MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN: I DON'T OWE SCI, ASH HABIB, OR UNDISPUTED 2 ANYTHING!

Why Asking Boxing Fans for Their Opinions Means Accepting Criticism, Not Just Praise

By Poe | The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog

Why Ask Boxing Fans for Their Opinions If You Don't Want to Hear Them?

There is something happening within the boxing videogame community that needs to be addressed.

People keep asking boxing fans and gamers what they think about SCI's upcoming Undisputed 2, based on what has been shown so far. However, the moment someone expresses an opinion that is not overwhelmingly positive, certain members of the community become offended.

Why?

Why ask people for their opinions if you are only interested in hearing what you want them to say?

Why should someone have to praise a videogame company, its owner, or an upcoming product simply because other people are excited about it?

Some fans react as though they have personally invested millions of dollars into SCI. They defend the company, its decisions, and its upcoming game with a level of emotional attachment that makes it difficult to have an honest conversation about what has actually been demonstrated.

Let me make something perfectly clear.

My opinions are mine. I don't owe SCI anything. I don't owe Ash Habib anything. I don't owe any videogame developer or publisher my praise, loyalty, or silence.

I am a boxing fan, a former boxer, a longtime boxing videogame enthusiast, and a consumer who has spent decades supporting this genre.

I have every right to express my opinions about the games being developed, especially when those games are being marketed to the very community I have spent years advocating for.

If you ask me what I think, don't get offended when I tell you.

And if my opinion differs from yours, that does not make either of us enemies.

SCI Has Shown Three Boxers, Sunny Edwards Joining the Team, and a Boxing Gym Entrance. Where Is the Actual Gameplay?

Let's be specific about what SCI has shown us regarding Undisputed 2.

So far, SCI has shown three boxers, revealed that retired professional boxer Sunny Edwards is part of the development team, and presented an opening scene featuring the entrance to a boxing gym.

That's it.

We have not been shown a comprehensive demonstration of the actual boxing gameplay, the mechanics, the fighting systems, or the features that will define the sequel.

And yet, some people within the community are already asking fans to express their opinions about the game, only to become offended when those opinions are not overwhelmingly positive.

What exactly are we supposed to be evaluating?

Three boxers?

The involvement of Sunny Edwards?

The entrance to a boxing gym?

I have no problem with SCI bringing a former professional boxer onto its development team. Sunny Edwards has firsthand boxing knowledge that could potentially contribute to the development of more realistic boxing mechanics, boxer-specific behaviors, ring strategy, and the overall fighting experience.

However, his involvement alone does not demonstrate what the finished game will deliver.

Having a professional boxer on a development team does not automatically guarantee that the developers will implement every realistic boxing mechanic he recommends.

It does not guarantee that his knowledge will influence the game's core design.

And it certainly does not establish whether the sequel will address the concerns I have with the original Undisputed.

Likewise, showing three boxers tells us very little about the actual gameplay experience.

And an opening scene featuring a boxing gym entrance does not answer the questions I have about clinching, inside fighting, footwork, defensive mechanics, boxer-specific tendencies, realistic stamina, the career ecosystem, or the various other systems I believe a comprehensive boxing videogame should have.

I cannot evaluate gameplay mechanics that have not been demonstrated.

This is precisely why I remain on the fence about Undisputed 2.

I remember what was presented during the ESBC era, and I remember what we ultimately received with Undisputed.

I am not going to allow promotional material, ambitious statements, or the involvement of recognizable boxing personalities to establish my expectations before I see what the actual game can deliver.

If someone is excited about what SCI has revealed so far, that is perfectly fine.

But don't ask me what I think about Undisputed 2 and then become offended when I tell you that three boxers, a retired boxer joining the development team, and the entrance to a boxing gym are not enough to convince me that the sequel will deliver the realistic boxing experience I have been advocating for.

Show me the boxing. Show me the mechanics. Show me the gameplay systems. Show me the features. Show me what has actually improved over the original Undisputed.

Until then, my position remains unchanged.

I am on the fence.

And I do not owe SCI, Ash Habib, or anyone else an apology for that.

I Remember ESBC. I Remember What Was Shown, and I Remember What We Received.

One of the biggest reasons I am cautious about Undisputed 2 is my experience following the original ESBC project, which eventually became Undisputed.

I remember the early presentations.

I remember the ambitious vision.

I remember the gameplay demonstrations, the discussions about realism, and the expectations that were established around what this boxing videogame could become.

The original project caught my attention because it appeared to be pursuing the type of boxing experience I had wanted for decades.

That is why I followed its development so closely.

That is why I paid attention to what was being presented.

And that is why I have been so vocal about the difference between the original vision and the game that ultimately reached consumers.

From my perspective, the finished version of Undisputed did not fulfill many of the expectations established during the ESBC era.

Features and gameplay systems that I considered essential to a realistic boxing experience were either missing, limited, changed, or did not reach the level of depth I had anticipated.

The absence of a fully developed clinching and inside-fighting system is one example.

The lack of a visible in-ring referee is another.

Then there are the broader concerns involving individual boxer authenticity, defensive depth, movement, stamina, reactions, career mode, and the overall boxing ecosystem.

I am not going to forget those concerns simply because a sequel is being developed.

And I am certainly not going to pretend my experience with the first game is irrelevant when evaluating the second.

If a company wants to rebuild my confidence, it needs to demonstrate meaningful improvements, not ask me to forget what happened before.

That is not hatred.

That is not a personal attack against the developers.

That is a reasonable expectation from someone who has followed the project, supported the boxing videogame genre, and paid attention to its development.

I do not need to see another beautifully presented boxing gym entrance to understand that SCI can produce attractive environments.

I need to see what happens when two boxers step inside the ring.

I want to know whether the sequel addresses the limitations I experienced in the original Undisputed.

And until SCI demonstrates those improvements, I see no reason to make assumptions about the quality or depth of the upcoming game.

Stop Treating Criticism as an Attack Against the Company

One of the biggest problems within the boxing videogame community is the tendency to treat criticism as hostility.

If someone points out that Undisputed lacks certain mechanics, they are accused of hating the game.

If someone questions SCI's development priorities, they are accused of attacking the developers.

If someone says they are not impressed by what has been shown of Undisputed 2, they are told they are being negative.

Why?

Why can't we discuss what is missing from a videogame without someone taking it personally?

If a person says they are excited about Undisputed 2, that is their opinion.

If another person says they are cautiously optimistic, that is their opinion.

If someone else says they have seen nothing that interests them, that is also their opinion.

All three people should be able to express themselves without being attacked.

A videogame company does not need fans policing the community to protect it from criticism.

The developers can demonstrate their work, answer questions, explain their design decisions, and allow the product to speak for itself.

What concerns me is when conversations about gameplay mechanics, technical limitations, and development priorities turn into arguments about whether someone is sufficiently loyal to a company.

We are boxing videogame consumers, not unpaid public relations representatives.

We do not need to defend every decision a company makes.

We do not have to agree with every statement made by its owner.

And we certainly do not have to celebrate every promotional announcement as though it represents a major advancement in boxing videogame development.

I Know Boxing, and I Know What I Want in a Boxing Videogame

Let me address another issue.

I have spent a substantial portion of my life involved in boxing and following the development of boxing videogames.

I have trained, competed, sparred, and experienced what happens inside a boxing ring.

I understand that boxing is not simply two people throwing punches until one of them falls down.

There is positioning, timing, distance management, balance, weight transfer, defensive anticipation, ring generalship, physical conditioning, psychological pressure, and individual fighting identity.

There are situations where a fighter deliberately slows the pace.

There are situations where a boxer needs to clinch because he is hurt.

There are fighters who use their lead hand to establish distance, disguise punches, disrupt their opponents, and control the rhythm of a fight.

There are fighters who work exceptionally well on the inside and others who prefer to maintain distance.

Some boxers pressure opponents intelligently. Others rely on counterpunching, lateral movement, defensive positioning, or carefully timed combinations.

Every boxer should not move, punch, defend, or respond to adversity in the same way.

These distinctions matter when developing a realistic boxing videogame.

When I criticize a boxing game's movement, defensive mechanics, stamina system, punching mechanics, or boxer-specific behavior, my criticism comes from my understanding of boxing and my expectations for how the sport should be represented interactively.

That does not mean every other fan must agree with me.

It means I have a basis for my opinions, and I am entitled to express them.

My boxing experience also does not mean I know every technical challenge involved in developing a videogame. That is why I spend time studying game development, researching implementation methods, and building my Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist.

I want to understand not only what should exist in a realistic boxing videogame, but also how developers could build it.

I am not asking developers to abandon technology, budgets, scheduling, or production realities. I am asking them to take the depth of boxing seriously when making development decisions.

And when I see something that I believe does not accurately represent boxing, I am going to speak about it.

Ash Habib Is the Owner of SCI. That Does Not Mean I Have to Agree With Him.

I want to make another point very clear.

Ash Habib is the owner and a leading public representative of Steel City Interactive.

He has his vision for Undisputed and its future.

He is entitled to explain that vision, promote his company's products, and discuss the decisions being made by his development team.

But I am also entitled to question those decisions.

If I disagree with something Ash says about boxing realism, authenticity, development priorities, or the direction of the franchise, I have every right to explain why.

I do not have to accept his perspective simply because he owns the company.

I do not have to defend his statements.

I do not have to agree with his interpretation of what boxing fans want.

And I do not have to change my expectations to accommodate the particular direction SCI chooses to pursue.

Respecting someone's position as a company owner does not require agreeing with their decisions or remaining silent about their product.

Likewise, criticizing the direction of a videogame does not mean I am making a personal attack against the people developing it.

There is a difference between questioning a company's decisions and attacking someone's personal character.

My focus is on the product, the development priorities, the boxing mechanics, the features, the gameplay experience, and the expectations established by the company.

That is where the conversation should remain.

The Community Needs to Stop Confusing Excitement With Evidence

There is nothing wrong with being excited about Undisputed 2.

Some people may be pleased with the direction SCI is taking.

Some may enjoy Undisputed exactly as it is.

Others may be interested in a sequel primarily because they want new boxers, better visuals, additional arenas, or more responsive gameplay.

Those preferences are legitimate.

But enthusiasm about a future product is not evidence that the product will deliver everything being discussed.

A new engine does not automatically guarantee realistic boxing.

A larger roster does not automatically guarantee authentic boxer identities.

Improved graphics do not automatically guarantee better mechanics.

And showing three boxers, announcing Sunny Edwards as a member of the development team, and presenting a boxing gym entrance does not establish how the sequel's actual fighting systems will perform.

What matters to me is how those systems function together.

Can a boxer consistently demonstrate his individual style and capabilities?

Can players make strategic adjustments that produce believable results?

Does the CPU understand boxing situations?

Do fatigue, injuries, defensive positioning, offensive output, and tactical decisions produce meaningful consequences?

Can the game represent different boxing eras, fighting styles, rules, and individual boxer tendencies?

Does it offer enough options and sliders for players to configure their preferred experience, with realistic/sim boxing as the default and Hybrid or Arcade gameplay as optional alternatives?

These are the types of questions I want answered before I make a judgment about Undisputed 2.

And if other people are already satisfied with what they have seen, that is their choice.

Their excitement does not obligate me to share it, just as my criticism does not obligate them to agree with me.

I Want Undisputed 2 to Deliver, but My Support Is Not Automatic

Some people seem to believe that criticizing SCI means wanting Undisputed 2 to fail.

That is not my position.

I want the boxing videogame genre to grow.

I want developers to create innovative boxing experiences.

I want SCI, EA, 2K, independent developers, and any other capable company to have the opportunity to develop boxing videogames.

I want consumers to have choices.

And I want competition to encourage developers to deliver more comprehensive, realistic, and feature-rich boxing experiences.

I would welcome a substantial improvement over the original Undisputed.

I would be pleased to see SCI demonstrate a sophisticated inside-fighting system, meaningful individual boxer identities, advanced defensive mechanics, realistic stamina, improved career systems, and the many other features boxing fans have been requesting.

But I am not going to praise features I have not seen demonstrated.

I am not going to assume a system has been improved simply because someone says it has.

And I am not going to purchase or promote a product out of a sense of obligation to its developer.

The quality of the game, the depth of its features, and the credibility of its gameplay demonstrations will determine how I respond to it.

My position can change when new evidence is presented.

That is what being open-minded actually means.

It does not mean abandoning your expectations every time a company announces another project.

Stop Asking for Honest Opinions If You Only Want Agreement

Here is my message to the boxing videogame community.

If you ask me what I think about Undisputed 2, I am going to tell you.

If I am not impressed by what has been shown, I am going to say so.

If SCI demonstrates something that I believe represents a meaningful improvement, I will acknowledge it.

If the company continues to make decisions that I disagree with, I will explain my concerns.

And if someone wants to challenge my criticism with actual gameplay demonstrations, technical explanations, or constructive arguments, I welcome that conversation.

What I am not interested in is being told that I should remain silent because my opinion makes someone uncomfortable.

I am not interested in being pressured to praise a game before I have seen enough evidence to justify that praise.

And I am not interested in treating a videogame company's promotional statements as a substitute for meaningful gameplay demonstrations.

We should be able to discuss these games without treating disagreement as betrayal.

A boxing videogame community that cannot tolerate criticism will have difficulty holding meaningful conversations about how its games can improve.

We should be asking questions, examining what has been shown, identifying what has not been demonstrated, and explaining what we want developers to prioritize.

That is how we can contribute to the future of the genre.

Final Thoughts: My Loyalty Is to Boxing and the Realistic Boxing Videogame Experience I Have Been Fighting For

I have spent decades advocating for a boxing videogame that represents the sport with the depth, authenticity, and realism it deserves.

My expectations did not begin with ESBC.

They did not begin with Undisputed.

And they certainly will not end with Undisputed 2.

SCI is one company developing boxing videogames. It is not the entire genre.

Ash Habib is one company owner with his own vision. His vision does not have to be identical to mine.

I respect the right of developers to make the games they want to make, just as I expect consumers to have the freedom to evaluate those products honestly.

My position on Undisputed 2 is simple.

I am on the fence because I remember the expectations established during the ESBC era, and I have not yet seen enough from Undisputed 2 to convince me that the realistic boxing experience I wanted will be delivered.

Three boxers, Sunny Edwards joining the development team, and an opening scene featuring the entrance to a boxing gym are not enough to answer my questions about the actual gameplay.

That does not mean I have made a final judgment about the sequel.

It means I am waiting for SCI to demonstrate the substance behind its vision.

Until then, I am going to continue asking questions, discussing gameplay systems, advocating for deeper boxing mechanics, and expressing my opinions.

You can agree with me.

You can disagree with me.

You can challenge my arguments.

But don't ask me for my opinion and then expect me to apologize because it is not the one you wanted to hear.

I don't owe SCI anything. I don't owe Ash Habib anything. I don't owe Undisputed 2 automatic praise, promotion, or loyalty.

My loyalty is to boxing, the boxing videogame community, and the realistic boxing experience I have spent decades fighting to see developed.

And I will continue speaking my mind about what I believe that experience should be.

Poe Speaks...

The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog

#BringBackESBC #Undisputed2 #Undisputed #SteelCityInteractive #BoxingVideogames #RealisticBoxing #PoeSpeaks #BoxingGamingCommunity