Eye Candy or Gameplay?

[Se7enth_Sinn]

From all the reviews I've read about this game it seems like its getting crazy love because of all the Eye Candy. All the stuff to look at... Lots and lots of stuff, throwbacks, menu, pre and post game and they say wow... But me, I'll trade in all that Eye Candy to be able to make a bounce pass, make a layup, block or prevent a 3 point shot, take a charge, rebound, play my Crew with my Crew, play online and oh make a layup. All the eye candy in the world don't mean s**t if you undress the chick and she's got the body of a 90 year old woman.

[Mos1ted]

That's what I miss about last gen: gameplay came first. Sure, you had games such as NFL 2K5 that had an emphasis on presentation and graphics, but those things didn't come at the expense of gameplay.

Having been on OS for nine years, it's hilarious how cyclical this board can be. Each year, a new sports game comes out, and the early impressions are always favorable. Then, after about two weeks or so, those favorable impressions turned into critical ones, and the flaws of the game really start to show. You have a handful of members who vow not to buy the next version, only for the game to sell more than it did the previous year.

This is what the lack of competition in sports game does. It makes you settle for games that you probably wouldn't had you had an alternative.

NBA 2K12 is not a horrible video game, but at this point, it's a horrible simulation basketball game. When online competitors with zero basketball knowledge are able to use some of the most ridiculous tactics and be successful, you know that fundamentals within the gameplay engine are missing.

[ffpp]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mos1ted

That's what I miss about last gen: gameplay came first. Sure, you had games such as NFL 2K5 that had an emphasis on presentation and graphics, but those things didn't come at the expense of gameplay. Having been on OS for nine years, it's hilarious how cyclical this board can be. Each year, a new sports game comes out, and the early impressions are always favorable. Then, after about two weeks or so, those favorable impressions turned into critical ones, and the flaws of the game really start to show. You have a handful of members who vow not to buy the next version, only for the game to sell more than it did the previous year. This is what the lack of competition in sports game does. It makes you settle for games that you probably wouldn't had you had an alternative. NBA 2K12 is not a horrible video game, but at this point, it's a horrible simulation basketball game. When online competitors with zero basketball knowledge are able to use some of the most ridiculous tactics and be successful, you know that fundamentals within the gameplay engine are missing.

I want to disagree that with last-gen games gameplay mostly came first.
I don't really know about 2k because I never had a PS or XBox and play NBA 2k only since 2k9 (first PC release). But I can tell you that there where many sports games before that put more emphasis on presentation rather than gameplay.

I also cannot say that 2k made a blant presentation-first product with 2k12. They obviously tried to fix some gamplay issues from 2k11, like to easy drives, too many dunks etc but just didn't fully succeed. That's why there are AI players with unhumanlike reaction times and such.
Also, the new live ball physics are a step in the right direction but also created some weird issues like people dribbling the ball onto their own feet or passes getting deflected by people's backs. (At least one can imagine such issues being created by a new and complex feature like live ball physics).

And don't want to list everything but I think its too easy to say they didn't care about gameplay with 2k12. Just look at the post game which got so much love and plays so much smoother than before.
I'm not denying that there are a lot of things left to fix with this game, though.

[Mos1ted]

Quote: Originally Posted by ffpp

I want to disagree that with last-gen games gameplay mostly came first. I don't really know about 2k because I never had a PS or XBox and play NBA 2k only since 2k9 (first PC release). But I can tell you that there where many sports games before that put more emphasis on presentation rather than gameplay. I also cannot say that 2k made a blant presentation-first product with 2k12. They obviously tried to fix some gamplay issues from 2k11, like to easy drives, too many dunks etc but just didn't fully succeed. That's why there are AI players with unhumanlike reaction times and such. Also, the new live ball physics are a step in the right direction but also created some weird issues like people dribbling the ball onto their own feet or passes getting deflected by people's backs. (At least one can imagine such issues being created by a new and complex feature like live ball physics). And don't want to list everything but I think its too easy to say they didn't care about gameplay with 2k12. Just look at the post game which got so much love and plays so much smoother than before. I'm not denying that there are a lot of things left to fix with this game, though.

I'm not saying that gameplay is being completely ignored, but from a marketing standpoint, presentation and glitz are definitely being pushed as the go-to features for new games rather than the gameplay. Madden, for example, was all about gameplay enhancements year to year on Xbox/PS2. It wasn't until this gen that presentation finally became somewhat of a focus for them. In fact, the knock on Madden when compared to 2K football was that 2K football always had better presentation. But Madden fans played Madden because of gameplay above all else.

[spankdatazz22]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mos1ted

This is what the lack of competition in sports game does. It makes you settle for games that you probably wouldn't had you had an alternative. NBA 2K12 is not a horrible video game, but at this point, it's a horrible simulation basketball game. When online competitors with zero basketball knowledge are able to use some of the most ridiculous tactics and be successful, you know that fundamentals within the gameplay engine are missing.

Give me a break. I don't play online much but have some (I think I'm 6-3) so maybe I shouldn't be commenting. But have problems with your views. One, you seem to be basing your "[2K12]'s a horrible basketball simulation game" view on how people play the game online which imo is ridiculous. By FAR most of the people that purchase this game aren't going to take the time to really learn it. Most of the people here don't take the time to really learn it. The game has levels of depth we haven't seen in another basketball game, perhaps other sports games. I don't know the game inside/out so I can't say what a really knowledgeable player might do to a cheeser. But from what I've seen really knowledgeable players can more often than not win out against people using cheesey tactics. I don't know your playstyle but people that do the equivalent of the British during the Revolutionary War and stand right in front of their opponent to get shot - and not adapt to an opponent's tactics - should lose.

You need to accept you're in the minority. People like you try to use the "game's not SIM" label as some derogatory term because you want to force everyone to play like you play. While we can debate 2K's execution, I don't think anyone can question their intention. imo they have tried to deliver one of the deepest sports games to date and gives gamers a lot of options in terms of making the game as sim or arcade as the gamer would like. Views like yours are very short-sighted and imo would hurt the game overall with this narrow view of how things should be.

[spankdatazz22]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mos1ted

Madden, for example, was all about gameplay enhancements year to year on Xbox/PS2. It wasn't until this gen that presentation finally became somewhat of a focus for them. In fact, the knock on Madden when compared to 2K football was that 2K football always had better presentation. But Madden fans played Madden because of gameplay above all else.

Blatantly false. Madden 2004 was all about Michael Vick - they tailored the gameplay around playing as Vick, and it yielded people being able to score 70+pts a game regularly in 5min quarters. It was so out of whack even John Madden himself famously said he disliked what the game had become. The next year w/Ray Lewis on the cover you had LBs and DBs jumping out of shoes and socks to knock down/intercept passes which kept scores down. In both cases people loved Madden's gameplay. But even the best Madden players admit that there's a big difference to playing football, and playing Madden. What Madden (and NCAA) had that people loved was it's system of movement and momentum. They were also very deep games in terms of gameplay options and franchise depth. But trying to pass off 2K as only having better presentation is again short-sighted; 2K's system of player interaction (they were the first to implement a real QB pocket), tackling, tiered-playcalling system, etc. made it far more than just "eye candy".

Both games had strengths/weaknesses. But neither was all gameplay/no fluff or vice versa. Trying to portray 2K12 as mostly eye candy and little gameplay substance is equally as silly.

[Mos1ted]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

Give me a break. I don't play online much but have some (I think I'm 6-3) so maybe I shouldn't be commenting. But have problems with your views. One, you seem to be basing your "[2K12]'s a horrible basketball simulation game" view on how people play the game online which imo is ridiculous. By FAR most of the people that purchase this game aren't going to take the time to really learn it. Most of the people here don't take the time to really learn it. The game has levels of depth we haven't seen in another basketball game, perhaps other sports games. I don't know the game inside/out so I can't say what a really knowledgeable player might do to a cheeser. But from what I've seen really knowledgeable players can more often than not win out against people using cheesey tactics. I don't know your playstyle but people that do the equivalent of the British during the Revolutionary War and stand right in front of their opponent to get shot - and not adapt to an opponent's tactics - should lose. You need to accept you're in the minority. People like you try to use the "game's not SIM" label as some derogatory term because you want to force everyone to play like you play. While we can debate 2K's execution, I don't think anyone can question their intention. imo they have tried to deliver one of the deepest sports games to date and gives gamers a lot of options in terms of making the game as sim or arcade as the gamer would like. Views like yours are very short-sighted and imo would hurt the game overall with this narrow view of how things should be.

Like I said to you in the other thread, until you download the patch and play online, keep your opinion about my opinion to yourself. We're literally discussing apples and oranges here. Your impression of online is based on whatever version you're playing right this moment. My impression of online is based on the latest version from 2K Sports, a version you haven't been able to play yet, I'm assuming. I had no problem with the game online before the 1.03 patch. Now I do. Before the 1.03 patch, I was like 9 and 2 in online quick games, and those 2 losses were from buzzer beaters. Since the patch, I'm like 5 and 5, including 3 blowout losses. Obviously, something has changed and it's not my "stick skills."

And when I'm evaluating a game's "simness" online, I'm referring to how much success a cheeser can have versus a "simmer." If a guy wants to cheese, but I can still beat him 10 times out of 10 playing actual basketball, then by all means cheese away because you're only hurting yourself. I'm not an idiot. I'm not going to fault the game for how the cheeser chooses to play.

However, if the cheeser is able to spam steal and play frantic defense, ball hog with his best player, and leave my guys open literally every possession and still win, then I have a problem with that. That's when I do fault the game because those type of tactics shouldn't win out against superior basketball knowledge and execution. I'd like to see the Lakers try that against the Timberwolves. The Timberwolves would run them out the gym, and I think we all can agree on that. But that's not the case now since the patch. But, wait, you actually have to play it first to judge for yourself...

Don't believe online has gotten worse since the patch? Just go to the 2K Forums and see for yourself. You think people complain here? It doesn't even hold a candle to what goes on over there.

[Mos1ted]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

Blatantly false. Madden 2004 was all about Michael Vick - they tailored the gameplay around playing as Vick, and it yielded people being able to score 70+pts a game regularly in 5min quarters. It was so out of whack even John Madden himself famously said he disliked what the game had become. The next year w/Ray Lewis on the cover you had LBs and DBs jumping out of shoes and socks to knock down/intercept passes which kept scores down. In both cases people loved Madden's gameplay. But even the best Madden players admit that there's a big difference to playing football, and playing Madden. What Madden (and NCAA) had that people loved was it's system of movement and momentum. They were also very deep games in terms of gameplay options and franchise depth. But trying to pass off 2K as only having better presentation is again short-sighted; 2K's system of player interaction (they were the first to implement a real QB pocket), tackling, tiered-playcalling system, etc. made it far more than just "eye candy". Both games had strengths/weaknesses. But neither was all gameplay/no fluff or vice versa. Trying to portray 2K12 as mostly eye candy and little gameplay substance is equally as silly.

Me and my ambiguous statements...I need to work on that.

Nowhere am I implying that Madden had superior gameplay or that their gameplay improvements were beneficial to replicating real football. I'm saying that when it came to year to year improvements, their focus was mostly on gameplay changes (not always for the better) and not presentation.