MLB 2K11 Demo Impressions Roundtable

[ryan36]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jayhawker

First, he admits that the shortened game probably affected that, just like everybody else that has played the demo. And if it was an actual concern, it still doesn't relate to this notion that 2K is a casual game. It would just be a broken element in a bad game. But no one believes that to be the case, including Sanner, since he dismissed it in the same sentence. He also claimed, and then dismissed the idea that hitting was kind of easy. But he admitted that bumping the difficulty would probably fix that, which has already been shown by folks that figured out how to play it on Hard. But his first and third paragraph were not about the demo at all. It was just him waxing on about how The show is overwhelming for the casual fan, but they may really appreciate 2K's casual style. It was a complete hatchet job, regardless of his motivations. It wasn't about the demo. It was about a need to call 2K a casual game, and The Show a more serious game. We never saw comments about 2K's game being casual until VC rolled out new ways to differentiate players and keep rating accurate in close to real time. Suddenly 2K is a casual game becasue it got more realistic? Sanner's take was not just poor, but it was disingenuous. He didn't support his backhanded attack on 2K with anything.

I said last year that 2k was a casual game. I think it's a mindshift over time from 2k7-2k9 where they were just obviously not sim in nearly any respect. Last year was a well-done game, that I think a casual fan , or someone who is looking for a new take on baseball gaming enjoyed.

I personally am not making the claim that this year's offering is less sim. I didn't see that claim made. It is more sim than last year. Everyone wants to tell the difference between players, hardcore OR casual.

I do not think however if you had to put 2k into a category "simulation" would be it. At least last year's. For my definition of "sim," it has to do with gameplay, trade AI , simulation engine, progression, etc...

None of which anyone has seen in action. I reserve judgement on the "simness" of 2k11. I refer to how hard people tried and tried to get 2k10 to be sim as an indication many gamers didn't think it was last year.

[jeffy777]

Quote: Originally Posted by ryan36

Well 2k10 was a HUGE step. I really do think they spent this cycle perfecting 2k10- that's why there's no huge game changing features...those things you mentioned still frustrate me. They do an EXCELLENT job in some areas...it is a very unique , fun game. The things that detract from the way they do certain things bug me...(all the meters , flashes, etc. for one) I think this will be a better title than 2k10. But 2k10 not having errors didn't bug me, lol. The progression was not an issue because I'd never get to free agency...I'd play 1 , 2,3 games at a time or so. That's probably similar to how I'll play 2k11. It's not a day 1 purchase for me

I hear you on the meters and flashes.....But really all the recent baseball video games have arcadey looking meters. And for me personally if that's the most annoying part of the game, I'll be pretty happy. I'm glad VC/2K focused on gameplay first over graphics and visuals.

As for there being no huge game changing features, I'd say the new fielding, Dynamic player ratings, and reoccurring/nagging injuries are all pretty big.

Would it have been nice if VC had given the graphics and visuals a big overhaul this year? Sure, but if they could only focus on gameplay or visuals, I'd take gameplay every time.

[BA2929]

Quote: Originally Posted by ryan36

And if the game really is weighted that way -that the AI treats the 3rd like ninth- why aren't closers coming in for the 3rd?

Brian Wilson came in for the Giants in a few games against me in the 3rd.

[The Gamer]

I think its pretty interesting the thought that if you play the 2k series that you're not as hardcore, diehard baseball fan as those who play the Show. I'd be troubled to find a more ridiculous thought process.

[jeffy777]

Quote: Originally Posted by ryan36

I do not think however if you had to put 2k into a category "simulation" would be it. At least last year's. For my definition of "sim," it has to do with gameplay, trade AI , simulation engine, progression, etc... None of which anyone has seen in action. I reserve judgement on the "simness" of 2k11. I refer to how hard people tried and tried to get 2k10 to be sim as an indication many gamers didn't think it was last year.

I'm not sure how much time you put in to 2K10, but I played 6 seasons of My Player, and the results were pretty sim, especially the hitting. For me, it had the best hitter vs. pitcher battles that I've seen in a baseball game (and I've played them all)....and the AI pitching was quite realistic (if you turn the pitch speed up). The fielding in My Player was pretty good too because it didnt have the assist that regular modes did. The simulation engine wasn't too bad either, though not perfect. But overall, I certainly get a decent sim experience from 2K10, and with changes I've seen in 2K11, it's looking and feeling like it will be even more sim this year.

[SoxFan01605]

Not the deepest roundtable IMO...I didn't feel like anything was added to the discussions that have already taken place in the demo impressions (and honestly, I felt this lacked some of the detail some guys provided there as well).

That said, I don't know that there is one specific thing you can point to that makes 2K11 feel better than 2K10, so maybe that's part of it. What I mean is, that the improvements in each area aren't overwhelming on their own, but FINALLY when I play the demo, the sum of it's parts seem to add up to baseball a lot more accurately than previous years (albeit based on a small and incomplete sample). For me at least, that's about as good a sign as any that VC has gotten things turned around (or at the very least, are well on their way) as previous games felt less cohesive.

As for the whom 2K caters too thing, I can kind of see how one would think the way it was brought up in the article, though I disagree with the conclusion. The "casual game" comment about 2K is nothing new and the game has more of a "loose" feel to it than it's competition. I don't think "hardcore baseball" vs "casual baseball" is the disconnect though. I thinks it's more in line with the type of experience you're looking for from a video game and how each game approaches drawing people in.

I think as a video game, 2K plays at a faster, more action-oriented clip. I hesitate to label it "arcade" because it's not an over-the-top caricature of the sport like an NBA Jam or The Bigs. It has not to this point, however, been presented as a strong sim, but more a "pick up and play" experience. Now, that's not to say it can't be a good simulation experience, and I feel with many of the fixes for 2K11, we might see just that (and even in 2K10, with some tweaking, you could get a solid base going). It has certainly made a steady move back in that direction over the last few years.

2K baseball engages you through it's control scheme in a way that can draw you in on it's own merits. It plays more like a video game first, baseball second. Again, that's not to say it can't or doesn't represent the sport (and it's also not to say that certain baseball aspects like stat tracking or scouting, for example, aren't better represented)...just that it's appeal isn't primarily how the sport is represented, but how you, as a gamer/baseball fan, interact with it.

The gripe people usually have with The Show is that it plays at a slower, more deliberate pace. It tries to get your attention as a baseball fan first and not so much by how you interact with it. A lot of it's features are designed to immerse you in the details and nuance of the sport rather than create excitement through a secondary experience or via control scheme. It's kind of like it's operating under the premise of the sport being the draw, when 2K/VC's focus appears to be trying to draw the user to the sport. One could fairly argue a good case for either approach (innovation vs consistency; control vs derivation, etc), but that's kind of the point-it's not really about one being better suited to "hardcore" baseball fans than the other as that's 100% subjective. It's more about the differences in how the games each attempt to draw in their respective fans.

[thundergatti]

Quote: Originally Posted by ryan36

I said last year that 2k was a casual game. I think it's a mindshift over time from 2k7-2k9 where they were just obviously not sim in nearly any respect. Last year was a well-done game, that I think a casual fan , or someone who is looking for a new take on baseball gaming enjoyed. I personally am not making the claim that this year's offering is less sim. I didn't see that claim made. It is more sim than last year. Everyone wants to tell the difference between players, hardcore OR casual. I do not think however if you had to put 2k into a category "simulation" would be it. At least last year's. For my definition of "sim," it has to do with gameplay, trade AI , simulation engine, progression, etc... None of which anyone has seen in action. I reserve judgement on the "simness" of 2k11. I refer to how hard people tried and tried to get 2k10 to be sim as an indication many gamers didn't think it was last year.

I'm beginning to think that, just like politics, the voices at the extremes have commandeered and have come to dominate the discussion.

There are partisans on both sides, professing their cause is more "sim." In my opinion, however, as long as both games have ball "physics" that regularly lead to outside fastballs being pulled for HRs, or inside pitches blasted and skied for opposite field HRs, "more sim" is basically a self-appointed title without any real substance.

[jeffy777]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoxFan01605

Not the deepest roundtable IMO...I didn't feel like anything was added to the discussions that have already taken place in the demo impressions (and honestly, I felt this lacked some of the detail some guys provided there as well). That said, I don't know that there is one specific thing you can point to that makes 2K11 feel better than 2K10, so maybe that's part of it. What I mean is, that the improvements in each area aren't overwhelming on their own, but FINALLY when I play the demo, the sum of it's parts seem to add up to baseball a lot more accurately than previous years (albeit based on a small and incomplete sample). For me at least, that's about as good a sign as any that VC has gotten things turned around (or at the very least, are well on their way) as previous games felt less cohesive. As for the whom 2K caters too thing, I can kind of see how one would think the way it was brought up in the article, though I disagree with the conclusion. The "casual game" comment about 2K is nothing new and the game has more of a "loose" feel to it than it's competition. I don't think "hardcore baseball" vs "casual baseball" is the disconnect though. I thinks it's more in line with the type of experience you're looking for from a video game and how each game approaches drawing people in. I think as a video game, 2K plays at a faster, more action-oriented clip. I hesitate to label it "arcade" because it's not an over-the-top caricature of the sport like an NBA Jam or The Bigs. It has not to this point, however, been presented as a strong sim, but more a "pick up and play" experience. Now, that's not to say it can't be a good simulation experience, and I feel with many of the fixes for 2K11, we might see just that (and even in 2K10, with some tweaking, you could get a solid base going). It has certainly made a steady move back in that direction over the last few years. 2K baseball engages you through it's control scheme in a way that can draw you in on it's own merits. It plays more like a video game first, baseball second. Again, that's not to say it can't or doesn't represent the sport (and it's also not to say that certain baseball aspects like stat tracking or scouting, for example, aren't better represented)...just that it's appeal isn't primarily how the sport is represented, but how you, as a gamer/baseball fan, interact with it. The gripe people usually have with The Show is that it plays at a slower, more deliberate pace. It tries to get your attention as a baseball fan first and not so much by how you interact with it. A lot of it's features are designed to immerse you in the details and nuance of the sport rather than create excitement through a secondary experience or via control scheme. It's kind of like it's operating under the premise of the sport being the draw, when 2K/VC's focus appears to be trying to draw the user to the sport. One could fairly argue a good case for either approach (innovation vs consistency; control vs derivation, etc), but that's kind of the point-it's not really about one being better suited to "hardcore" baseball fans than the other as that's 100% subjective. It's more about the differences in how the games each attempt to draw in their respective fans.

Good post man.