New Review Posted: EA Sports Fight Night 2004
 

Chi Kong Lui reviews EA Sports Fight Night 2004

"Fight Night follows the recent trend of Electronic Arts titles having equal substance in its gameplay to match its glitzy style."

http://www.gamecritics.com/review/fi...t2004/main.php

Fabulous review.

It's nice to see someone step away from the en-vogue EA bashing that takes place on the more "arts" gaming sites out there and acknowledge the vastly superior presentation qualities that is almost universal with each of EA's releases.

And thanks for pointing out the missing boxers. I was really hoping Oscar and the Klitschko's (sp?) were in the game--that sucks that they're not. This one is still on my must-buy list. Do you think if it had had some of those other fighters you mentioned, you would have given it a 9.5 or 10? Just curious, I would totally agree with the knocking of a point or half-a-point if that was the case.

I'm still pretty peeved with the fact that Fight Night doesn't have clinches. I realize that it was probably dropped because many people feel that clinching has ruined the sport of boxing and that including it would impede the flow of the gameplay.

But at the same time, if Fight Night is really supposed to be a simulation of boxing, then it needs the clinch to be credible. It's a viable part of boxing strategy as it is known today, for better or for worse, and the lack of at least a tunable option makes Fight Night more of an exercise in excellent controls and less of a game about boxing.

Thanks for the props. :)

Its hard to say exactly. The missing boxers (especially now with Lewis retiring, leaving a WWE-like storyline for someone to take the crown) does play a factor. There's also the other issue of the lack of international flavor to the game. Fight Night is an amazing game and I like it more and more as I play it (hard mode takes the game to another level like it should), its just lacking that final "it" factor that pushes it over the edge to a 10. All the modes are fairly standard. Addressing any of the previous mentioned issues or even a more engaging simulation-like career mode could have elevated the game to 10 status.

Unfortunately, I played the Xbox version and wasn't able to try out the online play of the PS2. A good online experience could have allowed me to give it a 10, but I read somewhere that it wasn't all it could be. I really love this game though and I would actually go online for this one because its a new game and level playing field for all (unlike long-running games like Madden).

Chi

Thom, you actually caught me off guard here with your excellent observation because its actually something I didn't even consider. Scott and I talk about Fight Night regularly and its never come up in conversation. The reason being is that the game is just that good. Its so good in terms of its boxing gameplay and what it delivers that you never think anything is missing (the blocking and parrying features are so addictive and amazing). All my complaints were really presentation and meta issues.

That being said, would clinching make Fight Night a better game? Probably not. Some wily fighters are already annoying enough as is and having a clinch option would just make it worst. Would I want to clinch at any time? When I'm in danger, I usually just move around the ring and play defense. Clinching could help.

Theoretically, clinching is one of those things in boxing that isn't really a strategy as it is more an anomaly. I mean, you can't really win a fight by clinching. Building up a lead and clinching your way to victory is probably the ugliest way to fight so perhaps the developers wanted to omit that by decision.

Either way I agree that this can't be a complete boxing simulation without the clinch. Its a simple thing they could address and just tack it on in the future sequel. I just hope they don't make it too advantegeous of a move and make sure the judges penalize players for using it to survive.

Chi

Even the EA sports games in the early PlayStation days were a wreck. I think EA ruined their reputation mainly around the 16-bit time period to the early PlayStation days when they seem more concerned with snatching up prominant PC developers (Origin, Maxis).

For me, EA's resurgence starts with SSX and EA Canada. Then NBA Street made me a believer. I didn't think it was possible for me to give a EA game a 9.0 or higher until NBA Street.

When you look at what they are doing now with the Lord of the Rings and 007 games, they are just so ahead of the curve it comes to their content licensing and production values. What other company could get the entire cast of James Bond in addition to Dafoe, Klum, Elizabeth, and Mya all in the same game!

At least now the gameplay are usually decent (Everything or Nothing, Def Jam) to great (Need for Speed, SSX). I guess the only EA games that are sucking right now are the Medal of Honor titles.

EA's always had the right idea about the image of videogames (their commercials never show gamers on a couch), I just wasn't always on the same page in terms of gameplay. That gap now has been minimized considerably these days.

Chi

I frankly wasn't sad to see clinching left out of the game.

While I agree that clinching is a legit boxing strategy (tired fighters can hang on for dear life), the act of clinching just doesn't make for very interesting gameplay. The old KO Kings 2001 (PS1) had clinching, and I don't think I ever clinched anyone once in my 5,000 fights....

I'd rather see EA expand their roster of fighters, or work on the AI of the existing fighters, than spend any time working on implementing clinches.

As for EAs market dominance...there was a night a few weeks ago when I realized that I'd only played EA games for several days in a row. In fact, it's not uncommon for EA games to be stuck in my PS2 and Xbox at all times. Not sure how this happened, but those people, love them or hate them, are trying their damndest to make a good product, which is more than I can say for most of the other third-party vendors out there. They seem to be taking pride in the EA name brand, and that's a good thing, I believe. When was the last time they released a dog? I wasn't a fan of Everything or Nothing, but I still appreciated the high level of quality of the product.
-jones

The irony is that this company is called Electronic ARTS, but yet they don't exhibit many artistic qualities in their games. As you said, they seemed to be overly focused on the product-side of games and less on the creativity and art. Perhaps this is why they make the best sports games. Sports games are all about realism and immersion as oppose to innovation and creativity.

I just don't see a company like EA ever putting out something like Rez or Way of the Samurai.

EA has reputation of taking the hottest license on the market and slapping it together with the most popular genres of the day. They were doing it with the 007 and MoH license for years (who could forget 007 racing, ugh).

Chi

Well said, Chi.

While I agree that it's hard to imagine EA ever going out on a limb artisitically, we still have to give them their props for taking a big risk with Fight Night (remember, the old Knockout Kings wasn't all that bad) and, to a lesser extent, series like Need for Speed and SSX (two franchises that they've successfully managed to keep from going stale).

That said, I would like to see them just go completely balls out once a year, and put something totally off the wall on the market. Lord knows they can afford to take such chances.
-jones

Wonderfully said.

And everytime the elitists out there condemn EA for not releasing an artsy game, just remember that if it wasn't for titles like Madden selling a bazillion titles, the industry would not have nearly the household penetration in society that it does and there would be very, very, very few companies taking the risk on artsy titles. Part of the reason they do is because there is always the chance that some Madden/NBA Street/SSX/LoTR fan will walk into a store and just happen to find their artsy game interesting and buy it. Without EA, there would be a hell of a lot fewer people walking into Gamestop or EB.

And besides, what other company had the cajones (read: ridiculous large annual profits) to release a Rugby game in the US?

EA seems to be best at maintaining the status quo - their general philosophy is 'doing what we did before, only bigger and better'. I don't see anything especially wrong with that, as it certainly makes them money and enables them to make small innovations along the lines of Fight Night.

But then, I don't think it's an approach that deserves to be lauded either - I'm not convinced that EA is really doing anything for the future of the industry or as the medium itself. If I were to make a list of companies ranked by 'vision', EA would not make it, even though they're by far the most dominant developer working today.

(Disclaimer: I work for a company in direct competition with EA and I wouldn't describe them as 'revolutionary' either. The developers/publishers actually willing to take risks are few and far between.)

Yes, I too, do enjoy a good round of Madden. It's the dorm-room staple around here! (along with Sc2 and Halo)

EA has recently(well, since mid-PS1 days) started to EVOLVE their franchises, not start some revolution with them. They aren't the company that will make the next "revolutionary" title, but they keep making minor improvements in their franchises to keep them freash and familiar at the same time. Madden now isn't the same as it was 4 years ago, but they didn't do it overnight. They did it slowly, but surely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against games considered ground breaking or innovative, they are some of the best around. But I do like evolution, not revolution approach that EA takes to it's sport franchises (those are the only games I really play from them), and I personally think they'll be OK in the future, unless something completly unforseen happens.