|
Henry, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. I hope you're kidding.
In real life, I might argue for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility that some later call might go in my favor as the human umpire's way of "making it up to me." I might be genuinely pissed, or I might just be out to have a little fun (and maybe get the rest of the day off).
In OOTP, I don't argue a call because I'm pissed. It's tough to get mad at somebody you can't see or talk to. I argue a call because I expect it to do me some good later in the game. I argue because I realize I'm dealing with programming code, not a flesh-and-blood umpire, and I expect that code to contain some feature that makes arguing not pointless.
If the arguing feature is just in the game for grins, then it's the only such feature I know of, and on that basis I think it should be dropped from the programming. If this game--or any game--presents the user with a decision point, then the game ought to include a meaningful consequence directly related to that decision.
If the arguing feature is in the game as a nod to realism, then I want to know why the team of a human manager who gets tossed must play out the rest of the game as a computer-controlled team. Where's the realism in that?
|