Quote:
Originally Posted by kckid4u
Action! PC Football gives the most accurate stats you'll find in any football game. If you replayed a whole season you'll find each player performed like they did in real life. It is closer to real life than FOF by a mile. (By your statements, I think it's safe to say you have never owned Action! PC Football.)
|
Wow. Actually, I have bought it several times, including the time I got it as a review copy for a (now-defunct) game review website. But hey, thanks for assuming!
If by "accurate stats" you mean that the game is really close on yards per carry and receptions and so on, yes, I agree that it is. It's not so close at all on tackles and stuffs and yard per carry differential by line position, but we won't talk about those mom's-basement stats, I guess. I mean, really... who cares about defense? It's only half the game!
It should also be mentioned that FOF is the kind of game that throws so many variables into the mix that it's not going to be that statistically accurate (if, again, by accuracy you mean "regurgitates the league-season in such a way that if you look at the numbers from the league and from profootballreference.com you will not be able to tell which is which"). I'm sure that roogames football thing is very statistically accurate as well. Actually, the roogames football thing is probably much more accurate statistically speaking than PC Action Football because it uses a simpler interface.
Of course, by these same standards, APBA is far more accurate than OOTP. In OOTP you can load the Lahman database and run it and Barry Bonds could get hurt or just lose it as a player and hit 4 homeruns instead of 73. Whereas in APBA, he'll hit an average of 73 homers every time you replay his season.
Accuracy <> realism. Give me realism over accuracy any day of the week.
Quote:
|
Plus, with FOF, you can't even play games head to head. You basically just sim out games hoping the computer coach calls the game like you tried to set it up. (And it hardly ever does.)
|
Wow. And now who hasn't played the game. You can't play out games head to head but you can play out games solo in FOF. I don't like the way the AI works in FOF solo coaching but yes, you can definitely play it out.
Quote:
|
There's no skill envolved at all. What kind of challenge is there with FOF? None.
|
I can't believe that I am defending FOF, but... it's not altogether easy to play at all. Players are rated in many, many more skills than "number of receptions" and "yards per catch", which tends to make scouting harder. Since I prefer looking back on, let's say, Steve Largent's hands and ability to run routes despite his relative lack of speed rather than his number of receptions and yards per catch, I will take the FOF way of doing things any day of the week.
Quote:
I'm in a few Action PC leagues and was in 2 FOF leagues, now down to one. I'll be ending my FOF league here after 1 more game, cause franckly, FOF is a crappy game to use for online leagues. Not even close to being as much fun as a Action PC League.
To sum up, there's only one thing FOF does better than Action PC Football, and that is it has a built in career mode, where as with Action PC, you need to buy the next season, unless you are willing to create players to use in a draft. (Which I'd be willing to do to be able to use a far better game.)
|
Yeah, I can't even compare the complexity of FOF to Action PC. FOF is a decent-looking game with a couple of fatal flaws that keep me from getting it. Action PC is... roughly the same depth as Avalon Hill's Statis Pro Football. Which is interesting in its own way but not even remotely comparable as a text-based GM sim to OOTP or FOF or FM or Eastside Hockey Manager or Total Pro Basketball or probably the wrestling games that Grey Dog puts out.
Action PC Football might be better for online play. Call of Duty 4 is better for online play than OOTP is too.