MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

[Mt Oread]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

So OS decided a bad review was not enough. Now we get a story about how they gave it a bad review. Wheeee!!!!

[misterkrabz]

I might pick it up after it's patched a couple times and it's down to $20....maybe.

[bigfnjoe96]

A review is based upon the value a game brings. If a game offers essentially the same experience as the year prior but at a significantly higher price, you can't give that game a solid recommendation. Games on here and elsewhere, are reviewed based upon what they do that's both new and good. Take into account MLB 2K13 doesn't offer online leagues, which is now a staple of our genre, is a 'patched' version of the last edition, and still has the same bugs as the series' prior games -- it's hard to find a reason to give a game a high score just on those factors alone. Just some thoughts, I didn't personally review the game but I do have final say in everything we put out -- but after playing 2K13 I had no problem with our score which indicates a below average experience on our scale (remember we don't grade games based on their letter grades, so a 4 is more akin to a D type of score in most outlets).

Chris I said this in the actual OS Review thread & I'll say again, with everything we knew about 2k13 & I mean everything we knew about it, 2k13 should have gotten an incomplete grade with an explanation why.

We all know this game was never slated to see the light of day, yet we are killing the game because 2k was basically forced to put this game out by the MLB because MLB didn't want the XBOX to be without an updated game.

Yes it's inexcusable to remove Online Leagues & 2k should be banged for it, but is it fair to kill this game for being what it is knowing the circumstances of how this game was made



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[scottyo60]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

Thanks for the reply Chris. I feel like this may be the one year a number can't justify via review of a game. Why I say that is this...

You have the same game with updated rosters, colors, and fixes. So the game, despite the legacy issues is actually better? Yes a mode was removed that shouldn't have been. Never played 12 to give this more thought. Yet I agree fully on the practice of it and understand the review. I also understand the articles against it, but it would almost seem justifiable to make the review incomplete/do not buy, and then do articles like this justifying how no score can be provided? Simply I'm not sure a situation has been like this in gaming. I'm guessing this is why IGN didn't review it.

[RaychelSnr]

Thanks for the reply Chris. I feel like this may be the one year a number can't justify via review of a game. Why I say that is this...

You have the same game with updated rosters, colors, and fixes. So the game, despite the legacy issues is actually better? Yes a mode was removed that shouldn't have been. Never played 12 to give this more thought. Yet I agree fully on the practice of it and understand the review. I also understand the articles against it, but it would almost seem justifiable to make the review incomplete/do not buy, and then do articles like this justifying how no score can be provided? Simply I'm not sure a situation has been like this in gaming. I'm guessing this is why IGN didn't review it.

By not reviewing the game or by making an exception, you give a company which chose the easy way out a pass. As a sports gaming site, we're here to hold companies' feet to the fire on issues such as this as much as possible, be it EA, Take Two, Activision, etc. When a company releases nothing more than a patched version of the previous years game and charges full price -- there's no reason you can give that game a good score. We don't make special exceptions because sooner or later, there will be more and more because that's just how things work. Instead we prefer to keep things on an even playing field and give each game the same chance to prove it's worth the price tag it's shipping at. Nothing more and nothing less.

[SteelersFan09]

No, 2k12 is still $39.99. I was just at best buy yesterday so I know this for a fact.

Yes it is $40 dollars at Best Buy but who would buy it there? Go to Gamestop and buy it used for $17.99. Or go on Ebay or Amazon and also buy it for under $20. Actually Amazon has it right no for about $15 dollars.

[jhendricks316]

I am still enjoying 2K12.

[inkcil]

No analogy will please everyone but here goes anyway...if a student turns a paper in to me in September and gets a C+, then turns around in May and gives me the same paper with nothing changed but the date and the title, they will receive an F. You CAN'T seriously want better games AND be willing to give 2K a review that scores the game at or near the previous year's effort. it just "ridiculousness." 2k knew the situation from the jump, their lawyers can read just like the MLB's lawyers can read. They knew all along what they had contractually agreed to produce in terms of no games...it was no surprise to them that they had to put out a 2K13, so any talk about their "short development cycle" is just babble-blah. It's like the kid who says "I only had a week to do this paper!" Then the parent asks, "When did you first find out about the assignment?" Then the kid says, "A month ago." Yeah...

[bigfnjoe96]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

No analogy will please everyone but here goes anyway...if a student turns a paper in to me in September and gets a C+, then turns around in May and gives me the same paper with nothing changed but the date and the title, they will receive an F. You CAN'T seriously want better games AND be willing to give 2K a review that scores the game at or near the previous year's effort. it just "ridiculousness." 2k knew the situation from the jump, their lawyers can read just like the MLB's lawyers can read. They knew all along what they had contractually agreed to produce in terms of no games...it was no surprise to them that they had to put out a 2K13, so any talk about their "short development cycle" is just babble-blah. It's like the kid who says "I only had a week to do this paper!" Then the parent asks, "When did you first find out about the assignment?" Then the kid says, "A month ago." Yeah...

Your wrong... They had no obligation to put out a game as their license agreement with MLB ended after they produced 2K12 and were not gonna release MLB 2K13.

Buy yeah let's just keep pilling on 2K because you know "It's the thing to do"

[bigfnjoe96]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

Straight from the review by Owen Good from Kotaku...

Major League Baseball itself also deserves blame for MLB 2K13, and not just for buck-stops-here reasons because its name is on the box. Take-Two Interactive may have signed an outrageously priced contract back in 2005, but baseball had absolutely no long-term vision for the license either, despite clear signals sent years ago that it would have no dancing partner on the Xbox 360 under any normal deal in 2013. This game was announced, by surprise, in January, and is plainly the product of Major League Baseball reckoning with the embarrassment of missing a year on the Xbox 360 and the fact it had zero leverage in avoiding it.

The structure of Take-Two's semi-exclusive license to make MLB video games on consoles left the big leagues with no way to engage a new developer in enough time to put a simulation product on shelves this year. I suppose MLB and the MLB Players' Association could have renegotiated their arrangements with Take-Two to let in another publisher to build something—which would require modeling hundreds of players' liknesses and at least six new stadiums—for release after the pact expired in 2012. That, presumably, would have required a large cash giveback to 2K Sports. Otherwise, what meaning does an exclusive license have, and why would anyone have paid so much for one, incurring losses estimated at $30 million a year.

[inkcil]

Your wrong... They had no obligation to put out a game as their license agreement with MLB ended after they produced 2K12 and were not gonna release MLB 2K13.

Buy yeah let's just keep pilling on 2K because you know "It's the thing to do"

Big...,Kotaku's story furthers my point. They had plenty of time and opportunity to put out a game. I love 2k, but I'm still gonna call it like it is. How is how 2k handled the whole situation good for games or gamers? Nah, when you pull stunts like this, you're gonna get it...period.

[DaveDQ]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

I have to scratch my head and ask why this thread was even created. Is this some sort of news piece? Is it, in light of some reacting to the initial review, an attempt to justify that review by saying, "Look, it's averaging bad scores so...?"

I would like to suggest that we refer back to the Madden 06 review given by Shawn Drotar, here on OS. It was given a 5. I use that review as an example for two reasons. One, I'm pretty sure the majority would agree that the game deserved a 5, so there really wasn't much controversy. Two, the review itself thoroughly breaks down why it was given a 5.

Reviews aren't given specific numerical points "because of principle" or because "very little was changed." They are given a numerical value based on the performance of the game. Heck, since we can't help but parallel MLB 2K with The Show, the OS MLB The Show 13 review writes, "There are no sweeping changes to either the core gameplay or the individual modes. And for some, that may be a valid reason to not buy the game. Call it the 'MLB 12.5 defense'." The Show was given a 9.

But I know why The Show was given a 9. It's an excellent representation of baseball in a sports video game. In some areas, so is MLB 2K 13.

When you look at the review that was given for MLB 2K13, that review isn't for this year's version. That review shouts "4" to 2K Sports for this entire generation. It says, "You are the guys that gave us NFL 2K5..."4!"....You are the ones that made the NBA 2K series what it is today..."FOUR!" 4! 4! 4! It's the frustration of feeling like baseball was put in the hands of the sacred 2K Sports and they blew it.

That's what that and many other reviews are all about.

[bigfnjoe96]

Big...,Kotaku's story furthers my point. They had plenty of time and opportunity to put out a game. I love 2k, but I'm still gonna call it like it is. How is how 2k handled the whole situation good for games or gamers? Nah, when you pull stunts like this, you're gonna get it...period.

Inkcil, you say 2k had plenty of time to put out a game. From everything we know, an agreement was reached some where towards the end of the year with 2k & MLB. Many people in the know stated Visual Concepts worked on this game for less than 90 days.

I respect your opinion. I know your from the old school. We go all the way back to the SEGA Sports Message Boards. I know your passionate about 2k Sports & Visual Concepts, but on this 1 they really were put in a tough situation by the MLB.

They did the best they could, which was to say: "Let's try & Fix some surface stuff & get this game out with the" Perfect Game Challenge" in mind. Which is what 2k felt would help sell the game, which sucks for us hardcore supporters

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[bkrich83]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

Inkcil, you say 2k had plenty of time to put out a game. From everything we know, an agreement was reached some where towards the end of the year with 2k & MLB. Many people in the know stated Visual Concepts worked on this game for less than 90 days.

I respect your opinion. I know your from the old school. We go all the way back to the SEGA Sports Message Boards. I know your passionate about 2k Sports & Visual Concepts, but on this 1 they really were put in a tough situation by the MLB.

They did the best they could, which was to say: "Let's try & Fix some surface stuff & get this game out with the" Perfect Game Challenge" in mind. Which is what 2k felt would help sell the game, which sucks for us hardcore supporters

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

The MLB deserves a share of the blame. A large share of the blame, but in the end, no one forced 2k to this deal, and certainly no one forced them to charge $60.. 2k is responsible for their criticism, and it's deserved.

[Mt Oread]

Re: MLB 2K13 Initial Reviews Quite Negative

The MLB deserves a share of the blame. A large share of the blame, but in the end, no one forced 2k to this deal, and certainly no one forced them to charge $60.. 2k is responsible for their criticism, and it's deserved.

No one is claiming they don't. The issue is, the review doesn't accurately represent the game.

I've been the biggest defender of 2K baseball here, and i said from the get-go, and still say, for most gamers, this was not going to be worth $60. I said it the moment they announced they released a game. I said it after every tiny reveal indicated the game was going to be a mostly a paint job and roster update.

But here's the deal. I'm glad they released a game. The only option was not to release a game. Every single person that says $60 is a bad deal can not buy the game and get EXACTLY what they would have if 2K didn't release it.

Sportaku and OS didn't review the game. That's their prerogative. But the same motives they use to justify their criticism of how 2K handled their business is the same that leads many to point out the huge disservice they did to people actually interested in the game instead of the politics.