Saturday, August 16, 2025

The Misconception of “Boring” Realistic Boxing Games

One of the most persistent myths in sports gaming circles is the idea that a realistic boxing video game would be “boring.” Yet, ironically, many of the same people making this claim are also fans of watching real boxing—an intricate sport filled with strategy, tension, and high-stakes moments. If they can enjoy the sport in its authentic form as spectators, why do they assume playing it in a realistic digital format would somehow be less engaging? The truth is, a well-implemented, realistic boxing game could be anything but boring—it could be a deep, strategic, and rewarding experience that keeps players hooked for years.

The “Too Complicated” Excuse

Critics often argue that boxing, when simulated realistically, is “too complicated” for the average gamer. But this argument falls apart under scrutiny. Complexity in games isn’t inherently bad—it’s only a problem when it’s poorly presented or lacks accessibility.

Strategy as Control
Boxing is one of the few sports where the player can directly influence the outcome through tactical thinking, adaptation, and mental warfare. If developers design systems that reward planning—such as reading an opponent’s tendencies, managing stamina, and timing counterpunches—then complexity becomes an asset, not a flaw.
Training the Player’s Skill, Not Just Button Speed
In a realistic boxing game, winning isn’t about memorizing combos; it’s about making the right decisions at the right time. This encourages mastery over time and creates long-term replayability.

The Double Standard: Arcade Games Get a Pass

Ironically, the same players who dismiss realism in sports games rarely complain about the real complexity of arcade fighting games. Titles like Tekken, Mortal Kombat, and Street Fighter require memorizing dozens—sometimes hundreds—of moves, button combinations, and character-specific techniques just to compete online.

No one is calling those games “too complicated” because the challenge is seen as part of the fun. Yet when it comes to sports titles—especially boxing—some fans and even developers seem convinced that the controls and systems should be dumbed down. This double standard shortchanges the sport and alienates fans who want an authentic experience.

Why a Realistic Boxing Game Would Work

If done right, realism can amplify excitement rather than diminish it. Here’s why:

Tension Builds Engagement
A realistic match isn’t a mindless slugfest—it’s a chess match with gloves. The buildup to a knockout can be more thrilling than the knockout itself.
Every Decision Matters
Choosing when to engage, when to defend, when to clinch, and when to press the pace becomes a meaningful decision that can win or lose the fight.
Authentic Presentation Inspires Immersion
Realistic commentary, crowd reactions, stamina systems, and punch animations don’t slow the game down—they pull the player into the fight.
Adaptability Keeps It Fresh
A smart AI opponent or adaptive online system means no two fights play out the same way.

The Path Forward for Developers

A developer committed to realism should:

Implement strategic systems that let players approach fights in multiple ways.
Offer tutorials and practice modes that ease players into deeper mechanics.
Keep presentation and atmosphere authentic to make every match feel like a real event.
Balance accessibility for casual players with depth for hardcore fans.

The sport doesn’t need to be “arcade-ified” to be fun—it just needs to be implemented well.

Final Word

The claim that realism equals boredom is a lazy excuse often used to justify underdeveloped mechanics. Boxing in its pure form is one of the most intense, strategic sports on Earth. A game that captures that reality—without dumbing it down—could not only attract die-hard boxing fans but also create a new generation of players who learn to appreciate the sport’s artistry.

If gamers can spend hundreds of hours learning the intricate move sets of arcade fighters, they can certainly embrace the depth of a realistic boxing game—especially if the outcome is always in their own hands.

Stop Trying to Redefine Boxing in Boxing Video Games

When it comes to boxing video games, there’s a growing and dangerous trend: players — and sometimes even developers — trying to rewrite what boxing is at its core. They call it “balancing,” “accessibility,” or “making it more fun,” but let’s be honest — what they’re really doing is stripping away the sport’s identity.

It’s happening because some so-called fans and players approach a boxing game not as a simulation of the sweet science, but as just another fighting game where every character should be balanced, predictable, and easy to master. This mindset has led to a wave of unrealistic changes that make the sport unrecognizable. In some cases, these voices act almost like they’ve been appointed as a fictional boxing commission, rewriting the rules for everyone — whether we like it or not.

The truth is simple: Boxing doesn’t need to be changed to be fun.

The Role of Options, Not Overhauls

The beauty of modern gaming is that we have options — difficulty settings, gameplay sliders, stamina toggles, AI intelligence levels. These exist so each player can tailor the experience to their own preferences without changing the game’s foundation for everyone else.

If someone wants:

Endless stamina → turn it on.
Less damage from body shots → adjust the slider.
Arcade-style knockouts every other round → pick arcade mode.

But what they shouldn’t do is lobby for those changes to be baked into the default, realistic modes. That’s when we lose what makes boxing different from every other combat sport — the tactics, the mental game, the endurance battles, and the differences between each style and fighter.

When “Balance” Becomes Homogenization

One of boxing’s most beautiful aspects is that every boxer has strengths and weaknesses. A prime Muhammad Ali relied on lightning speed, movement, and reflexes; Joe Frazier was relentless pressure and body work; George Foreman was raw power and intimidation.

When a game prioritizes “balance” over authenticity, these unique traits vanish. Suddenly, Ali has the same stamina as a brawler, Frazier can dance on his toes for 15 rounds, and Foreman can match the hand speed of Sugar Ray Leonard. The result? Every fighter feels the same. No strategy. No adaptation. No reason to study your opponent.

That’s not boxing — that’s button-mashing in gloves.

The Danger of Changing the Sport for the Wrong Audience

There’s a hard truth that some fans and developers don’t want to hear: not every sport is for everyone. And that’s okay. Boxing is a tactical, strategic sport. It has moments of explosive action, but it’s also about patience, set-ups, conditioning, and knowing when to risk it all.

When we change the core rules to suit people who don’t understand or appreciate that — just to “make it fun” — we’re not expanding the audience. We’re alienating the people who love boxing for what it is and watering it down for those who won’t stick around anyway.

The Real Solution: Layered Game Modes

The smartest way to serve both casual and hardcore fans is to keep realism intact but provide optional layers for those who want a lighter experience. This could mean:

Simulation Mode – For purists who want every factor — stamina drain, injury realism, punch resistance, and strategic AI — dialed to authentic levels.
Casual Mode – For players who just want to throw hands without worrying about pacing or long-term damage.
Hybrid Mode – For those who want a mix of realism and flash.
Custom Mode – Full control over sliders for damage, fatigue, AI aggression, round length, and more.

With these tools, players can play their game without redefining boxing for everyone.

Protecting Boxing’s Identity

At its heart, boxing is a test of skill, will, and intelligence. It’s not about catering to an impatient crowd. It’s not about turning every fight into a rock ’em sock ’em slugfest. And it’s definitely not about pretending the sport is something it isn’t.

Developers have a responsibility to protect the identity of boxing when they translate it into a video game. And fans have a responsibility to stop demanding that the sport be re-engineered to fit their whims.

Because once you erase the realism, you’re not playing a boxing game anymore — you’re playing something else entirely.

Final Word

Options exist so we can all enjoy the game in different ways without dismantling its foundation. Let’s use them. Let’s protect boxing for what it is — a sport with history, culture, and authenticity — and not turn it into something generic.

In short: If you want arcade, pick arcade mode. If you want boxing, let boxing be boxing.

Defending A Boxing Game Better than a Million Dollar Lawyer and Floyd Mayweather Jr.

The Problem: Defending the Indefensible in Boxing Games

1. Shifting the Blame to Players

It’s disheartening when a gamer defends a poorly made boxing game by turning the criticism back on players who wanted more — specifically, players who asked for realism, depth, and mechanics that were promised or implied during marketing.

Instead of acknowledging missing features or shallow gameplay, defenders claim the “realistic” mechanics are already there — even when they’re clearly absent.
This flips the narrative so the player asking for more is painted as the problem, rather than the game’s actual shortcomings.

2. Manufactured Praise

At times, this defense feels almost too consistent and too rehearsed, as if certain voices are actively trying to make the game sound like it matches its original pitch when it doesn’t.

These defenders often repeat talking points straight from marketing blurbs or developer statements without addressing the gameplay reality.
It creates the impression of a PR campaign rather than genuine player feedback.

3. False Equivalency of Effort and Execution

A common argument from defenders is, “The developers worked hard, so you should appreciate it.”

Effort is admirable — but effort without the promised execution doesn’t meet the standard set by the developers themselves.
In the end, players paid for the product that was advertised, not just for the developer’s time.

4. Why This Hurts the Genre

When bad boxing games are over-defended:

Developers receive the message that the bar is already “good enough.”
Publishers see no need to invest in better mechanics, AI, or realism.
True boxing sim fans — who want mechanics like stamina management, ring generalship, realistic damage, clinching, and adaptive AI — are left with shallow arcade experiences dressed up as simulations.

5. The Bigger Picture

If gamers keep defending underwhelming products:

The genre will stagnate.
Realism will remain a “niche” request instead of the baseline.
Marketing spin will replace meaningful innovation.

Thursday, August 14, 2025

Why EA Still Hasn’t Announced a New Fight Night — Even After Undisputed Proved Boxing Games Can Sell

**Why EA Still Hasn’t Announced a New Fight Night — Even After Undisputed Proved Boxing Games Can Sell**

1. EA’s Boxing Revival Was Greenlit — Then Paused

In November 2021, Video Games Chronicle reported that EA had green-lit a new Fight Night, codenamed Moneyball, but then paused development so EA Canada could focus on UFC 5.

“Don’t split the core team across two complex projects,” was the reasoning at the time (VGC, 2021).
Read the full article here.

2. Licensing Complexity — EA’s Stated Roadblock

EA has often pointed to the challenge of licensing individual boxers, promoters, and sanctioning bodies as a key hurdle. Unlike UFC, which operates under a single licensing umbrella, boxing deals must be negotiated one by one.

3. Steel City Interactive’s Licensing Feat

Here’s where the comparison gets interesting. Steel City Interactive (SCI) — an indie studio founded in 2020 — launched Undisputed in October 2024 with:

200+ licensed boxers (past & present)
Referees, trainers, cutmen with real likenesses
Multiple real-world belts (WBC, IBF, WBO, etc.)
Announcers, promoters, and venues

They achieved this through persistent outreach, creative revenue-sharing deals, and relationship-building in the boxing world. This suggests the “licensing is too hard” explanation might be more about corporate priorities than feasibility.

4. Recent Rumors — But Still Silence From EA

After Undisputed’s launch, outlets like Game Rant noted renewed chatter that EA might revisit Fight Night. But as of August 2025, there’s been no official confirmation or denial.

One Reddit commenter summed up fan frustration:

“We’ve heard rumors for over a decade. Don’t hold your breath.”

5. Why EA Might Still Be Waiting

Factor	Possible Impact
UFC focus	Steadier revenue & simpler licensing
Risk management	Boxing seen as a niche
Resource allocation	Top dev teams tied to UFC
Market watching	Waiting to see Undisputed’s long-term sales

6. The “Switch-a-Roo” Factor

Some fans feel SCI shifted Undisputed mid-development toward more arcade-style gameplay. Yet even with that pivot, it secured massive licensing deals and sold well. That success shows there is a hungry audience for realistic boxing, which makes EA’s prolonged inaction harder to justify.

Bottom Line:
SCI, with a fraction of EA’s resources, proved a boxing game can be both licensed and commercially viable. For now, fans can only keep pushing — because if Fight Night returns, it’s likely still years away.

Sources:

Video Games Chronicle – EA’s Fight Night revival on hold
Game Rant – Rumors on new Fight Night
Undisputed official announcements & press releases

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

"Earning the Knockout or Winning: Why Boxing Videogames Must Reward Strategy Over Win-at-All-Costs Tactics"

1. The “Win at All Costs” Mindset

In many modern boxing videogames, especially online, players often abandon the sport’s tactical depth for mechanical exploits or “meta” patterns that maximize quick results.

Over-reliance on exploitable mechanics – Repeated same-punch spam, corner traps without setup, and unrealistic hit-stun loops.
Ignoring ring craft – No investment in positioning, feints, or setting traps; just forward pressure and constant output.
No respect for pacing – Energy systems are bypassed or gamed rather than managed, eliminating the fatigue strategy real boxing demands.

This “win first, forget realism” approach erodes both the learning curve and the authenticity of the experience.

2. How Strategy Earns the Knockout

In authentic boxing, a knockout is the product of layered tactical work, not blind aggression. In a well-designed boxing game, the following approaches should be viable routes to the KO:

A. Setting the Table

Establish the jab early to disguise power shots later.
Touch the opponent to create openings; don’t just throw for damage.

B. Creating Predictability

Force defensive habits by repeating certain looks, then break the pattern.
Use footwork and angles to funnel the opponent into vulnerable positions.

C. Systematic Targeting

Invest in body work to slow them down.
Exploit the fatigue/damage system so late-round power shots have more effect.

D. Psychological Pressure

Make the opponent feel they can’t win on points, coaxing them into mistakes.
Feint to trigger overreactions, then counter.

When these layers work together, the knockout feels earned — the result of chess-like maneuvering that happens to end violently.

3. Why Developers Should Design for Strategy

If the design rewards strategic KO setups instead of spam tactics:

Casual players experience more variety and learn actual boxing fundamentals.
Hardcore players get rewarded for deep skill expression.
Spectators see bouts that mirror real-life pacing, rhythm changes, and drama.

This balance requires stamina systems, realistic hit reactions, defensive viability, and AI or matchmaking that doesn’t encourage cheap patterns.

Realism is not inherently unfair. How to Stop Nerf Culture from Flattening a Boxing Sim

Thesis: Calling for “balance” by sanding down real strengths doesn’t make a better boxing game—it makes a blander one. A true sim protects boxer identity and uses counterplay, risk–reward, and system-level regulation to keep matches fair without erasing what makes each boxer unique.

1) What “balance” should mean in a sim (and what it shouldn’t)

Balance in a sim = fair chances to win through knowledge and execution.
Not equal stats, not roster sameness.
Asymmetry is the point. Real boxing is built on unequal tools (speed, reach, power, gas tank, ring IQ) that clash in interesting ways. If everyone plays the same, it’s not boxing—it’s a generic brawler.
Skill expression > stat compression. Preserve real advantages; surround them with counters and costs so skill decides outcomes.

2) Styles make fights: preserve identity, map the counters

Keep these archetypes sharp—and make the counters obvious and learnable:

Blazing speedster (snap jab, exits on angles)
Counters: feint to draw, step across the exit, body investment to slow legs, clinch breaks rhythm, cut the ring with proactive feet (not reactive chasing).
Heavy-handed pressure (power, inside work)
Counters: first-step denial, intercepting jab/uppercut, late clinch with ref breaks, lateral exits, make him turn and reset.
Long, rangy out-boxer (reach control)
Counters: fainting foot pressure, double-ups under the jab, chest-to-chest clinch entries, body hooks under the long guard.
Counter-puncher (timing, economy)
Counters: feint to burn his trigger, touch high/land low, don’t overcommit in predictable patterns, accumulate to the body so counters get slower.
Body snatcher (attrition game)
Counters: early pivot outs, varied guard, stab-jab back to center, punish when he squares up, demand he pay a toll on entries.

Design note: Teach these matchups in Fight Lab drills: “Beat Pressure with Angles,” “Beat Reach with Feints,” etc. Give players reps before ranked.

3) Why blanket nerfs hurt more than they help

Identity erasure: If power is always “too much” and speed is always “too fast,” you just created 25 clones with different faces.
Meta stagnation: Homogenized rosters create one boring “optimal” playstyle.
Community whiplash: Casuals cheer the nerf today, complain the game is lifeless tomorrow.

4) Fairness without flattening: a counterplay-first blueprint

A. Risk–reward baked into core systems

Stamina economy: Big shots, sprints, and whiffs should cost. A powerful boxer isn’t “OP” if missing makes him mortal in round 8.
Accuracy & commitment: Longer swings = more commit frames; mistime it, you’re punishable.
Defense entropy: Static high guard should degrade against varied attacks; intelligent defense outperforms turtling.
Footwork physics: Sprinting through tight turns should skid, overstep, or square you up; cutting the ring is learned, not glued.

B. Spatial and timing counters

True ring-cutting tools: Micro-steps, lane steals, and momentum halts that actually trap runners without speed nerfs.
Clinching as a rhythm reset: Legal clinch to break blitzes; refs and break mechanics keep it honest.

C. Damage & attrition that make sense

Targeted deterioration: Body work lowers movement & output later, not instantly; head damage should influence reaction and balance, not random KOs.
Cumulative risk: Repeatedly absorbing the same clean counter should quickly get dangerous—reward reading patterns.

5) Online considerations: fix the tech, not the boxer

Latency fairness: Input lag and bad rollback make speed and timing feel unfair. Solve netcode and input buffering before touching stats.
Matchmaking sanity: Protect new/casual players with MMR gates and learning playlists—don’t nerf real tools because Bronze lobbies misuse them.
Anti-macro/anti-spam: Detect ultra-repetitive sequences and add exposure (diminishing block efficacy, telegraph amplification) rather than nuking the move itself.

6) Education > nerfs: teach the counters

Fight Lab modules: Bite-sized drills with measurable goals:
“Cut Off the Exit 3x,” “Make the Counter-Puncher Swing at Air,” “Enter/Exit Clinch Cleanly,” “3-Phase Body Investment.”
Coach overlays: Mid-fight prompts that suggest the right adjustment (“He’s pivoting left; step across and hook the body.”).
Replay with telemetry: Show where you lost the lane, when stamina cratered, and which pattern you repeated.

7) Tuning philosophy: scalpel, not sledgehammer

Exploit vs. expression test
- Exploit: Abuses animation loopholes, cancels, or networking quirks → Fix immediately.
- Expression: Real technique used well → Leave it. Provide counters.
No global nerfs for local problems: If one combo is oppressive on one archetype, adjust that interaction, not everyone’s power.
Archetype guardrails: Lock minimum/maximum bands for core identity stats (e.g., a puncher’s power never drops below X).
Per-mode tuning: Sim Ranked preserves identity; Casual/Arcade can run gentler stamina/damage—without touching Sim.
Transparent patch notes: State the why and show the counter that now works.

8) What to nerf vs. what to never nerf

Nerf/Fix these (fast):

Animation exploits, cancel bugs, phantom range, rollback abuse
Infinite stunlocks, hitstun loops, unblockable setups
Foot-skating teleports, “sticky” homing entries, collision desyncs

Do not nerf these (protect identity):

A puncher’s ability to end a fight with a clean shot
A speedster’s ability to win the footrace if they pay stamina and risk on exits
A long-armed jab that controls distance (teach the slip/step, don’t shorten the reach)
A body snatcher’s late-round payoff from sustained investment

9) Systems that naturally regulate “OP” play

Stamina with intent: Tie cost to intensity + failure. A missed overhand at full sprint should hurt your bar.
Whiff punish windows: Larger on big shots; smaller on short, tight counters.
Guard diversity: High guard strong vs straight head shots, weaker vs hooks to ribs; Philly shell strong vs single shots, vulnerable to layered feint–body–hook.
Ref presence: Break stalemates, warn for excessive holding, enforce pace changes like a real fight.

10) Community management without caving to nerf culture

Data-led dev blogs: “Power KOs occurred in 7.2% of exchanges; after body investment they rose to 12.9% in rounds 7–10—this is intentional.”
Counterplay spotlights: Weekly clips showing “How to beat X” with inputs and footwork lanes annotated.
Ranked integrity: Separate Sim Ranked from Arcade Quickplay and keep tuning walls between them.

11) Concrete “Do this, not that”

Do: Increase recovery on missed overhands so spacing matters.
Don’t: Lower global power.
Do: Add ring-cut assists (angle-steal inputs, momentum checks).
Don’t: Slow the speedster’s baseline speed.
Do: Enhance body shot payoff after 30+ meaningful touches.
Don’t: Make early body taps cause instant slow-mo.
Do: Detect and decay effectiveness of identical 1–1–1–1 spam.
Don’t: Nerf the jab as a skillful setup tool.

12) Onboarding that turns casuals into students of the sport

Scenario ladders: “Beat Fast Hands,” “Beat Tall Out-Boxer,” “Beat Iron Chin” with clear counter goals.
Prompts from the corner: “Cut his left exit with a half-step; then dig the right to the liver.”
Progression that rewards craft: XP tied to successful counters and ring craft, not just damage dealt.

13) Patch-note template that respects realism

Targeted Change: Increased whiff recovery on overhand rights by 6 frames only when thrown from a sprinting entry, to reward spacing and timing.
Why: Sprint-overhand sequences were safe on miss due to momentum carry; now punishable if read.
What Didn’t Change: Base power and on-hit frames remain intact to preserve knockout potential.

14) A practical checklist for devs

Archetype guardrails set (min/max for identity stats)
Fight Lab counter drills authored for each matchup
Stamina costs tied to intensity + failure, not just volume
Whiff punish windows audited across punches
Anti-spam exposure system enabled
Separate Sim/Arcade tuning banks locked
Netcode latency tests pass before any stat pass
Patch notes explain counters, not just numbers

Closing

You’re right: some fans don’t actually want “balance”—they want sameness so they never have to solve a style puzzle. A serious boxing game should resist that pressure. Keep the tools sharp, make the counters learnable, and let the ring craft—not stat flattening—decide who wins.

Essential Hires for a Realistic Boxing Video Game (Steel City Interactive or Any Studio)

These are the roles you cannot skip if you want a true sim boxing game. Anything outside this list risks bloating the budget without adding core realism.

Leadership & Direction (3 total)

Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – 1 person – Oversees vision and realism.
Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – 1 person – Protects authenticity across all systems.
Technical Director – 1 person – Guides technical choices, performance, and pipelines.

Boxing Authenticity & AI (4 total)

Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – 1 person – Builds the style/personality database for every boxer.
AI & Tendency Engineer (Boxing AI) – 1 person – Implements adaptive fight styles.
Professional Boxing Consultant – 1 person – Retired pro or elite trainer for realism checks.
Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – 1 person – Ensures era-accurate tendencies and rosters.

Core Gameplay Development (5 total)

Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – 1 person – Implements punches, movement, stamina, and damage.
Physics Programmer – 1 person – Handles glove impact, hit reactions, and falls.
Animation Programmer (Combat) – 1 person – Integrates mocap with responsive controls.
Fight Systems Designer – 1 person – Balances stamina, damage, clinching, and vulnerabilities.
Procedural Animation Engineer – 1 person – Handles fatigue posture, weight shifts, and dynamic foot planting.

Animation & Mocap (3 total)

Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – 1 person – Oversees punch, defense, and footwork animations.
Mocap Director – 1 person – Directs real boxers in mocap sessions.
Mocap Cleanup Artist – 1 person – Prepares animation data for gameplay.

Presentation & Broadcast (3 total)

Presentation Director – 1 person – Oversees cameras, commentary flow, and fight-night atmosphere.
UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Builds fight HUD, menus, and career mode interfaces.
Commentary Writer / Audio Director – 1 person – Creates dynamic, context-aware commentary.

Testing & Stability (2 total)

QA Lead (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Oversees testing for realism and stability.
Network Engineer – 1 person – Ensures stable online play and lag compensation.

Essential Team Size

Minimum for a true sim: 20 key hires
SCI currently has: 3–4 of these roles (Game Director, QA Lead, some Audio/Narrative staff)
Critical Missing Roles: All AI authenticity hires, combat programmers, mocap specialists, and presentation leadership.

Why Cut the Fat

Roles like extra marketing assistants, multiple environment artists, or oversized narrative teams can come later — after the core boxing experience works. The above list ensures that the mechanics, authenticity, and presentation are locked in first, which is what sells a simulation boxing game to both hardcore and casual fans.

Phase 1 – Build the Realism Core (First 3–4 Months)

Goal: Establish the vision, secure authenticity, and start AI/boxing systems early.

Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – If not already in place.
Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – Protects boxing authenticity from day one.
Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – Builds the style/personality database; critical for AI realism.
AI & Tendency Engineer (Boxing AI) – Starts coding adaptive fight styles early.
Professional Boxing Consultant – Guides realism in all decisions.
Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – Feeds historical data into boxer templates.

By the end of Phase 1, you have the boxing brain trust and AI foundation locked in, so the rest of development builds on a realistic core.

Phase 2 – Core Gameplay Systems (Months 4–8)

Goal: Make the fighting itself feel authentic before adding presentation polish.

Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – Implements punches, movement, stamina, and damage logic.
Physics Programmer – Starts work on glove impact, knockdowns, and body physics.
Animation Programmer (Combat) – Bridges mocap with gameplay systems.
Fight Systems Designer – Balances mechanics like clinching, damage, and fatigue.
Procedural Animation Engineer – Adds weight shifts, foot planting, and fatigue posture.

By the end of Phase 2, you should have a playable prototype with realistic boxer movement, punches, stamina, and basic AI.

Phase 3 – Animation & Mocap Integration (Months 6–10)

Goal: Replace placeholders with real boxing animations.

Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – Directs the animation style.
Mocap Director – Oversees shoots with real boxers.
Mocap Cleanup Artist – Cleans data for integration.

By the end of Phase 3, the game looks and moves like boxing, not a generic brawler.

Phase 4 – Presentation & Fight-Night Atmosphere (Months 8–12)

Goal: Make the game feel like televised boxing.

Presentation Director – Creates authentic camera work and arena atmosphere.
UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – Builds the fight HUD and menus.
Commentary Writer / Audio Director – Starts scripting context-aware commentary.

By the end of Phase 4, the game has a broadcast-level presentation layer to sell the realism.

Phase 5 – Testing & Online Stability (Ongoing from Month 10 onward)

Goal: Ensure the experience holds up in solo and online play.

QA Lead (Sports Focus) – Oversees ongoing testing for realism and bugs.
Network Engineer – Builds lag compensation and stable matchmaking.

Hiring Priority Rule

Early hires = Direct impact on authenticity and mechanics.
Mid hires = Animation and presentation once the core works.
Late hires = Stability and polish roles for final refinement.

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

The Realistic Boxing Video Game Dream: Who Steel City Interactive or Any Other Company Needs to Hire — and Who They Already Have

If you want to build the most authentic, simulation-based boxing video game ever made, the team you assemble is just as important as the game design itself. The problem is, most studios — including Steel City Interactive (SCI), developers of Undisputed — underestimate the breadth and depth of talent required to pull this off.

Making a boxing sim isn’t just about coding punches and building arenas. It’s about integrating boxing history, fight science, broadcast presentation, adaptive AI, and deep career progression into one coherent package. And for that, you need the right people in the right roles — not just boxing “fans” or generic game developers.

Below is the realistic hiring checklist for any company trying to create a true boxing simulation, complete with how many people you need in each role, what SCI already has, and what they’re missing.

1. Leadership & Direction (6 total)

✅ Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – 1 person – SCI has Jxxxx Dxxxx (since May 2024).
❌ Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Technical Director – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Production Managers – 3 people – Missing. Oversees scheduling, budgeting, and milestone tracking.

2. Boxing Knowledge & Authenticity (9 total)

❌ Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Professional Boxing Consultant(s) – 2–3 people – Missing. Mix of retired pros/trainers.
❌ AI & Tendency Designer – 1 person – Missing. Creates adaptive fight logic that mimics real-life tendencies.
❌ Referee / Judge Consultants – 1–2 people – Missing.
❌ Cutman / Trainer Consultant – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – 1-3 people – Critical missing role.
- Oversees all boxer-specific data including fight styles, mentalities, strengths, weaknesses, stamina curves, and psychological behaviors.
- Integrates with AI systems so boxers fight according to their real-life skillset and personality.

3. Gameplay & AI Development (12 total)

❌ Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Gameplay Programmers – 3 people – Missing.
❌ AI Engineer (Boxing AI) – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Animation Programmer (Combat) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Physics Programmer – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Fight Systems Designer – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Technical Combat Designer – 3 people – Missing.

4. Animation & Mocap (10 total)

❌ Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Animators (Combat Focus) – 4 people – Missing.
❌ Mocap Director – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Mocap Cleanup Artists – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Procedural Animation Engineer – 2 people – Missing.

5. Presentation & Broadcast (9 total)

❌ Presentation Director – 1 person – Missing.
❌ UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Commentary Writer / Audio Director – 1 person – Missing.
✅ Sound Designers – 2 people – SCI has audio staff, with Senior Audio Designer role open.
❌ Lighting Artist – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Broadcast Camera Artist – 2 people – Missing.

6. Modes & Content (8 total)

❌ Lead Designer – Career Mode – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Career Mode Designers – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Narrative Designer – 1 person – Partial (SCI has Junior Narrative Designer xxx xxxx).
❌ Online Systems Designer – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Economy & Live Content Designer – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Quest/Scenario Designer – 1 person – Missing.

7. Art & Asset Production (12 total)

❌ Character Artist (Realism Focus) – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Environment Artist – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Clothing & Gear Artist – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Texture/Shader Artist – 2 people – Missing.
❌ VFX Artist (Impact/Particles) – 2 people – Missing.
❌ Crowd/Prop Artist – 2 people – Missing.

8. Technical & Support (7 total)

❌ Technical Artist – 2 people – Missing.
✅ QA Lead (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Covered (xxx xxxxxxxx).
❌ QA Testers – 2–3 people – Missing (sports simulation focus).
❌ Build Engineer – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Network Engineer – 1 person – Missing.

9. Licensing, Marketing & Partnerships (6 total)

❌ Licensing Manager – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Licensing Assistants – 1–2 people – Missing.
❌ Community Manager (Boxing Knowledge) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Marketing Director (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Missing.
❌ Marketing Artists/Editors – 1–2 people – Missing.

Total Recommended Studio Size

For a fully realized boxing simulation:

Minimum Core – 55–65 developers/staff
Ideal Full Team – 90–110 developers/staff (plus external mocap boxers, voice actors, and contractors)
Mocap Talent Pool – 10–20 boxers of varied styles and eras
External Partners – CompuBox, BoxRec, sports broadcasters

SCI’s Current Reality

Steel City Interactive currently has:

✅ Game Director (Sports/Combat)
✅ QA Lead
✅ Audio Staff (expanding)
✅ Junior Narrative Designer
❌ Missing most combat, animation, authenticity, presentation, and tendency/attribute roles

That means SCI has about 5–6 of the 90+ people needed for a true full-scale sim boxing game — with the rest still missing or outsourced.

Why This Matters

Without core boxing authenticity hires, specialist programmers, and presentation experts, SCI risks Undisputed becoming another “boxing-flavored fighting game” rather than the immersive sim they promised.

The “NBA 2K of boxing” requires the same discipline, staffing, and creative vision — just in a different sport. One of the most urgent hires is a Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer — without this role, the AI will never truly represent the sport’s diversity in styles, personalities, and skillsets.

The roadmap is clear: hire the missing expertise in the right order, secure authenticity partners, and commit to realism over arcade compromises.

What Steel City Interactive Can Learn from Digital Extremes (Warframe)

Adapting Proven Long-Term Live Service Success to Build a True Boxing Simulation

1. Community Engagement & Transparency

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Devstreams: Regular, scheduled streams where the actual developers—not just PR—show work-in-progress content, explain decisions, and even admit when something didn’t work.
Direct Dev Access: Designers, animation leads, and gameplay directors appear on camera so players get answers straight from decision-makers.
Detailed Roadmaps: They share clear timelines for features, mechanics, and story beats, while updating when things shift.

What SCI Could Learn

Replace vague marketing posts with consistent, detailed communication from key members of the dev team.
Publish mechanics-focused roadmaps—not just DLC or patch dates—so players know when core boxing systems like referees, clinching, and boxer tendencies are coming.
Host regular unfiltered Q&A sessions, even when the answers might not please everyone.

2. Respect the Core Game Identity

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Warframe evolved, but never abandoned its “space ninja” core identity.
New content builds on the existing foundation instead of replacing it.
When mechanics change, the devs explain why and keep fan-favorite systems.

What SCI Could Learn

Stop removing the simulation mechanics that brought boxing purists in.
Ensure real-life boxer strengths and weaknesses—speed, power, reach, stamina—are represented accurately and not “balanced out” for esports fairness.
- Sugar Ray Leonard should feel lightning fast.
- Foreman should hit like a truck but gas out quicker.
- Ali should have unmatched footwork and ring control.
Evolve features instead of flattening them into a generic arcade mold.

3. Iterative Content Instead of Long Silences

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Frequent small-to-medium updates keep the game fresh.
Experimental content is released in early form for feedback before full rollout.
Player reactions help refine features before they’re permanent.

What SCI Could Learn

Deliver mechanics in stages:
- Add basic referee AI first, improve animations and calls over time.
- Introduce a few boxer-specific tendencies per update.
Avoid waiting months for “all or nothing” updates—feed the game regularly.

4. Deep Player & Expert Feedback Integration

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Uses veteran player councils to test unreleased content and give raw feedback.
Implements community-created ideas and assets into the actual game.
Publicly acknowledges and reverses unpopular changes.

What SCI Could Learn

Create a Boxing Council of real boxers, trainers, historians, and experienced boxing gamers.
Pay these experts or offer them licensing/DLC revenue shares for their input.
Reverse or adjust features if they damage realism—don’t double down on bad pivots.

5. Fair Monetization & Boxer Compensation

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Monetization is cosmetic-first—core gameplay isn’t pay-to-win.
Premium content is also earnable through gameplay.
Players see spending as support, not as buying an advantage.

What SCI Could Learn

DLC can be a win-win:
- Use DLC sales to fairly compensate real boxers for their likeness and keep the roster growing.
- Ensure every boxer is implemented with accurate attributes—don’t nerf or buff them to fit a “meta.”
- Communicate clearly that part of DLC revenue goes directly to boxer licensing.
Sell venue packs, historic fight presentation packs, and customization—not competitive advantages.

6. Event-Based Player Retention

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Seasonal events keep the community engaged.
Events tie into lore and world-building.
Exclusive rewards show veteran status.

What SCI Could Learn

Host historical boxing events (e.g., “Golden Age Heavyweights” with era presentation).
Run special rules modes: 15-round era fights, bare-knuckle exhibitions.
Offer exclusive cosmetics or commentary packs as event rewards.

7. Longevity Through Layered Systems

What Digital Extremes Does Well

Multiple deep systems—modding, lore, crafting—give long-term mastery goals.
New systems expand, not replace, old ones.

What SCI Could Learn

Expand beyond single fight modes:
- Deep career with aging, peak years, legacy tracking.
- Fighter creator with realistic stat/tendency customization.
- Historical rivalries mode with era-accurate rules and presentation.
Create meta-progression so players stick around for years, not months.

Bottom Line

Digital Extremes turned Warframe from a struggling launch into a long-running success because they:

Stayed loyal to their core vision while evolving.
Collaborated with players and experts.
Used monetization to support content and pay contributors fairly.
Avoided diluting the fantasy that made the game unique.

If SCI adopts these principles—and combines them with accurate boxer representation, fair DLC-driven compensation for real boxers, and refusal to “balance away” real-life skills—Undisputed could mature into the definitive, long-running boxing simulation rather than a short-lived curiosity.

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Podcast Script – “The State of SCI: Deception, Downplaying, and the Death of a Vision”

Some of this information is reinforced by veteran game developers I have been conversing with.

Podcast Script – “The State of SCI: Deception, Downplaying, and the Death of a Vision”

Opening Segment – Setting the Tone

“Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re cutting through the smoke and mirrors surrounding Steel City Interactive and the Undisputed boxing game.
We’re talking inexperienced hires, deceptive messaging, questionable bans, ignored fan feedback — and why SCI is treating passionate, knowledgeable boxing fans like we’re clueless.”

Segment 1 – Raczilla’s Return & Deceptive Framing

Will “Raczilla” Kinsler reappears on Discord, but instead of transparency, he reframes past events.
- Calls playable ESBC builds “videos” to downplay that they were functional representations of Ash Habib’s original vision.
- Uses “It was before my time” as a distancing tactic to avoid accountability for the game’s drastic pivot.
- Worse — he appears to have sidelined Ash’s vision and restarted with his own direction: a hybrid, arcadey boxing game that no core fan asked for.
- The sim foundation Ash was building toward? Gone. What we have now feels closer to EA Fight Night than the “NBA 2K of boxing” that was promised.

Talking prompts:

Why call a playable build a “video” unless you’re trying to erase the context?
Was the restart designed to push out sim mechanics in favor of arcade gameplay?
How much of the current product is Raczilla’s vision, not Ash’s?
Why did communication shift from hype to corporate spin?

Segment 2 – Downplaying Boxing Credentials

Moderators and community managers downplay or dismiss my boxing background and accolades.
- “We have boxing fans on the team” gets used as PR cover — but having “fans” isn’t the same as having seasoned boxers influencing gameplay.
- I’ve had decades of involvement, fought amateur and pro, and spoken with countless developers.
- This isn’t ego — it’s about removing qualified voices from the room.

Talking prompts:

Why dismiss actual boxing expertise while elevating those with little to no combat sports dev background?
When did real boxing credentials stop mattering for a boxing game?
Is SCI intentionally avoiding voices that might challenge their direction?

Segment 3 – Inexperienced Hires

SCI is stacking the team with inexperienced developers over proven talent.
- Is this to save money or to avoid pushback on design choices?
- The result is inconsistent systems, half-finished mechanics, and questionable decisions.

Talking prompts:

Who’s doing the hiring, and why prioritize inexperience?
How many on the team have zero boxing or sports sim history?
Is this about control rather than quality?

Segment 4 – The Head of Design/Game Director Problem

The Head of Design/Game Director has no sports or combat gaming history.
- His track record is in writing books — but book writing doesn’t deliver the realism boxing fans want.
- Leadership without domain expertise risks design decisions disconnected from the sport.

Talking prompts:

Why is the top creative role filled by someone without the relevant background?
Does book-writing experience translate into boxing sim design?
How can fans trust the vision without proven combat sports game leadership?

Segment 5 – Why Didn’t SCI Hire Poe?

SCI claimed they weren’t hiring outside the UK — then brought in Todd Grisham, Boxing Fanatico, Will Kinsler, JxShepp, and more from the U.S.
- Meanwhile, I was passed over despite decades of experience and advocacy for realistic boxing games.
- Some hires had no dev background — just casual boxing fandom.

Talking prompts:

Why the “UK-only” claim if multiple U.S. hires were made?
Were they avoiding someone who knows the sport too well?
Why choose unqualified casuals over boxing/game experts?

Segment 6 – Ash Habib’s Decisions

If investors and publishers were the bottleneck, why didn’t Ash buy them out or renegotiate?
- He had community trust, momentum, and a unique product.
- The pivot to an EA-style hybrid was not what the original backers supported.
- Was Ash sidelined from his own project?

Talking prompts:

Was the “NBA 2K of boxing” line just marketing?
Why not protect the original vision at all costs?
Could early sales success have been used to regain control?

Segment 7 – The “Lost” Source Code & WIP Myth

SCI acts like old builds, WIP code, and assets are gone.
- Reality: studios always keep archives.
- Suggesting otherwise insults anyone who’s been around game development.

Talking prompts:

Why pretend restoring old builds isn’t possible?
Is this just to avoid returning to more sim-accurate versions?
Are they hiding that the old mechanics were better for realism?

Segment 8 – Leafy’s Ban & The “Movement With No Specifics”

Leafy’s Discord ban looked like silencing a critic more than enforcing rules.
- Talk of “movement” in development without dates or details is empty PR.

Talking prompts:

Was the ban about rule-breaking or shutting down dissent?
Is vagueness on progress deliberate to hide delays?
How do fans stay engaged when updates say nothing concrete?

Segment 9 – The AI Developer Problem & Publisher/Investor Mindset

SCI removed their AI developer and never replaced them.
- AI is the brain of a boxing game — without it, there’s no realism in tendencies, decision-making, or style.
- Investors/publishers still think arcade sports games sell better, stuck 20–30 years in the past.
- DLC won’t sell if the base game lacks authentic mechanics.

Talking prompts:

Why no AI developer replacement?
Do decision-makers even want a sim boxing game?
Who’s really calling the shots?
Is “transparency” a smokescreen?

Segment 10 – What’s Possible vs. What We’re Getting

If the Big Dogs Made a Boxing Game

EA Sports: Big-budget realism possible, but gamers doubt they’d go sim. Could deliver dynamic career, true stamina/damage, official belts.
2K Sports: Deepest career/promoter mode in history, with a living boxing world.
Konami (Victorious Boxers): Best footwork/stamina in the genre, modernized for motion-matched animation and style realism.
Capcom: Esports-ready controls and precision.
Sega/RGG Studio: Story-driven career with gym building and side content.
Rockstar Games: Open-world boxing drama from underground fights to world titles.

Past Games in Today’s Tech

Fight Night Champion: 4K, ray-traced arenas, physics-based damage.
Victorious Boxers: Perfect movement, stamina realism, hybrid anime/realism visuals.
Knockout Kings: Huge rosters, era-specific presentation.

Modern Modes That Could Be Delivered

Full Career Mode
Promoter Mode
Legacy Mode
Esports Circuit
Cinematic Story Mode
Historic Rivalries
Amateur Circuit
Gym Builder
Community Creation Suite

Transition:

“That’s what’s possible. That’s what other companies could deliver right now. Now let’s look at what SCI is not delivering…”

Fan Wishlist vs. SCI Silence

Core Mechanics & Gameplay:

CAB revamp, more slots, weight scaling, separate punch styles, clinching with punches, more taunts, more illegal blows, correct styles, fixed haymakers, unique power punches, logo creator, community creations, more stances, full-time ref.

AI & Realism:

Replace AI developer, add realistic tendencies, fix footwork, stamina realism, dynamic damage, feints, pivots, ring craft.

Transparency & Trust:

Why ban Leafy, no hiring transparency, vague “movement” updates, unqualified hires.

Publishers & Direction:

Why investors still think arcade > sim, why DLC over core fixes, why pivot from Ash’s vision.

Closing punch for the segment:

“One side is what’s possible, the other is what we’re actually getting — and the gap between those two is where this game is losing the very fans it was built for.”

Segment 11 – Additional Critical Questions for SCI

Why are key elements still absent?
Why act like sim realism is niche?
Why moderate criticism instead of addressing it?
Who’s making the real decisions?
Why not be transparent about mechanic removals?

Segment 12 – Your Perspective

Decorated amateur career.
Professional boxing experience.
Spoke with countless developers.
Advocate for realistic boxing games for decades.
This isn’t ego — it’s holding SCI accountable to its original promise.

Mic Drop Closer – “Boxers & Fans: No More ‘It’s Just a Game’”

“Boxers — past and present — it’s time to speak up.
Too often, we hear ‘It’s just a game’ as an excuse for watered-down, inaccurate portrayals.
But a boxing video game isn’t just a game. For millions of people, it’s their first — and maybe only — introduction to the sport.
And if that game misrepresents boxing, then it’s misrepresenting you.”

If you’re Muhammad Ali, your footwork and ring generalship should be exact.
If you’re Mike Tyson, your peek-a-boo style and explosive hooks should feel like Tyson, not “generic brawler.”
If you’re Mayweather, your shoulder roll and defensive counters need to be on point.
If you’re Lomachenko, your angles and pivots should be yours — not a re-skin of someone else’s moves.
If you’re Katie Taylor, Claressa Shields, or Amanda Serrano, your craft deserves the same depth and detail as any male champion.

“Silence lets developers cut corners and hide behind ‘nobody asked for it.’
Well, we’re asking — and not just fans. Boxers and fans together are unstoppable.”

Rapid-Fire Demands

Authentic tendencies — no generic punch patterns.
Signature styles and movements, down to the smallest details.
Real boxing mechanics — clinches, pivots, inside fighting.
Full-time referees.
Accurate weight scaling.
Deep, customizable boxer creation.
Style-specific power punches.
Smarter, adaptive AI.
Transparent roadmaps.
Publishers and investors listen to fans.

*Alicia Bum Gardener was very outspoken.

“Boxers, this is your legacy. Fans, this is our sport.
Together, we demand realism — and we won’t stop until we get it.
Because boxing is bigger than any one game, and it deserves the truth.”

Closing

“The boxing gaming community isn’t as naive as some in SCI think. We’ve been here long before this game, we’ll be here long after, and we know when we’re being fed half-truths.
You can water down mechanics, you can spin words, but you can’t erase what we’ve seen, played, and believed in.
The truth is in the code — and no matter what they tell you, the code is still there.”