Wednesday, April 09, 2008

MLB The Show '08

Had to toss my two cents out about this game. First off I played ball through College and as a general rule I despise baseball video games despite the fact I always have to try them out 'just to see' if they got it. The last baseball game I enjoyed playing more than five minutes was 'bases loaded' on Nentendo.

So... I don't like the standard game mode for all the usual reasons. Fielding just does not work well when you are bugs bunny (playing everyone). And reactions are always messed up because you don't know which player will be selected. But 'Road To the SHOW' is awesome. At least for a pitcher.

What did they get right?

Setting pitches up realistically, hitters strengths and weaknesses are not givens... IE leave a ball in a hot zone and it leaves the park. Most games just don't do well (like most people) with the fact that even a hall of fame caliber hitter is only successful 3 out of 10 times on average even if they get something to hit. That said, screw up in a count favoring the hitter and mistakes will get hammered. Get ahead and hitters get more defensive and are less likely to jump on something... but its still more percentages than 'given'... ie they will hammer it behind in the count and they will miss ahead in the count. Fielding for a pitcher works fairly well though they seem unrealistic on lack of response on shots up the middle. That seems to be tied to your players fielding ability... ie rack up a higher fielding ability with training and more up the middle balls become playable (tappers etc...).

Variable strike zone with ups is only too realistic and VERY frustrating at times.

What did they get wrong?

Default pitch selection signals are horrendous... or maybe that was supposed to reflect bad calling. The game seems to think you have to mix high and low regardless of the pitcher on the hills capabilities and it will call a crap load of up in the zone pitches. There are only a handful of big league pitchers that are successful up in the zone consistently and even they spend most of their time in the lower quarter of the zone. Watch any game and you will see that it is extremely rare for a catcher to ask for a pitch to intentionally be 'up' in the zone.

If you are going to have a 'sweet spot' release point mechanic and you nail it then the pitch should go to the location or reasonably close.

Players should not start at 'F' qualities across the board. Initial point distribution should allow a good 'all round' player or one strong in a couple of areas to be so weak in others. Choosing starting points seems pointless since everything is so awful anyway. If a player was straight F's they wouldn't be in pro ball. Remember those are the attributes that got them a contract. Applying those attributes in games consistently is then what gets them to the show.

The 'missions' or whatever they want to call them are very hit or miss. For a pitcher they love to have random 'strike the batter out' requests which are mostly silly, especially considering how many other little details they got right. Pitchers rarely are on the hook to deliver a strike out. Runner(s) in scoring position with less than two outs is the ONLY time they would even work with a strike out in mind rather than JUST getting them out. At the least getting an out without a runner scoring should have always been a 'positive result'. Measuring pitching success rarely comes down to individual batters. Instead there should have been a pitching chart evaluation for the cumulative outing. IE what percentage of batters were you ahead in the count on, what was your strike/ball ratio, how many times did not let the lead off man on? Etc... these are all things that could have been standard evaluations after the game that were not really to be seen.

Training... man they really goofed that one if you ask me. What they should have done is provided a basic set of points per period in between games and then made players choose what areas to work on. Great performances in games would then have generated bonuses to attributes that were successfully used. IE if a pitcher got a lot of clutch outs they would be granted improvements to clutch performance and been able to focus training elsewhere. Heavy successful use of a pitch would develop aspects of that pitch etc...

All in all though the pitching experience is fantastic from my standpoint. I play every pitch and can REALLY get into the game. Hitters actually seem to respond to the way they are pitched. IE a hiiter who has their weakness exploited will adjust and you can then get them in other areas of the zone (or get hammered if you keep doing the same thing). Larger game trends like reliance on a certain pitch in certain situations will also get you in trouble. The mental game of pitch selection and location is there better than in ANY other game I have ever played.

Road to the show for a fielder is less well done. I don't think they should have limited player involvement to only the plays they were involved in directly. They should have just made it at least every pitch that was put in play. You don't have any chance to get in the 'mental' game of a fielder. Also hitting goals are asinine. Goals like 'reach base safely, or don't strike out' should be for an entire game, not specific at bats. Again hitting just isn't the kind of activity that lends itself well to such specific goals in a given AB. Hit and Run success should be weigted against the quality of pitch received and what was done... getting the ball on the ground to the correct side of the field successfully for a hit is NOT the only means of judging it a success. It is a percentage play in the right counts... which brings up signs. When you bat or are on base then checking signs should be pretty much a given part of every pitch except in obvious 'swing away' circumstances. Also the camera should provide a hitters eye perspective rather than just low behind the catcher... the eye hight is extremely important for pitch recognition etc... Though in the long run for a real decent pitch recognition mechanic in a game they are going to have to have a good 3d image for real depth perception judgement

Speaking of that the camera for base runners rounding second should be given a view of the third base coach... or the third base coach should be in a window. Pick Off warnings should come from the base coach and not from the announcers.

Fielding should include backing plays up... pitchers have a LOT of back up responsibilities but I have yet to see them come into play, and the camera angle for most of the backups of third/home are completely unusable.

Spring training... Why the hell do you only go to spring training if you are auditioning for a new contract? Starters play every year, and up and comers content for roster spots. Top Prospects should always be battling for position in spring training. If you want to give an established 'veteran' the option to skip playing spring training out fine. But honestly I think that is where the 'improvement' dynamic should have been most relevant with it being limited in season by success in games. Practice during the season is largely aimed at keeping sharp.. not on developing except in the minors in some cases.

Foul tips... jeesus H _(*@)(*#&% Christ. Every other at bat sometimes seems like the impossible out where all they do is fould the ball off. It does happen... but rarely does it happen more than a couple of times a game, Early on I literally had like 10 batters in a row where they would foul off an average of 6-10 2 strike pitches... was nutz. Happens WAAAAY to much.


All that said, I love the road to the show for a pitcher. You actually play a game of ball and most of the game is 'right' in terms of what happens though the fielding is sometimes goofy.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good analysis. Have you noticed that in pitcher mode, there is no control for trying to pick off base runners?