Looks Like the Door is open for ESPN

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:12 pm

looks like all 3 bb games so far have pros and cons and it makes for a difficult decision as to deciding which is best. If ESPN can do some of
these basic things right, it will clearly be the game that plays most like real baseball. If it can do these things, it will be my game of choice:

-make hitting challenging
-CPU give up a walk once in a while
-fielding controls that are responsive, yet challenging
-realistic amounts of HR's
-CPU steals on you once in a while
-Good substitution AI
-good online experience
-pitching that's not too easy to tspot the ball

The biggest problem I forsee with ESPN is that "wiffleball like"
swing. But that can be gotten used to. For right now, I really see MLB05 as the most "real baseball-like" game out there right now. It really feels and plays out like you are sitting down to watch a game on TV.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:16 pm

Yep, those are my hopes, but I have to say ASB does about all of them except the fielding controls and perhaps pitching control that's too easy (although the cpu offense is much improved this year).

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:32 pm

Yup...I'm not terribly satisfied with any of them. I could play any of them if they were the only thing out there, but they are not so I gotta keep looking.

ESPN has grown stale to me lately but it's my last hope for the complete game on and off the field. If it can't come through, it looks like I'll put the new p4 3.0 ghz (800 fsb, 1mb cache) w/ 1 gig of Geil 3200 DDR to use with High Heat 2004 on the PC with all the mods.

NoJoke · Post by **NoJoke** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:52 pm

I thought WSB 2K3 did most of things well already. I played half a season with the Yankees, and Giambi was among the league leaders in walks, as was Jeter. I guess my problem with this game was that I only played half a season, after a while it seemed like every game was the same. Maybe it was a lack of presentation, or lack of something else, but I just did not feel like I needed to keep playing.

Hopefully the added confidence meter will shake things up a bit, along with the myriad of sliders that the game offers.

I would hope that ESPN does the following (in addition to tweaking the core gameplay):

-Better signature stances and windups
-MUST MUST MUST reduce the size of the strike zone.
-better replay system
-fix the stolen base bug
-have the CPU throw ball slider do something. I had the slider at 1 last year and still thought CPU pitchers were way too accurate
- collision detection on homeruns would be nice
- more stats, left/righty breakdowns
-make the outfield a little bigger, the CPU players could stab out their arm and cut off too many shots to the gap
- finally, probably second in importance to shrinking the zone--give us a cursorless batting system that works. I thought WSB's cursor was about as good as cursor hitting could be, but still nowhere near as good as HH's zone hitting. Sega has the last shot at getting this right.

Just my two cents.

Joe

Boom · Post by **Boom** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:20 pm

Hell, I'd just like to see it fix the problems that have needed fixing the past 2 years. The main two being:
(1) Stop letting even fast asses steal 2nd with great success
(2) When the AI runner is on first, I'd love to see him get off his lazy ass and move to third on a ball hit in the right field corner. The fuggin station to station running sucks.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:26 pm

have u tried MLB05's cursorless batting system? I think it's equal if not better than HHeat's.

>>>finally, probably second in importance to shrinking the zone--give us a cursorless batting system that works. I thought WSB's cursor was about as good as cursor hitting could be, but still nowhere near as good as HH's zone hitting. Sega has the last shot at getting this right.

NoJoke · Post by **NoJoke** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:35 pm

JackB-

Not yet. The feedback on MLB has been so hot and cold that I've held off on clearing the dust off the PS2. If I don't start enjoying ASB more (although I'm just starting so it is due a lot more time before final judgments) and ESPN disappoints, then I'll take a closer look at MLB.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:32 am

Well I said back when MVP was first released that in the end ESPN would still play the best game of baseball. It may not give you the wow factor that MVP does and it may not have as deep a franchise mode as ASB, but I think if you factor all facets of the game in, it will be the best, mainly because there's a very solid game at its core to begin with.

I really enjoyed last year's version and it was the first game since Sportstalk Baseball on the Genesis in which I played 162 game season. If they get the cursorless batting right, and it felt pretty good in a 6 month old demo, then I think it will be the best game.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:46 pm

Bad:

With all due respect, how can you give ESPN/WSB such love when it had possibly the largest flaw of any baseball game released over the last two years -- the super-sized strike zone?

It has been next-to-impossible to be a selective hitter in the last two editions of that series because balls at your shins or neck, or 2-3 inches out of the strike zone are called strikes. It was almost impossible to walk in the last two WSB's unless you ran into an EXTREMELY fatigued pitcher.

Sorry, but any game that can't get the strike zone even close to correct is doomed from the start. That's why I'm not holding my breath one bit about ESPN.

Oh, and the ease in stealing in the WSB series? That's not a gamebreaker? I just find it odd how people are trying to be objective yet they excuse or overlook flaws in certain games while ripping flaws in other games.

There is no objectivity in reviewing this year's baseball games because all of them so far have had significant flaws. It's totally subjective, whatever flaws you can tolerate.

There is no Winning Eleven in baseball anymore. Well, there was with High Heat, but it's gone. Baseball isn't like football, either, where there are some very, very solid games with niggling flaws. All of the baseball games released so far this year have MAJOR flaws.

No baseball game will be perfect, or even close to it, judging by this year's lot. But it's absolutely silly to shred someone's positive opinion of a game you don't like because of that game's flaws because your game of choice also will have game-killing flaws that you either overlook or excuse. That's damn near a fact with this year's lot of games, especially since High Heat is gone.

That's the sad state of console baseball gaming these days.

Take care,
PK

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:16 pm

pk500 wrote: That's the sad state of console baseball gaming these days.

Take care,
PK

At least in the USA. I think the Japanese have it better, but I dunno.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:23 pm

There's no question hugo, they do. The Namco and Konami games actually look the most like MVP in terms of visuals, but they don't have any huge bugs and generally play a much more realistic brand of baseball, albeit it's modeled after the Japanese leagues. They are getting high praise everywhere, although most people seem to think that Konami's Pro Baseball Spirits has the edge because of somewhat better visuals and presentation.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:43 pm

pk500 wrote:Bad:

With all due respect, how can you give ESPN/WSB such love when it had possibly the largest flaw of any baseball game released over the last two years -- the super-sized strike zone?

It has been next-to-impossible to be a selective hitter in the last two editions of that series because balls at your shins or neck, or 2-3 inches out of the strike zone are called strikes. It was almost impossible to walk in the last two WSB's unless you ran into an EXTREMELY fatigued pitcher.

Sorry, but any game that can't get the strike zone even close to correct is doomed from the start. That's why I'm not holding my breath one bit about ESPN.

Oh, and the ease in stealing in the WSB series? That's not a gamebreaker? I just find it odd how people are trying to be objective yet they excuse or overlook flaws in certain games while ripping flaws in other games.

There is no objectivity in reviewing this year's baseball games because all of them so far have had significant flaws. It's totally subjective, whatever flaws you can tolerate.

There is no Winning Eleven in baseball anymore. Well, there was with High Heat, but it's gone. Baseball isn't like football, either, where there are some very, very solid games with niggling flaws. All of the baseball games released so far this year have MAJOR flaws.

No baseball game will be perfect, or even close to it, judging by this year's lot. But it's absolutely silly to shred someone's positive opinion of a game you don't like because of that game's flaws because your game of choice also will have game-killing flaws that you either overlook or excuse. That's damn near a fact with this year's lot of games, especially since High Heat is gone.

That's the sad state of console baseball gaming these days.

Take care,
PK

pk, as I have said in other threads, drawing walks is just not an issue that is all that important to me when playing a baseball game. I'm just not patient enough to draw walks. Unless the pitch is obviously out of the strike zone, I usually swing at it. The way I look at it, we are all pretty much responsible for what we get out of a baseball game. If I want to b*tch about Roger Clemens throwing a 9 inning shutout at me while throwing only 44 pitches, then I need to learn not to swing at every thing he throws. Conversely, if I want to get a 100 pitch game out of my pitcher, then I've got to learn to intentionly go out of the strike zone. Pitch counts are just not that important to me, the result on the scoreboard is.

So if I have a game where I win 5-2 and I get 9 hits and the CPU gets 6 and maybe I pick up 2 walks and 6 Ks then I'm pretty happy. I don't really care how I got there as long as I get there.

The first things I look at when playing a baseball game in order are:

1. Do pitch speeds feel right?
2. Does hitting feel right?
3. Does the CPU make sound defensive decisions?
4. Is the baserunning AI solid?
5. Are the controls responsive and easy to use?
6. Do I get or give up too many hits in ratio to runs scored?
7. Does the CPU do the right things in regards to substitutions?
8. Does the presentation and announcing feel like a baseball game?
9. Do pitchers fatigue properly?
10. Are the ball physics realistic?
11. Is there player fatigue?

I could keep going, but you get the picture. As long as the game fundamentally plays a sound game of baseball, I'll give it a long look. When you look at #2, this is the main reason why I hated ASB 2005. There just wasn't a hitting mode that felt right or realistic to me, but ASB also failed with numbers 1, 4, 5, and 10. Last year, WSB 2K3 delivered most of the things on that list better than any other game, hence the reason I was able to play 162 game season and loved every single game. I would win 2-0 one game and lose 11-8 the next. I had games that would only produce a handful of hits and some that would provide a basket full. Matt Morris might pitch a three hit shutout today and get knocked out in the third inning of his next start. WSB 2K3 gave me everything I wanted in a baseball game last year and I even managed to hit with a cursor. This year, the cursor is gone, so unless they screwed something up, the game should be perfect for me.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:48 pm

>>>pk, as I have said in other threads, drawing walks is just not an issue that is all that important to me when playing a baseball game. I'm just not patient enough to draw walks.<<<

Fair enough. But I still don't understand. You're obviously very passionate about baseball, and especially baseball video games, judging by the number of posts you've made in here about the topic.

You obviously crave some semblance of realism, judging by all of your criteria for a good baseball game.

Yet drawing walks isn't an important issue to you? Aren't walks and pitcher accuracy a vital, essential part of baseball?

Is drawing fouls in basketball games or drawing penalties in football and hockey games important to you?

>>>As long as the game fundamentally plays a sound game of baseball,<<<

True. But a game without accurate walks due to a huge strike zone -- whether the human batter is patient or a hacker/slasher hitter -- does NOT play a fundamentally sound game of baseball.

Sorry, but playing a baseball game without walks is like me playing an oval-racing game without caution flags -- simply unthinkable and unrealistic.

To each their own!

Take care,
PK

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:13 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>pk, as I have said in other threads, drawing walks is just not an issue that is all that important to me when playing a baseball game. I'm just not patient enough to draw walks.<<<

Fair enough. But I still don't understand. You're obviously very passionate about baseball, and especially baseball video games, judging by the number of posts you've made in here about the topic.

You obviously crave some semblance of realism, judging by all of your criteria for a good baseball game.

Yet drawing walks isn't an important issue to you? Aren't walks and pitcher accuracy a vital, essential part of baseball?

Is drawing fouls in basketball games or drawing penalties in football and hockey games important to you?

>>>As long as the game fundamentally plays a sound game of baseball,<<<

True. But a game without accurate walks due to a huge strike zone -- whether the human batter is patient or a hacker/slasher hitter -- does NOT play a fundamentally sound game of baseball.

Sorry, but playing a baseball game without walks is like me playing an oval-racing game without caution flags -- simply unthinkable and unrealistic.

To each their own!

Take care,
PK

pk, you're a pretty sharp guy so I hope that you can understand this when I say inherently I am responsible for determining how many walks and strikeouts I get per game. Let's just say that even if there was a baseball game that got pitcher control exactly right. I may never see it because I swing at the first three pitches everytime. It's funny, because I've actually drawn more walks with my pitchers in MVP than anyone else. Why? Well because I know my pitchers can't hit and so I'm looking to get them on base anyway I can. So if the pitcher goes 2-0 on me, then I'm obviously going to give him a chance to go 3-0 and so forth. With someone like Albert Pujols, I'm looking to get the big fly or something in the gap so when they go 2-0 with me there, I almost always swing at the next pitch.

The point I am trying to make is whether a game gets it right or not, I'll never see it because I'm not going to stand there and go deep in the count with every player. I swing at almost everything and I either get a hit, get an out, or strikeout. It's not rocket science we're talking about my friend. Also, what would you rather have, a game that go you realistic results other than walks that you can play in 30 minutes or a game complete with deep pitch counts on every player that takes an hour and 15 minutes to play? As much as I enjoy the realism of baseball, I'm still looking to maximize my time so the shorter the game, the better.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:28 pm

>>>It's not rocket science we're talking about my friend.<<<

I know. But it's not baseball, either. The way you play almost sounds like batting practice with fielding and runners.

>>>Also, what would you rather have, a game that go you realistic results other than walks that you can play in 30 minutes or a game complete with deep pitch counts on every player that takes an hour and 15 minutes to play?<<<

The latter. But I wasn't born in the remote-control generation, either. So I guess that's my age showing.

Take care,
PK

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:44 pm

pk500 wrote:>>>It's not rocket science we're talking about my friend.<<<

I know. But it's not baseball, either. The way you play almost sounds like batting practice with fielding and runners.

>>>Also, what would you rather have, a game that go you realistic results other than walks that you can play in 30 minutes or a game complete with deep pitch counts on every player that takes an hour and 15 minutes to play?<<<

The latter. But I wasn't born in the remote-control generation, either. So I guess that's my age showing.

Take care,
PK

No matter what it sounds like to you, it still gives me fairly realistic numbers at the end of the day. Batting averages are fairly accurate as are homerun numbers. Pitchers ERA and strikeouts are good, too. I never have a realistic number of steals because I'm just not coordinated enough to try and lead off, steal, and hit at the same time. So if at the end of a season the only stat that is off is walks, well I'm a happy camper.

BTW, I'm not from the remote control era either, as a matter of fact I'm quite a bit older than you and have 3 kids, so if I can get 3 games in tonight in the time it would take me to get two in with deep pitch counts, everybody wins.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:11 pm

First off any game that took an 1 and 15 minutes even though it got gameply right should not be allowed to ever get above a 7.0 score and I don't care if it was MLB reincarnated, that's just too damn long to enjoy a baseball game.

HH took 30 minutes and it did almost everything right. So we don't need to have marathon baseball games when the standard for baseball games got it right 3 years ago.

As for WSB, this is from the same people that make ESPN, NFL, NHL and NBA. Three big games notoriously bad for not being elimanting a lot of minor problems. I have no faith in Sega Sports anymore. They have great ideas and great potential but the guys can't seem to make a complete game.

I expect WSB to be decent but then have a lot of small problems, unlike MVP where it has a lot of big problems that no one cares about.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:23 pm

Bad:

Just curious: How old are you? I'm 38, frau, two kiddos.

Always interesting to learn of the ages of cats in here.

Take care,
PK

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:28 pm

pk500 wrote:Bad:

Just curious: How old are you? I'm 38, frau, two kiddos.

Always interesting to learn of the ages of cats in here.

Take care,
PK

pk, I'll be 45 in August....yikes!

Maybe that's why I'm so incredibly anal.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:47 pm

Fossil!

Take care,
PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:26 pm

Badgun wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bad:

Just curious: How old are you? I'm 38, frau, two kiddos.

Always interesting to learn of the ages of cats in here.

Take care,
PK
pk, I'll be 45 in August....yikes!

Maybe that's why I'm so incredibly anal.

Me and my wife will be 42 in Aug. Her the 5th ,me the 24th. My son Dom turns 9 on the 19th. August is a party month around our house

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:56 pm

JackDog wrote:
Badgun wrote:
pk500 wrote:Bad:

Just curious: How old are you? I'm 38, frau, two kiddos.

Always interesting to learn of the ages of cats in here.

Take care,
PK
pk, I'll be 45 in August....yikes!

Maybe that's why I'm so incredibly anal.
Me and my wife will be 42 in Aug. Her the 5th ,me the 24th. My son Dom turns 9 on the 19th. August is a party month around our house

Yeah JD, my wife's is the 14th of August and mine is the 19th. We usually go on vaction the week of our birthdays.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:59 pm

pk500 wrote:Fossil!

Take care,
PK

Hehe, pk for an overweight, out of shape fossil, I can still hit the trey, am still a monster in the low post, and I can throw a tight spiral 50 yards and knock the lint off a bird's ass.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:46 pm

45,42,38. By god I'm young! I'm young I tell you! Young! I will be turning 32 this June. Young I tell you!!!!! Thanks guys, for making me feel so young!

P.S - Did I mention I was young!

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:14 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:45,42,38. By god I'm young! I'm yound I tell you! Young! I will be turning 32 this June. Young I tell you!!!!! Thanks guys, for making me feel so young!

P.S - Did I mention I was young!

Did you say you were young? How young are ya there scoop? Your young right? You be young. Scoopbeyoungbrady