3-D Graphics

[Dreifort]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

1) I don't care about ball flight (hey, do it right, great, but isn't needed).

2) Just have dots moving at corresponding speeds to the base runners. No need to show the ball going to shallow center and the CFer approaching it.

Take the text description we have now, and the exact same parameters that prompt the user for a baserunning decision. Have a dot placed in shallow CF representing where the play is occurring when we are prompted to decide to send the runner based on the OFer's arm, as is currently.

The game already decides if Coleman is going to score without a prompt, or if Cey will only go to third without a prompt.

Let me see a fair (no need to be NASA mission precise) representation of the runner's speed on the bases and the location he is on the base path when I am prompted for the decision.

3) Of course I want the game improved.....I think this is a very basic request that requires the tiniest of graphical effort and would be a complete added joy to the game.

Facebook apps/games are turning out left and right the past few years with very simplified 2D graphics.







Some of these graphics may look 3D, but are just rendered to 2D animations.

I think these graphics would really help with game immersion and really suck you more into OOTP and baseball simulation if you aren't already completely sucked in .

Graphics can be a bit gimmicky, but do give a refreshing appeal to the software game. But the negative to inexpensive graphics are the repetitions. The graphics become predictable and repetitive because of limited animations to select from. This of course can be fixed with more money invested into more animations or even upgrading to way more expensive 3D engine. But as stated by others, OOTP decides the outcome of a play instantly and any graphic animation just gives you a visual to see. Since the outcomes are pre-determined - the graphics would become repetitive.

I like visual graphics 2D or 3D and welcome the addition to OOTP. I would guess it all comes down to how much would be invested to a database of graphic animations? A database of 10 animations would grow old quite quickly. A database of 10 million animations would be too expensive.

It is the cost of time and money and how much of that would be better focused on keeping the core OOTP software program upgraded ea year just to keep up with the sport of baseball constantly changing (that's another problem with MLB, not OOTP ).

For purist, the sport of baseball is becoming a bit more gimmicky and less pure. Let's just hope that focusing too much on graphics will not make OOTP more gimmicky.

Instant replay in OOTP21? really?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Dreifort

I think these graphics would really help with game immersion and really suck you more into OOTP and baseball simulation if you aren't already completely sucked in

I think that's only the case if you're someone who likes to play out games. If you're primarily a simmer, then you're likely to never see such graphics.

I'm a simmer myself, so any graphics used for displaying the on-the-field activities in a game would be largely irrelevant to me. I can think of many features I'd like to see that would boost the game play experience from the simming perspective.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone advocating for features they'd regularly use as a consequence of their play style.

[rpriske]

I play out all my games and I worry that increased presence of graphics would slow the game down quite a bit. (ie. waiting for the play to resolve).

I have already turned off ball flight. I still like PbP but I wouldn't want it to be any slower than that... which graphics definitely would be.

[The Wolf]

Markus will decide what graphics the game will or will not get. I will continue to maintain that the risk to OOTP is not worth any possible reward that can be had from graphics. My view is well known, and I am not alone in it. Enjoy the debate.

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by RchW

I wouldn't buy it and I'd feel like I was getting 3/4 of a game.

yeah it would totally be optional. Why I used 6.5 as a reference.

If you dont want the dots moving around addition then keep your $s.

OOTP20xx would be the same without it.



I am in no way predicting this will happen, just that I would buy it - at least the one time anyways

[dumbrabbit]

No more than a few 3-D animinations I guess. Madden is for the console games. OOTP baseball is a text sim and let's keep it that way.

[BigCity]

4,000 views and 125 responses, and much of the discussion STILL centers around (1) the risk of losing the game to a graphics enhancement and (2) how the game is going to "slow down" if graphics is added. Oh, and (3) how "repetitive" graphics will become thus reducing our enjoyment of the game. Let me take these one at a time and in some cases, repeat myself...

(1) Truthfully, I'm not trying to be an a** here, but to claim graphics has been the root cause of any games failure is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. The entire industry has grown from text-based and table-top games to rich, full computer graphics renditions of the subject matter and the vast gaming population drools over the next technology jump. "BAD" graphics will, I agree, destroy a game - not because it is graphics, but because too many graphics engines were problematic and not fixed properly or quickly enough. THAT is what caused the failure of the Earl Weaver franchise - not the fact graphics was "added".

(2) On-off switch, on-off switch, on-off switch. What part of this is not sinking in? IF the on-field game was a little slower with the graphics, turn the graphics off. As another poster mentioned, he turns off the current graphics anyway. I usually sim days or weeks at a time - pausing only to watch individual games that have some meaning to me; teams in contention or milestones for example. When I wish to watch a game, the "speed" of the game is no longer important - and if it was, I could turn the graphics off.

(3) Graphics would become repetitive? Holy Cow! How repetitive is the text in the game now??? If you'd played this game thousands of times like myself, I'm sure you can almost guess what the next text line is going to be in most cases.

I also want to agree with the poster that displayed some of the 2D Facebook-like graphics representations as a good starting point.

My issue is the game field (in those games I prefer to watch) is too "static". My eyes rarely leave the PBP window because that is where I see the results. The field window really isn't much more than a defensive team layout. I'd like my eyes to actually fight between watching the text and the field trying to get the exciting play result to my brain as quickly as possible.

One more thing. In 1986 there was a computer baseball game called "Radio Baseball" which basically rolled text up the screen much like OOTP as the game played out - but with no "graphics" at all. I loved that game then as much as I love OOTP now - but that WAS 27 years ago.

I think it's time OOTP venture into graphics - but keep it simple - keep it maintainable - and do it right.

[PSUColonel]

If it could look those WTG graphics in 2D...I'd be in heaven. I have played it and the animations are not too complicated. The ball park just looks fantastic

[rpriske]

How dare people disagree with you?

Repeating yourself over and over without making any new arguments doesn't really change anything, you know.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by BigCity

I think it's time OOTP venture into graphics - but keep it simple - keep it maintainable - and do it right.

Hear, hear.

[Dreifort]

Originally Posted by BigCity

(3) Graphics would become repetitive? Holy Cow! How repetitive is the text in the game now??? If you'd played this game thousands of times like myself, I'm sure you can almost guess what the next text line is going to be in most cases.

The text sim isn't considered repetitive in my opinion. It's just (basically) instant results. Graphics of the ball and players in play are supposed to "immerse" you away from seeing instant results and hopefully give you a sense of watching the play unfold in (somewhat) real-time.

But in games 15-20 yrs ago, I would get frustrated with Harball, LaRussa, High Heat, and MVP, etc... on some plays, you could tell the result by the trajectory of the baseball or where the ball was headed. This of course was not cured until games went 3D and removed the need for static animations.

I look fwd to OOTP adding graphics at some pt, but I am also the type user that always "wants more". Adding graphics adds doubles the amount of posts in the Technical Support thread, lol. - I can't imagine Markus or Andreas looking fwd to that.

And just to waste 10 mins of your time - have fun browsing this link!
(I'm ashamed to say I was alive, and remember all those games )

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by rpriske

How dare people disagree with you?

Repeating yourself over and over without making any new arguments doesn't really change anything, you know.

In all fairness, there hasn't been a new argument in this thread since the original poster asked that graphics be added; and every post since then has been either in support or against it. If I'm accused of "how dare anyone", everyone else must also share in that same fault.

Trying to point out that the feature is OPTIONAL is an attempt to point out that if you don't like it, turn it off and play the game without it. That sure sounds to me like a compromise for the two extremes, not a line in the sand.

A "new argument" would be what the feature should look like - not a continued discussion of trying to talk Markus out of something he already made known he wants to add.

[thevaliantx]

Originally Posted by BigCity

In all fairness, there hasn't been a new argument in this thread since the original poster asked that graphics be added; and every post since then has been either in support or against it. If I'm accused of "how dare anyone", everyone else must also share in that same fault.

Trying to point out that the feature is OPTIONAL is an attempt to point out that if you don't like it, turn it off and play the game without it. That sure sounds to me like a compromise for the two extremes, not a line in the sand.

A "new argument" would be what the feature should look like - not a continued discussion of trying to talk Markus out of something he already made known he wants to add.

In all fairness ... the thread was never intended to be an argument, one way or another, by the original poster. It was an opinion that the game should include graphics. It baffles me that humans always have to have some reason to "argue". If you don't like the idea of something, walk away. Let people enjoy their moment or whatever makes them happy.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

In all fairness ... the thread was never intended to be an argument, one way or another, by the original poster. It was an opinion that the game should include graphics. It baffles me that humans always have to have some reason to "argue". If you don't like the idea of something, walk away. Let people enjoy their moment or whatever makes them happy.

I think you've taken the word "argument" out of context. I was responding to rpriske's post that said I should present a "new argument".

I don't see this thread as an argument - simple a discussion that has some very strong opinions on whether or not graphics should or should not be added. My posts have been meant to reinforce my opinion that an on-off switch is a compromise for both sides - and one that Markus has used successfully for many other features.

[rpriske]

Are you honestly trying to claim that your post that I responded to wasn't trying to prove those who disagree with are wrong? (Despite just repeating the same things over and over again?)

Saying it is a 'discussion' and not an 'argument' is just semantics. You are making an argument... and it is one that is getting repetitive.


Am I going to try and pick apart your argument? Nope, becuae it has already been done. Mutiple times in multiple threads. The only times I come in is when people try to make claims along the lines of "Obviously everybody wants this" or the one earlier in the thread where somebody said that people who don't want graphics don't like baseball. Say stupid things like that and I will argue. Your current points? Nope. I disagree with them, but that has already been said.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by rpriske

Are you honestly trying to claim that your post that I responded to wasn't trying to prove those who disagree with are wrong? (Despite just repeating the same things over and over again?)

Saying it is a 'discussion' and not an 'argument' is just semantics. You are making an argument... and it is one that is getting repetitive.

Am I going to try and pick apart your argument? Nope, becuae it has already been done. Mutiple times in multiple threads. The only times I come in is when people try to make claims along the lines of "Obviously everybody wants this" or the one earlier in the thread where somebody said that people who don't want graphics don't like baseball. Say stupid things like that and I will argue. Your current points? Nope. I disagree with them, but that has already been said.

To be honest, I have no idea what you are arguing or what your intentions are - I will leave it up to the readers.

The ONLY thing I have said repeatedly is (in the simplest terms possible) is that IF graphics is added with an on-off switch, there is no reason for anyone on either side to be up in arms because the game can be played with or without graphics. In 11 (now 12 posts) I only tried to say "optional" means "flexible" and represents a method where everyone can have their game the way they want it. If you can't understand that position - or feel you have to tear me apart because of it, feel free. Doesn't bother me a bit.

[bleachercreature]

You'll never see it. They were talking about this in 2007 when SI was in the picture. It still hasn't happened. I don't think it ever will.

Originally Posted by jasonntn

This sim has improved tremendously since I first played 10 years ago. I once considered OOTP and FM to be very similar excellent sims. When FM went to 3-D graphics it really helped the immersion factor in the game. If OOTP went there it would make a great sim even more immersive, and likely open up a new portion of the baseball gaming market to OOTP. Nothing feels quite as 'real' as watching your guys play the game out on the field.

[jerryb1961]

Originally Posted by helm123

Heck just the way BBPro represented the game would be fine.

I know the whole subject of graphics for ootp has been hashed out before and the bottom line has always been, "Not without ten times the budget."

BBPro had the sort of graphics I had in mind too when I suggested them. I'm not sure who owns Sierra now but if it's EA you could forget about ever getting a license to use the engine from them.

The thinking of us fans here in the fora calling for them is that the graphics need not be fancy, but from a marketing standpoint that'd not go over well. OOTP's thinking is, we'll do it well, or not at all. It's hard to argue with that.

Still, I want to once again cast my vote for rudimentary graphics. I'm not talking about playing the game with them, I'm talking about playing the game with text and then seeing a graphical representation of what just happened. The BBPro engine would be perfectly fine for that, assuming the license could be affordably pried from the cold, dead fingers of Sierra.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by jerryb1961

I know the whole subject of graphics for ootp has been hashed out before and the bottom line has always been, "Not without ten times the budget."

BBPro had the sort of graphics I had in mind too when I suggested them. I'm not sure who owns Sierra now but if it's EA you could forget about ever getting a license to use the engine from them.

The thinking of us fans here in the fora calling for them is that the graphics need not be fancy, but from a marketing standpoint that'd not go over well. OOTP's thinking is, we'll do it well, or not at all. It's hard to argue with that.

Still, I want to once again cast my vote for rudimentary graphics. I'm not talking about playing the game with them, I'm talking about playing the game with text and then seeing a graphical representation of what just happened. The BBPro engine would be perfectly fine for that, assuming the license could be affordably pried from the cold, dead fingers of Sierra.

Who actually owns the rights to the Sierra stuff now though? I have a bizarre feeling it might actually be EA.

[jerryb1961]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Who actually owns the rights to the Sierra stuff now though? I have a bizarre feeling it might actually be EA.

Activision Blizzard owns it now:

Sierra Entertainment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not sure if that's good or bad.