BM 2009 Review

[Reade]

I've tried OOTP and hated it. It drove me absolutely nuts.

Me too. Maybe if I had a ton of time on my hands it would be different, but the few hours a week that I have are better spent doing something else.

[jcbarr]

FRS,

Maybe I am being a bit anal here, but to say that something can't compete with something and then in the next sentence say that it is something in a completely different genre, just doesn't seem intelligent to me.

I'm not sure who writes these things, if they are just your general user or if they are "professional" people who do this for a living. If the latter is true then they should be intelligent enough to realize that they are contradicting themselves.

I mean that is like saying the following; (forgive all the quotes I'm using, but I can't find any better way to get my point across)

"Ohms can't beat me at soccer. Instead, the game he is playing is baseball."

[CatKnight]

The article is more than fair. Highlighting one or two points where the author doesn't seem to understand what's going on doesn't really invalidate the rest of the criticism.

Let's review his points:

Playing the game is very easy: Well...yes, that's our main selling point over OOTP, which offers a much more indepth sim at the cost of ease of use.

Depth chart has players in incorrect order: Yes. We know it'll take awhile to get that working as well as we'd like.

Hard to imagine PBP holding interest over 162 games: I'm sure Rongar would disagree For most consumers though, it's valid.

No stats adjusting for era or park: True.

This affects the internal engine's ability to recreate those eras: True. My Royals dynasty is about to 'decide' whether to institute the DH or not. It's already at post-DH offensive levels...

Good job of adjusting for inflation and salary as time passes: Not perfect, but very valid here too.

AI can't develop young players well: I don't see how anyone can argue this.

Wealthier teams stockpile: Yes. This is part of the CB issue.

Minor league stats have no bearing on major league performance: Not quite fair, but somewhat true since MiL stats are computed seperately. It's also true that almost anyone under 20 is going to be horrible at the Major League level regardless of stats.

AI is stupid at analyzing player value and maintaining roster: We knew this, and it's fair to point out. It is actually FINE at player value...but has no concept of building a team.

No difference between HS and College players in draft: Yep.

Can't invest in foreign markets: Don't want it.

Damages replay value: More correctly, it has the potential to damage long term games. If you're happy replaying a single season or two over and over, you're good.

Here is their definition of a 'passable' grade:

"Games in this range have more faults than strengths, but still might be worth a look if you're into genres of its type. Other games are polite to the sixes, but they don't get invited to any of the parties. Rent these games or download the demo first before spending your hard-earned money on it."

For someone who isn't a "fervent member of our community" looking at all this, I'd say it's pretty fair.

[HoustonGM]

Just read the review. Outside of a couple nitpicks, I'd say it was pretty accurate. The player development, AI, competitive balance, and financial (which the review didn't touch on) issues are HUGE issues, in my opinion.

As for those nitpicks, I'd agree that mentioning that it can't compete with 2kSports was pretty irrelevent, especially when followed up by the very reason it can't - it's not meant to because it's an entirely different genre. Furthermore, I disagree with the closing comments of the review, particularly, "As a result, many of the features and new items put into the game are for the primary purpose of increasing online interactivity and the leagues that require the game." I don't see how that's the case at all.

As for the overall ratings in the different aspects of the game, I'm bored, so I'm going to give my opinions on what they said and my ratings for each game aspect.

Presentation - They gave it a 7.5 for its intuitiveness. I'd personally give it a 10, as I think the layout of the game and the ease at which the presentation is learned are the strongest points of the Mogul franchise.

Graphics - The review gave the graphics a 5, mentioning that the game only includes one stadium photo and has outdated and sometimes incorrect player headshots. I think a lot of people that "complain" about that feature don't really understand why that's the case, and since I do, I don't use it as a strike against the game, especially considering the images are easily editted by users. I'd give the graphics a 6, although really, for a text-based sim, I don't think the graphics should matter at all, so long as it's understandable.

Sound - I'd agree with the 3 rating given to it by the review. Although, as with graphics, I don't think the sound really matters much at all for a text-based sim.

Gameplay - This got a 6 from the review, due to the AI and a "tiresome play-by-play." I don't agree with their issue with play-by-play. I enjoy Manager mode a lot, and have been playing through a season and enjoying it. The AI concerns are very legitimate, and I agree that it does bring down the game overall, although I'd extend "AI issues" to include player development, finances, and competitive balance, which are really all interconnected.

Lasting Appeal - They gave it a 7.5, I'd probably give it an 8.5. The emotional attachment to your players that they mentioned certainly happens to everybody. Being a stat buff, I also find great enjoyment in tracking the careers of players. The game is certainly addicting, and if it weren't for the competitive balance issue, it'd be even better going into the future.

[beerchaser]

I think CatKnight pretty well covers it.

[von_Pike]

Hi guys,

First post here, and I wish it were a bit more positive.....

I think the review was pretty much spot on. The part that got my attention the most was how the AI handles the resigning of star players, and how they develop their talent.

I just finished my first year as the GM of the Athletics, and when free agency came about, imagine my shock when players like Vladimir Guerrero, Mark Teixeira, Nick Markakis, Francisco Liriano, Chris Young, etc etc etc were on the market! And I point these guys out, because each had a great 2007 season. Young had a 2.76 ERA, Guerrero had 109 RBI's, and 33 HR's, Teixeira batted .299 and had a .399 OBP. My point being, that these guys should have been locked up before the season ever ended. As is, I was basically able to pick and choose which guys I wanted. On top of that, I was able to get each of the guys I went after to LOWER their salary demands. I got Guerrero for just at 10 million, 20% less than his asking price. Now in real life, the Yankees would have never let me get away with that, nor at least 10 other big market teams that could use a guy like Vlade.....

The reviewer points out the depth chart issue, and for a text sim, this issue makes no sense. Even the console games get this right. When I need to put a guy on the DL, I shouldn't have to demote him first, and call up some AAA guy to fill the spot in the MLB roster----in real life, you have bench players to fill in for a guy who's out for 2 weeks. Likewise, even the console games offer to automatically fix your rosters in the event of an injury.

Anyway, I bought this game because the last time I bought it, about 3 years ago, I thought it was a decent game that gave me a nice alternative to the somewhat overwhelming OOTP franchise. But as it stands, OOTP is far superior in how the AI works---and while one of you guys mentioned sim speed---well the other way to look at that is that OOTP is simply doing more under the hood than BM is. I'm not trying to start a comparison war, but that is a point I feel needs to be made.

Anyway, I am going to ask for the refund, with regret, but I will keep track of the forum here, and if the time comes that the game makes the strides necessary to be worth $30, I will be happy to repurchase.

Just my 1.5 cents,

Pike

[jcbarr]

Just to get things clear, I'm not saying that the review isn't accurate, I just didn't agree with that statement. One wrong statement in no way makes the complete review irrelevant.

I tend to agree with Von Pike on one point. I don't thinkt he game is worth 30 bucks. I spent it but when I look around at what some games cost and I don't feel that this is worth 30 bucks.

I can buy OOTP and while I don't like the game, and think that there is just too much to offer there, that game is at least 10 dollars less than Mogul.

[von_Pike]

Actually, OOTP is gonna be about $40....the preorder is $25.

I realize this isn't the popular thing to say considering the neighborhood, but right now I think that Sony's MLB series has both OOTP and BM beat by a long mile. I have the PS3 version, and I have to say that the financial model is far better. Instead of just one ticket price, it takes into account skyboxes and the nose bleed seats. Same goes for vendors and what not. It's just a more in depth simulation than BM, and in regards to the financial side of things, more in depth than OOTP too. Combine that with the graphics, manager mode, so on and so forth, and I kinda wonder at the moment why I messed with this to begin with.

All the same, with better AI, I think BM would certainly be worth the money, and the time. If those improvements are made, I'll be back...I think, lol.

[rockiesfan4ever]

Who here has played NFL Head Coach 08?

They gave that a 7.2 and it's a lot worse than Mogul. I think it's something to do with it not being from a "major company" or it being a Computer game.

[JayC]

Just got around to reading the review, and getting back to that "can't compete" issue it seems to me that the point would have been better made by rephrasing the sentence in the article. As published, it's "Much like Total Extreme Wrestling or direct competitor Out of the Park, Baseball Mogul simply can't compete with the 2K Sports' of the world."

Better sentence: "Much like Total Extreme Wrestling or direct competitor Out of the Park, Baseball Mogul doesn't compete with the 2K Sports' of the world..

Or for that matter, "chooses not to compete" wouldn't have been a bad way to go.

Really the kind of thing a good editor should've taken care of.

[von_Pike]

Who here has played NFL Head Coach 08?

They gave that a 7.2 and it's a lot worse than Mogul. I think it's something to do with it not being from a "major company" or it being a Computer game.

Wow, uh....totally wrong there champ. Proof? Ever heard of Galactic Civ II or Sins of a Solar Empire? Very small company that puts out those games, and they are two of the highest rated PC games to come along in a long time.

The score was low because the quality of the game is low. I mean think about it, we have to resort to messing with fan loyalty and revenue adjustments just to keep the league stable and competitive.....and really that only fixes one problem---you still have the Yankees with enough talent for 3 MLB teams.......anyway I understand some of you guys want to defend your friend Clay, and this game that you enjoy, but there isn't enough wool around here to go over the eyes of folks who want a ready to go game out of the box and aren't willing to ignore AI problems or the fact that fixes are necessary to keep the wheels greased.

Sorry if I come across wrong, I don't mean to pile on here. I'm just disapoointed with the experience I had with the game. I had read Cat's KC dynasty, and another guy's Philly dynasty on my iPhone the last few days, and was pretty pumped to try the game out. Hopefully the game will continue to evolve. I would definitely say the guy needs to drop the other game and focus on this---the fact that it is prolly too much for one guy is evidenced in the quality of both titles.

[von_Pike]

Just got around to reading the review, and getting back to that "can't compete" issue it seems to me that the point would have been better made by rephrasing the sentence in the article. As published, it's "Much like Total Extreme Wrestling or direct competitor Out of the Park, Baseball Mogul simply can't compete with the 2K Sports' of the world."

Better sentence: "Much like Total Extreme Wrestling or direct competitor Out of the Park, Baseball Mogul doesn't compete with the 2K Sports' of the world..

Or for that matter, "chooses not to compete" wouldn't have been a bad way to go.

Really the kind of thing a good editor should've taken care of.

I think the reviewer pretty much said what he meant to say. The franchise options on both console games are really superior at this point to either of the text based sims. I say that with this exception: The Show is waaaay ahead of 2k8 in terms of stats, and well everything else too.

Where the text sims fall really far behind now is that not only do you get the financial options and depth of play in general in terms of GM mgmt, you can also enjoy an incredible looking game of baseball, and awesome gameplay, anytime you want. Basically, I think the next gen console options have caught up to text sims in terms of depth.

The reviewer is only stating what is obvious to people who have played both BM and the current console offerings. I understand resistance to this idea from folks who don't have a PS3 laying around, but please believe me that the Show is as good as it gets right now in terms of baseball gaming.

Sorry for piling on here.

[Arctic Blast]

Wow, I'm rather surprised this got as much traffic as it did, actually. I thought the review seemed to be pretty spot on. We've all complained about the horrific trade AI and competitive balance problems, I know many people expressed disappointment that the depth chart didn't quite end up as we'd hoped out of the gate, and all the problems with big markets stockpiling ridiculous numbers of players has been talked about at length. I do agree that maybe it could have been worded a bit differently, the 2K vs. BM sentence, I mean, but overall, I thought it was fair.

Just to address rockiesfan's point, keep in mind that different reviewers reviewed NFL Head Coach (which, I agree, was awful...one of the 2 worst games I have ever played on a PC, ever), so you're mixing and matching the opinions of two entirely different people (and, yes, I did just check to make sure of that) .

[Rongar]

CatKnight wrote in his recent excellent post...

"Hard to imagine PBP holding interest over 162 games: I'm sure Rongar would disagree"

To a certain extent, I would agree, if we're talking about the "General Manager" and "Manager" modes in the "Play-by-Play" menu...however, I was drawn to this game by the ability to "throw" each pitch, to "swing" each bat, myself in the 3rd option that PBP offers... the "Player" ("Pitch-by-pitch") mode.

Right now, I'm playing, on average, two games per day in this mode - it used to be four, daily, but I lack the stamina, now - playing in this mode is somewhat draining, physically, as well as time-consuming (30-45 minutes per game) - so that, in theory, I could complete one team's season, in a couple of months of real time.

In fact, I've never played an entire season in this mode -most of the teams that I'm operating in "player" mode right now - the '78 Blue Jays; the '86 Expos; the '99 Devil Rays; the all-Canadian team, the "Canajun Ehs"; when started simwise, simply suck, so sooner or later, I have to come to that team's aid by taking total control of its hitting and pitching

I do sim a lot (the "Brooklyn Knights" franchise), but, again, in theory, I can play the entire season of each of the six teams of that franchise(almost 1,000 games including play-offs, in all), in far less time than it takes me to play one game in "Player" mode

So, simming, for me, is merely an agreeable appetizer for the meat-and-potatoes of BM - playing in PBP "Player" mode