I need your help picking a baseball sim.

[aran]

As the topic states, I need help picking a baseball sim. I've been in the mood to play one for a week or two and I apparently don't have my copy of FPS: Baseball Pro anymore. As far as realistic stat generation and interface useability go, which is best?

I'm going to be researching and looking at screenshots a bit. Can anyone give me a good pros/cons of the leading competitors? (puresim and OOTPB are the only two that are worth looking at, as far as I've seen)

[SackAttack]

I'm working on my PureSim review as we speak. I hope to have it up within the hour.

Diagnosis isn't happy, but admittedly I'm reviewing it based on the 1.0 build. I haven't touched the patch yet.

[Franklinnoble]

You gotta review based on the patch... it's almost unfair not to... the game is MUCH better with the patch.

[aran]

Wow.. OOTPB 2006 looks amazing. It's got that great FM2006 feel, but in a sport I actually know well enough!

Hopefully it sims as well as FM2006...

[SackAttack]

You gotta review based on the patch... it's almost unfair not to... the game is MUCH better with the patch.

No sir, and for two reasons.

First: "MUCH better" is a semantic point. Is it "MUCH better" from the perspective of added features, or does it address issues that were fundamentally broken in the initial release? If you feel the former is the case, then the point is at least partially valid.

Second: if "fundamentally broken" is the issue, it's intellectually dishonest to the consumer to review the game based on a patched version that may or may not be easily accessible.

It's hard to believe, I know, but there are still people out there who connect to the internet on a dial-up basis. 10 MB is still a big deal for the bandwidth-challenged (or if you've got a wireless connection with "issues").

It's much more honest to review the game everybody can expect to have immediately available to them and tell them "However, there's a patch available that may fix some of these issues" than to review the patched game and then have a dial-up user wonder what the hell I was smoking if there's a significant difference.

If I alow myself to get onto the patch treadmill with a PC game, particularly if I haven't had access to reviewable code before official launch, then what happens is I have to put the patch through the same process I put the launch code, and perhaps by the time I've done that other things have popped up and it just becomes a cycle.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

I would think it's pretty clear from context where I stand re: PureSim on the first point.

[aran]

What are your thoughts on the OOTPB franchise?

[Franklinnoble]

No sir, and for two reasons.

First: "MUCH better" is a semantic point. Is it "MUCH better" from the perspective of added features, or does it address issues that were fundamentally broken in the initial release? If you feel the former is the case, then the point is at least partially valid.

Second: if "fundamentally broken" is the issue, it's intellectually dishonest to the consumer to review the game based on a patched version that may or may not be easily accessible.

It's hard to believe, I know, but there are still people out there who connect to the internet on a dial-up basis. 10 MB is still a big deal for the bandwidth-challenged (or if you've got a wireless connection with "issues").

It's much more honest to review the game everybody can expect to have immediately available to them and tell them "However, there's a patch available that may fix some of these issues" than to review the patched game and then have a dial-up user wonder what the hell I was smoking if there's a significant difference.

If I alow myself to get onto the patch treadmill with a PC game, particularly if I haven't had access to reviewable code before official launch, then what happens is I have to put the patch through the same process I put the launch code, and perhaps by the time I've done that other things have popped up and it just becomes a cycle.

Seriously, how many PC games *DON'T* get fundamentally better after a patch these days? I disagree with your logic here. Civilization 4 was entirely unplayable for me until the SECOND patch. Now it's one of my favorite games. But if I had reviewed it based on my first impression, I would have rated it the worst of all time.

[Johnny Slick]

Dood, just buy both. You'll get like hundreds of hours of play from them, and pay a lot less than you would for the cost of 2 "regular" computer games that will give you 1/5th the pleasure.

If it helps, I give Puresim a B+ at this point. I'm a lot higher on it than SackAttack. The jury's out on OOTP. If it comes through on its promises, A all the way through.

[aran]

Seriously, how many PC games *DON'T* get fundamentally better after a patch these days? I disagree with your logic here. Civilization 4 was entirely unplayable for me until the SECOND patch. Now it's one of my favorite games. But if I had reviewed it based on my first impression, I would have rated it the worst of all time.

I agree with this. You can always write in your review that you are reviewing the patched version, and that the unpatched version was worse in this, this, and that way.

[SackAttack]

Seriously, how many PC games *DON'T* get fundamentally better after a patch these days? I disagree with your logic here. Civilization 4 was entirely unplayable for me until the SECOND patch. Now it's one of my favorite games. But if I had reviewed it based on my first impression, I would have rated it the worst of all time.

Now, see, this is where the subjective nature of reviews comes into play. Civ 4 wasn't unplayable for me (except for the endgame where it got markedly slower and, after two patches, still does so, but not to a "quit to desktop" point).

With PureSim, what's bothering me isn't so much the core of the game, although there are flaws within it that bother me. It needs work, but if Willie Mays outhomering the Babe on a regular basis were the only problem, well, the game provides tools with which to adjust that. I don't necessarily agree with having the user make those changes, but providing those tools is infinitely preferable to not.

Most of my serious issues stem from the UI, and it's those *combined* with the gameplay issues that are costing PureSim. My review will be up shortly, though.

It would've been up already, but I went and re-ran some things within the game to make sure that my gripes were accurate, and not gripes based on something I imagined. If I'm going to poke and tear at the game, I want to be as honest as I can there, as well.

[Johnny Slick]

It is true that you need to make an awful lot of mouse clicks to do some fairly simple things. And I'm not really big on the way the lineup/rotation screen is laid out. That being said, those are fairly minor problems for me. It still feels kind of unpolished to me, but I can't tell whether that's the result of any subconscious vibe I'm picking up from things or if my mind's eye is equating OOTP 6.5 with "professional looking" when it comes to these things.

[SackAttack]

It is true that you need to make an awful lot of mouse clicks to do some fairly simple things. And I'm not really big on the way the lineup/rotation screen is laid out. That being said, those are fairly minor problems for me. It still feels kind of unpolished to me, but I can't tell whether that's the result of any subconscious vibe I'm picking up from things or if my mind's eye is equating OOTP 6.5 with "professional looking" when it comes to these things.

Johnny, my UI problems extend beyond "too many mouse clicks."

For example, something I discovered earlier tonight: in version 1.0 - and I'm not assuming this has been fixed because I don't recall ANYBODY else talking about it previously - if you're playing with one of the larger roster sizes, well, you know it's not a minimum, it's not a maximum. It's a level you must meet exactly, or the game won't let you proceed.

That's fine.

But if you get in there, with, say, a 60 man roster, and you've got 10 kids on the farm (leaving 25 empty minor league spaces), you might have a problem. Why? Well, you either have to click-sign-click-sign 25 guys to fill spots if there isn't talent out there that excites you, or else click "Suggest" and "OK" until your rosters are filled.

Absent a three-finger salute, you can't exit the game until you've filled those rosters. You can't say "Aw, crap, 20 men? I don't have time for that, the wife wants me to come to bed" and close out. You either leave it running, do it haphazardly, do it right and piss off the wife/significant other, or force the program closed.

THAT'S the kind of UI garbage that's pissing me off. Don't let me progress in the season until I do it, fine. But don't hold me hostage and prevent me from exiting the program, either.

[Johnny Slick]

Hmm. Good point. There are several "complete or die" moments in PS, most notably the initial and yearly drafts. Hadn't thought about that before, really, but that's definitely contributing to the "unpolished" feel (which is probably more apt and definitely less mean-sounding than "unprofessional").

[SackAttack]

Review is up, about an hour later than I hoped it would be.

Partly because of how long it is, partly because, well, my wireless connection sucks ass. Maybe I should have been background-downloading the patch to keep it active or something, I dunno.

[Galaril]

Interesting review.

[Toddzilla]

If it comes through on its promises, A all the way through.You coulda said that about Maximim Football, too. :rolleyes:

[Johnny Slick]

You coulda said that about Maximim Football, too. :rolleyes:The difference being, OOTP looks like it might have a shot at doing so. Also, it hasn't been in development since 2001.

[KWhit]

You gotta review based on the patch... it's almost unfair not to... the game is MUCH better with the patch.

I completely disagree. You review the RELEASED VERSION of the game. If the developer thought the game was good enough for the public, then it's good enough to be reviewed.

Doing it this way should also be incentive for the developers to stop releasing games that are buggy as hell on initial release.

[Bee]

Review is up, about an hour later than I hoped it would be.

Partly because of how long it is, partly because, well, my wireless connection sucks ass. Maybe I should have been background-downloading the patch to keep it active or something, I dunno.

For what it's worth...I thought the review came off a little more negative than I would have done, but I pretty much agree with most of your points.

[IwasHere]

Have you tried the free ootp5?

[MizzouRah]

At this point I would say ootp 6.5 :)

[SackAttack]

For what it's worth...I thought the review came off a little more negative than I would have done, but I pretty much agree with most of your points.

It came off more negative than I would have liked, but that's what happens once you start writing. Stuff you hadn't really considered before or admitted to yourself gets on paper, and then you look at it and decide, do you really mean that?

I completely disagree. You review the RELEASED VERSION of the game. If the developer thought the game was good enough for the public, then it's good enough to be reviewed.

Also a valid point, and one that crossed my mind to make several times last night. Thanks for making it for me, KWhit.

[Shaun Sullivan]

Thanks for taking the time to review the game. I actually see the review as an indicator that PureSim is really gaining momentum. The very fact that you were so frustrated with some aspects demonstrates that you found the game engaging enough to warrant frustration. What can I say, I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy. Some of your suggestions are on my road map so that's good news.

I understand the idealism of not reviewing a patched version, but I hope you'll continue to follow the game as I continue to update it. The dichotomy of doing a lot of patches like I do (which in most cases are 50/50 new features and bug fixes) is that some folks read into it inferring that a game is not stable. PureSim is extremely stable. I just enjoy adding things as the community requests them. It's a part of the PureSim experience that frankly, I don't think gets the credit it deserves.

[SackAttack]

Thanks for taking the time to review the game. I actually see the review as an indicator that PureSim is really gaining momentum. The very fact that you were so frustrated with some aspects demonstrates that you found the game engaging enough to warrant frustration. What can I say, I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy. Some of your suggestions are on my road map so that's good news.

That's about where I found myself sitting after uploading it last night. It really is a game I want to love, and I don't think it's a stretch to think I could be putting some serious long-term time into a dynasty if some of the frustrations are removed.

I understand the idealism of not reviewing a patched version, but I hope you'll continue to follow the game as I continue to update it. The dichotomy of doing a lot of patches like I do (which in most cases are 50/50 new features and bug fixes) is that some folks read into it inferring that a game is not stable. PureSim is extremely stable. I just enjoy adding things as the community requests them. It's a part of the PureSim experience that frankly, I don't think gets the credit it deserves.

Yup, that is a big thing. It was hard to touch on in the review, but I'll probably talk about that some once I get a chance to fairly assess the patch.