Fans Need to Stop Being Delusional: Fight Night Champion Was Not a Realistic Boxing Game

For years, boxing game fans have put Fight Night Champion (FNC) on a pedestal, claiming it was the most realistic boxing game ever made. Many still demand EA Sports to bring back the Fight Night series, believing FNC was a near-perfect simulation of the sweet science.

Let’s be clear: Fight Night Champion was not a true boxing simulation. It was a glorified arcade fighter with a boxing theme. While it looked visually impressive for its time and had a gritty presentation, it failed to capture the depth, nuance, and strategy that define real boxing.

The time has come for fans to stop deluding themselves. FNC was not the peak of boxing realism—it was just the only major boxing game available at the time.

Why Fight Night Champion Was More Arcade Than Sim

1. Poor Representation of Boxing Fundamentals

Boxing is an art. It’s about strategy, patience, footwork, defense, and tactical offense. However, Fight Night Champion completely disregarded these elements in favor of an arcade-friendly approach.

• Footwork Was Neglected: True boxing relies on angles, positioning, and lateral movement. FNC had sluggish, clunky movement that barely allowed for effective footwork. Fighters couldn't pivot smoothly or use advanced movement techniques like bouncing in and out of range.
• Defense Was an Afterthought: Instead of a refined defensive system, FNC relied on basic blocking and a parry system that felt more like a fighting game mechanic than actual boxing defense. Shoulder rolls, proper head movement, and the ability to create space with footwork were all underdeveloped.
• Clinch Game Was Nonexistent: Clinching is an essential part of boxing—used to break up exchanges, recover, or disrupt an opponent’s rhythm. FNC ignored this completely, making inside fighting feel like a wild slugfest rather than a controlled battle.

Simply put, the game failed to emphasize the technical aspects that separate boxing from other combat sports.

2. Exaggerated Knockdowns and Over-the-Top Damage

One of FNC’s biggest flaws was how it handled knockdowns and damage. The game prioritized dramatic moments over realism, leading to excessive knockdowns, exaggerated facial injuries, and an overuse of slow-motion knockout sequences.

• Fighters could take dozens of clean power shots without real consequences, which is unrealistic at the highest level of boxing.
• Flash knockdowns happened too frequently, even from weak punches, which made fights feel more like a Hollywood movie than an actual boxing match.
• Damage was inconsistent—sometimes fighters looked perfectly fine after absorbing brutal shots, while other times they looked like they’d been through a war after a couple of rounds.

Real boxing isn't just about knockouts—it's about tactics, adjustments, and setting traps. FNC ignored this in favor of arcade-style exchanges that led to dramatic moments rather than realistic fights.

3. Broken Stamina System Encouraged Unrealistic Fighting

Stamina is everything in boxing. Fighters must manage their output, control their breathing, and avoid wasting energy. However, Fight Night Champion had one of the worst stamina systems in any sports game.

• Boxers could throw an insane volume of punches without suffering real fatigue. This led to non-stop slugfests instead of realistic pacing.
• Fighters barely slowed down even in the later rounds, which meant that strategy and endurance management were mostly irrelevant.
• Recovery was inconsistent—some fighters would regain stamina way too quickly between rounds, allowing them to fight at an unrealistic pace for an entire fight.

This completely undermined the realism that a true boxing game should have. There was no incentive to fight smart or conserve energy because the game rewarded high-output, aggressive styles.

4. Flawed Counterpunching System

The counterpunching system in FNC was one of its most broken mechanics. Instead of rewarding proper timing and skill, the game made counterpunching feel scripted and overpowered.

• The counter-window was too forgiving, allowing players to land devastating shots even when the timing wasn’t perfect.
• Fighters who weren’t known for counterpunching in real life could still abuse the system to dominate fights unrealistically.
• Instead of simulating real boxing counterpunching—where feints, movement, and setups matter—FNC turned it into an arcade-like mechanic that could be easily exploited.

True counterpunchers, like Floyd Mayweather or Juan Manuel Marquez, should feel different from pressure fighters, but FNC made it so that any fighter could use the counter system effectively, ruining the distinction between styles.

5. All Fighters Felt Too Similar

One of the biggest sins Fight Night Champion committed was failing to differentiate between boxing styles. In real life, boxers have unique tendencies, skill sets, and strengths. However, in FNC, every fighter felt like a slightly altered version of the same template.

• Pressure fighters didn’t apply realistic pressure—there was no way to cut off the ring effectively.
• Slick counterpunchers didn’t rely on actual defensive skills, just the arcade-style counter system.
• Inside fighting was a joke—there were no real mechanics for controlling the inside game, which made inside fighting feel more like a chaotic mess than a strategic battle.

In a real boxing simulation, fighters should have distinct styles that are accurately represented. FNC failed in this regard, making every fighter feel too similar and limiting the depth of gameplay.

Why Fans Had Unrealistic Expectations for FNC

The main reason fans praise Fight Night Champion is that it was the last major boxing game released. With no competition, fans convinced themselves it was better than it actually was.

At the time, expectations were sky-high because EA had built a reputation with the Fight Night series. Fans hoped FNC would deliver a truly realistic experience, but in the end, they got an arcade boxing game dressed up with realistic visuals and a darker storyline.

FNC felt “real” only in the sense that it looked good and had real fighters, but its mechanics were nowhere near as deep as they should have been. The game was built for casual players rather than hardcore boxing fans, which is why it played more like a slugfest than a true simulation.

Boxing Fans Deserve Better

It’s time for boxing fans to wake up and demand a true simulation, not a glorified arcade game. If a new boxing game is made, it cannot follow the Fight Night Champion model—it must be built from the ground up to prioritize realism, strategy, and authenticity.

A real boxing game should feature:
✅ True-to-life footwork – including pivots, lateral movement, and positioning.
✅ A deep defensive system – incorporating realistic blocking, slipping, and rolling.
✅ Proper stamina management – forcing players to fight smart and conserve energy.
✅ Accurate representation of styles – making each boxer feel unique.
✅ A functional clinch system – allowing players to use clinching as a real strategy.

If a boxing game is ever going to evolve past FNC, fans need to stop treating it like the ultimate boxing sim. It wasn’t. It was a fun game, but fun doesn’t equal realistic.

Boxing deserves a true simulation. Fans should demand more, not settle for an outdated arcade-style experience.

Because real boxing isn’t about throwing 100 punches per round and spamming counters. It’s about intelligence, strategy, and skill.

And the next great boxing game should reflect that.

 

Fans Need to Stop Being Delusional: Fight Night Champion Was Not a Realistic Boxing Game

For years, boxing game fans have put Fight Night Champion (FNC) on a pedestal, claiming it was the most realistic boxing game ever made. Many still demand EA Sports to bring back the Fight Night series, believing FNC was a near-perfect simulation of the sweet science.

Let’s be clear: Fight Night Champion was not a true boxing simulation. It was a glorified arcade fighter with a boxing theme. While it looked visually impressive for its time and had a gritty presentation, it failed to capture the depth, nuance, and strategy that define real boxing.

The time has come for fans to stop deluding themselves. FNC was not the peak of boxing realism—it was just the only major boxing game available at the time.

Why Fight Night Champion Was More Arcade Than Sim

1. Poor Representation of Boxing Fundamentals

Boxing is an art. It’s about strategy, patience, footwork, defense, and tactical offense. However, Fight Night Champion completely disregarded these elements in favor of an arcade-friendly approach.

• Footwork Was Neglected: True boxing relies on angles, positioning, and lateral movement. FNC had sluggish, clunky movement that barely allowed for effective footwork. Fighters couldn't pivot smoothly or use advanced movement techniques like bouncing in and out of range.
• Defense Was an Afterthought: Instead of a refined defensive system, FNC relied on basic blocking and a parry system that felt more like a fighting game mechanic than actual boxing defense. Shoulder rolls, proper head movement, and the ability to create space with footwork were all underdeveloped.
• Clinch Game Was Nonexistent: Clinching is an essential part of boxing—used to break up exchanges, recover, or disrupt an opponent’s rhythm. FNC ignored this completely, making inside fighting feel like a wild slugfest rather than a controlled battle.

Simply put, the game failed to emphasize the technical aspects that separate boxing from other combat sports.

2. Exaggerated Knockdowns and Over-the-Top Damage

One of FNC’s biggest flaws was how it handled knockdowns and damage. The game prioritized dramatic moments over realism, leading to excessive knockdowns, exaggerated facial injuries, and an overuse of slow-motion knockout sequences.

• Fighters could take dozens of clean power shots without real consequences, which is unrealistic at the highest level of boxing.
• Flash knockdowns happened too frequently, even from weak punches, which made fights feel more like a Hollywood movie than an actual boxing match.
• Damage was inconsistent—sometimes fighters looked perfectly fine after absorbing brutal shots, while other times they looked like they’d been through a war after a couple of rounds.

Real boxing isn't just about knockouts—it's about tactics, adjustments, and setting traps. FNC ignored this in favor of arcade-style exchanges that led to dramatic moments rather than realistic fights.

3. Broken Stamina System Encouraged Unrealistic Fighting

Stamina is everything in boxing. Fighters must manage their output, control their breathing, and avoid wasting energy. However, Fight Night Champion had one of the worst stamina systems in any sports game.

• Boxers could throw an insane volume of punches without suffering real fatigue. This led to non-stop slugfests instead of realistic pacing.
• Fighters barely slowed down even in the later rounds, which meant that strategy and endurance management were mostly irrelevant.
• Recovery was inconsistent—some fighters would regain stamina way too quickly between rounds, allowing them to fight at an unrealistic pace for an entire fight.

This completely undermined the realism that a true boxing game should have. There was no incentive to fight smart or conserve energy because the game rewarded high-output, aggressive styles.

4. Flawed Counterpunching System

The counterpunching system in FNC was one of its most broken mechanics. Instead of rewarding proper timing and skill, the game made counterpunching feel scripted and overpowered.

• The counter-window was too forgiving, allowing players to land devastating shots even when the timing wasn’t perfect.
• Fighters who weren’t known for counterpunching in real life could still abuse the system to dominate fights unrealistically.
• Instead of simulating real boxing counterpunching—where feints, movement, and setups matter—FNC turned it into an arcade-like mechanic that could be easily exploited.

True counterpunchers, like Floyd Mayweather or Juan Manuel Marquez, should feel different from pressure fighters, but FNC made it so that any fighter could use the counter system effectively, ruining the distinction between styles.

5. All Fighters Felt Too Similar

One of the biggest sins Fight Night Champion committed was failing to differentiate between boxing styles. In real life, boxers have unique tendencies, skill sets, and strengths. However, in FNC, every fighter felt like a slightly altered version of the same template.

• Pressure fighters didn’t apply realistic pressure—there was no way to cut off the ring effectively.
• Slick counterpunchers didn’t rely on actual defensive skills, just the arcade-style counter system.
• Inside fighting was a joke—there were no real mechanics for controlling the inside game, which made inside fighting feel more like a chaotic mess than a strategic battle.

In a real boxing simulation, fighters should have distinct styles that are accurately represented. FNC failed in this regard, making every fighter feel too similar and limiting the depth of gameplay.

Why Fans Had Unrealistic Expectations for FNC

The main reason fans praise Fight Night Champion is that it was the last major boxing game released. With no competition, fans convinced themselves it was better than it actually was.

At the time, expectations were sky-high because EA had built a reputation with the Fight Night series. Fans hoped FNC would deliver a truly realistic experience, but in the end, they got an arcade boxing game dressed up with realistic visuals and a darker storyline.

FNC felt “real” only in the sense that it looked good and had real fighters, but its mechanics were nowhere near as deep as they should have been. The game was built for casual players rather than hardcore boxing fans, which is why it played more like a slugfest than a true simulation.

Boxing Fans Deserve Better

It’s time for boxing fans to wake up and demand a true simulation, not a glorified arcade game. If a new boxing game is made, it cannot follow the Fight Night Champion model—it must be built from the ground up to prioritize realism, strategy, and authenticity.

A real boxing game should feature:
✅ True-to-life footwork – including pivots, lateral movement, and positioning.
✅ A deep defensive system – incorporating realistic blocking, slipping, and rolling.
✅ Proper stamina management – forcing players to fight smart and conserve energy.
✅ Accurate representation of styles – making each boxer feel unique.
✅ A functional clinch system – allowing players to use clinching as a real strategy.

If a boxing game is ever going to evolve past FNC, fans need to stop treating it like the ultimate boxing sim. It wasn’t. It was a fun game, but fun doesn’t equal realistic.

Boxing deserves a true simulation. Fans should demand more, not settle for an outdated arcade-style experience.

Because real boxing isn’t about throwing 100 punches per round and spamming counters. It’s about intelligence, strategy, and skill.

And the next great boxing game should reflect that.

A Boxing Video Game Should Be Able to Transform a Casual Fan into a Hardcore Fan

 

Boxing is one of the most intricate and storied sports in history, yet its presence in the gaming industry has often been underwhelming. Many boxing video games fail to capture the sport’s depth, either by simplifying mechanics for mass appeal or by limiting realism in favor of fast-paced action. However, a well-designed boxing video game should have the power to transform a casual fan into a hardcore boxing enthusiast.

For a game to accomplish this, it must do more than just offer a roster of recognizable names and a simple punch-block system. It must immerse players in the nuances of boxing, encourage strategic thinking, and expose them to the complexities of the sport. Below, we explore how a boxing video game can be a gateway for casual fans to become deeply invested in the sweet science.

1. Realism in Gameplay Mechanics

Casual fans often associate boxing with knockouts and highlight-reel moments, but true boxing aficionados appreciate the finer details—defensive mastery, ring IQ, and tactical adjustments. A realistic boxing game should feature:

• Authentic Punch Mechanics – Punches should vary in speed, accuracy, power, and trajectory, depending on the boxer’s skill set and positioning. No two jabs or hooks should feel the same.
• Stamina and Endurance Systems – Players should be penalized for reckless aggression, learning that boxing is about pacing, energy conservation, and strategic shot selection.
• Defensive and Counterpunching Options – Casual players should naturally start to understand defensive techniques, such as parrying, rolling punches, and head movement, as essential tools rather than passive mechanics.
• Realistic Knockdowns and Knockouts – Knockdowns should happen for multiple reasons, including fatigue, timing, counterpunching, and balance, rather than relying solely on raw power.

By playing with these mechanics, a casual fan would gradually appreciate how real-life boxers use technique and strategy to win fights, rather than just relying on brute force.

2. A Career Mode That Teaches the Sport’s Realities

A compelling career mode should not just be a progression system; it should be an educational tool that introduces players to the world of boxing. Features such as:

• Trainer Influence – Different trainers should provide different training methods, strategies, and philosophies, showing players how styles make fights.
• Weight Management – Players should experience how cutting weight affects performance, strength, and endurance, giving them insight into a challenge real fighters face.
• Fight Negotiations – Understanding how matchmaking works, including choosing the right fights at the right time, could introduce casual fans to the business side of the sport.
• Injury and Longevity Systems – A game that forces players to consider long-term career decisions, such as recovery time, fight selection, and defensive discipline, would reflect the risks boxers take.

With these elements, players would not only build their in-game boxer but also learn the struggles and realities of a real fighter’s journey.

3. Presentation That Mimics Real Boxing Broadcasts

One of the reasons many casual fans struggle to appreciate boxing is because of poor fight presentation in past games. A proper broadcast-style presentation could go a long way in making fights feel significant and educational:

• Pre-Fight Analysis – Breakdown of fighting styles, key matchups, and possible strategies, much like a real broadcast.
• Commentary That Teaches – Dynamic commentators explaining why certain strategies are working or failing could help casual players understand boxing at a deeper level.
• Historical and Tactical Context – Showing references to famous fights, legendary rivalries, or how different weight classes affect strategy would make players curious about real boxing history.

With an engaging and informative presentation, a player might start watching real fights with a newfound appreciation for the techniques and styles they’ve learned in the game.

4. AI That Reflects Real Boxing Strategies

For a boxing game to be a true simulation, the CPU AI must fight like a real boxer. Too many boxing games have robotic AI that follow predictable patterns, making fights repetitive. Instead, the game should feature:

• Fighters Who Adapt – AI should learn from the player's tendencies, forcing adjustments in strategy rather than sticking to pre-programmed patterns.
• Boxer-Specific Styles – A game should replicate real-life boxer tendencies, so players can see the difference between a pressure fighter, a counterpuncher, and a defensive specialist.
• Tactical Training Opponents – Players should be able to train against AI styles that teach them how to handle different approaches, such as fighting against a southpaw or a power puncher.

A well-implemented AI system would make casual fans start recognizing different boxing styles and strategies, which could lead them to appreciate real-life matchups differently.

5. A Customization and Creation Suite That Encourages Deeper Engagement

A rich creation suite can provide players with a way to interact with the sport beyond just playing matches. Features such as:

• Create a Boxer (CAB) Mode – Allowing players to customize their own fighter’s appearance, attributes, and fighting style.
• Custom Trainers, Gyms, and Promoters – Letting players build their own boxing stables, reinforcing the idea that boxing is as much about management and training as it is about fighting.
• Weight Division Customization – Enabling players to structure boxing history the way they want, whether by including junior and super weight classes or having era-specific rankings.

A deep creation system would encourage casual fans to dive into boxing’s history and styles, leading them down the path to becoming hardcore fans.

6. Online and Offline Modes That Reinforce Boxing’s Depth

Online play is an important factor in modern gaming, but it should not come at the expense of deep offline modes that allow casual fans to grow into the game. To facilitate this, a boxing game should:

• Provide Detailed Post-Fight Analysis – Players should get feedback on their performance, including punch accuracy, stamina usage, and tactical effectiveness.
• Offer a Spectator Mode – Watching CPU vs. CPU fights with proper analysis could be both entertaining and educational.
• Include Skill-Based Matchmaking – Ensuring that casual players are not overwhelmed in online fights but can gradually progress as they improve their boxing knowledge.

By balancing online and offline play with engaging progression, casual players would naturally transition into becoming hardcore fans of the sport.

Conclusion: A Great Boxing Game Educates and Inspires

A well-crafted boxing video game should not only entertain but also educate. It should encourage casual fans to learn more about the sport, appreciate its intricacies, and even become devoted boxing enthusiasts. By incorporating realistic mechanics, a deep career mode, broadcast-style presentation, intelligent AI, customization options, and well-structured online/offline modes, a boxing game could serve as the perfect entry point into the world of boxing.

When done right, a boxing video game has the power to turn a casual fan into someone who watches classic fights, studies boxer styles, and eagerly anticipates real-life matchups. The question isn’t whether a game can achieve this—it’s whether developers are willing to make a game that respects the sport enough to try.

A Boxing Video Game Should Be Able to Transform a Casual Fan into a Hardcore Fan

 

Boxing is one of the most intricate and storied sports in history, yet its presence in the gaming industry has often been underwhelming. Many boxing video games fail to capture the sport’s depth, either by simplifying mechanics for mass appeal or by limiting realism in favor of fast-paced action. However, a well-designed boxing video game should have the power to transform a casual fan into a hardcore boxing enthusiast.

For a game to accomplish this, it must do more than just offer a roster of recognizable names and a simple punch-block system. It must immerse players in the nuances of boxing, encourage strategic thinking, and expose them to the complexities of the sport. Below, we explore how a boxing video game can be a gateway for casual fans to become deeply invested in the sweet science.

1. Realism in Gameplay Mechanics

Casual fans often associate boxing with knockouts and highlight-reel moments, but true boxing aficionados appreciate the finer details—defensive mastery, ring IQ, and tactical adjustments. A realistic boxing game should feature:

• Authentic Punch Mechanics – Punches should vary in speed, accuracy, power, and trajectory, depending on the boxer’s skill set and positioning. No two jabs or hooks should feel the same.
• Stamina and Endurance Systems – Players should be penalized for reckless aggression, learning that boxing is about pacing, energy conservation, and strategic shot selection.
• Defensive and Counterpunching Options – Casual players should naturally start to understand defensive techniques, such as parrying, rolling punches, and head movement, as essential tools rather than passive mechanics.
• Realistic Knockdowns and Knockouts – Knockdowns should happen for multiple reasons, including fatigue, timing, counterpunching, and balance, rather than relying solely on raw power.

By playing with these mechanics, a casual fan would gradually appreciate how real-life boxers use technique and strategy to win fights, rather than just relying on brute force.

2. A Career Mode That Teaches the Sport’s Realities

A compelling career mode should not just be a progression system; it should be an educational tool that introduces players to the world of boxing. Features such as:

• Trainer Influence – Different trainers should provide different training methods, strategies, and philosophies, showing players how styles make fights.
• Weight Management – Players should experience how cutting weight affects performance, strength, and endurance, giving them insight into a challenge real fighters face.
• Fight Negotiations – Understanding how matchmaking works, including choosing the right fights at the right time, could introduce casual fans to the business side of the sport.
• Injury and Longevity Systems – A game that forces players to consider long-term career decisions, such as recovery time, fight selection, and defensive discipline, would reflect the risks boxers take.

With these elements, players would not only build their in-game boxer but also learn the struggles and realities of a real fighter’s journey.

3. Presentation That Mimics Real Boxing Broadcasts

One of the reasons many casual fans struggle to appreciate boxing is because of poor fight presentation in past games. A proper broadcast-style presentation could go a long way in making fights feel significant and educational:

• Pre-Fight Analysis – Breakdown of fighting styles, key matchups, and possible strategies, much like a real broadcast.
• Commentary That Teaches – Dynamic commentators explaining why certain strategies are working or failing could help casual players understand boxing at a deeper level.
• Historical and Tactical Context – Showing references to famous fights, legendary rivalries, or how different weight classes affect strategy would make players curious about real boxing history.

With an engaging and informative presentation, a player might start watching real fights with a newfound appreciation for the techniques and styles they’ve learned in the game.

4. AI That Reflects Real Boxing Strategies

For a boxing game to be a true simulation, the CPU AI must fight like a real boxer. Too many boxing games have robotic AI that follow predictable patterns, making fights repetitive. Instead, the game should feature:

• Fighters Who Adapt – AI should learn from the player's tendencies, forcing adjustments in strategy rather than sticking to pre-programmed patterns.
• Boxer-Specific Styles – A game should replicate real-life boxer tendencies, so players can see the difference between a pressure fighter, a counterpuncher, and a defensive specialist.
• Tactical Training Opponents – Players should be able to train against AI styles that teach them how to handle different approaches, such as fighting against a southpaw or a power puncher.

A well-implemented AI system would make casual fans start recognizing different boxing styles and strategies, which could lead them to appreciate real-life matchups differently.

5. A Customization and Creation Suite That Encourages Deeper Engagement

A rich creation suite can provide players with a way to interact with the sport beyond just playing matches. Features such as:

• Create a Boxer (CAB) Mode – Allowing players to customize their own fighter’s appearance, attributes, and fighting style.
• Custom Trainers, Gyms, and Promoters – Letting players build their own boxing stables, reinforcing the idea that boxing is as much about management and training as it is about fighting.
• Weight Division Customization – Enabling players to structure boxing history the way they want, whether by including junior and super weight classes or having era-specific rankings.

A deep creation system would encourage casual fans to dive into boxing’s history and styles, leading them down the path to becoming hardcore fans.

6. Online and Offline Modes That Reinforce Boxing’s Depth

Online play is an important factor in modern gaming, but it should not come at the expense of deep offline modes that allow casual fans to grow into the game. To facilitate this, a boxing game should:

• Provide Detailed Post-Fight Analysis – Players should get feedback on their performance, including punch accuracy, stamina usage, and tactical effectiveness.
• Offer a Spectator Mode – Watching CPU vs. CPU fights with proper analysis could be both entertaining and educational.
• Include Skill-Based Matchmaking – Ensuring that casual players are not overwhelmed in online fights but can gradually progress as they improve their boxing knowledge.

By balancing online and offline play with engaging progression, casual players would naturally transition into becoming hardcore fans of the sport.

Conclusion: A Great Boxing Game Educates and Inspires

A well-crafted boxing video game should not only entertain but also educate. It should encourage casual fans to learn more about the sport, appreciate its intricacies, and even become devoted boxing enthusiasts. By incorporating realistic mechanics, a deep career mode, broadcast-style presentation, intelligent AI, customization options, and well-structured online/offline modes, a boxing game could serve as the perfect entry point into the world of boxing.

When done right, a boxing video game has the power to turn a casual fan into someone who watches classic fights, studies boxer styles, and eagerly anticipates real-life matchups. The question isn’t whether a game can achieve this—it’s whether developers are willing to make a game that respects the sport enough to try.

Switching Undisputed from Unity to Unreal Engine: A Development Nightmare or Necessary Evolution?

Switching Undisputed from Unity to Unreal Engine: A Development Nightmare or Necessary Evolution?

For nearly five years, Undisputed has been in development under Steel City Interactive (SCI), using the Unity engine. However, with mounting criticism regarding the game’s visuals, physics, and overall mechanics, rumors and speculation have surfaced about the possibility of SCI shifting to Unreal Engine. If such a move happens, it raises significant questions: How difficult will this transition be? Will it harm the game’s overall development after so much time invested? And if they proceed, will SCI split resources into maintaining both engines?

The Challenge of Switching Engines Mid-Development

Changing game engines is not a simple task, especially after nearly five years of work. Unity and Unreal Engine operate fundamentally differently, and while some assets may transfer over, much of the work would need to be rebuilt from scratch. This would include:

• Recreating core mechanics – The way physics, animations, and movement behave in Unity cannot be directly translated into Unreal. SCI would have to reprogram and fine-tune key gameplay mechanics to match—or even improve upon—the previous iteration.
• Reworking visual assets and shaders – Unreal Engine offers better graphical capabilities than Unity, but that also means SCI would need to rework lighting, shading, and models to take full advantage of its features.
• AI and logic overhauls – If AI and simulation logic were built around Unity’s architecture, porting them to Unreal would require a significant rewrite, potentially leading to delays or unforeseen gameplay issues.
• Relearning the workflow – SCI has spent years working in Unity, meaning their entire workflow—tools, pipelines, and internal expertise—is built around that engine. Moving to Unreal requires time for the team to relearn and redevelop their processes.

Will It Hurt Development After Five Years?

If SCI is seriously considering an engine switch this late in development, it suggests that Unity is limiting Undisputed in ways they can’t overcome. While Unreal Engine could provide long-term benefits, the immediate impact could be devastating to the game’s progress.

• Delays are inevitable – Whether it's a full transition or a partial one, rebuilding core features in a new engine will take time. This could push the game's official release even further back, frustrating players already losing patience with early access.
• Resources will be stretched thin – SCI isn’t a massive studio with an unlimited budget. Moving to Unreal while continuing to support the Unity version would require either hiring new staff or overloading their current team, slowing development across the board.
• Risk of lost progress – After five years of development, there’s no guarantee that everything will transfer over smoothly. Some features, mechanics, or visual aspects may need to be entirely remade, leading to inconsistencies or setbacks.

Will SCI Work on Two Engines Simultaneously?

One of the biggest concerns is whether SCI will attempt to maintain two different versions of Undisputed: one in Unity and one in Unreal. This would be highly inefficient unless they plan on releasing the Unity version while slowly transitioning to Unreal for future updates or a sequel.

• Dividing a small team could be disastrous – If SCI splits its team into maintaining Unity while developing Unreal Engine assets, it could slow both versions, leading to unfinished features, bugs, and mismanagement.
• A clean break might be better – If they are committed to Unreal, the best approach might be a complete rebuild, ensuring they don’t waste resources maintaining two engines. However, this would mean a much longer wait before the full game is ready.

Final Thoughts: A Necessary Step or a Risky Gamble?

The decision to switch engines would not be made lightly, and if SCI truly believes Unreal Engine is necessary for the future of Undisputed, they need a clear and transparent plan. While Unreal offers better visual fidelity, more robust physics, and a stronger long-term foundation, the cost in time and resources could significantly harm the game’s progress.

Unless SCI has the backing to support a full transition without crippling development, switching engines mid-stream is a dangerous gamble. If they proceed, fans should brace for delays and the possibility that Undisputed may not reach its full potential for several more years.

Switching Undisputed from Unity to Unreal Engine: A Development Nightmare or Necessary Evolution?

Switching Undisputed from Unity to Unreal Engine: A Development Nightmare or Necessary Evolution?

For nearly five years, Undisputed has been in development under Steel City Interactive (SCI), using the Unity engine. However, with mounting criticism regarding the game’s visuals, physics, and overall mechanics, rumors and speculation have surfaced about the possibility of SCI shifting to Unreal Engine. If such a move happens, it raises significant questions: How difficult will this transition be? Will it harm the game’s overall development after so much time invested? And if they proceed, will SCI split resources into maintaining both engines?

The Challenge of Switching Engines Mid-Development

Changing game engines is not a simple task, especially after nearly five years of work. Unity and Unreal Engine operate fundamentally differently, and while some assets may transfer over, much of the work would need to be rebuilt from scratch. This would include:

• Recreating core mechanics – The way physics, animations, and movement behave in Unity cannot be directly translated into Unreal. SCI would have to reprogram and fine-tune key gameplay mechanics to match—or even improve upon—the previous iteration.
• Reworking visual assets and shaders – Unreal Engine offers better graphical capabilities than Unity, but that also means SCI would need to rework lighting, shading, and models to take full advantage of its features.
• AI and logic overhauls – If AI and simulation logic were built around Unity’s architecture, porting them to Unreal would require a significant rewrite, potentially leading to delays or unforeseen gameplay issues.
• Relearning the workflow – SCI has spent years working in Unity, meaning their entire workflow—tools, pipelines, and internal expertise—is built around that engine. Moving to Unreal requires time for the team to relearn and redevelop their processes.

Will It Hurt Development After Five Years?

If SCI is seriously considering an engine switch this late in development, it suggests that Unity is limiting Undisputed in ways they can’t overcome. While Unreal Engine could provide long-term benefits, the immediate impact could be devastating to the game’s progress.

• Delays are inevitable – Whether it's a full transition or a partial one, rebuilding core features in a new engine will take time. This could push the game's official release even further back, frustrating players already losing patience with early access.
• Resources will be stretched thin – SCI isn’t a massive studio with an unlimited budget. Moving to Unreal while continuing to support the Unity version would require either hiring new staff or overloading their current team, slowing development across the board.
• Risk of lost progress – After five years of development, there’s no guarantee that everything will transfer over smoothly. Some features, mechanics, or visual aspects may need to be entirely remade, leading to inconsistencies or setbacks.

Will SCI Work on Two Engines Simultaneously?

One of the biggest concerns is whether SCI will attempt to maintain two different versions of Undisputed: one in Unity and one in Unreal. This would be highly inefficient unless they plan on releasing the Unity version while slowly transitioning to Unreal for future updates or a sequel.

• Dividing a small team could be disastrous – If SCI splits its team into maintaining Unity while developing Unreal Engine assets, it could slow both versions, leading to unfinished features, bugs, and mismanagement.
• A clean break might be better – If they are committed to Unreal, the best approach might be a complete rebuild, ensuring they don’t waste resources maintaining two engines. However, this would mean a much longer wait before the full game is ready.

Final Thoughts: A Necessary Step or a Risky Gamble?

The decision to switch engines would not be made lightly, and if SCI truly believes Unreal Engine is necessary for the future of Undisputed, they need a clear and transparent plan. While Unreal offers better visual fidelity, more robust physics, and a stronger long-term foundation, the cost in time and resources could significantly harm the game’s progress.

Unless SCI has the backing to support a full transition without crippling development, switching engines mid-stream is a dangerous gamble. If they proceed, fans should brace for delays and the possibility that Undisputed may not reach its full potential for several more years.

 

Why EA’s Fight Night Lost Its Grip and Fans Silently Boycotted It

For years, Fight Night was the go-to boxing franchise, giving gamers and boxing fans a fix in the absence of other boxing games. However, Fight Night Champion, the last entry in the series, left many disappointed, leading to a silent boycott that EA never officially acknowledged. While some try to blame the decline of Fight Night on the rise of the UFC’s popularity, that argument falls apart when you realize one undeniable truth: a great game is a great game no matter what’s popular. Fight Night didn’t fail because of MMA—it failed because of EA’s own mistakes.

Where EA Fight Night Went Wrong

1. The Shift Toward a More Arcadey Experience

One of the biggest complaints about Fight Night Champion was that it strayed too far from its simulation roots. EA watered down the mechanics, making the gameplay feel more arcadey, especially when compared to Fight Night Round 4, which had more physics-based interactions and a better sense of impact. Many hardcore fans wanted a true boxing simulation, not a hybrid that sacrificed depth for accessibility.

The movement system in Fight Night Champion felt unnatural. Boxers glided across the ring with a strange stiffness, and footwork lacked the nuance that real boxing demands. Defensive mechanics were simplified, and counters became too easy to pull off, making fights feel less strategic and more like a game of rock-paper-scissors.

2. Champion Mode Overshadowed Core Features

EA marketed Fight Night Champion heavily around its story mode, Champion Mode. While it was an innovative addition and provided a fresh narrative, it came at the cost of the game’s core longevity. Career mode felt like an afterthought, lacking the depth that boxing fans craved. Training was repetitive, customization was limited, and the ranking system was uninspired.

Once Champion Mode was completed, many players felt like there was little reason to keep playing. The game didn’t offer a compelling long-term experience, making it easy for fans to walk away.

3. Limited Roster and Licensing Issues

A huge part of boxing’s appeal is its history and the matchups fans dream about seeing. However, Fight Night Champion had a roster that felt incomplete and underwhelming. Licensing issues prevented many top fighters from being included, and instead of filling the game with fictional or customizable fighters, EA left weight divisions feeling thin and unrealistic.

Adding to the frustration, there were no proper ways to import or create enough boxers to make the game feel alive. This hurt replayability, as many boxing fans wanted full weight classes, not just a handful of superstars.

4. Lack of Offline Depth and AI Issues

Offline players felt abandoned. The AI in Fight Night Champion was predictable and lacked personality. Every fighter felt too similar, failing to replicate real-world tendencies and styles. Instead of adapting to strategies, the AI often became robotic, making long-term play against the CPU stale.

On top of that, there were minimal improvements to legacy mode, and many of the deeper simulation elements boxing fans wanted—like better stamina management, realistic judging, and dynamic fight strategies—were either missing or poorly implemented.

5. Online Greed and Server Problems

EA’s shift towards monetizing online play hurt Fight Night Champion. Instead of refining the gameplay experience, EA focused on in-game purchases and pay-to-win mechanics in the online world championship mode. Players could buy XP boosts to improve their created fighters, which gave paying players an unfair advantage. This alienated hardcore players who wanted a level playing field based on skill, not spending power.

To make matters worse, server issues plagued the online experience. Lag, disconnects, and poor matchmaking frustrated players, leading many to give up on online play altogether.

The Silent Boycott – Why Fans Stopped Supporting Fight Night

It wasn’t an organized movement, but over time, boxing fans simply walked away. Fight Night Champion failed to give fans the depth, realism, and respect for the sport they wanted. EA’s focus on accessibility, microtransactions, and spectacle over substance alienated its core audience.

The silent boycott happened because boxing fans weren’t given an alternative—so they just stopped playing altogether. Many held out hope for another installment, but as years passed with no news, it became clear that EA had no plans to revive the series.

And let’s be honest—the UFC’s rising popularity had nothing to do with this. If anything, the popularity of combat sports should have helped Fight Night, not hurt it. The reality is simple: if EA had made a truly great boxing game, it would have sold regardless of what was happening in the MMA world. Look at NBA 2K—it thrives despite the existence of football, baseball, and soccer games. Great games sell, period.

The Lesson for Future Boxing Games

The silent boycott of Fight Night was a message: boxing fans want realism, depth, and respect for the sport. They want a full-fledged simulation, not a game that gets watered down for mass appeal. If a developer ever brings back boxing in a meaningful way, they need to learn from EA’s mistakes.

• Give players a robust roster and creation options to fill out divisions.
• Make offline modes deep, engaging, and worth playing long-term.
• Ensure online play is fair and free from pay-to-win mechanics.
• Focus on realistic mechanics that make fights feel authentic.
• Respect the sport and its community.

EA’s Fight Night series may have been the best boxing game available at the time, but it wasn’t good enough to keep the sport’s biggest fans engaged. That’s why the series faded away—not because of MMA, but because EA let it slip through their own hands.

 

Why EA’s Fight Night Lost Its Grip and Fans Silently Boycotted It

For years, Fight Night was the go-to boxing franchise, giving gamers and boxing fans a fix in the absence of other boxing games. However, Fight Night Champion, the last entry in the series, left many disappointed, leading to a silent boycott that EA never officially acknowledged. While some try to blame the decline of Fight Night on the rise of the UFC’s popularity, that argument falls apart when you realize one undeniable truth: a great game is a great game no matter what’s popular. Fight Night didn’t fail because of MMA—it failed because of EA’s own mistakes.

Where EA Fight Night Went Wrong

1. The Shift Toward a More Arcadey Experience

One of the biggest complaints about Fight Night Champion was that it strayed too far from its simulation roots. EA watered down the mechanics, making the gameplay feel more arcadey, especially when compared to Fight Night Round 4, which had more physics-based interactions and a better sense of impact. Many hardcore fans wanted a true boxing simulation, not a hybrid that sacrificed depth for accessibility.

The movement system in Fight Night Champion felt unnatural. Boxers glided across the ring with a strange stiffness, and footwork lacked the nuance that real boxing demands. Defensive mechanics were simplified, and counters became too easy to pull off, making fights feel less strategic and more like a game of rock-paper-scissors.

2. Champion Mode Overshadowed Core Features

EA marketed Fight Night Champion heavily around its story mode, Champion Mode. While it was an innovative addition and provided a fresh narrative, it came at the cost of the game’s core longevity. Career mode felt like an afterthought, lacking the depth that boxing fans craved. Training was repetitive, customization was limited, and the ranking system was uninspired.

Once Champion Mode was completed, many players felt like there was little reason to keep playing. The game didn’t offer a compelling long-term experience, making it easy for fans to walk away.

3. Limited Roster and Licensing Issues

A huge part of boxing’s appeal is its history and the matchups fans dream about seeing. However, Fight Night Champion had a roster that felt incomplete and underwhelming. Licensing issues prevented many top fighters from being included, and instead of filling the game with fictional or customizable fighters, EA left weight divisions feeling thin and unrealistic.

Adding to the frustration, there were no proper ways to import or create enough boxers to make the game feel alive. This hurt replayability, as many boxing fans wanted full weight classes, not just a handful of superstars.

4. Lack of Offline Depth and AI Issues

Offline players felt abandoned. The AI in Fight Night Champion was predictable and lacked personality. Every fighter felt too similar, failing to replicate real-world tendencies and styles. Instead of adapting to strategies, the AI often became robotic, making long-term play against the CPU stale.

On top of that, there were minimal improvements to legacy mode, and many of the deeper simulation elements boxing fans wanted—like better stamina management, realistic judging, and dynamic fight strategies—were either missing or poorly implemented.

5. Online Greed and Server Problems

EA’s shift towards monetizing online play hurt Fight Night Champion. Instead of refining the gameplay experience, EA focused on in-game purchases and pay-to-win mechanics in the online world championship mode. Players could buy XP boosts to improve their created fighters, which gave paying players an unfair advantage. This alienated hardcore players who wanted a level playing field based on skill, not spending power.

To make matters worse, server issues plagued the online experience. Lag, disconnects, and poor matchmaking frustrated players, leading many to give up on online play altogether.

The Silent Boycott – Why Fans Stopped Supporting Fight Night

It wasn’t an organized movement, but over time, boxing fans simply walked away. Fight Night Champion failed to give fans the depth, realism, and respect for the sport they wanted. EA’s focus on accessibility, microtransactions, and spectacle over substance alienated its core audience.

The silent boycott happened because boxing fans weren’t given an alternative—so they just stopped playing altogether. Many held out hope for another installment, but as years passed with no news, it became clear that EA had no plans to revive the series.

And let’s be honest—the UFC’s rising popularity had nothing to do with this. If anything, the popularity of combat sports should have helped Fight Night, not hurt it. The reality is simple: if EA had made a truly great boxing game, it would have sold regardless of what was happening in the MMA world. Look at NBA 2K—it thrives despite the existence of football, baseball, and soccer games. Great games sell, period.

The Lesson for Future Boxing Games

The silent boycott of Fight Night was a message: boxing fans want realism, depth, and respect for the sport. They want a full-fledged simulation, not a game that gets watered down for mass appeal. If a developer ever brings back boxing in a meaningful way, they need to learn from EA’s mistakes.

• Give players a robust roster and creation options to fill out divisions.
• Make offline modes deep, engaging, and worth playing long-term.
• Ensure online play is fair and free from pay-to-win mechanics.
• Focus on realistic mechanics that make fights feel authentic.
• Respect the sport and its community.

EA’s Fight Night series may have been the best boxing game available at the time, but it wasn’t good enough to keep the sport’s biggest fans engaged. That’s why the series faded away—not because of MMA, but because EA let it slip through their own hands.

 

The Difference Between Boxing and Fighting Games: Why Boxing Fans Reject the Blur

In the world of gaming, combat-based titles have long been divided into distinct categories. Among them, boxing games and fighting games stand apart—each offering a unique experience based on the nature of the sport or combat style they aim to replicate. However, in recent years, some companies have attempted to blur the lines between these genres, creating hybrid experiences that, while appealing to a broad audience, fail to satisfy dedicated boxing fans.

Boxing Games vs. Fighting Games: The Fundamental Differences

At their core, boxing games are designed to simulate the sport of boxing. This means adhering to real-world rules, strategies, and techniques. The focus is on fundamentals such as footwork, ring control, punch accuracy, defense, stamina management, and tactics that align with the sweet science. Successful boxing games aim to replicate the chess match that takes place inside the ring, making realism a priority.

On the other hand, fighting games—such as Street Fighter, Tekken, or even UFC titles—are structured differently. They emphasize exaggerated movement, quick reaction-based inputs, and often involve mechanics that have little to do with real-world fighting physics. These games thrive on accessibility and action-packed sequences, prioritizing entertainment over simulation. Even games that lean into "realistic" combat, such as the UFC series, often include elements like button-mashing combos, parries that work universally, and stamina meters that function more like cooldowns rather than a reflection of real-life fatigue.

Companies Trying to Blur the Lines

In an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, some game developers have taken a misguided approach, implementing fighting game mechanics into boxing games. They assume that fans of one genre will seamlessly accept elements from the other. Features such as unrealistic punch speeds, excessive combo systems, super move meters, or arcade-like counters are creeping into titles that claim to be boxing simulations.

For instance, Undisputed, a game that initially marketed itself as a hardcore boxing sim, has introduced mechanics that feel more like a fighting game experience. Features like excessive counters, unrealistic stamina recovery, and exaggerated foot movement that allows for arcade-style dashes contradict the very essence of boxing realism. This shift has left many diehard boxing fans feeling alienated.

Why Boxing Fans Aren’t Accepting It

Boxing fans have been starved for a proper simulation experience for over a decade. Games like Fight Night Champion scratched the surface but still had arcade elements that frustrated realism purists. With modern technology advancing to the point where true-to-life boxing mechanics can be faithfully recreated, there is no reason to dilute the experience by incorporating mechanics that do not belong in the sport.

Many boxing fans argue that developers should focus on:

• Accurate Boxer Styles & Tendencies – Real-life boxers have unique movement patterns, defensive styles, and punch deliveries that should be captured authentically.
• Proper Stamina & Damage Systems – Boxing is about endurance and attrition, not executing endless combinations without consequence.
• Realistic Defensive Options – A solid defense should not be reduced to just timed counters. Blocking, head movement, clinching, and positioning should all play significant roles.
• Strategic Fighting – Success in boxing comes from intelligence and adaptability, not simply executing the most stylish moves.

When companies blur the lines, they risk alienating the very audience that has been longing for an authentic experience. Boxing fans aren’t just rejecting these hybrid mechanics out of stubbornness—they’re rejecting them because they fundamentally go against what makes boxing a unique and strategic sport.

The Path Forward

For a true boxing game to succeed, developers must stop treating boxing as just another fighting game subgenre. Instead of attempting to "gamify" the sport with unnecessary additions, they should fully embrace realism. From nuanced movement and tactical engagements to real-world boxing physics and AI behavior, the focus should be on creating a boxing simulation that respects the sport and its fans.

The bottom line is clear: boxing is not just another fighting game. Companies that fail to understand this will continue to face resistance from the boxing community, while those who embrace authenticity have the opportunity to create the definitive boxing simulation experience.

 

The Difference Between Boxing and Fighting Games: Why Boxing Fans Reject the Blur

In the world of gaming, combat-based titles have long been divided into distinct categories. Among them, boxing games and fighting games stand apart—each offering a unique experience based on the nature of the sport or combat style they aim to replicate. However, in recent years, some companies have attempted to blur the lines between these genres, creating hybrid experiences that, while appealing to a broad audience, fail to satisfy dedicated boxing fans.

Boxing Games vs. Fighting Games: The Fundamental Differences

At their core, boxing games are designed to simulate the sport of boxing. This means adhering to real-world rules, strategies, and techniques. The focus is on fundamentals such as footwork, ring control, punch accuracy, defense, stamina management, and tactics that align with the sweet science. Successful boxing games aim to replicate the chess match that takes place inside the ring, making realism a priority.

On the other hand, fighting games—such as Street Fighter, Tekken, or even UFC titles—are structured differently. They emphasize exaggerated movement, quick reaction-based inputs, and often involve mechanics that have little to do with real-world fighting physics. These games thrive on accessibility and action-packed sequences, prioritizing entertainment over simulation. Even games that lean into "realistic" combat, such as the UFC series, often include elements like button-mashing combos, parries that work universally, and stamina meters that function more like cooldowns rather than a reflection of real-life fatigue.

Companies Trying to Blur the Lines

In an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, some game developers have taken a misguided approach, implementing fighting game mechanics into boxing games. They assume that fans of one genre will seamlessly accept elements from the other. Features such as unrealistic punch speeds, excessive combo systems, super move meters, or arcade-like counters are creeping into titles that claim to be boxing simulations.

For instance, Undisputed, a game that initially marketed itself as a hardcore boxing sim, has introduced mechanics that feel more like a fighting game experience. Features like excessive counters, unrealistic stamina recovery, and exaggerated foot movement that allows for arcade-style dashes contradict the very essence of boxing realism. This shift has left many diehard boxing fans feeling alienated.

Why Boxing Fans Aren’t Accepting It

Boxing fans have been starved for a proper simulation experience for over a decade. Games like Fight Night Champion scratched the surface but still had arcade elements that frustrated realism purists. With modern technology advancing to the point where true-to-life boxing mechanics can be faithfully recreated, there is no reason to dilute the experience by incorporating mechanics that do not belong in the sport.

Many boxing fans argue that developers should focus on:

• Accurate Boxer Styles & Tendencies – Real-life boxers have unique movement patterns, defensive styles, and punch deliveries that should be captured authentically.
• Proper Stamina & Damage Systems – Boxing is about endurance and attrition, not executing endless combinations without consequence.
• Realistic Defensive Options – A solid defense should not be reduced to just timed counters. Blocking, head movement, clinching, and positioning should all play significant roles.
• Strategic Fighting – Success in boxing comes from intelligence and adaptability, not simply executing the most stylish moves.

When companies blur the lines, they risk alienating the very audience that has been longing for an authentic experience. Boxing fans aren’t just rejecting these hybrid mechanics out of stubbornness—they’re rejecting them because they fundamentally go against what makes boxing a unique and strategic sport.

The Path Forward

For a true boxing game to succeed, developers must stop treating boxing as just another fighting game subgenre. Instead of attempting to "gamify" the sport with unnecessary additions, they should fully embrace realism. From nuanced movement and tactical engagements to real-world boxing physics and AI behavior, the focus should be on creating a boxing simulation that respects the sport and its fans.

The bottom line is clear: boxing is not just another fighting game. Companies that fail to understand this will continue to face resistance from the boxing community, while those who embrace authenticity have the opportunity to create the definitive boxing simulation experience.

 

Why Fans No Longer Want Arcadey or Hybrid Boxing Games—and Why They Don’t Sell Like They Used To

For years, boxing video games thrived on exaggerated, over-the-top action. Titles like Ready 2 Rumble and Punch-Out!! were fun, wacky representations of the sport that entertained casual gamers. Even games that leaned into realism, like Fight Night, incorporated arcade-like elements, such as exaggerated knockouts and simplified mechanics, to appeal to a broad audience. However, times have changed.

Today, boxing fans and sports gamers overwhelmingly crave realism. The demand for a true simulation of the sweet science has never been higher, and the failure of arcadey or hybrid boxing games to generate sustained interest reflects this shift. The market has matured. We, the fans, have grown up. And the games that once entertained us as kids simply don’t hold the same weight anymore.

We Are Adults Now—And Those Games Made Us Hardcore Sports Fans

Many of the gamers who enjoyed boxing games in the 1990s and 2000s were teenagers or young adults. Those arcade-style boxing games introduced us to the sport, but as we matured, so did our tastes. We began following boxing more closely, appreciating the nuances of styles, footwork, and defensive tactics.

We don’t just want to throw wild haymakers and watch ridiculous ragdoll knockouts—we want the technical beauty of boxing represented in the games we play. The fans who grew up with those older games now expect a deeper experience, one that mirrors the strategy and unpredictability of real fights.

Arcade-style boxing games were a gateway, but now we want a simulation. We no longer need an over-the-top boxing experience because we understand and appreciate the complexities of the sport.

Arcadey Games Don’t Sell Like They Used To

The gaming industry has evolved, and arcade-style sports games have largely fallen out of favor. Outside of niche releases, the best-selling sports titles—whether it's NBA 2K, FIFA (EA Sports FC), or Madden—have leaned into realism. The more authentic the experience, the more engaged the player base.

Look at NBA Jam and NFL Blitz—both were extremely popular in the late 90s and early 2000s, but attempts to revive them haven’t had the same impact. The majority of sports gamers now prefer a realistic representation of their favorite sports, not a cartoonish, fast-paced version detached from reality.

Even Fight Night Champion, which had some arcade-like elements, sold well not because of those features but because it was the closest thing to a true boxing simulation at the time. Fans have been waiting for a game that takes realism even further.

Arcade-Style Should Be an Option—Not the Foundation

The best approach for a modern boxing game is clear: simulation should be the base, with arcade-style gameplay as an option. Let players who want a high-paced, over-the-top experience toggle settings to make it more arcadey, but don’t force that experience onto everyone.

A true simulation boxing game should emphasize:

• Realistic movement and footwork
• Accurate punch physics and reactions
• A deep career mode with real progression
• Authentic stamina, defense, and clinching mechanics
• Different styles that truly make boxers feel unique

If a game gets these things right, it can always add an arcade mode or custom settings for those who prefer a more casual experience. But the base game should be grounded in realism, giving fans the sim experience they have been demanding for years.

Conclusion: It’s Time for a True Boxing Simulation

The demand for a real, in-depth boxing game has never been higher. Arcadey and hybrid games don’t sell because the audience has changed. The fans who once enjoyed exaggerated boxing games have grown up, and we want a game that respects the sport and reflects its complexity.

A well-made simulation boxing game will not only satisfy hardcore boxing fans but also attract casual gamers intrigued by its depth. The success of modern sports games shows that realism sells, and boxing should be no different.

It’s time for developers to recognize that arcade-style boxing is no longer the main attraction—it’s merely an option. Simulation should be the future of boxing video games.