|
I do happen to think that 19 is a bit harder than 18, which was a bit harder than 17, then 16, etc. (although there may have been a minor quantum leap in one of those versions). But I don't think this is a bad thing; I think it's the result of all of those "Improved AI!" blurbs that we see every year.
It's a reflection of how major league baseball actually is: Hard. Hard to play, hard to win.
I'm a Yankees fan. They've won 27 times in 116 years, less than 25% of the time. Yet, that is considered spectacular success!
Also considered to be successful is their ability to remain competitive season after season, at least in recent decades. Yet, if you went back to the 1970's and 1980's, you would find some dreadful Yankee teams.
Even so, my team has not won since 2009, going on 10 years now. But again, that is considered to be "not bad" in view of how long some other teams have gone without being good, much less champions.
Long story made short, I am satisfied with OOTPB being hard to play and hard to win because it is merely accurately simulating real life. What I am always on the lookout for, though, is whether, given the goal to make the game difficult, the developers award the AI unfair advantages.
Such as, just an example, whether the AI immediately knows the hidden ratings of coaches while the human player must rely on fuzzy evaluations and intuition in his evaluations. This type of thing is my only concern about OOTPB in this regard.
__________________
- Bru
|