UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

[MC Fatigue]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

. However, it's also annoying when MMA repeatedly state that boxing is one-dimensional. There's plently of different styles involved in boxing - Floyd Mayweather fights nothing like Antonio Margarito for instance.

I don't think one-dimensional has anything to do with styles.

What people mean by one-dimensional is that it's one aspect of fighting. You throw with your fists, obviously people have different styles of defense, attacking, how they throw, when they throw, how they stand, etc, etc - but when it comes down to it it's the hands that do all the damage.

I don't think anyone means any disrespect from that - they just mean that in MMA it's multi-dimensional in that you don't just throw with your fists - you've got kicking, take downs, ground game, etc - boxing is focused on one form of attack - the punch.

I could be wrong with that, but I don't really think people mean one-dimensional in terms of different styles. They just mean it in that you ultimately only have one choice of attack - the punch; but certainly everyone has a different style in terms of how they use that attack.

[allBthere]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

I don't think one-dimensional has anything to do with styles.

What people mean by one-dimensional is that it's one aspect of fighting. You throw with your fists, obviously people have different styles of defense, attacking, how they throw, when they throw, how they stand, etc, etc - but when it comes down to it it's the hands that do all the damage.

I don't think anyone means any disrespect from that - they just mean that in MMA it's multi-dimensional in that you don't just throw with your fists - you've got kicking, take downs, ground game, etc - boxing is focused on one form of attack - the punch.

I could be wrong with that, but I don't really think people mean one-dimensional in terms of different styles. They just mean it in that you ultimately only have one choice of attack - the punch; but certainly everyone has a different style in terms of how they use that attack.

this is why i think the mma game will be better than fn4. Just like in the real sport, in the game they don't have to master every 'dimension' of mma. But boxing is so nuanced and specialized that you must master it to have a great game. In mma if you can accomplish 7/10 striking, ground, clinch, sub, etc. you have an 8 or 9/10 game because the sum is greater than its parts.

That's why I believe the more 'parts' to a sport that there is, the easier it is to make it into a game that seems to be representative of the sport. Boxing is so hard to make into a good game because punching has to be 9/10 as does bob/weave, clinch, fatigue and each little aspect has to be more fleshed out and nuanced and seem more human.
imo the AI in a great boxing game would be far more complex than an mma game.

ex of me being the AI in mma. I'm being outclassed standing up and trading strikes, I will go for the takedown. Now that were' on the ground he's defending my submmission techniques. I'll try to ground and pound a bit..it's not working. I'm going to try to ride out the round...oops the ref stood us up. Maybe I'll try to jab and keep my distance. etc. ** that would make for a good AI match that is changing and compelling.

ex of me being AI in boxing. my strikes aren't landing ...WTF DO I DOOO??????

just kidding, but see how much more specialized the ai would have to be. maybe it starts to double up on the jab. use more head movement. try to circle right etc. maybe try to fight a bit more on the inside. work the body a bit if the opponent is faster. tie him up and push him around the ring.


That's why imo the ufc game will be better because it's easier to please by being good at multiple dimensions than master one.

[Acedeck]

The fact that MMA has so many aspects, I think there's more areas where the game has chances to screw up. Let's say the punching is great but the ground game is one dimensional and boring. That makes for a crappy game. I hope both games are fun, but I do believe there's more that can go wrong in an MMA game.

As for the continued debate, MMA is still much more barbaric than boxing. Yes, you can argue all day that boxing is more dangerous, but it's simply less barbaric in appearance. Take away the steel cage and we'll talk. Until then, it's nothing more than professional cagefighting. I have more respect for almost any other form of fighting (many of those that are even used in MMA), so long as they don't take it to a cagefighting level. It's seriously a legal maneuver to cut off the oxygen flow to the other fighter's brain. That's not sport, that's just barbaric. Why stop there? Just kick the other person in the nuts, or gouge their eyes perhaps. Take out the choking submissions, take out the cage, and then I'll look at it in a more professional view.

[agentk009]

FNR4 will be the better game but it needs to make huge strides from Round 3. I hope Mikkel Kessler is in the game, otherwise it might be a hard buy.

[MC Fatigue]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

The fact that MMA has so many aspects, I think there's more areas where the game has chances to screw up. Let's say the punching is great but the ground game is one dimensional and boring. That makes for a crappy game. I hope both games are fun, but I do believe there's more that can go wrong in an MMA game.

As for the continued debate, MMA is still much more barbaric than boxing. Yes, you can argue all day that boxing is more dangerous, but it's simply less barbaric in appearance. Take away the steel cage and we'll talk. Until then, it's nothing more than professional cagefighting. I have more respect for almost any other form of fighting (many of those that are even used in MMA), so long as they don't take it to a cagefighting level. It's seriously a legal maneuver to cut off the oxygen flow to the other fighter's brain. That's not sport, that's just barbaric. Why stop there? Just kick the other person in the nuts, or gouge their eyes perhaps. Take out the choking submissions, take out the cage, and then I'll look at it in a more professional view.

Failure #1: Not all MMA matches are in cages. In fact, I would say the majority of leagues use rings just like boxing.

Not to mention that a cage is probably safer. You don't get limbs tangled up in the ropes, and you don't get people choked against them. In fact, I've never seen an injury resulting directly from the cage, as where I have seen injuries caused by a ring with ropes.

Failure #2: When someone gets you in a choke, you tap. It's pretty simple. To insinuate that eye-gouging and groin strikes are even on the same level is ridiculous.

I also heavily disagree with this "barbaric" statement. In no way is it barbaric. It's controlled, it's relatively safe, the fighters are protected, and the fighters are willing.

Barbaric pertains to the inability to control oneself (lack of restraint). MMA fighters are very much in control, and I've really only ever seen a small handful of fights in which a fighter went beyond the boundaries of the sport (Sobral holding a choke too long). And in those cases, the fighters are dealt with very quickly (Sobral was fined and released from the UFC immediatly).

There's really nothing barbaric about it. It's two men who are trained in various martials arts, willingly going head to head in a match while obiding by specific rules.

No one is forcing them to do it. No one is doing anything to anyone in which they did not agree to (although, in very rare cases it does happen, but that pertains to anything you do in the world - there are always people who disobey or ignore a rule). The fighters are well protected by the referree and the rule set.

Babaric is simply the wrong word; whether you like the sport or not.

[Acedeck]

Barbaric is the exact word I was looking for:

Barbaric - "Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner."

Crudeness - "in a raw or unprepared state; unrefined or natural"

I believe it fits the definition of barbaric perfectly. MMA is definitely a more raw form of fighting than Boxing, or any other individual style of fighting for that matter. MMA matches usually pit two guys against each other who have different styles. They throw them in the cage and let them go at each other. How is that not raw, or not "lack of restraint?" MMA is the very definition of lack of restraint. Your reasoning for allowing asphyxiation as a way of winning is questionable, in my opinion. Why not give them knives? If they are on the verge of being sliced across the neck, they tap. Air is the biggest necessity any human will ever have. I can't believe restricting the most vital aspect of life is actually a legit means of winning a match. That is barbaric my friend. Make any excuse you want for it, that's not fighting. Punching, kicking, wrestling, that's all part of fighting. The second you go into the submission aspect of MMA, it's not fighting for sport, in my opinion. When you have to choose between tapping or having your arm snapped off, that's not sport anymore. When you have to choose between tapping or being asphyxiated, that's not sport anymore. If you just plain get your *** beat, that's a whole different story.

Then again, take away submissions from MMA and it's just a bunch of above average/average fighters spooning on a mat (only generally speaking, as I know there are several great fighters in MMA who would suceed elsewhere in fighting). So I guess I'm not suggesting they take that aspect away from MMA. I'm just saying I'll consider it more barbaric than other forms of fighting until they do so. I'm not saying it's not entertaining to watch. I'm not saying they aren't athletes. I'm just saying it's more barbaric.

[faster]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

so what was this thread originally about? this current discussion will go round and round and just make everyone dizzy.

boxing is one skill of MMA, but only boxers master it. mma fighters can't go fight professional boxers. they would be eaten up, period. end of story.

on the other hand, no boxer is going to jump into an MMA fight and be able to survive right away. take a boxer to the ground and then what? pfff... gone. done.

now, that all being said, i would tend to think that professional boxers, pulled over to the MMA side, with significant training, would do better than MMA fighters pulled out and put into professional boxing.

this doesn't mean either is better though. it means that a pro boxer is blessed with speed, agility, quickness, and something special with a standup game. it's ONE skill they've mastered. in boxing you need to master one skill. in MMA, you can be pretty good at quite a few and be an awesome fighter.


doesn't matter though.... the discussion will go round and round and never be decided.

[whosgotcha]

FIght Night Round 4 should be the better game. This is the first entry for UFC Undsiputed and FNR4 should be the more refined game. I enjoyed the defensive and strategic aspect of Fight Night Round 3 and my expectations are that FNR4 will refine the implementation of these components. From the videos I have seen of UFC Undisputed there was a noticeable lack of defense (the caveat being that these demos may be designed to elicit excitement as opposed to demonstrating technical aspects). I think in some ways the demos reflect the movement of MMA into the more sensationalistic aspects of MMA fighting that benefits the standup, knockout, slugging it out domain as opposed to the more subdued technical aspect of jujitsu/wrestling/groundgame.

[MC Fatigue]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

Barbaric is the exact word I was looking for:

Barbaric - "Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner."

Then Barbaric was exactly the wrong word. You can not like a sport - but please don't spew a bunch of untrue BS about it.

[Jimbo68]

Acedeck perfectly explained/stated, in his post, how MMA is indeed a 'Barbaric' sport. It fits the definition to a tee. As for Timmay's argument, pretty weak!

[kingmaster]

'"SS

[Money99]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

I think it's much harder to program a MMA game than a boxing game.
faster made some excellent points but his one about boxing being 'ONE skill' rings true.

In a UFC game, the programmers have to make sure that they have captured the essence of striking, kicking, grappling, submissions and various defenses to each.
Not only that, but the cage they fight in is also a big element compared to a boxing ring. You can't really use the ropes like you can the cage in MMA.

Saying all of that, I think that's the reason why FNRd4 has a greater chance of being a better game. Not to mention that EA had an engine to work with already. THQ is starting from scratch.

In the end though, just like the real sports, fans of boxing will buy FNRd4 just like fans of UFC will get Undisputed. I really don't think one is going to take money away from the other. If you like both sports, you'll probably buy both.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

I think it's much harder to program a MMA game than a boxing game.
faster made some excellent points but his one about boxing being 'ONE skill' rings true.

In a UFC game, the programmers have to make sure that they have captured the essence of striking, kicking, grappling, submissions and various defenses to each.
Not only that, but the cage they fight in is also a big element compared to a boxing ring. You can't really use the ropes like you can the cage in MMA.

Saying all of that, I think that's the reason why FNRd4 has a greater chance of being a better game. Not to mention that EA had an engine to work with already. THQ is starting from scratch.

In the end though, just like the real sports, fans of boxing will buy FNRd4 just like fans of UFC will get Undisputed. I really don't think one is going to take money away from the other. If you like both sports, you'll probably buy both.

I'm willing to give THQ a bit of a pass this year because it is year one and they are creating a game from scratch. If FN4 is missing any of the things I want like a deep CAB, Legacy mode, Presentation, Roster and Gameplay...It will be a rental.

[Darxide]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

The UFC game that came out for Dreamcast 10 years ago is still a blast to play... Oddly, the subsequent games weren't as good. Hopefully, Undisputed breaks that trend.

I won't even get into the "Boxing Vs. MMA" argument, it's old, and is really really an apples and oranges thing.

[Pappy Knuckles]

Re: UFC 2009 Undisputed vs. Fight Night Round 4: Weigh-In

Both games are must owns for me.