MLB '12: The Show Review (PS3)

[CujoMatty]

It seems to me the solution to games feeling stale or boring doesn't actually lie in the gameplay side at all. Everything the show does, gameplay wise is really good. Reinventing the wheel, as people say isn't nescessary, because like the review says the game of baseball stays the same and the show represents the game of baseball really well. I think it's obvious at this point that what needs to change from year to year is presentation and commentary. Give us new commentary, better presentation elements and the game would feel fresh. Why did I stop playing last years the show? Not cause it wasn't awesome but because I saw the same thing for 200 games. And outta those 200 games I saw alot from the year before. That's the rub and I personally feel the show, nba2k, and the NHL series have all suffered because of it this year.

[Mister Magnus]

Can anyone tell me if they made improvements to Rivalry mode since Show '10? My buddy and I had a great time setting up and playing multi-game Cubs/Sox series but it lacked a few things, such as a functioning calendar to gauge fatigue, roster moves, the ability to choose ballparks other than the two home stadiums, etc.

Is Rivalry mode still in the game?

[Pared]

Quote: Originally Posted by cujomatty

That's the rub and I personally feel the show, nba2k, and the NHL series have all suffered because of it this year.

This is an interesting take. Some would say these games have the best presentation out there for any sports game.

I'm not sure they can do much else with the time they have. You can't revamp an entire presentation every single year - this is proven as much by the major networks not doing it themselves.

Why should we hold video game developers to such a high standard in this aspect if the national media do not follow the same path? Should a maker completely start from scratch each year only to hold the attention span of gamers for 3-5 months?

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

This is an interesting take. Some would say these games have the best presentation out there for any sports game. I'm not sure they can do much else with the time they have. You can't revamp an entire presentation every single year - this is proven as much by the major networks not doing it themselves. Why should we hold video game developers to such a high standard in this aspect if the national media do not follow the same path? Should a maker completely start from scratch each year only to hold the attention span of gamers for 3-5 months?

DEFINITELY NOT.

M.K.
Knight165

[DickDalewood]

Quote: Originally Posted by cujomatty

It seems to me the solution to games feeling stale or boring doesn't actually lie in the gameplay side at all. Everything the show does, gameplay wise is really good. Reinventing the wheel, as people say isn't nescessary, because like the review says the game of baseball stays the same and the show represents the game of baseball really well. I think it's obvious at this point that what needs to change from year to year is presentation and commentary. Give us new commentary, better presentation elements and the game would feel fresh. Why did I stop playing last years the show? Not cause it wasn't awesome but because I saw the same thing for 200 games. And outta those 200 games I saw alot from the year before. That's the rub and I personally feel the show, nba2k, and the NHL series have all suffered because of it this year.

It would in no way be realistic or feasible for companies to completely revamp presentation and commentary every single year.

[thevaliantx]

.... and it would in no way be unrealistic to ask these companies to (add to) or at least change up the commentary / cut scenes each year. The games are growing stale. While I do not agree that MLB 12: The Show is realistic at its core -- I think many confuse realistic ball bounce physics for realistic game play -- it's the lack of presentation that is driving folks away or landing this product on the shelf after a couple of days or weeks. As for me, I would be able to get through a season if JUST two things happened:

(1) game play was realistic: I should be able to pitch balls that are on the edges of the strikezone, and see a variable number of batters take or swing at the pitches, depending on their ratings.

(2) one pitch mode was implemented. I don't want to sit through 2 hours of gameplay. I have other things to do in my life. OOTP (Out Of The Park) for PC implements this perfectly. The reason you have so many fans in the stands in real life on their cell phones or talking about anyting other than the game is because it takes WAY TOO LONG to get through a game. MLB: The Show is no different, it's like watching paint dry. It would be less noticeable if there were more strategy involved, as in batters taking more pitches or pitchers's accuracy truly depending on their ratings.

[PsychoBulk]

Quote: Originally Posted by thevaliantx

While I do not agree that MLB 12: The Show is realistic at its core

I would think you are in a very tiny minority with that opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I should be able to pitch balls that are on the edges of the strikezone, and see a variable number of batters take or swing at the pitches, depending on their ratings.

I see that all the time, with lots of variance.

Maybe, just maybe, some of these "issues" people experience are caused by the way the user plays the game, not the game itself.

Quote: Originally Posted by thevaliantx

(2) one pitch mode was implemented. I don't want to sit through 2 hours of gameplay. I have other things to do in my life. OOTP (Out Of The Park) for PC implements this perfectly. The reason you have so many fans in the stands in real life on their cell phones or talking about anyting other than the game is because it takes WAY TOO LONG to get through a game. MLB: The Show is no different, it's like watching paint dry. It would be less noticeable if there were more strategy involved, as in batters taking more pitches or pitchers's accuracy truly depending on their ratings.

Fast forward some innings if you want to speed it up.

The Show captures the lovely slow pace that baseball is meant to be played at, its why 99% of us love it.

If you want wham bam thankyou mam baseball then this isnt the game for you, maybe try The Bigs.

[thevaliantx]

Quote: Originally Posted by PsychoBulk

I would think you are in a very tiny minority with that opinion. I see that all the time, with lots of variance. Maybe, just maybe, some of these "issues" people experience are caused by the way the user plays the game, not the game itself. Fast forward some innings if you want to speed it up. The Show captures the lovely slow pace that baseball is meant to be played at, its why 99% of us love it. If you want wham bam thankyou mam baseball then this isnt the game for you, maybe try The Bigs.

Please,. enough with the "you're in the minority" rhetoric. If you don't agree, fine, but you don't speak on behalf of everyone else. You think you do, but you don't. If you think that 1-pitch mode is for gamers who don't care about realism, then you need to take a look at OOTP. It's perfectly possible to implement 1-pitch mode without taking the realism out of the game. Rather than poo poo on what I was suggesting, such as recommending that I play the Bigs if I don't want to sit through every pitch, or fast forwarding innings if I don't want to play an entire game, try reading what I wrote. I'll bet you that within the next two iterations of The Show that 1-pitch mode is implemented for us Manage-Only-Mode gamers. ;-)