MLB 2K10 News Post

Major League Baseball 2K10 First Look (Gamespot)

04:56 PM - January 15, 2010 by Steve_OS

Gamespot has posted their first look at Major League Baseball 2K10.

Quote:


	"As to how this applies to gameplay mechanics, it takes a few different forms in batting and pitching. For batters, all of this data factors into a feature called Batter's Eye, which (depending on the skill of the batter) gives a split-second glimpse of what the pitch is and where it's going by quickly flashing that information onscreen. "Batter's Eye is definitely one of my favorite features because it finally makes me feel like I can lay off a pitch. I have a little bit of a heads-up on what's coming," says Bishop. But the Eye won't show up for just any hitter. "[For more-skilled batters], it doesn't show up sooner, but more often. Still, you're not going to get it on every pitch," he adds. "If you have one of your better hitters up there, you'll probably get it one or two times at bat, whereas with one of your weaker batters, you're probably not going to see it at all." Ultimately, things like the Batter's Eye are in the game to help you work the count a little more than you might in other baseball games, particularly if you just swing for the fences on every pitch because you can't tell what's coming. But another batting feature that plays up this idea is simple. When you're at the plate, you can make contact with the ball in different ways--push down and then up on the right analog stick for a power swing, push up for a contact swing, or press left or right for the new defensive swing. If you're down in the count, a defensive swing becomes invaluable because it can help you protect the plate and foul one off to keep your chances alive and to wait for a decent pitch."

Game: Major League Baseball 2K10Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 33 - View All

Major League Baseball 2K10 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 Trevytrev11 @ 01/15/10 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HK-47


	I never had any problems, even with the pitch speed maxed out. If I can have success without flashy junk, anyone can. You just have to focus, and stop swinging at everything.

I guess it also differs if you use cursor/zone hitting or the stick.

# 22 Cardot @ 01/15/10 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevytrev11


	Here is what I don't like about a "power swing." the majority of the time a hitter is trying to hit the ball as hard as he can..so if this is how this swing was intentioned, I'm fine with that, but just call it a "regular swing". But if it is swing you use when only trying to jack one that is going to result in a high % of HR's, I'm against it. You almost always hear hitters say that a HR was just the result of them making solid contact.

I agree. I am not a big fan of the power swing....at least not in the way it has been implemented in past games. If it has to be in there, it should be a risk reward thing resulting in more strikeouts...instead it becomes a HR fest.

I like the idea of defensive swings.....but in past games, that has generally been used when the batter wants to hit a dribbler to an infielder....at least in my experience.

# 23 Trevytrev11 @ 01/15/10 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottdau


	Not always Trev. Some hitters work the count so they can get a pitch that they can take a power swing on. Once you work that count in your favor and you are a power hitter and can win the game with one swing of the bat that is when you go it!

But it's so rare. Most guys take the same rip 0-0 that they do 2-0 or 3-1. You really only see hitters shorten up and protect when their at risk for a strike out. No reason to take a different swing 0-1 vs. 2-0.

Most power guys take the same swing regardless of the count. They get paid to hit the ball out of the park.

# 24 Trevytrev11 @ 01/15/10 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottdau


	I disagree, but that is cool.

No worries, but answer me this:

Do you ever see Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn, David Ortiz, etc. just sit back and slap singles? There's a reason these guys strike out well over 100-150times a season...they don't get cheated on their swings.

# 25 Cardot @ 01/15/10 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottdau


	Did they say anything about it being a HR fest though?

They never say it in the preview. You don't find out until the 4th inning of your first game when you have 7 dingers.

# 26 stucker28 @ 01/15/10 11:54 PM

anybody got xbox live if your up for some mlb 2k9 or madden 10 or ncaa 10 give it a shot ranked 7 in world iin month of july in mlb then went to afghanistan ill be back in 2 weeks but im a tough play give me your gamertag and ill hit you up when i get back

# 27 Bahnzo @ 01/16/10 12:08 AM

Anyone see this:

Quote:


	At any point during the season, you can invite another human player to participate in a Franchise game.

Wonder if that's online, or just a 2nd player at the same console?

I personally like the Batter's Eye, and I think the way they implemented it is good also. With MVP05 you got it with every batter, it was mostly dependent on the pitcher and his motion. Having it done only with the better hitters, and then only a couple times at bat is a great idea. With video games you sometimes have to make allowances like this to help with things that just aren't possible (yet). Hopefully it can be turned off for those of you who consider it a testicle-shrinker.

# 28 Artman22 @ 01/16/10 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevytrev11


	No worries, but answer me this: Do you ever see Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn, David Ortiz, etc. just sit back and slap singles? There's a reason these guys strike out well over 100-150times a season...they don't get cheated on their swings.

What about A-rod, Manny, Pujols, etc?? I don't buy your theory sorry..

# 29 SoxFan01605 @ 01/16/10 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigsca


	The key for me was the beginning of the preview, when Bishop discusses their culling of statistics like day vs. night, pre-All Star vs. post-All Star performance. My next question is, "What kind of sample sizes are we talking about here?" I mean, these statistics, unless they're shown to be replicated from year to year for that individual is nothing more than trying to find some kind of pattern in random data. To me, this is so typical of 2k Sports - hanging their hat on some kind of dubious statistical information and quoting it as fact. That's not the way it is - and it's not part of simulation of baseball. Even the Pettitte vs. Longoria thing. He's 2 for 16 lifetime against him. 16 at bats?! So what! So, the game is going to ding Longoria because of 16 at bats? I understand trying to add a little statistical atmosphere to the game, but in this context it makes no sense and it just the typical asinine drivel you hear from the same recycled announcers who don't quite understand the game. 16 at bats does not a pattern or trend make.

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought when I read this. They always seem to overcompensate. We take issue with the pitcher/batter matchup and they go nuts with every statistical split they can think of. As you said, the fact that they specifically referenced Longoria and his limited matchup numbers to go by, is an example of how this could backfire.

I don't mind all that being considered in more abstract ways (managerial decisions, strategy, approach, or even a hit/boost to something more arbitrary, like confidence), but a direct ratings hit/boost for some of these things is a bad idea IMO. Still, it's good news that they seemed to spend so much time looking at the pitcher/batter matchup...and it gives me hope that the whole experience might at least feel less disjointed. We'll see.

As for the rest, it sounds fine. I do like the additions to franchise mode and if they've also cleaned up the bugs there and expanded the roster/player editing ability, it should make for a very good franchise mode. I also like that they specifically addressed fielding animations...hopefully base animations (particularly running) are fixed as well.

Obviously, it's tough to get excited as a lot of the issues many of us had are more core things that won't necessarily stand out in these quick "first looks." Personally, I won't know what to think until I see it in action and, of course, try it for myself. Not a bad early breakdown though...and it's good to see some legitimate info finally start to seep out.

# 30 rudyjuly2 @ 01/16/10 06:49 AM

I think the concept of Batter's Eye could be really good. I like the fact that it doesn't show up all the time and that pitcher and batter ratings factor in. I'm obviously a Show guy but I was surprised by how much I liked the 2K9 demo (real time presentation, commentary, analog fielding) and look forward to trying out the 2K10 demo. Hopefully the pitcher-batter duel is more realistic this year.

# 31 bigfnjoe96 @ 01/16/10 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahnzo


	Wonder if that's online, or just a 2nd player at the same console?

I'm pretty sure that means inviting people from your Friends List or anyone to take a team & play during your franchise

# 32 bonannogiovanni @ 01/16/10 10:06 AM

Correct, you can invite whoever you want to take a team in your offline franchise.

# 33 Trevytrev11 @ 01/16/10 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art1bk


	What about A-rod, Manny, Pujols, etc?? I don't buy your theory sorry..

They're just better at it.

They have better reflexes, faster hands, better coordination, better pitch recognition skills, better pitch anticipation, better eyes which mean they are better at putting themselves in favorable hittters counts, which mean better pitches to hit, etc. All hitters aren't created equal and just because two guys swing just as hard, doesn't mean the results will be the same.

Jack Cust swings as hard as he can every time up...so does Vladamir Guerrero. It doesn't mean the results are going to be the same. Vlad is better at it. It's why he is going to strike out less, get more hits and hit more HR's.

It's not cause Jack Cust uses a power swing more often, he's just not as talented as Vlad. All hitters are not created equal.

It's like two pitchers with different arm strength. Both can throw their regular fastball and pitcher A can throw 85 and pitcher B can throw 95. Pitcher B isn't doing anything different than pitcher A, he just is built to throw harder. Guys that hit home runs don't try harder, it's just not everyone is built to be a HR hitter, but the majority of the time, all hitters are trying to hit the ball as hard as you can't.

Why wouldn't you?

In a normal at bat early in a game why wouldn't you go into every single at bat and not try to hit the ball as hard as you possibly can? Why would any player come to the plate with bases empty or bases loaded looking to get a hit and not try and hit the ball as hard as he can? Why would they swing softer and hit the ball softer? What advantage is there to hitting a ball softer than harder?

Now if you're telling me he's trying to hit for a certain situation with a certain goal in mind, I agree 100%, but in every situation that this is not the case the hitter is trying to hit the ball as hard as he can.

And if you're telling me with 2 strikes his approach changes to be more defensive, I agree as well with certain hitters, but definitely not all.

# 34 Blzer @ 01/16/10 12:04 PM

Here's my only issue with the statistical breakdowns affecting performance (for those who were talking about it): if it's not dynamic and progressive, it's weak. Say you have that Longoria/Pettitte set up mentioned earlier. If he strikes out, he should now be 2-for-17, and those calculations should be made on the fly in-game. Likewise, if he goes 10-for-10 against him, he should be 12-for-26, and those calculations, again, should be made. If they are static during an entire career and nothing actually changes from how they are now, then how do rookies get that advantage/disadvantage when owning certain pitchers, etc.?

That would be unfortunate if it doesn't change as the seasons go on, but if this is the case, hopefully this will be one of the first things on the agenda for 2K11.

# 35 Smitty730 @ 01/16/10 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blzer


	Here's my only issue with the statistical breakdowns affecting performance (for those who were talking about it): if it's not dynamic and progressive, it's weak. Say you have that Longoria/Pettitte set up mentioned earlier. If he strikes out, he should now be 2-for-17, and those calculations should be made on the fly in-game. Likewise, if he goes 10-for-10 against him, he should be 12-for-26, and those calculations, again, should be made. If they are static during an entire career and nothing actually changes from how they are now, then how do rookies get that advantage/disadvantage when owning certain pitchers, etc.? That would be unfortunate if it doesn't change as the seasons go on, but if this is the case, hopefully this will be one of the first things on the agenda for 2K11.

You said it perfectly!

If head-to-head statistics and Inside Edge content are not updated throughout the course of a franchise, all of these new additions are, essentially, pointless.

It's a question we need to continue shoving down the developers' throat until we get an answer. It's awesome that they included this stuff, but like Blzer said, it has to be progressive in order for it to work.

# 36 Jamin23 @ 01/16/10 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitty730


	You said it perfectly! If head-to-head statistics and Inside Edge content are not updated throughout the course of a franchise, all of these new additions are, essentially, pointless. It's a question we need to continue shoving down the developers' throat until we get an answer. It's awesome that they included this stuff, but like Blzer said, it has to be progressive in order for it to work.

We might get an answer in the next developer blog since it is about franchise.

# 37 Craigsca @ 01/16/10 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blzer


	Here's my only issue with the statistical breakdowns affecting performance (for those who were talking about it): if it's not dynamic and progressive, it's weak. Say you have that Longoria/Pettitte set up mentioned earlier. If he strikes out, he should now be 2-for-17, and those calculations should be made on the fly in-game. Likewise, if he goes 10-for-10 against him, he should be 12-for-26, and those calculations, again, should be made. If they are static during an entire career and nothing actually changes from how they are now, then how do rookies get that advantage/disadvantage when owning certain pitchers, etc.? That would be unfortunate if it doesn't change as the seasons go on, but if this is the case, hopefully this will be one of the first things on the agenda for 2K11.

But why even waste your time with it? Longoria going 10 for 10 against Pettitte is a perfect example. Oh wait, now he bats approximately .480 against him - we have him at .125. Do we now artificially uptick his performance? It shows how insane basing ANYTHING on small sample sizes really is.

I'd rather you just rate the guys on last year's performance (really, if I had my way we'd probably do a mix of the past 3 years, but I understand at age 40 I'm probably not the key demographic they're shooting for) and let the game itself make the streaks, the slumps, etc. It'd be nice to call my attention to it ("Longoria steps up to the plate....he's 2 for 16 lifetime against Pettitte..."), but PLEASE don't cause me to a hit a dribbler to the 2nd basemen because of this goofy, tacked-on 2 for 16 garbage even though I physically nailed his last pitch. That's just lame.

# 38 Blzer @ 01/16/10 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigsca


	But why even waste your time with it? Longoria going 10 for 10 against Pettitte is a perfect example. Oh wait, now he bats approximately .480 against him - we have him at .125. Do we now artificially uptick his performance? It shows how insane basing ANYTHING on small sample sizes really is. I'd rather you just rate the guys on last year's performance (really, if I had my way we'd probably do a mix of the past 3 years, but I understand at age 40 I'm probably not the key demographic they're shooting for) and let the game itself make the streaks, the slumps, etc. It'd be nice to call my attention to it ("Longoria steps up to the plate....he's 2 for 16 lifetime against Pettitte..."), but PLEASE don't cause me to a hit a dribbler to the 2nd basemen because of this goofy, tacked-on 2 for 16 garbage even though I physically nailed his last pitch. That's just lame.

Now I never said anything like that. Honestly, it should be a very small weight in general. But also to be honest, that's exactly what ownage is, and as I said earlier in this thread, you see it live in front of you. It doesn't even have to be that somebody is seeing a pitcher better... when you own someone, it'll show in the at-bats. That's just how baseball is.

But like I said, I'd much rather it be a weight thing. For instance, I don't want progression to be based on just last year's stats, or the last three year's stats, or the last two games, etc. I want it to be a big combination of a bunch of things that calculate how you'll be not just that at-bat, but that pitch. There's a runner on second, it's night time, you're on the road and on turf, it's 52 degrees outside, you're facing a rookie lefty, you're 35 years old, you're 1-for-2 on the night already, and you have a 1 - 0 count. I don't want to say "have the game determine what I will do based on this", I'm saying "tell me what this guy's performance level is based on this."

Your game will always have some sort of mathematics involved, though. There are always numbers working behind the big machine and sometimes you just can't stop it. But now tell me this: what if you have a guy who has a 95 speed rating, a 98 agility rating, a 90 steal aggressiveness rating, and a 96 steal success rating (let's say those are all hypothetically in the game)... now let's say that this player, for some odd reason or another, is 200-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of May, but 0-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of June. Okay, now say it's June 7th. Which should play the bigger role in him being able to steal a base? His ability, or his success rate? Maybe it's that the pitcher and catcher are just getting quicker timings in altogether and there's nothing that you can really do to stop that wheel, despite how fast he is.

I'm not talking about sample-size so much as I'm asking when the line is then drawn that these are allowed to take some sort of effect. I don't want it to be an end-all, be-all effect, but I do want them to by dynamically progressive so that Longoria isn't always just stuck with that 2-for-16 against Pettitte.

# 39 Craigsca @ 01/16/10 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blzer


	Now I never said anything like that. Honestly, it should be a very small weight in general. But also to be honest, that's exactly what ownage is, and as I said earlier in this thread, you see it live in front of you. It doesn't even have to be that somebody is seeing a pitcher better... when you own someone, it'll show in the at-bats. That's just how baseball is. But like I said, I'd much rather it be a weight thing. For instance, I don't want progression to be based on just last year's stats, or the last three year's stats, or the last two games, etc. I want it to be a big combination of a bunch of things that calculate how you'll be not just that at-bat, but that pitch. There's a runner on second, it's night time, you're on the road and on turf, it's 52 degrees outside, you're facing a rookie lefty, you're 35 years old, you're 1-for-2 on the night already, and you have a 1 - 0 count. I don't want to say "have the game determine what I will do based on this", I'm saying "tell me what this guy's performance level is based on this." Your game will always have some sort of mathematics involved, though. There are always numbers working behind the big machine and sometimes you just can't stop it. But now tell me this: what if you have a guy who has a 95 speed rating, a 98 agility rating, a 90 steal aggressiveness rating, and a 96 steal success rating (let's say those are all hypothetically in the game)... now let's say that this player, for some odd reason or another, is 200-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of May, but 0-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of June. Okay, now say it's June 7th. Which should play the bigger role in him being able to steal a base? His ability, or his success rate? Maybe it's that the pitcher and catcher are just getting quicker timings in altogether and there's nothing that you can really do to stop that wheel, despite how fast he is. I'm not talking about sample-size so much as I'm asking when the line is then drawn that these are allowed to take some sort of effect. I don't want it to be an end-all, be-all effect, but I do want them to by dynamically progressive so that Longoria isn't always just stuck with that 2-for-16 against Pettitte.

I don't mind anything like this in the game - but just prove to me it's REAL. Don't just base and/or influence what happens on statistical information that could easily be replicated by tossing a coin.

If a guy, season after season, can replicate that he hits better in April than in May, and the sample sizes are large enough to prove that it's not just some byproduct of white noise, then by all means include it. The problem is - baseball has so many statistics that people try to give meaning to them when there isn't any. The #1 predictor of future performance is past performance. However, when you break it down into smaller and smaller buckets (night vs. day, RISP, Mondays vs. Tuesday) the data becomes less meaningful. I don't want my game using meaningless statistical info to "help" formulate an outcome.

# 40 Blzer @ 01/16/10 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigsca


	I don't mind anything like this in the game - but just prove to me it's REAL. Don't just base and/or influence what happens on statistical information that could easily be replicated by tossing a coin. If a guy, season after season, can replicate that he hits better in April than in May, and the sample sizes are large enough to prove that it's not just some byproduct of white noise, then by all means include it. The problem is - baseball has so many statistics that people try to give meaning to them when there isn't any. The #1 predictor of future performance is past performance. However, when you break it down into smaller and smaller buckets (night vs. day, RISP, Mondays vs. Tuesday) the data becomes less meaningful. I don't want my game using meaningless statistical info to "help" formulate an outcome.

I completely understand and I completely agree. And unlike Joe Morgan, I don't want my team to ever "use up all of my runs" (as the idiot claims having a streaky game of over a dozen runs can lead to nothingness the next game).

Okay, now here's where I'm going to say something that sounds like an oxymoron: every at-bat should be treated independently, but what you do should also have some basis on what you just did prior. What I mean is, just because you hit a home run your last at-bat does not increase or decrease your ability to hit a home run, but it may increase or decrease your potential to hit a home run based on what you're seeing. It could just be that you're seeing the ball well that night, that the pitcher is tipping something to you, that you have a good swing going, etc. It could just be that you're confident at the plate, I don't know. So maybe you're swinging with more assurance than you were before, and as a result if good contact is made the ball may carry more. It's a tough thing to replicate in a video game, but they only try and do the best they can.

Oh and to Trevytrev11, you asked why someone would ever want to hit a ball softer than harder? Well, that's like asking a golfer why they don't just always pull out their driver. Because sometimes, it's not about how hard you hit it, but it's because it's where the ball lands. Now I'm not saying they do some on-the-fly calculations to determine how hard they should swing, but baseball is that weird sport where soft hits can be more successful than hard hits, depending on the situation.

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links

Major League Baseball 2K10 First Look (Gamespot)