Future Stars Overrated?
-
DBacks and Orioles seem to be the AAA to rest of the league. I'm not saying don't put them in there but to have a higher rating without proving anything is a reach.
-
It's a video game. They help to grow the game too. I'm willing to bet the amount of non Cardinals fans that knew who Nolan Gorman was without him getting a future stars card the last two years was extremely slim. It's exciting to see these guys get called up after using their card in this game. Whether they are busts or not doesn't matter. And as a tigers fan, getting a Jackson Jobe card is much more exciting than the same old Trammel and Kaline cards. If you were a fan of a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 8 years I'm sure you would understand more
-
@stealingthird_mlbts said in Future Stars Overrated?:
DBacks and Orioles seem to be the AAA to rest of the league. I'm not saying don't put them in there but to have a higher rating without proving anything is a reach.
Aren't the future stars all the same level across the board?
-
Why do they need to prove something? Do hall of famers lay awake at night furious that a fs is rated 95 on mlbts? I would bet not. No one will be using 99% percent of these cards in one to two months anyway. I really don't understand the thought process in how sacred some people treat a rating on a card in a videogame
-
@theblindrhino said in Future Stars Overrated?:
@stealingthird_mlbts said in Future Stars Overrated?:
DBacks and Orioles seem to be the AAA to rest of the league. I'm not saying don't put them in there but to have a higher rating without proving anything is a reach.
Aren't the future stars all the same level across the board?
Sure. So start them at 70 or 75 or 80 but not make them the best cards in the game. I agree with what everyone is saying. But I do think ratings matter and most "future stars" are busts and the peaks of their careers should not be a "I had a 95 rating in MLB Show way back when". But, the point to market the game and keep fans of crappy teams engaged is a solid point. I agree with that.
-
@stealingthird_mlbts said in Future Stars Overrated?:
@theblindrhino said in Future Stars Overrated?:
@stealingthird_mlbts said in Future Stars Overrated?:
DBacks and Orioles seem to be the AAA to rest of the league. I'm not saying don't put them in there but to have a higher rating without proving anything is a reach.
Aren't the future stars all the same level across the board?
Sure. So start them at 70 or 75 or 80 but not make them the best cards in the game. I agree with what everyone is saying. But I do think ratings matter and most "future stars" are busts and the peaks of their careers should not be a "I had a 95 rating in MLB Show way back when". But, the point to market the game and keep fans of crappy teams engaged is a solid point. I agree with that.
Then why have them at all? No one is gonna care about an 80. And the same thing would apply right? They haven't "earned" an 80. They will be the best cards in the game for probably less then a month.
-
I don't have the show 22, but I know in 20 and 21 there are some future stars tied to unlocking 2nd and 3rd level progress on player programs. I think they rate them high to make them better able to help in that program. But as others have said, they probably are doing this to generate interest in the next generation of MLB players, and how many times can we see the same past superstars run out there?
-
I have nothing against the Future Stars, I just don't agree with 95 ratings. Higher than a lot of Live Series star players. I agree, marketing the future and maybe putting a 95 rating on them is how to showcase them today. I can see that logic.
-
-
A admin locked this topic on
