By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
naznatips said:

 

I did watch the video. I'm not sure what you guys were seeing in the pre-battle stuff that suggested to you the actual blows are 1:1. He swung his fists around loosely and it did the same, but when he did an actual move it clearly was pre-scripted. The headbutt, is an easy example. Also the delay is definitely extensive. You feel it even more when playing it, but even just watching the fight the latency is well over the generally considered "acceptable" latency of 100ms.

As for you Jamai, as I said you're welcome to disagree with me, but no, I don't believe there are major differences in the build present here than the one at E3. Two months isn't very long in development terms, and the demo builds themselves take a bit of time to create. People always beg for 1:1 fighting, but the fact is true 1:1 neither works nor is very fun. The scripting is absolutely present, and necessary, at the very least during the main "moves" even if not during basic punches. It was hard to tell with regular punches because of the delay. 
I'm just informing you of what I experienced. Take it for what you will, but videos with a developer showing off a game aren't really the best way to judge something. For that matter, neither is a report from a press member like me who's played it for all of 30 minutes total. The best way is to play it yourself, and you'll get to do that someday, but don't take this video as proof of 1:1 controls, as even in it there are clear displays of it not always reacting the way the player does.

I agree, the pre-battle stuff doesnt necessarily reflect the actual fighting. The headbutt is clearly pre scripted, we were talking of regular jab, hook ect. Your new version is better: "It was hard to tell with regular punches because of the delay. " instead of the first post stating as fact it was all pre-scripted with no difference what so ever than pushing a button. More reasonable.

For the delay, now I understand that your placing it in relation to an "acceptable" 100 ms while I was placing it in relation to the technology being implemented. Fair enough.