What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

[Pared]

Seriously, with so much negative feedback on how the game seems similar to last year based on the videos we've seen... what do YOU think?

I've stated it before, and I'll do it again for the sole purpose of this thread: FPM should have been scrapped, and those resources should have been used for improving gameplay issues. I don't know how much work they've put into this b/c I haven't played the game, but I still don't think FPM was NOT worth the time and investment. It's just not something viable in a sports game on a TV/Screen. You need to control multiple players... it's not like in FPS where it's you against everyone else. Until you can LOCK who you control in FPM, you can't really incorporate this right in a sports game...

So I'm asking all the people who are making those negative posts such as "ESPN is the same!" blah blah blah to actually post what Sega should have done to up the ante.

Remember, we haven't played the game, so you can't really say much about improved gameplay. I'm talking about modes and such.

Personally, I like the fully playable minors thing from MVP. EA really came out of nowhere with this idea, and whether it interests you or not, you HAVE TO give them credit. I'm also not crazy about look of the players... they just seem "off." IMO, the HRK models were better when it came to body sizes and frames. ESPN's player models don't seem like they're actually "gripping the ball and throwing it..." Gamecast sounds great, but others have done this same things as well (even MLB! Didn't know that...) It also seems like they didn't use the ESPN presentation as much as they could have... Where's the playable Dead Center cam, just like Sunday Night Baseball? How about cut aways to another game highlight in Baseball tonight? Web gems? HR Hitters of the night? Who's Hot/Who's Not?

But what could Sega have done, that you guys see, that they didn't?

[ChiTownKid]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I don't know if it really is possible to compete with EA evenly. They're too big, too well-known, too ******* rich.

The question is, what should Sega be competing for? Seems to me that they're not quite sure. They had the hardcore-crowd won a couple of years ago with football, basketball, AND hockey, but they seem to have decided that they need the mainstream/casual buck, too, and so they've been dabbling with the gimmicks the last couple of years.

The unfortunate result is that they're not doing either thing well.

EA doesn't give crap one about sim this, realistc that, or what the hardcore fan wants. They want the largest demographic: The *******, easily-titilated gamer who'll follow the flashy lure. And they have it. Nobody beats EA's flash and production budget.

Sega should realize that they won't either, and just continue to do what they have done best so far: making the most realistic and true-to-the-sport games that they've been doing, and leave the whoring to the pimps. By dabbling in both, they fail at both, and they may very well lose what fan base they do have now.

But who knows. Maybe what they had isn't good enough for them. I have no idea what's motivating them, but it seems to me that some of the right people are listening to some of the WRONG people.

They haven't lost me yet. I still prefer Sega over EA. But I expect real improvements from year to year for my $50. I didn't really feel like I got that with NHL this year. I'm not ready to jump ship, but I am leery. This year's baseball game will decide much.

[ChiTownKid]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I don't know if it really is possible to compete with EA evenly. They're too big, too well-known, too ******* rich.

The question is, what should Sega be competing for? Seems to me that they're not quite sure. They had the hardcore-crowd won a couple of years ago with football, basketball, AND hockey, but they seem to have decided that they need the mainstream/casual buck, too, and so they've been dabbling with the gimmicks the last couple of years.

The unfortunate result is that they're not doing either thing well.

EA doesn't give crap one about sim this, realistc that, or what the hardcore fan wants. They want the largest demographic: The *******, easily-titilated gamer who'll follow the flashy lure. And they have it. Nobody beats EA's flash and production budget.

Sega should realize that they won't either, and just continue to do what they have done best so far: making the most realistic and true-to-the-sport games that they've been doing, and leave the whoring to the pimps. By dabbling in both, they fail at both, and they may very well lose what fan base they do have now.

But who knows. Maybe what they had isn't good enough for them. I have no idea what's motivating them, but it seems to me that some of the right people are listening to some of the WRONG people.

They haven't lost me yet. I still prefer Sega over EA. But I expect real improvements from year to year for my $50. I didn't really feel like I got that with NHL this year. I'm not ready to jump ship, but I am leery. This year's baseball game will decide much.

[ChiTownKid]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I don't know if it really is possible to compete with EA evenly. They're too big, too well-known, too ******* rich.

The question is, what should Sega be competing for? Seems to me that they're not quite sure. They had the hardcore-crowd won a couple of years ago with football, basketball, AND hockey, but they seem to have decided that they need the mainstream/casual buck, too, and so they've been dabbling with the gimmicks the last couple of years.

The unfortunate result is that they're not doing either thing well.

EA doesn't give crap one about sim this, realistc that, or what the hardcore fan wants. They want the largest demographic: The *******, easily-titilated gamer who'll follow the flashy lure. And they have it. Nobody beats EA's flash and production budget.

Sega should realize that they won't either, and just continue to do what they have done best so far: making the most realistic and true-to-the-sport games that they've been doing, and leave the whoring to the pimps. By dabbling in both, they fail at both, and they may very well lose what fan base they do have now.

But who knows. Maybe what they had isn't good enough for them. I have no idea what's motivating them, but it seems to me that some of the right people are listening to some of the WRONG people.

They haven't lost me yet. I still prefer Sega over EA. But I expect real improvements from year to year for my $50. I didn't really feel like I got that with NHL this year. I'm not ready to jump ship, but I am leery. This year's baseball game will decide much.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I love FP mode in ESPN Football, so I'm glad to see they've tried it with baseball. Sounds to me like they didn't put much time into it though. And it certainly doesn't sound like it took much time away from them in working on the gameplay. Hopefully, they'll continue to improve upon it for next year.

One thing I didn't need for them to add was the Confidence Meter. Or the new Duel mini-game. If they would only improve the ugly swings and rather generic batting stances, I would be happy. I would also like to see them get rid of the Matrix-style replays (what's up with them, anyways) and go with some replays and camera angles like we're seeing in MLB, MVP and ASB.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I love FP mode in ESPN Football, so I'm glad to see they've tried it with baseball. Sounds to me like they didn't put much time into it though. And it certainly doesn't sound like it took much time away from them in working on the gameplay. Hopefully, they'll continue to improve upon it for next year.

One thing I didn't need for them to add was the Confidence Meter. Or the new Duel mini-game. If they would only improve the ugly swings and rather generic batting stances, I would be happy. I would also like to see them get rid of the Matrix-style replays (what's up with them, anyways) and go with some replays and camera angles like we're seeing in MLB, MVP and ASB.

[GTheorenHobbes]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I love FP mode in ESPN Football, so I'm glad to see they've tried it with baseball. Sounds to me like they didn't put much time into it though. And it certainly doesn't sound like it took much time away from them in working on the gameplay. Hopefully, they'll continue to improve upon it for next year.

One thing I didn't need for them to add was the Confidence Meter. Or the new Duel mini-game. If they would only improve the ugly swings and rather generic batting stances, I would be happy. I would also like to see them get rid of the Matrix-style replays (what's up with them, anyways) and go with some replays and camera angles like we're seeing in MLB, MVP and ASB.

[SPTO]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Pared you made a lot of points that I would have made.

I said from the very beginning when the rumours of FPB was floating around that it was a bad idea. I mean it can come across ok in football but baseball is a hard sport to do that with especially when the ball is hit. Who's going to "see" the ball etc etc. So that's one thing I would have dropped.

I like sega sports and I think they had a great thing going last year by having their distinctive look while also being the leader in console sports sims. Sadly it seems they've gone arcade in the hope that they can grab the casual gamer. This was a bad move IMO as these games had a niche market. More often then not a niche market product will either grow and become popular with a sizable minority or it will prove to be a failure and slowly disappear.

Now all the Sega sports titles were getting aclaim last year. The niche market was hitting critical mass. All they needed to do was stick with the sim aspect and improve on gameplay bugs and any minor graphical problems while at the same time beefing up the franchise elements of their titles. (I think most of us will agree that the franchise side needed some beefing up) They sorta did that but for the most part it's the same old thing. Tho it does look like Blue Shift DID beef up the franchise mode a bit so that's good.

Instead most of the resources went to frivolous arcade style game modes like FPF (ESPN NFL) 24/7 (ESPN NBA) etc etc. They've also changed the core of some games or left previous problems intact. (NBA, NHL) You also have the problem of developers out and out lying about the product and how the game will play. (NBA) In reaching out to the casual gamer across the board they've gone and alienated the niche/hardcore crowd.

Now I will say it does seem that Blue Shift has stuck to the right formula of keeping the sim elements for the most part but the trust has been broken. It's not their fault and really they can't do anything about it but now a lot of the hardcore gamers are skeptical about the product when graphically the game looks like a patched up version of WSB.

The problem is not with Blue Shift per se but with the entire Sega/ESPN sports division. They went too far to the arcade/casual gamer when if they had stuck to the sim element and made the franchise elements of said games more robust then the sales for NEXT year would increase exponentially. Usually when something gets critical aclaim it takes not one but TWO years for said product to see results financially.

[SPTO]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Pared you made a lot of points that I would have made.

I said from the very beginning when the rumours of FPB was floating around that it was a bad idea. I mean it can come across ok in football but baseball is a hard sport to do that with especially when the ball is hit. Who's going to "see" the ball etc etc. So that's one thing I would have dropped.

I like sega sports and I think they had a great thing going last year by having their distinctive look while also being the leader in console sports sims. Sadly it seems they've gone arcade in the hope that they can grab the casual gamer. This was a bad move IMO as these games had a niche market. More often then not a niche market product will either grow and become popular with a sizable minority or it will prove to be a failure and slowly disappear.

Now all the Sega sports titles were getting aclaim last year. The niche market was hitting critical mass. All they needed to do was stick with the sim aspect and improve on gameplay bugs and any minor graphical problems while at the same time beefing up the franchise elements of their titles. (I think most of us will agree that the franchise side needed some beefing up) They sorta did that but for the most part it's the same old thing. Tho it does look like Blue Shift DID beef up the franchise mode a bit so that's good.

Instead most of the resources went to frivolous arcade style game modes like FPF (ESPN NFL) 24/7 (ESPN NBA) etc etc. They've also changed the core of some games or left previous problems intact. (NBA, NHL) You also have the problem of developers out and out lying about the product and how the game will play. (NBA) In reaching out to the casual gamer across the board they've gone and alienated the niche/hardcore crowd.

Now I will say it does seem that Blue Shift has stuck to the right formula of keeping the sim elements for the most part but the trust has been broken. It's not their fault and really they can't do anything about it but now a lot of the hardcore gamers are skeptical about the product when graphically the game looks like a patched up version of WSB.

The problem is not with Blue Shift per se but with the entire Sega/ESPN sports division. They went too far to the arcade/casual gamer when if they had stuck to the sim element and made the franchise elements of said games more robust then the sales for NEXT year would increase exponentially. Usually when something gets critical aclaim it takes not one but TWO years for said product to see results financially.

[SPTO]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Pared you made a lot of points that I would have made.

I said from the very beginning when the rumours of FPB was floating around that it was a bad idea. I mean it can come across ok in football but baseball is a hard sport to do that with especially when the ball is hit. Who's going to "see" the ball etc etc. So that's one thing I would have dropped.

I like sega sports and I think they had a great thing going last year by having their distinctive look while also being the leader in console sports sims. Sadly it seems they've gone arcade in the hope that they can grab the casual gamer. This was a bad move IMO as these games had a niche market. More often then not a niche market product will either grow and become popular with a sizable minority or it will prove to be a failure and slowly disappear.

Now all the Sega sports titles were getting aclaim last year. The niche market was hitting critical mass. All they needed to do was stick with the sim aspect and improve on gameplay bugs and any minor graphical problems while at the same time beefing up the franchise elements of their titles. (I think most of us will agree that the franchise side needed some beefing up) They sorta did that but for the most part it's the same old thing. Tho it does look like Blue Shift DID beef up the franchise mode a bit so that's good.

Instead most of the resources went to frivolous arcade style game modes like FPF (ESPN NFL) 24/7 (ESPN NBA) etc etc. They've also changed the core of some games or left previous problems intact. (NBA, NHL) You also have the problem of developers out and out lying about the product and how the game will play. (NBA) In reaching out to the casual gamer across the board they've gone and alienated the niche/hardcore crowd.

Now I will say it does seem that Blue Shift has stuck to the right formula of keeping the sim elements for the most part but the trust has been broken. It's not their fault and really they can't do anything about it but now a lot of the hardcore gamers are skeptical about the product when graphically the game looks like a patched up version of WSB.

The problem is not with Blue Shift per se but with the entire Sega/ESPN sports division. They went too far to the arcade/casual gamer when if they had stuck to the sim element and made the franchise elements of said games more robust then the sales for NEXT year would increase exponentially. Usually when something gets critical aclaim it takes not one but TWO years for said product to see results financially.

[Pared]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Great points by all.

I don't agree with the EA comments however. To care about sales, you HAVE TO care about the game to a certain extent. EA realized that they would not have as many sales this year if the title was stagnant. The added things, and while FP has pointed out, they aren't "innovative" features. BUT... the point is.. they're there now. I don't agree with their "attitude" but all developers have to make "claims" that they can back up, to a certain extent.

And I hope the many negatives that will be/have already been addressed in this thread will not turn off/upset others. It's all about the discussion and how this game can get back to where it was, at least in MY EYES, last year:

The best all around baseball game out there.

Keep the well put, thought provoking posts coming guys!

[Pared]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Great points by all.

I don't agree with the EA comments however. To care about sales, you HAVE TO care about the game to a certain extent. EA realized that they would not have as many sales this year if the title was stagnant. The added things, and while FP has pointed out, they aren't "innovative" features. BUT... the point is.. they're there now. I don't agree with their "attitude" but all developers have to make "claims" that they can back up, to a certain extent.

And I hope the many negatives that will be/have already been addressed in this thread will not turn off/upset others. It's all about the discussion and how this game can get back to where it was, at least in MY EYES, last year:

The best all around baseball game out there.

Keep the well put, thought provoking posts coming guys!

[Pared]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

Great points by all.

I don't agree with the EA comments however. To care about sales, you HAVE TO care about the game to a certain extent. EA realized that they would not have as many sales this year if the title was stagnant. The added things, and while FP has pointed out, they aren't "innovative" features. BUT... the point is.. they're there now. I don't agree with their "attitude" but all developers have to make "claims" that they can back up, to a certain extent.

And I hope the many negatives that will be/have already been addressed in this thread will not turn off/upset others. It's all about the discussion and how this game can get back to where it was, at least in MY EYES, last year:

The best all around baseball game out there.

Keep the well put, thought provoking posts coming guys!

[RatBastard]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I think that EA does care about the games.. Only to the extent that their marketing department(huge budget in hand) can sell the public on some new feature(s).

However.. NHL 2003.. It was painfully obvious they completely took the year off for that game. Madden's gameplay needs an overhaul too.

[RatBastard]

Re: What do YOU think Sega/ESPN should have done to compete?

I think that EA does care about the games.. Only to the extent that their marketing department(huge budget in hand) can sell the public on some new feature(s).

However.. NHL 2003.. It was painfully obvious they completely took the year off for that game. Madden's gameplay needs an overhaul too.