Why SCI’s Excuses About Animations and Code Don’t Add Up

Fans keep hearing the same line over and over from Will Kinsler and certain content creators:

“The code is poorly optimized, that’s why the game has instability.”
“If we add animations, each boxer has to be adjusted manually, or things break.”
“The engine just can’t handle what the community is asking for.”

On the surface, this sounds believable — but when you dig deeper, it feels like PR spin and an easy blame game, not the full truth. Let’s break it down.

1. The PR Pipeline

SCI doesn’t usually say these things directly to the whole community. Instead, Will talks to content creators behind closed doors, then those creators repeat the message to fans.

This makes it sound “grassroots” and authentic, even though it’s controlled messaging.
It distances SCI from accountability — if you argue, you’re arguing with a content creator, not the studio.
It turns technical problems into sympathy points instead of accountability.

This is a classic PR stunt: shift the narrative, deflect blame, and let community voices carry the message.

2. The Excuse: “Each boxer must be adjusted manually for animations”

This is where fans get frustrated. Why? Because other sports games have been solving this problem for decades.

Fight Night, NBA 2K, FIFA, Madden all share a base animation system across their entire roster.
They plug in unique animations (like Ali’s shuffle, Curry’s shot, Messi’s dribble) as overrides, not as completely new systems per player.
If you add a new jab, it slots into the base system — you don’t have to rebuild every boxer by hand.

If SCI really has to touch every boxer individually, it means their pipeline was built poorly from the start. That’s not a Unity problem — that’s a design problem.

3. The Engine Blame Game

Unity is not the issue here. Unity can absolutely handle:

Large animation graphs and blend trees.
Shared controllers with override slots.
Data-driven AI systems powered by sliders and profiles.

This is standard practice in Unity, Unreal, and other engines. Saying “the engine can’t do it” is just a cop-out. What they mean is: “the way we built it makes it harder than it should be.”

4. The Real Fix: A Tendency Slider System

Instead of excuses, SCI should be talking about solutions — and one of the most proven solutions is a tendency slider system.

Here’s how it works:

Every boxer gets a profile of sliders (0–100) that control their style and decisions.
Categories include:
- Strategy (risk-taking, ring control)
- Offense (combo depth, head/body mix, volume punching)
- Defense (blocking vs slipping, footwork-first vs guard-first)
- Engagement (clinch frequency, counter-hunting)
- Footwork (looseness, bounce, lateral bias)
- Rhythm/Timing (burstiness, trap setting, tempo)
- Adaptability (ability to change after rounds, adjust to opponents)

These sliders then drive:

AI decisions in real time.
Animation blending (footwork looseness, head movement style).
Gameplay tendencies that make each boxer unique.

Result: You don’t need to manually re-check 100 boxers. You just adjust their profile sliders. If an animation breaks, it’s caught in testing automatically — not by hand for each boxer.

5. Why Fans Shouldn’t Buy the Excuse

Saying “we can’t add animations because it breaks everything” is really saying: “we designed the system poorly.”
Saying “Unity can’t do this” is misleading — Unity is fully capable; the problem is in SCI’s workflow.
Blaming “bad code” and “engine issues” is a way to make fans think improvements are impossible when really it’s about priorities, planning, and investment.

✅ Bottom Line for Fans

Don’t let PR spin fool you.

Other sports games solved this years ago.
Unity is not the limitation — SCI’s design choices are.
A tendency slider system is the real solution for uniqueness and scalability.

So when you hear “we tried, but it causes too many issues”, understand it for what it is: a way to lower expectations and cover up poor planning.

Poe’s Think Tank

Friday, September 19, 2025