[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by tnixen

This is is how I want the Commentary to sound in MLB The Show!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDFY8ZZtKzM Why can't they get this done?????? Yes I know it's not perfect but it sounds so much more like a real life broadcast compared to MLB The Show 17! These 3 guys really sound like they are in the same booth together at all times. And unlike MLB The Show 17 these guys are having conversations with each other though out the whole game. Makes me so sad because MLB The Show is such a fantastic baseball game but the one thing they just can not get right is the Commentary. 2k Commentary has improved even more now with NBA 2K. I would love to know what the MLB The Show developers think of 2K's Commentary and if there goal is to not only get MLB The Show Commentary on the same level but surpass it.

I guess I have lots to say, so let's get to it.

We could like MLB 2K's commentary for a variety of reasons, even though there are some things that still technically hold it back as well. John and Steve sometimes sound like they're reading lines as well, but it still feels organic because they are whipping strong points across and they feed off each other. Also, yeah regarding the Choo line, I wonder how many times you would hear that in franchise. Gary also has that very natural "announcer" sound to his voice, so he almost gets a free pass that way.

Anyway, 2K game runs much "faster" between pitches so there isn't enough dead air to compare to the Show franchise. That's why when I did that one Show video with 2K commentary some insertions were just to fill voids of silence. That's not to say silence is a bad thing though, either. There are times when I have heard the Cubs announcers go three or four straight pitches without so much as a sniffle, much less say any words during that time. Do I want that? Probably not haha, but I like the feel of more conversations (something that can be generally stitched together, like Steve mentioning a guy was 0-for-8, then Kruk stating that out of the leadoff hole [Crisp] had to do a better job to get things going) would go a long way, instead of just describing the action or having conversations be specifically tied to a player. Great night skies in that video, too.

Someone earlier in this thread brought up a good point that Matty V. is delivering too much color commentary when he has two other guys to say some of the things that he is. Even back to the "swinging a garden hose" days, those could still be provided by Harold or Dan. He mentioned that the Showtrack portion could simply be provided by the other two. These days, it's just taking that color aspect that Matt is already saying in his lines and inserting them for the other two. They don't even need to be big lines! We could have a dialogue that goes like this:

Matt: "Lines it! ... but there's Wright. One out."
Harold: (2 sec later) "That was scorched."
Dan: (1 sec later) "Got the inside pitch he wanted, just not the result."
Harold: "I bet he'll want that one back." (pause) "Still early on in the game, he's got another shot."
Dan: "Doubt he'll get it again..."
Matt: "Here's Werth now."

Just subtle things here and there. Each line may happen or may not happen. Obviously much of this could be stitched together depending on the situation. Instead of saying it was scorched, Reynolds also might say it just missed the sweet spot, too much top spin, ran up his hands a bit, etc. Plesac might be mentioning the pitch being outside instead of inside, the count leverage he had, the pitch type that it was, etc. Harold might inform that it's probably a bit too late in the game to get that chance again, or he'll likely see another pitcher next time so he can't adjust, or say that his approach may have to change depending on the situation. It's neither overly elaborate nor articulate, it gets the point across, but especially it allows the other two to get many talking points.

By the way, that "pause" part I had for Harold is big for two reasons, the second one being the bigger one: 1) they have to conjure their statements in their head at times before saying them; 2) this can allow for longer segments of somebody saying something, but in a larger variety of ways. Reynolds' description of Harper unfortunately will not only be tied to him and be mentioned time and again, but it's also just one long take. Those parts aren't broken up so he can say certain parts for Harper only, or use them for somebody else. There is another part in this video where Reynolds is describing the Nationals, saying:

"Matt, they're on one of those hot streaks, I mean everything is going right for them. They're playing great baseball right now. I mean timely hitting, the bullpen is coming through, it looks like they're rested... they're doing the things they need to do to be a winning club right now."

We could Madlibs the hell out of this one very long take in the underlined portions, and fill in hundreds of different words there. That's a little different than the pausing thing I was referring to, but this is an example of matching things with the data, and every time feeling like a different line. Again, the longer the line is itself without any stop-gaps or insertions, the more repetitive commentary will always sound. Now I'm not saying 2K did this right either. In fact, they may be even worse. This is strictly a suggestion for any sports game trying to improve their commentary. I only hope if done this way, it would sound fluid enough.

Last point about Matt (and perhaps the other two) that kind of contradicts what other people have said earlier in this thread, but as much as he "doesn't get excited" about certain things, he gets perhaps a bit too overly exaggerative for certain pitches brushing back batters, just missing the plate, going "WAAYYY outside" even if it only missed by half a foot, etc. I think they have improved on that commentary over the years actually, now that I think about it. I'm just banking off my previous point that commentary that is more subtle normally won't get too recognized for being repetitive, even though it ironically may be more repetitive.

For instance, in basketball there are only so many ways you can say that somebody passes the ball to somebody else, that as long as you're not always saying "Olés it to Parker," you won't be upset about what they say or don't say, as you don't have to mention something for every pass. Same is true for baseball and a pitch that comes in. Matt can just say: "Misses," or: "One ball, two strikes." And yes, I mean that as actionable commentary for the pitch itself. Maybe he says nothing and Harold goes: "Hoo! Close one." There is just still a long way to go, and honestly I do think it starts with deleting a lot of Matt's old lines.

I have a suggestion: I know they can't take lines from their real in-game commentaries (don't know how often Reynolds and Plesac actually do commentary anyway), not to mention it wouldn't work well for how they have to stitch it in their algorithm... but if the SDS audio crew does take those lines, instead of having the boys read it off a script, play it back for them and ask them to mimic it. Now it won't sound like they're reading a script. Take thousands of small bits of this commentary. That's the key. The EA guys tried something for the NHL series where Doc Emrick and Eddie Olczyk were watching gameplay as they recorded their lines. Don't know if that bodes well for the developers, but it's a nice strategy as well.

Oh, and speaking of strategy and commentary (I don't believe anyone mentioned this yet)... in the Twitch stream video, chief baseballogist Michael Compton slipped a little Pepper Brooks for us on the Asdrubal Cabrera home run. It was hard to hear because the others were talking and he split his line, but he said: "It's a bold move leading off with him...... leading off with Cabrera paid off." Classic!