MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

[stealyerface]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Strike Zone is lower than it was last year. At least the top of the zone is more representational to the actual strike zone.

I saw a few pitches that would have been strikes for sure last year, and they were correctly called for balls this year.

Very nice.
~syf

[Vashyron.]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

My question here being new to the series just this past 4 months and only owning MBL11 and because ball physics are so important why is it that we are now just getting these adjustments since the game has been released since 2006 this is 2012 ??? Don't get me wrong I am glad of the changes just wondering.

It's not that they weren't there before....
They came up with something a lot better and put it in the game.


M.K.
Knight165

There are always things you can improve. The physics in game will always be some approximation to what goes on in reality, so it's a question of how much effort the devs put into refining the physics used in the game. So the way to think about it is, it was good enough before, but it's better now with more refinements.

Most of baseball physics is high school level physics and the fact that SCEA has waited 9 games to actually put some proper physics into this game is pretty disappointing. Good physics should be the foundation of a baseball game.

And, I didn't really noticed these improved bat-on-ball physics either, I was particularly looking at opposite field power off inside pitches. David Freese hit a opposite field sac fly to near the warning track off an inside Kerry Wood fastball. Then, Jon Jay hits a double to the left center off an inside fastball, he doesn't have the power to do that as far as I'm concerned. Both those pitches (Freese and Jay) weren't on the black but they were still on the inner 3rd. Then, Darwin Barney is late on an inside pitch on the BLACK and hits a normal depth fly ball to centerfield, Barney totally doesn't have the power to do that.

[econoodle]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

was just about to post this.....Ive been wanting this for a while. Adds more to what you can do strategy wise.

yes.

it's one my favorite, little 'big' things put in the game this year.

[nomo17k]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Most of baseball physics is high school level physics and the fact that SCEA has waited 9 games to actually put some proper physics into this game is pretty disappointing. Good physics should be the foundation of a baseball game.

...

This just shows you haven't studied physics at a level higher than high school.

[Pared]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Strike Zone is lower than it was last year. At least the top of the zone is more representational to the actual strike zone.

I saw a few pitches that would have been strikes for sure last year, and they were correctly called for balls this year.

Very nice.
~syf

I thought the same... but it is unchanged. At least that is what we were told.

It's the camera angle, I believe. All about perception.

[stealyerface]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Hmm.. I'll take perception I suppose.


In the BPV it made it seem like the pitches that were up a bit were balls, but it may very well have been that the new camera allowed the balls that looked high to actually look high enough to be called balls.

It surprises me that they would tell you they did not change it, only because it seemed like last year, and again, maybe it was all about the camera placement, that a common complaint was that high strike.

I guess the same could be true with the batting camera, as the lower the camera lens was, the higher the strike zone would appear.

Either way, be it camera tricks or a revamped strike zone, looks great to me.

By the way, as a CD invitee, did they expand on the "Personalities" of the 14 different umpires, and did that explanation (if applicable) mean we would see different strike zones, both north/south as well as East/West, and would they finally be true personalities via name, or what mood they were in that particular day? Meaning, does Roy Nelson like the inside pitch, and when he is behind the dish, will it be a steady diet of inside black pitches when he is announced as the plate umpire, or will you need to figure out what Roy is calling that day?

I searched this in the CD threads, and did not see an acceptable answer to this, hence my asking about it now.

~syf

[Pared]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Yes - that's part of the reason there isn't as much a need to change the strikezone. The k zone is defined a certain way but in reality there is no true finite visible line like a foul line - just the interpretation of the rule. The umpire variance helps reflect that were some guys see it one way and others a different way.

So the K zone with umpire variance on is, as the case in real life, a baseline for measurement.

My only concern that I will express going forward is consistency. I felt the umps changed their views as the game progressed but not in a way that made sense to the user (or in this case, me).

[Vashyron.]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

This just shows you haven't studied physics at a level higher than high school.

I have taken 2 semesters of college physics and easily got As both semesters. The trajectory of the ball hitting off the bat is high school physics, I literally did baseball trajectory problems in high school. Now how the ball comes off the bat is complicated. I've seen weak slap hitters hitting opposite field HRs off pitches on the inner third in 11 so the bat-on-ball physics needed just not a little work but a lot of work.

Also, there's no reason for the baserunner speed and fielder speed sliders, the players should be running at realistic velocities (feet per second) since the ballparks in-game have the same dimensions of their real-world counterparts. There's really no excuse for the outfielders being so fast in all previous versions of the game. Plus, the friction of dirt and grass is known, I remember this series having issues with groundballs not reaching the wall when hit down the line back on PS2 because of the friction coefficient being wrong.

[Manny_Shevitz]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

This just shows you haven't studied physics at a level higher than high school.

I don't really see how this insult is adding anything constructive to the discussion. Vashyron makes a good point, and all he meant was that replicating the physics of baseball isn't as complex as replicating the physics of -- to cite other videogame examples -- space travel or warfare. It is disappointing, to some of us, that The Show didn't start of with a strong foundation of physics, which is arguably the most important aspect of the game of baseball. Just because you, and many other members of this forum, aren't as concerned about it as some of us, and think that things like batting stances and accurate stadium details and which pocket a player keeps his batting gloves in when he's not wearing them, are more crucial to creating a realistic game of baseball, doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. And I'm not knocking you for being of that opinion, I'm just saying that we all have different ideas about what constitutes an authentic baseball video game.

Don't get me wrong, I love The Show, and I believe the team at San Diego are passionate and sincere about making the best possible MLB baseball simulation that they can. But over the past couple of years, I've found myself playing The Show less, and Pro Yakyu Spirits (a Japanese baseball title, for those of you not aware of it) more, for the very reason that Vashyron brings up. Even though I know very little about the players and teams in Japanese baseball, and can't read or understand a word of Japanese, and even though the graphics aren't as polished or detailed as The Show, I still consistently have more fun and more unpredictable and exciting outcomes in PYS, because that game is built on a very strong foundation of realistic ball to bat physics. That's why the new feature that I'm most excited about in this year's version of The Show is the revamped physics, and I really do hope it will make the game more enjoyable. I'm not expecting it to be as refined as the physics in PYS, considering Konami have had a lot more time to perfect their version, and also the fact that PYS uses a cursor-based batting system, but I'm hopeful at least that Sony is heading in the right direction.

Still, it is valid to wonder why they didn't incoroporate a realistic physics engine from the get go.

[stealyerface]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Yes - that's part of the reason there isn't as much a need to change the strikezone. The k zone is defined a certain way but in reality there is no true finite visible line like a foul line - just the interpretation of the rule. The umpire variance helps reflect that were some guys see it one way and others a different way.

So the K zone with umpire variance on is, as the case in real life, a baseline for measurement.

My only concern that I will express going forward is consistency. I felt the umps changed their views as the game progressed but not in a way that made sense to the user (or in this case, me).

Oh boy.

Well, I suppose I will express some concern if this is the case as well, as I would rather see it as not a definite, but at least a trend. One of the things that announcers, and pitchers for that matter, always talk about and appreciate is a guy who is consistent with his strike zone for the entire game. You want to give the outer three inches in the first inning, you had better settle in then, and give it to me in the 7th when I have set the hitters up three times through.

I love the idea of the different personalities and zones, and even expanding or squeezing the zone, as that what happens in real life. But if the zone changes all game long, with the same umpire behind the plate, that could become a bit frustrating.

Either way, I am interested to see how it is implemented, especially in a three or four game series.

~syf

[nomo17k]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

I don't really see how this insult is adding anything constructive to the discussion. Vashyron makes a good point, and all he meant was that replicating the physics of baseball isn't as complex as replicating the physics of -- to cite other videogame examples -- space travel or warfare. It is disappointing, to some of us, that The Show didn't start of with a strong foundation of physics, which is arguably the most important aspect of the game of baseball. Just because you, and many other members of this forum, aren't as concerned about it as some of us, and think that things like batting stances and accurate stadium details and which pocket a player keeps his batting gloves in when he's not wearing them, are more crucial to creating a realistic game of baseball, doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. And I'm not knocking you for being of that opinion, I'm just saying that we all have different ideas about what constitutes an authentic baseball video game.

Don't get me wrong, I love The Show, and I believe the team at San Diego are passionate and sincere about making the best possible MLB baseball simulation that they can. But over the past couple of years, I've found myself playing The Show less, and Pro Yakyu Spirits (a Japanese baseball title, for those of you not aware of it) more, for the very reason that Vashyron brings up. Even though I know very little about the players and teams in Japanese baseball, and can't read or understand a word of Japanese, and even though the graphics aren't as polished or detailed as The Show, I still consistently have more fun and more unpredictable and exciting outcomes in PYS, because that game is built on a very strong foundation of realistic ball to bat physics. That's why the new feature that I'm most excited about in this year's version of The Show is the revamped physics, and I really do hope it will make the game more enjoyable. I'm not expecting it to be as refined as the physics in PYS, considering Konami have had a lot more time to perfect their version, and also the fact that PYS uses a cursor-based batting system, but I'm hopeful at least that Sony is heading in the right direction.

Still, it is valid to wonder why they didn't incoroporate a realistic physics engine from the get go.

I'm sorry if my statement sounded insulting to you, but I found Vashyron's comment about the devs not incorporating what he calls "high school physics" more insulting (to the devs) than my comment to Vashyron. And he basically admitted he doesn't know much more than high school physics (by which I meant the introductory college physics... something you can take as AP in high school), so my comment does reflect a bit of truth, doesn't it? I just made the comment as someone who has actually taught physics at that level.

I can also read Japanese and rather extensively searched for how I could enjoy PYS, since I'm as obsessed as you are about baseball sim... and you know what, I don't find their physics more accurate than what the Show has *at all.* Just my opinion though and I have no interest for going off topic here...... we have an appropriate forum for that.

I had no intention to insult anyone... but the baseball physics being nothing more than high school physics is just flat out wrong. Nothing wrong with anyone pointing that out...

[Pared]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Then, Darwin Barney is late on an inside pitch on the BLACK and hits a normal depth fly ball to centerfield, Barney totally doesn't have the power to do that.

Sorry - these arguments don't hold water. I looked up Barney's highlights last year and what's the first one I see? Pitch on the inner part of the plate and he takes it to right center 10 ft. short of the warning track.

Yeah - totally can't hit the ball straight away center if gets the barrel out and has great timing.



Edit - are we seriously going to harp on why there wasn't real physics in past games? How many games promote true physics? Anyone?

[jmik58]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Most of baseball physics is high school level physics and the fact that SCEA has waited 9 games to actually put some proper physics into this game is pretty disappointing. Good physics should be the foundation of a baseball game.

And, I didn't really noticed these improved bat-on-ball physics either, I was particularly looking at opposite field power off inside pitches. David Freese hit a opposite field sac fly to near the warning track off an inside Kerry Wood fastball. Then, Jon Jay hits a double to the left center off an inside fastball, he doesn't have the power to do that as far as I'm concerned. Both those pitches (Freese and Jay) weren't on the black but they were still on the inner 3rd. Then, Darwin Barney is late on an inside pitch on the BLACK and hits a normal depth fly ball to centerfield, Barney totally doesn't have the power to do that.

To address your second point, those pitches were not that far inside/outside. Any hitter can pull their hands inside/outside a ball to influence the field they hit to. Those balls were not driven. They were hit with solid contact and the result was such. If you have any prove to the contrary you're going to have to pull out some real game footage from a MLB game and put together a large sampling, because the difference with The Show having the ball physics and any previous iteration is night and day.

As for your other point...

Why wasn't the wheel invented before it was? Why didn't we discover fire until we did, and why wasn't the match invented before then? Why didn't they make the PS3 in 1980?

SCEA is stepping out and doing something that all sports games should be shifting to. Sports video games have been programmed to achieve results that simulate the real game; forsaking the method for how they got there. This has meant sports games have been jammed full of animations, many annoying and predictable.

The implementation of ball physics is a step out from that predictability, which makes the game more life-like. It's a natural progression in game development.

[decga]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Well I love these gameplay videos of this particular game. There is some old and new commentary in it. Timely info as well. I was going to keep my copy of 11, but I might trade it in as well.. Two weeks...

[Vashyron.]

Re: MLB 12 The Show Gameplay Video - Cubs vs. Cardinals (OS Exclusive) - Part 3

Sorry - these arguments don't hold water. I looked up Barney's highlights last year and what's the first one I see? Pitch on the inner part of the plate and he takes it to right center 10 ft. short of the warning track.

Yeah - totally can't hit the ball straight away center if gets the barrel out and has great timing.



Edit - are we seriously going to harp on why there wasn't real physics in past games? How many games promote true physics? Anyone?

Here's Barney's hit chart, there's only 1 hit to right field that may have made the warning track, and it was an out so why would that be in a highlight reel. And, I very much doubt that 1 hit was on a pitch on the black on the inside corner.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/darwin-barney/hitchart/895982?q=darwin-barney

I'm tried of seeing Scott Podsednik type players hit opposite field HRs on a high and inside pitches in this game.

I'm talking about simple physics, like ball friction, wind power, player speed, etc. It was either MLB 06 or MLB06:TS that had groundballs past the SS going to the wall while groundballs down the line never made it down the line. Even High Heat did friction properly from a physics basis, I remember changing the friction coefficient on the PC game. And, last year, in 11, remember how messed up the wind is without the patch? 1 mph of wind puts X amount of force on a fly ball, it's very simple physics.

To address your second point, those pitches were not that far inside/outside. Any hitter can pull their hands inside/outside a ball to influence the field they hit to. Those balls were not driven. They were hit with solid contact and the result was such. If you have any prove to the contrary you're going to have to pull out some real game footage from a MLB game and put together a large sampling, because the difference with The Show having the ball physics and any previous iteration is night and day.

The implementation of ball physics is a step out from that predictability, which makes the game more life-like. It's a natural progression in game development.

The Jon Jay hit was on the inner third on a Kerry Wood fastball, I went frame-by-frame. I looked up Jon Jay's hit chart and he only hit the ball 4 times (3 outs, 1 hit) all year to deep left-center. I'd be willing to guess all of those hits where on pitches over the middle and/or outside of the plate. I very much doubt Jon Jay can be late on an inside Kerry Wood fastball (or any pitcher) and drive the ball deep to left-center.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/jon-jay/hitchart/766777?q=jon-jay

Like I said to Pared above, I'm mainly talking about how this game has not even done the simple physics properly like ball friction, fielder run speed, ball bouncing, wind, etc. The wind was horribly done last year and basic wind physics (no swirling or anything like that, just a constant wind speed all game) is so very simple to do.

I'm sorry if my statement sounded insulting to you, but I found Vashyron's comment about the devs not incorporating what he calls "high school physics" more insulting (to the devs) than my comment to Vashyron. And he basically admitted he doesn't know much more than high school physics (by which I meant the introductory college physics... something you can take as AP in high school), so my comment does reflect a bit of truth, doesn't it? I just made the comment as someone who has actually taught physics at that level.

I had no intention to insult anyone... but the baseball physics being nothing more than high school physics is just flat out wrong. Nothing wrong with anyone pointing that out...

I said MOST baseball physics. Determining how much grass slows down a rolling baseball is simple, flight trajectory is simple, etc. Basic wind physics is simple (there's a constant wind blowing all game so no variable wind). To make the wind realistic enough and believable, you just need to apply X amount of horizontal force per every MPH of wind on the ball in flight, that's it.

And, why is it that outfielders are always way too fast in this game when that is just simple physics as well? Getting an object (an outfielder) to move X amount of feet per second is real simple, velocity is probably like the first thing you learn in your 1st physics class. A human can only run so fast and each ballpark in the game is dimensioned properly so why can't the devs get a player to run at proper speeds inside of one of their realistically dimensioned fields?

Yes, bat-on-ball physics are really complicated but I'm asking why the basic stuff can't be done properly, and why are we just getting to focusing on bat-on-physics in the 9th iteration of a baseball series? Math is something computers can do really fast, it's not like putting in proper physics is going to take up a major portion of processing power.