18/02/2006 à 03:50:12 Fight Night 3 reviews

Gameinformer - 9/10
Stuff Magazine - 9/10
Play Magazine - 9/10
IGN - 8.5/10

IGN reviewed it today:
IGN:
Presentation - 7.5 - No stat tracking or rankings, poor implementation of rivals, menus not as pretty as Round 2. Removing the HUD a fantastic choice that improves gameplay. ESPN Classic is a nice touch.

Graphics - 9.5 - The most gorgeous models ever seen on a console. Visual emotion actually improves gameplay. Face-rippling replays will give you chills and/or black eyes.

Sound - 7.5 - Good commentary, but not much added from last year and it eventually becomes repetitive. Mediocre soundtrack, but blistering, mind-numbing punch effects.

Gameplay - 8.5 - Slow impact punches improves unbalanced haymaker system from last year to create a more realistic boxing experience. The CPU opponents are pacifists -- single player is just too easy.

Lasting Appeal - 8.5 - Xbox Live and multiplayer saves Round 3 from the sub-par career mode. Against a human, Round 3 is one of the most enjoyable sports titles to date.


Looks like if it wasnt for Xbox live, this game would have gotten a 7.5

18/02/2006 à 04:09:44

Xbox Live saves the day!!!!, but in all honesty this game is amazing. Also if THIS game doesn't get a 10 in the graphics department what does?


Ghost Recon will probably get a 10 if it doesn't then I'll be quietly asking myself exactly what are they looking for :)

Gears will probably get a 10, but I know for a fact that blue dragon is going to be receiving a 10 that game is gorgeous.

18/02/2006 à 04:22:44

Okay the 8.5 is understandable the reviewer on ign brought up some very good points. The AI should've been much harder, but who cares its all about beating people up over xbox live. This is one such game where the true joy of the game comes from its online functionality and the arguments about the rival mode are also justified when you think about it, but it just goes to show this game is more about straight up boxing than anything else.

I see no reason why they couldn't take the rival mode a step further, but then they wouldn't have anything saved for fight night round 4. I just hope EA doesn't pull a fast one on its fans and put an improved rival mode in the ps3 version of the game and end up pissing everyone off that bought the 360 version.

Then again whats easy for one person wont necessarily be easy for everyone else.

18/02/2006 à 04:23:42

I think the PS3 version might be tighter and a little cleaner but only because of development time being longer.

18/02/2006 à 06:00:10

Well I definetly don't expect the ps3 version to beat out the 360 version graphically, but I hope they don't add different knockdown animations or a guy shaking on the ground from a knockout or anything extra like that.

They especially better not add extra things to the rival mode. Actually who cares i'll have my fight night round 3 and I'll be satisfied. There will be many hours of enjoyment with this game over xbox live :)

18/02/2006 à 06:06:45

FN4 will be on BOTH PS3 and Xbox 360

18/02/2006 à 09:40:34

Yea i know :)

18/02/2006 à 17:51:52

18/02/2006 à 18:00:04

When I think about the whole thing I don't really care fight night round 3 for the 360 will be great and the next fight night will again be on both consoles.

They should improve it as much as they want, but I doubt we'll be seeing too many new additions as I'm sure fnr3 for the ps3 has already been in development so its not like they are starting from scratch since recently.

18/02/2006 à 20:25:11

Not bad, i may get this game a little later though.

---
I am the pwnage

18/02/2006 à 22:29:29

That IGN review was pretty lame. 9.5 for graphics is high...most certainly, but not when they are the most gorgeous models ever seen in a game...to the point where facial expressions are well-done enough to replace the need for a hud.

Also, it's a sports game. Since when do sports games need to have depth of story(which in the reviewer's opinion could be obtained by letting you buy cars, mansions, and hookers?...LAME!). At least they attempted something with the rivalries. And like Optimus said, this game is MEANT to be played with other people. I can think of nothing more fun than getting together with friend and creating a bunch of virtual us's and watching as our faces ripple majestically.

18/02/2006 à 23:05:25

Bah by the time the PS3 comes out we will have FN4 on the 360 anyway.

19/02/2006 à 00:27:09

Yea they were a bit harsh. Sometimes it just seems to me that they judge a game's graphics by its genre. I mean this isn't a boxing game so graphically impressive that its worthy of a 10?


Ghost recon on the otherhand I strongly believe is guaranteed a 10 in the graphics department.

19/02/2006 à 02:48:57 En réponse à Optimusv2 (19/02/2006 à 00:27:09)

19/02/2006 à 05:35:21

I would not give GRAW a 10.

1. Animations sometimes are off. Either some of the guys do the "fast gig" run, or when they get shot there is a poor transition.

2. The game has "shadow edge crawl". i.e. no soft shadows and the method used produces jagged edges.

3. The textures are low in some areas.

4. The uniforms--either by design or by limitations--is boring. The texture pattern looks low res (even if it is not). The helmets have distinct polys, etc.

5. The MP engine is not as advanced.

6. The dust is not always realistic; e.g. I saw a helo on a building blowing dust--it may at first, but having first hand seen quite a few helos once the dust is off the pad/building it stops.

GRAW is a great looking game. You can praise it on and on--I am really happy with the end result (coming from someone 6 months ago was totally turned off by the screenshots coming out due to the reduction in quality). But 10 to me is perfect with no real way to go in improvement. There are a LOT of areas GRAW could be substantially better.

I would not have given FNR3 a 9.5 either by their system. Since it is a generational thing I would have had to assume that a 1st gen title could not be a 9.5 based on what will come out over the next 5 years.

Now if you are basing it on a temporal system--year by year maybe--then yeah, give it a 10.

Personally if I were to do reviews over there would be genre, system, and overall relative points, temporally, about the graphics. This would factor into the current score factor; but I would also do a sliding scale where it is rated and people could check how it rates currently. Meaning as the gen goes on the graphics score would go down relative to other products.

Of course that is always hard because these are not 1-to-1 comparisons in art, genre, etc... but reviews are never an exact science.

Often it is better to leave a commentary. I like how NEXT GENERATION magazine used to use a 5 star system. 5 = everyone should get it; 4 = must have for fans of the genre; 3 = a solid/average game in the genre, has some new elements and worth trying; 2 = average run of the mill game in the genre, not bad, but nothing new; 1 = poor/buggy game with fundamental flaws and not enough redeeming traits; 0 = get far away.

A star based system with a short technical discussion about how it fairs in graphics, sound, MP, etc... may be the best way to objectively go about it while giving credit while not tagging an arbitrary value (like 9.5 for graphics).

I really don't like how a lot of review sites work. I always read their review summaries before anything else.

19/02/2006 à 18:38:38

In my opinion, I really don't think that games should be rated graphically on what yet-to-be-released games might look like. If a game is tops at the time, then there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't get a 10. Sure, a 1st gen title is definitely not going to compare to subsequent generations in graphics(assuming equal developer competency), but you can't punish a game because it was released earlier. It's not the game's fault.

"There are only a few minor details worth mentioning. When you knock your opponent down, occasionally part of his foot will disappear into the mat. There is also some occasional pop-in with the ropes, and when you knock someone in the mouth the blood looks a bit fake"

Man, when games are able to abolish all clipping, THEN and only then could I see docking it points for having a lowly foot clip into the mat, and does anyone else think the 3D blood'n'spit combo that flies out of the boxers' mouths looks friggin' sweet?

19/02/2006 à 19:27:58 En réponse à Acert93 (19/02/2006 à 05:35:21)

19/02/2006 à 19:57:18 En réponse à easynow (19/02/2006 à 19:27:58)

---
Dirty South UK

19/02/2006 à 20:19:51 En réponse à Scarface (19/02/2006 à 19:57:18)

19/02/2006 à 23:10:16

I've been saying that forever!! lol. People scream and call doa 4 last gen, but if they ever actually play the damn thing on a 360 then they'd see how amazing it really looks.

19/02/2006 à 23:25:05 En réponse à easynow (19/02/2006 à 19:27:58)

19/02/2006 à 23:27:12

Acert93: I assume you've seen the HD video preview from Gametrailers?

20/02/2006 à 00:42:32

Acert, I think you can have your own opinion and "we" can have ours but i don't think your gonna complain when u finally get to play GRAW personally....

And about some of the comments and "flaws" u detected if u've seen the preview from gametrailers (the one Slabs up here is talking about) u will see that allot if not all of those aren't an issue in the video.... that maybe a coincidence but i've got good hopes for it...

20/02/2006 à 00:48:53

Thats all he was having.. People here are way to sensitive to other peoples opinions.

GRAW is some of the best graphics i have seen so far but i wouldn't give it 10 either.

If you rate this 10 what happens when something better comes out ??

20/02/2006 à 02:12:51

I always wonder, we always have just 2 consistent posters doubting xbox 360 console and its games, consistently. have you guys noticed it?