XBLA Sensible World of Soccer coming in ... GOOOOOAAAAALLLL!

by Kevin Kelly { Apr 4th 2007 at 4:21PM }

Did you ever think, wish, hope, or dream that one day the 1994 Amiga game Sensible World of Soccer would be making its way to Xbox Live Arcade? If so, you can rejoice, because this summer the dream finally comes true.

Although this game was announced last year, and promised in the first quarter of 2007, it'll be just a bit longer before you can run up and down the field, sensibly. It might have something to do with the fact that the game was named one of the ten most important games of all time at GDC this year, so they're pumping some more content into it.

That includes a multiplayer mode that'll kick it up a notch (get it?). Codemasters VP David Solari said, "We think it's important to stay true to the original and we'll be delivering what fans of the original SWOS have been eagerly waiting for years, SWOS online multiplayer!"

They're keeping other secrets under the hood, but the press release promises "optional enhancements to bring its look right up-to-date." Not sure what those are, but our money is on new graphics of some sort. We hope.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

hvnlysoldr @ Apr 4th 2007 4:29PM

But will it be gimped like Tecmo Bowl?

tjtillman @ Apr 4th 2007 5:04PM

Am I the only one who has never heard of this game before today?

Magarnacle @ Apr 4th 2007 5:06PM

I don't care about this. More Settlers of Catan less other crap. When does Settlers come out. It says Q1 2007 but unless 2007 has added several other months that were not available in previous years than we are in Q2 2007. Still no Settlers. Come on. Stop releasing these games that are not Settlers and just release Settlers. Then make it like 5000 MS Points. And 500 more points to get the Blue color. And -25 points everytime the robber lands on your square.

dark @ Apr 4th 2007 5:14PM

Now thats what I'm talking about...............xbox live?!?! screw that!

Poisoned Al @ Apr 4th 2007 5:21PM

@tjtillman

Because you're American? I never heard of Tecmo Bowl until last month due to the simple fact that nobody gives a rat's ass about American football outside of the US and vice versa with "soccer."

(God I HATE that word. It's football dammit! It's a game with a ball you can only touch with your damn feet! Why not call American football a more descriptive name like "idiot rugby?")

jimjo @ Apr 4th 2007 5:27PM

because were 'merican and were better than you brits thats why! why dont you call it "sissy rugby" bunch of wankers, we call it soccer cause thats what all the proud fathers would yell to there daughters when bored off there asses watching the girls curtsie when they passed back and forth, "Sock Her Dammit, Soccer in da head!"

BLATT @ Apr 5th 2007 9:19AM

GOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL.

Nope. Never heard of this before that stupid list came out.

GOAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL.

Still don't care.

chris @ Apr 4th 2007 5:54PM

SWOS is legendary in Britain and Europe. It was indisputably the best football game ever until about third iteration of Pro Evo. It's still the best arcade football title ever.

I want to know if it's going to have online leagues. That would rule.

A person @ Apr 4th 2007 6:47PM

I have never played this game, but I have heard some great things. However, whenever I hear the name, I just giggle. I mean, it just sounds so peaceful and friendly, and "hey, want a friendly game of soccer? I mean, it doesn't really matter who wins, so long as we both have fun, right? Sensibly." Compared to today's games which are all about "PLAY TO WIN!!! ONLY LOSERS COULD LOSE!!!! YOU'RE NO LOSER... OR ARE YOU!??!?!" You would never be able to release, say, a game like "Pleasant Hockey Matches" today. (Doesn't really have the same ring as Sensible World of Soccer, I know...)

Of course, having never played Sensible World of Soccer, for all I know it could be the most cut-throat vicious soccer game ever. The winning team could devour the other team's coach and then construct new jerseys out of his skin. The next game ball would be his skull.

dotun.o @ Apr 4th 2007 6:47PM

Let's not bicker over terms. Yes, football is the appropriate designation (easy to see just watching the sport), but "soccer" itself is not wrong. Soccer is short for "Association Football", the full official name of the sport (greatest sport ever, BTW). And yes, "American Football" is a misguided name for a sport where you only rarely put your foot to the ball but hold it and throw it WITH HANDS over 90% of the time.

Fraser @ Apr 5th 2007 6:32AM

OOOOOOOhhhhh My God!!!!!!!!!

This is THE best game of all time...... the amount of hours I played this on my Amiga 600 with the trusty zip stick!!!!

I hope they don't ruin it!!!!

BTW it is called Sensible World Of Soccer because it was originally made by Sensible Software.
Anyoe who has never played it will instantly dismiss it, but having grown up playing it, its amazing!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensible_Soccer

Fraser

LongshotX @ Apr 4th 2007 7:29PM

Football is much more exciting than soccer anyday. Fuck the worlds opinion.

krizoitz @ Apr 4th 2007 7:56PM

Any Football/Soccer fan immediately loses any credibility when they make fun of American Football. Why? Because any sport where the athletes have turned faking injuries into an art form loses any credibility. Meanwhile us "pansy" football players not only don't fake injuries we play through them.

As for names, um when was the last time you played a game of "cricket" using insects? Yeah thought not.

The name "football" probably stuck with the game after both forms evolved from rugby early on. Sure we could change the name, but at this point why bother. People still call things "tin cans" and talk about "pencil lead".

/thinks non-pro soccer is actually ok
//thinks cricket looks ok to

Poisoned Al @ Apr 4th 2007 8:16PM

@krizoitz

Ever seen Australian rules football? It's name is also misleading because it implies that game has rules, and isn't in fact a fight with a ball. Like rugby they have little or no pretection. Having body armor would make it harder for your team mates to pick you up and throw you at the ball while it is in mid air. ARFB, Rugby and Soccer also don't stop every 5 seconds. Anyway, "soccer" (gah) is more of a skill game then the other three. Just because the average American seems to have the attention span of a goldfish with ADD, doesn't mean that higher scores = a better game.

BTW I don't even like soccer that much. I just can't stand American football. Not because it's American (although it sure doesn't help), but because I think it's annoying and stupid. Everyone outside the US seems to agree with me.

dotun.o @ Apr 4th 2007 8:48PM

@ comment 11, krizoitz

By your argument, I could call American Football players the bigger pansies: "They can't even take it like ruggers, they need to wear helmets and shoulder pads!"
True, injury faking is a sad issue in Football, and it's being combated. But on the other end of the spectrum, there's the grim reality of bodily damage players live through. How about calling Henrik Larsson a pansy after his horrific double fracture right in the middle of his leg in'99?
I doubt anyone would call American football players weaklings; on the contrary, the game is needlessly brutal - a sport where bashing right into your opponent is not an option but a necessity. Call it opinion, but nothing in the sport shows style, finesse or fluidity; rather, sheer, brute force (I'll say the same of Rugby). Generally, I don't enjoy sports where physical contact is a necessity - A-Football, Wrestling, Boxing, etc. There is contact in Football but it's optional/incidental, not required (one of the more respectable moments in Football is a keen dispossession of your opponent without the slightest physical contact).
I may not speak for everyone, but my problems with A-Football are the (aforementioned) coarseness, the intermittent progress of the game (pass, bash, whistle, regroup, rinse and repeat; continuous play does not extend beyond seconds) and the ill-advised name.

Carlos @ Apr 4th 2007 9:36PM

BEST FOOTBALL GAME EVER!!!!!!! Ok, now i'm getting an xbox360 for real!

eLegant @ Apr 4th 2007 9:48PM

What the fuck? dotun.o, if you want "style, finesse or fluidity", why not watch fucking ballet? You fucking pussy.. And about rugby being worse than football.. Sorry boys, but it ain't.. i've played both (yes, outside, in the sunshine and not a video game in the basement that a lot of you commenters live in). Football players know they have equipment, SO THEY HIT HARDER. I'm sorry, any sport where there isn't any contact is un-masculine and i refuse to watch or participate in it. Soccer is a fucking pussy sport, as is rugby. BTW guys, I'm Canadian..

dotun.o @ Apr 5th 2007 12:48AM

@15, eLegant,
I take it you're... 8 or thereabaout? Or perhaps a boor? Either childish or ill-mannered; your language underscores this.

First off, get your facts straight. I never said Rugby was more brutal than A-Football. Show a little patience and re-read my post,

"By your argument, I could call[...]"

and later,

"I doubt anyone would call American football players weaklings[...]"

Ruggers are less padded but compared to A-Footballers, show more restraint in tackles; A-Footballers are more protected and subsequently less-restarined. I can't really say either one is easier than the other - less protection, more restraint; more protection, less restraint. Complimentary, really.

Also, pay attention to my description of contact - incidental in football, mandatory in rugby/ A-Football. No one's speaking against all contact, just deliberate, aggressive attacks. Surely you would agree with me that it takes more SKILL to avoid opponents while keeping pace with the ball rolling on the ground or disposses opponents of the ball without drawing the ref's ire, than pile-driving your opponent to the ground. But from your comments it appears like you think "manly" is only if you bellow like a bull and charge like a troglodyte. The fact that you don't get "style, finesse, and fluidity" just proves my point. Watch and/or play football. Observe players fluidly beat one opponent after another while keeping pace with a ball they can't hold, watch an incredible number of passes strung together, finished off with a blistering shot into goal, observe goalkeeping reflexes at point-blank range, experience relentless running for 90 minutes or more, then tell me it is emasculating.

I do more than gaming - infact, it is a small portion of all I do and has been reducing even more recently. I'm an artist-in-training, bookworm, technogeek AND I love sports (yes, it's possible lol). I played football. I know how much endurance it requires, I know what it feels like to be tackled to the ground on ashphalt, I know what a shot to the head feels like, I know what it is to jostle for the ball on sun-beaten abandoned plots because you can't always wait till you get the opportunity to play "regulation" to enjoy the game you love. Football is hands-down among the most endurance-driven sports. I'd like to see anyone play a 90-minute match and walk away saying, "Pathetic".

Sadly, I've barely played since living in America. It's just tough fitting the time in my schedule to have designated meetings with a local team or the like, and part of the joy was whipping out the ball impromptu when friends came over. America's not really the place where an empty parking lot immediately becomes a football pitch, ashphalt, barefoot and all. Playing until the cars return later in the day, or play around them if you can. Scatter if you shoot against a windshield; don't forget to grab the ball first! Ah, the memories.