Smart move. It's the same game yearly, minus the elaborate tweaks that go into making Madden a refreshed franchise yearly.
There isn't enough happening in MMA at the moment, least of all the UFC, for yearly updates to this software.
They could sell fighter packs or something, like Rock Band does with their songs, and go from there.
It would be better if THQ wouldn't release a UFC game ever again.
Thanks for making me throw my $60 down the drain!
Tomato Can - Almost every website and magazine gave UFC 2010 a rating in the 8-9 range, so the idea that it didn't sell because it "sucked" is not particularly plausible.
Its very plausible had you actually played the game yourself
The online didnt work for months, its still glitchy, that in addition to numerous crap that has not yet been fixed
THQs forum has been a shitstorm ever since the game was released
Its wellknown that companies give kickbacks to reviewers
So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
Gokudamus stole my name - Its wellknown that companies give kickbacks to reviewers
Not to Tomato Can.
It was 90% the same as the first game. I'd even go so far as to say that almost every gripe from reviews of 2009 was either not addressed or insufficently addressed in 2010.
While the roster might be a joke in the EA sports game, it's clear that they're creating a product with the UFC game's faults in mind.
This is for the best fight night doesn't release a game annually every 2 years would be good imo
Yeah make it every 2 years. Maybe charge is $10 for yearly roster updates?
Tomato Can - So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
Have you played the game or not?
Gokudamus stole my name -Tomato Can - So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
Have you played the game or not?
No, I haven't.
I'm just saying, that when quite literally 100% of game reviewers say it's a good game, chances are sales aren't suffering because the game "sucks".
Reviews are sometimes done on an UNFINISHED game. The developer will simply say that so and so of the glitches will be "smoothed over" on the finished product.
Therefore, a review of a particular game may not always be the most accurate indicator of the product.
Don't other sports game come out annually? How do they manage to do it?
Ok. So you are commenting on a product you havent even played.
Secondly yes its quite plausible that THQ could pay every single site and it would still be a drop in the sea compared to its ad budget
We dont need a UFC game every year if the update consists of 4 new fighters...some new animations and better graphics.
Take your time...be creative and eventually overwork the ground system.
I remember the old arcade style Smackdown games and the N64 WCW/NWO games...they were fantastic.
The fucked the WWE franchise up their freakin ass same thing when Lucas and Steven penetrated Indys ass.
Your whole theory is absurd. If game reviewers were all bought and paid for, then no games would get shit reviews. This is clearly not the case, as several major releases this year have gotten poor reviews. Prince of Persia, Lost Planet, and Dark Void are examples. UFC 2010 didn't get "Game of the Year" type praise, but it's one of the better reviewed console games of the year.
I mean, I'm sorry to burst your bubble and all, but if you think the game "sucked" you are in a small minority of console gamers.
Reviews are sometimes done on an UNFINISHED game. The developer will simply say that so and so of the glitches will be "smoothed over" on the finished product.
Therefore, a review of a particular game may not always be the most accurate indicator of the product.
Make that MOST of the time.
Secondly yes its quite plausible that THQ could pay every single site and it would still be a drop in the sea compared to its ad budget
This is a regular thing in the game industry.
Reviewers have nearly ZERO credibility, especially when compared to real journalists. Most of the time game reviewers aren't even real gamers themselves but merely casual players that have a bit of extensive experience in older NES/Genesis games growing up. For further proof of this, check out preview gameplay videos within sites like gametrailers.com or gamersyde.com.
The most common manner of payola in the game industry is with incentives. Be it with trips to conferences, free consoles, exclusive coverage- it's a very common thing.
A "fighting game" that contains some of the worst control and gameplay mechanics in the genre's history gaining an 80 in metacritic only shows just how bad off the industry REALLY is today. It's as if total and complete idiots are judging these titles; you would swear they've never played a game in their lives.
What's worse is that the SAME TYPE of casual dorks who are reviewing/previewing these titles are also making the games. Not much experience with game design or gameplay beyond basic knowledge that anyone would have and attempting to "fix" an industry that they have fuck all bullshit knowledge of to begin with.
It's disgusting.
lol @ bursting my bubble, you havent even played the game but want to argue its great because game reviewers said so
secondly none of the games you mentioned were projected to be big sellers. Its quite evident you are talking out of your ass, just pipe down and dont embarrass yourself any further
There is a difference between Rockstar wanting their super selling IP GTA continuing to being a success compared to spending coin trying to make a subpar selling game get great reviews
I'm not arguing it's great. I haven't played it. I'm arguing your opinion is in the minority when it comes to this game.
Your last sentence doesn't even make any sense. Please translate to english when you get the chance.
Tomato Can -Gokudamus stole my name -Tomato Can - So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
Have you played the game or not?
No, I haven't.
I'm just saying, that when quite literally 100% of game reviewers say it's a good game, chances are sales aren't suffering because the game "sucks".
If you are so obsessed with the game, why haven't you played it? I bought it the week it came out and I can gurantee you I didn't read more than 1 or 2 reviews because I would rather form my own opinion instead of just touting someone else's.
If you had actually looked at Undisputed's website, you will see mostly pissed off people talking about the bugs and glitches of the game. The small minority of gamers who don't think the game sucks are the reviewers whom you so emphatically listen to.
Tomato Can - So they gave kickbacks to EVERY reviewer?
What an eminently plausible theory.
They dont give kickbacks, rather they have to buy bucket loads of advertising space for a more generous review.
There was a big kick up about that, well almost every year and a few reviews resigned with both gamespot and Ign over that as they felt it was misleading the public and it is.
The reviews I seen of it scored it in the mid 70`s and is about correct. Not enough new stuff in there, better yet the stuff the added could have been dlc since the assets where allready in 2008s version.