Boxing videogame campaign, do you want another boxing game?

[thevaliantx]

I'm not really a fan of boxing, but I don't think that should exclude me from being a gamer of a realistic boxing game. Because I'm not a fan there are a lot of things .... issues .... that I'm not going to catch in a boxing game. One thing I did notice in the Fight Night series was how little impact stamina had. Was stamina even a part of the game? I always felt that strategy wasn't really a part of that series. It always seemed to me that you were supposed to just go in with a flurry of punches and get the TKO, and that's that. Not good. Where was all the training of the fighter, the (realistic) advice from the manager ring-side, the obvious heavy-breathing from non-stop throwing of punches? You guys are right. Someone, SOMEONE (unfortunately I'm not qualified), should be able to create a realistic boxing series. I don't care if the graphics are 1999, or if we have to click-click-click just to do anything in the menus.

[simgamer0005]

as far as FNC, i had it on PS3. i think i downloaded exactly 1 patch and updated exactly 1 tuner. but then when subsequent patches came out, i read reviews that it created more problems. so after that i never took the game online again because i somehow had really good gameplay. for FNC, it is also very important to edit the sliders, i think lowering punch accuracy and a few others to try to lower punches per round a bit. also i specifically edited Roy Jones Jr and Bernard Hopkins ratings and styles. i made Roy Jones a little bit faster and changed his blocking style from what it was assigned to the upright style, and i managed to have some great fights between the two. the way i had it it was a fun game, but you really have to take advantage of the settings available in the game to get great matches vs the CPU.

as far as boxing games, there are still things not really implemented in the game. first of all, the camera angles. although FNC had sort of a broadcast style camera, the zoom wasn't right compared to the regular side view. the broadcast view was not suited to the player movement as well. that view needs to look like a real broadcast, and some zoom, height options might be helpful too. the game looked and controlled better from the side view in FNC, with moving your boxer left and right with up or down on the left analog stick. that's the Fight Night style, but ideally, a boxing game should have a broadcast camera that looks right and controls good with a camera-relative control system. Victorious Spirits on the PSP is an example of having this camera view (with auto zooming) and it actually working with the control scheme. (unlike FNC)

Another thing for a boxing game is clinching and referee interaction. we just haven't seen anything close to a real referee yet. FNC was the first fight night to actually have a referee!! but in FNC, he doesn't do anything. he doesn't get in there and break up clinches and separate the fighters, they just break automatically after a while. it's more then just the animations too. you should have the choice between multiple referees in a realistic boxing game. you should be able to choose to have a Joe Cortez style referee, who works up a sweat breaking anything close to a clinch (like Mayweather Hatton) or another type of referee, like the one in Guerrero Berto, that lets the fighters work out of a clinch. you could basically be able to choose whether a ref is lenient or strict. you should also be able to do rabbit punches in the clinch, and maybe even unintentional low blows. (where you aim for the body but the guy charges you and you hit him low by accident) the referees should show emotion and be part of the match. FNC actually did have a decent clinching mechanic. you could clinch below the shoulder, from a leaning position, etc. it was an improvement, but you still couldn't do anything when you were in the clinch. you know in KO Kings 2000 on PS1, you could actually throw punches in the clinch, and push the guy off. One thing FNC did really well was the blocking was very good, especially along the ropes. with enough speed and blocking skills, you could actually lie on the ropes, and block and feint around, and actually score on the ropes. that was one of the best things about FNC actually.

[jethrotull]

Fight Night looked great, and I loved that we could share boxers, but the game was broken. Career mode would freeze and the patches made it worse. I would love a generic game as long as we could do some major editing.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaveDQ

I used to think that realism meant boring with gaming, but then I started realizing I'm putting out $60.00 on a game, and then being able to hit free throws from full court, throwing 8 touchdown passes in one half and throwing 200 punches a round became boring. If the detail is there, the game can be an extremely exciting play. There is a reason these sports generate support. The sport itself is exciting. Yes, the "action" moments boost the excitement, but the sport alone, with all its statistic keeping, parity and skill make people come back.

I think I'm living proof of how realism can be fun for guys who don't know much about the sport.
I've never played basketball, nor do I really watch it. Yet, I purchased 2k12 based on the strong reviews.
I loved that game. It was tough, and I sucked at it, but I was forced to learn strategies and play like a real game.
In Live I could go end to end, but not in 2K. And I enjoyed the heck out of it.

I still think there's room in a game to have multiple settings for people that just want to spam punches without penalty and those who want a realistic game.
And online, you could even have different servers/rooms based on those preferences as well.
I wouldn't think it could be that tough.

[nickelplaydit]

A good balance will get both crowds which is always the tricky part of it .. how do you make a respectable boxing game that pleases most?

Personally Sim should always be first on the to do list .. if its not anywhere like the real thing then im not interested.

and if EA actually takes a another swing at this then i hope they'll balance out the edges you have btwn the controls. buttons vs. sticks. im starting to hate that i lose same way which is the A B combos in late rds (hook, hook,). not that i dont see it coming but guys are literally leaning on small exploited advantages that have nothing to do with boxing. (leaves soap box)

[threattonature]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

I think I'm living proof of how realism can be fun for guys who don't know much about the sport. I've never played basketball, nor do I really watch it. Yet, I purchased 2k12 based on the strong reviews. I loved that game. It was tough, and I sucked at it, but I was forced to learn strategies and play like a real game. In Live I could go end to end, but not in 2K. And I enjoyed the heck out of it. I still think there's room in a game to have multiple settings for people that just want to spam punches without penalty and those who want a realistic game. And online, you could even have different servers/rooms based on those preferences as well. I wouldn't think it could be that tough.

That's what I never understood. Just have two different settings, similar to how NBA 2K has a casual and sim set of sliders.

Hell have different rooms for each and different titles and everything.

[jmarcguy]

Nothing is worse than losing to someone you know is awful but knows how to play the game. Guy beat me throwing all jabs & straights moving around with block up all game. Missed Well over half his punches.

[gravity62]

I have to agree that boxing is not as popular a sport as it used to be in the past. Here's what I think is hurting the sport right now. First and foremost, it HAS to be that there are 12 rounds instead of 15 in champoinship fights. The reason being is mostly because of the heavyweight division. If they brought back 15 rounds today, the heavyweight division would actually "shrink" over time. Meaning, the big bahemaths of the division would have to come in, in better shape in order to endure those last three rounds, if nessessary. In turn, heavyweight would in fact be more skill and endurance driven; so you probably would see fighters with size a skill sets like a Chris Byrd, or a Ken Norton, a Muhammad Ali, or a Sonny Liston in thier prime being champs today. The only reason why you have huge fighters bulking up and dominating is because of 12 rounds instead of 15 in big fights, if you think about it. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact. 12 rounds killed heavyweight boxing slowly since the late 80's.

Which leads me to this:... They should bring back weigh-ins the morning of the fight. A fighter like Alexis Arguello carried the lower divisions below welterweight in the 70's. He.. was.. awesome. But he would be nowhere near the fighter he was back then, if he fought now with these rules because he had small bones. Fighters that kill themselves, and starve themselves to make weight should be pentalized for doing so, but are rewarded by bulking up somtimes over 10% of thier body weight, sometimes even PAST the next weight class after the weigh-in, which makes no sense to me. When you starve your body, your metabolism (which is the efficiency that your body breaks down fat) slows down and stores fat much easier, and that makes a weight-drained fighter bulk up after the weight-in. They should learn how to eat like the legends did in the past.

Imagin Alexis Arguello fighting Arturo Gatti at 140. That is a DANGEROUS fight! But why? Because when fighters bulk up they can't move around as much and have more concussive power per punch because of that added weight. That's why we have weight classifications in the first place. All they have to do is bring back weigh-ins the morning of the fight with 15 rounds. What would the "Explosive Thin Man", Alexis Arguello, be in this sport today with these rules they have now? No where NEAR as great! And that is a shame because he was such an ambasadar to boxing and stood for doing things the right way, and he would get penalized because the rules just don't make sense. He actually was thin on purpose to just show that you don't have to be bulked up to be doninant. And some fans actually think that most of the new crop of fighters are actually better becuase of that added power. What if they didn't get to bulk up before the fight, how much better would they be then? They wouldn't be better! I give fighters like Floyd Mayweather credit for being one of those fighters who doesn't have to bulk up after the weigh-in to be great. What About Zab Juda vs. Kostya Tszyu? Tszyu was way too bulked up for that fight, that's why HE won so easily.

And what about fights lasting 60 minutes before (15, three minute rounds, plus one minute corner work after each round) as aposed to 48 minutes now, or 12 rounds. One hour of fighting is acually perfect to me, and is much more of an event. So why did they change that? My only answer is because some fighters don't want that because they bulk up so much after the weigh-ins. And there's no way to stop that from happening unless the boxing commision actually stops that and actually regulates what they are eating and drunking no matter when the weigh-in is in the future somehow.

What about this!? What about what fighters wear now in boxing that makes people not want to watch as much? Fighters fighting with two different style gloves most times, that don't even match! And companies make sure that they put big logos right ON those gloves to advertise the brand just so people can see the brand that fighters are using. Do they even care about the history of the sport anymore?? What about trunks all the way down to their knees now, with some of the ugliest boxing shoes and boxing attire I've EVER seen! I'll tell you why they shouldn't wear those atrosious long baggy shorts.. Because fight fans actually tune in to the weigh-ins before the fight just to watch their muscularity to see who's ready to fight. And I think fighters acutally HATE their bodies after they bulk up so much, as to why they wear their trunks all the way down to their knees, with the cup protecter over their stomach. It makes sense what i'm saying, because they just started doing that in the 90's, AFTER they changed the weigh-ins so fighters can bulk up. Or unless fighters just do that just to be disrespectfull to the sport and it's history.

I'm saying if they bring back all these things boxing will eventually be back as the number 1 sport in the world again, because it's the most pure, and the most tactical of all sports when everything is right with boxing!... And one more thing they should do; get rid of the cruiserweight division and keep just 2 belts per weightclass. Because it makes no sense to have a division between lightheavy, and heavyweight. The sport of boxing is a game and that game is being messed up and I want to see some things change. I didn't want to say any names but I had to just to makes my point. So am I right or wrong?? What's your take on this, guys??

[SHAKYR]

Quote: Originally Posted by gravity62

I have to agree that boxing is not as popular a sport as it used to be in the past. Here's what I think is hurting the sport right now. First and foremost, it HAS to be that there are 12 rounds instead of 15 in champoinship fights. The reason being is mostly because of the heavyweight division. If they brought back 15 rounds today, the heavyweight division would actually "shrink" over time. Meaning, the big bahemaths of the division would have to come in, in better shape in order to endure those last three rounds, if nessessary. In turn, heavyweight would in fact be more skill and endurance driven; so you probably would see fighters with size a skill sets like a Chris Byrd, or a Ken Norton, a Muhammad Ali, or a Sonny Liston in thier prime being champs today. The only reason why you have huge fighters bulking up and dominating is because of 12 rounds instead of 15 in big fights, if you think about it. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact. 12 rounds killed heavyweight boxing slowly since the late 80's. Which leads me to this:... They should bring back weigh-ins the morning of the fight. A fighter like Alexis Arguello carried the lower divisions below welterweight in the 70's. He.. was.. awesome. But he would be nowhere near the fighter he was back then, if he fought now with these rules because he had small bones. Fighters that kill themselves, and starve themselves to make weight should be pentalized for doing so, but are rewarded by bulking up somtimes over 10% of thier body weight, sometimes even PAST the next weight class after the weigh-in, which makes no sense to me. When you starve your body, your metabolism (which is the efficiency that your body breaks down fat) slows down and stores fat much easier, and that makes a weight-drained fighter bulk up after the weight-in. They should learn how to eat like the legends did in the past. Imagin Alexis Arguello fighting Arturo Gatti at 140. That is a DANGEROUS fight! But why? Because when fighters bulk up they can't move around as much and have more concussive power per punch because of that added weight. That's why we have weight classifications in the first place. All they have to do is bring back weigh-ins the morning of the fight with 15 rounds. What would the "Explosive Thin Man", Alexis Arguello, be in this sport today with these rules they have now? No where NEAR as great! And that is a shame because he was such an ambasadar to boxing and stood for doing things the right way, and he would get penalized because the rules just don't make sense. He actually was thin on purpose to just show that you don't have to be bulked up to be doninant. And some fans actually think that most of the new crop of fighters are actually better becuase of that added power. What if they didn't get to bulk up before the fight, how much better would they be then? They wouldn't be better! I give fighters like Floyd Mayweather credit for being one of those fighters who doesn't have to bulk up after the weigh-in to be great. What About Zab Juda vs. Kostya Tszyu? Tszyu was way too bulked up for that fight, that's why HE won so easily. And what about fights lasting 60 minutes before (15, three minute rounds, plus one minute corner work after each round) as aposed to 48 minutes now, or 12 rounds. One hour of fighting is acually perfect to me, and is much more of an event. So why did they change that? My only answer is because some fighters don't want that because they bulk up so much after the weigh-ins. And there's no way to stop that from happening unless the boxing commision actually stops that and actually regulates what they are eating and drunking no matter when the weigh-in is in the future somehow. What about this!? What about what fighters wear now in boxing that makes people not want to watch as much? Fighters fighting with two different style gloves most times, that don't even match! And companies make sure that they put big logos right ON those gloves to advertise the brand just so people can see the brand that fighters are using. Do they even care about the history of the sport anymore?? What about trunks all the way down to their knees now, with some of the ugliest boxing shoes and boxing attire I've EVER seen! I'll tell you why they shouldn't wear those atrosious long baggy shorts.. Because fight fans actually tune in to the weigh-ins before the fight just to watch their muscularity to see who's ready to fight. And I think fighters acutally HATE their bodies after they bulk up so much, as to why they wear their trunks all the way down to their knees, with the cup protecter over their stomach. It makes sense what i'm saying, because they just started doing that in the 90's, AFTER they changed the weigh-ins so fighters can bulk up. Or unless fighters just do that just to be disrespectfull to the sport and it's history. I'm saying if they bring back all these things boxing will eventually be back as the number 1 sport in the world again, because it's the most pure, and the most tactical of all sports when everything is right with boxing!... And one more thing they should do; get rid of the cruiserweight division and keep just 2 belts per weightclass. Because it makes no sense to have a division between lightheavy, and heavyweight. The sport of boxing is a game and that game is being messed up and I want to see some things change. I didn't want to say any names but I had to just to makes my point. So am I right or wrong?? What's your take on this, guys??

Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with why the Fight Night series isn't doing well. The reason it isn't doing well is because the game doesn't capture boxing realistically. MMA is said to be taking over boxing but they can outsell a boxing game or keep it numbers up.
It's about making a game that represent a sport realistic with all the depth and details you see happen for that sport.

[gravity62]

Does anybody know what's different about the sport as to why it's not ther number 1 sport on the planet like it was to be in the past?