Wales v New Zealand Videos

[Sallad Tobar]

I have no problem with the graphics.... for us it is a huge step in the right direction.
I`m Happy with the haka, not perfect but better than what I was expecting (Richie McCaw).
Commentry while very robotic and disapointing (knowing that Mexted is way better in reality) doesn`t bother me aslong as the gameplay is good.

WHAT BOTHERS ME HOWEVER.... is the fact that I have seen alot of disgusting gameplay flaws in the few video snippets that i have seen.

1.
KICKING - lets face it, its a shocker..... looks absolutely sh*t. In Rugby League (sidhe) and in Rugby 2001 (creative assembly) you could make huge accurate punts and it felt worth while to clear the ball or kick it deep into the opponents half. I still can`t believe that HB studios didn`t fix Rugby 2004 and Rugby 2005's kicking game. Not only is it unrealistic, its pathetic.... looks like a 12 year old could kick further in real life than the fly halfs.

2.
RUNNING/QUICK BALL -
* Backlines don`t run smoothly, they are receiving the ball flat footed.
* Quick Ball does not exist as:
a.) The forwards are very slow to the breakdown, as they are jogging real slow - none of the them, including the flankers are even trying to run faster.
b.) The backs are even slower to get into position so even if quick ball is ready you can`t make use of it
c.) The half-back will make dumbass wild passes if the backline is not in the exact set position to receive the pass.

WHAT WOULD BE IDEAL/BETTER SOLUTION - is that if the backline is trailing a bit behind, the half back should make a long deep pass for the backline to run fast on to..... this would mean that the quickball could be utilised and that the backline can have the space and running momentum to pull effective moves and dazzling plays, making a much faster southern hemisphere style game.

 

[maddog79]

im not that fussed about kicking - i mean sure its a bummer but i play more of a running game so it doesn't really matter to me that much. although if you are more of a kicking person (which i know is important in union) u may be a bit tiffed off. Looks great otherwise though

 

[Hypnotised]

Kicking is pretty important, And does look pretty bad seeing that footage, although on a positive note perhaps we can actually release the kick this time round instead of being tackled (or bumped into as it looked like) and forcing the knock on every time...

 

[jimmy44]

I may be wrong, but it could be that Locks isn't using the analogue stick to increase the distance of kicks - like 2004

 

[Handsomebob]

Originally posted by Sallad Tobar@Feb 7 2005, 06:50 PM
I have no problem with the graphics.... for us it is a huge step in the right direction.
I`m Happy with the haka, not perfect but better than what I was expecting (Richie McCaw).
Commentry while very robotic and disapointing (knowing that Mexted is way better in reality) doesn`t bother me aslong as the gameplay is good.

WHAT BOTHERS ME HOWEVER.... is the fact that I have seen alot of disgusting gameplay flaws in the few video snippets that i have seen.

1.
KICKING - lets face it, its a shocker..... looks absolutely sh*t. In Rugby League (sidhe) and in Rugby 2001 (creative assembly) you could make huge accurate punts and it felt worth while to clear the ball or kick it deep into the opponents half. I still can`t believe that HB studios didn`t fix Rugby 2004 and Rugby 2005's kicking game. Not only is it unrealistic, its pathetic.... looks like a 12 year old could kick further in real life than the fly halfs.

2.
RUNNING/QUICK BALL -
* Backlines don`t run smoothly, they are receiving the ball flat footed.
* Quick Ball does not exist as:
a.) The forwards are very slow to the breakdown, as they are jogging real slow - none of the them, including the flankers are even trying to run faster.
b.) The backs are even slower to get into position so even if quick ball is ready you can`t make use of it
c.) The half-back will make dumbass wild passes if the backline is not in the exact set position to receive the pass.

WHAT WOULD BE IDEAL/BETTER SOLUTION - is that if the backline is trailing a bit behind, the half back should make a long deep pass for the backline to run fast on to..... this would mean that the quickball could be utilised and that the backline can have the space and running momentum to pull effective moves and dazzling plays, making a much faster southern hemisphere style game.

Don't you think that a small video is far from being enough to give an opinion about the GAMEPLAY as you haven't even played the game. I read many post being picky about this game but nobody played it except Locksley and if i remember correctly, he really liked what he saw and felt playing rugby 2005.

My point is : We all know that the look and feel of a video is far from the actual gaming experience provided by the fact of playing a rugby game. we've all played rugby 2004. Even if it was slow , ugly, dodgy and unsatisfying , we played the damn game.
Looking at the videos of rugby 2005, i'm pretty excited because it looks better, faster deeper and more accurate.........
will it be enough for me to have FUN (i guess that's da point when playing a game) i don't know for sure that it will be so but i'll sure have more fun than i had with the infamous rugby 2004.

Will this game be the flawless rugby game id'like to play...........well i don't think so but there are no flawless games, you can always be frustrated with some particular areas of a game ( even Madden or PES4 can get frustrating at times and they are both top notch franchise you should buy with your eyes close).

Let's just wait for that demo and then we'll be able to pass jugements.

 

[Handsomebob]

Have you noticed :

The button icons on each of the NZ backs on the touch + set play vidéo.

seems to me that on a set play, players will run preset "routes" but you get to choose who you pass the ball to. This means you can run a play in many different fashion.

if this is actually the case, it looks like a great improvement from rugby 2004.

Locksley , any comments on that topic ??? can you confirm ???
(thanks anyway)

 

[jimmy44]

I'd be happy if:

1. the 'hard' difficuly level was a real challenge but not impossible! I've heard its almost impossible to score until you use a 'special' trick for passing and running. Then it becomes incredibly easy and you can beat everyone by 50 points. WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!

2. The kicking game(punts,upand unders etc) are playable. I'm worried about the short distance of punts.

The camera angles also seems to be a realy downer - I wish there was an Above 2 like in 2004 - however i can get used to classic 2.

If the above are ok then I'd be very happy.

 

[captainamerica]

Originally posted by Sallad Tobar@Feb 7 2005, 06:50 PM
1.
KICKING - lets face it, its a shocker..... looks absolutely sh*t. In Rugby League (sidhe) and in Rugby 2001 (creative assembly) you could make huge accurate punts and it felt worth while to clear the ball or kick it deep into the opponents half. I still can`t believe that HB studios didn`t fix Rugby 2004 and Rugby 2005's kicking game. Not only is it unrealistic, its pathetic.... looks like a 12 year old could kick further in real life than the fly halfs.

I was trying to listen to the commentary with regards to who was actually kicking for New Zealand. I think in the first gamefootage (ends with them going into touch before the lineout which begins the 2nd gamefootage), it sounds as though it's Howlett (or possibly Jimmy Cowan????) punting it to about halfway. It's not too bad of a kick considering he was well inside his own 22, but still.

A good point is that it looks like Stephen Jones goes for a drop goal just inside the Kiwi half. It goes askew but I applaud the attempt (if it was an attempt) by the AI (an early score against the All Blacks is always nice).

The second All Black punt, well, the commentator says, "Somerville as the decoy" and goes to someone who looks like they've got double-digits on the back of their jersey. Any ideas?

Obviously none of the Kiwi punts went to first-choice kickers, which might explain the lack of distance/control.

So, the jury is still out for me on the kicking (though it's not looking brilliant) until we get to see some proper fly-halfs (with boots) hoofing the ball. Locks, if you've got the full-version, would you mind creating Naas Botha and getting us a few hoof clips where he puts it out of the stadium?

 

[locksley]

Originally posted by jimmy44@Feb 8 2005, 04:05 AM
I'd be happy if:


2. The kicking game(punts,upand unders etc) are playable. I'm worried about the short distance of punts.

The camera angles also seems to be a realy downer - I wish there was an Above 2 like in 2004 - however i can get used to classic 2.

If the above are ok then I'd be very happy.

1. the 'hard' difficuly level was a real challenge but not impossible! I've heard its almost impossible to score until you use a 'special' trick for passing and running. Then it becomes incredibly easy and you can beat everyone by 50 points. WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!

Hmmmmm, do I know you personally?

 

[C A Iversen]

There are some really cryptic things being said by those in the know, (read above), but anyone who has the full version keeps saying things that sound as though the kicking is crap and there are massive flaws in the gameplay once you really have played it a bit.
There has only been rampant praise from these sources for the game and now these unclear hints that it's not as good as we were first told.

Who agrees we should ask for a new review from anyone with the full copy?
Their first opinions have been made redundant by their seconds!

 

[captainamerica]

Originally posted by C A Iversen@Feb 8 2005, 11:33 AM
Who agrees we should ask for a new review from anyone with the full copy?
Their first opinions have been made redundant by their seconds!

Either that, or we can wait until the game is out and play it for ourselves.

Locks, while you're here, Pacific Islanders -- they in?

Cheers.

 

[ak47]

Originally posted by C A Iversen@Feb 8 2005, 11:33 AM
There are some really cryptic things being said by those in the know, (read above), but anyone who has the full version keeps saying things that sound as though the kicking is crap and there are massive flaws in the gameplay once you really have played it a bit.
There has only been rampant praise from these sources for the game and now these unclear hints that it's not as good as we were first told.

Who agrees we should ask for a new review from anyone with the full copy?
Their first opinions have been made redundant by their seconds!

couldnt agree more iverson

we need a new preview and/or source

coz locks has now come across issues, which were oblivious at first play/glance

maybe locks/knowsley can post a full review of the final version

 

[locksley]

Originally posted by ak47+Feb 8 2005, 11:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ak47 @ Feb 8 2005, 11:56 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-C A Iversen

@Feb 8 2005, 11:33 AM
There are some really cryptic things being said by those in the know, (read above), but anyone who has the full version keeps saying things that sound as though the kicking is crap and there are massive flaws in the gameplay once you really have played it a bit.
There has only been rampant praise from these sources for the game and now these unclear hints that it's not as good as we were first told.

Who agrees we should ask for a new review from anyone with the full copy?
Their first opinions have been made redundant by their seconds!

couldnt agree more iverson

we need a new preview and/or source

coz locks has now come across issues, which were oblivious at first play/glance

maybe locks/knowsley can post a full review of the final version [/b]

Your wish is my command!

Pinned at the top, My review of the full game!

 

[lemon]

Not that it matters in a gameplay sense, but that commentary is vomit! Hahahaha.

Ah well... looking forward to the game though.