Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

[aholbert32]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

We are apart of that. We are the active feedback portion of it.



They got bad reviews because they weren't fun to play for the reviewers too. If it were more realistic with less arcady body 121212 finishes, unrealistic bugs, and exploits etc it would've been better received.

Nah the reviewers already reviewed the game before most of the exploits were even found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[aholbert32]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

That doesnt necessarily mean they want it less realistic, each of them can be explained usimg other reasoning. Infact i agree with most of them, especially not being able to move quick enough.

You think stamina is too strict but you want a realistic game?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[FCB x Finlay]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

You think stamina is too strict but you want a realistic game?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

"Most of them" and i think stamina should be dependant on the fighter

[AeroZeppelin27]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

That is not necessarily true.

I personally try to keep an eye on other communities, larger ones. Thousands of players on Youtube for example, not just my viewers, but much much larger Youtubers who play the game casually and these creators will tell you first hand that MOST of the complaints against UFC3 right now is that it's too realistic.

I'm not kidding about this at all.

Most players don't know how to communicate their issues but they will drop clues that when put together will paint a picture.

Some complaints I've seen come up frequently are complaints against some of the most realistic aspects of the game:

- We can't throw the combos we used to be able to
- The damage is too high, fights are ending too quickly
- I can't exchange strikes anymore
- Fighters are too slow (This one buggles my mind)
- Stamina is too strict

Don't get me started on the complaints against the new controls.

A more realistic game is what most of us here want, but sad to say, there are ALOT of people out there who think this game sucks now and is no longer fun because it's too realistic... Hell some of them even flat out say it!.

If I had my way, these people would be completely ignored, but EA would never ignore them.... not when profit is on the line.

Tell them to play street fighter or one of those Arcade fighters, there are plenty, what there isn't, is a realistic fighting game, which UFC 3 could be.

I mean, can we have one? Please. I don't see why people who dislike theany, many improvements cant just play 2 if they preferred that.

I'm not posting this as an attack on you, but I've had the opposite experience, my friends I gave my spare codes too both loved the increased realism compared to 2, as did I.

Edit: My bad, missed the bit where you said they should be ignored, I agree :P

[AeroZeppelin27]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

Nah the reviewers already reviewed the game before most of the exploits were even found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This. Not to mention Kotaku and IGN both praised the improvements to standup, the only complaints I've heard from the media is about the ground game.

And I'm pretty sure 95%+ players here thought the beta and atleast 80% of the changes were for the better, with the obvious exceptions (that have been mostly addressed)

[johnmangala]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

Nah the reviewers already reviewed the game before most of the exploits were even found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They knew about it going into EAUFC2.

And 1 got poor reviews for as your said your self gameplay reasons too. That's what I am talking about.

[johnmangala]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

That is not necessarily true.

I personally try to keep an eye on other communities, larger ones. Thousands of players on Youtube for example, not just my viewers, but much much larger Youtubers who play the game casually and these creators will tell you first hand that MOST of the complaints against UFC3 right now is that it's too realistic.

I'm not kidding about this at all.

Most players don't know how to communicate their issues but they will drop clues that when put together will paint a picture.

Some complaints I've seen come up frequently are complaints against some of the most realistic aspects of the game:

- We can't throw the combos we used to be able to
- The damage is too high, fights are ending too quickly
- I can't exchange strikes anymore
- Fighters are too slow (This one buggles my mind)
- Stamina is too strict

Don't get me started on the complaints against the new controls.

A more realistic game is what most of us here want, but sad to say, there are ALOT of people out there who think this game sucks now and is no longer fun because it's too realistic... Hell some of them even flat out say it!.

If I had my way, these people would be completely ignored, but EA would never ignore them.... not when profit is on the line.

They may be the same people who used to go body 121212 to win. I can see see why realism wouldn't be fun for them.

I mentioned balance and realism I don't know why every one is harping on realism.

What about balance?

[johnmangala]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

It was said by the devs themselves that the first few games were more focused on arcade style gameplay.

EAUFC got bad reviews for it.

For 2 it started to shift towards more realism but not much. Still bad reviews.

Now it's time to give realism and balance a chance.

2 games we focused more on arcady gameplay and we got spinning fests, cage strikes for everyone, and the lovely body 121212 epidemic, etc.

[ZombieRommel]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

That is not necessarily true.

I personally try to keep an eye on other communities, larger ones. Thousands of players on Youtube for example, not just my viewers, but much much larger Youtubers who play the game casually and these creators will tell you first hand that MOST of the complaints against UFC3 right now is that it's too realistic.

I'm not kidding about this at all.

Most players don't know how to communicate their issues but they will drop clues that when put together will paint a picture.

Some complaints I've seen come up frequently are complaints against some of the most realistic aspects of the game:

- We can't throw the combos we used to be able to
- The damage is too high, fights are ending too quickly
- I can't exchange strikes anymore
- Fighters are too slow (This one buggles my mind)
- Stamina is too strict

Don't get me started on the complaints against the new controls.

A more realistic game is what most of us here want, but sad to say, there are ALOT of people out there who think this game sucks now and is no longer fun because it's too realistic... Hell some of them even flat out say it!.

If I had my way, these people would be completely ignored, but EA would never ignore them.... not when profit is on the line.

A few thoughts on this (and thank you for these observations):

UFC 2 outsold UFC 1, and for how arcadey UFC 2 was, it was much more of a simulation than UFC 1. So the hard numbers favor the idea that people want an MMA simulation. Now, the EA suits can say "Well, the install bases of the current gent consoles were tiny when UFC 1 came out" and they would be correct, but it's important to not confuse this correlation with causation. People still bought the hell out of UFC 2, and I am personally astonished at how many players its managed to hang onto this late into its life cycle. Personally, for me, UFC 2 has been a game on a ventilator machine, barely gasping its last breaths, since about late 2016. The amount of cheese and exploits in the game, not to mention the crippling lag should have totally killed the game long ago. But the player base hangs on, and this tells me there are more hardcore players than maybe one would suspect.

Secondly, if we peer out into the worldwide marketplace of video games, we can observe that several of the currently most-played games have high skill caps and unforgiving mechanics.



Notice four out of the five most played games on Steam right now are hardcore and have high skill ceilings. These games absolutely crush the EA UFC games in terms of player numbers.

My point? The idea that hardcore mechanics and high skill caps will drive players away from a game is utter BS. Players on the whole embrace these two things as long as they're paired with constant attention to balance and continued infrastructural support and improvement.

If a game's mechanics are perceived as unfair or out of the player's control, IE - "I got KO'd because my opponent lives in Russia and the game disregarded my inputs due to high latency" (which is what UFC2 does, thanks to its poor matchmaking schema), then people will flee from the game.

BUT if the devs address glaring balance and game foundation issues (like all of the developers of those top 5 Steam games have), then players embrace the hardcore nature of the game because they feel confident and secure that practicing and getting better will yield success. They don't have to worry about lag popping up to screw them over, or other players picking one character or weapon every single game to just murder them.

Important point (I can't really speak to GTA because I don't play it): PUBG, CS GO, DOTA 2, and Rainbow Six Siege ALL benefit from continuous, year-round support. Virtually every month or so (sometimes on a weekly basis), the devs are patching these games, making tweaks and refinements, adding content. Siege completely redid the netcode of their game. They increased the server tick rate from a lousy 30hz to a stable 60hz. They got rid of high-latency issues like "peeker's advantage." They added 15 (FIFTEEN) brand new characters FOR FREE. Anyone without a season pass could still unlock these characters with the basic in-game currency just for playing. They added EIGHT new maps, all free immediately to all players. And all the while, they just continued to make refinements to the game's core infrastructure.

NOW... what does EA typically do? Put out a game, give it some patches every few months, doled out on a strict budget, and then the devs go into hibernation mode to start working on a sequel while the current game dies out on the vine. This isn't a criticism of the devs or their passion (they have a tremendous amount of passion and talent) - it's an observation that the most successful games are continuously preened and improved year-round. And instead of releasing yearly sequels, the most successful games make core infrastructure and engine updates via patches, all without charging a standard $60 player a dime more. And then they offer means for hardcore players to act as patrons to keep development going (typically via aesthetic items that do not affect the competitive landscape in any way).

By now you might be wondering, "What does this have to do with what Martial said?"

My point is that the most successful games out there right now ARE HARDCORE GAMES. What makes people abandon hardcore games isn't that they're hardcore and have high skill caps. It's when the infrastructure is rotten and balance is bad. Case in point: For Honor. For Honor is, at it's heart, a hardcore melee combat game. But it suffered from absolutely horrific peer 2 peer netcode and abysmal balance that favored turtling as the dominant playstyle. Meanwhile the devs sat idly by and continued to shovel out content updates without ever improving the balance or core infrastructure of the game.

So EA execs can point to For Honor and say "Look! A hardcore fighting game that failed! Let's go casual!" But it would be woefully imprudent to ignore that the game ACTUALLY is dying because of neglect of balance and core refinements.

I firmly believe EA UFC 3 can thrive as the hardcore MMA fan's simulation and does not need to be dumbed down AT ALL. The vocal players screaming about the issues Martial raised will go away and MANY other players will replace them, and those players will be far more loyal, developer-friendly, and willing to patronize the game monetarily if given the option to do so.

The idea that "Casual is where the money's at" doesn't hold true under all circumstances. You get phenomenons like mobile gaming and the Wii, but these are typically aimed at the MASS, mass market, like 60 year old grandma's who wouldn't ordinarily play games at all. If someone spent the money on a dedicated gaming PC or a console over the $200 mark, you can sell them a hardcore experience that they will play and embrace.

[aholbert32]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

I understand where Zombie is coming from but I disagree with alot of it:

- There is nothing that backs up the connection between the fact that UFC 2 was a more hardcore simulation and the increased sales. If anything, its what the "suits" would say. With most games an increased install base equals more people buying a game.

I'd also argue that the large majority of a sports game's sales are made during the first 2 weeks of sales. Now I dont know if you played UFC 1 at release but it was an absolute disaster. The demo was so poor that it discouraged many people to buy the game. The reviews were horrible. The impressions by people who bought the game early were equally bad. Glitch videos were rampant. It was a poor game at release and few people bought it during its first few weeks.

UFC 2 had its issues but it was clear to anyone at release that it was a significantly better game than UFC 1. Not just because it had more realistic mechanics but also because it was a more complete game than 1 when it came to gameplay, modes and options.

- Also how you define "success" doesnt really align with how EA and most sports games define it. They see those numbers and while they are impressive....they dont equal revenue.

You and I have had this discussion before and I'm not convinced that the revenue is there simply by doing a "season pass". Using the Siege example, why would I ever pay to get a season pass for EA UFC? In that example, the new fighters would be free to everyone (I just have to generate in game currency to unlock them). The online improvements are free to everyone. Same with the new arenas. Sure some people will be impatient and just buy it but will those sales justify the costs in giving a game 18 mos of full support?

FNC tried this on a smaller scale and failed. They had DLC that offered new modes and fighters and the sales were low.

- I see how this can help the consumer but no idea how this helps the company. Sports game companies like new games that they can sell for $60. Sports leagues like new games that promotes their league. What you are asking for is this:

They wouldnt be able to charge $60 for the updates (in fact you are arguing that the updates should be free). Best case scenario is you sell a season pass for 30 a year and hope that the same or more people buy the pass that wouldve bought a full game.

If less people buy the season pass, EA is now giving year round support (which likely has similar costs to creating a new version) to a game that is generating less revenue than a new game would.

- Who knows if the UFC license would even allow them to do this? I dont know alot about the UFC deal but I know that the NFL and NBA deals require them to release a game each year (EA got exceptions from the NBA for Live in past years). That becomes even more necessary when you are the exclusive rights holder to a license.

- I also disagree that "If someone spent the money on....a console over the $200 mark, you can sell them a hardcore experience that they will play and embrace." Just because someone buys a PS4 or Xbox 1 doesnt mean they are open to a hardcore experience. In fact many of my friends own consoles but are not interested in a hardcore experience in a basketball, football or MMA game.

Now I'm not saying that hardcore mechanics shouldnt be a focus of the game but I'm also honest with myself about why I want this. I want it because I'm selfish and I think it will make the best game FOR ME.

Thats why I love NBA 2k. That game at default is very much a game tailored toward the casual fan. But every year, I take time to tweak the hell out of sliders, attributes and badges and the game because I can get a hardcore sim experience by doing that.

Even the mechanics of 2k can be changed to give a sim or casual experience. Thats why I was happy that UFC 3 has two different submission systems now. While I think the hardcore one could be greatly improved, the simple submissions system is perfect for casual fans.

I want this game to grow and there isnt a single sports game that has grown by solely focusing on the hardcore audience.

[johnmangala]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

I understand where Zombie is coming from but I disagree with alot of it:

- There is nothing that backs up the connection between the fact that UFC 2 was a more hardcore simulation and the increased sales. If anything, its what the "suits" would say. With most games an increased install base equals more people buying a game.

I'd also argue that the large majority of a sports game's sales are made during the first 2 weeks of sales. Now I dont know if you played UFC 1 at release but it was an absolute disaster. The demo was so poor that it discouraged many people to buy the game. The reviews were horrible. The impressions by people who bought the game early were equally bad. Glitch videos were rampant. It was a poor game at release and few people bought it during its first few weeks.

UFC 2 had its issues but it was clear to anyone at release that it was a significantly better game than UFC 1. Not just because it had more realistic mechanics but also because it was a more complete game than 1 when it came to gameplay, modes and options.

- Also how you define "success" doesnt really align with how EA and most sports games define it. They see those numbers and while they are impressive....they dont equal revenue.

You and I have had this discussion before and I'm not convinced that the revenue is there simply by doing a "season pass". Using the Siege example, why would I ever pay to get a season pass for EA UFC? In that example, the new fighters would be free to everyone (I just have to generate in game currency to unlock them). The online improvements are free to everyone. Same with the new arenas. Sure some people will be impatient and just buy it but will those sales justify the costs in giving a game 18 mos of full support?

FNC tried this on a smaller scale and failed. They had DLC that offered new modes and fighters and the sales were low.

- I see how this can help the consumer but no idea how this helps the company. Sports game companies like new games that they can sell for $60. Sports leagues like new games that promotes their league. What you are asking for is this:

They wouldnt be able to charge $60 for the updates (in fact you are arguing that the updates should be free). Best case scenario is you sell a season pass for 30 a year and hope that the same or more people buy the pass that wouldve bought a full game.

If less people buy the season pass, EA is now giving year round support (which likely has similar costs to creating a new version) to a game that is generating less revenue than a new game would.

- Who knows if the UFC license would even allow them to do this? I dont know alot about the UFC deal but I know that the NFL and NBA deals require them to release a game each year (EA got exceptions from the NBA for Live in past years). That becomes even more necessary when you are the exclusive rights holder to a license.

- I also disagree that "If someone spent the money on....a console over the $200 mark, you can sell them a hardcore experience that they will play and embrace." Just because someone buys a PS4 or Xbox 1 doesnt mean they are open to a hardcore experience. In fact many of my friends own consoles but are not interested in a hardcore experience in a basketball, football or MMA game.

Now I'm not saying that hardcore mechanics shouldnt be a focus of the game but I'm also honest with myself about why I want this. I want it because I'm selfish and I think it will make the best game FOR ME.

Thats why I love NBA 2k. That game at default is very much a game tailored toward the casual fan. But every year, I take time to tweak the hell out of sliders, attributes and badges and the game because I can get a hardcore sim experience by doing that.

Even the mechanics of 2k can be changed to give a sim or casual experience. Thats why I was happy that UFC 3 has two different submission systems now. While I think the hardcore one could be greatly improved, the simple submissions system is perfect for casual fans.

I want this game to grow and there isnt a single sports game that has grown by solely focusing on the hardcore audience.

But who are these casuals?

No one is really asking to solely focus on 'hardcores'. Most of us just want more balance and realism.

Are you assuming 'casuals' cannot post feedback? Feedback is something only 'hardcores' do?

The first two games were more arcady to appease these 'casuals' but it was largely panned.

What's the point of segmenting your audience, if you are largely not listening to the vocal portion because there is an indifferent silent majority.

But according to logic here once they voice their opinion they are no longer 'casual'.. a vicious cycle.

Are you suggesting the 'casuals' feedback is more valuable than the 'hardcores'?

[aholbert32]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

But who are these casuals?

No one is really asking to solely focus on 'hardcores'. Most of us just want more balance and realism.

Are you assuming 'casuals' cannot post feedback? Feedback is something only 'hardcores' do?

The first two games were more arcady to appease these 'casuals' but it was largely panned.

What's the point of segmenting your audience, if you are largely not listening to the vocal portion because there is an indifferent silent majority.

But according to logic here once they voice their opinion they are no longer 'casual'.. a vicious cycle.

Are you suggesting the 'casuals' feedback is more valuable than the 'hardcores'?

Lets break this down:

Now according to VGChartz, UFC 2 sold 1.9 million copies. VG Chartz doesnt count digital sales so the game sold over 2 million copies.

There are probably 50-100 people who regularly post on OS about EA UFC. Lets say 500 (I think its less in reality) post on Reddit. Lets say that there are 500 people who regularly post on Youtube and Twitter about UFC. I think you could count all of these people as hardcore fans. Best case scenario those are less than 2000 people. Thats less than 1% of the people who bought the game.

Casual fans typically dont post feedback in forums because they are...casual fans. For example, I'm a casual fan of MLB and MLB the Show. I buy the Show every year but I couldnt tell you what pitches Clayton Kershaw throws or what cleats Aaron Judge wears. A hardcore fan could. Do I post feedback in the Show forum? Nope because I'm not as concerned with realism as a hardcore baseball fan is. I just play the game because I like baseball and its fun.

Now this doesnt mean that EA gets no feedback from non-hardcore fans. They do through surveys and probably focus groups. That helps guide their decision. Part of the reason they focused on offline modes so much in UFC 3 is because the numbers from their testing told them that offline modes needed more attention (reviews said the same thing).

This also doesnt mean that casual fans dont benefit from things hardcore fans suggest. They do and I'd argue that many of the hardcore mechanics have been to the benefit of all EA UFC gamers. That doesnt mean that every hardcore suggestion is something that casual fans will agree with.

Take the online opponent's meters issue. 70% of the people here think they should be removed for Ranked. Half of those people think they should be removed for all modes.

Now, say I'm a casual gamer who loves the sport but isnt that interested in extreme realism. I'm used to the meters because they have been in every MMA game and in most fighting games. I see that they are gone and I'm confused and angry about EA removing something that has been in damn near every fighting game and in every MMA game.

So if you are EA what do you do? Those 70% who want the meters removed will buy the game whether the meters are in the game or not.They are vocal but in the end they are hardcore fans and want to buy the new UFC game. On the other hand, that casual gamer may not buy the game (or a future EA UFC game) simply because you removed a feature that is common in every fighting game.

Finally, MMA is a niche sport. Its not the NFL or NBA. No matter what happens there will be a Madden and NBA 2k every year. Thats no guarantee for a MMA game. If the sales start to tank, there is a chance that we go years before we see another MMA game. Now sales tanking wont be because hardcore fans dont buy the game. It will be because casual fans didnt buy it.

[RetractedMonkey]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

Lets break this down:

Now according to VGChartz, UFC 2 sold 1.9 million copies. VG Chartz doesnt count digital sales so the game sold over 2 million copies.

There are probably 50-100 people who regularly post on OS about EA UFC. Lets say 500 (I think its less in reality) post on Reddit. Lets say that there are 500 people who regularly post on Youtube and Twitter about UFC. I think you could count all of these people as hardcore fans. Best case scenario those are less than 2000 people. Thats less than 1% of the people who bought the game.

Casual fans typically dont post feedback in forums because they are...casual fans. For example, I'm a casual fan of MLB and MLB the Show. I buy the Show every year but I couldnt tell you what pitches Clayton Kershaw throws or what cleats Aaron Judge wears. A hardcore fan could. Do I post feedback in the Show forum? Nope because I'm not as concerned with realism as a hardcore baseball fan is. I just play the game because I like baseball and its fun.

Now this doesnt mean that EA gets no feedback from non-hardcore fans. They do through surveys and probably focus groups. That helps guide their decision. Part of the reason they focused on offline modes so much in UFC 3 is because the numbers from their testing told them that offline modes needed more attention (reviews said the same thing).

This also doesnt mean that casual fans dont benefit from things hardcore fans suggest. They do and I'd argue that many of the hardcore mechanics have been to the benefit of all EA UFC gamers. That doesnt mean that every hardcore suggestion is something that casual fans will agree with.

Take the online opponent's meters issue. 70% of the people here think they should be removed for Ranked. Half of those people think they should be removed for all modes.

Now, say I'm a casual gamer who loves the sport but isnt that interested in extreme realism. I'm used to the meters because they have been in every MMA game and in most fighting games. I see that they are gone and I'm confused and angry about EA removing something that has been in damn near every fighting game and in every MMA game.

So if you are EA what do you do? Those 70% who want the meters removed will buy the game whether the meters are in the game or not.They are vocal but in the end they are hardcore fans and want to buy the new UFC game. On the other hand, that casual gamer may not buy the game (or a future EA UFC game) simply because you removed a feature that is common in every fighting game.

Finally, MMA is a niche sport. Its not the NFL or NBA. No matter what happens there will be a Madden and NBA 2k every year. Thats no guarantee for a MMA game. If the sales start to tank, there is a chance that we go years before we see another MMA game. Now sales tanking wont be because hardcore fans dont buy the game. It will be because casual fans didnt buy it.

Absolutely. My biggest fear is they stop making these games.

[johnmangala]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

Lets break this down:

Now according to VGChartz, UFC 2 sold 1.9 million copies. VG Chartz doesnt count digital sales so the game sold over 2 million copies.

There are probably 50-100 people who regularly post on OS about EA UFC. Lets say 500 (I think its less in reality) post on Reddit. Lets say that there are 500 people who regularly post on Youtube and Twitter about UFC. I think you could count all of these people as hardcore fans. Best case scenario those are less than 2000 people. Thats less than 1% of the people who bought the game.

Casual fans typically dont post feedback in forums because they are...casual fans. For example, I'm a casual fan of MLB and MLB the Show. I buy the Show every year but I couldnt tell you what pitches Clayton Kershaw throws or what cleats Aaron Judge wears. A hardcore fan could. Do I post feedback in the Show forum? Nope because I'm not as concerned with realism as a hardcore baseball fan is. I just play the game because I like baseball and its fun.

Now this doesnt mean that EA gets no feedback from non-hardcore fans. They do through surveys and probably focus groups. That helps guide their decision. Part of the reason they focused on offline modes so much in UFC 3 is because the numbers from their testing told them that offline modes needed more attention (reviews said the same thing).

This also doesnt mean that casual fans dont benefit from things hardcore fans suggest. They do and I'd argue that many of the hardcore mechanics have been to the benefit of all EA UFC gamers. That doesnt mean that every hardcore suggestion is something that casual fans will agree with.

Take the online opponent's meters issue. 70% of the people here think they should be removed for Ranked. Half of those people think they should be removed for all modes.

Now, say I'm a casual gamer who loves the sport but isnt that interested in extreme realism. I'm used to the meters because they have been in every MMA game and in most fighting games. I see that they are gone and I'm confused and angry about EA removing something that has been in damn near every fighting game and in every MMA game.

So if you are EA what do you do? Those 70% who want the meters removed will buy the game whether the meters are in the game or not.They are vocal but in the end they are hardcore fans and want to buy the new UFC game. On the other hand, that casual gamer may not buy the game (or a future EA UFC game) simply because you removed a feature that is common in every fighting game.

Finally, MMA is a niche sport. Its not the NFL or NBA. No matter what happens there will be a Madden and NBA 2k every year. Thats no guarantee for a MMA game. If the sales start to tank, there is a chance that we go years before we see another MMA game. Now sales tanking wont be because hardcore fans dont buy the game. It will be because casual fans didnt buy it.

I disagree with your logic that once someone posts on a forum they can no longer be 'casual' fans.

'Casual' fans generally buy games based on word of mouth and good reviews.

When you fail to appease your core audience you tend to get negative press from the vocal minority, whom your 'casuals' pay attention to as word of mouth.

Look at what happened to SW Battlefront 2. They went full force targeting casuals, but failed to listen to their communities and the backlash went viral on Reddit and elsewhere.

Drove casuals away in droves. What's the morality of the story? Balance.

I am in the camp they should be rid of HUD in general and be like what was promised in FN3 so many years ago. That approach was abandoned for whatever reason.

I would think the technology is there for the cues now if they were attempting this 10 years ago.

But I don't care either way, the HUD is fine as long is as it's minimal. (The fade in mechanic is good, but should include the stamina bar too).

I would bet people in general would appreciate mini game/HUDless submissions. When striking feels like it has it's own unique outcomes, the subs are limited to predetermined cutscenes.

You can keep the same gate mechanic since starting from scratch is something reserved for future titles.
But limit the giant overlay which blocks the view of most of the action.

Allow us to pay attention to the techniques like in the stand up rather than a mini game which feels disjointed from the rest of the game. It is also a static system, not dynamic like the stand up.

Allow the progress of the gates be felt by visual cues (already present in the game), vibrations, etc.

Without the giant HUD/mini game to pay attention to, we can focus on the techniques and transitions themselves like in the stand up.

That way it'll feel more like TBS (transition based submissions) without completely revamping the subs system.

A change that can immensely improve the ground game merely by removing/minimizing the mini game/HUD. A way to make subs feel as dynamic and free form as striking, which is a part of the appeal and fun.

[RetractedMonkey]

Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread

There is no empirical evidence that casuals refrained from buying Star Wars “in droves”. I’m also dying at the thought of playing the submission minigame as it is on vibration alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports