The Interview That Sparked the Debate
In a YouTube interview with JayMMA (“Ash Habib Opens Up About Undisputed…”), Ash Habib (CEO of Steel City Interactive) discussed Undisputed’s damage system with surprising candor.
At 8:29–8:52, the interviewer(TraySold) pressed the issue:
“If y’all could — like we would love to see the damage that we’re doing to somebody just a little bit more. Like I could be hitting somebody with a bunch of hooks and at the end of the fight they like ready to go to the party. So if we can get a little better visual representation on the fighters round after round after a fight…”
Ash responded between 8:53 and 10:16:
“One of our very early builds, the damage was… like clearly you could see this guy is actually [hurt]. The very first trailer with Conor Benn and Josh Kelly had more damage than what we’ve got in the game now. And I think what we’ve had to do over time is — not that licensing is an issue, but sometimes that can cause us one or two issues… whether it’s the likes of the British Boxing Board of Control, making sure we’re not glorifying violence and things like that. As a boxing fan and gamer first and foremost, I wanted to do all this kind of stuff. I went pretty wild with some of these ideas. But I learned the challenges licensing brings.”
This clip is the only on-record moment where the BBBofC is linked directly to Undisputed’s toned-down damage system.
Licensing vs. Direct Intervention
The way Ash frames it suggests caution, not censorship. There is:
-
No BBBofC policy requiring videogames to reduce depictions of boxing injuries.
-
No directive from the Board telling SCI to pull back damage.
Instead, this sounds like self-censorship — SCI tempering features out of fear of upsetting licensors, then invoking those licensors to explain the change to fans.
Other Real Influences on Damage
-
Ratings Boards (ESRB & PEGI)
-
Undisputed carries a Teen rating, which naturally restricts excessive gore and extreme blood effects.
-
Comparable titles like EA UFC walk this same line successfully.
-
-
Technical Constraints
-
Facial swelling, deformation, and injury progression are resource-heavy features.
-
A smaller studio like SCI may not have had the bandwidth to maintain these systems at the level shown in early builds.
-
-
Design Balance
-
SCI may have toned down visuals to preserve fighter likenesses and prevent matches from turning grotesque, which can undermine immersion.
-
Comparisons: How Other Games Handled Damage
Fight Night (EA Sports)
-
Featured progressive swelling, bruising, and cut stoppages that impacted gameplay.
-
Marketed its damage system as a core realism feature.
-
Still carried a Teen rating and used licensed fighters.
EA UFC Series
-
Pioneered real-time swelling, cuts, hematomas, and blood spatter.
-
Injuries escalated dynamically with each strike.
-
Approved by UFC leadership despite ESPN sponsors and a global image.
-
Ratings boards allowed this within Teen/Mature thresholds.
Lessons for Undisputed
-
Licensors don’t automatically restrict realism. If UFC approved brutal realism in its games, the BBBofC likely wasn’t uniquely restrictive.
-
Ratings already set the boundaries. Fight Night and UFC delivered visible brutality while staying within Teen/Mature limits.
-
Damage realism sells. EA used damage as a feature. SCI presented its reduced system as a licensing necessity.
The Real Picture
-
Ash did invoke the BBBofC at 8:53–10:16 when explaining toned-down damage.
-
But there’s no evidence the Board intervened directly.
-
More plausible reasons: ratings goals, development scope, and internal design choices.
Final Word
The BBBofC narrative is less about regulation and more about framing compromises. Hardcore fans are right to be skeptical: boxing is violent, and realism demands that violence be represented.
By contrast, Fight Night and UFC proved that licensed combat-sports games can deliver visible brutality while keeping licensors and ratings boards satisfied. Undisputed’s softened visuals are SCI’s own decision — not one forced by the BBBofC.
Until SCI embraces authenticity as a design pillar, citing regulators will continue to sound like a false narrative, not a genuine limitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment