I have said this in a few other posts as well, so I agree. In my opinion, the EA games have outlasted all others because it was the closest representation to the real game of hockey. The skill stick sealed the deal with that and ironically not having to use it anymore for all the dekes is part of what makes this years game feel more arcade.
They seemed to have picked the newer/younger crowd as their target audience and went hard in that direction which I’m ok with, but like it’s been said over and over again, give us some options.
The rest of the gameplay changes all seemed to be used to combat the online meta, which is fine, but no real world hockey thinking went into it and it was simply “how can we fix this problem, even if it makes no sense in real hockey. ”
Who knows, maybe it’s even the NHL wants them to go in order to market their product a certain way and that’s why plays like the Michigan and hip checks are done with that push of a button.
@Beauts90 wrote:
They seemed to have picked the newer/younger crowd as their target audience and went hard in that direction which I’m ok with, but like it’s been said over and over again, give us some options.
”
Who knows, maybe it’s even the NHL wants them to go in order to market their product a certain way and that’s why plays like the Michigan and hip checks are done with that push of a button.
But that is what doesn't make sense - why would the NHL want the video game to have an abundance of things that don't happen often in the real game? Doesn't that set them up for failure as far as attracting new fans?
Like I said, if this "newer/younger" person is mainly interested in hockey for the Michigans and the hip checks, they are going to be very disappointed if they watch a game on TV or go to one, as the odds of them seeing a Michigan goal or a Hip Check are VERY small. Do these people really exist? How could you be even mildly interested in a sport if the only things you like about it happen twice a year?
If someone (a "kid" especially, with limited income) has enough of an interest in hockey to spend 60 dollars on a video game version of it, I would think they would want it to resemble the actual sport somewhat. There are THOUSANDS of other video games to buy - why would someone buy a hockey game if they aren't interested in hockey? If you don't like hockey you can buy other sports games, you can buy COD, GTA, Elden Ring, Halo, or a thousand other games that aren't hockey.
I don't like Golf and have never bought a golf video game, and I also wouldn't expect a golf simulation to have one button hole-in-ones or something to entice people that don't like golf. It doesn't make any sense.
@Jagavekov wrote:why would someone buy a hockey game if they aren't interested in hockey?
I played hockey video games for over 10 years before I ever watched a real game. It's the difference between doing a thing (sort of) and watching someone else do it.
@Sega82mega wrote:
@blackbolt666
But why did you choose just hockey and not something else?
How was the step going from video game to a real game?
Whats your relation with hockey today?
The first hockey video games I played were Nintendo Ice Hockey and Blades of Steel. All I knew about hockey at the time was hit people and put the puck in the net and it was fun to do. As far as how I started watching hockey goes, I was bored one day and saw that there was a game on so I decided to give it a try. It was Pittsburgh's last game of the season in 2008 and then I watched the playoffs that year. I still watch a few games a week during the season and at least one game a night during the playoffs. I don't really keep track of the standings or player stats because my memory for those kinds of things isn't so great but I enjoy watching the games. I also like to play football video games but could never get into watching football on TV.
