[BMW]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

whats so bad about it? I've considered buying it, so if you could go into detail...


(and i'm sorry that i'm hijacking)

From GameSpot:

Player lists are abbreviated so that you can see only eight names on the screen at once, forcing you to tediously scroll through multiple menus.

Information is presented in an almost nonsensical manner. The player negotiation screen, for instance, covers just six core stats for batters and pitchers, like AVG and W-L. So you're forced to go rummaging around elsewhere in the rosters to dig up thorough information regarding essential data, like at-bats and hits allowed.

Vital data, such as overall player ratings and potential ratings, is often tucked away in layered information screens, necessitating a ridiculous amount of searching whenever you take on even the most rudimentary task. It's tough just gathering the information needed when setting up pitching rotations. And it gets even worse when it's time to sort through the dozens of players who need the protection of a 40-man roster prior to the Rule 5 draft every winter.

The menu screens aren't linked to one another either, meaning that you can't zip from one screen to another. When you're trying to re-sign a player, for instance, and he tells you he wants more years on his contract, you can't move directly from the e-mail telling you about this demand to his negotiation screen. Instead, you have to scroll down the main menu to Transactions, open its submenu list, scroll down to Payroll, open it up, and then scroll down that list to the player's name to pull up his contract offer page.

MLB Front Office Manager needs a lot of work to be ready for the big leagues. The game offers an impressive amount of depth and great support for online leagues, especially for management-sim-deprived consolers. But playing it is such a chore that anyone seriously interested in such simulations will quickly move on to a more serious, if PC-only, effort like Out of the Park Baseball.

But even with all that, just because the game is poor doesn't mean that it was built on poor concepts. They could be good concepts that were just executed poorly.

I'd be interested in hearing what was interesting about their scouting before dismissing it out of hand, since I have no idea how the scouting worked.

I know the general consensus was that the game was abysmal, but the past thirty years of gaming are littered with games that were good in concept and horrid in implementation.

To me, if I ever saw the game for $5-$8, I'd consider picking it up (almost) regardless of how bad it was.