-
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
I rest my case.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
Who said they couldnt? I just think that you are wrong about WHY it got bad reviews. It didnt get bad reviews because it was "too arcadey" or because they catered to the casual audience. It got bad reviews because at release the modes lacked depth, there werent a ton of changes to the striking system from UFC 1 and it was still glitchy at times.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
This current line of conversation is cancer.
Sent from my iPhone using Operation SportsComment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
I am talking about both EAUFC1&2.
People weren't pleased them being so arcady. You don't recall the complaints about all spinningfests, cage strikes for everyone, and of course body 121212.
They were aiming for fun..
But the games weren't that fun to the 'casuals' otherwise it would've gotten better reviews and more replay value.
The 'casuals' generally say the EAUFC games suck and leave it at that. At least here people give you constructive feedback.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
I'm going to let this go because I'm struggling to follow what you are arguing anymore. You keep referencing "reviews" as if they are written by casual fans and not professional reviewers. You have an obsession with the "body 1-2s" when I doubt you will fine a single review that references that.
One thing I was wrong about was the most reviews actually liked the standup (the most arcadey aspect of the game) and other arcadey elements in UFC 2.
"While the standing gameplay of punching and kicking feels as satisfying as ever"
Lists KO mode as one of the positives.
"Every strike feels important..... thanks to improved controls"'
I went on metacritic and went through every website review for UFC 2 and wasnt able to find a single complaint about standup. No body 1-2 references. No combo multiplier complaints. No complaints about people being able to do spinning **** constantly. No complaints about unrealistic stamina. No complaints related to the sim community at all. In fact a few of them called the game "a serious sports sim" and "the king of MMA simulation."
What I found were complaints about how hard the new grapple system was. I found complaints that the game wasnt "fun". Some complaints about inconsistencies in the animations.
Now, I dont agree with most of those reviews and I think most of the people at OS dont either. With that said, a casual fan is more likely to read an IGN review than dig through threads at OS if he/she is trying to make a decision about the game. Also, IGN and other websites tends to target its reviews towards casual fans and what they perceive they want.
I'll end with this: I think EA should continue to use the sim community as a resource regarding ways to improve this game. I believe that this community is the best resource for that. With that said, I do believe that they should always take into consideration what casual fans want because they are a significant part of the people who buy this game.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
My point is clear. The past few games were geared more towards the 'casual' audience with arcady gameplay, the games on a whole got bad reviews for gameplay reasons amongst dearth of modes etc.I'm going to let this go because I'm struggling to follow what you are arguing anymore. You keep referencing "reviews" as if they are written by casual fans and not professional reviewers. You have an obsession with the "body 1-2s" when I doubt you will fine a single review that references that.
One thing I was wrong about was the most reviews actually liked the standup (the most arcadey aspect of the game) and other arcadey elements in UFC 2.
"While the standing gameplay of punching and kicking feels as satisfying as ever"
Lists KO mode as one of the positives.
"Every strike feels important..... thanks to improved controls"'
I went on metacritic and went through every website review for UFC 2 and wasnt able to find a single complaint about standup. No body 1-2 references. No combo multiplier complaints. No complaints about people being able to do spinning **** constantly. No complaints about unrealistic stamina. No complaints related to the sim community at all. In fact a few of them called the game "a serious sports sim" and "the king of MMA simulation."
What I found were complaints about how hard the new grapple system was. I found complaints that the game wasnt "fun". Some complaints about inconsistencies in the animations.
Now, I dont agree with most of those reviews and I think most of the people at OS dont either. With that said, a casual fan is more likely to read an IGN review than dig through threads at OS if he/she is trying to make a decision about the game. Also, IGN and other websites tends to target its reviews towards casual fans and what they perceive they want.
I'll end with this: I think EA should continue to use the sim community as a resource regarding ways to improve this game. I believe that this community is the best resource for that. With that said, I do believe that they should always take into consideration what casual fans want because they are a significant part of the people who buy this game.
The exploits are userfed. The 'casuals' and 'hardcores' exploit based on what the game provides. Most players blame the game for rewarding what it does.
If the game rewards realism and balance, we have better habits play out.
You fail to mention those reviews are comparing improvements from EAUFC1 to 2. Which I earlier said was becoming more geared towards realism, but still had bad reviews on the whole.
I mention body 1 2, amongst other things, because it's one of the worst examples of arcady gameplay which shouldn't have existed had there been more focus on realistic and balanced gameplay.
I never said solely focus on the core audience, rather suggesting focusing on balance.Last edited by johnmangala; 01-03-2018, 12:18 PM.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
Basically don't assume what casuals want if you don't have evidence to back up your claim.
There is no evidence things you suggest would drive away casuals, when actual things like bad reviews are proven to lower sales.
It's odd you say something like less HUD could drive away 'casuals', yet actual bad press for games like SWBF2 didn't drive away at least some sales.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
I'll make this clear for you:
- Things like removing the HUD are things that COULD drive away casual fans. Fighting game fans are used to being able to see your opponents HUD and this would be a big change for them. A big enough change that it may prevent them from purchasing the game or future games. I'm not saying that it will. I'm saying that it could.
- Bad reviews CAN drive away casuals but its not automatic. EA UFC had an average metacritic score and it sold 2 million copies. It had a below average user Metacritic score and it sold 1 million more than UFC 1. The sim community complained constantly about the game...and it sold 2 million copies. ****, it likely wouldve been more if EA didnt put the game on EA Access for Xbox. Now part of that has to do with a bigger console install base.
Its also safe to assume that maybe the "silent majority" doesnt give a **** about body 1-2 spam or clinch spam or combo multipliers. That maybe their sole focus isnt on a ultra sim/realistic game. That maybe all the things we obsess about dont matter as much to the majority of people who play the game.
- Everything you have said about SWB2 has been wrong. You said "casuals left in droves"....well the sales numbers dont seem to support that. You said "wasn't a prime COD level of sales it was hyped to be" when the only game to outsell it this holiday season was COD.
You have no evidence to support your assumptions. I at least have sales numbers, reviews and the fact that EA continues to cater to the casual audience as proof to support my statements.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
There's a lot here and I don't want to go point-by-point because we'd be here forever and bore everyone to tears, but I'll address what I think are your most important points and counterpoints.
FNC can't be used as an example of a sports game attempting the model that PUBG, Siege, & Dota 2 have pulled off. FNC used the Call of Duty model, for lack of a better term. If you didn't buy the fighters with real money, you couldn't get them. You were sh*t outta luck. If you didn't buy Bare Knuckle mode, you couldn't freaking play it... AT ALL.
This resulted in a divided playerbase. You had a tiny fraction of players who bought the mode and an absolute dearth of anyone to play with. EA made the same mistake in every battlefield game up until BF1. They released map packs that you could ONLY PLAY if you bought them, which resulted in a divided community.
Siege, CS GO, PUBG etc. release the content to ALL PLAYERS. Any content that could potentially divide the playerbase (like maps) are given to everyone absolutely free of charge. Content that affects gameplay can be earned through in-game currency if players wish not to buy it with real money.
What did FNC do? If you wanted to play as the Brown Bomber, you had to buy him with real cash. Then you had to make sure the other player downloaded the fighter pack on his end and queued up with it in ranked. If I bought Bare Knuckle mode, I had to hope and pray other people had the mode. That's the WRONG way to do the model and that's why it failed. What EA should have done was release the fighters for both real money or in-game currency, and perhaps give the real money players a one or two week exclusivity window (like Siege does with its characters). The Bare Knuckle mode should have been immediately open to everyone.
The idea that there isn't enough content to sustain this kind of model in a UFC game is a valid concern, but I would argue this is an issue that can be overcome by creativity and it is a HUGE opportunity. The fact that other devs have successfully executed this model in other multiplayer driven genres (like FPS and MOBA) but NOT in fighting games means that EA actually has an enormous opportunity to be the first developer to make it work in this genre.
These are JUST examples off the top of my head (so please don't focus in on them and pick them to death), but for example EAC could do a model like this:
- Instead of the current amount of free fighters we get per release, increase that number x2 or x3. BUT create a $30 season pass that allows pass owners to get the fighters immediately upon release and use them for a 1 or 2 week exclusivity window, but allow EVERY player to use in-game currency to buy those fighters once the exclusivity window is over. The free players could cry about this, but they'd be getting 2-3x MORE fighters in the game, so it would be stupid to cry.
- Allow players to earn in-game currency via winning in ranked and UT modes. You could maybe allow some currency gain from SP modes, but you'd have to be careful because that might be exploitable.
- Allow players to use in-game currency or real money to buy UT items (much like now). But expand the database of items that can be purchased.
-Allow purchasing custom taunts. Maybe if a fighter does something in real life (like Holloway pointing at the ground), you develop and patch that in a month later and make it an optional purchase.
-Taunts, moves, trunks, walkout attire, ring music, new & custom post-fight celebrations, maybe differently animated moves (for example let us purchase Nate Diaz's custom straight, but also continue to develop MORE custom animations throughout the game's life cycle).
-Introduce unlockable player portraits, emblems, titles, and icons (like CoD, BF, and Street Fighter do.) So for example, in the top-right of my screen, if I'm a Division 8 player, I'd have a platnium border around a stylized picture of Lyoto screaming after a victory and a caption next to it that reads "JUST BLEED!"
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is a pic:
You could create a LOT of these. As an icon, have Khabib wearing his battle wig. Have Nate Diaz flipping off the camera mean-mugging. Have Conor wearing a fur coat and shades with a huge smile. For the titles, you could be very creative. "Just bleed!" "It is what it is." "50 G's baby!" - "Who da fook is dat guy?" - "I'm not surprised!" "Michael Jordan of BJJ" "That look in his eye" Etc... I mean this is a gold mine. Just allow players to buy these with in-game currency or real money.
- New arenas to be added for free for all players. Example would be MSG. If UFC goes to China, put a Chinese arena.
- Any new modes to be added for free. Examples: Standup-Only online mode, Grappling-Only online mode, Pride Mode, online Fight Cards
- Unlockable / paid alternate fight skins. Maybe I can unlock a "UFC 17 Vitor Belfort" skin where he looks young and jacked out of his mind. Various Conor skins where he has different hairstyles, beards, and plus or minus tattoos. (For example you could get a "Young Conor" skin where he has a shaved head and no tiger belly tattoo." Jon Jones with various hairstyles and facial hair. Anderson Silva with and without mustache/goatee combo.
- Pay Buffer to keep doing voiceovers. Introduce new ones every few months and let people buy them. Instead of him leaving messages on people's answering machines or whatever he does to make side money, let people make name requests for their CAFs. This one is reaching far, admittedly, but just an idea. Instead of everyone being "The Assassin" let Buffer record from home and send devs the WAV files or w/e.
These are JUST IDEAS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. And these came to me EASILY. A dedicated developer sitting around in pre-production, with a bit of effort and creativity could probably blow these ideas away.
Now one final thing. You seem to be questioning the profitability of this model itself, despite that PUBG, CS GO, DOTA2, and Siege are all doing EXTREMELY well.
It's true that you don't sell a single packaged $60 game every year. BUT you create an awesome game that not only doesn't bleed players, but it GAINS THEM over time. And over time, those same players not only buy the seasons pass, they also make micro-transaction purchases. And a constant inflow of money means that you are free to do what you want as a developer and don't have to sit there placing bets and making sales projections about what the sequel will do, because you can SEE the money coming in NOW. Now admittedly, I'm not super informed about the financial side of these schemes, but what I do know is that the devs of the games I pointed out are BALLIN OUTTA CONTROL, and their games are doing awesome. If this was a bad or unprofitable model, they would have abandoned it. But from what I can see, the general idea is that not only do you stave off player bleed (remember, most games hit a peak early on and then gradually bleed players, or, if they're lucky, just sustain) -- but you actually gain thousands of players over time. So you're playing the long game. You invest a lot in the initial build and its feature set. Over time, this pays off. New players continue to come on board as you make incremental improvements (that don't cost as much as the original build), continue to buy season passes and make micro-transactions, and good word of mouth and strong, steady player numbers result in more new players constantly buying the game for $60, to the point where making a yearly game becomes pointless.Last edited by ZombieRommel; 01-03-2018, 01:20 PM.ZombieRommel on YouTube - UFC3 coverage has begun!Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
Are you sure about SWBF2? I recall sales being down by 70% compared to the last game. This was mid December I think. Surely a lot of this was attributed towards some of the design decisions though. I think its a fun game when you look past all the microtransactions the game had.Comment
-
Re: Head Movement: Final Boss Thread
@Zombie-
One of the places where you and I disagree is "bleeding players" and its importance to EA's bottom line. I've never been presented with a legitimate reason why EA should be concerned about the number of people who are playing the game months/years after release.
For example, I believe you stopped playing the game regularly a few months ago. I'll assume that if EA instituted your idea, you would order the season pass for $30 bucks and maybe buy a few micro transactions. Lets say you spent 20 bucks on MTs. So you are spending $50 bucks for an updated version of the game. On the flip side, EA could not institute your plan and get a guaranteed $60 from you every 18 mos.
So you are asking EA to sacrifice at the minimum $60 (remember under your plan no one is obligated to pay a penny in order to access the new features) or at the maximum make a little more than $60 if someone goes nuts and gets the Season Pass and buys a ton of MTs. Thats a risky as hell financial proposition.
- What you propose also is likely to get a ton of developers fired. Lets take PUBG. The dev team for PUBG is around 30 people. Dota 2 less than 50. CS Go has 20. Thats why they can institute a plan like you suggested. Their development costs are low so they can survive (and in some cases thrive) by relying solely on season passes. Have you ever looked at the credit list for UFC 3? There are hundreds of people.
Now realistically we have to assume that EA will see a drop in revenue from this. Cheap guys like me who wouldve bought a new game for $60 bucks will not buy a season pass when I can just wait a few weeks and get all the features then. So if EA is making less of a profit, they will make cuts and the cuts will likely be employees.
-The financial side matters SO MUCH. Many of the DLC you suggested will cost EA money to add.
Walkout Songs? You have to license them.
Arenas? You have to license them.
New fighter skins? You need an art team to create them (same with arenas) but most of that team was cut in order to implement this plan.
Pay Buffer to do voiceovers? You have to pay Buffer.
My point is that what you are suggesting is a bit contradictory. You are asking EA to constantly/regularly produce content while probably generating less revenue and with less employees.Comment
Comment