05 vs 06

[alijk1989]

I have no doubt in my mind that rugby 06 is a lot better than its predecessor. However i had a quick look at 05 the other day and i jus think that the interface is much easier to use. For example for ps2 users if we chose to replace a player in squad management and he plays say centre then it takes minutes of tapping on the down arrow to reach him. However on 05 u just simply had to hold it down and it would whizz to your chosen player.

 

[Bullitt]

Well, the R06 discussions have finally started scraping the barrell...

 

[The TRUTH]

Originally posted by Teh Mite@Apr 22 2006, 11:05 PM
Well, the R06 discussions have finally started scraping the barrell...

Bout time , i guess they'll have to talk about real rugby now...

 

[alijk1989]

Can i Just say go f*** yourselfs you bunch of wankers I have tried to make a valid comment and all you do is make 2 critical posts which are unnecessary and irrelevant. If you dont like my post, simply just dont reply no need to be critical you f***ing dicks.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Well I don't like the cover-art myself.

We could always have a discussion about that...

 

[harrison2468]

Originally posted by alijk1989@Apr 22 2006, 03:42 PM
Can i Just say go f*** yourselfs you bunch of wankers I have tried to make a valid comment and all you do is make 2 critical posts which are unnecessary and irrelevant. If you dont like my post, simply just dont reply no need to be critical you f***ing dicks.

I think that is a fair enough comment. Teh Mite's posts are becoming predictable, in that they are sarcastic and don't really add anything. No point really being a twat to a new member for not doing anything wrong really.

The whole replacing player is annoying in 06, but if you put the stats screen on the right side, rather than their faces, it speeds things up.

The cover-art for 06 is amazing. The best FH in the world, and the best winger and centre in the world, makes a good cover IMO.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

I don't really care, was just being facisious.

 

[harrison2468]

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby@Apr 22 2006, 07:03 PM
I don't really care, was just being facisious.

h34r:

:unsure:

I didn't relise, sorry for dignifying it with a response. Howevere, maybe I should question your taste in this instance, and ask you why the cover isn't to your liking?

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by harrison2468+Apr 22 2006, 08:10 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-SaintsFan_Webby

@Apr 22 2006, 07:03 PM
I don't really care, was just being facisious.

h34r:

:unsure:

I didn't relise, sorry for dignifying it with a response. Howevere, maybe I should question your taste in this instance, and ask you why the cover isn't to your liking? [/b]

Only one of the players deserves to make it onto a game cover.




And it's not Gavin Henson.




Or Mark 'Done f*** all this season' Cueto.

 

[PeeJay]

Actually, Gavin Henson has just as much right to be on the cover as Dan Carter, mainly because he's just such a recognisable face. His presence there is likely to earn EA Sports thousands of pounds in sales, unlike Mark Cueto, who hardly anyone knows. I must say I didn't recognise him when I first saw the game cover. If they wanted an Englishman on the cover, why didn't they put Big Lawrence or someone on there?

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by PeeJay@Apr 22 2006, 08:27 PM
If they wanted an Englishman on the cover, why didn't they put Big Lawrence or someone on there?

Not enough room.

They could have chosen anyone vaguely recognisable. Lewsey, Corry, Hodgson, anyone.

Even Thompson warrants a place more than Cueto, at least people know who he is.

 

[Bullitt]

Proberbly wanted too much money. That or it's because he was on the cover of WCR.

 

[PeeJay]

Lewsey would have been a good choice if he wasn't already on the cover of Rugby Challenge 2006

 

[Bullitt]

Again though he's not aw well known (in the mainstream) as the Wilkinsons, DL's and Dawsons of this world. Saying that, neither is Carter.

Oh, and Harrison, f*** off.

 

[DC]

teh mite is probably still hamered like last nite..

 

[Black-Monday]

At least it was better than last years cover, I only knew who Betsen's and D'arcy's faces were a couple of weeks ago.

I dare say Dan Carter is popular in NZ and Henson is a recognisable face.

So they only really needed Mark Cueto as some to model those high hits they like so much

 

[harrison2468]

Originally posted by Teh Mite@Apr 22 2006, 07:37 PM
Oh, and Harrison, f*** off.

You put a k on the end *****.

 

[kaftka]

Originally posted by PeeJay@Apr 23 2006, 07:27 AM
Actually, Gavin Henson has just as much right to be on the cover as Dan Carter, mainly because he's just such a recognisable face. His presence there is likely to earn EA Sports thousands of pounds in sales,

You're dreaming.

It would've cost EA $12million just to get Henson to sign the bit of paper... They would have had to pay him $17million for each photo they took of him.

...And for every game they sold, it would've cost them 70% of the profit.




Don't give me that ****.

 

[PeeJay]

Originally posted by kaftka@Apr 23 2006, 04:31 AM
It would've cost EA $12million just to get Henson to sign the bit of paper... They would have had to pay him $17million for each photo they took of him.

...And for every game they sold, it would've cost them 70% of the profit.

Where do you get this **** from? Sure, Henson's a money-grabbing pretty-boy, but I seriously doubt that he would charge EA $17 million PER PHOTO. As for it costing them 70% of the profit, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

[I cant think of a username]

Originally posted by PeeJay+Apr 23 2006, 12:45 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-kaftka

@Apr 23 2006, 04:31 AM
It would've cost EA $12million just to get Henson to sign the bit of paper... They would have had to pay him $17million for each photo they took of him.

...And for every game they sold, it would've cost them 70% of the profit.

Where do you get this **** from? Sure, Henson's a money-grabbing pretty-boy, but I seriously doubt that he would charge EA $17 million PER PHOTO. As for it costing them 70% of the profit, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. [/b]

Am, I think he was being sarcastic