The current state of sport simulation games
-
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
Not sure how well that would work. Nobody wants to admit they suck and if the good rewards are in the competitive mode people are going to gravitate to that.
You may be right. I wouldnt personally be against it.
-
At the end of the day, all these games are running on PS2-era engines.
Just from what I've observed over the years, it's not that these companies don't want the game to be infinitely better YoY, it's just that the engine they keep building on is so limited and frankensteined together that even minor additions are gigantic undertakings with branching, potentially game-breaking effects. It's why you're seeing games like Madden and MLBTS seemingly get buggier every year, despite them appearing to be largely interchangeable with the previous year(s?) game.
They need to essentially tear them all down and build them back up from scratch, which isn't going to happen until they're absolutely forced to (ie. people stop buying packs/stubs).
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
I'm a middle of the road online player. I'm about .500 in events and I get my 10 wins for my 15 stars and in RS I'm 24-9 but thats between 400-600 area. I know I'm not going to be a WS player heck I'm 65 and don't have the reflexes I did 30 something years agao when I still played but I still like to play video baseball. The last thing I want is to be giving a chance to win through RNG or whatever you want to call it. Make the game work for everyone's level of abilities. If I'm a 500 player in RS and I play better (through my input) against another 500 player swinging at everything, don't throw my opponent a bone with a lucky swing. I have had every game since MLBTS inception and after this year I'm betting on 20 being my last. It should be more enjoyable online versus WTH just happened? Peace out.
-
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
Not sure how well that would work. Nobody wants to admit they suck and if the good rewards are in the competitive mode people are going to gravitate to that.
You may be right. I wouldnt personally be against it.
But in my vision of how the game should be there are no "rewards". That's typical DD/Ultimate Team ideology, they need to feed you "rewards" to open up your wallet if you miss out on any of them. You're hitting the nail on the head with what I'm arguing against, if there are no rewards in the form of player cards with preset attributes, then it doesn't matter on what level you compete; it's about having fun and having the experience of playing a simulation sports game.
-
we can all complain until we turn blue but the fact is the current model works just look at how SDS has grown as a company in the last 5 years. There will always be people who don't care and will spend money where I think SDS and the other companies can chnage without hurting there current model is creating a comp mode and a casual mode. Make the comp mode more realistic with less rng influence mant will say thats what RS is but its not rng still influences the game just like BR and events.
-
@STI1489 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
we can all complain until we turn blue but the fact is the current model works just look at how SDS has grown as a company in the last 5 years. There will always be people who don't care and will spend money where I think SDS and the other companies can chnage without hurting there current model is creating a comp mode and a casual mode. Make the comp mode more realistic with less rng influence mant will say thats what RS is but its not rng still influences the game just like BR and events.
It works because we accept it. We accept it because there is no alternative. Let's take Madden here for a minute, they only sell games because people want to play a football game and there isn't anything else. So looking at their revenue you could conclude they are "successful" if you just look at that number. That's not a very smart way to look at the success and sustainability/continuity potential for a business.
If a competitor would arise and makes a way more customer oriented game, they will be done for. That's a realistic thing to worry about being EA because people do get fed up and will happily jump ship when the opportunity arises. Same goes for SDS or any other business for that matter. -
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@STI1489 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
we can all complain until we turn blue but the fact is the current model works just look at how SDS has grown as a company in the last 5 years. There will always be people who don't care and will spend money where I think SDS and the other companies can chnage without hurting there current model is creating a comp mode and a casual mode. Make the comp mode more realistic with less rng influence mant will say thats what RS is but its not rng still influences the game just like BR and events.
It works because we accept it. We accept it because there is no alternative. Let's take Madden here for a minute, they only sell games because people want to play a football game and there isn't anything else. So looking at their revenue you could conclude they are "successful" if you just look at that number. That's not a very smart way to look at the success and sustainability/continuity potential for a business.
If a competitor would arise and makes a way more customer oriented game, they will be done for. That's a realistic thing to worry about being EA because people do get fed up and will happily jump ship when the opportunity arises. Same goes for SDS or any other business for that matter.The issue is I don’t think anything except revenue is ever brought up between EA and the NFL. In reality they are probably very fond of one another from a business stance and have tears in there eyes from laughing so hard when they hear about people not like the gameplay. Then EA hands them a bizillion dollars and the NFL says see you in 5 years, keep up the amazing work. Extremely hard to compete with hundreds of millions.
-
I for one cannot wait for OFM to return. Its going to be all I play.
-
@ChArTeRBuS said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@STI1489 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
we can all complain until we turn blue but the fact is the current model works just look at how SDS has grown as a company in the last 5 years. There will always be people who don't care and will spend money where I think SDS and the other companies can chnage without hurting there current model is creating a comp mode and a casual mode. Make the comp mode more realistic with less rng influence mant will say thats what RS is but its not rng still influences the game just like BR and events.
It works because we accept it. We accept it because there is no alternative. Let's take Madden here for a minute, they only sell games because people want to play a football game and there isn't anything else. So looking at their revenue you could conclude they are "successful" if you just look at that number. That's not a very smart way to look at the success and sustainability/continuity potential for a business.
If a competitor would arise and makes a way more customer oriented game, they will be done for. That's a realistic thing to worry about being EA because people do get fed up and will happily jump ship when the opportunity arises. Same goes for SDS or any other business for that matter.The issue is I don’t think anything except revenue is ever brought up between EA and the NFL. In reality they are probably very fond of one another from a business stance and have tears in there eyes from laughing so hard when they hear about people not like the gameplay. Then EA hands them a bizillion dollars and the NFL says see you in 5 years, keep up the amazing work. Extremely hard to compete with hundreds of millions.
That is true, and that is why we as gamers need to open our eyes. EA can hand the NFL a bazillion dollars because we keep buying their sh!t. If everyone stopped buying Madden out of protest, they have $0 to give the NFL and their licenses will be revoked and auctioned off to someone else who will make them money. The real power always lies with the consumer.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@ChArTeRBuS said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@STI1489 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
we can all complain until we turn blue but the fact is the current model works just look at how SDS has grown as a company in the last 5 years. There will always be people who don't care and will spend money where I think SDS and the other companies can chnage without hurting there current model is creating a comp mode and a casual mode. Make the comp mode more realistic with less rng influence mant will say thats what RS is but its not rng still influences the game just like BR and events.
It works because we accept it. We accept it because there is no alternative. Let's take Madden here for a minute, they only sell games because people want to play a football game and there isn't anything else. So looking at their revenue you could conclude they are "successful" if you just look at that number. That's not a very smart way to look at the success and sustainability/continuity potential for a business.
If a competitor would arise and makes a way more customer oriented game, they will be done for. That's a realistic thing to worry about being EA because people do get fed up and will happily jump ship when the opportunity arises. Same goes for SDS or any other business for that matter.The issue is I don’t think anything except revenue is ever brought up between EA and the NFL. In reality they are probably very fond of one another from a business stance and have tears in there eyes from laughing so hard when they hear about people not like the gameplay. Then EA hands them a bizillion dollars and the NFL says see you in 5 years, keep up the amazing work. Extremely hard to compete with hundreds of millions.
That is true, and that is why we as gamers need to open our eyes. EA can hand the NFL a bazillion dollars because we keep buying their sh!t. If everyone stopped buying Madden out of protest, they have $0 to give the NFL and their licenses will be revoked and auctioned off to someone else who will make them money. The real power always lies with the consumer.
Nothing you’re saying isn’t true, but the competitive community is almost always the smaller of the communities which makes it impossible to change anything. I can earn most of the rewards in this game NOW, but I still remember RTTS with maxed sliders and guess pitch because I couldn’t hit anything back when Joe Mayer was on the cover. That’s who SDS has to keep playing and bringing into the game, I don’t love it, but it’s still the reality.
Ea deals with it themselves, FIFA had a coin flip during a tournament worth tens of thousands of dollars because the servers wouldn’t work this year. The players who had to flip coins spent far more money than they were going to make, but the Career mode trailer still has more views than the Ultimate team trailer, so the power is still in the hands of the regular players that buy it for there kids or to have fun once a week, not the people disgusted at the competitive scene.
IMO the best we (competitive style players) can hope for is a much more realistic difficulty once you make WS. But I just don’t see how you reward user input if it’s not based on where a small tiny spec sized PCI is located in relation to the ball. They can’t possible give hits every time we use one bigger than the ball, people can hit it almost every single time which is why I’ve been in the “completely overhaul the game” mindset for a while now. It’s time, it’s been the same for decades.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
Not sure how well that would work. Nobody wants to admit they suck and if the good rewards are in the competitive mode people are going to gravitate to that.
You may be right. I wouldnt personally be against it.
But in my vision of how the game should be there are no "rewards". That's typical DD/Ultimate Team ideology, they need to feed you "rewards" to open up your wallet if you miss out on any of them. You're hitting the nail on the head with what I'm arguing against, if there are no rewards in the form of player cards with preset attributes, then it doesn't matter on what level you compete; it's about having fun and having the experience of playing a simulation sports game.
Maybe I've just become too accustomed to it, but it would be boring for me if I wasn't working towards something, if there wasn't rewards. Maybe I'm just a gullible consumer, but I enjoy the chase.
Additionally, there is no going back from micro-transactions, gaming companies make more off that there the initial game purpose. They will never get rid of rewards or "card content", it brings in to much revenue.
They scale back if they receive backlash, but there is no way they companies ever go back to just accepting the initial purchase of the majority of games.
-
@eatyum said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
Not sure how well that would work. Nobody wants to admit they suck and if the good rewards are in the competitive mode people are going to gravitate to that.
You may be right. I wouldnt personally be against it.
But in my vision of how the game should be there are no "rewards". That's typical DD/Ultimate Team ideology, they need to feed you "rewards" to open up your wallet if you miss out on any of them. You're hitting the nail on the head with what I'm arguing against, if there are no rewards in the form of player cards with preset attributes, then it doesn't matter on what level you compete; it's about having fun and having the experience of playing a simulation sports game.
Maybe I've just become too accustomed to it, but it would be boring for me if I wasn't working towards something, if there wasn't rewards. Maybe I'm just a gullible consumer, but I enjoy the chase.
Additionally, there is no going back from micro-transactions, gaming companies make more off that there the initial game purpose. They will never get rid of rewards or "card content", it brings in to much revenue.
They scale back if they receive backlash, but there is no way they companies ever go back to just accepting the initial purchase of the majority of games.
There are other ways to achieve rewards though if you want to implement such a mode. And that isn't even my biggest gripe, I specifically mentioned that multiple times already. I don't hate the idea of DD or Ultimate Team. I hate 2 results of those modes, one being the pay wall and 2 being the fact that developers become lazy and only care about adding player cards and programs into those modes because that's bringing in the money. Game quality suffers because of it, that's undeniable. I made cases for both Madden and MLBTS where the game has not improved at all over multiple years and sometimes it even got worse. If they would actually use their extra generated revenue to keep the game top notch state of the art, I'd be fine with that. But that's not happening, it's a copy/paste fest.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@eatyum said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@maskedgrappler said in The current state of sport simulation games:
Ive been saying cards aren't content since last year. Everyone goes on about how great the content is, but putting cards or packs in the store isn't content. Giving you something to do with those cards once you have them is content, giving you a gameplay related path to earning them is content. Simply selling you a new card isn't content.
Getting rid of features is pretty bad here too, even in DD. In 17 and 18 they had stat grinds, collections, and game missions all working together. In 19 they added moments, which would have been fine, but the scuttled almost everything from the previous games. Is that really adding content? Or is it replacing what they already had instead of improving upon it?
I would even be okay if they decided to give us less playable content, if that would be a result of them putting extra time and effort into polishing the engine and the mechanics of the game. But like I said earlier, barely anything has changed over the years other than minor tweaks, the adjustment of sliders and some added animations.
I agree. But I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a feeling that this is how they want the game to play. It's a fine line between making a game that rewards good players without excluding mediocre players.
You can still implement that ideology while upgrading your game engine and mechanics overall. And this game is very due for a complete overhaul in my opinion.
For sure. I just think a lot if people want them to put out a heavily skill based game and I just can't see that happening.
They could easily satisfy both sides by creating separate game modes for the more casual players and the competitive players. Yet another fine example of innovative possibilites and untapped potential in my opinion.
Not sure how well that would work. Nobody wants to admit they suck and if the good rewards are in the competitive mode people are going to gravitate to that.
You may be right. I wouldnt personally be against it.
But in my vision of how the game should be there are no "rewards". That's typical DD/Ultimate Team ideology, they need to feed you "rewards" to open up your wallet if you miss out on any of them. You're hitting the nail on the head with what I'm arguing against, if there are no rewards in the form of player cards with preset attributes, then it doesn't matter on what level you compete; it's about having fun and having the experience of playing a simulation sports game.
Maybe I've just become too accustomed to it, but it would be boring for me if I wasn't working towards something, if there wasn't rewards. Maybe I'm just a gullible consumer, but I enjoy the chase.
Additionally, there is no going back from micro-transactions, gaming companies make more off that there the initial game purpose. They will never get rid of rewards or "card content", it brings in to much revenue.
They scale back if they receive backlash, but there is no way they companies ever go back to just accepting the initial purchase of the majority of games.
There are other ways to achieve rewards though if you want to implement such a mode. And that isn't even my biggest gripe, I specifically mentioned that multiple times already. I don't hate the idea of DD or Ultimate Team. I hate 2 results of those modes, one being the pay wall and 2 being the fact that developers become lazy and only care about adding player cards and programs into those modes because that's bringing in the money. Game quality suffers because of it, that's undeniable. I made cases for both Madden and MLBTS where the game has not improved at all over multiple years and sometimes it even got worse. If they would actually use their extra generated revenue to keep the game top notch state of the art, I'd be fine with that. But that's not happening, it's a copy/paste fest.
While I definitely agree that game developers, especially sports games, get lazy because they know people will still buy, I also think part of it has to do with the yearly cycle of sports games.
Call of Duty comes out every year, but has multiple studios, so one studio gets 2-3 years to work on theirs, if it was only one, we'd see the copy/paste stuff there to.
And honestly, Idk how that issue gets solved, they aren't just going to stop doing yearly releases.
And don't get me wrong, they could still do way more then they are now even with the yearly releases, but it's a complicated issue.
-
If you want some entertainment, head over to reddit on the latest release of 2k21. It seems they may have overlooked that shooting a basketball into the basket higher than 20% of the time would make the game more appealing.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
I agree that Madden and Fifa or any other EA product is worse. But the evolution of MLB The Show has come to an unnecessary standstill, they can innovate in so many areas but they intentionally choose to play it safe and stick with what they know. There's a Japanese baseball game on the market, Healy has made some videos about it on YouTube, which is not how I envision MLBTS should be but it does put you out of your comfort zone and opens your eyes to how a baseball game could be developed differently. I highly suggest you go check one of those videos just to get an idea of what it looks like. Now again, I'm not advocating them to go that direction but it is refreshing to see things handled way differently as I do feel that game is more up to date technically than the current day MLBTS mechanics.
I agree with a lot of your points, but the show being at a standstill I don’t really agree with. I think there are a lot of issues with their rng coding and sliders they use in a lot of different areas of the game, but I think at least sds is trying to move forward compared to other companies and games. Just look at changes to this game this year. A new game mode in showdown I think is a great addition, but needs an overhaul in terms of their sliders and mechanics of the mode, but it’s also the first year of implementation so that’s common. Last year they introduced moments so the last 2 years they have added a new mode to the game, yes these modes are not perfect, but to me that shows they are trying to keep the game fresh and new additions. In terms of gameplay this year, pitch speeds were increased, defense was made more of a priority, the button accuracy speed was increased as well as adding a Perfect throw meter with catching and outfield that implements a perfect input for the best possible throw. And of course the biggest gameplay change of perfect/perfect.
Yes this game has many gameplay issues but, for me at least, SDS has shown they are trying to push the game forward without a complete overhaul. In my opinion the biggest issue is in the coding, sliders, and rng formulas. I think they put a coding in the game similar to racing games “rubber banding” to help lower players feel more comfortable and not get blown out so they can have more retention, but they clearly messed up in the programming department. And honestly if this game played well, in coding terms, this would be an amazing game.
In terms of DD and cards, yes this is a mode designed for monetary gain but at the same time, it’s what actually sells a good majority of copies of the game. I remember growing up with baseball/sports games before online was used, and unless you were a die hard fan or there were major graphical/game mode changes, there was no real reason to go and buy the newest addition of the game because all it really was is just an update of rosters. So you would buy a brand new game just for a new roster, for most consumers this isn’t worth it. Especially now with people being able to create their own rosters and edit players stats and share these rosters online, there would be no reason to buy a new game, unless there is Major graphical/gameplay changes.
Simply put, their programming department needs an overhaul and needs to create and adjust new rng formulas to create better game play
-
@CCCStunna30 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
I agree that Madden and Fifa or any other EA product is worse. But the evolution of MLB The Show has come to an unnecessary standstill, they can innovate in so many areas but they intentionally choose to play it safe and stick with what they know. There's a Japanese baseball game on the market, Healy has made some videos about it on YouTube, which is not how I envision MLBTS should be but it does put you out of your comfort zone and opens your eyes to how a baseball game could be developed differently. I highly suggest you go check one of those videos just to get an idea of what it looks like. Now again, I'm not advocating them to go that direction but it is refreshing to see things handled way differently as I do feel that game is more up to date technically than the current day MLBTS mechanics.
I agree with a lot of your points, but the show being at a standstill I don’t really agree with. I think there are a lot of issues with their rng coding and sliders they use in a lot of different areas of the game, but I think at least sds is trying to move forward compared to other companies and games. Just look at changes to this game this year. A new game mode in showdown I think is a great addition, but needs an overhaul in terms of their sliders and mechanics of the mode, but it’s also the first year of implementation so that’s common. Last year they introduced moments so the last 2 years they have added a new mode to the game, yes these modes are not perfect, but to me that shows they are trying to keep the game fresh and new additions. In terms of gameplay this year, pitch speeds were increased, defense was made more of a priority, the button accuracy speed was increased as well as adding a Perfect throw meter with catching and outfield that implements a perfect input for the best possible throw. And of course the biggest gameplay change of perfect/perfect.
Yes this game has many gameplay issues but, for me at least, SDS has shown they are trying to push the game forward without a complete overhaul. In my opinion the biggest issue is in the coding, sliders, and rng formulas. I think they put a coding in the game similar to racing games “rubber banding” to help lower players feel more comfortable and not get blown out so they can have more retention, but they clearly messed up in the programming department. And honestly if this game played well, in coding terms, this would be an amazing game.
In terms of DD and cards, yes this is a mode designed for monetary gain but at the same time, it’s what actually sells a good majority of copies of the game. I remember growing up with baseball/sports games before online was used, and unless you were a die hard fan or there were major graphical/game mode changes, there was no real reason to go and buy the newest addition of the game because all it really was is just an update of rosters. So you would buy a brand new game just for a new roster, for most consumers this isn’t worth it. Especially now with people being able to create their own rosters and edit players stats and share these rosters online, there would be no reason to buy a new game, unless there is Major graphical/gameplay changes.
Simply put, their programming department needs an overhaul and needs to create and adjust new rng formulas to create better game play
I'm talking about real engine/mechanical changes though. This game has been the same for many years in that regard, no matter how many moments/showdowns or other stuff is added. That is content, the meat on the bones. I'm talking about the bones of the game, the core of it all. Even though the game plays very differently these last few years, that is all achieved by tweaks and slider adjustments because the core of the game, the bones, is still the very same and it desperately needs a complete overhaul.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
I'm talking about real engine/mechanical changes though. This game has been the same for many years in that regard, no matter how many moments/showdowns or other stuff is added. That is content, the meat on the bones. I'm talking about the bones of the game, the core of it all. Even though the game plays very differently these last few years, that is all achieved by tweaks and slider adjustments because the core of the game, the bones, is still the very same and it desperately needs a complete overhaul.
So when I was describing the programming and coding, I’m kinda including the game engine to an extent because to me they are somewhat one in the same. I’m not a programmer or have any real knowledge of coding, but in my mind, and I could be completely wrong, but the game engine can only do what it’s programmed and coded to do. So no matter what engine is being used, if the programming and coding of how the game determines results is messed up, the game engine won’t undue that. So in my mind there is no real point changing the game engine unless the formulas for determining results are changed. Kinda like dropping a Ferrari engine in a Toyota Celica without modifying the celica to accommodate the Ferrari engine.
-
@CCCStunna30 said in The current state of sport simulation games:
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
I'm talking about real engine/mechanical changes though. This game has been the same for many years in that regard, no matter how many moments/showdowns or other stuff is added. That is content, the meat on the bones. I'm talking about the bones of the game, the core of it all. Even though the game plays very differently these last few years, that is all achieved by tweaks and slider adjustments because the core of the game, the bones, is still the very same and it desperately needs a complete overhaul.
So when I was describing the programming and coding, I’m kinda including the game engine to an extent because to me they are somewhat one in the same. I’m not a programmer or have any real knowledge of coding, but in my mind, and I could be completely wrong, but the game engine can only do what it’s programmed and coded to do. So no matter what engine is being used, if the programming and coding of how the game determines results is messed up, the game engine won’t undue that. So in my mind there is no real point changing the game engine unless the formulas for determining results are changed. Kinda like dropping a Ferrari engine in a Toyota Celica without modifying the celica to accommodate the Ferrari engine.
It's the other way around, the engine comes first and then the additional coding and programming follows.
-
@raesONE said in The current state of sport simulation games:
It's the other way around, the engine comes first and then the additional coding and programming follows.
I can understand that, but what I'm saying is whether or not the engine comes first does not matter to their mindset. If they like their current coding and hitting results, then the new engine wont matter because they will code it to get similar results. The fact that they have not adjusted hitting in a long time and the last time they even addressed the community about hitting they they provided stats that basically came across as well we dont care what you think you know or feel about how the game plays, here is our "statistics" and were basically gloating about how the game is playing how they want it to play. This tells me that no matter what engine is used, their programmers think the game is playing how it is supposed to and will use whatever engine to continue to get the same statistical results. That is my point about their programming and coding needing to change.
