Franchise player mainly, should I buy 21 (PS4)?

[acts238shaun]

Besides the fear of losing the smoothness of how 20 plays, I curious what the progression and regression is like (will players ratings nose dive at 26 and 27 when they are in their prime, will prospects progress more than 3 points per attribute a year on avg?).

I'm hearing the game play is still very buggy and I dont want to drop $40 at Gamestop (on sale) for a buggy game.

Thanks for any feedback!

[countryboy]

As purely a franchise player, I would recommend '21 over '20.

I'm not sure what parts of gameplay you're hearing are buggy, aside from the debate on the check swing changes, but the gameplay is very good in '21, and I would venture to say is better than '20, primarily the fielding. (Manual fielding player)

As for franchise, I haven't noticed any drastic differences in progression or regression in regards to '21 versus '20, but I didn't have issues with how it worked in '20 so nothing jumps out to me. I don't recall any player drastically plunging in his "prime" years in my first offseason. Nolan Arenado was either a 97 or 98 rated player when I started my franchise, and he's now a 99 in year two after having a decent/good season. I had guys have good seasons that hung on when I thought they would retire due to age (Yadier Molina for me)

I know others have issues with the trade logic, but I haven't seen anything that sets it back from '20 and aside from a head scratcher or two during the course of the season, and offseason, I thought the trade logic has been fairly good. But I don't go out and try to experiment with trying to obtain star players for prospects, so not sure how the logic works in that regard. I do know that when I acquired Max Scherzer from the Nationals in my first season, the Nats weren't getting cheated on their return.

I do like the extra roster spots (93 per team now) that allows for a few more top end free agents to be signed in the offseason but there needs to be more roster spots. Also the new budget allows for teams to have adequate cash, at least thus far in my experience, to re-sign players they want, sign big deals in the offseason and have money available for roster moves during the season.

On that note of roster moves, its nice to see the CPU sign free agents when needed over the season to avoid playing shorthanded at a given position.

Biggest drawback for me is how quickly the CPU places a young controllable player with good potential on waivers only to see them claimed by another team. It doesn't happen so often it drastically changes the landscape of the rosters/franchise, but it happens enough to be annoying and something I've shared with the SDS team as something to look at.

So yeah, between the improvements to gameplay (fielding most notably) and the steps in the right direction for franchise, I would recommend '21 over '20, but like anything else, there will be varying opinions.

.02

[acts238shaun]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

As purely a franchise player, I would recommend '21 over '20. I'm not sure what parts of gameplay you're hearing are buggy, aside from the debate on the check swing changes, but the gameplay is very good in '21, and I would venture to say is better than '20, primarily the fielding. (Manual fielding player) As for franchise, I haven't noticed any drastic differences in progression or regression in regards to '21 versus '20, but I didn't have issues with how it worked in '20 so nothing jumps out to me. I don't recall any player drastically plunging in his "prime" years in my first offseason. Nolan Arenado was either a 97 or 98 rated player when I started my franchise, and he's now a 99 in year two after having a decent/good season. I had guys have good seasons that hung on when I thought they would retire due to age (Yadier Molina for me) I know others have issues with the trade logic, but I haven't seen anything that sets it back from '20 and aside from a head scratcher or two during the course of the season, and offseason, I thought the trade logic has been fairly good. But I don't go out and try to experiment with trying to obtain star players for prospects, so not sure how the logic works in that regard. I do know that when I acquired Max Scherzer from the Nationals in my first season, the Nats weren't getting cheated on their return. I do like the extra roster spots (93 per team now) that allows for a few more top end free agents to be signed in the offseason but there needs to be more roster spots. Also the new budget allows for teams to have adequate cash, at least thus far in my experience, to re-sign players they want, sign big deals in the offseason and have money available for roster moves during the season. On that note of roster moves, its nice to see the CPU sign free agents when needed over the season to avoid playing shorthanded at a given position. Biggest drawback for me is how quickly the place a young controllable player with good potential on waivers only to see them claimed by another team. It doesn't happen so often it drastically changes the landscape of the rosters/franchise, but it happens enough to be annoying and something I've shared with the SDS team as something to look at. So yeah, between the improvements to gameplay (fielding most notably) and the steps in the right direction for franchise, I would recommend '21 over '20, but like anything else, there will be varying opinions. .02

Thank you!

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by acts238shaun

Thank you!

You're welcome.

One thing I wanted to add in regards to franchise is that for some reason in year 1 (and apparently every 5th year afterwards) after May, or the end of May, the Dodgers, Giants, Angels and Red Sox will play nothing but day games at home.

So if you play as one of those teams, or when you play against those teams, be prepared for that annoyance.

The issue has been brought to SDS attention.

[acts238shaun]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

You're welcome. One thing I wanted to add in regards to franchise is that for some reason in year 1 (and apparently every 5th year afterwards) after May, or the end of May, the Dodgers, Giants, Angels and Red Sox will play nothing but day games at home. So if you play as one of those teams, or when you play against those teams, be prepared for that annoyance. The issue has been brought to SDS attention.

I actually prefer day games 😂

[TexasLeague]

Gameplay is superb. I wouldn’t be concerned with that. I’m running it on a regular PS4 and it’s smooth.

[Funkycorm]

For coming from 20, I personally think that 20 delivers a better franchise mode than 21.

Graphics are great on both 20 and 21, though I can't speak directly about 21 on PS4 as I have it on the PS5.

Why I would take 20 over 21 for franchise is for a few reasons. First, contract logic is better on 20. You don't have players with 1.000 service time happily taking 200k/2 year deals. Morale is gone so that is a mixed bag. It still impacts negotiations in 21 and doesn't impact on field play but it kept contract demands more realistic. You can sign a Juan Soto to a 6 year/$120m deal in his prime at 26 years old and he is ecstatic. Those above are not realistic.

Next, the depth chart screen is not worth it. You can better assess the knowledge it provides on your roster screen as well as the info it provides ignores potential ratings so it is not even accurate.

Trade logic is worse than it has been. Both for user attempted trades and cpu to cpu trades. Keeping the trade slider at max 5 helped this as well as house rules. But again, that should not be needed to be done when it hasn't had to be done in past versions.

I will say that the budget logic is easier to understand because it shows yearly numbers now. But you can no longer trade stubs in for extra franchise budget and while sponsorships are still there to help supplement, it doesn't increase your budget by the huge numbers extra budget did. Essentially it makes your stubs being gained in franchise games useless.

For on the field play, I will say it depends on what settings you use as to what experience you get there. I struggled to find anything that worked for me in my time playing 21 using classic/directional. I will say though that on field play on 20 feels better as a whole to me. Something just felt off about the gameplay on 21.

For the record, I had 100 hours into 21 before I uninstalled it and fully went back to 20 so that is a fair share of time to be able to compare the two games.

If it were someone I knew, I would say if you only care about franchise, either stay with 20 or if you don't own 20, buy 20 for cheap.

I am not bitter about or toward 21, but I am disappointed in 21. And 21 is not without merit. Adding roster spots to 93 helps with some of the free agency issues but you still see players 79 and under overall being ignored in free agency when they would be upgrades. So I would give 21 the edge in this.

To answer the question about progression: It is about the same in 20 vs 21. I will give 21 the slight edge in this but like 20, it is very performance dependent and with both you can have players at 33-34 years old still have growth in categories. It is not enough to sway my opinion of 21 though.

[Caulfield]

I'm a diehard baseball fan so for me it was a no-brainer to go ahead and purchase 21, not disappointed at all. HOWEVER, if you don't already have the absolute itch to buy 21, maybe you'd be better off holding off until one more big price drop. by that time, if a full-blown desire to have 21 still isn't there w/o question, I'd wait until that desire is there

on the flipside, if $ isn't an issue, go ahead and pull the trigger on 21 now.

in any event 20 and 21 are as solid as they come, so good video game baseball can and will be played.
good luck and happy baseball