IGN Review---8.4

**GameDude** · 04-06-2004, 08:30 PM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

I can't argue with his impressions that the game hasn't changed much from last year, as I have not played this year's version yet. I am disappointed that he didn't back up some of his assertions.

He said that the graphics took a step back. That he liked the new additions, but didn't really say how it went backwards, except for some framey animations, whatever that means. Also that the audio went backward, even with the addition of Jon Miller (which he liked), but only really said that the stadiums were too quiet, which I can understand would be a bummer. There are pluses and minuses, but I guess he thinks the minuses outweighed the pluses. He just didn't convey to me how these areas are actually worse than last year.

Also, he said that there wasn't much added to the presentation, except for some ESPN related stuff. They completely reworked the cutscenes this year to give it a more tv-like presentation, and there was no mention of that at all. And even though he mentioned that the replays showed more of the play, he didn't add this part to the presentation evaluation.

There were just a few areas of his review where I couldn't really understand what he was talking about, and not very good reasons to downgrade from last year.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 08:50 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 08:50 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 08:50 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

**dmfreck** · 04-07-2004, 09:19 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

**dmfreck** · 04-07-2004, 09:19 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

**dmfreck** · 04-07-2004, 09:19 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

**Pared** · 04-07-2004, 09:23 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

Exactly, the comparisons therein lie in terms of all BASEBALL GAMES. WSB2k3 was a great baseball game. I LOVED IT. But there were TOO MANY minor changes to keep me interested this year.

I prefer HH's Zone Hitting, but cursor wasn't a problem for me. My issues with the game all were on the field. The horrible jumping. The lifeless players. The completely false sense of emotion of games. The boring crowds (aside from player heckling).

WSB 2k3 was a great baseball game, I loved the realism it had, the depth. But there wasn't enough "glitz" to keep me. I need to have games that are not only believable and realistic, but FUN. There are times when you want to just sit right there with your pals and play games where you feel you want MORE CONTROL. Where are the varied types of throws? And they included speed burst for a BASEBALL game..??

I don't know how else to explain it, but I want more from the ESPN MLB game. I'll play FPB maybe twice, that's it. But I'd rather have some more stuff on the field. People want to mention Madden's Playmaker was a pathetic gimmick... well ya know what, it worked ON THE FIELD. That's more of what I want from a baseball game. I love controlling my slides, determining the strength of throws, and being able to choose how I dive after a ball. Why? B/c all of that leads to immersion: you're so focused on the game you forget what's going on around you for a bit. That was my problem with WSB. I can play a game but still do well not focusing completely.

The argument shouldn't be "Why can Madden just slightly improve and not ESPN?" The point is no game should be doing that. Especially ESPN.... Baseball games can offer so much more (as we've seen with MLB's career mode and 60 fps graphics, ASB's franchise, fielder cam, and attention to detail, and MVP's on field player control) and ESPN has to "step up to the plate" and do the same.

I haven't played ESPN, but I'm just fearing it's going to be more of the same. If I wanted that, I'd still be playing WSB2k3.

**Pared** · 04-07-2004, 09:23 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

Exactly, the comparisons therein lie in terms of all BASEBALL GAMES. WSB2k3 was a great baseball game. I LOVED IT. But there were TOO MANY minor changes to keep me interested this year.

I prefer HH's Zone Hitting, but cursor wasn't a problem for me. My issues with the game all were on the field. The horrible jumping. The lifeless players. The completely false sense of emotion of games. The boring crowds (aside from player heckling).

WSB 2k3 was a great baseball game, I loved the realism it had, the depth. But there wasn't enough "glitz" to keep me. I need to have games that are not only believable and realistic, but FUN. There are times when you want to just sit right there with your pals and play games where you feel you want MORE CONTROL. Where are the varied types of throws? And they included speed burst for a BASEBALL game..??

I don't know how else to explain it, but I want more from the ESPN MLB game. I'll play FPB maybe twice, that's it. But I'd rather have some more stuff on the field. People want to mention Madden's Playmaker was a pathetic gimmick... well ya know what, it worked ON THE FIELD. That's more of what I want from a baseball game. I love controlling my slides, determining the strength of throws, and being able to choose how I dive after a ball. Why? B/c all of that leads to immersion: you're so focused on the game you forget what's going on around you for a bit. That was my problem with WSB. I can play a game but still do well not focusing completely.

The argument shouldn't be "Why can Madden just slightly improve and not ESPN?" The point is no game should be doing that. Especially ESPN.... Baseball games can offer so much more (as we've seen with MLB's career mode and 60 fps graphics, ASB's franchise, fielder cam, and attention to detail, and MVP's on field player control) and ESPN has to "step up to the plate" and do the same.

I haven't played ESPN, but I'm just fearing it's going to be more of the same. If I wanted that, I'd still be playing WSB2k3.

**Pared** · 04-07-2004, 09:23 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

Exactly, the comparisons therein lie in terms of all BASEBALL GAMES. WSB2k3 was a great baseball game. I LOVED IT. But there were TOO MANY minor changes to keep me interested this year.

I prefer HH's Zone Hitting, but cursor wasn't a problem for me. My issues with the game all were on the field. The horrible jumping. The lifeless players. The completely false sense of emotion of games. The boring crowds (aside from player heckling).

WSB 2k3 was a great baseball game, I loved the realism it had, the depth. But there wasn't enough "glitz" to keep me. I need to have games that are not only believable and realistic, but FUN. There are times when you want to just sit right there with your pals and play games where you feel you want MORE CONTROL. Where are the varied types of throws? And they included speed burst for a BASEBALL game..??

I don't know how else to explain it, but I want more from the ESPN MLB game. I'll play FPB maybe twice, that's it. But I'd rather have some more stuff on the field. People want to mention Madden's Playmaker was a pathetic gimmick... well ya know what, it worked ON THE FIELD. That's more of what I want from a baseball game. I love controlling my slides, determining the strength of throws, and being able to choose how I dive after a ball. Why? B/c all of that leads to immersion: you're so focused on the game you forget what's going on around you for a bit. That was my problem with WSB. I can play a game but still do well not focusing completely.

The argument shouldn't be "Why can Madden just slightly improve and not ESPN?" The point is no game should be doing that. Especially ESPN.... Baseball games can offer so much more (as we've seen with MLB's career mode and 60 fps graphics, ASB's franchise, fielder cam, and attention to detail, and MVP's on field player control) and ESPN has to "step up to the plate" and do the same.

I haven't played ESPN, but I'm just fearing it's going to be more of the same. If I wanted that, I'd still be playing WSB2k3.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 09:31 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
dmfreck said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

<hr /></blockquote>

Nah, I knew exactly what he was talking about. I should of explained more instead of making a smart *** comment. I just really did'nt wanna add fuel to the fire discussing Madden in a baseball forum. I do know what he's getting at but that comparison can be made with anything. Its not just that the reviewer has a bias (well actually he does, towards ESPN) its just the fact that the reviewer did'nt notice much new. Everyone knows that the reason MAdden got higher marks is because of Owner mode. Maybe if ESPN MLB did have a owners mode, a true or comparible owners mode, then the review would of been more positive than negative. Who knows. Besides, its only one persons opinion anyway. I dont see why anyone is getting bent out of shape because of his comments.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 09:31 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
dmfreck said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

<hr /></blockquote>

Nah, I knew exactly what he was talking about. I should of explained more instead of making a smart *** comment. I just really did'nt wanna add fuel to the fire discussing Madden in a baseball forum. I do know what he's getting at but that comparison can be made with anything. Its not just that the reviewer has a bias (well actually he does, towards ESPN) its just the fact that the reviewer did'nt notice much new. Everyone knows that the reason MAdden got higher marks is because of Owner mode. Maybe if ESPN MLB did have a owners mode, a true or comparible owners mode, then the review would of been more positive than negative. Who knows. Besides, its only one persons opinion anyway. I dont see why anyone is getting bent out of shape because of his comments.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 09:31 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
dmfreck said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Many sites gave Madden 2004 high marks even though they didn't make a lot of changes but gave ESPN MLB lower marks for doing the same thing

<hr /></blockquote>

Fact: no reviewer is comparing ESPN MLB to John Madden 2004.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm? No one is claiming they are. What they're saying is that the gripes that most reviewers have with ESPN MLB are ones that could be made with Madden 2004 *if* they were unbiased, *thinking* reviewers. Now, I don't have Madden 2K3 or 4, so I don't know if this claim is true. I'm simply trying to unmuddle the waters for you.

<hr /></blockquote>

Nah, I knew exactly what he was talking about. I should of explained more instead of making a smart *** comment. I just really did'nt wanna add fuel to the fire discussing Madden in a baseball forum. I do know what he's getting at but that comparison can be made with anything. Its not just that the reviewer has a bias (well actually he does, towards ESPN) its just the fact that the reviewer did'nt notice much new. Everyone knows that the reason MAdden got higher marks is because of Owner mode. Maybe if ESPN MLB did have a owners mode, a true or comparible owners mode, then the review would of been more positive than negative. Who knows. Besides, its only one persons opinion anyway. I dont see why anyone is getting bent out of shape because of his comments.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 09:36 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

Pared, you took alot of my words right out of my mouth.

Ive been saying alot of that lately, that everyone always wants the gameplay to be the reigning factor in they're game, but a little glitz could'nt hurt one bit. Thats why I never really got into the HH series. To stale and non-immersive for me. For those who enjoyed HH, I'm pretty sure you wont mind ESPN.

**Graphik** · 04-07-2004, 09:36 AM

Re: IGN Review---8.4

Pared, you took alot of my words right out of my mouth.

Ive been saying alot of that lately, that everyone always wants the gameplay to be the reigning factor in they're game, but a little glitz could'nt hurt one bit. Thats why I never really got into the HH series. To stale and non-immersive for me. For those who enjoyed HH, I'm pretty sure you wont mind ESPN.

IGN Review---8.4

Recommended Videos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment