IGN posts a review of ASB 2005's Fielder Cam

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:05 pm

A fairly short and lousy review is up:

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/501/501060p1.html

8/10

I say fielder cam, because basically the whole review is about how crappy it is. Hasn't it been confirmed that you don't have to use the fielder cam? It's disgraceful that the reviewer doesn't mention this.

Pitches are too slow? Most people thought they were too fast last year. Of course the reviewer doesn't mention that there are different pitch speeds on every difficulty level.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:10 pm

That review was lousy. Seems totally irresponsible for reviewers to be denouncing the game for two aspects that you can totally customize, and everyone's getting in on the fun. If I had worked on this game, I would be livid.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:11 pm

"Speaking of replays, ASB's replay system is horrible. You can't focus on specific players, just the ball, so forget trying to see what your favorite star was doing if he wasn't around the play"

Damn. I was hoping I could catch Matsui picking his ass on those slow grounders to first.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:16 pm

Every review I've seen rips into ASB fielder's cam. Now I don't know if ASB is going to fit my needs for a baseball game but geez guys this is all they want to look at.

Heaven forbid they actually play the game.

I don't know if anyone read my blog today but geez this is frustrating.

I honestly don't think they played the game for more than an hour or two. Maybe this is why MVP has got a free pass with all the reviewers, they don't want to really look deep into the game just enough to talk about the features but not deep enough to actually know anything about the game.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:18 pm

I can honestly say that this review has made absolutely no impact on my decision to purcahse the game. Just when you think IGN can't do any worse.

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:18 pm

Sigh.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:24 pm

First line of the so-called "review":

"All-Star Baseball is like the Inside Drive of baseball games"

Enough said. Looks like I'll be picking up my copy tomorrow.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:27 pm

Thanks for the link Parker.

Now WTF are you waiting for? Join our DSP Baseball fantasy league.

I know you love baseball and we need players.

NoJoke · Post by **NoJoke** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:30 pm

Horrible review. After all the discussions everywhere about walks, steals, balls, etc., in the other games, how can any reviewer ignore these issues when a new game comes out? No mention of accurate stats, ball/bat collision detection. A worthless review in my opinion. Just turn the fielder cam off!! Anyone who played the game more than an hour (or read any of the movies over at OS) would have known that fielder cam is optional, so this makes me doubt that this game received any real play time before the review was written.

That's why I'll wait for the useful impressions found here.

Ed_Farias · Post by **Ed_Farias** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:31 pm

He also did not even try it Online. Shouldn't that at least be part of the review? Shouldn't it at least be mentioned?

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:33 pm

JackDog wrote:Thanks for the link Parker. Why does IGN even bother?

Now WTF are you waiting for? Join our DSP Baseball fantasy league.
I know you love baseball and we need players.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:43 pm

Yah, the thing is I'm already in 3 fantasy leagues. And I'm importing a Japanese baseball game and will also be playing MLB 2005 and probably ASB 2005, so the baseball part of life is too full.

It's probably for the best anyway. I never agree with db when it comes to baseball, no league needs that kind of tension.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:44 pm

Leebo33 wrote:First line of the so-called "review":

"All-Star Baseball is like the Inside Drive of baseball games"

Enough said. Looks like I'll be picking up my copy tomorrow.

Really. That's a great sales pitch, if you ask me. I wasn't planning on getting a baseball title this year after the disappointment of MVP, but if ASB truly is the Inside Drive of baseball games, then I may pick it up on the cheap in a few weeks.

Remember: IGN is an acroynm for Idiot Gaming Nerds.

Take care,
PK

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:46 pm

You'd think they were missing page 3 of 3 with that review. I don't need to hear about "fielder cam" for more than one paragraph....let alone a whole page. This reviewer was adament about focusing on the new innovative addition and beating it to death. I for one never envisioned it would be very playable, especially in it it's first year. Kinda like "first person" mode in ESPN Football. Cool to toy around with but that's about it. Might try it for an inning or so and then switch back. Disappointing review to say the least.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:50 pm

I must be going crazy here. Did anyone read the review as soon as it was up?

"Even at the highest speed option, however, pitches don't seem to whip in with enough force."

I could have sworn that that part of the review didn't mention any of the pitch speed options. I'm probably wrong, either that or they edited the review. Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that it's a horrible review.

I find it hard to believe that the pitch speed at the highest setting, which almost no one thought was too slow last year, is slower that the last year's pitch speed.

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:51 pm

"You also won't find the same number of batting stances or pitching motions, taking away from the realism of the game."

Am I wrong or aren't there a lot of incorrect batting stances for many of the players in MVP?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:57 pm

Remember, fellas, ASB is an Acclaim game, so IGN can rip it at will, fairly or unfairly. Acclaim doesn't supply oodles of E3 payola to the IGN staff like EA, so it doesn't receive a free pass like EA.

We all know that EA Sports could release a game of sheep fornication, and IGN would give it a score of 8 or higher. It's a simple fact that IGN grades EA games on a different, more lenient scale than other companies. Either that, or gameplay just doesn't mean sh*t to IGN editors, who are wowed by gadgets, gizmos, bells and whistles more than gameplay.

The hell with credibility: IGN likes to keep its friends in high places.

Take care,
PK

Ed_Farias · Post by **Ed_Farias** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:03 pm

Saying MVP has better real life batting stance is just laugh out loud funny.

As per changing the review, I think you are right. I had someone correct me at OS when I posted that IGN did change pitch speeds.

Those sneaky bastards

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:04 pm

pk500 wrote:We all know that EA Sports could release a game of sheep fornication, and IGN would give it a score of 8 or higher.

"The Cotton Connection 2005" has a catchy ring to it.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:10 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
pk500 wrote:We all know that EA Sports could release a game of sheep fornication, and IGN would give it a score of 8 or higher.
"The Cotton Connection 2005" has a catchy ring to it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Take care,
PK

Toper · Post by **Toper** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:15 pm

pk500 wrote: Remember: IGN is an acroynm for Idiot Gaming Nerds.

Take care,
PK

I always thought it was short for IGNorant!

Toper

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:33 pm

2002 FIFA World Cup - 9.3 (yeow)
FIFA '99 - 8.7
FIFA 2000 8.8 (yeow)
FIFA Soccer 2004 -8.5
Madden NFL '99 - 8.5 (this game was sh**)
Madden NFL 2003 - 9.2
MVP Baseball 2003 - 8.3
NBA Live 2003 - 8.5 (ugh)
NBA Live 2001 - 8.3 (ugh)
NHL '99 - 9.0 (ugh)
NHL 2000 - 8.2
NHL 2002 - 9.2
NHL 2003 - 8.8
NHL 2004 - 8.8
Tiger Woods '99 - 7.8 (A terrible version of this game)
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002 - 8.2
Triple Play '99 - 5.0 (wow..)
Rugby 2004 - 7.0

High Heat Major League Baseball 2002 - 7.8 (LOL)
Triple Play Baseball - 7.8 (2x LOL)

Anyway, just an FYI. PK got me curious.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:47 pm

NHL 2003 was worthy of maybe a 3 -- an AWFUL game. And all of the NASCAR Thunder games are worth no more than a 6 but have scored in the 8's or higher.

Take care,
PK

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:54 pm

pk500 wrote:NHL 2003 was worthy of maybe a 3 -- an AWFUL game. And all of the NASCAR Thunder games are worth no more than a 6 but have scored in the 8's or higher.

Take care,
PK

I don't think its any type of payoff system... I would guess that its just phoned in reviews by people who could care less about sports games. EA just gets the "they are a big publisher so of course their games are good" treatment. Their sports reviews have been very disturbing over the years... with certain ones standing above and beyond even their standard of wrong. I know many of their reviews that failed to mention franchise modes in games that had them, especially early on. I'm trying to recollect, but didn't they actually have a Triple Play review that was cut and past from the previous years review - that defines phoning it in.

What's far more baffling to me is this "fanboyism". As a consumer, how can you be interested in more than just the best product for your money? Now there are definitely differences in opinion, and one man's gold is another's dirt, but there are people that blindly support and bash products with reckless abandon... for absolutely no comprehensible reason. Look at the responses to the MVP review that Abner has posted in his blog... IGN sending uncaring and unqualifed reviewers is a horrible shame that simply shreds their credibility, but how do you cure the plague that is fanboy?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:19 pm

>>>I don't think its any type of payoff system<<<

Skid:

I use the term "payola" very loosely. I don't mean the exchange of cash. But I do think EA grants special favors to IGN, such as first hands-on previews, extra early betas, extra screens, goodies at E3, etc., in return for (wink-wink) favorable coverage.

Sure, IGN's position as a site that inexplicably gets a lot of eyeballs also contributes to EA granting favors to the site. But constant positive reviews, even of really bad games, also grease the skids and blur the line between the IGN editorial offices and the EA Sports public relations offices.

No one ever will convince me otherwise.

Take care,
PK