THE BOXING VIDEOGAME BLUEPRINT/WISHLIST BLOG | OPINION & INDUSTRY ACCOUNTABILITY
The 15 Most Important Questions SCI and EA Must Answer About Their Upcoming Boxing Videogames
Fans are no longer accepting recycled excuses, outdated design philosophies, incomplete features, or technological limitations that developers cannot adequately explain. In this era of technology, boxing videogames should be advancing the sport, not repeatedly settling for less.
By Poe | Independent Boxing Simulation Game Design Consultant & Systems Architect
The Excuses Are Running Out
Steel City Interactive and Electronic Arts have something in common: both have an opportunity to shape the next generation of boxing videogames.
SCI is developing a successor to Undisputed, having acknowledged that parts of the original failed to meet its quality standards and that a new technical architecture was necessary. EA has announced the return of Fight Night, although its gameplay systems, release date, and feature set remain largely undisclosed.
But there is something both companies need to understand.
Boxing videogame fans are not obligated to lower their expectations simply because a company has decided to make another boxing videogame.
We should not be grateful for features that should have been foundational decades ago. We should not celebrate the bare minimum as revolutionary innovation. And we certainly should not allow nostalgia, marketing campaigns, content creator relationships, or impressive graphics to distract us from asking whether the actual boxing experience has meaningfully advanced.
We are living in an era of sophisticated artificial intelligence, procedural animation, advanced physics, machine learning, real-time rendering, powerful hardware, expansive data systems, and increasingly sophisticated development tools.
The technology available today allows developers to attempt things that would have been extraordinarily difficult in earlier generations.
I have repeatedly argued that practically anything we can envision for a boxing videogame can be designed and pursued if a company is willing to invest the necessary resources, research, technical expertise, and development time.
That does not mean every imaginable feature is inexpensive, technically straightforward, or guaranteed to function successfully. It means developers must distinguish between what is genuinely impossible and what they have simply chosen not to prioritize.
There is an enormous difference between "we cannot do it" and "we have decided not to do it."
And fans deserve to know that difference.
Here are the 15 questions that I believe SCI and EA must answer before asking the boxing gaming community to place its confidence in another product.
1. Are You Building an Authentic Boxing Videogame or Another Arcade/Hybrid Experience Disguised as Realistic Boxing?
This is the foundational question.
What is the actual gameplay philosophy?
Will boxing knowledge determine success, or will success primarily come from mastering familiar videogame mechanics that do not accurately represent boxing?
Are developers building their mechanics around real boxing principles, including distance management, leverage, timing, positioning, defensive responsibility, ring generalship, stamina management, and tactical intelligence?
Or are they prioritizing speed, exaggerated exchanges, predetermined combinations, and artificial gameplay balance?
A boxer who understands boxing should be capable of applying that knowledge intelligently.
That does not mean an inexperienced gamer should be prohibited from enjoying the product. The game should teach that player boxing fundamentals.
The critical distinction is that realistic boxing should be the foundation, while arcade and hybrid experiences should be optional alternatives.
Do not sacrifice authentic boxing mechanics to accommodate players who prefer something less demanding.
What fans should demand: A clear statement of gameplay philosophy, unedited demonstrations of realistic boxing mechanics, and a breakdown of any optional arcade or hybrid settings.
2. Will Every Licensed Boxer Actually Fight Like the Boxer They Represent?
A recognizable face, licensed name, authentic trunks, and familiar signature pose do not automatically make a boxer authentic.
Muhammad Ali should not behave like Joe Frazier. Mike Tyson should not move like Larry Holmes. Floyd Mayweather should not defend himself like Arturo Gatti.
Every boxer should have individuality that extends beyond numerical ratings.
Will SCI and EA implement genuinely individualized boxing behaviors through systems such as:
Boxer-specific tendencies, capabilities, traits, mannerisms, and signature techniques.
Distinctive footwork, rhythm, punching mechanics, defensive habits, and combination preferences.
Different responses to pressure, fatigue, adversity, injuries, and tactical adjustments.
Individual clinching, inside-fighting, counterpunching, and ring-generalship behavior.
Variations between a boxer's amateur, developmental, prime, declining, and comeback versions.
Importantly, ratings and behavioral tendencies are not the same thing.
A boxer may possess exceptional punching power without constantly throwing power punches. Another may have outstanding defensive capabilities without choosing to use them consistently.
Boxer authenticity requires accurate ratings and accurate decision-making.
What fans should demand: Side-by-side demonstrations showing how several distinctly different boxers behave under comparable circumstances, especially when controlled by the CPU.
3. Will the Games Finally Feature Complete, Organic Boxing Mechanics Instead of a Limited Collection of Animations?
Real boxing involves far more than throwing jabs, hooks, uppercuts, and slipping punches.
Where are the complete systems for inside fighting, clinching, framing, posting, smothering, pivots, feints, parrying, catching punches, and controlling an opponent's position?
Where are the multiple varieties of punches and defensive movements?
Where is authentic footwork that allows a boxer to step, pivot, reposition, retreat, cut off the ring, or punch while moving naturally?
And why should different body types, arm lengths, weight distributions, and boxing styles all be forced into nearly identical movement systems?
I want developers to explain how their gameplay architecture handles the interaction between:
Foot positioning, weight transfer, balance, and punching mechanics.
Boxer reach, body geometry, collision, and defensive positioning.
Short-range, mid-range, and long-range engagements.
Punch trajectories, impact, counters, interruptions, and simultaneous punches.
Defensive techniques, vulnerabilities, recovery windows, and movement restrictions.
Animation quality matters, but animation alone is not a complete boxing system.
What fans should demand: Technical gameplay demonstrations explaining how these mechanics interact organically rather than functioning as isolated, preprogrammed actions.
4. Will Artificial Intelligence Finally Demonstrate Real Boxing Intelligence?
The CPU should not be a predictable punching machine.
It should be capable of thinking, adjusting, recognizing patterns, and responding to different opponents.
Can an AI-controlled boxer identify an opponent repeatedly dropping his right hand after throwing a jab?
Can it learn that an opponent consistently retreats toward the ropes?
Will it recognize when a boxer is vulnerable to body punches, struggling with stamina, or unable to handle pressure?
Will defensive specialists, counterpunchers, swarmers, out-boxers, boxer-punchers, and pressure boxers demonstrate genuinely different tactical approaches?
And will different levels of Ring IQ influence decision-making without simply giving the CPU unfair advantages?
An elite boxer should be capable of recognizing something that a less experienced boxer might overlook.
What fans should demand: Extended CPU-versus-CPU demonstrations showing tactical adaptation across multiple rounds, including both intelligent adjustments and realistic mistakes.
5. Will Career Mode Become a Complete Boxing Ecosystem Instead of a Repetitive Fight Schedule?
Career Mode should not consist primarily of selecting an opponent, training, fighting, collecting money, and repeating the same process.
Boxing is an entire industry.
Where are the managers, promoters, matchmakers, sanctioning organizations, trainers, gym owners, scouts, broadcasters, and competing promotional interests?
Where are the negotiations, contractual disagreements, mandatory challengers, purse disputes, injuries, postponements, rivalries, and promotional politics?
A genuinely deep career experience should provide:
An amateur boxing pathway, including tournaments, national championships, and Olympic opportunities.
Meaningful progression through prospects, contenders, champions, journeymen, gatekeepers, and spoilers.
Contract negotiations with managers, trainers, promoters, broadcasters, and sponsors.
Multiple sanctioning organizations with separate rankings, championships, and mandatory challengers.
Training camps, sparring partners, scouting reports, interviews, and opponent-specific preparation.
Dynamic boxer aging, injuries, retirements, comebacks, and emerging prospects.
A living boxing world that continues operating independently of the player.
And why should the player always be required to control a boxer?
Let gamers participate as a manager, promoter, trainer, matchmaker, or gym owner.
What fans should demand: A complete Career Mode walkthrough demonstrating the world outside the ring, not simply another menu showcasing fights and training activities.
6. Will Offline Players Receive the Same Development Respect as Competitive Online Players?
This is especially important to me.
Offline and online boxing gaming have different audiences, expectations, and priorities.
Neither community should be permitted to dictate how the other enjoys a boxing videogame.
Why should competitive online balancing requirements interfere with offline players who want to customize boxer attributes, gameplay sliders, championship rules, stamina, damage, or AI behavior?
Why should an offline gamer be forced to accept standardized settings intended for ranked competitive matches?
Will the games provide:
Complete offline access to core modes without requiring a continuous internet connection?
CPU-versus-CPU fights, tournaments, championship events, and full career experiences?
Independently configurable offline gameplay settings?
Offline boxer databases, rankings, records, and championship histories?
Custom fight cards, tournaments, leagues, and sandbox boxing universes?
Offline gaming is not a secondary activity.
What fans should demand: Written confirmation of independent offline functionality, a detailed offline mode inventory, and demonstrations showing that offline customization is not restricted by online competitive balancing.
7. Will the Creation Suite Finally Receive the Depth and Importance It Deserves?
Creation modes have their own dedicated fanbases.
Some players spend more time building characters, leagues, teams, and worlds than participating in standard gameplay.
Why should boxing videogames continue treating creation tools as minor additions?
I want to know whether SCI and EA will support a comprehensive creation ecosystem.
Not just Create-a-Boxer.
I'm talking about Create-a-Punch, Create-a-Style, Create-a-Combination, Create-a-Trainer, Create-a-Referee, Create-a-Judge, Create-a-Manager, Create-a-Promoter, Create-a-Gym, Create-a-Championship, Create-a-Organization, Create-a-Fight Card, and Create-a-Tournament.
And created content should interact meaningfully with the game's systems.
A created referee should have individual officiating characteristics. A created trainer should influence boxer development. A created organization should maintain rankings and championships.
Created boxers should have editable amateur and professional histories, individual tendencies, and multiple career versions.
Creation capacity should be generous, with transparent technical limits, powerful search and sorting tools, and convenient sharing where supported.
What fans should demand: A comprehensive creation-suite feature list, demonstration of linked creations functioning together, and clear information about content limits, export options, and offline availability.
8. Will the Games Finally Include a Complete In-Ring Referee, Judging, and Officiating System?
How many more generations must boxing gaming fans wait for the referee to become a meaningful part of the actual contest?
Referees are not decorations.
They issue warnings, separate boxers, inspect injuries, summon doctors, deduct points, manage knockdowns, and determine when a contest should be stopped.
Will the referee remain physically present in the ring, with positioning and interactions that affect the match appropriately?
Will different referees have different characteristics?
Will they vary in strictness, positioning, foul detection, and stoppage judgment?
And what about the judges?
Will judging account for scoring criteria, close rounds, individual judge preferences, controversial decisions, point deductions, and different historical or organizational rules?
Will players have options for sealed scorecards, open scoring, additional judges, and customizable rules where appropriate?
What fans should demand: Complete referee and judging demonstrations, including fouls, warnings, point deductions, doctor inspections, stoppages, and close decisions.
9. Will Damage, Stamina, Fatigue, and Boxer Health Finally Operate as Interconnected Systems?
A realistic boxing videogame should not treat stamina and damage as simple health bars.
Fatigue affects balance, punch mechanics, reaction speed, defensive discipline, movement, and decision-making.
Damage is equally complex.
Not every boxer develops cuts, swelling, bruising, or visible facial injuries at the same rate.
Some boxers may endure a full contest with relatively little visible damage. Others swell easily or become vulnerable to repeated cuts.
Will developers account for individual physiological differences?
Will sustained body punching influence breathing, movement, punch output, and recovery?
Will arm fatigue, leg fatigue, muscular endurance, and cardiovascular conditioning be independently represented?
Can a boxer become physically exhausted without being severely injured?
Can an injured boxer remain dangerous because of exceptional conditioning, resilience, experience, or tactical ability?
And will the referee, corner, and ringside physician respond appropriately to deteriorating conditions?
What fans should demand: Demonstrations of boxer-specific damage responses, realistic fatigue progression, long-term wear and tear, and medically appropriate stoppage mechanics.
10. Will Boxing History, Amateur Boxing, Different Eras, and Rulesets Be Properly Represented?
Boxing did not begin with modern professional championship rules.
The sport has an extensive history involving different regulations, equipment, scoring practices, championship structures, and competitive cultures.
Why should every boxer and every contest be forced into the same modern framework?
Will gamers be able to experience amateur boxing with appropriate scoring, equipment, tournament structures, and historical variations?
Will different eras reflect changes in gloves, trunks, presentation, round counts, officiating, and championship standards?
Could players organize historically accurate contests, modern professional events, amateur tournaments, and optional bare-knuckle competitions with distinct rules?
Can a boxing universe evolve across different eras rather than remaining permanently frozen in one period?
This is also where individual boxer versions become important.
An amateur boxer, young professional, championship-prime boxer, and aging veteran should not simply be cosmetic variations.
What fans should demand: A documented ruleset system explaining which boxing formats, historical periods, and organizational regulations are supported.
11. Will Online Boxing Be Built Around Technical Reliability, Fair Competition, and Boxing Knowledge?
Online players deserve a serious competitive platform.
That means more than ranked matchmaking and leaderboards.
Will the games provide responsive controls, consistent hit detection, reliable synchronization, stable matchmaking, and meaningful protection against cheating and exploits?
SCI's reported plans for rollback netcode are a potentially important technical step, but implementation quality must be demonstrated under real network conditions.
Will gamers be able to establish mutually agreed match contracts covering rounds, stamina settings, damage, boxer selection, and permissible customizations?
Will there be separate competitive classifications for realistic boxing, hybrid gameplay, and arcade options if those styles are included?
And will real boxing knowledge provide an advantage over exploiting animations or mastering repetitive controller patterns?
Online players should also have access to more ambitious experiences, including organized boxing clubs, promotional organizations, tournaments, leagues, seasonal championships, cooperative events, and specialized roles.
What fans should demand: Independently verifiable network testing, connection-quality indicators, published gameplay rules, meaningful anti-cheat measures, and an online roadmap supported by playable demonstrations.
12. Will Training, Sparring, and Corner Teams Become Meaningful Parts of Boxer Development?
Training should not be an unrelated collection of button-pressing mini-games.
It should influence how a boxer performs in the ring.
Will jump rope training improve relevant aspects of footwork, rhythm, and conditioning?
Will speed bag work contribute to appropriate coordination and timing development?
Will roadwork affect cardiovascular endurance differently depending on terrain, intensity, recovery, and training structure?
Can heavy bag training focus on punch mechanics, combinations, body punching, or power development?
Will sparring partners have their own styles, tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses?
And will corner teams be more than cosmetic assistants?
Trainers should offer tactical advice, evaluate weaknesses, develop game plans, and respond to what happens during a contest.
Cutmen should have different levels of proficiency. Assistant trainers should contribute meaningfully. Poor coaching decisions should have consequences.
Training activities should be interactive when desired but also offer simulated alternatives for players who do not enjoy mini-games.
What fans should demand: A complete training-to-performance progression demonstration, including meaningful boxer development and intelligent corner interactions.
13. Will the Next Games Deliver a Living Boxing World With Meaningful Presentation and Broadcasting?
Boxing is not just what happens between the opening and closing bells.
It includes anticipation, promotion, rivalries, media coverage, ring walks, weigh-ins, announcements, commentary, crowd reactions, and championship celebrations.
Why do boxing videogames still struggle to capture the full atmosphere of a major boxing event?
Will there be dynamic commentary that responds accurately to what is happening rather than relying excessively on repetitive, disconnected lines?
Will the commentary recognize specific tactics, changes in momentum, controversial scoring, injuries, and individual boxer histories?
Will players be able to customize commentators and broadcast packages?
Can a player create a complete boxing event, build its promotional presentation, watch fights unfold, and review the results afterward?
Imagine a living boxing world with weekly broadcasts, evolving rankings, fight announcements, press conferences, rivalries, awards, and historical records.
The technology exists to build increasingly dynamic event systems. The question is whether the developers consider them important enough to implement.
What fans should demand: Demonstrations of complete boxing events, broadcast customization, dynamic commentary, and a functioning world that continues evolving outside individual matches.
14. What Are You Doing That Previous Boxing Videogames Could Not Do?
This is where I want both SCI and EA to be especially specific.
What constitutes genuine innovation?
Better lighting?
Improved facial models?
Additional boxers?
Higher-resolution textures?
Those can be welcome improvements, but they do not automatically represent a new generation of boxing game design.
Where are the ambitious systems?
Where is the capacity to manage a global boxing organization with hundreds or thousands of dynamically generated boxers?
Where are sophisticated boxer behavior engines, advanced coaching systems, procedural career histories, customizable officiating, and complete boxing databases?
Why not provide multiple camera perspectives, including broadcast, ringside, trainer, referee, and first-person options where technically feasible?
Why not give gamers the tools to recreate historical boxing eras or invent entirely new organizations?
A game should not simply reproduce what was successful 15 or 20 years ago.
EA must be especially careful about depending on nostalgia.
SCI must demonstrate that rebuilding its technology leads to substantial gameplay advances rather than merely better presentation.
What fans should demand: A clear explanation of at least five major innovations, why they matter, how they improve the boxing experience, and what measurable capabilities distinguish them from previous games.
15. Will You Allow the Entire Boxing Gaming Community to Influence Development Before the Games Are Finished?
This may be the most consequential question of all.
Who is actually influencing these games?
Are the companies listening primarily to selected content creators, competitive players, marketing partners, sponsored personalities, and preferred community representatives?
Or are they actively collecting input from offline players, career enthusiasts, creation-mode communities, older boxing fans, professional boxers, trainers, simulation-minded gamers, and people who understand the sport's technical requirements?
Will criticism be welcomed even when it challenges major design decisions?
I want both companies to explain how feedback is collected, evaluated, prioritized, and translated into development requirements.
I also want a genuinely independent, third-party consumer survey with transparent methodology, representative participation, clearly reported results, and meaningful coverage of competing preferences.
No selectively presented results designed to validate predetermined decisions.
No substituting content creator popularity for broad consumer research.
No pretending that one gaming community represents everyone.
And no requesting detailed feedback only after the game's foundational architecture has already been finalized.
What fans should demand: Independent research, public feedback summaries, meaningful development updates, transparent prioritization criteria, and documented evidence that community feedback can influence the final product.
The Technology Argument: Stop Confusing Development Priorities With Impossibility
I want to address the excuse that frequently appears whenever someone requests a deeper boxing videogame.
"That would be too difficult to implement."
Too difficult according to whom?
Before accepting that explanation, I want to know what makes the feature difficult.
Is it the animation architecture? Collision detection? AI processing? Network synchronization? Memory limitations? Development costs? Licensing? Scheduling? Quality assurance?
Those are legitimate engineering and production questions.
But none should automatically end the discussion.
Developers should explain the tradeoffs and identify possible solutions.
Modern technology provides an extraordinary collection of tools, including real-time physics, procedural generation, motion matching, behavior trees, machine learning, advanced animation blending, and data-driven gameplay frameworks.
These technologies do not magically deliver a complete boxing experience. They still require expertise, careful systems engineering, testing, optimization, and integration.
But the technology should encourage developers to pursue ambitious solutions rather than rely on familiar limitations.
If a company decides a feature is not worth the cost, that is a business or design decision. Do not disguise it as a universal technological impossibility.
Consumers have a right to question that decision.
What SCI and EA Should Be Required to Demonstrate
Talk is cheap. Promotional trailers are not enough.
Here is the accountability standard I believe the community should establish.
Area | Minimum evidence fans should demand |
|---|---|
Gameplay philosophy | Clear distinction between realistic, hybrid, and arcade experiences |
Boxer authenticity | Multiple licensed boxers demonstrating distinct behaviors |
Boxing mechanics | Unedited footage of advanced offensive and defensive interactions |
Artificial intelligence | Full CPU-versus-CPU matches showing tactical decisions |
Career Mode | Detailed walkthrough of an active boxing ecosystem |
Offline gaming | Complete feature inventory and independent functionality |
Creation Suite | Working demonstrations, customization scope, and content limits |
Officiating | Referee, judging, fouls, and medical stoppage demonstrations |
Training | Evidence that training influences meaningful boxer capabilities |
Online gaming | Network performance testing and competitive integrity standards |
Innovation | A measurable list of new gameplay and ecosystem capabilities |
Community accountability | Independent research and public development priorities |
These demands should not require companies to reveal confidential source code, trade secrets, or proprietary business arrangements.
They should require companies to demonstrate the products they intend to sell.
That is a reasonable distinction.
A Direct Message to Steel City Interactive
SCI, you have an opportunity to demonstrate that you learned from the shortcomings of the original Undisputed.
But I do not want another explanation about how passionate the team is.
I do not want to hear how many developers previously worked at EA, Rockstar, 2K, or another major company.
Previous employers do not automatically establish expertise in realistic boxing gameplay architecture.
Show us what those developers are accomplishing.
Show us the technical improvements.
Show us how your systems represent real boxing.
Show us the Career Mode, the referee, the individual boxer tendencies, the creation tools, the offline experience, and the advanced boxing mechanics.
Most importantly, show us why your next product will not repeat the shortcomings that made rebuilding necessary.
You have already acknowledged problems that could not be adequately resolved within the original architecture.
The community deserves a meaningful explanation of what the new architecture actually enables.
A new engine is not the achievement. A substantially better boxing videogame is the achievement.
A Direct Message to Electronic Arts
EA, your biggest advantage could also become your biggest weakness.
That advantage is nostalgia.
Millions of boxing gaming fans recognize the Fight Night name, and some have spent years hoping to see the franchise return.
But nostalgia is not innovation.
I am not interested in merely revisiting Fight Night Champion with improved graphics, new animations, and updated boxers.
I want to know what EA has learned from modern game development and from the limitations of its previous boxing titles.
Will you finally build a comprehensive boxing ecosystem?
Will realistic boxing receive priority over an arcade-oriented or hybrid foundation?
Will the creation suite become a major feature?
Will offline players receive a complete experience?
Will career development extend far beyond the structure of previous titles?
And will you listen to consumers who want boxing videogames to evolve rather than simply imitate the past?
The Fight Night name may attract attention. Only the quality, depth, and authenticity of the product can justify that attention.
A Message to Content Creators and the Boxing Gaming Community
I also have a message for the people who cover these games.
Stop confusing access with accountability.
Being invited to a studio, receiving early gameplay access, interviewing a developer, or obtaining promotional benefits does not mean you should abandon critical questioning.
There is nothing wrong with supporting a developer.
There is something wrong with treating reasonable consumer expectations as attacks against that developer.
And there is something equally wrong with telling consumers to accept less simply because creating a boxing videogame is difficult.
Content creators should be asking these 15 questions publicly.
Offline creators should support the right of online players to receive better competitive systems.
Online creators should support the right of offline players to have deep customization, career systems, and independent gameplay experiences.
Creation-suite enthusiasts should have a meaningful voice.
Professional boxing experts should be consulted.
Casual gamers should be accommodated without forcing everyone else to play an arcade-style experience.
We do not have to agree about every feature to agree that the overall standard should be higher.
The community also needs to stop waiting until a game is nearly finished before organizing itself.
The most important time to influence a boxing videogame is when its foundational systems, design philosophy, and development priorities are still being established.
That is why I continue calling for a unified community discussion rather than separate groups competing to decide whose preferences matter most.
Final Thoughts: This Is Not About Asking for the Impossible
I am not demanding that every conceivable system be completed instantly, without expense, without risk, or without technical challenges.
I am demanding that companies stop treating our expectations as unreasonable simply because we are asking for something more ambitious than what they have previously delivered.
There are limits to hardware, budgets, personnel, licensing, and development schedules.
But those limits should be explained and justified, not turned into blanket excuses that discourage innovation.
If a company cannot deliver a requested feature, explain why.
If a feature is being excluded because management does not consider it a priority, say that.
If a system requires additional research or development, explain what would be necessary to implement it.
If a feature is promised for a later release, be transparent about its development status and do not present it as guaranteed before the work has been validated.
And if the company does not share the vision of consumers seeking a deeply realistic boxing experience, be clear about that too.
I have spent years arguing that boxing videogames have far more potential than the industry has demonstrated.
That potential extends beyond improved punching animations and more recognizable licensed boxers.
It includes an authentic representation of boxing as a sport, an industry, a profession, a history, and an entire world that gamers can explore and customize.
I refuse to accept that the best we can expect from modern gaming technology is another boxing videogame that looks better but remains structurally similar to games released generations ago.
SCI and EA, the challenge is simple:
Do not merely tell us your next boxing videogame will be better.
Demonstrate how it will be better.
Do not tell us what fans are supposed to enjoy.
Find out what different boxing gaming communities genuinely want.
Do not use nostalgia, marketing, or the difficulty of development as shields against legitimate criticism.
And above all, do not confuse your preferred design philosophy with the limits of what a boxing videogame can become.
The technology continues to advance.
The hardware continues to advance.
Development tools continue to advance.
Our expectations should advance with them.
The boxing gaming community should not have to spend another decade asking for foundational systems that could have been planned and developed today.
We are not asking SCI or EA for favors.
We are prospective paying customers demanding a higher standard.
And this time, the companies should be expected to answer the questions before they ask us to buy the answers.
The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog
Realistic boxing first. Player choice. Authenticity. Innovation. Depth. Accountability.
The question to the community: If SCI and EA could only guarantee five of these fifteen areas at launch, which five would you refuse to compromise on, and why?
Sources for the current project context: SCI statement on Undisputed's future · EA Fight Night revival reporting · SCI sequel technical update.
No comments:
Post a Comment