1. Five Years of Development vs. Core Gameplay
A stamina–punch balance system isn’t an advanced physics simulation or a bleeding-edge feature. It’s basic sports-game design — something games like Fight Night 2004 or even early Knockout Kings handled more believably decades ago.
So when a studio spends five years in development and still can’t stop spam:
-
It doesn’t look like an oversight.
-
It looks like a conscious design choice.
2. Why “Poor Balance” Doesn’t Add Up
If it were truly just “poor balancing,” SCI had multiple patches, community betas, and years of feedback to tune it. Instead, spamming has been a problem since early alpha footage and remains a problem today. That suggests:
-
Either they want volume punching to remain viable (to appeal to casuals).
-
Or their design team doesn’t prioritize simulation authenticity enough to fix it.
3. What 5 Years Should Mean
After half a decade, fans expect:
-
Mature stamina systems (output tied to fatigue, form breaking down).
-
Vulnerability mechanics (openings when reckless).
-
Boxer differentiation (pressure swarmer vs. measured counterpuncher).
Instead, we got a system where nearly every boxer can throw with arcade-like volume and little consequence.
4. The Real Problem
It’s not just “poorly balanced.”
It’s philosophy. SCI shifted away from the “chess match” realism Ash Habib once described and leaned into arcade-hybrid pacing. Calling it “unbalanced” is almost a cover — the balance serves the wrong vision of boxing.
✅ In other words: after 5 years, this isn’t an accident — it’s either intentional, or a refusal to fix something that undermines their own “simulation” branding.
No comments:
Post a Comment