News Post

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

05:07 PM - January 28, 2009 by RaychelSnr

Is 2009 the year of the fighting game? Street Fighter IV is coming out next month; King of Fighters XII will be out sometime after that; and there are two huge releases for sports fans this summer, UFC Undisputed and Fight Night Round 4.

While information is light on FNR4, there is definitely enough to begin speculating. When it comes UFC Undisputed, THQ is clearly pushing the game hard; it seems like there is a weekly press release. The contrasting approaches THQ and EA are taking when it comes to showing off their wares perhaps has something to do with being a known commodity, and simply being unknown.

Either way, as fans debate which sport is better, these games might help or hurt their arguments. Therefore, it is time to start analyzing two games that will be battling for fighting game supremacy in the not-so-distant future.

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

Game: Fight Night Round 4Reader Score: 7.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 38 - View All

Fight Night Round 4 Videos

Member Comments

# 1 thudias @ 01/28/09 05:12 PM

I am really looking forward to the UFC game I hope my expectations are met.

# 2 Salhus @ 01/28/09 06:27 PM

I don't think anybody would stand a chance against Tyson. Tyson, assuming a long training session and much work on the ground, would be too much punching power

# 3 JoeMimic @ 01/28/09 06:54 PM

I'd have to disagree about the Smackdown series mailing it in comment, 09 was definite improvement and step forward.

# 4 SHAKYR @ 01/28/09 07:14 PM

I think Fight Night Round 4 is going to reign supreme. I'm still buying the UFC game too...LOL!

# 5 St3fN_sTrApS @ 01/29/09 12:47 AM

I'm pretty stoked for them both. Mainly UFC but I'll end up buyin both. Hopefully all of our expectations are met. I know EA and THQ are workin hard to put these two games together.

# 6 ronnyballgame @ 01/29/09 12:18 PM

I am looking forward to both games, but UFC is going to be the one that I crave more. I am a huge UFC guy, and love MMA, and if they pull off what they say they are, this game is going to be the best of it's kind. Having 80 fights adds so much replayability, and I hope the career moode is TUF-eaque.

# 7 acarrero @ 01/29/09 06:03 PM

I'm really looking fwd to FN4. The UFC game? Not so much. I'm not a big fan of glorified bouncers fighting in a cage for $10,000. Brock Lesner is a star now? Boxing is real, you can't come fro the WWF and compete in boxing, it's fought at an elite level, MMA fighters wouldn't make it in boxing, otherwise they'd be there, making lots more $. I'm half-kidding, UFC might be the fighting sport of the future, but you can't just ignore boxing's history and think that UFC has reached the same level. Not even close.

# 8 Iadf @ 01/29/09 08:31 PM

i disagree acarrero's, i think mma/ufc will surpass boxing and i sorta think it already has on a popularity scale. i mean theres boxing in mma i've seen many ufc fights that looked like boxing matches but the beauty of it is that you have choices on whether to stay standing or take it to the ground. I see it as the future of professional fighting.

And you must be joking "MMA fighters wouldn't make it in boxing" its the opposite man lol tell that to George st. Pierre

# 9 mountlaurel @ 01/30/09 01:30 AM

I've been waiting for this game and I think I played a UFC game since the era of Playstation 1 or PSX but that one was way unbelievable on it's gameplay.

UFC 2009 Undisputed will be released this year I think I do hope that it will surpass lots of expectation. MMA and UFC is now getting a big buzz on this Sports Industry big names are now rising and that's Brock.

I do not disregard FIght Night and I'm a fan of Manny Pacquiao but the gameplay for me is not realistic that I think UFC 2009 must do it well I will be waiting for UFC title in Xbox and cross finger for it's great gaming experience

# 10 Acedeck @ 01/30/09 05:36 AM

Iadf-

Generally speaking MMA fighters wouldn't contend at the most elite levels of boxing due to the fact that it's only one facet of their sport. Boxers excel at that one facet. A fighter who's great at boxing in MMA and poor at the rest is a fighter who's going to find his way to the mat very quickly. MMA will never have the history of boxing, nor will it ever be as widely accepted as a true sport. MMA's popularity is through the roof, you're right. So is the WWE, so popularity isn't the issue here. MMA is too barbaric for it to ever truly be considered a sport. Popularity is one thing, but being the headline on Sportscenter is a whole different story. Think about it. Do you seriously think there's going to be a badass in UFC who people would rank up there with Ali? No. No matter how much someone dominates UFC, he's going to just be a barbaric animal who's really good at cagefighting. That's how the public will see it.

People may be into the MMA thing right now, partially based on the fact that boxing is in a down time at the moment. I don't see the MMA trend continuing much more than five or ten years though. It's caught on about as much as it's going to. You have two types of people: 1) the type of people who want to watch cagefighting. 2) the people who don't. Type 1 people are already watching it. Unfortunately, you'll never convince type 2 people that cagefighting is a legitimate sport or that it's better than boxing.

# 11 Writer's Block @ 01/30/09 01:12 PM

I always find these arguments kinda pointless as they tend to just go around in circles. Personally, I'm more of a boxing man myself, but I do enjoy MMA. I find it offensive when boxing fans say MMA takes no skill (I usually just show them a video of Fedor and they change their mind pretty quickly). 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.

As for the games, I'm looking forward to both games and I'll be buying them both.

# 12 allBthere @ 01/30/09 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmay


	Boxing is "real"? I'm sorry - but that's just nonsense. As if MMA isn't "real"? MMA fighters would be in boxing if they could make it? Did you ever thing that maybe... just maybe... they prefer MMA and the fact that it's a multidimensional sport that encompasses all aspects of fighting instead of just one? It's not like any boxer can just go into the MMA ring and win. I don't see why you somehow think that boxers are superior to MMA fighters in any way. It's a different sport. Boxing is one aspect of fighting. You use your hands and you punch. There's no ground game, there's no kicking, clinches are broken up, etc. MMA encompasses every aspect - punching, kicking, throwing, grappling... It's the complete package and it's every bit as hard as your precious "real" boxing.

I love both sports, and would say neither one is 'real fighting'. Fighting, lets say for your life, is scary and violent and life-changing. there are no arm-bars, there is no composure really - thre is ripping someone's eye out, bites to the throat as hard as you can, squeezing nut sacks, stomping on heads, and using whatever you can in your environement.
These are both sports without question, and I am a supporter of both, they both have a place and I agree w/ the boxing guy in that video that mma will not 'cause' boxing to fail, I also disagree w/ rogan about there being no 'new stars' for boxing.

Another thing I've found is that I'll choose a good boxing match over a mma fight recently. The last Berto fight was phenomenal against collazo, as was the ademek(sp?) fight. I also took a breat from the affliction fights to watch Mosley fight Margarito in its entirety

# 13 allBthere @ 01/30/09 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmay


	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.

# 14 Acedeck @ 01/30/09 02:27 PM

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.

# 15 agentk009 @ 01/30/09 02:30 PM

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.

# 16 Acedeck @ 01/31/09 06:53 AM

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.

# 17 faster @ 01/31/09 10:43 AM

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.

# 18 whosgotcha @ 01/31/09 01:13 PM

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.

# 19 Jimbo68 @ 02/04/09 01:04 PM

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!

# 20 kingmaster @ 03/05/09 01:22 PM

'"SS

« Previous12 Next »

More Links

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