3 Things EA Sports UFC 3 Could Learn From Fight Night Champion! (MartialMind video)

[Pappy Knuckles]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dmitri020

That depends of what an individual finds to be "good". I think UFC2 is good too. For a sim game it's not always better to be more realistic, especially looking from a commercial perspective. You think COD would be nearly as successful as it is now if it'd be "realistic"?

I don't think that's the best example to use, even though I know what you're trying to say. COD is what it is. There are no boundaries or restrictions on what it should be because there are no expectations that it should mimic warfare to a particular standard.

I always hear that making a game too realistic will hurt the sales of sports games, but I don't know if I've ever seen any real evidence that supports that. The 2K series continues to become a better simulation of basketball each and every year, and the sales are through the roof. They do have a Park mode which caters to a more casual type of play, but for the most part, the game leans most closely to the realm of reality.

I'd further argue that games that are very sim-oriented, but don't sell well, are often the result of it being niche, or the game just not being very good. For example, the last F1 was fantastic on a pure gameplay level, but that's not a sport that people care about in the US. Had they turned it into an arcade racer to try and get more sales, I seriously doubt it would've made a difference either way.

Quote:

I understand that UFC 2 is a sim and that there are unrealistic aspects to it and for sure there is some stuff I'd like to see changed or further developed in the next game. Nonetheless I have about 1500 matches in with Ranked and probably around same amount with UT. I wouldn't play 3000 matches if the game was so horrible as a lot of you make it sound here. If you really find the game to be so sh**, I can't understand why you're playing it. I don't play games that I don't like, even if they are about a sport or topic that I like in real life.

I'd imagine that those of us who are the most vocal about this game all have well over 1000 matches played online. So yes, there are things that we enjoy about it even though we voice a lot of issues. Trying to outthink someone in a combat-based videogame is extremely fun to me, and I don't get that type of satisfaction from any other genre. At the end of the day, we just want this game to be the best that it can be.

I've mentioned Fight Night a lot and have posted a number of videos because I think it's sad how much better that game handles striking. UFC 2 is borderline trash in that regard, although good matches are possible when both parties are of the same mindset.

I think the ground and clinch game need several improvements, even though I've acknowledged that it's the best system we've ever had.

I don't think we should be in the business of patting devs on the back until the end of time. If we don't bring things to their attention and voice our concerns, we'd be doing them and ourselves a disservice. They've done a good job of getting the game to the point where it's at now, but why not try to push it to the next level?

Quote:

With regards to community - on average I'd say around 8-12K people play the game (simultaneously) - if you'd believe the "players online" figures that UFC shows you (which I don't, so I think it's less). That is by far not the amount of players a company like EA would like to see.

I think those are pretty good numbers for a sport like this, but I'm not basing that opinion on anything. I'd be curious to know what the peak was for this game and also how much Fight Night's was for comparison.

[Dmitri020]

With regards to realism - I don't agree that COD is not comparable. Whether it's sports or warfare, same applies for a simulation. It has to be realistic until a certain level when it's still fun to play for new-entry level players.

With regards to 2K games - I completely agree with you. Even I, being a Russian living in Western Europe, play NBA 2K already 2 years in a row, while I couldn't care a lot about basketball in general, since it's not my sport. I play it because I find the gameplay to be really enjoyable, despite the flaws that it has as well. I do believe however that it's the MyTeam mode (totally unrealistic of course with all the diamond, pink diamond, ruby diamond or whatever f***ing color diamond players) and MyPark mode which attracts the most players.

With regards to niche - I disagree. I think racing is not a small niche. Just try talking to a real die hard racing sim player and ask him what his top3 favorite race games are, I'll bet you that you'll perhaps know 1 of them, other 2 you've never heard of. This comes down to the point I made - more realistic often can mean low sales due to high entry-level.
I am an affiliate marketeer, I've sold hundreds of different products online and my highest earnings never came from products that actually worked best for the end consumer. My highest profits always came from products that speak to a larger audience due to their relatively low entry-level. Same logic works for video games.

With regards to the game and it's flaws - I disagree that the striking is awful. There is a lot of frustrating stuff and a lot of cheezers, you'll have those in every game (also NBA 2K as I mentioned above has it's own OP plays and a lot of cheezers exploiting it. I agree there are tons of improvements that can be made to striking, as well as to clinch and ground game. I just disagree with people talking here like the game is abysmal, while still playing. It can be improved like EVERY single sim game in the world, but it's far from abysmal.
Nobody's saying we should light a candle every evening for the devs, but the other extreme of saying this game is trash (while still playing it) is also a bit sad in my opinion.

With regards to community - they sold about 1.1 million units which is very low for a EA title in general (you can't only compare fighting games to fighting games). Even Madden sold about 2.5 million copies while nobody could care less about american football outside of the US. I don't believe that for EA UFC 2 was a (big) commercial success and they seriously need to expand the existing community if they want the UFC series to become (more) profitable. They will never do that by expanding the system to a point where they will raise the entry-level.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by thqtank

Look again that is 2003

Dude, all it takes is a google search. ****, the sequel was called Knockout Kings 2000

The first Knockout Kings was released on October 31, 1998. I know this also because I owned that game.

https://www.google.com/search?q=knoc...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_Kings

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by TGOne

@thqtank Mate all they do is lecturing us about how the striking have been "revolutionized" and completely ignore other areas or not as much highlight, just as martial mind lectured us about how the grappling game was revolutionized in the second game after visiting EA. I'm serious, just watch that old video and see for yourself. It turned out to be not as good as the majority thought. And just like this video, he first criticized minor issues with the game and insisted that these problems would not appear in the final product. But the game turned out to have faaar more issues he and everyone else anticipated. That's why i'm very skeptical with his new video and UFC 3 to be a great game. Even despite the fact that the striking game might actually turn out to be great won't automatically turn the upcoming UFC 3 to a great "MMA" game. I also have a feeling that the only game mode that will greatly improve is the Ultimate team, quite frankly because of the fact that they wan't to milk as much money as they possibly can. I don't blame the game changers in that regard, because they literally don't have enough time to test and review the game properly. They have like 2 days to play the game. The first day they have to spend to get used to the new controlls and the system, and just one full day to actually play the game and review it's gameplay content and modes which is not enough. Not to mention that some areas aren't even implemented yet. This is the major issue with the series yet. The more hours you put in to understand the controlls and the system is the more you realize how fundametally flawed the game really is. I would be less concerned if they gave the game changers atleast more than a week to play the game. There are many areas that still needs to be adressed. But hey, that's the mantra with EA isn't it? Lazy work or incompetent work with slight improvments overall and major improvments in one single area and charge the game at full price. They have enough time with this upcoming game to change or greatly improve all major offline areas unlike what FIFA and NHL franchizes have who drops their game every single season. Let's see what happens mate, but don't make the mistake as i did by pick this game up on release week.

Correction: We had 3 days to play the game and played it for over 30 hours. Martial and Zombie were the only ones who didnt play the game for 3 days amd that because they had later flights.

Lets be clear: We are under no directive from EA to talk about the game at this point. If anything, we are kind of violating the NDA by even talking about it. So if the striking hadnt gone through a big change...we just wouldnt talk about it. No one here is going to wreck their creditability to hype features that arent different. Yet, every gamechanger has come to the board and talked broadly about how different striking is.

No one is stating that there wont be issues with the final game. There will be. There will be exploits. There will probably be bugs. There will be features that got the full treatment and others that got minor changes or none at all. You are VERY wrong that UT was the only mode that got big improvements but those details arent for me to share.

[VlaDzh]

Please man, answer. Ground striking in UFC 3 is a new brand? Because ground and pound in UFC 2 is sucks

[norml]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheRizzzle

The grappling is much improved but I'd love for transitioning to be much for of a microtransition type deal. You don't see a ton of guys go from full guard, to half guard, to side control and into mount in that order. It's more of a grab a wrist, push down a leg, slide a knee type of transition. I'd like more movement in between transitions. It will take time to get there possibly. But the more mini battles that have to take place on the ground, the more rewarding it will feel. The stats for individual players will matter more also because the speed and precision at which Demian Maia, Jacare Souza and guys like that can executed will make it feel different than battling Ryan LaFlare on the ground. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Yes^^^

It should be harder to transition but easier to hold position if you're not being aggressive. But being too passive should lead to a stand up (something not even in the game).

Quote: Originally Posted by Dmitri020

Don't forget mate that they also make things like grappling not "too expansive" to broaden their audience. Not everyone who plays the game is into MMA, understands the logic of grappling or has the patience to get to know a very "expansive" system A to Z. If they would make it too "professional" (if I can call it like that), they'd lose a big chunk of potential players for who the game will be too difficult. Sure they want to make a great game, but they want to make a great amount of money even more, so don't expect miracles. A bunch of racing games made that mistake in the past as well. The games were probably flawless for the die hards, but the sales weren't even 10% of relatively simple racing games like for example NFS, because they were just too difficult for an average player who just wants to race and have fun.

Am I wrong or isn't there a mode specifically for people who aren't interested in all the "intricacies" of the ground game?

Even a lot of people I fight in UT who have mastered the Tekken style striking literally have fit if you put them on the ground and keep them there. I get constant hate mail with phrase "You fight like a *****, stand up and fight like a man." They honestly forget they're playing an MMA game.

[thqtank]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pappy Knuckles

I don't understand how this game has so many devs from Fight Night, but the striking has been so ****ty in these first two games. Jumping back and forth between games is painful when comparing the two in that department. As far as accessibility goes, that should never be used as a crutch that holds back innovation. Obviously, EA wants to appeal to a large audience, but if the game is good people will still flock to it. There are aspects of this game that require time to learn now, but the community is strong regardless of that. Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk

Ok since all the give us is double talk, i want to know this: How many devs from Fight Night have left the team??

[thqtank]

My friends & others loved Undisputed and it was more complex than EA UFC. So your argument is invalid.