Thread: how is Kopitar rated in the ea sports nhl game game?

People actually BUY games like this is? Damn...


I'd never BUY a game if I didn't know for SURE it's a very good one and that I'll be playing it for a long time (i.e. Deus Ex)...and with almost all EA Sports games, you NEVER know what you get...NBA-totally ****ed up '04,'05, and '06...NHL...'04 was pretty ****ed up, too...


Go try NHL Eastside Hockey Manager 2007...you don't actually PLAY hockey, you manage it...tactics, trades, contracts at it's best...it doesn't have a 3D engine, but it doesn't need it...

And both Kopitar and JMFJ are rated quite well I think...Kopi: 78, 98, 90, 83 (less games played), and now 56 in 36 games, from 2006/07-2010/11...
JMFJ was in Rookie Season 10-23 for 33 points, after that he was always around 25, last season it'll be more...
O'Sully is a scoring genius...(52 and 50 for 102 points in 09/10)
Pitkänen is GOD (I spent millions of assets to get him, but it was well worth it!).
So is Nittimaky, but I traded him in the deadline, now I have Toivonen, who isn't bad, and Carey Price, who's most likely the new Luongo or sth. like that...

One bad thing: Bernier is quite rubbish...but that's not such big problem...


So that's it...a great game!

Originally Posted by maddenjohn

If you have PC versions of these games you can probably go back a couple years and find updates.... but other than that keep buyin'!

I have NHL 05' for PS2 (yes the lockout year one with Naslund on the front). It's pretty hilarious, on the back all they trump is the "World Cup of Hockey 04'!". I wonder what sales were like for the game that year compared with other years, considering their was a lockout and 0% NHL interest...

thats the newest game i own. Its sucks cause the kings youth isn't on the game.

@Muppet666

I think most of us know of NHL Eastside Hockey Manager 2007. I play it all the time, but I also play NHL 07 for xbox 360. The point is this thread is about EA games and their rating systems.

I don't know what you are talking about, all you have to do is read about the game, play the demo, and watch in-game footage that is posted on like every gaming site around... It is not like we just goto the store and close our eyes and start pointing at random games hoping we get something good. If it is bad, we won't buy it.

Originally Posted by Maverick

@Muppet666

I think most of us know of NHL Eastside Hockey Manager 2007. I play it all the time, but I also play NHL 07 for xbox 360. The point is this thread is about EA games and their rating systems.

I don't know what you are talking about, all you have to do is read about the game, play the demo, and watch in-game footage that is posted on like every gaming site around... It is not like we just goto the store and close our eyes and start pointing at random games hoping we get something good. If it is bad, we won't buy it.

Well...there were quite a lot of games that I liked as demo versions, and then, when I played the full version, I got bored in a few days...and paying 50$+ for few days of mediocre fun...no thank you.

And especially sports simulation games (the ones where you PLAY, not manage...) are the games I will NOT buy...these games are fun for way too short period of time, and therefore not at all worth the money.

Unless the game is on a level of (and has a reputation of), for example, Half-Life 2, I won't buy it. Period.

EVERY sports game has atleast SOMETHING that makes the game ****ty. NHL 04.....you see players getting over 200 points and a team scoring over 9 goals a game. NHL06....gameplay.....WTF was the ****ty goalie thing about?NHL07...... makes al goalies look like cloutier as the opponent does something stupid and it ends up at the back of your net, and the best goalie is someone with a GAA of about 3.1 and a save percentage of .875....honestly this game makes cloutier god!

Originally Posted by MuPPeT666

Well...there were quite a lot of games that I liked as demo versions, and then, when I played the full version, I got bored in a few days...and paying 50$+ for few days of mediocre fun...no thank you.

And especially sports simulation games (the ones where you PLAY, not manage...) are the games I will NOT buy...these games are fun for way too short period of time, and therefore not at all worth the money.

Unless the game is on a level of (and has a reputation of), for example, Half-Life 2, I won't buy it. Period.

Not unless you're part of a league/play online.

I was in Buena Park recently and stopped by new GameStop and reserved NHL 08. The cashier asked if I was a Ducks fan.

Originally Posted by Frolovian

Not unless you're part of a league/play online.

True. I forgot that.

Originally Posted by Frolovian

Nagy should in NO WAY be a 90.

Maximum 88.

Originally Posted by theone

Frolov and Cammy should be 90's Nagy Blake and Lubo too.....Handzus i think should be 85 and Dan the man should be like -32 IMO. Kopitar is 85 and i just got news that Jack Johnson is an 82 which is so and so

The problem w/ EA's player ratings is that they lean heavier on offensive abilities. There aren't as many categories that deliver a boost for the defensive players, that's why Nagy is a 90. I don't think he should be, nor should Frolov and Cammy.
[Cammy was mid-80s (should be high 80s now), Frolov was a bit higher (should be about the same this year) and I had Kopitar at 83 (he was a rookie).]

NHL2k has more categories to rate players. I think EA could add a category for positioning, shot blocking, anything to boost the defensive awareness of a player. Hell, how about backchecking and forechecking categories? Then we can avoid the whole Nagy-as-a-90 sort of thing.

As for the point of the thread, Kopitar at 83-84 is fine. He still tears it up... and it isn't much of a challenge if you just boost those 3 to the nineties (and blake shouldn't be rated in the 90s anymore).