Cheesy idiots in ranked (video)

[Lakers 24 7]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I just wish EA would stop using the terms "realistic" and "authentic" to promote the game because people use it in absolute terms. No one can argue that this game doesnt have realistic or authentic aspects of MMA in the game. People also know that there are some arcadey/video game aspects because.....its a video game. Yet people love to say "EA claims its "realistic" so X shouldnt happen in the game!"

That's certainly been EA's approach with all of their sports games. It's also why they lost the battle with NBA 2k and were set to lose the battle with NFL 2k. While EA was busy implementing or keeping arcadey aspects of their games, their competitors were taking the opposite approach and successfully carved a niche and eventually overtook the market.

But, I don't think anyone ever uses it in absolute terms. Everyone understands that no game will ever be perfect, the question is usually whether or not it's simply realistic enough to overlook whatever shortcomings are present. With the right sliders UFC 3 is enough of a sim for me, without them it's a complete **** show.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lakers 24 7

That's certainly been EA's approach with all of their sports games. It's also why they lost the battle with NBA 2k and were set to lose the battle with NFL 2k. While EA was busy implementing or keeping arcadey aspects of their games, their competitors were taking the opposite approach and successfully carved a niche and eventually overtook the market. But, I don't think anyone ever uses it in absolute terms. Everyone understands that no game will ever be perfect, the question is usually whether or not it's simply realistic enough to overlook whatever shortcomings are present. With the right sliders UFC 3 is enough of a sim for me, without them it's a complete **** show.

I disagree with that. Its the case with every EA game but its happens a ton when it comes to UFC. "This game is supposed to be a realistic sim but it doesnt have cage seated position". "EA says its a sim but how come you can throw 100 strikes in a round with little stamina loss." "Fighter X isnt in the game!....come on EA what happened to "Its in the game""

There are hundreds of variations on those statements found all over this forum. EA never has and will never be 100% committed to a "sim" game. People know that even if they dont want to accept it. So instead of giving people ammo to complain based on their marketing, they should just tell the damn truth. People here have proven that they will buy the game anyway.

[Hazenjuice]

This is why ive stopped playing this **** game

[Kingslayer04]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I disagree with that. Its the case with every EA game but its happens a ton when it comes to UFC. "This game is supposed to be a realistic sim but it doesnt have cage seated position". "EA says its a sim but how come you can throw 100 strikes in a round with little stamina loss." "Fighter X isnt in the game!....come on EA what happened to "Its in the game"" There are hundreds of variations on those statements found all over this forum. EA never has and will never be 100% committed to a "sim" game. People know that even if they dont want to accept it. So instead of giving people ammo to complain based on their marketing, they should just tell the damn truth. People here have proven that they will buy the game anyway.

I don't think the issue lies with EA on this in the sense that I don't believe they're misleading people as far as this is concerned. I'm not left with the impression that they promote sporting realism incarnate when they advertise a more realistic element in whatever their next game is.

People like playing sports games exactly because they get to experience what they see on TV, to immerse themselves in it. Hence the licenses, hence the presentation, hence EA's significant move towards more realism in 3. I just think it's on the audience to understand that not everything can be sim. That being said, it's also perfectly fine to push for as many realistic elements as the game can handle. It's up to the devs to choose what to do, which elements those are, etc., but it's absolutely okay for people to want the devs to bring the game closer and closer to what is seen on TV.

But yeah, people just need to be reasonable. I understand the "just" actually takes a lot for granted. But it's also okay to ask for things (again, within reason). From there, the devs will do whatever they're gonna do and everybody can decide for themselves what matters most for them, whether it's in the game or not, if buying the game is worth it, and at what price too, because that's also important.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kingslayer04

I don't think the issue lies with EA on this in the sense that I don't believe they're misleading people as far as this is concerned. I'm not left with the impression that they promote sporting realism incarnate when they advertise a more realistic element in whatever their next game is. People like playing sports games exactly because they get to experience what they see on TV, to immerse themselves in it. Hence the licenses, hence the presentation, hence EA's significant move towards more realism in 3. I just think it's on the audience to understand that not everything can be sim. That being said, it's also perfectly fine to push for as many realistic elements as the game can handle. It's up to the devs to choose what to do, which elements those are, etc., but it's absolutely okay for people to want the devs to bring the game closer and closer to what is seen on TV. But yeah, people just need to be reasonable. I understand the "just" actually takes a lot for granted. But it's also okay to ask for things (again, within reason). From there, the devs will do whatever they're gonna do and everybody can decide for themselves what matters most for them, whether it's in the game or not, if buying the game is worth it, and at what price too, because that's also important.

They arent but people act like they are. There are people who have posted and liked posts in this thread who are guilty of regularly making the statements that I posted before.

Those people arent and never will be "reasonable". So EA's approach should be to just not give them ammo. Call it a MMA video game....arcade game...whatever.

That way those people cant use the false argument that they didnt know what they were buying or that EA lied to them. No one buys an EA game thinking its an absolute sim or completely realistic so EA doesnt need to use those terms to sell the game.

[Kingslayer04]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

They arent but people act like they are. There are people who have posted and liked posts in this thread who are guilty of regularly making the statements that I posted before. Those people arent and never will be "reasonable". So EA's approach should be to just not give them ammo. Call it a MMA video game....arcade game...whatever. That way those people cant use the false argument that they didnt know what they were buying or that EA lied to them. No one buys an EA game thinking its an absolute sim or completely realistic so EA doesnt need to use those terms to sell the game.

Why do you worry about those people though? What can their "ammo" hope to achieve? Anything in the world can and is discussed in an unreasonable fashion by certain people. Besides, have EA ever called this anything other than rather neutral things such as "an MMA game" or something along those lines?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kingslayer04

Why do you worry about those people though? What can their "ammo" hope to achieve? Anything in the world can and is discussed in an unreasonable fashion by certain people. Besides, have EA ever called this anything other than rather neutral things such as "an MMA game" or something along those lines?

I dont worry about those people at all. I'm not an EA employee so the negative comments dont effect me personally.

If I had EA stock, I would be concerned because it provides ammo for people to talk negatively about my product and there are people who may read those comments and not realize that these people are being unreasonable.

To answer your question, yes. EA regularly refers to the series as an MMA simulation series and most reviews parrot that talking point. The problem is the word "simulation" has different meanings. For people here, it means a strict simulation that features most if not all the elements you see in actual UFC fight. Most of the complaints here (including this thread) are based in where the game fails to be realistic or a true sim.

You and I (and most reasonable people) realize that when EA use the term "simulation" they dont mean it the way people in this forum do. With that said, given that EA knows people in this forum or even people on Reddit will use that line to knock the game. (https://www.reddit.com/r/EASportsUFC...d_a_realistic/)

I'm not saying that EA shouldnt work toward a realistic game. I've taken 4 years of my life to help push EA towards that goal. But given that people here and other places online use the word "simulation" against them and that EA has no plans to push the game completely in the direction that people at OS want it...why give them the ammo to attack the game?

You are right that unreasonable people will find some reason to complain but this is actually one area where they have a somewhat valid point. Why advertise or describe a game in a certain way when you know a part of the buying public understand that term as something different than the type of game you are selling?

[Kingslayer04]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I dont worry about those people at all. I'm not an EA employee so the negative comments dont effect me personally. If I had EA stock, I would be concerned because it provides ammo for people to talk negatively about my product and there are people who may read those comments and not realize that these people are being unreasonable. To answer your question, yes. EA regularly refers to the series as an MMA simulation series and most reviews parrot that talking point. The problem is the word "simulation" has different meanings. For people here, it means a strict simulation that features most if not all the elements you see in actual UFC fight. Most of the complaints here (including this thread) are based in where the game fails to be realistic or a true sim. You and I (and most reasonable people) realize that when EA use the term "simulation" they dont mean it the way people in this forum do. With that said, given that EA knows people in this forum or even people on Reddit will use that line to knock the game. (https://www.reddit.com/r/EASportsUFC...d_a_realistic/) I'm not saying that EA shouldnt work toward a realistic game. I've taken 4 years of my life to help push EA towards that goal. But given that people here and other places online use the word "simulation" against them and that EA has no plans to push the game completely in the direction that people at OS want it...why give them the ammo to attack the game? You are right that unreasonable people will find some reason to complain but this is actually one area where they have a somewhat valid point. Why advertise or describe a game in a certain way when you know a part of the buying public understand that term as something different than the type of game you are selling?

You know, I didn't realise they did use the term "simulation". To be honest, if I had seen that I'd feel even more justified in pushing for whatever I've been pushing for in the time I've been on here. In my experience, the terms "simulation" and "simulator" really do refer to a maximum effort in replicating reality in a video game, for example racing game simulators (as opposed to arcade racing games and the ones that fall inbetween). So I wouldn't call those people unreasonable anymore, it's more of a misused term. Now that I know that, I'd have to agree with you that this term should not be used if they do not intend to create a full-on MMA sim game. I just find it hard to see how people are giving EA's approach a spin if that's how they really called it.

Now, I don't think they should go in the other extreme and say it's going to be an arcade game either. That would put a lot of people off, me included, and it would put another self-imposed and potentially damaging label on the videogame. A more neutral term would fit best in my opinion, if any is needed at all, and if they want to continue with their middle-ground approach.