Fight Night Round 3 Review (X360)

[Norse]

IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/689/689318p1.html) has reviewed Fight Night Round 3 for the Xbox 360. Here's a taste:

Visually, Fight Night Round 3 is one of the most impressive Xbox 360 titles released yet, thanks mostly to the gorgeous, high-resolution boxers. While the 360 version seems to run just a tad slower than the current-gen version of the game, the animations are smooth and fluid, with nary a graphical hiccup.
Seems like a must buy for hungry X360 owners.

[Varsity]

Gorgeous boxers? Oo-er.

[VYPUR]

The DEMO is soo nice! looks amazing in HD goodness

[KamaItachi]

I was sold on this after the demo on Live. It's been on my must have list for weeks now. Good to see they didn't miraculously fuck everything up in the last minute, though.

[InstaPete]

The demo on Live looked AMAZING, but either the gameplay wasn't fun or I just didn't understand it.

It's very possibly the second one, but i was bored to tears. incredible graphics, though.

[KamaItachi]

The demo on Live looked AMAZING, but either the gameplay wasn't fun or I just didn't understand it.

It's very possibly the second one, but i was bored to tears. incredible graphics, though.

It's all in the sticks.

First few times I played it it felt weird and unresponsve, but once I got the timing down and realised that the more you plug away, the worse you'll do, and started to conserve my energy, time my punches and learn how to string an effective combo together, it really was like a whole different game.

I hate to sound like one of those you just didn't "get it", man! guys, but I urge you to have another go.

[EvilBob46]

Even with a lack of outstanding titles, an 8.5 from IGN hardly qualifies as a must buy. You must be a really really hungry Xbox 360 owner.

[Lekon]

To be fair: The game is great, quite fun when you get the hang of it. I usually hate EA, but this game can be rather enjoyable, IF in multiplayer. There's just so much that's hilarious about arguing/cajoling with a friend when the slowmo fist to the face cam goes off.

Plus, you can play everyone's favorite game. "How many times can I punch him as he's going to the mat?"

[Kelegacy]

The thing that makes Fight Night games so beautiful, even the current consoles, is that the developer doesn't need to focus on game worlds, lush stadiums you are running across, or other team members. Instead they can devote all of their resouces on just two people on screen. This could be said with many fighters, I suppose. I was amazed at how Round 2 looked, and my friends and I played it to death. I'm not really excited about Round 3 because I played the former so much. Still, it looks good.

[dotbomb]

I watched Cinderella Man last night. That's probably as close as I'll get to buying this game. I just didn't get the demo really. Yeah it looked good but the announcer and replays were way off. The controls were sluggish and the fact I could foul the other fighter non stop just really didn't do it for me. If they make such a 'pretty' game they should also pay attention to the details that detract from that realism as well.

[GodFather]

I just picked up a 360 this week. Got it with MAdden and Condemened and Im enjoying both. HAvent had a chance to go on Xbox Live yet. I heard theres a demo of this on there. Is the Xbox live experience the same as what pc players are used to online? Ive been playing games online since Quake 1. Wondering if Xbox Live is filled with nothing but trash talking kids.

[DragonRushX]

Got mine pre-ordered. I'm a pretty big boxing fan. Had round 1 but didn't ever play round 2. Loved the demo. I was impressed with the graphics and the gameplay. I was amped to see Roy Jones move like the real life Roy Jones. In round one everyone moved the same.

There is a big learning curve with this game, based on the demo most people who didn't play the previous Fight Night titles probably won't give this game a chance.

Got a chance friday to play the PS2 version at blockbuster. They had a demo. Never thought myself as a graphics whore, but damn, 360 version way better due to the graphics.

[absolut taco]

Every ad I've read says Ps2/Xbox $39. X360 $59.
What. The. Fuck. ?

[sTubbs]

Every ad I've read says Ps2/Xbox $39. X360 $59.
What. The. Fuck. ?

As much as I hate to grudgingly say this, the price difference is probably ever so slightly justified in this case. Unlike other recent cross generation games, Fight Night is truly a completely different, and far better, experience on the 360.

And now I must go wash off the taint.

[11thfinger]

Seems like a must buy for hungry X360 owners.

Really? The reviewer said it had lackluster AI, and Live! play was only adequate. If round 2 was any indication, the lag caused the matches to be wildly frustrating, I can't imagine this is much better. So, what does that leave you with? I guess pretty visuals. It's a shame, really, that that's what makes a next-gen game "must buy."

[Kelegacy]

As much as I hate to grudgingly say this, the price difference is probably ever so slightly justified in this case. Unlike other recent cross generation games, Fight Night is truly a completely different, and far better, experience on the 360.

And now I must go wash off the taint.
You already paid for the hardware, another 20 bucks for a prettier game is NOT a good justification. That's ridiculous and one of the things I'm angry about in this next gen. I assume that the PS4 games will be 80 dollars if they can get away with it. I don't see why games have to change after decades...DECADES...of being roughly 50 dollars. Increased costs my ass. Inflation existed in the 70's and 80's...and 90's, but game prices have always stayed roughly the same.

It's unfortunate, because I can see myself avoiding impulsive purchases in the future and weening back a bit from gameplaying as a result. But I guess the small dev's won't be around anyway, so I'll be force-fed mainstream graphical 2-hour eye candy in a 70 dollar package.

Movie prices don't seem so bad now.

[Mantooth]

Every ad I've read says Ps2/Xbox $39. X360 $59.
What. The. Fuck. ?

Still a big price difference between the different versions, but a little less painful if you have a Fry's Electronics in your area. PS2/Xbox $29.99 and 360 $47.99. They had Full Auto on sale for $44.99 this week. I don't shop at my local Fry's since it is a 50 mile roundtrip drive, but I will gladly use their ads to price match with Best Buy. :D

[Zanzibar]

It's all in the sticks.

First few times I played it it felt weird and unresponsve, but once I got the timing down and realised that the more you plug away, the worse you'll do, and started to conserve my energy, time my punches and learn how to string an effective combo together, it really was like a whole different game.

I hate to sound like one of those you just didn't "get it", man! guys, but I urge you to have another go.

I agree 100% with this one. Played the demo, thought "looks great, but meh", then my brother picked it up and said "Hey, did you try this?" Watched him play it, then tried it again and was amazed at how amazingly cool it was.

Price difference does suck, however.

[IndependentGMR]

I played the demo, and was amazed by the graphics, but I don't care much for boxing. Plus, 60 bones is a little steep for me. I guess in the next-gen you have to be a little more picky about what you purchase.

[rjcc]

So basically your argument is that since game prices haven't changed in a long time, they should never change?

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Not to mention the fact that you're ignoring all the nintendo 64 games that were $70+, wasn't Virtua Racing on genesis like 90 bucks or something too?

But really.....if the prices haven't gone up ever, wouldn't you expect that they someday might? You're using the strangest economic model ever devised.


You already paid for the hardware, another 20 bucks for a prettier game is NOT a good justification. That's ridiculous and one of the things I'm angry about in this next gen. I assume that the PS4 games will be 80 dollars if they can get away with it. I don't see why games have to change after decades...DECADES...of being roughly 50 dollars. Increased costs my ass. Inflation existed in the 70's and 80's...and 90's, but game prices have always stayed roughly the same.

It's unfortunate, because I can see myself avoiding impulsive purchases in the future and weening back a bit from gameplaying as a result. But I guess the small dev's won't be around anyway, so I'll be force-fed mainstream graphical 2-hour eye candy in a 70 dollar package.

Movie prices don't seem so bad now.

[Norse]

Here in Norway we haven't really noticed the jump in prices for the x360, but prices have been quite high for a long time. I can easily find X360 games for the same price as new PS2/Xbox titles.

[Kelegacy]

So basically your argument is that since game prices haven't changed in a long time, they should never change?

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Not to mention the fact that you're ignoring all the nintendo 64 games that were $70+, wasn't Virtua Racing on genesis like 90 bucks or something too?

But really.....if the prices haven't gone up ever, wouldn't you expect that they someday might? You're using the strangest economic model ever devised.

Thirty years. Thirty years and we haven't seen much in the way of a price hike. The Nintendo 64 game prices were because they went the cartridge route, but they were still silly. Sega's whole Virtua Racing thing was around 100 bucks and that was marketing genius (sarcasm). You are failing to note that games like Gun, developed across all the platforms, appeared on the 360 and cost 10 bucks MORE...while there were no changes to the game other than it was ported. Why does that justify 60 bucks? Why?

It isn't because this is the next gen, it's about greed and trying to exploit the growing gaming market. More people playing games means they can charge more and make more. People happy to pay more money for games that shouldn't cost more to begin with are just adding to the problem here. But whatever, the industry is fueled by idiots already so why stop now.

[rjcc]

I didn't say I agreed with paying $10 more for Gun, because I don't. That's why I didn't buy it. Vote with your dollars. I bought NBA 2K6 because I felt it was worth the cost I will buy Fight Night because I think it's worth the price.

You're the one who has made a silly argument you can't possibly support. There is no logical reason to say "well prices haven't changed for 30 years....therefore they should never change" There must be some better argument than that, my apologies if you're just reacting emotionally to high prices and aren't actually attempting to use logic, as I've assumed you are.

The idea that the price of videogames is $50 and thats the way it should always be......just because is silly. But really if thats too rich for your blood, don't buy em, enough people follow your lead and prices will drop.

[Kelegacy]

I didn't say I agreed with paying $10 more for Gun, because I don't. That's why I didn't buy it. Vote with your dollars. I bought NBA 2K6 because I felt it was worth the cost I will buy Fight Night because I think it's worth the price.

You're the one who has made a silly argument you can't possibly support. There is no logical reason to say "well prices haven't changed for 30 years....therefore they should never change" There must be some better argument than that, my apologies if you're just reacting emotionally to high prices and aren't actually attempting to use logic, as I've assumed you are.

The idea that the price of videogames is $50 and thats the way it should always be......just because is silly. But really if thats too rich for your blood, don't buy em, enough people follow your lead and prices will drop.
That's because it is silly. Raising the price IS silly. Look, games cost more to make today than they did in the past. I'm sure it was like that with each new console that came out, each one getting costlier. Game prices didn't rise. No, they remained relatively constant. Today the cost to develop a game has surely risen, but the industry is also bigger than ever. 50 dollars back in the Atari days, NES days, SNES days, prices actually went down in the PS1/PS2 eras in some respects, and suddenly the prices go up without much justification. Why is there no justification? Because there are more gamers today than there were during the other periods in gaming culture. More gamers means more games sold. Even with elevated prices for game development, a larger consumer base will offset these "inflations".

It's nothing more than a fake issue here. FF7 and FFX cost a ridiculous amount of cash, probably some of the most ever for game development during their times, but they didn't feel the need to charge 60 or 70 bucks a title. Why? Because they will make a large profit even after spending tens of millions on a game title. People will buy their titles.

Oblivion special edition for PC and Xbox cost a 10 dollar difference. Where's the justification in that? It's an industry scam, and from now on the prices will continue to rise because people will continue to spend the cash on the games. I can afford it, I am an adult and work a full time job, but I complain because I'm not stupid. But what's a few complainers when the rest of the gaming lemmings can't fathom not spending another 10-20 bucks on a game title they must have.

I hope they raise the price of paperback books to 25 bucks. After all, publishing costs are up.

[rjcc]

You just killed your own argument. You state a larger consumer base will make up for development costs, but it's a simple fact that next gen systems will at least for the next several years have a much smaller consumer base thna previous gen systems.

In that case, I agree with you, that smaller audience means they will have to charge more to recoup and are justified, I actually didn't think higher prices made sense before now, but you've convinced me.

Thanks for ignoring whether or not you think the games are worth it, since that obviously doesn't matter, it's just a question of what you cna afford as an adult. If a paperback book had a story worth $25 I'm sure it would sell for that much.

[Kelegacy]

You just killed your own argument. You state a larger consumer base will make up for development costs, but it's a simple fact that next gen systems will at least for the next several years have a much smaller consumer base thna previous gen systems.

In that case, I agree with you, that smaller audience means they will have to charge more to recoup and are justified, I actually didn't think higher prices made sense before now, but you've convinced me.

Thanks for ignoring whether or not you think the games are worth it, since that obviously doesn't matter, it's just a question of what you cna afford as an adult. If a paperback book had a story worth $25 I'm sure it would sell for that much.
Worth is relative. That has nothing to do with the fact, but no, Fight Night round 3 is not worth an extra 20 dollars to me right now, nor is it worth the 399 it costs to play it on the system. PC games are not extravagently priced, and they offer very competitive visuals, and will even offer better in the years to come. So, according to your view, why aren't PC games higher already? Why haven't they been for years? A lower consumer base (in regards to game purchases), and very graphical and expensive games, with consoles JUST catching up finally...why isn't the PC version of Morrowind the same price as the 360?

I guess I don't understand you. You seem to justify your "higher cost" arguement by saying that a new console needs to charge more for their games. I find that laughable, highly so. Ridiculous. Come buy our system, but because not many people own it yet you need to pay more for the games. Yeah, that's it. C'mon.

So, are you saying that game prices will come back down once enough people own the console in question? I personally doubt it. Unless Sony can somehow have its system release 50 dollar games and to compete even more with MS, which they won't because it's in the hands of the publishers apparently, the prices will remain the baseline for the next generation.

So, no, it's not worth it to me. I'll be buying many used games in the future, I can see that. And good, I hope the used market hurts them enough to make them rethink their strategy.

And it's not a question of what I can afford as an adult. You have the most asinine answers for arguements. I'm sure many people can afford luxury vehicles, but go with the more practical Toyota or Honda. Sure, they could buy the BMW, but is it practical? That's what it boils down to...practicality. Like that Dead Rising game. I'm not going to spend 60 bucks for 2-3 hours of gameplay--i might rent it instead. But since I can afford it, why don't I just buy it? After all, it's all about what you can afford. Rationale begone.

Sorry my tone is a bit antagonistic, but I just can't understand you, like I said earlier. And it really gets me that people accept price hikes, industry bullshit and what not so nonchalant. I love gaming, but I can see that I may outgrow it soon enough. I've been playing DOS games for the past week and I've seen how games will never be again.

[rjcc]

You're the one who said price was dictated by audience size. If you'd like to retract that statement, all you have to do is say so.

I believe prices are dictated by what the market will bear, and whether he market will or won't respond well to these higher prices remains to be seen. You seem to be having a personal conflict tho.

[Kelegacy]

I didn't say that, but you can find it for me and rub it in my face. If I did, that's not what I meant and I'm sure you know that. Developers complain that they need to charge more because the cost to develop is so outrageously high now. But they don't have to. They just want to. The cost to develop/amount of people who buy games ratio nearly nulls and voids any concern about developmental price tags. Thus, the cost to develop isn't astronomically higher than it was any time in the past.

[rjcc]

But they don't have to. They just want to. The cost to develop/amount of people who buy games ratio nearly nulls and voids any concern about developmental price tags. Thus, the cost to develop isn't astronomically higher than it was any time in the past.


I'm sure you have numbers to back that up. Wait, I know you don't have numbers, because if you did have numbers, theres no possible way they could come out like that. You just said 2+2=3

You said market size should dictate price.

Because there are more gamers today than there were during the other periods in gaming culture. More gamers means more games sold. Even with elevated prices for game development, a larger consumer base will offset these "inflations".

By that logic, since it will be at least a couple years before the Xbox 360 and PS3 audience even begins to approach current market sizes of Xbox and PS2, then game makers should have to charge more to recoup the lower number of games they're going to be able to sell over that period.

I think thats retarded, but it's the point you made, and I respect you so much I was willing to cosign you on reputation alone. I don't think the game industry owes me lower prices in return for charging only $50 for most games over the last decade. I think they'll price their product where they think it will sell, and thnen I'll decide whether or not to buy it. Revolutionary I know, I must be a total game industry syncophant if I'm willing to buy games when I think they are worth it.

Fact is, higher prices will probably result in me buying less games and renting more, if the game industry can live with that, I suppose I can too. I'm not such a fool as to try and speculate over what prices will do over the next several years, I do however see the writin on the wall in terms of stores like Best Buy selling used games, Gamefly's increased popularity, and digital distribution all combining to force the industry's hand on retail prices.

but fuckit, lets not use logic, lets just make statements up about how big the audience is and how many games you need to sell to cover costs with no information to base that off of.

[mister_slim]

Can anyone explain rjcc's point? He seems to be flailing a bit.

[rjcc]

Saying that the market dictates price is flailing?

You're a funny guy slim.

[Kelegacy]

I'm sure you have numbers to back that up. Wait, I know you don't have numbers, because if you did have numbers, theres no possible way they could come out like that. You just said 2+2=3

You said market size should dictate price.



By that logic, since it will be at least a couple years before the Xbox 360 and PS3 audience even begins to approach current market sizes of Xbox and PS2, then game makers should have to charge more to recoup the lower number of games they're going to be able to sell over that period.

I think thats retarded, but it's the point you made, and I respect you so much I was willing to cosign you on reputation alone. I don't think the game industry owes me lower prices in return for charging only $50 for most games over the last decade. I think they'll price their product where they think it will sell, and thnen I'll decide whether or not to buy it. Revolutionary I know, I must be a total game industry syncophant if I'm willing to buy games when I think they are worth it.

Fact is, higher prices will probably result in me buying less games and renting more, if the game industry can live with that, I suppose I can too. I'm not such a fool as to try and speculate over what prices will do over the next several years, I do however see the writin on the wall in terms of stores like Best Buy selling used games, Gamefly's increased popularity, and digital distribution all combining to force the industry's hand on retail prices.

but fuckit, lets not use logic, lets just make statements up about how big the audience is and how many games you need to sell to cover costs with no information to base that off of.
Man, I'm done. Because somehow the things I type and the things you've been reading haven't been one and the same.

[snubber]

Actually, rjcc is the only one with a non-emotional, sensible, backed-by-economics argument.

[Rendelius]

Fact is that $10 of every game sold for the XBox 360 goes to MS. That's because they sold the box for less than it costs them to manufacture it.

[Morratut]

I'm a little scared that IGN said it was too easy even on hard :(

I want big boxing battles. I don't want a walk in the park.

[Sl1pstream]

Over here, prices didn't change, except for a few titles. We do have to pay 72 dollar per game though (60 euro).

[gzsfrk]

Kelegacy, I hate to say it, since you're one of the most regular EvAv regulars, but you seriously got pwned hard in this discussion.

For non-commodity items that are in demand, prices tend to go upward with inflation as time goes on (while commodity items, such as DVD players, have a downward tendency for a while as market efficiencies are realized, although these also bottom out eventually).

I remember when the standard cost for new games on my C64 was $29, and being appalled when the step went up to $39 for new PC games in the late 80s, and then $49 becoming the standard for new titles in the 90s. I'm personally glad it's stayed where it has for so long, and honestly think $49 is still the top-end of the impulse buy amount, but like rjcc said--if sales don't meet expectations, then expect a downward adjustment in price at some point in the future. Economics states that eventually, price will be established at the point where supply meets demand. This of course isn't an instantaneous process, and will take time to realize. However, I don't begrudge developers for trying to recoup some of the costs of transitioning to the next-gen from early-adopters. No one forces gamers to buy the games--if it's worth the money being charged to them, then they will purchase the titles. If not, there's plenty of excellent games on Live in the $5-$10 range.

[bapenguin]

So, are you saying that game prices will come back down once enough people own the console in question? I personally doubt it. Unless Sony can somehow have its system release 50 dollar games and to compete even more with MS, which they won't because it's in the hands of the publishers apparently, the prices will remain the baseline for the next generation.


Actually...you can see that right now. There are quire a few more XBox and PS2 games coming out new at 39.99 instead of 49.99 like they did at the beginning of the generation.

The 59.99 price point thing really sucks, especially when you see the same game on another platform for 10 or 20 dollars less. I imagine as time goes on we'll see a greater disparity between the cross platform stuff and the price will appear more "justified." It doesn't make it suck any less...but it makes it sting a little less.

[mister_slim]

Saying that the market dictates price is flailing?

You're a funny guy slim.
Eh, no, I'm just amused that your last post says basically the same thing Kelegacy was saying in the beginning.

[rjcc]

I'm amused that it actually says the same thing my first post said, and that kelegacy's post says nothing that makes sense at all. But why split hairs.