3-D Graphics

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by jerryb1961

Not sure if that's good or bad.

Just about anything is better than having the IP owned by EA.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by blasek0

Just about anything is better than having the IP owned by EA.

Pretty much.

[PSUColonel]

If you haven't played WGT Baseball...those graphics are absolutely the way to go.

[Up here in Canada]

OOTP should make two versions of their game, one with improved graphics and one without. Those that do not need an improved version for playing out their games can pass on the one that includes this feature. An improved short play by play is what the game needs more than anything. I have lobbied for this in numerous baseball sims and I am completely amazed at the fact that none of these games has a decent short play by play, 2 to 3 lines in length....the actual time that it takes for a play to unfold and resolve.

{... hit hard to straightaway centerfield...
...pulled in for the out (F-8), two away...}

{...ripped, this one has a chance...
...back...
...back...
...CAUGHT at the warning track (F-9), three away}

{.....slow roller to short, fielded cleanly......
......throw to first, OUT (6-3), inning over....}

And for those that like to watch replay's of the game, have a feature in place where you can watch the games and then pause them when you want to. The game has a feature like this in place now but it doesn't pause for a moment in between hitters so that you have a chance to look at the batter/ pitcher matchup and to take in their stats.

This is an absolutely amazing game when you take into consideration everything that it does so incredibly well, but, when it comes time to watch an actual game unfold, it fails miserably. I haven't read one valid reason or argument in this thread to suggest why this aspect of the game shouldn't be improved. It seems to me that there are some here that don't want their game to become popular.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

It seems to me that there are some here that don't want their game to become popular.

A perfect example of why this debate gets heated. Shelve the arrogance, thanks. You give us happy Canadians a bad name.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by rpriske

A perfect example of why this debate gets heated.

Another reason is that a lot of people on both sides seem take the view that doing what the other side want will result in the end of OOTP.

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

I haven't read one valid reason or argument in this thread to suggest why this aspect of the game shouldn't be improved. It seems to me that there are some here that don't want their game to become popular.

Graphics would require a time and monetary investment to add, and some people, like myself, worry that this would take away from the improvement of other facets of the game. That's, in my opinion, the most reasonable hesitancy towards adding graphics, and is my hangup on the subject personally. Graphics engines require a significant man-hour investment, plus OOTP would probably need to hire artists, animators, etc in order to get a product out the door. This significantly increases their costs, and if it doesn't pan out and increase sales, it's a large investment that was mostly wasted and might have a negative impact on the franchise going forward.

I would love to see graphics added to the game, not because I care about them personally, but I know other people do want them, and I'd like to see them get the improvements they want, just like I want to get the improvements I want. I would, however, not want graphics if it came at the cost of gameplay and engine improvement.

[pjh5165]

Originally Posted by blasek0

I would love to see graphics added to the game, not because I care about them personally, but I know other people do want them, and I'd like to see them get the improvements they want, just like I want to get the improvements I want. I would, however, not want graphics if it came at the cost of gameplay and engine improvement.

I agree with this 100%. I am on the no-graphics side of this issue, but I completely understand that others want them and respect that.

My main concern about graphics would be making sure that if they are done, they are done the right way and in a way that would bring in a meaningful amount of new customers to pay for the cost associated with developing them.

I know from this thread that a lot of people were pushing for 2D player representations on the field and graphics showing the ball being hit on the ground/in the air/etc... I really just don't see how that would attract someone new since it obviously does not have anything remotely close to the "wow" factor of graphics on consoles.

I just don't really see a scenario that involves graphics being implemented that are good/exciting enough to attract new customers, while also not being a huge financial disaster for OOTPD and taking away from time that could be spent improving the dev engine.

That's just my 2 cents, hopefully no one kills me for this. I just like my text sim the way it is

[pjh5165]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

An improved short play by play is what the game needs more than anything.

^This

[D-BacksJosh]

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.

Would love to see some graphics improvements.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by blasek0

I would love to see graphics added to the game, not because I care about them personally, but I know other people do want them, and I'd like to see them get the improvements they want, just like I want to get the improvements I want. I would, however, not want graphics if it came at the cost of gameplay and engine improvement.

No-one is saying that they want graphics above other improvements though, and Markus isn't stupid.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by rpriske

A perfect example of why this debate gets heated. Shelve the arrogance, thanks. You give us happy Canadians a bad name.

Back at you.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by blasek0

Graphics would require a time and monetary investment to add, and some people, like myself, worry that this would take away from the improvement of other facets of the game. That's, in my opinion, the most reasonable hesitancy towards adding graphics, and is my hangup on the subject personally. Graphics engines require a significant man-hour investment, plus OOTP would probably need to hire artists, animators, etc in order to get a product out the door. This significantly increases their costs, and if it doesn't pan out and increase sales, it's a large investment that was mostly wasted and might have a negative impact on the franchise going forward.

How on earth do you know any of this?

Do you know how well the game is selling right now?

Have sales increased or decreased over the last few years?

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by pjh5165

I just don't really see a scenario that involves graphics being implemented that are good/exciting enough to attract new customers, while also not being a huge financial disaster for OOTPD and taking away from time that could be spent improving the dev engine.

From what I understand, OOTP is already in the process of adding graphics to the game and they must be doing it for a very good reason(s). I would like to see an improved, short, 2 to 3 line play by play to go along with the graphics; that is what will add tension and suspense to the game without having to read an entire page of text to complete just one play.

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

How on earth do you know any of this?

Do you know how well the game is selling right now?

Have sales increased or decreased over the last few years?

Which is easier to do, make a static background, then throw some text boxes over it with player names, which OOTP does now, and requires little real work to carry forward to future versions, or write a graphics engine? Alternately, you could license an engine from another company as well, but some time would still be needed to integrate that engine into the game. That either takes a significant investment of man-hours to write your own engine, or you have to pay another company to license their software. That adds to costs either way, either through up-front cash (and which still requires some time investment to integrate the engine into the new game) or having to pay more people to work longer on the product.

So we've got a 3D graphics engine now! We're done now, right? Nope.

Textures need artists to fill them in. Animators have to make sure figures act appropriately. More code means higher testing costs because there are more places things can possibly go wrong. That's yet more man-hours required to get OOTP released, and people want to get paid for their time.

Graphics increases the game size drastically, which increases their distribution costs. That's yet another cost, if a small one, that has to be accounted for.

How do you know graphics would improve sales enough to justify the increased costs? If you've got hard data that suggests the game would ultimately be more profitable if it added graphics, I'd love to see it.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by blasek0

How do you know graphics would improve sales enough to justify the increased costs? If you've got hard data that suggests the game would ultimately be more profitable if it added graphics, I'd love to see it.

I would love to see the hard data that suggests that the game WOULDN'T be more profitable if it added graphics. It works both ways.

[oldtimey]

Originally Posted by sprague

i sim out most games because i dont really have a feel of the gameplay as it is, which is fine. i am happy with the realism when i look at the boxscore. but with 3-d graphics i would play out many more games.
I look at what things like the MLB video games have and think wow, i can almost be fooled for a few seconds thinking i am looking at a real telecast. it is so enticing to be honest that if i knew for sure i could never pick up the stupid controller and could just watch the games like a fan, or at least only manage player changes and steals ect, i might switch. the view is so good. and every year it is going to get better and better

one of these text-sim games out there will make the switch soon, they are going to have to. the first one will probably get the main bussiness from it. the one that goes first gets to be the one that goes first

just saying...

MLB The Show 13's default setting is cpu v cpu. I believe that this is the way the developers tested it, as it plays very realistically without human intervention, and this includes ingame AI. If you are a veteran MLB gamewatcher, you can anticipate every strategic move as you would if you were watching a real MLB telecast, with pitcher/batter perspectives unique to every ballpark. And when one of the AI manager goes against a "book" move, the announcers let you know and question or attempt to reason out why this move is being made. Hardcore "joystick jockeys" complained constantly about the difficulty in mastering the the human v cpu part of the game at certain levels, expressing wonderment of how difficult hitting, pitching and even fielding is compared to older versions of this game and prior pc and console video games. I, personally, have never desired to pick up the joystick after setting things up. I have played this way for years with many games, constantly tweaking slider settings, etc., for things like realistic pitch counts with actual foul ball frequency. After loading slider settings from another cpu v cpu player, and tweaking them a little myself during spring training, I played the whole 2013 season, with control of every team, and watched a game a day, using a balanced system that allowed me to visit all 30 ballparks for at least one series during the regular season. The only thing I did was play GM for all 30 teams, and acted as manager, setting each lineup prior to all sim and live games, but always taking the suggestion of the AI when to rest players for fatigue/injuries/lack of performance. When the smoke cleared, I had the same World Series matchup (Bos v StL) going on in my season the same time as the one in real life! And the same winner, except it took Boston 7 games to do the job on my PS3. I am greatly anticipating the 2014 season, as I will try the Franchise Mode, with full minor leagues. My 2013 teams played with 40-man rosters.
Concluding, I never imagined that my ultimate baseball simming experience would come from a console game. I bought the PS3 on a suggestion from my younger brother when I wanted to include a Blu-ray player in our home entertainment system. I have been a PC gamer since 1988. Then, I purchased The Show 13, after seeing Youtube videos of The Show 12. I enjoyed every pitch, from spring training on. I opened the season in Japan, and away I went! I had all the control I wanted, with all the realism and outstanding graphics, and only used the joystick for setting things up. Of course, this opened up Pandora's Box for me, as I am currently completing The 2012-2013 NBA Finals with NBA 2k13, with the 2013-2014 to start the in early December, and I am playing along with the NFL season, week to week, using Madden 12. Both of these games have proven, with a few tweaks, to be great for the non-"joystick jockey," proving that you can have realism with great graphics, while just managing/spectating. I don't know if I could play a PC game again, except to crank up MVP 2005, modded for a classic season. But I know that the text sim, OOTP included, is pretty dead to me without improvements in ingame strategy, game pace and game drama. MLB The Show 13 has all of this, with outstanding graphics. I do miss PC gaming when it comes to hard-copy report generating. I use Excel to manually input data for archive record-keeping, which has always been important to me. Report-generating and the ability to switch between more than one announcer or announcing team (like in the Tony Larussa/Oldtime Baseball series) is the only other things I would desire to make my baseball gaming experience just about perfect.

[rpriske]

You know things have really fallen low when someone uses multiple "I know you are, but what am I" posts.



I have said many times - as long as I can turn it off, I don't care what you do... unless it stops them from making other non-window-dressing improvements.

I know I will turn it off because it will slow the game down too much for me.

[oldtimey]

Originally Posted by rpriske

You know things have really fallen low when someone uses multiple "I know you are, but what am I" posts.



I have said many times - as long as I can turn it off, I don't care what you do... unless it stops them from making other non-window-dressing improvements.

I know I will turn it off because it will slow the game down too much for me.

I am one who desires the game slow. Baseball is a slow game with bursts of action. And when things get tense, it gets slower. I want my live games to do the same, with no fluctuations between live and quick simmed games, stats-wise. That's just me. But I'm old...and have the time. I realize most people don't have the time.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by rpriske

You know things have really fallen low when someone uses multiple "I know you are, but what am I" posts.

This is intriguing...by all means, explain.