If You're Mad About the Graphics in MLB The Show 25, Blame It on the Switch

[tessl]

Anybody upset about the graphics in MLB the Show didn't grow up when I did.

You had to point the antenna at whatever city the station was in just in case you might be able to get a watchable signal. Then you had to adjust vertical hold and horizontal. The tv was black and white.

When I was a youngster I thought there were only two football teams. The one in the light uniform and the one in the dark uniform.

I also still have a copy of mico league baseball on a 5 1/4 floppy disc.

My only complaint about graphics is one I have yet to see telling me I just won the world series.

[MiracleMet718]

I also find it funny that a game like EAFCs graphics aren’t exactly great and are hidden by a solid lighting system, but nobody complains about it because the game is so bad now that there is so much else to fix. I guess it’s a good thing if people are complaining about the graphics because it means the game is solid already.

[laguna_bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by metovics8

For the most part I agree but for me, The Show already does play well and the graphics (I think the game looks really good) are it's weakest area imo The game modes could use more polish/depth but I love where it's at now compared to where I think they can go with graphics Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

The biggest thing I think that could go a LONG way is better lighting. Proper ray tracing and more atmospheric weather can make just about ANY model look better.

People often say that every screenshot of the game looks like MLB The Show (insert previous year here) each year. They're not entirely wrong, but they're not entirely right either. Yes, graphics definitely need to take a bigger leap forward, especially now that support for last-gen consoles has been dropped. Fingers crossed (but without too much hopium) that it happens next year, especially with the release of the newer Switch. What screenshots fail to capture is how the game’s lighting improves—albeit with baby steps—with each or every other installment.

The sunsets in 24, for example, look much warmer and more cinematic compared to previous years.

Below is 23 at Angel Stadium in August @ 7:00 pm with cloudy skies
MLB23Sunset.jpg

Below is 24 with the exact same conditions
MLB24Sunset.jpg

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cold Snap

I have to remind people of this every year. This pic is about ten years old. It only gets more true with time. I don't care if The Show looks like Baseball Stars on NES or Triple Play Baseball on PS1. Does the game play well?

Polygon count isn't really what drives how good a game can look. Textures and various other effects out there can take very low polygon models and make them look lifelike.

If people are fine with the graphics, that's fine, I don't know why OS(and society in general) feel like you have to pick sides and dig your heels in with everything in life. For many here I am sure that like myself you grew up playing 2D games, so I get why people say the game looks good enough after playing games 20+ years ago. However, from an objective standpoint, the game is very dated graphically.

You may not care about or even know what the differences between things like bump, normal, and displacement maps are. You may not know what PBR textures do and how much they can improve the look of assets without changing any of the topology of the object. That's fine. But, if we're going to look at this series objectively and compare it to where modern gaming is graphically speaking, The Show is simply behind the times.

I don't know if it is because of The Switch or because of engine limitations. Considering the game has not improved drastically since even the PS3 days I'd assume it is either an engine or resources issue, but I can only speculate. As a consumer it doesn't really matter. Objectively the game is dated graphically. If that matters to you, you're justified in thinking that way. If you couldn't care less, you're also justified. There's no reason this forum needs to devolve like the rest of society and act like having differing opinions means you are enemies.

[metovics8]

Quote: Originally Posted by laguna_bob

The biggest thing I think that could go a LONG way is better lighting. Proper ray tracing and more atmospheric weather can make just about ANY model look better. People often say that every screenshot of the game looks like MLB The Show (insert previous year here) each year. They're not entirely wrong, but they're not entirely right either. Yes, graphics definitely need to take a bigger leap forward, especially now that support for last-gen consoles has been dropped. Fingers crossed (but without too much hopium) that it happens next year, especially with the release of the newer Switch. What screenshots fail to capture is how the game’s lighting improves—albeit with baby steps—with each or every other installment. The sunsets in 24, for example, look much warmer and more cinematic compared to previous years. Below is 23 at Angel Stadium in August @ 7:00 pm with cloudy skies Attachment 218250 Below is 24 with the exact same conditions Attachment 218251

100% I think the field and player models/animations could be improved but 24 looks great and plays even better

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[breakfastcat]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

Polygon count isn't really what drives how good a game can look. Textures and various other effects out there can take very low polygon models and make them look lifelike. If people are fine with the graphics, that's fine, I don't know why OS(and society in general) feel like you have to pick sides and dig your heels in with everything in life. For many here I am sure that like myself you grew up playing 2D games, so I get why people say the game looks good enough after playing games 20+ years ago. However, from an objective standpoint, the game is very dated graphically. You may not care about or even know what the differences between things like bump, normal, and displacement maps are. You may not know what PBR textures do and how much they can improve the look of assets without changing any of the topology of the object. That's fine. But, if we're going to look at this series objectively and compare it to where modern gaming is graphically speaking, The Show is simply behind the times. I don't know if it is because of The Switch or because of engine limitations. Considering the game has not improved drastically since even the PS3 days I'd assume it is either an engine or resources issue, but I can only speculate. As a consumer it doesn't really matter. Objectively the game is dated graphically. If that matters to you, you're justified in thinking that way. If you couldn't care less, you're also justified. There's no reason this forum needs to devolve like the rest of society and act like having differing opinions means you are enemies.

The Show definitely has room to improve graphically, but where I think the visuals are mostly let down is the art direction. Subpar graphics can absolutely be made up for with good art direction but I find The Show's art to be very clinical and sterile. Say what you want about Madden and 2k but the lighting and animations in those games are good at selling a sense of drama and atmosphere. I don't get that same sense from The Show.

[jkra0512]

All I'm saying is I want to see what improvements could be made IF we didn't need to keep pulling along older consoles. Like, what is this console capable of? I'm not discrediting the current graphics, I grew up in the 80's and 90's, I know what 8-bit is all about. But, I just want to what this console is capable of.