Rugby 06 First Trailer!!

[kinkon89]

they'll chuck a fifa and keep on adding on their franchise...

rugby games are going the right way

 

[knowsleyroader]

Originally posted by davidson@Dec 14 2005, 11:00 PM
am i the only person who actually liked 2005 and still plays it?
its really not too bad in my opinion and for the first REAL attampt in the franchise, i was impressed. i dont think it needed an overhaul or anything drastic, and i think the new tweaks could push the game up a level and make it a great game.

I still play it from time to time.

 

[stan_stan]

me and my mates still play it

 

[lecdg2]

I'm still playing A LOT rugby 2005 because it's far better than WRC.

I can't believe what i've been reading on this topic. How can you say that rugby 2006 trailer is bad and the RC2006 'one is good???? is it just because rugby 2006 is made by EA???

Yes, the graphic of rugby 2006 are not a lot better than his sequel , but, what about RC2006 one?

I'll buy both game , but we have to be honnest , if we have to judge these games just seeing the trailers then Rugby2006 might be the winner...

 

[jimmy44]

I also play rugby 2005, even on single player. Single player does get a bit monotonous but so do most games if you play them non stop! The game definitely lacks responsiveness and is way too easy, but if they tweaked these two factors alone then its a great game. I recon people are being harsh about rugby 2005 I think its a huge step forwards and I have really enjoyed playing it. £30 well spent

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by davidson@Dec 14 2005, 10:00 PM
am i the only person who actually liked 2005 and still plays it?
its really not too bad in my opinion and for the first REAL attampt in the franchise, i was impressed. i dont think it needed an overhaul or anything drastic, and i think the new tweaks could push the game up a level and make it a great game.

I'm not so sure.
It needs a REAL franchise, World League was terrible and useless.
It needs a proper Lions tour
It needs an overhaul of the animation system so that you aren't constantly losing control of the players
It needs completely reworked ball physics
It needs offloads (thankfully they have now arrived)
It needs a more realistic rucking system
It needs steps and palms that WORK

I think Rugby 2005 needs a fair bit done to it personally.

 

[lazy_chesnut]

I think the main reason that Rugby 2005 gets monotonous is the possession balance. By that, I mean that I can play against the All Blacks, and have 80 per cent possession, and not be making any ground or scoring opportunities.

The CPU gets the ball and seems to kick and lose the ball so easily. It is too easy to smash the fly half and make the CPU lose ground, and eventually they kick the ball away.

Constantly attacking and having no defending to do is boring, especially when the attacking play is so 1-dimensional. The only useful attacks are in using the set-plays, and we don't control them.

When defending, it rarely gets past one pass before you knack the opposition player.

They need to sort out the AI so that attacking opportunities are created more often with clever play, and also so that good, well-organised defense can shut them down.

This would make the game realistic.

 

[jimmy44]

Originally posted by lazy_chesnut@Dec 15 2005, 02:00 AM
I think the main reason that Rugby 2005 gets monotonous is the possession balance. By that, I mean that I can play against the All Blacks, and have 80 per cent possession, and not be making any ground or scoring opportunities.

The CPU gets the ball and seems to kick and lose the ball so easily. It is too easy to smash the fly half and make the CPU lose ground, and eventually they kick the ball away.

Constantly attacking and having no defending to do is boring, especially when the attacking play is so 1-dimensional. The only useful attacks are in using the set-plays, and we don't control them.

When defending, it rarely gets past one pass before you knack the opposition player.

They need to sort out the AI so that attacking opportunities are created more often with clever play, and also so that good, well-organised defense can shut them down.

This would make the game realistic.

Agreed with these points - I also think there should be more break tackles in the middle of the line and around the fringes of the ruck to make attacking less one dimensional.

 

[knowsleyroader]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 15 2005, 01:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 15 2005, 01:54 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-davidson

@Dec 14 2005, 10:00 PM
am i the only person who actually liked 2005 and still plays it?
its really not too bad in my opinion and for the first REAL attampt in the franchise, i was impressed. i dont think it needed an overhaul or anything drastic, and i think the new tweaks could push the game up a level and make it a great game.

I'm not so sure.
It needs a REAL franchise, World League was terrible and useless.
It needs a proper Lions tour
It needs an overhaul of the animation system so that you aren't constantly losing control of the players
It needs completely reworked ball physics
It needs offloads (thankfully they have now arrived)
It needs a more realistic rucking system
It needs steps and palms that WORK

I think Rugby 2005 needs a fair bit done to it personally. [/b]

Agreed with all those things. The fact is though there is a solid engine to work with and if all those things were implemented we should be left with a pretty playable game and look forward to a great future of EA rugby games.

 

[jimmy44]

The terrible truth is I enjoy the build up to these rugby games more than actually playing them! With all the dreams and anticipation of what the game could be like, the end result is usually a disappointment

 

[Mr. Laxative]

Has anyone actually noticed that Wendell is still in the starting line-up? Geeze EA stick with the times!

 

[jimmy44]

Originally posted by Jacko@Dec 15 2005, 10:38 AM
Has anyone actually noticed that Wendell is still in the starting line-up? Geeze EA stick with the times!

He played against Wales in Australia's last match so its that out of date??

 

[sambãd5]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 15 2005, 02:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 15 2005, 02:54 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-davidson

@Dec 14 2005, 10:00 PM
am i the only person who actually liked 2005 and still plays it?
its really not too bad in my opinion and for the first REAL attampt in the franchise, i was impressed. i dont think it needed an overhaul or anything drastic, and i think the new tweaks could push the game up a level and make it a great game.

I'm not so sure.
It needs a REAL franchise, World League was terrible and useless.
It needs a proper Lions tour
It needs an overhaul of the animation system so that you aren't constantly losing control of the players
It needs completely reworked ball physics
It needs offloads (thankfully they have now arrived)
It needs a more realistic rucking system
It needs steps and palms that WORK

I think Rugby 2005 needs a fair bit done to it personally. [/b]

when you think in the grand spectrum of things, this isnt that much. half of which has been identified from the website.

 

[lazy_chesnut]

All that they have confirmed that they have done from that list is offloads, which sanzar identified.

My prediction for this game is that people will be raving about it for a week, tops, until people realise it's Rugby 2005.5. And Rugby 2005 was Rugby 2004.5, so it makes this one about Rugby 2005. They are a year behind where they should have been.

Last yera all they did from 04 was improve the graphics, if we're being honest.

The set plays were gash.
The line-outs were exactly the same.
The punt kicking was exactly the same.
The tackle-breaking was exactly the same.
The ball physics were exactly the same.
The grubbers were exactly the same.
The goal-kicking was exactly the same.
The World League was exactly the same.
The player database was near enough exactly the same.
The fend animations were mostly exactly the same.
The mauls were exactly the same.
The rucks were exactly the same.
The scrums were exactly the same.
The responsiveness was worse.
The pack AI was exactly the same.

I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far. That was, and still is great fun to play.

It had:
Fair rucks
Fair scrums
Much better lineouts where you could either catch or tap the ball
Better AI
Better responsiveness
I needn't go on.

It's about time EA and HB sorted themselves out. They released Cricket 2005 which was practically identical to Cricket 2004.

I can't believe that they have released Cricket 2005 and Rugby 2005 which use the same game engines as their predecessors. From the look of that new trailer, not enough has been changed to earn the sales they think they warrant.

I hope the same thing happens in the Swordfish/HB Studios battle in the Rugby that happened with the Cricket games. BLIC is far better than Cricket 2006. I think the sales reflected this.

Also, I think people care about having their views heard. The fact that Swordfish have people that post on these boards is commendable. With BLIC they had a Codemasters rep. called RubberGenius providing updates about the progress of the game, and I think it really helped.

That's enough from me.

 

[NZL Fan]

Originally posted by lazy_chesnut@Dec 16 2005, 02:09 AM
I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far. That was, and still is great fun to play.

I think gamers have really missed out on getting a decent rugby game when EA went with HB studios, instead of carrying on with Creative assembly...........

Rugby 2001 had the bones of a very good game - even more remarkable because rugby 2001 was changed from a PS1 game to a playstation 2 game during the very final stages of development.

Since rugby 2001 was produced rugby games have struggled to gain that same fluency of open play (running and passing), and have not had that "pick up and play" ability that rugby 2001 offered.

Todays rugby games tend to concentrate on the intricacies of the sport, rather then getting the core gameplay right.

 

[knowsleyroader]

Originally posted by Ride The Cliche+Dec 16 2005, 07:40 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ride The Cliche @ Dec 16 2005, 07:40 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-lazy_chesnut

@Dec 16 2005, 02:09 AM
I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far.  That was, and still is great fun to play.

I think gamers have really missed out on getting a decent rugby game when EA went with HB studios, instead of carrying on with Creative assembly...........

Rugby 2001 had the bones of a very good game - even more remarkable because rugby 2001 was changed from a PS1 game to a playstation 2 game during the very final stages of development.

Since rugby 2001 was produced rugby games have struggled to gain that same fluency of open play (running and passing), and have not had that "pick up and play" ability that rugby 2001 offered.

Todays rugby games tend to concentrate on the intricacies of the sport, rather then getting the core gameplay right. [/b]

with Creative Assembly I think we would now have the definitive rugby ***le and would have probably had it for some time.

Very good team which was proven with both Rugby 2001 which showed promice and also ARL 96 which I played to death. Nothing fancy but playability in adundance.

 

[ALLBLACKS]

Originally posted by lazy_chesnut@Dec 16 2005, 02:09 AM
All that they have confirmed that they have done from that list is offloads, which sanzar identified.

My prediction for this game is that people will be raving about it for a week, tops, until people realise it's Rugby 2005.5. And Rugby 2005 was Rugby 2004.5, so it makes this one about Rugby 2005. They are a year behind where they should have been.

Last yera all they did from 04 was improve the graphics, if we're being honest.

The set plays were gash.
The line-outs were exactly the same.
The punt kicking was exactly the same.
The tackle-breaking was exactly the same.
The ball physics were exactly the same.
The grubbers were exactly the same.
The goal-kicking was exactly the same.
The World League was exactly the same.
The player database was near enough exactly the same.
The fend animations were mostly exactly the same.
The mauls were exactly the same.
The rucks were exactly the same.
The scrums were exactly the same.
The responsiveness was worse.
The pack AI was exactly the same.

I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far. That was, and still is great fun to play.

It had:
Fair rucks
Fair scrums
Much better lineouts where you could either catch or tap the ball
Better AI
Better responsiveness
I needn't go on.

It's about time EA and HB sorted themselves out. They released Cricket 2005 which was practically identical to Cricket 2004.

I can't believe that they have released Cricket 2005 and Rugby 2005 which use the same game engines as their predecessors. From the look of that new trailer, not enough has been changed to earn the sales they think they warrant.

I hope the same thing happens in the Swordfish/HB Studios battle in the Rugby that happened with the Cricket games. BLIC is far better than Cricket 2006. I think the sales reflected this.

Also, I think people care about having their views heard. The fact that Swordfish have people that post on these boards is commendable. With BLIC they had a Codemasters rep. called RubberGenius providing updates about the progress of the game, and I think it really helped.

That's enough from me.

I own 2004 and 2005 both still, and I would like you to go play 2004 as soon as you read this then 2005, You will see a huge difference. I am not saying 2005 is a great Rugby game though, It is although still enjoyable.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by ALLBLACKS@Dec 16 2005, 09:54 PM
I own 2004 and 2005 both still, and I would like you to go play 2004 as soon as you read this then 2005, You will see a huge difference. I am not saying 2005 is a great Rugby game though, It is although still enjoyable.

I would agree with that.

Rugby 2004 was gash, but Rugby 2005 must be an improvement due to the fact that I still have it and don't want to snap the CD every time I see it.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by knowsleyroader+Dec 17 2005, 07:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (knowsleyroader @ Dec 17 2005, 07:06 AM)</div>

Originally posted by Ride The Cliche@Dec 16 2005, 07:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-lazy_chesnut

@Dec 16 2005, 02:09 AM
I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far.  That was, and still is great fun to play.

I think gamers have really missed out on getting a decent rugby game when EA went with HB studios, instead of carrying on with Creative assembly...........

Rugby 2001 had the bones of a very good game - even more remarkable because rugby 2001 was changed from a PS1 game to a playstation 2 game during the very final stages of development.

Since rugby 2001 was produced rugby games have struggled to gain that same fluency of open play (running and passing), and have not had that "pick up and play" ability that rugby 2001 offered.

Todays rugby games tend to concentrate on the intricacies of the sport, rather then getting the core gameplay right.

with Creative Assembly I think we would now have the definitive rugby ***le and would have probably had it for some time.

Very good team which was proven with both Rugby 2001 which showed promice and also ARL 96 which I played to death. Nothing fancy but playability in adundance. [/b]

Absolutely agree with this. Rugby 2001 was an early PS2 game and the first real shot at rugby in a while, but it was dam fun to play and had all the foundations in place for a great game! It's just such a shame the series had to go to HB, because ultimately it sent the series backwards...
I definately played Rugby 2001 more than 2004 and 2005 togeather, and that says a lot.

 

[kaftka]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 17 2005, 01:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 17 2005, 01:18 PM)</div>

Originally posted by knowsleyroader@Dec 17 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Ride The Cliche@Dec 16 2005, 07:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-lazy_chesnut

@Dec 16 2005, 02:09 AM
I still think that Rugby 2001 was the best in the EA series so far.  That was, and still is great fun to play.

I think gamers have really missed out on getting a decent rugby game when EA went with HB studios, instead of carrying on with Creative assembly...........

Rugby 2001 had the bones of a very good game - even more remarkable because rugby 2001 was changed from a PS1 game to a playstation 2 game during the very final stages of development.

Since rugby 2001 was produced rugby games have struggled to gain that same fluency of open play (running and passing), and have not had that "pick up and play" ability that rugby 2001 offered.

Todays rugby games tend to concentrate on the intricacies of the sport, rather then getting the core gameplay right.

with Creative Assembly I think we would now have the definitive rugby ***le and would have probably had it for some time.

Very good team which was proven with both Rugby 2001 which showed promice and also ARL 96 which I played to death. Nothing fancy but playability in adundance.

Absolutely agree with this. Rugby 2001 was an early PS2 game and the first real shot at rugby in a while, but it was dam fun to play and had all the foundations in place for a great game! It's just such a shame the series had to go to HB, because ultimately it sent the series backwards...
I definately played Rugby 2001 more than 2004 and 2005 togeather, and that says a lot. [/b]

And, on top of that, look at what CA have done since then! Take the Total War series! Look at how they have created something like that and just improved and improved. When you look at their website you can just tell that they enjoy sports as well, and on top of that, they seem to be a good humoured, down to earth bunch as well...

What have HB got?