can I get an answer on my trade offers before we sim to the next week?

I pulled back the trade for Gamble, but want to run this one across: (I believe this and Gore would be my last trades...) C N. Mangold (94) TE J. Kleinsasser (75) Vikings: C E. Heitmann (81) CB M. Trufant (88) ?

There is also a league message board for us there and various other worthwhile tools.

I figured out how to pull trades back... Go to easportsworld.com Log in with your PS3 account. Pull down the football tab in the navbar, select Madden 10/Online Franchise Select SoxTalk in the left hand toolbar. Select trades in the left hand toolbar. Click on one of the trades. Hit the big ass reject button.

Do trades need to be posted here and approved? I offered two more up, not really thinking about it at the time. The first one doesn't fit the rules I'm seeing... FB J. Johnson (74) RT D. Woody (85) for CB C. Gamble (87) The other one was to Baltimore... RG S. Andrews (91) HB K. Faulk (75) for HB F. Gore (91) RG A. Hicks (70)

Also, the commish needs to override my trade for that CB.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 10:51 PM) Regardless, this is going to approach stupid if people just keep making deals. Should probably just limit the number of trades per team per season. Some other ground rules should probably be set, also, to keep the league running smooth. Like a sim schedule for one. Every PS sports league like this I am in always fails eventually (more so sooner rather than later) because nobody ever knows when the f*** to play. I can set up a forum if it'll help us get more organized.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) Id rather if you wanted Rivers you trade one of your players who was rated higher. You then could trade Cassel for a player to replace that player. ie Wilfork for Rivers Cassel for a DT rated 81 or so Its not a huge deal though, do we even have draft picks? The other trade I proposed for Rivers was put through. Lechler for S. Jackson wasn't though. Is it possible to sign free agents?

I actually don't see any option to trade draft picks. But if my trade of Shane Lechler for Steven Jackson is approved, I'll be a happy camper.

What about draft picks? Could I do something like Cassel (83) + Rnd 3 for Phillip Rivers (89)?

QUOTE (kev211 @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 06:27 PM) Why did you choose that team as your team then? I didn't look at the rosters when I picked them. I just went with my favorite team.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 07:06 PM) You could downgrade at another position too, but are Cassel's ratings really that bad? Did you not see how many throws he airmailed? One out of every four passes was bad. Not to mention he can't throw to anyone but a wide open receiver because he doesn't place the ball well - if you breathe on of my receivers, they'll drop it. Pile on top of that, my running back is crap, my best receiver is 33 and not very good. The only two players worth a damn on my team are Wilfork and Olshansky. Everyone else is either old or just plain s***ty.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) Bob, As you started after the draft you are allowed to propose trades and we will generally approve them as long as they arent lower players for better players. My guess is Tye Hill has that many sacks and that some one has been blitzing their nickel corner off the edge a lot. What's the point of trading if you can't get better players? I mean, what am I going to do? Trade Matt Cassel for Joe Flacco? There's nothing worthwhile in a trade like that. There has to be a better rule stipulation than that - especially since I'm assuming finances are turned on. I mean, my best player is the f***ing punter.

So what's the deal on trading? I came after the draft and I have a QB who can't throw to his receivers and a bunch of receivers that can't catch.