Major League Baseball 2K8 Review

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by ehh

On the field I think the game is an 8 out of 10, everything else is about a 4 out of 10. Personally I weigh the former much more than the latter, but trying to speak for everyone in general I'd say 6/10 is pretty accurate. However, the notion that this game took one step forward and two back is completely BS to me. This game took a huge step forward this year.

That's pretty much how I feel.

[Kramer5150]

Quote: Originally Posted by ehh

On the field I think the game is an 8 out of 10, everything else is about a 4 out of 10. Personally I weigh the former much more than the latter, but trying to speak for everyone in general I'd say 6/10 is pretty accurate. However, the notion that this game took one step forward and two back is completely BS to me. This game took a huge step forward this year.

I agree with this as well.

[Brophog]

Slizeezyc, Blygilmore, OS Staff,

Thanks for the discourse on the review. Glad to be a part of it. This thread has been a very good one, not solely on the review of this title, but on the process of reviewing and games in general. Thanks for that.

The big idea that I see here though that a retail product should come out in a state unlike this one......particularly on the framerate issues, is a bit of a tricky one. I agree that a product has to be playable and that an issue like this one should have received more pre-release focus. I don't know if we can continue to take a very hard line approach to this though and keep our senses as console gaming goes forward.

But the other side of it is that this is the reality in 21st century gaming. We're walking a fine line of performance here, unlike I think any time in console gaming history. On the end-user side, we know what we want, and have come to expect that bar to get continually raised, but we don't necessarily know what goes into that. On the other end, there is an entire gamut of people needed to put these things together now, with a lot of conditions dictating when a product can be released, and sometimes in what condition that product is to be released. We on this end need to remember that things are not simple anymore. There is always a PR/marketing side to the decision to push a game back or release and patch. The respective license holders may have a say in it. There are a lot of factors that can dictate the why and how of a gaming release. It may not be so cut and dry as we make it out to be.

The reality side of it is, we're going to see more and more games on the consoles with these kinds of problems requiring patches. In the PC arena, we've become almost completely accustomed to it. We know the game will have several revisions over its lifetime, and the better developers aren't the ones that release the best retail versions, but the ones that address the problems the quickest. I don't know the last PC game I bought that I did not immediately go look for the patches for. We're seeing this on the console end now as well. It seems every day a patch for a new PS3 or XBOX 360 game is coming out. Some to fix major issues like this one. Some for more minor ones.

This conversation isn't excusing the framerate issue, which is why I talked about having 2 reviews. I think it is more than fair to address the framerate in this review, as it is a huge issue. But I also fully expect to see it patched, and therefore what we know the game to be will be different. The reason I bring all of this up like this is that part of the issue, imo, and I'm seeing it all over the web with an entire host of console games, is that we as console gamers are in a bit of a shock right now. We are simply not accustomed to patches. We think of things as being "retail versions" and that's how the game is for eternity. That's a hard mindset to change, but, imo, a necessary one beginning with this generation.

[RoyceBrown]

Great review, one of the best I've seen thus far.

I agree with a good portion of the review.

[capp34]

Nice review I would have gave it a 5 because its only half of a game. I agree with all the facts you stated tho

[russ99]

I'd agree with the 6 as shipped.

With a few slider adjustments, I'd go as far as a 7.

If they get around to fixing the framerate in a patch, it could be worth an 8, as it's really fun to play.

[ChaseB]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brophog

Slizeezyc, Blygilmore, OS Staff, Thanks for the discourse on the review. Glad to be a part of it. This thread has been a very good one, not solely on the review of this title, but on the process of reviewing and games in general. Thanks for that. The big idea that I see here though that a retail product should come out in a state unlike this one......particularly on the framerate issues, is a bit of a tricky one. I agree that a product has to be playable and that an issue like this one should have received more pre-release focus. I don't know if we can continue to take a very hard line approach to this though and keep our senses as console gaming goes forward. But the other side of it is that this is the reality in 21st century gaming. We're walking a fine line of performance here, unlike I think any time in console gaming history. On the end-user side, we know what we want, and have come to expect that bar to get continually raised, but we don't necessarily know what goes into that. On the other end, there is an entire gamut of people needed to put these things together now, with a lot of conditions dictating when a product can be released, and sometimes in what condition that product is to be released. We on this end need to remember that things are not simple anymore. There is always a PR/marketing side to the decision to push a game back or release and patch. The respective license holders may have a say in it. There are a lot of factors that can dictate the why and how of a gaming release. It may not be so cut and dry as we make it out to be. The reality side of it is, we're going to see more and more games on the consoles with these kinds of problems requiring patches. In the PC arena, we've become almost completely accustomed to it. We know the game will have several revisions over its lifetime, and the better developers aren't the ones that release the best retail versions, but the ones that address the problems the quickest. I don't know the last PC game I bought that I did not immediately go look for the patches for. We're seeing this on the console end now as well. It seems every day a patch for a new PS3 or XBOX 360 game is coming out. Some to fix major issues like this one. Some for more minor ones. This conversation isn't excusing the framerate issue, which is why I talked about having 2 reviews. I think it is more than fair to address the framerate in this review, as it is a huge issue. But I also fully expect to see it patched, and therefore what we know the game to be will be different. The reason I bring all of this up like this is that part of the issue, imo, and I'm seeing it all over the web with an entire host of console games, is that we as console gamers are in a bit of a shock right now. We are simply not accustomed to patches. We think of things as being "retail versions" and that's how the game is for eternity. That's a hard mindset to change, but, imo, a necessary one beginning with this generation.

So the first thing I think of is sort of a chicken or the egg type deal. Was patching necessary because of technological/marketing/programming advances and pitfalls, or because the Internet is there and it's possible to fix a game after it ships? Have people accepted patching as just a part of gaming now and that's also a contributing factor? There's certainly room to argue each side of that argument.

The other thing I think about though is: In what other tech consumer world do people accept "broken" products? It's the same argument that's raged in the PC world for a while really. When a game ships on the PC and then it doesn't work or you need to DL a ton of patches or drivers, in what other tech market would that be accepted? I have trouble really thinking of one where people just accept buying a "broken" product.

Continuing on with that PC point. Consoles have thrived in large part due to standardized components and thus little to no need to upgrade. It's a flat fee and you know all the games will work the same and all developers can develop with the same tools. I would say that mindset means that patching post-release won't ever really be an acceptable excuse -- at least in the near future. PC gamers are in a constant state of change as it comes to hardware and PC devs have to develop for many different hardware combos, and all that mixed just leads to a more acceptable atmosphere for tweaking post-release. Even so you're starting to see some more standardization even in the PC market.

But returning back to the original point of the review. I think Dave/Bly certainly took into consideration how the actual game itself played (obvious to say I know but nonetheless), and while the frame rate was a detriment on the experience itself, if he didn't at least enjoy the core of the game he wouldn't have given it an above average score -- that's what I get from the review at least.

[Diesel3649]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brophog

Slizeezyc, Blygilmore, OS Staff, Thanks for the discourse on the review. Glad to be a part of it. This thread has been a very good one, not solely on the review of this title, but on the process of reviewing and games in general. Thanks for that. The big idea that I see here though that a retail product should come out in a state unlike this one......particularly on the framerate issues, is a bit of a tricky one. I agree that a product has to be playable and that an issue like this one should have received more pre-release focus. I don't know if we can continue to take a very hard line approach to this though and keep our senses as console gaming goes forward. But the other side of it is that this is the reality in 21st century gaming. We're walking a fine line of performance here, unlike I think any time in console gaming history. On the end-user side, we know what we want, and have come to expect that bar to get continually raised, but we don't necessarily know what goes into that. On the other end, there is an entire gamut of people needed to put these things together now, with a lot of conditions dictating when a product can be released, and sometimes in what condition that product is to be released. We on this end need to remember that things are not simple anymore. There is always a PR/marketing side to the decision to push a game back or release and patch. The respective license holders may have a say in it. There are a lot of factors that can dictate the why and how of a gaming release. It may not be so cut and dry as we make it out to be. The reality side of it is, we're going to see more and more games on the consoles with these kinds of problems requiring patches. In the PC arena, we've become almost completely accustomed to it. We know the game will have several revisions over its lifetime, and the better developers aren't the ones that release the best retail versions, but the ones that address the problems the quickest. I don't know the last PC game I bought that I did not immediately go look for the patches for. We're seeing this on the console end now as well. It seems every day a patch for a new PS3 or XBOX 360 game is coming out. Some to fix major issues like this one. Some for more minor ones. This conversation isn't excusing the framerate issue, which is why I talked about having 2 reviews. I think it is more than fair to address the framerate in this review, as it is a huge issue. But I also fully expect to see it patched, and therefore what we know the game to be will be different. The reason I bring all of this up like this is that part of the issue, imo, and I'm seeing it all over the web with an entire host of console games, is that we as console gamers are in a bit of a shock right now. We are simply not accustomed to patches. We think of things as being "retail versions" and that's how the game is for eternity. That's a hard mindset to change, but, imo, a necessary one beginning with this generation.

I have to respectfully disagree with your view that it's our mindset that needs to change. My mindset when buying a video game or anything for that matter, is that I expect it to perform as advertised on day one. For example we where told that the game would perform near 60fps most of the time, and at worst would not drop much below that. This is not what we got. Now I don't think the problem here is my mindset. In order to get the game to play with a better frame rate than the game 2K gave me, I had to disable my VIP, which inturn disabled my card collecting feature. Thats not what was advertised. That is unacceptable.

If I purchased a brand new car, which only ran correctly if I kept the headlights, and the wipers off, it would damn well not be acceptable, and definetly not tolerated. Now I understand that the comparison between cars and video games is apples and oranges, my point is still the same, I expect quality, fully functioning products when I plop my money down, that's my mindset. Expecting a consumer to change that, and accept anything less, is very dangerous in my opinion.