Talk:MLB 07: The Show

Misleading

This article contains misleading information. While it may be true that it is the only first-party developed MLB-licensed game, it is that way because of the exclusive THIRD-PARTY deal that the MLB made with Take-2. Any first party can make an MLB licensed game according to the contract. Furthermore, EA did not have an MLB-licensed game last year either, so their creative alternatives have been in the works for two years and manifested itself as an NCAA licensed baseball game last year. It would be useful to add that there are other MLB-licensed games being developed for the 2007 season.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/24/news_6116946.html (link to the article about Take-2's deal with the MLB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.153.112 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bugs and Flaws

The Bugs/Flaws section is getting a little legenthy. Mabye me or someone else should make a list? Just an idea. Stormtracker94 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not think that the bugs and flaws have been talked about enough, in great detail.

I have many videos of horrible game programming from this game and so do many other people. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and other MLB games made by them. I just want them to see the errors I speak about, so that in future games, the problems can be fixed. Below are a few links to videos that show some errors. Now if you watch these videos and you do not understand what went wrong, or you think it is the players fault, then you are more than likely not a programmer, or do not understand programming in enough detail to see what is clearly wrong in these videos.

Catcher Will not Tag Runner for the 3rd Time.
Crazy Game Physics from thrown ball.
No Second Baseman Twice in a row.
FoulBall Play Timer Cuts play short, Ball was caught during the play, however during the replay, it stops right before the ball lands in the glove.
Outfielder will not catch ball for the 2nd time in row.
Player can not/WILL NOT pick up ball.
Outfielder will not catch ball, 3rd time
CPU-AI Blocks Player From making a Tag.
Players will not pick up the ball,..AGAIN!
CPU moves the Catcher On Purpose.
Teleporting Catcher

Now these are just a few of the problems I have found in the game. I am sure there are many, many more. However, They seemed to have paid attention to these posts, because NONE of these errors have been found in MLB 08. However, they should still be discussed and new errors should be discussed as well.

Weasel

This "many people" paragraph isn't very neutral, nor is it sourced. Edit it, please. JAF1970 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel section is fixed, and the template removed. NyyDave 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

XBOX 360?

Will this game ever be released for XBOX 360? Mawest11 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt it will ever be released for the 360, as it is produced by Sony. Aericanwizard 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

--I really think the people at Sony should look to try and produce the game for Xbox consoles, as there is profit out there for them if they should do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.98.173 (talk) 22:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

lol

Oakland A's at night?

The PlayStation 3 store has an update 'to fix the Oakland Athletics night game problem'. Can someone message me and explain what that means. Socby19 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Glitches Section

I just found a glitch, and I wanted to post it here, but the bugs and glitches is gone. Why? Who? BRING IT BACK! --HPJoker 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the glitches that were listed are minor and factual (stats). They have no effect on gameplay. They also don't have any sources. Socby19 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of them do. They're informitive and fixable sometimes. It also makes the page look better. BRING THEM BACK! The glitch I found is when you hit a ball that should be a home run, sometimes it will plummet down and the shortstop will catch it. --HPJoker 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source from a reputable site (i.e. not a liitle known site, nor a forum, sites like IGN, GameSpot, GameInformer, and GameDaily), for any particular glitch that effects gameplay (no factual errors) then you can post it. Maybe in your case, it was just a fly ball that landed where it was supposed to do. Socby19 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've viewed it in replay. The ball is headed for the green monster and then plummets down. IT AIN'T RIGHT! Plus those bugs are informative. --HPJoker 05:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a good source for them. Otherwise, it will be considered vandalism and be removed. Socby19 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As for your argument that it (they) "make(s) the page look better", it just makes it worse, as it's just a list of worthless information that doesn't even affect gameplay. Again, if factual errors are posted, any or all of 'bugs' section is reinstated without a GOOD source, and/or the cheats section is put back, an admin WILL be notified and you may be blocked from editing. It is considered vandalism and you (the reader) have been warned. For further points see WP:NOT#GUIDE, http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Socby19 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. A lot of them affect gameplay. --HPJoker (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You, are in fact wrong. I just went through the 35 that are posted as of now, and 28 of them (80%) are statistical or appearance issues that have no effect on gameplay or cause interference of expected phyiscs. There one is that arguable, but there only 6 others that would cause an undesired result. They also need a source. Socby19 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitches revisited

I'm going to be bold and just remove the entire thing: not only is it trivia, but it's unreferenced and probably unverifiable, original research, and too big for its own good. Some of it could even be completely false and just trying to put the game in a negative light. There are so many Wikipedia policies that the section violates that it has no place on here. A gaming website and/or wiki would be a much better place to put it if someone wants to do so.

It would be okay to add something like "some reviewers have criticised MLB 07: The Show for numerous bugs and glitches to be found in the game", with a source, in the criticism section. Listing these flaws is not suitable for WP. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added about 40% of the material that is in the Bug and Flaws section and I've revised it again today. The notion that the writers who contributed to it possibly had a hidden agenda as you imply is ridiculous. No, I'm not hired by Microsoft to denigrate MLB 07 so that people would buy their competing product, since MLB 07 is published by Sony and is unlikely to license the market-leading baseball game to Xbox. In fact, I was hoping that the game publishers would take note of the bugs and flaws in this article so that they may correct them in future editions, in order that their product can be even better. If you had actually read the bugs and flaws listed as I presume you didn't, you might have noticed this underlying motive of trying to improve the game by pointing out these flaws the publishers may not have noticed. Yea, I know "original research" is frowned upon by wikipedia. But considering the countless hours I spent playing it, I think I have more credibility on the subject than some so-called professional game reviewer working at a magazine that I must presumably cite, or possibly even the QA testers for the game itself. And I stand by my findings which were personally researched and verified, not taken at the word of someone claiming it, at least for the parts I added, not the ones that existed before I made additions and reorganized the list. It's circular logic to say that all materials must have a citation, when it all had to have started somewhere with someone. I've told you my credentials regarding this game, so if I'm the original source and obviously I can't cite myself, then so be it. And by the way, not all types of articles are created equal. This is a video game, and there can't be a fun factor to reading an article about video games, even if it is indeed trivia? The Bugs and Flaws section is interesting and fun to read for fans of the game. It won't deter the game's sales. Everyone knows that every piece of software ever written has bugs and flaws which get corrected in the next version. Besides, MLB 08 is coming out in two days (March 4, 2008 for both PS2/PS3/PSP, the only consoles MLB 07 is available for), so it's unlikely that gamers will buy this outdated version. Therefore at this point in time, this section is more like a historical reference for the video game archives than anything else, wouldn't you agree? In other words, MLB 07 is already ancient history in the world of video games, and this article won't impact sales one way or another. If you do indeed remove the section again, that's not being bold as you say, but just being willful, going against the desires of many who have already expressed that the section has considerable value. Baffler (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you had a hidden agenda, I was saying that if, say, an IP editor added something that was false then that would break WP:NPOV.

WP:OR, along with WP:V are arguably the most important guidelines for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia through the collection of information published by reputable third party sources. A user on Wikipedia is not that, unless his/her work is published in an area that is reliable. I don't doubt that these bugs exist -- I don't dispute that at all. I'm not even doubting your credibility that you have spent countless hours playing and finding these bugs. The problem is that a Wikipedia user can never use his or her first-hand experiences as a reference for information without publishing it in a third party source. Never. You cannot "personally verify" this information without a source: that is the entire argument that WP:OR is designed to prevent; not in the sense that your edits are untrue but that some bad-faith edits could simply use "but go play the game yourself" as a reference and that is simply not suitable for any encyclopedia.

It is fun to read, sure, I'm not denying, but this is an encyclopedia: a collection of information from 3rd sources. Without these 3rd sources the information has no place here. GameFAQs which be a much more suitable place for your to post your findings, for instance.

I'm not trying to demean your work at all, and please don't take it like that: if you have I sincerely apologise. I know it can be frustrating at times but process and policy must be followed.

I won't remove the section, but I am going to do two things to try and resolve this:

a) I would like to know if you have any policy of Wikipedia's with which you feel this section should stay on here. As much as your credibility would be a nice reason to keep it, it is unfortunately not suitable.

b) I have posted a request for a third opinion to see what other editors say.

As I said, I hope I have not offended you: that was certainly not my intention at any point. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing Third Opinion: All information on Wikipedia must be cited so that all information on Wikipedia is verifiable and accurate. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. It cannot be ignored for the sake of reader enjoyability. Regardless of credentials, unless the information is published in a reliable source, it is original research. Original research is frowned upon for good reason. Accuracy is usually jeopardized. Baffler, you may be highly qualified but your qualifications cannot be verified like peer-reviewed sources. Until the section is properly cited, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

As a side note: The sales of the product are not relevant. Wikipedia must always be neutral. Billscottbob (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any wikipedia policy that this Bugs and Flaws section would adhere to. I use common sense, and I don't cling to policy like it's untouchable scripture. But if WP:OR is indeed one of wikipedia's "most important guidelines" as AllynJ says, I don't challenge that, but I do challenge anyone that tries to turn a "guideline" into a set-in-concrete universal policy. In the information age (that really sounds outdated, doesn't it), wikipedia's "original research" policy is truly circular logic, depending on the subject of the article. This is not like when I was in high school 15 to 20 years ago, when all we had to rely on was reference materials like almanacs/encyclopedias/atlases/newspapers at the library. So if I "publish" my findings in a third-party source, that makes it correct? In that case, I'd set up a website and "publish" my writing there, and then cite that in this wikipedia article. I've seen other wikipedia articles cite material that was in a discussion board. Maybe I'll just write in such a place and cite that instead. This isn't exactly a case of me making an unsubstantiated claim regarding a historical figure from a century back without providing any kind of proof or citation. This is something that's going on right now, a case where I or anyone else who plays this game would be in the best position to be an authority, more so than so-called professionals, if I or they chose to spend time that way. If WP:OR is indeed wikipedia's blanket policy for all types of articles, then I say that wikipedia is clinging to obsolete ways of doing things, and that whatever challengers like the one that Google is planning will overtake their first-mover advantage because wikipedia failed to adjust their mindset and was rigid with their policies, which would be indeed ironic. This is a work in progress, and you can't keep up with it if you must cite so-called legitimate references like I had to a decade ago, at least with a moving target like a relatively new video game. Billscottbob thinks I should use "peer-reviewed sources" like there are academic journals that detail glitches and flaws for video games. No, there are not and I challenge you to find one. Baffler (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it isn't really common sense: verifiability is the #1 criteria for addition of material here.

Infact, I was (semantically) wrong to argue Wikipedia:No original research as a guideline; it is in fact an official policy. Thus it must be adhered to at all times. WP:IAR cannot really be activated here... the OR guidelines are pretty strict for a reason. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information in the sense that people can post any information here: it is a collection of knowledge that can be verified.

You could set up your own website and post it, but there is a high likeliness it would not be considered reliable, especially straight off the bat, and see here; self-publishing sources are strongly disapproved of except in the most extreme circumstances. Posting on a message board is definitely not a reliable source - if you see those sources elsewhere they should always be removed, citing WP:RS as rationale.

I would argue WP is not clinging to an obsolete way of doing things but rather preventing abuse. If you allow OR then any number of unwanted facts, unsubstantiated claims and incorrect claims could be made and it would be near impossible to keep up with every edit as such - who knows what kind of information could creep in? Sure, some of it could well be correct but the inclusion of any detail that breaks WP:BLP or some other such guideline used to protect people, article subjects and Wikipedia legally could be broken and not removed on the basis of "I saw it" or something similar. Indeed it's not ideal to not allow all OR, since some editors are obviously trying to work in good faith, but - especially for a project of this size - it is the only reasonable option, especially for an encyclopedia.

Yes, there aren't any journals or other peer-reviewed on this kind of topic: That means that these facts are unverifiable and should definitely be removed. As I said, a much better place to post such concerns or information would be GameFAQs or another website. To this end I'm going to remove the section again, as I don't see any way it can exist on Wikipedia without breaking the fundamental and necessary guidelines and policy set out. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 08:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who made you captain of the "unknown-priority video game articles". Fine, erase the stinkin bugs. I bet you feel like Moses coming down the mountain and handing down the law. Good for you, but for the record I think you exceed your authority and I question your judgment. Therein lie the real glitches. Baffler (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Back-handed comments like that have no place on Wikipedia. I have told you all along that I'm sorry about removing your work but have clearly stated my reasons why it has to be this way. Please tell me where exactly I exceeded my authority? As far as I was aware I wasn't using any more authority then you or I have, both being editors here; and by quoting and acting based on Wikipedia policy at all times, and sticking to it, I fail to see how my judgment can be incorrect. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OMFG JUST KEEP IT THERE! JESUS!

Time to bring in the calvary.... HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not in any way suitable for inclusion here. I've cited numerous pieces of policy above as to why it should not be kept, and I've yet to see any as to why it should be included, other than "I like it". I'm removing it as that is not a good enough reason. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WE DECIDED MONTHS AGO TO FUCKING KEEP IT THAT WAY! PUT IT BACK FOR FUCKS SAKE! The bugs are informative, all of them exist as I have come across them myself. BTW what the hell happened to "I won't remove the section. The paragraphs are to long to read sooooo. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 02:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is built upon policy, not people agreeing that they like it. It is in no way suitable for Wikipedia. And if you'll read the above section, not everyone agreed: I got a third opinion (as is the course of action during a dispute), and the user agreed that there was no basis for inclusion. I'm not denying they exist; I'm denying they are verifiable in an encylopedic context. They also add nothing to the article from an encyclopedic point of view. GameFAQs or a similar site is a much more suitable venue for this information.

Also, as to your claim that "we decided months ago", I don't see any consensus actually built -- User:Socby19 pointed out the exact same problems I have raised and saying that the section should be removed. Another user came along and agreed with you at a later date, but he did not provide a good policy-based reason for inclusion. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a fourth opinion. And that other user is an admin so that should be enough. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 23:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Also YOU LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN!!! YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR SPORT! YOU JUST BECAME A FAN LAST YEAR AND IF YOU ARE A FAN, I BET YOU'RE A FAN OF THE GIANTS, AND THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, THE GIANTS CAN'T PLAY BASEBALL. SO STOP SCREWING WITH OUR SPORTS AND GO AND EDIT A SOCCER ARTICLE HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 23:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please calm down. Your language and tone not to mention the ALL CAPS is pushing the limits of civility. The removed section contains extremely trivial information about the game that's not appropiate for an encylopedia article - this sort of info is better off hosted externally at a site such as GameFAQs and if necessary linked to from here. Remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Remember when discussing edits, it's always a better idea to calmly and rationally state your objections to the edits rather than launching attacks on the editor making them. Best regards. Exxolon (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would call trivia, "Who came in third in the 1987 Indianapolis 500?", not a list of bugs and flaws. And I'm tired of doing that. Once should be enough. A Wikipedia admin decided to keep it there before, it should stay there. I've already stated my points in a more calm matter up there and right here. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy is here - Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE but I'll quote :- "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook - Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. (emphasis mine). This is an official policy on Wikipedia - if you disagree with the policy the correct way forward is to get the policy changed at the roots, then put the information in. Editing against an official policy is generally futile and can cause problems. The information in question is perfectly valid, but is not encyclopedic. If I were trying to include it in some form I would have sentence such as "MLB 07: The Show is well known amongst video gamers for a larger than usual number of bugs and glitches that can affect gameplay in a variety of ways"<with a reliable source link to the information here>. You could possibly include 1 or 2 very brief examples for illustrative purposes. If you cannot resolve this dispute then I would suggest opening an RFC on the article and get a wider variety of discussion and opinion. Exxolon (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BRAIN WAVE!!! Could we create a subpage for it since there are so many bugs? HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 14:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not, we have a policy against "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." - see WP:SUBPAGE. As I said above this content isn't really useful here - the best thing to do is to find the content elsewhere (or even create it there yourself - there are other wikiprojects that welcome this kind of help) and link to it instead. Exxolon (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all how did baffler get involved in this? Athaenara originally started this. Where is he? HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A resolution and truce?

I came across this heated debate and thought there was no need for such argument. I've added reference to the bugs in the reception section here, including a couple of examples as suggested. I think this was a problem over misreading Wikipedia's "comprehensive" aspect.

• Imagine wikipedia not as library, but as a book: in the library there would be articles about the game, maybe even a book or two which has a chapter detailing all the bugs. However wikipedia is an encyclopedia in this library, it should summarise all the information on the game without going in to full detail. If we want all the detail we can always go and read the book (the sources in the references/notes section).
• Similarly, if wikipedia does not summarise the presence and effects of these bugs then it won't be entirely comprehensive.

Are all sides satisfied with the addition in the review section? I really hope so because i'm sure all involved have better things to do than keep arguing. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and i know the sources are hardly The New York Times but i think they are all sufficient reviews of the game and not just random reader reviews. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks great to me. An infinitely better way of organising the section, and what I was hoping would become of this instead of some drama. As far as I can tell, WP:CVG doesn't have any guidelines as to what is and isn't reliable - and I'm no expert on the matter, outside of the usual suspects (IGN, Gamespot, etc.) - but they look okay to me. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

In August of 2008, a question was raised at the copyright problems board concerning whether this article infringes against this source. That source bears a 2007 copyright notice, while this article was created in 2006. The text in this article developed organically. Compare this version from March 2007, before the release of the game, with the tagged source. There is little question that the "author" of the external source is violating the copyright of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The article seems to have been copied around May of 2007, after the release of the game. Compare the external source with this edit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)