“The Top Reasons Fight Night Round 4 lost its Appeal so fast.”

[SHAKYR]

Gameplay

Too arcadish for many players- Many fans were turned off by the stamina and ability to throw too many punches without consequences.

Presentation and depth to the game was limited and boring after a while.

Boxer AI showed no real representation of the boxers they were supposed to be. Boxer styles were mostly the same. A.I. made all CPU fighters the same.

Counter Freezes

Things that made fighters Champions and Legends are not present in the game. The Jab has no effectiveness, Clinching is useless, and Pure Boxers cannot use movement to get opponent's to walk into punch thus doing bigger damage. The game was "disproportionately skewed" to create in-fights no matter who you had.

The Haymakers. I got 4 words for them. They Need To Go. They got 3 strikes and they need to be out just like the parries had its 3 strikes and it was out. The haymakers in FN series need to go, and they need to focus on making every punch count like in FN 2004, and add more signature punch moves in the next game and make them more effective like they are in real boxing, and David Haye's signature punch the Hayemaker should be a signature punch move, instead of doin' a hadouken like Ken, Ryu & Akuma of Street Fighter.(Papinosis)

Presentation
Presentation was very limited

Short ring walks, lack of stats reported during introductions, lack of drama with decisions, awkward judging, and no replay coverage or broad cast camera.


Online
Online was too exploitable without the correct fixes added
Connectivity issues online prohibit some players from matching up (even by invite).
. Hidden records online with points given according to the level of opponents.

Legacy/Career
Legacy wasn't what it was hyped up to be and repetitive

You could not change anything about your fighter other than his clothing once you started his career, not his fighting style, not even his hair style! Also you never saw any awards once your name leaves the screen after you "win" one.

Customization and options
The Create A Boxer (CAB) Mode was a disappointment to many fans. The options for this mode were very limited. Many fans feel like it didn’t live up to the hype.

. Why are we doo-woppin' in FNR4 with the advance sliders were moving in unison like the Barbershop Quartet. And this is in my department/my neck off the woods, and when I was trying to make boxers, all I hear was doo-wopping, man I was hearing people in the background and I thought I was delusional but it started to happen to many fans around da globe when they were making a boxer in the game.(Papinosis)

Here's what FNR4 CABS advance sliders LIKE THE BARBERSHOP QUARTET:



Options and customization was limited

Not giving us enough sliders and settings for AI and CAB features etc.

The buttons not being available at launch. A lot of people chose other games (UFC) because of that . And the buttons were inferior because you can't throw body shots while moving.

EA need alot of depth and options to keep people interested, boxing is basically two guys throwing punches at each other, it's only when you break it down into the sweet science that it becomes so interesting. They need to give is the ability to do everything that can be done in the actual boxing world.

Many fans want to know the goals/vision of what the Producers. Are they after a Complete representation of the sport or are they still looking for a sweet spot between realism and "fun" aspects?




Fight Night should have been geared more toward the boxing fans and the hardcore after Facebreaker was released. If EA built a realistic boxing game people will play! Many of these casual and hardcore gamers like games so they will buy it anyway. The Sports gamer and boxing fan will play the game the longest if done right so they should be catered to.


I would like to thank the Fight Night "Wishlist Mafia"(Reignmaka,Uncani Edgeshot,Papinosis,Anthony Lynn,MackMoon,WellLoved,CountryBoy) for adding ideas to this.





.

[TheEndAllBeAll]

u know what too me this game just didnt have that wow factor like round 3 did, where were the different styles?? everybody punched and moved the same...

round 3 came out in 2005 right? so for 4 years people played even yes it had the parry system it was just fun too me,

Is it possible they can pair with Hbo boxing and take some from them, also the crowd needs to be more involved

what really killed it and its sales like u said was the button thing, most of my friends didnt even buy 4 cuz they heard no buttons, or either bought the game and took it back after like 2 weeks..not good ea what were u thinkin

[DaveDQ]

LOL @ the Barbershop Quartet.

I don't think the game lost its appeal. I just think EA initially molded the game to appeal to moderates (people who want something along the lines of boxing but also want a little Street Fighter in their boxing game). The only reason we see the inclusion of absurd haymakers, silly illegal blows and ridiculous looking knockdowns (with the ability tog et up by the count of 2) is because the development team let them in there.

I will always go back tot he headbutt in this game as the single biggest point of proof that this game leans more towards a middle of the road philosophy in design and style. Somewhere along the development process somebody approved the headbutt. As silly as it looks, where it is not included as incidental and included as a deliberate weapon, someone said, "keep it in." That to me sums up the philosophy of boxing the FN4 crew operated under.

I don't blame them though. What gave FN3 its appeal? Why did that game have such a positive vibe and feel? It was the graphics. Everyone saw that game and dropped their jaws. It was the first game to really show us we were in the "next generation" of console gaming, so people that really ahd zero interest in boxing picked it up because it was such a beautiful looking game (graphically). That's simply what comes first in this business. Graphics are the cover of the book, and in gaming, the majority of gamers judge a book by its cover.

So, I don't blame EA's team of developers for having to give FN4 a more arcade/simulation balance. They had to. They had to add the crazy looking knockdowns with the ability to get up because most gamers have fun watching that happen and being able to still fight. They don't want to run a 12 round bout that is "the sweet science" with the possibility of no knockdowns. They want blood flying, legs turning to jello, bodies flopping around and big super punches that look like they may have killed their opponent.

When we look at these companies as profit making businesses, they have to appeal to the masses. You can't fault them for developing a game that does that.

I can fault them for NOT giving the user the opportunity to play more towards the simulation side. That's where EA dropped the ball in this one, particularly with the online component.

[SHAKYR]

DaveQ, I have 3 questions for you.

1. Why would EA make Facebreaker an arcadish game for casual fans? EA misled many fans because they thought Fight Night Round 4 was going to be sim/realistic because they put out FaceBreaker

2. Do you think a boxing sim/realistic boxing game will sell?

3. Why did EA invited me last year to EA Canada to play the pre-Alpha version of the game when they know what I expected and how I feel about an authentic boxing experience?

[DaveDQ]

Quote: Originally Posted by SHAKYR

DaveQ, I have 3 questions for you. 1. Why would EA make Facebreaker an arcadish game for casual fans? EA misled many fans because they thought Fight Night Round 4 was going to be sim/realistic because they put out FaceBreaker 2. Do you think a boxing sim/realistic boxing game will sell? 3. Why did EA invited me last year to EA Canada to play the pre-Alpha version of the game when they know what I expected and how I feel about an authentic boxing experience?

1. I think Facebreaker was testing the waters on EA's behalf to see if they could offer soemthing along the lines of Ready to Rumble and have success doing so. I don't think anyone in EA management meant to imply that with Facebreaker being released we wouldn't have to worry about Fight Night being arcade like. I think that is a misconception that the community established. "We have Facebreaker, we don't need FN4 to be a silly arcade version of boxing."

2. Yes. If you compare Fight Night to others sports video games, you can argue that the series has done poorly with offering a simulation of the sport. Fight Night has never really been considered in the same dept. as games like NHL 10, NBA 2K etc. I don't know if it's because some don't take it as a serious offering in sports, or if it's because the developers haven't been very serious about giving it a more simulation oriented core. Nothing has stood out in Fight Night that has said, "Simulation." Usually it's their addition of particular boxers (Tyson, Ali etc.) that is their means of drawing people in. That and graphics. But, I do think you can make a game that gives you both sides of the coin. A game where a simple slider says, "Headbutts on/off." Look at the success of NBA 2K. You can play on an easy level and rack up points or you can play on the more difficult level and have a great basketball simulation, and that game continues to sell.

3. Maybe they wanted to form a Barbershop Quartet? lol I think they invited you because they wanted to get involved with the community and show people they are listening. I am one to believe that FN4 is the best offering yet. I like what they introduced with physics. I like the stamina slider and what it does. I still thoroughly enjoy my Legacy. Does it lack? Sure. But, that's what FN5 is for. They have to learn from what many are saying about Round 4. They have to put a game together that shows they truly care about both sides by offering lots of choices.

Think about how great FN3 sold and how there was a drop off with FN4. Will creating a one sided authentic boxing simulation improve sale or will it distract the casual? You have to play that piece when making these games. Sales is priority. EA has to find the balance with this title, making it a legitimate simulation of boxing but at the same time giving it an accessibility to the pick up and play casual gamer.

[SHAKYR]

I always say if it's a fighting game it will sell regardless of how sim/realistic it is. Fight Night Round 3 did so well for a couple of reasons, lobbies, buttons, and fans thought there would not be another game after EA Chicago closed.


I would say I'm the most out-spoken Fight Night Community Leader, because I'm the most critical of what a sports game is suppose to be. Fight Night should be under EA's Sports brand if it's not going to represent a sport.

There's no way in the world the UFC:Undisputed game should have out sold Fight Night Round 4 on it's first outing. That game did alot things correct that EA was scared to do...like 1 punch KO's.

UFC: Undisputed didn't do well because of it's fan-base; it did good because they were not scared to try and give fans a sim-like experience. I'm not a huge MMA fan, I bought the game based on what it tried to accomplish.

[DaveDQ]

Quote: Originally Posted by SHAKYR

UFC: Undisputed didn't do well because of it's fan-base; it did good because they were not scared to try and give fans a sim-like experience. I'm not a huge MMA fan, I bought the game based on what it tried to accomplish.

I have to respectfully disagree on this. This was the first UFC game to be released on any platform. That alone was huge for the positive sales in Undisputed. It was a great showing, and when you mentioned the one punch knockouts, I was immediately reminded of how necessary that is for a game like boxing. But, for UFC, a brand of MMA that is doing so well right now, a brand that is defining the sport, the name UFC alone got that game sales.

I'm not disagreeing that Fight Night should go more simulation. I'm just thinking of why they don't. It's my opinion that boxing doesn't have the "pop" MMA has right now, which would in turn challenge the producers of a boxing game to be creative in their style and approach. Obviously, EA felt trying to cater more to the arcade like experience would work better.

[SHAKYR]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaveDQ

I have to respectfully disagree on this. This was the first UFC game to be released on any platform. That alone was huge for the positive sales in Undisputed. It was a great showing, and when you mentioned the one punch knockouts, I was immediately reminded of how necessary that is for a game like boxing. But, for UFC, a brand of MMA that is doing so well right now, a brand that is defining the sport, the name UFC alone got that game sales. I'm not disagreeing that Fight Night should go more simulation. I'm just thinking of why they don't. It's my opinion that boxing doesn't have the "pop" MMA has right now, which would in turn challenge the producers of a boxing game to be creative in their style and approach. Obviously, EA felt trying to cater more to the arcade like experience would work better.

EA is going to chase it's hardcore sports fans away. Why do you think Madden loses so many fans each year and some of their fans are still playing NFL 2k5?

Mike Wang left EA because he knew what the fans wanted and knew the direction they were aiming for will make them lose fans instead of gain them. [he confirmed this to me in a PM]