Presentation - Emperor Has no Clothes

[fjccommish]

Every review of 2K12 talks about the fantastic presentation, specifically referencing the announcing.

But, to me, it's an instant turn down the volume clunker. Like an old movie set, it seems good at first glance, but when you get into details you see it's just a cardboard facade.

Some examples of bad announcing.

This is all in an association game vs Oklahoma, with Jordan on the current Bulls. I play locked as Rose. Jordan currently leads the league in scoring with 37 PPG, while Rose is at 19 PPG but only 4 APG. I'm still having trouble getting assists with the CPU controlling everyone else.

Bulls enter the game 11-9, while Oklahoma is 12-10.

- The announcers mention that the Thunder have to stop the Bulls main scoring threat, Rose. But Rose is no longer the main scoring threat. Jordan is.

- In the same game the announcers talk about the Thunder (mid 1st quarter) dominating on the boards. One possession later, after the Thunder get the very next rebound in the game, the announcers say the Thunder got that rebound, but aren't rebounding like they wanted to start the game. Are they dominating, or not rebounding like they wanted to?

- Boykins comes in early in the 2nd quarter at PG. He just entered the game, hasn't even played a minute. He dribbles the ball over the mid court line. The announcers mention that he's "still trying to get his first basket". That's a phrase that doesn't fit for someone who just entered the game.

- When the game starts the announcers talk about the two meetings last season, and mention that these two teams are the most exciting young teams in the game, and both amongst the best teams in the game. Near the end of the 1st quarter with the Bulls up 4 points, the announcers talk about Oklahoma's struggles. They're hovering around .500, and Kerr says that they're just a mediocre team. The second comment fits because of the current record. But they wouldn't say "amongst the best" in the game and just a "mediocre" team in the same game. They sound like fools for changing their minds so quickly.

- The announcers mention that the Bulls have hung around near the top all season, but they're not where they want to be. They say the Bulls could still "get there" because there's still time. Learning how to play and playing on HOF, I started the season horribly, but climbed back over .500 at 8-7 and now to 11-9. I haven't (the Bulls haven't) been close to the top (currently 6.5 games behind the top seed), but are in a playoff spot because we lead the central by a game. We haven't hung around the top, but we're "there" as far as a playoff spot (at least for now). Except for that the comments make sense.

- Simulated forward a year. In the Oklahoma vs Chicago game the announcers again talk about the two games the teams played the "previous year", and them splitting the games. They were talking about the 2010-2011 season. The Bulls played Oklahoma only once in the (29 game season) 2011-2012 association season.

It's too much to bear. The announcers have to be turned off in order to enjoy the game. This isn't good. It's good on the surface, but bad just a bit underneath the surface.

[shadowgrin]

Those kind of glitches had been popping up in association mode even before 2K12. No surprise there.
Also, don't give too much weight in those reviews. You know those reviewers only spent a few hours playing the game before they write their review.

[kAmilli LakeShow]

How about boards? One game there was this huge glitch where almost every 2nd rebound the announced would mistake the team that actually made the board XD

[benji]

It's weird, you'd think they could easily setup a system where the commentary (outside of the extended ramblings about things) could react dynamically to those events. But we still don't have announcers who can fully name a created player, even though Live 99 could do this.

But it is as Shadow noted, the reviewers spend a couple hours max with the game, slap the 9 or 9.5 on it and move on to "more important" games.

Game still sold over half a million in the first month.

[Andrew]

In terms of the conversation sounding natural, the three man booth interacting and reacting to the situation (like game winning shots), NBA 2K12's commentary is pretty good. The more you play though, the more you notice anecdotes and certain phrases being repeated and yes, logical errors with unsuitable lines being grabbed (talking about looking for his first basket when he's just entered the game, inconsistency with remarks on rebounding, etc). It's fairly polished but yeah, there are definitely issues with logic and repetition.

[fjccommish]

"In terms of the conversation sounding natural, the three man booth interacting and reacting to the situation (like game winning shots), NBA 2K12's commentary is pretty good. "

No, it's not. It's not natural. If Jordan is on the Bulls and is the league's leading scorer, it's not natural to talk about having to stop Rose prior to a critical possession. As someone else stated, it seems pretty easy (software wise) to note who is the team's leading scorer, league leading scorer, then insert his name or at least number when it's crunch time and they talk about scoring.

Something like "We all know they'll work a shot for Jordan in this situation. But he may have to pass so everyone has to be ready."

Instead, in 2K12, with Jordan the leading scorer and Rose a secondary scorer, we'd get "We all know they'll work a shot for Rose in this situation..."

It's unbearable.

[Andrew]

That's not unnatural dialogue, it's illogical dialogue. There's a difference.

When I say the dialogue sounds natural or organic, I mean that it sounds like the three of them are actually having a conversation, interacting with each other as they would on a real broadcast. This would be in contrast to years gone by (the NBA Elite 11 demo would also be a good example here) where the commentary sounds "pieced together", as if the commentators aren't even in the same room when they were being recorded...even though in most cases they actually were. 2K12's commentary does a pretty good job of avoiding that effect.

Of course the stuff that's said isn't always appropriate to the situation and that's a logic issue.

The way they deliver lines, the way they play off each other, the ebb and flow of conversation throughout the game? That sounds fairly natural to me, as much as a recorded commentary track can. Some of the things that are said during the conversations though? Definitely illogical.

[fjccommish]

I understand your point. But because the content is off the commentary doesn't work. It sounds "natural", as if everyone is in the same room. But it's as if they're having a nonsense conversation. It is often not in sync with what's happening on the court or in the association/season.