[ZombieRommel]

Quote: Originally Posted by smokeface

Lol how did u become a game changer? You are a game changer, right? Lord, can we vote this guy out? You critisize the glove touch. Is that really impirtant to you? Does a glove touch animation make the game good in your eyes? To your second point, the AI is definitely capable of being patient. You clearly don't even watch martials videos because this is demonstrated there. You say EA MMA was better. The game where u wait for a vibration and hit a single button to stop all transitions. Man that game didn't come close to touching UD3. The damage system was fun and fight cards were awesome. That's all the game had going for it. UD3 is all around fun. I don't know what you are looking for in an MMA game. Cause if you like realism, EA ain't it. If you like competitive MP, EA ain't it. So what exactly do you want? Cause I want an accurate representation of the sport and UD3 is the closest we have. Also, seems like alot of people on here just want an updated UD3. EA has had 3 chances and still hasn't created the fun game that THQ did. Why do so many of us including Martial keep going back to UD3 over EAs UFC games? The answer is simple. ITS FUN! Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Operation Sports mobile app

I think I articulated most of my points pretty clearly. The lack of a proper glove touch is indicative of how half-baked and rushed UD3 was. It was literally rushed out the door to sell copies before THQ went out of business, as also indicated by the game-breaking desync bug online, which was promised to be fixed and never was.

I'll give credit where it is due. The game has some good animations here and there and definitely a wider assortment of animations. The increase in animations also means that many of the transitions from standing to clinch to ground are smoother and more life-like / less robotic. And as I said, the game does a good job in terms of presentation. It's still fun to go back and watch the Pride walkouts.

What is weak is the underlying gameplay systems, if you actually care about them, but it seems you don't and that's fine. For some people, a wide variety of "stuff" in a game is more important than boring things like "gameplay logic."

You say the damage system is "fun". Maybe to you it's fun, but to me it wasn't. I expected more. What we got was a Mortal Kombat / Street Fighter life meter represented by a colored silhouette.

In EA UFC3, you have a very nuanced system of damage recovery both during the fight and between rounds. Get rocked? It's okay. Block and move your head enough and you can get your wits again and absorb damage. In UD3, if you get beat up to 99% damage, you can fight the next 4 rounds taking no damage and then eat one small punch and get KO'd flat. To me that's very elementary and stupid. It bespeaks THQ's design emphasis, which was to cram a lot of stuff into the game and not worry about the depth of any of it.

EA MMA had MUCH uglier animations and much less stuff to do, but in terms of the moment to moment gameplay, yes it was better. You actually had some semblance of vulnerability logic in the striking. One hit KO's weren't percentage-chance based flash events like in UD3. They actually took into account what the other guy was doing and what you hit him with. Health recovered during the round if you managed to stay away from damage (imagine that). Stamina meant a lot and wasn't nearly as forgiving as UD3's stamina system.

UD3 had its merits, but as someone who appreciates depth in games, I was very underwhelmed. If I said anything else, I'd be lying to you. When I was voted to be a GameChanger, my stance on this game was exactly the same and the people who voted me in knew it.

You can sit here and tell me things like "The damage system was fun", which is your opinion. And I can sit here and tell you in precise detail why that system was terrible. Like, I'll give you my opinion, yes, but I'll also back it up with exactly what my reasons are. That's the whole point of being a GameChanger. It's not "Hey this guy thinks just like everybody else on the forum, so let's vote him in." It's "This guy will tell us exactly what he likes and doesn't like and WHY." I've always done that. I realize UD3 has a following on this forum. Would I like to see its positive merits in the next EA game? Sure. I'd like better animations, smoother grappling transitions, more positions, more scrambles, more visual dynamism, and more attention to presentation.

But am I going to sit here and tell you UD3 was the pinnacle of MMA GAMEPLAY? No, I'd be lying my @ss off for forum brownie points, which is something I won't do. And if you can't respect that, then sorry.

Quote: Originally Posted by Leiqueros

I have a totally different opinion, of course I respect your opinion, but it doesn't come close to mine, I still play UD3 and of course UFC 3, I also have the EA MMA which I barely play with it, and That you tell me that even MMA is better than UD3 for me is a sacrilege, since MMA would only be able to choose between ring or octagon to fight and little else with respect to the other 2 games. Both the UD3 and the UFC 3 have good things and not so good things, but if I put them on a scale for me, you win UD3 being a game from a previous generation, the level of details, of options, wins the game EA , the grip, the ground, injuries, tie in fights that are very close, I am honestly not a follower of the fight on the ground, but still in UD3 I like this one, so I hope that in UFC 4 the Fight on its feet continues ,and if it is possible to add boxing and muay thai with its rules that would be the greatest for me. I really hope that UFC 4 surpasses UD3, that its game modes are fantastic, that immersion in the fight is fabulous, that we leave the edition lovers all the possibilities that can be done, both in number of fighters that We can create then only 22 fighters to create is ridiculous, that the range of possibilities in the edition is widely satisfactory.

I think all of your points here are fair. UFC3 lacks features that would help to make the game feel well-rounded and complete as a full representation of MMA. All I've said in this thread is I prefer UFC3's moment to moment gameplay. I appreciate depth. In my opinion that's what most of this preference comes down to. UFC3 has combat depth while UD3 has breadth of content. The ideal MMA game will have both bases covered.

Quote: Originally Posted by That Ragdoll Guy

Ive the same impression. He seems to be more excited and challenged when playing UD 3, a 10 yo game on a weaker console generation btw. People tend to confuse stiking with MMA. UFC 3s striking is bomb no question about it, but everything beside the new striking and movement at the same time system is not good enough for a PS 4 generation. Hit reactions, hit detection, combo system, free flowing striking, KO Physics, Physics in general are bad for PS 4, game balance is not exisiting, transition to grappling, grappling in general, recycled cut scenes, boring gamemodes, watered down career mode, recycled grappling, clinch, uneventful grappling, unrealistic looking and unrealistic feeling TKOs and follow up punches, limited fighter creation options(limited CAF slots), same grappling animations since UFC 1... I could go on, but I still have other stuff to do today. Oh yeah, saying even EA MMA is better than UD 3, is so far from off from the truth, that I dont even have an adjective for it. Ive never heard something like that in my entire life. Wow.

I don't understand. In one breath you say UFC3's striking is "bomb, no question about it." And then in the next breath you criticize the hit detection, hit reactions, combo system, etc. All of these things pertain to the striking.

You say the game balance doesn't exist, and while it is far from perfect and there are glaring holes to be fixed, the actual game balance and depth is so much better than any other MMA game. I don't know if or how much you played UD3 online (since it was so hard to just play a stable match with how buggy it was), but it wasn't fun. To even have a semblance of a real fight, you had to play with simulation health / stamina enabled, and even then it was arcadey. It LOOKED authentic but the underlying gameplay systems were spammy and arcadey.

Because of the many, MANY hours of thought and experimentation GPD put in the EA games, we actually ended up with a logical system with checks and balances on damn-near everything, and if you can't see that then you don't play the game at high enough a level. Are certain things just flat out busted and unfun (like the clinch)? Yes, for sure. But in terms of other MMA games, UFC3 is by far the most balanced one we've ever had.

EA MMA looked a lot worse in action than UD3 (due to the ugly animations), but the health logic, stamina logic, counter-hit logic, and damage recovery logic were all miles better and more authentic than what UD3 offered.

Look, I can empathize with many of your points. The caf stuff, the stalled grappling, how much of the setups and animations look and feel robotic (the TKO scenarios & ragdolls).

But to me, the metric I use is "How fun is the game to play against other people who know what they're doing and have mastered all the systems?"

The depth was there to sustain UFC3 throughout its lifespan. Once THQ decided to abandon UD3, left the online broken, and then went out of business, I didn't sit around and play a game from a dead franchise that I knew had no support and would never be patched again.

I respect that a lot of people liked playing that game offline and can easily see why they preferred it as an offline experience.