EA Sports UFC 2 Impressions: Gamechangers Event 2

[Review]

Not sure if this has been aholbert, but are we allowed to edit the attributes/abilities of current UFC fighters?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Review

Not sure if this has been aholbert, but are we allowed to edit the attributes/abilities of current UFC fighters? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nothing is finalized yet but I doubt it given the control the UFC likes to have over the roster.

[jeremym480]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Nothing is finalized yet but I doubt it given the control the UFC likes to have over the roster.

I don't get why the would care what ratings were changed to for offline use.

[OpenSource]

Hello,

I'm new here, but I've been a longtime MMA fan way back watching Royce Gracie in the mid 90's and used to play a ton of 3D "fighting" franchises, from playing a ton of the AKI and Spike wrestling games, to the Crave UFC game on Dreamcast, as well as THQ's UFC franchise on 360.

I just want to comment on my opinion of the way the franchise is going with EA. As far as an intellectual property, I'm sure it's great fan pandering. There's a lot of presentation bells and whistles, huge roster, and I've even seen the super casual Bruce Lee stuff from the last game.

I just am terribly disappointed this genre cannot move beyond the shallow thinking of making games solely based off of this. A couple of the ways I think the resources aren't well used from my experience are:

- Lots of focus on a huge roster, and accurate presentation. It's nice stuff, but I don't think it should be a focus. A Bruce Buffer intro the first 2 or 3 times is neat, but after that no one wants to watch it, or fight intros. They just want to play. A large roster is nice, but I think a deeper gameplay experience is a smaller roster with major nuances and strategy between them rather than 300 guys that you say 'oh this guys a wrestler, this guys muay thai, etc.' Spend some actual time and effort to break down heavy statistics to learn exactly how EACH fighter approaches EACH position and go from there. Does Anderson Silva go for the clinch 58% of the time when he's against the cage? What about how often from his back does he go for each submission? What does his striking rate drop to once it's the fourth round? These things take work, but make for a much more nuanced game instead of adding the 35th best lightweight, scanning his face, and giving him a generic wrestler moveset.

- Lots of focus on motion capturing, which always seems to be a problem in general, with WWE and UFC games. Yeah it's probably neat to sit around and watch the cool tech do it's work making wireframes from ham and egg local fighters getting paid a few hundred to pull off some generic Ju Jitsu moves in black suits with lights on them. But I'm guessing it wasn't so neat or funny when the developers saw the UFC "glitch" videos with a ton of views on Youtube with fighters spazzing in the air or taking down invisible ghosts. It happens every time, with every game with tech like this. Yet games like No Mercy and Fire Pro Wrestling with good animators who accurately depict the motions look ten times better and and have much less glitchyness. Maybe eventually producers will learn this is the way to go, and it's probably a heck of a lot cheaper, even if you won't be able to look is cool in a making of video blog.


My suggestions to make a deeper experience are:

- Developers: You have the most technical sport, art, or anything in my opinion at your disposal. And the only thing that they can think of with regards to a player sitting in front of their TV playing the game is to just throw out a bunch of random matches with some button mashing "training" thrown in? How about let the players learn the ACTUAL reasoning why these moves works through ACTUAL instructionals? The Gracies post breakdowns of fights or events and why submissions work in each position. Instead of 'twirl your gamepad while hitting X' give actual knowledge on what is used to move up the ranks of the BJJ belt system. How did Helio Gracie get submitted by Masahiko Kimura 60+ years ago? You could be showing this type of stuff to the player in either virtual instructionals or actual videos to KNOW how and why they work.

- History of how the sport got to where it is now and it's evolution over time. When the UFC first started, it wasn't fighter vs. fighter as much as martial art vs. martial art. Each fighter only knew their style and used that styles against the other fighter's style. Why not implement this in a single player mode? Let a fighter start off as a Brazilian Ju Jitsu artist or a wrestler and play to that style to win a tournament against other styles, similar to the way Royce Gracie and Dan Severn did?

- Finally, as a combination of the previous two, implement these into the way the game actually PLAYS. Think in terms of how the sport actually works and require the player to know the correct way to defend. If I'm on my back, I may be able to grab a leg and try to roll out of it, but he may get my back. If it's round one I can attack with a leg lock and since there's less sweat the grip is better than it would be in Round 3, so a better chance at submission. I'm in a crap situation where the guy is trying a front choke, do I move left or right to relieve the pressure or will it get me deeper in the choke?

I think much, much more time should be spent on developing the intricacies of the sport rather than bells and whistles, and all of my impressions reading about it so far seem to take very little in account. It seems to be bigger roster, bigger move set, bigger standard career mode.

Those are my thoughts, I hope that in the future the director of the studio tries to think more in terms of making the game an accurate representation of the arts and sport that go into it with knowledge, a history book, and practitioners rather than finding ways to implement the newest cool EA tech for a made-for-TV Eminence Front experience.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by OpenSource

Hello, I'm new here, but I've been a longtime MMA fan way back watching Royce Gracie in the mid 90's and used to play a ton of 3D "fighting" franchises, from playing a ton of the AKI and Spike wrestling games, to the Crave UFC game on Dreamcast, as well as THQ's UFC franchise on 360. I just want to comment on my opinion of the way the franchise is going with EA. As far as an intellectual property, I'm sure it's great fan pandering. There's a lot of presentation bells and whistles, huge roster, and I've even seen the super casual Bruce Lee stuff from the last game. I just am terribly disappointed this genre cannot move beyond the shallow thinking of making games solely based off of this. A couple of the ways I think the resources aren't well used from my experience are: - Lots of focus on a huge roster, and accurate presentation. It's nice stuff, but I don't think it should be a focus. A Bruce Buffer intro the first 2 or 3 times is neat, but after that no one wants to watch it, or fight intros. They just want to play. A large roster is nice, but I think a deeper gameplay experience is a smaller roster with major nuances and strategy between them rather than 300 guys that you say 'oh this guys a wrestler, this guys muay thai, etc.' Spend some actual time and effort to break down heavy statistics to learn exactly how EACH fighter approaches EACH position and go from there. Does Anderson Silva go for the clinch 58% of the time when he's against the cage? What about how often from his back does he go for each submission? What does his striking rate drop to once it's the fourth round? These things take work, but make for a much more nuanced game instead of adding the 35th best lightweight, scanning his face, and giving him a generic wrestler moveset. - Lots of focus on motion capturing, which always seems to be a problem in general, with WWE and UFC games. Yeah it's probably neat to sit around and watch the cool tech do it's work making wireframes from ham and egg local fighters getting paid a few hundred to pull off some generic Ju Jitsu moves in black suits with lights on them. But I'm guessing it wasn't so neat or funny when the developers saw the UFC "glitch" videos with a ton of views on Youtube with fighters spazzing in the air or taking down invisible ghosts. It happens every time, with every game with tech like this. Yet games like No Mercy and Fire Pro Wrestling with good animators who accurately depict the motions look ten times better and and have much less glitchyness. Maybe eventually producers will learn this is the way to go, and it's probably a heck of a lot cheaper, even if you won't be able to look is cool in a making of video blog. My suggestions to make a deeper experience are: - Developers: You have the most technical sport, art, or anything in my opinion at your disposal. And the only thing that they can think of with regards to a player sitting in front of their TV playing the game is to just throw out a bunch of random matches with some button mashing "training" thrown in? How about let the players learn the ACTUAL reasoning why these moves works through ACTUAL instructionals? The Gracies post breakdowns of fights or events and why submissions work in each position. Instead of 'twirl your gamepad while hitting X' give actual knowledge on what is used to move up the ranks of the BJJ belt system. How did Helio Gracie get submitted by Masahiko Kimura 60+ years ago? You could be showing this type of stuff to the player in either virtual instructionals or actual videos to KNOW how and why they work. - History of how the sport got to where it is now and it's evolution over time. When the UFC first started, it wasn't fighter vs. fighter as much as martial art vs. martial art. Each fighter only knew their style and used that styles against the other fighter's style. Why not implement this in a single player mode? Let a fighter start off as a Brazilian Ju Jitsu artist or a wrestler and play to that style to win a tournament against other styles, similar to the way Royce Gracie and Dan Severn did? - Finally, as a combination of the previous two, implement these into the way the game actually PLAYS. Think in terms of how the sport actually works and require the player to know the correct way to defend. If I'm on my back, I may be able to grab a leg and try to roll out of it, but he may get my back. If it's round one I can attack with a leg lock and since there's less sweat the grip is better than it would be in Round 3, so a better chance at submission. I'm in a crap situation where the guy is trying a front choke, do I move left or right to relieve the pressure or will it get me deeper in the choke? I think much, much more time should be spent on developing the intricacies of the sport rather than bells and whistles, and all of my impressions reading about it so far seem to take very little in account. It seems to be bigger roster, bigger move set, bigger standard career mode. Those are my thoughts, I hope that in the future the director of the studio tries to think more in terms of making the game an accurate representation of the arts and sport that go into it with knowledge, a history book, and practitioners rather than finding ways to implement the newest cool EA tech for a made-for-TV Eminence Front experience.

Thanks for the post and welcome to OS.

There is a big issue with your opinion on the game:

EA and the UFC goal is to sell the game to the largest audience available and the things that you suggest dont do that.

In fact some of the things that you are suggesting would potentially decrease the number of sales.

I'll go point by point:

Presentation: Ive spent a good amount of time on OS, Reddit and the EA forums reading and discussing the game and you are the first person I've seen suggest that EA should ignore presentation improvements. The backlash if EA decided to keep the original presentation in UFC1 wouldve been huge. People were consistently complaining about Buffer's announcements in UFC 1 and wouldve complained if the new presentation elements werent in the game.

Also it fails to take into account what people actually do on a dev team. The people who make the 250 fighters and create the presentation elements arent the people who are involved with gameplay. They have nothing to do with each other at all. Adding fighters doesnt mean that EA is taking time from ways to develop gameplay.

Motion Capture: There are people better suited to discuss then me but I've played No Mercy and Fire Pro and you cant even make a comparison. There were undeniably a lot of glitches in the game when it was released but that significantly decreased once the game was patched. Its to the point where I never see them and I play UFC 1 at least once a week.

With that said, I do agree that EA should rely less on Mo Cap if they can. My understanding is that they dont have an unlimited amount of time to record Mo Cap and once that time is used it makes it difficult to add new animations after the fact.

Developers: I think you have higher opinion of most gamers than I do. I dont see gamers spending time to watch Gracie breakdowns or BJJ history videos to understand the controls. ****, most people want to skip the tutorial that comes on when you first start the game. As many people as you and me who have an interest in why the moves work the way the do....most dont care. Creating those videos or licensing Gracie breakdowns would be a waste of resources in my opinion.

My last point is the bells and whistles sell the game. They do. The fact that there are 250 fighters sells the game. The new presentation helps sell the game. The new modes like KO mode and the career mode additions will help sell the game.

And thats what I care about. Eliminating or focusing less on the bells and whistles is a risky and unnecessary move. If people look at the commercial, videos or back of the box and see the same number of fighters, same modes (other than a UFC History mode), same presentation and same movesets....they may not buy the game.

If they dont buy the game, there is no UFC 3 and probably not another UFC game for years if ever. There are gameplay improvements. There are AI improvements and I think many will be satisfied with them. Is it to the level you want yet? Nope but its improved and at this point I'm ok with that.

[OpenSource]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Thanks for the post and welcome to OS. There is a big issue with your opinion on the game: EA and the UFC is to sell the game to the largest audience available and the things that you suggest dont do that. In fact some of the things that you are suggesting would potentially decrease the number of sales. I'll go point by point: Presentation: Ive spent a good amount of time on OS, Reddit and the EA forums reading and discussing the game and you are the first person I've seen suggest that EA should ignore presentation improvements. The backlash if EA decided to keep the original presentation in UFC1 wouldve been huge. People were consistently complaining about Buffer's announcements in UFC 1 and wouldve complained if the new presentation elements werent in the game. Also it fails to take into account what people actually do on a dev team. The people who make the 250 fighters and create the presentation elements arent the people who are involved with gameplay. They have nothing to do with each other at all. Adding fighters doesnt mean that EA is taking time from ways to develop gameplay. Motion Capture: There are people better suited to discuss then me but I've played No Mercy and Fire Pro and you cant even make a comparison. There were undeniably a lot of glitches in the game when it was released but that significantly decreased once the game was patched. Its to the point where I never see them and I play UFC 1 at least once a week. With that said, I do agree that EA should rely less on Mo Cap if they can. My understanding is that they dont have an unlimited amount of time to record Mo Cap and once that time is used it makes it difficult to add new animations after the fact. Developers: I think you have higher opinion of most gamers than I do. I dont see gamers spending time to watch Gracie breakdowns or BJJ history videos to understand the controls. ****, most people want to skip the tutorial that comes on when you first start the game. As many people as you and me who have an interest in why the moves work the way the do....most dont care. Creating those videos or licensing Gracie breakdowns would be a waste of resources in my opinion. My last point is the bells and whistles sell the game. They do. The fact that there are 250 fighters sells the game. The new presentation helps sell the game. The new modes like KO mode and the career mode additions will help sell the game. And thats what I care about. Eliminating or focusing less on the bells and whistles is a risky and unnecessary move. If people look at the commercial, videos or back of the box and see the same number of fighters, same modes (other than a UFC History mode), same presentation and same movesets....they may not buy the game. If they dont buy the game, there is no UFC 3 and probably not another UFC game for years if ever. There are gameplay improvements. There are AI improvements and I think many will be satisfied with them. Is it to the level you want yet? Nope but its improved and at this point I'm ok with that.

I respect you're opinion, but we'll agree to disagree. The things you mention as what should be the main points have been the same, tired, main points of focus for sports games over the past 15 years. More athletes, more options, more gimmicks, better presentation. Very little paradigm shift thinking of better, different gameplay and now the market has eroded to the point where if there's an alternative game to ANY sport and actual competition among developers, it's extremely rare. You get the standard update of a game with the standard cliched boxes checked, and then push it out.

15 years ago on any given system you could purchase half a dozen different types of baseball games, all with distinct features and advantages. Now you have a total of one, for only one console. This way of thinking has eroded the market, and the fact that UFC 1 ended up in the bargain bin last year after a couple months shows it doesn't work anymore. This game will come out, will probably hit the standard generic checkmarks for "improvement" - get 7 to 8's on the review scale - and then fall in the same pattern as the last game did.

The 'dudebro' boom of UFC is over. Brock Lesnar and gimmick fights don't do it anymore. Sure, you have Conor and Ronda around, but outside of that the PPV buys aren't what they used to be. The true fans are what's left over, and you're marketing this game to those fans. No one else is going to give a crap about a 'KO mode' or how good Bruce Buffer sounds, so putting the crux of declining sales on if Sage Northcutt does a flip after mashing X 30 times in a row in KO mode is a little silly.

I think you completely underestimate the power of thinking outside of the box to developing a game with a new mentality, on the points I explained. Ubi Soft looked at the crashed plastic guitar toy market and said 'huh? people spend hours pressing buttons on equivalent to a 5 year old's plastic guitar instead of learning a REAL guitar with actual use??? lets try Rocksmith.' And the game succeeded in what was a totally crashed market that basically ran Harmonix out of business. And it taught players a useful skill and they learned something as well.

The same could be done here. You say people would 'skip' instructional - well that's why you implement them throughout the game. Learn what to do on your back in this position, learn what to do against the cage in the clinch in that position. It would be a heck of a lot more interesting and educational rather than nothing more than a licensed timeburn of a game that is completely forgettable.

It can be done, it's just a developer has to actually TRY. And actually TRY to think out of the box, and take risks to do something new, which is a novel thought in today's age. Right now one of the hottest games isn't Assasins Creed 15 or Halo 8, it's a little indie developer who spent a couple years making a game with 2D sprites called Undertale that's sold a ridiculous amount on Steam - and all the guy did was think outside the box and say "why does every game have encounters with throwaway characters with no consequences that you never see again?"

Maybe we just have different ideas on what gaming should be, and how successful it can be. You want a risk free game where the typical checklist of upgrades is met, to try to milk every ounce out of that law of diminishing returns as possible that led the last game to the bargain bin, and the last owner of the IP to backruptcy court. I think the industry could do a lot better, and this is such a great sport and art to actually learn and try new ideas in gaming with, that it's unfortunate it's going to waste.

[Money99]

Is there a random fighter generator in UFC 2 (or UFC1 for that fact?)

When running your own Universe, do you guys play with any houserules for randomly retire certain fighters and then replace them with generic, CPU/Human generated fighters?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

Is there a random fighter generator in UFC 2 (or UFC1 for that fact?) When running your own Universe, do you guys play with any houserules for randomly retire certain fighters and then replace them with generic, CPU/Human generated fighters?

I dont think there was one in UFC1 and I'm not sure about 2.

I never use generic fighters. I only retire a fighter if he's actually retired and not in the newest version of the game. For example, Bob Sapp was in my universe when I had UFC 3. He's no longer in my universe because he isnt in the EA versions of the game.