News Post

MLB '08: The Show Review

01:41 PM - March 12, 2008 by RaychelSnr

We have just posted our MLB '08: The Show review, written by Matt Gagnon.

Quote:


	I don't think I'm alone when I say that barring a few examples, sports titles for the latest crop of consoles haven't exactly blown our socks off. It always seems as if there's some glaring problem that holds a game back. We've rarely experienced a complete title that makes us appreciate the new technology we've invested so much into. That is, until MLB 08: The Show for the PS3 hit store shelves this month.

Game: MLB '08: The ShowReader Score: 8.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS2 / PS3 / PSPVotes for game: 97 - View All

Member Comments

# 21 mattyg @ 03/15/08 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	Reviewers are not doing whats in the best interest of gamers by pumping out reviews that blatantly neglect areas of the game...In fact..I don't even like scores because its all based on one man's opinion...Your 8.5 could be a 5.5 to me...Who's to say either of us are right or wrong??? All this being said..I still love THE SHOW but lets all support the fact that Online Play among other aspects of next gen sports games must be addressed.

Shoddy online was brought up 3 times; Once in the body, once in the conclusion and finally in the "Negatives". Every time it was mentioned, it got hit for being laggy. So online play was not "neglected" and the review is not "misleading."

If someone out there loves online play and their only intention was to play online, then I'd hope they would've read the portion about online play, saw that it wasn't refined, and passed on the game until it was fixed.

# 22 Knight165 @ 03/15/08 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	IMO you can't score...or should I say...you shouldn't score a game as high as THE SHOW when a major portion of the game is unreliable and poorly constructed...Now please try to tell me ONLINE play is not important...Whether someone plays online or not the IMPORTANCE of online play for all games CANNOT be denied. So just like the reviewer has an opinion...So do I...I simply don't agree with the score...he mentions poor online play but where is the accountability for it in the score??? This review is a prime example of why gaming companies will not make any changes for the better regarding online play for the forseeable near future...Grading out as a strong B while neglecting a major portion of the game will not promote any changes. If I'm a producer I'm thinking...Our reviews are great despite our subpar online play...No need to change it, right??? A review...any review...should be constructed from the standpoint that the reviewer values every aspect of the game equally or at least sets a criteria where even areas that may not be of great interest to the reviewer are still judged with the same level of importance as those areas that are important to the reviewer.

OldSchool.

I understand where you are coming from...that each portion of the game should work...and properly...but I think you might be overestimating just how important online play really is .....and to how many people find it so important.
Yes... A LOT of people like to play online. That's a given.
But...if you tell people..."this is a great game...except the online sucks"
......and you tell them..." this game not so great...but the online is tremendous" Which game do you think most people will get? Seriously.
I'm a big fan of manage only mode. I think any game that doesn't have it takes a HUGE hit towards the "final score"...but that's for me.
Others understand it......and might like to try it.....but if it comes down to the game being great...but the manage only mode is subpar....they wouldn't think twice about not getting the game because of it.

I've played MAYBE 3 games online...in ALL the baseball games I've played.
I'm sure there are others here that haven't played the game outside season/franchise. I've heard you call that "BOOOORING".......so then you must realize that just like you don't look at some things as important in the game....others don't find your "essential" items to be as important as you do.
I'm just trying to break it to you nicely.

M.K.
Knight165

# 23 Knight165 @ 03/15/08 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	When we talk about next gen consoles...what are the areas of a next gen console that are MOST IMPORTANT???..Would anyone dare say ONLINE Connectivity isn't #1 or #2???

To whom?
To the guy who is playing Battlefield?....or a like game that was pretty much constructed FOR online play?

Or to the guy playing The Show?....in which I can POSITIVELY say the game was not and hopefully never will be constructed as online play as it's most important element. I can pretty confidently say that franchise/season play is the most important thing to the majority of The Shows gamers and that review is weighted that way.

Most baseball gamers are looking for the long haul of the season.....the stats....the movement of players.....having to figure out who to plug in where when someone goes down for the season.

An online game for most Show players is a diversion. Maybe an extremely fun one....but probably not an essential one...and that's what I'm getting at.
I don't believe that the reviewer deducted even a fraction of a point for poor online play.......is he wrong in doing that?...probably....but I'll bet most of the guys who give their "score" here on O.S.(the O.S. members) never even thought about that either.
....so he is probably in line with the majority of guys here.

M.K.
Knight165

# 24 SoxChamp @ 03/15/08 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	To whom? To the guy who is playing Battlefield?....or a like game that was pretty much constructed FOR online play? Or to the guy playing The Show?....in which I can POSITIVELY say the game was not and hopefully never will be constructed as online play as it's most important element. I can pretty confidently say that franchise/season play is the most important thing to the majority of The Shows gamers and that review is weighted that way. Most baseball gamers are looking for the long haul of the season.....the stats....the movement of players.....having to figure out who to plug in where when someone goes down for the season.

I agree 100000%. To give this game a 6.5 instead of a 9 solely based on online play problems would mean that nearly 1/3 of the review was based on online play, which is ridiculous. While I understand that LOTS of people enjoy playing online, online play should not, and hopefully never will be, the meat and potatoes of any sports game. Like Knight said, it's about the long road. The season. The stats. The players. The AI. The GAMEPLAY. And the review should be graded on that curve. If the reviewer was reviewing Warhawk...a strictly online game...then the score should be adjusted accordingly. But The Show does so many other things so incredibly well that to drop the score 30% just because of some online problems would be absolutely silly.

# 25 Millennium @ 03/15/08 08:22 PM

Great review. Tha game is bar none the best baseball game to date, and will end up being a strong contender for Sports Game Of The Year.

Regarding online - I was having issues with online first as well. Since I have taken a few steps to maintain my network (static IP on my PS3, opened some ports in my router, SCEA's online maintenance), I have had lag free games online.

Solid 9 game, period.

# 26 mattyg @ 03/15/08 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	I don't believe that the reviewer deducted even a fraction of a point for poor online play.......is he wrong in doing that?...probably....but I'll bet most of the guys who give their "score" here on O.S.(the O.S. members) never even thought about that either. ....so he is probably in line with the majority of guys here. M.K. Knight165

The scale is tough because it's .5 intervals. If I had my druthers it would've went from a 9 to like a 8.7 or something for online play, but the game is too good in regards to everything else to degrade it from a 9 to an 8.5. Maybe that's just rounding up and being generous, but the game deserves recognition as a quality title...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim416


	Well, if reviews aren't important to you, no offense, but, what's the beef? Online is messed up for you. So you want the score to be, I dunno, 6.5 and that changes things? Not being smart in tone with this, as I understand your unhappiness with the online situation, but there's much more to this game than online. You say you don't value the review, but don't like the score. You don't value reviews, can't understand the score. Want the score lower, but reviews don't mean anything. You're angry at the online situation, understood, but you're sort of all over the place here.

LOL, glad I'm not the only person befuddled by that. Like I said if you favor online play and you read the review and saw bad online play, you have a reason to pass on the game. But if you don't read reviews when it comes to buying games I guess I don't get what the issue is. Ironically if you had waited for this review you could've seen the negatives regarding online play and you could've saved $60, even if the score was a 9 or 6.5.

I think it's misguided to think all companies look solely at Meta reviews to see how their product is doing. We don't know why online is lacking for The Show. Maybe it's something that can be fixed. Who knows? But it's silly to give the game a 6.5 instead of a 9 because of online play, only to watch Sony-SD patch the game down the road and have it play great. Now that 6.5 is an unfair score.

# 27 mattyg @ 03/15/08 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	Matty, In your opinion who benefits most from the score any game receives from a reviewer? Gamers or Game Producers???

Reviews are written for the gamers, not to stroke the egos of gaming companies. If their game gets a warranted positive score and that makes them happy, good for them. If not for reviews, someone curious about the title might not know how great RTTS is or how that online play is sketchy. But this review wasn't written to appease anybody and to imply so is flat out wrong.

On the one hand you're saying reviews do nothing but benefit the companies but like I said if you had waited for our review you would've seen online was still an issue, not bought the game and not given Sony your $60. But if you want to buy games on a whim don't complain that certain modes are "broken" afterwards.

In fact online isn't totally "broken." Some guys have had little or no troubles. But lets say the game gets seriously docked for bad online play to an 8 or 8.5. What's the big difference? Is that 1 point really going to be the difference between Sony-SD fixing online or not caring? If you think really it should be a 6.5 or 7 because of online, I don't know what to tell you other than I totally disagree as do plenty of others. There are a ton of great features of this game that make it worthy of a great score.

Considering the game got called out for weak online play I really don't get why this is even an issue...

# 28 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	Reviews are important to the people who call the shots--->The Producers of games like The Show, Madden etc...You and I are irrelevant..When a Peter Moore can site meta-critic reviews to defend a game that has serious problems we then have to consider the impact that reviews have on the quality of games we get year after year...You have to look at what a review means in the grand scheme of things. Thats why I care about the review...I don't care about it for my own selfish reasons because I don't nee3d it to tell me whats good or not as if I was a lemming. This is the game companies like EA, 2K and Sony play with gamers...They court many sites and play all these games to get great reviews or at the very least reviews that allow them to make alot of money from the herd that wait for a OS, IGN or other gaming site to review the game and tell everyone..."Its safe ...go buy the game"...Personally I'd rather waste $60 and make my own mind up as opposed to allowing someone else to think for me...I value the feedback and opinions but at the same time I want to form my own. When reviewers allow their own personal bias to or determine whats important or not about a game we have a problem...Lets face it..A review as we know is a glorified opinion of one man who has a license to write for a gaming site. Not knocking reviews..But thats all they are to me...They are a form of entertainment to me..But on a larger scale they have a huge impact on how companies like EA serve gamers. I think all reviews would be more accurate w/o a score...We don't need scores do we?..In fact who do you reaqlly think benefits from the score?...Gamers??...Wake up people..Not gamers. I don't think alot of reviewers understand the importance of their own reviews and how they may or may not shape the games that companies produce..If you can't see that then your naive to the whole process. BTW..How much do you ding a game when it has the same problem 2 consecutive years in a row...Is that more or less of a ding??? I listened to a Podcast of Peter Moore and when the interviewer addressed the inherent problems and dissatisfaction with Madden whatya think was the first thing he said..."Well, the mete-critic reviews have never been higher"...Now please lets not sugar coat this...Gaming companies are duping us left and right because we allow it and we act like we should be grateful that they made a game for our lowly selves. IMO a 8 or 9 for this game tells Sony that its ok to have bull$hit online play because overall gamers don't care..Well thats not exactly true because even gamers who will never play online should care about the overall quality of the game. If there was a game killing franchise bug many of you would be crying bloody murder and I'd be supportive of that.

This is getting old. You are now repeating your same opinions, over and over and over again, but are accomplishing very little. It's now bordering on trolling. For someone who doesn't care about reviews, you sure are spending alot of time talking about it. And you still haven't addressed how and why you think 30% of the review should have been based on online play, a mode that is never the bread and butter of any sports game to most people.

This game is a solid 9.

# 29 ChaseB @ 03/16/08 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	If this same exact game had GREAT online play but unplayable FRanchise/season modes what would a fair score be?????

It's not unplayable though...

Anyway I think even if some of the online is iffy there's a lot else there in terms of uploading sliders and all the MLB news and so forth.

All a good review can be is an educated opinion. In terms of if you already own the game and then read a review the best it can do is: hopefully write something in such a way that it makes the reader realize something about the game, or helps define a feeling the gamer is having while playing the game -- hence resulting in the "oh that's why I like it so much" moment or the "I never thought of it that way" moment. In terms of people reading a review who haven't bought the game, the best a review can do is: hopefully explain in such a way what's new and different and explain why the game is so good or bad or somewhere in the middle -- pointing things out in various parts of the game hence allowing people to make their own judgments about whether or not the game is worth it.

That's how I look at it anyway.

# 30 videobastard @ 03/16/08 09:52 AM

I wish in the future that the ratings after games would be more accurate. Say you finish a 9 inning game with a online opponent. Then that should eliminate the ratings for pulls/dissconnects because the game was completed.

# 31 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	"If Franchise/Season mode locked up and was unplayable what would the score for this game be???"

As I've stated twice already, Franchise mode is the bread and butter of most sports titles. Online play is not. A review should then be based on THAT curve! If Franchise mode was completely busted, then it should get judged accordingly. Unlike Franchise mode, online play does not make up a large portion of what this game has to offer. But at the same time, online play is not "unplayable" either...so that argument won't work. There are people having no trouble with it at all.

To give this game a 6 strictly based on online play is ridiculous. The meat and potatoes, bread and butter works fine. Again, you're assuming that most people put most of their value for a sports title in the online portion. Yes, I realize millions of people play online....but the majority of people (especially here at OS) find Franchise mode to be THE most valuable and engaging mode the game has to offer. Not trying to be a smart arse here, but maybe you should take your debate to a place like IGN, which is filled with hordes of online gamer kids that would agree with you. You're probably not going to convince the Franchise Mode crowd that resides here. I see absolutely no reason to give this game a 6 based on some online lag.

# 32 Knight165 @ 03/16/08 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxChamp


	As I've stated twice already, Franchise mode is the bread and butter of most sports titles. Online play is not. A review should then be based on THAT curve! If Franchise mode was completely busted, then it should get judged accordingly. Unlike Franchise mode, online play does not make up a large portion of what this game has to offer. But at the same time, online play is not "unplayable" either...so that argument won't work. There are people having no trouble with it at all. To give this game a 6 strictly based on online play is ridiculous. The meat and potatoes, bread and butter works fine.

Sox....forget it.

I was going to reply to him AGAIN(even though he asked the same question I asked HIM...but you have kindly and correctly supplied the answer right here)...but then I thought...
"What could I better use this time for?" and I walked outside to my vehicle.......and put my head through the windshield just to see what it felt like.
I can honestly say it was a pretty good alternative!

M.K.
Knight165

# 33 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	Sox....forget it. I was going to reply to him AGAIN(even though he asked the same question I asked HIM...but you have kindly and correctly supplied the answer right here)...but then I thought... "What could I better use this time for?" and I walked outside to my vehicle.......and put my head through the windshield just to see what it felt like. I can honestly say it was a pretty good alternative! M.K. Knight165

True enough. It's a nice day here too, and a leaky spigot needs some fixing. I suppose my time should be devoted to that today.

By the way, I know you are hard at work on your rosters....did you still want to send me a suggestion list for MOM?

# 34 Tomba @ 03/16/08 01:22 PM

LOL I don't play online...

# 35 Knight165 @ 03/16/08 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	The funny thing is you don't even know what your disagreeing with...because if you did...you wouldn't even make that statement...No biggie...comprehension is all relative

It looks as if comprehension is a DISTANT relative of YOURS..... because nobody knows what YOU'RE(as in YOU ARE) talking about.
Normally I would let that one go, because we all make mistakes when posting online.
I just couldn't let the irony go by though...speaking of comprehending something, when your comprehension of grammar is lacking right there.
Maybe you should just take your condescending attitude and turn it down a notch.
I think we all understand what you are saying. You just cannot seem to grasp that most people don't agree with you. It makes you angry and anger can fester, get ugly and turn you into something unappealing...perhaps even cause you to reside under a bridge.....are you COMPREHENDING what I'm saying?..
Let it go....
Bring peace and serenity back into your life...

M.K.
Knight165

# 36 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	The excuse that Online isn't that BIG is tired and by all accounts misleading when I'll bet you that well over half the people who own a ps3 and 360 did it for the online components of the console.

We're not talking about the PS3. We're talking about The Show. No, well over half the people who purchased The Show did not purchase the game for the online components. People do not buy sports simulations to play people online. THAT is the misleading statement. Not mine. Franchise mode and RTTS are the most discussed portions of this game, and every review that focuses their attention on these two modes has done their job. Solid 9.

For the record, I only quoted one small portion of your post because it's the one portion I wanted to comment on. Please don't think I am ignoring the rest or didn't read it.

# 37 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 04:07 PM

Halo 3 and COD4 is not The Show. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. I'm not trying to downplay the popularity of online gaming in general, only saying that it's not the focal point of a SPORTS SIMULATION.

# 38 Chris_SCEA_Sports @ 03/16/08 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	Funny thing...where are those devs now to field questions about the online play?...Devs do the same thing almost every year..They show their faces daily before the game drops..Then as soon as that bad boy hits the stores...They are O-U-T

On vacation until tomorrow...see ya then!!

Chris

ps. I would use the online forums on SportsConnect to ask questions about Online play...

# 39 Knight165 @ 03/16/08 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	I never meant or wanted to be right...Just wanted to hopefully create some common ground for all of us who enjoy and love this game...I love this game...Its probably the best Sports game ever made for any console

OldSchool....
Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot.
Let's just put it to rest and go from here.
I'm serious about realizing that online is a huge part of gaming in general...and I was also serious that it might become a bigger part of the Show in the future if they continue to add features that can be used online(and they have this year if I read the previews correctly)

M.K.
Knight165

# 40 SoxChamp @ 03/16/08 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldschool17


	I never meant or wanted to be right but facts are just that...FACTS...Please get off your lil "We" kick and speak for yourself. I don't need to be right..I just need the guys at Sony to know that ONLINE is a very viable part of this game...I'm sure Chris would agree with that as well..Just like I'm sure he would agree that Franchise is equally important. So instead of turning this into a tit for tat discussion just accept the fact that each portion of all games should receive the same attention and when a part of the game is subpar it affects every consumer who bought the game...Eventually.

Then maybe you need to call for a change in the way ALL games are reviewed and stop pounding away at The Show's review. Because under the current scheme, a 6.5 is a terrible score. Why on earth should this game receive such an awful score when the online portion is the only mode that doesn't work the way it should? If there was a change in the way a 6.5 score is viewed by the consumer, and games much worse than The Show also received scores much worse than 6.5, then I could make some sense out of your suggestion that this game should receive such a low score. But until then, a 6.5 is ridiculous. I've seen games that are absolutey horrid from top to bottom receive scores higher than 6.5. That's why I find your opinion so utterly asinine.

« Previous 123 4 Next »

More Links

MLB '08: The Show Review