EA Sports UFC 2 Vision Trailer, Ships Spring 2016

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phobia

I have the Japanese version and you making me want to play it again

I've actually contemplated buying a PSP just for VB.
The career mode was insanely deep. I believe you could even have injuries, like broken jaws.
Great, great game.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

Totally agree on all accounts, especially the bolded part. Using a fighters defensive attributes, as well as the opponents accuracy, there should be some AI-controlled head-movements, slight misses, or all out misses. IRL, if a fighter takes a massive bomb directly to the chin, 90% of the time, it's a KO or leads to a stoppage. I understand it's a viddya game so there's going to be some slight exaggerations, but I would love a hardcore mode where this kind of stuff comes into play. I've never actually played a UFC game before, but in last years version, were their ratings for each punch and kick? Right Uppercut Left jab Left Low Kick Right High Kick etc... Victorious Boxers for the PS2 was one of the best games I've ever played. On the climb to the championship you would face a number of different fighters all with different ratings and tendancies. One opponent had a hammer for a right-hand and concrete chin. He was slow as molasses so you had to dive in and out of the pocket to wear him out and avoid his right hand. Another opponent had crazy hand-speed and a wicked jab. So you had to bob-and-weave and cut off the ring in order to trap him and wail away. The champ was damn near impossible because he was a master at counter punching. Every fight felt organic because each opponent brought something different to the table. It wasn't a button masher, and it forced you to really utitlize your fighters strengths and come up with a gameplan in order to win. This is something that has been lacking in EA's Fight Night series, but I hope we can get more of this with UFC2.

Editable rosters: I'll start with my now standard statement: I CANT CONFIRM OR DENY IF THEY ARE IN THIS YEARS GAME OR NOT.

With that said, one of the reasons they werent in UFC1 is that the UFC is VERY involved in everything related to the roster. From the artwork, the ratings and who is in the game. The UFC actually approves the ratings of each fighter as it is concerned about how each fighter is represented in the game. So there could've been potential pushback in the past when it comes to editing fighters.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

Totally agree on all accounts, especially the bolded part. Using a fighters defensive attributes, as well as the opponents accuracy, there should be some AI-controlled head-movements, slight misses, or all out misses. IRL, if a fighter takes a massive bomb directly to the chin, 90% of the time, it's a KO or leads to a stoppage. I understand it's a viddya game so there's going to be some slight exaggerations, but I would love a hardcore mode where this kind of stuff comes into play. I've never actually played a UFC game before, but in last years version, were their ratings for each punch and kick? Right Uppercut Left jab Left Low Kick Right High Kick etc...

This actually relates to a bigger issue and one of the biggest debates that the Gamechangers have had:

Balance vs. Realism

As a primarily offline player and someone who wants a real simulation, my main focus is realism. Realism before everything else. So if I'm using Sarah Kaufmann and I'm fighting Ronda Rousey, I want it to be hard as hell for me to win on the higher difficulty levels. Why? Because Ronda is a better fighter and has more tools than Sarah. I'm not saying it should be impossible but I'm saying that I should have to stick to a very strict gameplan and get a little bit of luck to win that fight.

Some of the gamechangers agree with me. Others dont.

The ones that dont agree with me are people who play strictly online. They are more concerned with balance than realism. They want a win or loss to relate primarily to stick skills and the individual's fight IQ. So using my Ronda/Sarah example, If player 1 (using Sarah) is a smarter fighter and has better stick skills, he should be able to beat Player 2 (Ronda). This isnt to say that they dont want any realism or differences in fighters. But when you are playing competitively you want to feel like you lost because someone was the better player not because someone picked the better fighter.

How this relates to automatic head movement is I like the idea especially if it relates to strike accuracy and defensive ratings. A fighter like Machida should be able to use should be able to defend realistically and be hard to hit even if my stick skills arent that quick.

The counter is that auto movement takes away from player skill and thats important online. Auto movement would have to be turned off online because the majority of online players would hate it.

[Money99]

aholbert32, this is a great debate/conundrum all-around.

For someone as horrible at gaming as myself, I've actually grown to hate some of these fancy control schemes.
NHL in particular has an extremely fun Skill Stick that makes you feel like you're actually stickhandling the puck.

The problem is that I stink at it. So while I'm in control of a great stickhandler, he now sucks because I suck.
It translates into a very frustrating and unrealistic experience.

I could make an argument that I would never go online with UFC2 because I'd always lose.
So if controlling Rousey gives me a shot at winning, I'm going to use her.

I see the argument on both ends. I'm not sure how you fix it though.
I think the majority of online gamers are babies who need to win no matter what.
I've played enough online to know I never want to go back online. The whining and crying and poor sportsmanship has me weeping for the future.
And because of that, EA and others are forced to basically nerf the abilities of fighters and teams so that everyone doesn't simply pick Rousey or the Golden State Warriors and win a majority of the time.

Whatever choice they make, it basically screws over one side.
But straddling the line will just tick everyone off.

That's why I'm an offline gamer.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

aholbert32, this is a great debate/conundrum all-around. For someone as horrible at gaming as myself, I've actually grown to hate some of these fancy control schemes. NHL in particular has an extremely fun Skill Stick that makes you feel like you're actually stickhandling the puck. The problem is that I stink at it. So while I'm in control of a great stickhandler, he now sucks because I suck. It translates into a very frustrating and unrealistic experience. I could make an argument that I would never go online with UFC2 because I'd always lose. So if controlling Rousey gives me a shot at winning, I'm going to use her. I see the argument on both ends. I'm not sure how you fix it though. I think the majority of online gamers are babies who need to win no matter what. I've played enough online to know I never want to go back online. The whining and crying and poor sportsmanship has me weeping for the future. And because of that, EA and others are forced to basically nerf the abilities of fighters and teams so that everyone doesn't simply pick Rousey or the Golden State Warriors and win a majority of the time. Whatever choice they make, it basically screws over one side. But straddling the line will just tick everyone off. That's why I'm an offline gamer.

Ive thought about this alot over the past month and its tough. Sitting in the room with the Gamechangers made me realize a few of things:

1) I'm old. I think I was the only guy in there over 30.

2) Those guys may be the future and I'm not.


Their perspective is just different than mine and yours. They are growing up in an age where thousands of people go to sites like Twitch and watch people play video games for hours. Where there are competitive leagues (some with money involved) where people compete.

Dont get me wrong. The other gamechangers are huge MMA fans and they know the sport. One of them is an active fighter and the others not only can break down the sport but can break down the game.

Also, one thing to keep in mind is that they are louder than we are. The stats show that there are significantly more offline fighters than online fighters when it comes to EA UFC. You wouldnt know that by going online though. EA's UFC forum is significantly more active than the one here at OS. Those guys write novels about issues related to the game and how to fix them. Thats why out of the 9 gamechangers, I'm the only one who only plays offline.

With that said, EA has to try to make us all happy. If they go too much toward balance and player skill, they could lose a bunch of offline players. If they go too much toward realism, they could end up losing online players and online players will be very vocal about their displeasure.

Regarding NHL, I picked up the game when I was at EA and I gave up within 2 weeks. I suck at the skill stick and I just couldnt score. Like I said, I'm getting old.

[fishingtime]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

The ones that dont agree with me are people who play strictly online. They are more concerned with balance than realism. They want a win or loss to relate primarily to stick skills and the individual's fight IQ. So using my Ronda/Sarah example, If player 1 (using Sarah) is a smarter fighter and has better stick skills, he should be able to beat Player 2 (Ronda). This isnt to say that they dont want any realism or differences in fighters. But when you are playing competitively you want to feel like you lost because someone was the better player not because someone picked the better fighter.

I'm all for realism offline, but balance for online. You already have people picking the top fighters. Doing something like what you suggest would make it to where only top fighters would ever be picked online.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by fishingtime

I'm all for realism offline, but balance for online. You already have people picking the top fighters. Doing something like what you suggest would make it to where only top fighters would ever be picked online.

But as you said its already happening anyway. Nobody is using Frances Carmont in UFC1. The online guys are all using the top 5 guys in each division.

Here is what I want using the Sarah/Ronda example. Sarah is a better boxer and more heavy handed than Ronda. If I'm controlling Sarah and I'm using her realistically (movement/keeping away from the clinch/landing strikes), I should have a decent chance to beat Ronda if Ronda (either AI or someone online) isnt executing her gameplan.

If the person controlling Ronda is executing her gameplan (Clinches/Throws/Groundwork), that person should win. Why? Because Ronda is a higher rated fighter and is using the aspects of her game that she is better than Sarah at to win the fight.

I'm not saying that if I'm fighting a top guy like Tweedy, I should be able to take a higher rated fighter and win no matter what. I'm just saying that if I fight realistically and use my fighter's strengths and Tweedy isnt, I should have a chance.

[polyduster]

I'm not sure if it's the current UFC game or not, so please dont yell at me lol........what about tailoring the stats for realism offline and having the option to turn on "Even Fight" where everything would be even for both fighters and this would keep the online crowd happy by keeping the advantage to the player with a better game plan and stick skills. I thought UFC 3 Undisputed had this option.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk