IGN Fight Night 2004 Reviews

Brian_OS · Post by **Brian_OS** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:55 am

Im not sure how much I can post here from IGN but the Xbox got an 8.4 and the PS2 got an 8.6

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:08 am

Just links or small excerpts, please.

Thanks,
PK

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:52 am

Let me guess, the PS2 version got a slightly higher score due to those spiffy graphics. No, that would be the Xbox version.

Let's see...maybe it was because of another pointless online mode that is crippled somehow.

Toledo · Post by **Toledo** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:59 am

Badgun wrote:Let me guess, the PS2 version got a slightly higher score due to those spiffy graphics. No, that would be the Xbox version.

Let's see...maybe it was because of another pointless online mode that is crippled somehow.

do I detect some bitterness??

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:02 am

I'm still on the fence with this one. Definitely would get the PS2 version for online though. IGN review is slightly below the average so far (I woulld say 8.7-9). I don't like the fact that the generic cpu opponents only have a few strategies.

Apparantly, this is one of those games where the graphical difference between the ps2 and xbox isn't great.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:12 am

Toledo wrote:
Badgun wrote:Let me guess, the PS2 version got a slightly higher score due to those spiffy graphics. No, that would be the Xbox version.

Let's see...maybe it was because of another pointless online mode that is crippled somehow.
do I detect some bitterness??

Not really, it just amazes me how EA's PS2 versions always get higher scores than the Xbox version even though the Xbox version looks better, sounds better, loads faster, and requires no memory card.

They always give the higher scores because of online play that in most cases was an afterthought to begin with. Like in Tiger Woods 2004, you could only play with one other person. In Nascar Thunder 2004 you could play with a 43 car field, but only one other human. Where's the fun in that?

If the online modes actually had a purpose then I could see maybe similar scores, but it appears the Xbox versions never get higher scores based on the fact that it's simply a better version of the game because it's a better system. In other words, reviewers care about a forgettable online mode, yet better graphics, sound, and loading times don't matter?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:56 am

Under a 9?.....from IGN? ....They give away 9s ...Maybe this game blows?or maybe EA was a lil lite this time?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:57 pm

Well, the game could really, really suck, as IGN doesn't give new EA Sports franchises any scores lower than 8. Come to think of it, when is the last time IGN has given an EA Sports game a score lower than 8?

Triple Play? Probably.

IGN = Ignorant Gaming Nerds OR Industry Gobbling Nerds

Take care,
PK

laurenskye · Post by **laurenskye** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:52 pm

Idiots Gobbling Nads