Capcom fighters have too many fancy extras! [Archive]

Apoc

04-17-2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Wires

You're right...They're way too complicated...

Let's get back to the NES controller...6+Buttons??? How can we deal with that???

No. If every piece in checkers could go forward and back instead of just forward, would this new feature make the game deeper or more complicated? What if you could decide where to place the queen before beginning a chess match? Deeper? More complicated? Yeah right. In fact, it makes the games stupid. It's a lesser game intellectually. So are the newer games. There are just too many crutches to fall back on. Games have more shit but the games are also weaker. Unless, of course, you're all about combos but, that's not what a good fighting game is about. Too bad they are controlled by what sells. Flashy stuff sells. Too bad most of it is some stupid crap. Although, it's awesome when it truly adds depth to a game.
I'd love for them to release a game that isn't balanced by side features and nonsense. I doubt that they're going to spend forever balancing so many character designs. Just be like the 3 series or gg and give everyone everything. That's the trend nowadays.

Apoc.

DonNozzle

04-17-2004, 11:31 AM

i just wish i could get some mjor hot girls to suck me off while i play these complicated games

y45hiro

04-17-2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by k_dog77803
For the new games they need to have it be like it was back in the day, all you should have is a life bar and thats it!

yeah rite, and later on ppl gonna complain "da same old shit? WTF?"

Hollow

04-17-2004, 12:11 PM

I made a thread about how extras ruined CvS2 (esp. rolls), and I got lambasted for it. Nice to see I am not the only one who feels this way.

Apoc

04-17-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Hollow
I made a thread about how extras ruined CvS2 (esp. rolls), and I got lambasted for it. Nice to see I am not the only one who feels this way.

I'm not sure if I remember the thread but, it sounds like you were right bro. I think that most players view these games in an emotional sense. No one wants to hear what makes their game wack because to them, it's gold. No one wants to look at their games objectively.

Either they like it or they don't. But you'll notice, more ppl have a reason for not liking a game whether it's legitimate or not. Fact is, there isn't a single perfect fighter out there. However, if you note the bad shiet, fools come from all over to make sure you don't get ppl to look at their game badly, lol.

Speak the truth. The intelligent folks will know where you're coming from. That's all that matters.

Not that a games' merit means anything now, lol. Evo is for the most popular console fighters, now. God save us all!

Apoc.

Thongboy Bebop

04-17-2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Apoc
I'd love for them to release a game that isn't balanced by side features and nonsense. I doubt that they're going to spend forever balancing so many character designs. Just be like the 3 series or gg and give everyone everything. That's the trend nowadays.

Apoc.

Now you're just sounding like a cranky old man. Moreso than usual.

I know you have beef with 3s (parrying is the DEVIL Bobby Bouche!), but what did poor little Guilty Gear ever do to you? They worked hard to make that game legit, and it's pretty darn fairly balanced across the board. Hell, even Potemkin is way scary, and he can't dash! When are you going to just be happy with a good, well put together game?

N - Hate Marvel, love Guilty. Go figure.

nanitaberu

04-17-2004, 01:50 PM

a big roster is always good.. but sometimes characters like Roll and Twelve just doesn't cut it.

tyips for making new guys in your next game, capcom :
-don't be another shoto, please
-no "lab experiment" characters.. that's overdone and cliched
-be a mixture of different styles. Alex is a good example
-Sean was a bad idea
-Q was a bad idea (but we love him nonetheless)
-something outside the shoto/charge/grappler/dhalsim genre.. develope something new.. like KOF's three piece manuveurs or something to Hokuto's effect, like a character with counters

Ryu_Hadou_Mstr

04-17-2004, 01:53 PM

I think that the new features are a good thing. I mean, Now the games have more options to get out of certain kinds of situations and it takes more skill to beat at opponent.

Thongboy Bebop

04-17-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by nanitaberu
a big roster is always good.. but sometimes characters like Roll and Twelve just doesn't cut it.

Twel(e)ve isn't THAT bad, he's just broken in very specific places. With literally one or two simple changes, he'd easily be mid tier.

1) SA2. Two shorter meters, make the air-to-air damage the same as air-to-ground.

2) Upgrade the damage of all his moves by 1.5

After that, he'd be gravy. It's hard work, but not at all unwinnable except against people with jab srk to hold it down with. If either of these things were changed just by themselves, he'd rock mid-tier like nobody's business. Just because a character is complicated (Eddie, Anyone?) doesn't mean he's complete ass.

N

Richard

04-17-2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by nanitaberu
a big roster is always good..

Not really. People only use 8 characters anyway. The rest of them are usually a waste of space as far as gameplay goes, because they might as well not exist. When was the last time you saw Adon or Honda used in a tourney?

something to Hokuto's effect, like a character with counters

The way I see it, a basic feature like a command counter shouldn't be character-specific. Everybody should have it, or nobody should. It would be like if some people couldn't throw. If there was a universal countermove press...

Originally posted by Ryu_Hadou_Mstr
I think that the new features are a good thing. I mean, Now the games have more options to get out of certain kinds of situations and it takes more skill to beat at opponent.
No it doesn't, because now every character can easily do a level 3 ultra supercombo that takes off 80% life... It's now easier to kill somebody than ever before. Back in the days of CE, with only a few exceptions, most characters could only do about a third damage unless you had a truly world-class player.

UltraDavid

04-17-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Apoc
::Truth::
Apoc.

I hear that. I'm getting sick of things like parries, rolls, dodges, just defends, and their ilk. Like you said, they're just things that artificially even the playing field. I want a game that's balanced on the virtue of the characters themselves, not on universal artificial means. Some people say any character in 3S can be good if the user can parry well. I don't believe that's true, as it's virtually impossible to be parry-perfect enough to dominate with Q, but even if it were, it's still dumb that the Q player has to parry to make his character beat a good Ken. And if one player is parry-perfect with Q, one may reasonably expect another player to be parry-perfect with Ken or Chun Li or Yun, and in that case Q will lose anyway.

I'm getting sick of supers too. Played the whole round as best you can? Controlled the round and the opponent as well as possible? Gotten the opponent down to three pixels of life? Made one mistake? Oh, cool, guess what, A-groove Bison or 2K3 Athena or ST Balrog just removed your life bar and now you're dead. Sweet! Or not.

Remy Saotome

04-17-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
Twel(e)ve I'm just curious. How come some peeps spell Twelve like that?

Hollow

04-17-2004, 05:50 PM

Twelve's name is misspelled in the face off screen. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Give me the old school days when I picked a character without a fireball, and I felt good when I fought my way out of the corner trap. That was skill. Rolling into a FAB (because that is the only way you can do the super) is not skill. Its tedious.

eks

04-17-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Richard
No it doesn't, because now every character can easily do a level 3 ultra supercombo that takes off 80% life... It's now easier to kill somebody than ever before. Back in the days of CE, with only a few exceptions, most characters could only do about a third damage unless you had a truly world-class player.

ever heard of Touch of Death combos?

kennywood

04-17-2004, 06:33 PM

i think Apoc mentioned something a while back about another 2D capcom fighter with no Supers... I'd like to see that :]

Thongboy Bebop

04-17-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Richard

The way I see it, a basic feature like a command counter shouldn't be character-specific. Everybody should have it, or nobody should. It would be like if some people couldn't throw. If there was a universal countermove press...

No it doesn't, because now every character can easily do a level 3 ultra supercombo that takes off 80% life... It's now easier to kill somebody than ever before. Back in the days of CE, with only a few exceptions, most characters could only do about a third damage unless you had a truly world-class player.

Seriously. What the hell are you talking about? Homogenization of characters makes the game completely not worth playing. By that rationale, DOA is a superior fighter to VF because it has universal counters. Crack smoke? I think so.

Again, I'll reiterate: What the hell is this? Name ONE tourney game where multiple characters can do an 80% combo reliably. Not fancy Heisman-video stuff, real matches where people actually pull something like that off and it's not a miracle. What, because somebody pulled a Hail Mary ONE time in a game, they should institute a "Maximum Pass Range" rule in the NFL? Negro please.

Gross generalizations like this are the downfall of fighting games. If you don't know squat, then pipe down.

N

koogy

04-17-2004, 06:57 PM

Thongboy Bebop

04-17-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by UltraDavid

I hear that. I'm getting sick of things like parries, rolls, dodges, just defends, and their ilk. Like you said, they're just things that artificially even the playing field. I want a game that's balanced on the virtue of the characters themselves, not on universal artificial means. Some people say any character in 3S can be good if the user can parry well. I don't believe that's true, as it's virtually impossible to be parry-perfect enough to dominate with Q, but even if it were, it's still dumb that the Q player has to parry to make his character beat a good Ken. And if one player is parry-perfect with Q, one may reasonably expect another player to be parry-perfect with Ken or Chun Li or Yun, and in that case Q will lose anyway.

I'm getting sick of supers too. Played the whole round as best you can? Controlled the round and the opponent as well as possible? Gotten the opponent down to three pixels of life? Made one mistake? Oh, cool, guess what, A-groove Bison or 2K3 Athena or ST Balrog just removed your life bar and now you're dead. Sweet! Or not.

It's not imperative to be "Parry-perfect", you simply have to know the opponent's capabilites in reference to your own. It's not that Q's bad, it's that Ken's really, really good. But the virtue of 3s is that you don't have to worry about your big-ass Inspector Gadget caught in obvious traps, like fireball-uppercut. Now, some people want to stick with the same old stuff forever, and while I won't knock that specifically, I can definitely say It Ain't For Me. Fireball-uppercut is weak. It's one thing if a trap is well thought out, but when it just comes down to "My character is too damn big to do much about it", that's hokey.

Outside of that, playing Low-tier characters just makes some people happy. I play Twel(e)ve. I enjoy it. I win a lot of times just because no one picks him, so they have no idea what to do against him. Very ninja. Now, I'd probably have a much easier time using Ken, but if I was stuck in Shoto-hell I'dve probably quit playing years ago. It's all about variety and props. When you win with Twelve, or Q, or (god forbid) Sean, people respect you more. You just feel like a better person. Apoc uses A-Balrog for god sakes, he knows what I'm talking about. When you clock a V-player in the face, it feels... Better. Homogenizing the characters is a terrible idea.

I think so far (in 2D) Guilty Gear XX/#R has probably done the best job of keeping all of the characters nearly balanced while still wildly unique. There aren't a hell of a lot of gimmicks and universal bollocks, just umpteen different characters and playstyles. When a top-tier like Slayer is deathly afraid of an Ultra-Heavy like Potemkin, that's hot. I hope more games follow suit.

N

Serpent

04-17-2004, 08:53 PM

Heh, if we go in the same vein as you were going Apoc, you are implying that checkers is a deeper game than Chess. Chess has multiple pieces, all of which do different things, similar to the new "additions" such as parry, roll, etc. Checkers is much simpler, and, again, doesn't have any of these artificial means of balancing. All you can do is move forward, or jump pieces. Only a fool would argue that checkers is deeper than chess.

I don't like parry and roll either, as I consider them copouts. I do like run, hops, and VCs (the A3 incarnation...its what makes A3 so much fun). GGXX has plenty of these "balancing the field" options, yet I don't really feel that these ruin the game. Sure, it kind of annoys me that I cant force my opponent to play a poking game with me...but whatever. It's not SF, and I can live with that.

I don't know whether you simple hate there being more options, or if you dislike bad/scrubby/easy ways out of things. I am basically against randomness, and believe that everything should pretty much have natural counters. I think parrying and rolling promote randomness, and basically lock down the game because people need to watch out for them, and that is why I dont like either of them. That issue can be for another thread though i guess.

Skyler

04-17-2004, 09:55 PM

fighting games are suppose to evolve, not devolve. Its like 3D rpg games going back to 2D rpgs all over again. so if you want originality, go back to playing the old games or you can play KOF.:cool:

UltraDavid

04-18-2004, 02:19 AM

Let me apologize in advance for any poorly written statements or incomprehensible ramblings or inappropriate transitions. I'm extremely drunk and just got back from a big fight at a frat, so I might not be in the best shape to write an intelligible response.

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
It's not imperative to be "Parry-perfect", you simply have to know the opponent's capabilites in reference to your own. It's not that Q's bad, it's that Ken's really, really good. But the virtue of 3s is that you don't have to worry about your big-ass Inspector Gadget caught in obvious traps, like fireball-uppercut. Now, some people want to stick with the same old stuff forever, and while I won't knock that specifically, I can definitely say It Ain't For Me. Fireball-uppercut is weak. It's one thing if a trap is well thought out, but when it just comes down to "My character is too damn big to do much about it", that's hokey.

Actually, I'm a Q user. I use Q exclusively. When I say I think Q sucks, it's not out of ignorance. It's not like I hear oh, Q is bad, he has no chance against Ken (for example), and take that to heart. I play with Q better than anyone I've come across, and while I by no means harbor any fantasies of being one of the great Q users, I do have a rather intimate knowledge of his capabilities. And let me say, Q is a pretty crappy character. Sure, I give all the characters a run for their money with him, but in the end, I'll lose more than I'll win against a good player. And how does Third Strike propose to solve that disparity? It offers the parrying system.

See, I think that's a cop out. If I were to master parrying, I could beat anyone with Q. But you know what? Anyone can master parrying, and if everyone does, Chun Li and Ken and Yun will still be way better than Q is. The only time parrying can make me win is when I'm facing opponents who are worse than I am. All else equal, parrying doesn't make the playing field even, despite its attempt at doing so. The only way it can do that is if both players parry everything, and in that case the game just sucks. Capcom tried to put the parry in to make the game balanced, and it didn't work. All it did was give us some artificial fool's gold balancing.

As for the fireball trap, I think that's a great thing. It's a powerful technique for a good Ryu or Old Ken player to employ. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. And the size of a character doesn't have much to do with him getting out of a fireball trap. Heck, Zangief and Balrog can get out of that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
I think so far (in 2D) Guilty Gear XX/#R has probably done the best job of keeping all of the characters nearly balanced while still wildly unique. There aren't a hell of a lot of gimmicks and universal bollocks, just umpteen different characters and playstyles. When a top-tier like Slayer is deathly afraid of an Ultra-Heavy like Potemkin, that's hot. I hope more games follow suit.

GGXX does do a good job of balancing the characters, that's true. There are a lot of universal things, but there's not really anything akin to the parry in that game. I like the game a lot. Frankly, though, I think the playstyles in Hyper Fighting are just as varied as in GGXX and that the game is even more balanced, and it doesn't use supers or bursts or faultless defense or whatever to help it get there. It's balanced solely on the characters themselves.

Thongboy Bebop

04-18-2004, 05:23 AM

In a parry-perfect world, Hugo is the best possible character.

Hyper Fighting isn't "better" than Guilty Gear just because it's older.

Ken is arguably the best character in the game. When you pick Q, you know it's going to be uphill. Either work hard or don't, it's not the game's problem. What else could they do? Seriously, and this goes for anyone still complaining about parrying, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO DO? Stick to the same old character designs and movesets forever? What, you think it's easier to win with Zangief versus Ken in SF2 Games? It's not parrying's fault, Low Tier is Low Tier. If you want to pick a character without projectiles or free anti-airs, then do so and stop complaining about it.

Twelve versus Ken is literally impossible. But I don't yap about the game being unplayable all day because of it, I just rack my brain trying to think of counters. Parrying is a big one. If not for parrying, how else could they have half of the new characters? Fireball-uppercut can't be the rule of the day forever. Freakin' Evolve, people.

N

Richard

04-18-2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
Homogenization of characters makes the game completely not worth playing. By that rationale, DOA is a superior fighter to VF because it has universal counters.

I was implying that a command counter was something akin to a block or parry or roll or flip or crouch or jump. It's more a game-engine feature. I wouldn't say it was really a special move (at least, not a character-defining attack). Why should only Karin get a reversal?

Name ONE tourney game where multiple characters can do an 80% combo reliably
Erm, Alpha 3? SFEX3? Or any 2D/3D game with an easy infinite? Or any 720 powergrappler in any current game?

nanitaberu

04-18-2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

Twel(e)ve isn't THAT bad, he's just broken in very specific places. With literally one or two simple changes, he'd easily be mid tier.
N

Agreed.

What I really meant was the fact that Capcom spent about 30 seconds designing Twel(e)ve. A blob of white playdoh? c'mon. He's pretty much Necro with no texture and shitty super arts.

Buktooth

04-18-2004, 03:02 PM

This argument is basically just like the game A vs game B argument: it all comes down to what kind of bullshit you can tolerate in a fighting game (or in some people's cases, refusing to let go of the past and embracing any sort of changes).
Originally posted by UltraDavid
I'm getting sick of supers too. Played the whole round as best you can? Controlled the round and the opponent as well as possible? Gotten the opponent down to three pixels of life? Made one mistake? Oh, cool, guess what, A-groove Bison or 2K3 Athena or ST Balrog just removed your life bar and now you're dead. Sweet! Or not.
This applies to situations without supers also. HF Ryu? Pretty much any WW or CE character? Ochio/Dhalsim/Balrog/N.Ken tick grab loops (against certain characters)? Let's not forget about the lovable random dizzies also.
Originally posted by Hollow
Give me the old school days when I picked a character without a fireball, and I felt good when I fought my way out of the corner trap. That was skill. Rolling into a FAB (because that is the only way you can do the super) is not skill. Its tedious.
If a cornered Zangief does roll FAB on you successfully, then either your corner-pressuring skills need a lot of work or the Zangief player simply out-guessed/played you. Guess what? It's the same thing in older games! I'm HF Chun cornered by Ryu. I randomly jump (which happens to be perfectly timed) and land a jump in fierce. I proceed to mash out a strong fierce combo for 50% and dizzy. Is that skill? Why?

The danger of corners are just as prevalent in modern fighters as the older ones. If CvS2 Blanka is cornered by Sagat, he's very likely to die. Same goes for 3S Chun cornered by Ken (and vice versa), or MvC2 Sent/Capcom cornering anybody. Can you corner trap with the same methods that you could 15 years ago? No. You need to employ more footwork and use more than two moves now. Is being cornered any less deadly than it was before? Not really. Do you feel the same sense of accomplishment when you get out of the corner against a skillful player? Yes.

Thongboy Bebop

04-18-2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Richard

Erm, Alpha 3? SFEX3? Or any 2D/3D game with an easy infinite? Or any 720 powergrappler in any current game?

Right, the infinites are SO easy to do in Alpha 3. And every single character has an 80% VC off of crouching short. My mistake.

I said games that count. Get EX the hell outta here.

Since when is it easy to land an infinite in any game except XmenvsSF? Even in Marvel, they don't do a HELL of a lot of damage and they're relatively difficult to land consistently. Unless of course you're playing against people who have no idea what the hell they're doing... but you wouldn't be one of those, ne?

If you are implying that landing a standing 720 is a simple task, you're much, much less informed than your previous (and seriously ignorant of fact) posts would lead one to believe. I'll have to state it again, if you've no idea what you're talking about, pipe down.

N

Richard

04-19-2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
I said games that count. Get EX the hell outta here.

Sure it counts. it's used in tourneys, and it's more like SF2 than any of the Sammy or SNK games. You may have a prejudice against games with 3D graphics. So desu ne?

Since when is it easy to land an infinite in any game except XmenvsSF?
Unless of course you're playing against people who have no idea what the hell they're doing... but you wouldn't be one of those, ne?

In approximately 10% of the high-level A3 match vids I've seen, a round has been ended with a Sagat/Akuma/Ryu inf.

If you are implying that landing a standing 720 is a simple task, you're much, much less informed than your previous (and seriously ignorant of fact) posts would lead one to believe.
It doesn't have to be standing to do damage. There are dozens of setups, so yes, landing them IS fairly common. I don't know why you're getting so irate about this. All I said was that it's now easier to kill people than in the past. That's all. It's fact. There's no point in disagreeing.

eks

04-19-2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by eKiN

ever heard of Touch of Death combos?

what's wrong richard, reading problems?

insanelee

04-19-2004, 04:34 AM

hollow has an awesome avatar.

bronson.

k_dog77803

04-19-2004, 05:00 AM

Even thou I dont care for all the different modes, I do like the P Groove of CvS2 cause it makes the game alot more like 3S.

nanitaberu

04-19-2004, 11:38 AM

This is what you want?

3rd Strike with....
-no parrying
-no super arts
-no links
-no EX moves
-no throw tech
-nobody except Ryu, Ken, Chun Li, Hugo and Necro

If you remove -any- one aspect of the game, it will set the play balance off. Okay, maybe we could live without Chun.

Same to other games. And Bebop was right, SFEX doesn't count. The EX series can suck as much as they want =P

Discussion over. End of thread.

Infested Jester

04-19-2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by nanitaberu

Same to other games. And Bebop was right, SFEX doesn't count. The EX series can suck as much as they want =P

Go suck a dick.

k_dog77803

04-19-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by nanitaberu
This is what you want?

I want you to shut up!

Socketman

04-19-2004, 06:00 PM

All I said was that it's now easier to kill people than in the past. That's all. It's fact. There's no point in disagreeing.

im sorry but what? if my memory serves me right a hurricane kick to a dragon punch took more than 50% of your life in sf2. and what about the 2 taps and then a throw. since there was no techs u couldnt get out of that. and throws did a crap load of dmg. when blanka got hit out of his ball id look at the life bar and question to myself wtf happened to my life!!

although the games of today od have massive bs and ways to kill someone fast u cant tell me its easier to kill someone now. with all the new features there is more to watch out for and many more ways of getting out of traps, throws, and what not. dont give me this shit about its easier now. in sf2 if u landed like 3 hits in a row it was a fucking dizzy.

and its not a fact that its easier now its an opinion. i dont recall ken doing more than 50% from a hurricane+dp in cvs2.

bowiegranap

04-19-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Socketman

im sorry but what? if my memory serves me right a hurricane kick to a dragon punch took more than 50% of your life in sf2. and what about the 2 taps and then a throw. since there was no techs u couldnt get out of that.

Hurricane kick to dragon punch is no way a combo is SF2, whatever version (except for Akuma is ST), nor would it deal 50% damage even in WW.

There were no techs nor reversals in early SFs. However, in any instance where you block and be thrown you can also throw. There was an old argument about being thrown during blockstun in World Warrior, but this has never been conclusively proven even in an emulator.

Buktooth

04-19-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Richard
Sure it counts. it's used in tourneys, and it's more like SF2 than any of the Sammy or SNK games. You may have a prejudice against games with 3D graphics. So desu ne?
EX is a great series (well actually, I only like EX2+. EX3 is kinda fun to dick around with 2 minute combos) but they're not tourney games. AFAIK, the only somewhat major tourney that has EX is NEC, and they have pretty much every game under the sun.
In approximately 10% of the high-level A3 match vids I've seen, a round has been ended with a Sagat/Akuma/Ryu inf.
When did V-Akuma get an infinite? He can tack on a few more hits after his cc (like 3-4 iirc), but he doesn't have an infinite. In fact, none of the top tier A3 characters have an infinite. Besides, how is an infinite any different than a 100% touch of death combo? I see those a LOT more than 10% of the time.
It doesn't have to be standing to do damage. There are dozens of setups, so yes, landing them IS fairly common. I don't know why you're getting so irate about this.
I don't know what vids you've been watching, but with the exception of the KOF series, super grabs do NOT get landed often. This isn't ST with its inescapable 720 ticks. Sure, you might see one get landed every now and then, but it's hardly something to complain about. Besides, outside of Gief's level 3 FAB in SFEX and ST, I can't think of ANY 720 that does 80%.
All I said was that it's now easier to kill people than in the past. That's all. It's fact. There's no point in disagreeing.
Right. Dying by one dizzy combo into another dizzy combo in the older games, or even just Sagat doing 2 hit short into dp for 55% or more apparently doesn't count. Not to mention dying by 4 throws/uppercuts, or obscene amounts of chip damage done by specials.

Aside from all that, if I were to play somebody hopelessly better than me in today's fighting games, I would never be able to even pull off a round. In the SF2 series? There's always a chance. The high damage setting and huge element of randomness makes anything possible. When a casual ST player like me can beat players obviously much better than me by holding forward and mashing on strong, you tell me which games are easier to kill people in.

Thongboy Bebop

04-19-2004, 09:00 PM

I officially rename you to BukTruth. Go forth and prosper.

N

nanitaberu

04-20-2004, 12:26 AM

buktooth owned the thread

as far as i'm concerned capcom dun even give a shiat about EX. arika bought the rights to the series and look what they did with EX3.

i probably played EX more than any of you loving and protecting it here. but although it was fun and wacky, it wasnt much of a street fighter game by my books.

Serpent

04-20-2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by nanitaberu
*snip

Wtf....you're still talking? Shut the fuck up you retard

Richard

04-20-2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by eKiN
what's wrong richard, reading problems?
No. Are you refering to Guile in WW?

Originally posted by Buktooth88
AFAIK, the only somewhat major tourney that has EX is NEC

Josh points out that neoavalon have it too. Sure, it's not as widespread or as popular as Marvel, but it can still be played on a high level.

none of the top tier A3 characters have an infinite. Besides, how is an infinite any different than a 100%

Well, technically, there is a difference. But for this discussion about ease of killing, there is no difference. So we still conclude that most characters (top tier or otherwise) can kill you.

super grabs do NOT get landed often

I beg to differ. I suppose Rager's aren't that common, but why would somebody choose Hugo's 720 SA if they didn't think they could land it? How about Alex? In 3S you can get about 55% damage with just one move , nevermind a combo- and that's without even using a PA or whatever.

And according to an A3 faq, the following people all have moves more powerful than the FAB: Akuma, Cody, Fei Long, Honda, Sim, Bison, Sodom.

And in EX3 (included just to piss you off), you have Kairi, Hokuto, Darrun and Vega all doing pretty much 90-110%.

Right. Dying by one dizzy combo into another dizzy combo in the older games

You're not looking at these games in their historical context. When they first came out in the early 1990s, nobody was that good, so your everyday player really couldn't do the stuff you're talking about. You didn't go down the arcade and get beaten off in 6 seconds. Nowadays everybody has learnt the game basics after years of practice, and the entry level for skill in almost every game is being able to do 2in1 hadokens and super dragons. It's a different league. You can take it forgranted that everybody can do a 20-hit CC.

Aside from all that, if I were to play somebody hopelessly better than me in today's fighting games, I would never be able to even pull off a round. In the SF2 series? There's always a chance
This hasn't really got anything to do with it (although now you mention it, I've played Marvel twice, and I beat a bloke who challenged me..)
But yeah, I suppose I agree with you- the high default damage settings of early games does mean anybody can win a round.

El Carpeto

04-20-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Richard

You didn't go down the arcade and get beaten off in 6 seconds.

And THAT'S why arcades are dying. *rimshot*

Originally posted by Richard

You're not looking at these games in their historical context. When they first came out in the early 1990s, nobody was that good, so your everyday player really couldn't do the stuff you're talking about. You didn't go down the arcade and get beaten off in 6 seconds. Nowadays everybody has learnt the game basics after years of practice, and the entry level for skill in almost every game is being able to do 2in1 hadokens and super dragons. It's a different league. You can take it forgranted that everybody can do a 20-hit CC.

That's a bit of a moot point to say the least. Even if people couldn't do that stuff at the time, and I think a fair number of people would probably know how, it still remains that the stuff is possible. Even if CvS2/WW/ST/Whatever was being played by blind monkeys with one arm each, the stuff is still indeed possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it'll magically go away. :P Anyhoo. We're talking about the here and now, and damn right everyone knows how to connect J.Fierce, S.Fierce, Fierce Sonic Boom, F+Fierce. And deny it all you want, but that shit hurts :P

Last I checked there's no game in which nobody can do anything ridiculous. Besides, that's half the fun really.

Josh-TheFunkDOC

04-20-2004, 12:07 PM

Off-topic, but,

There are some people in the US who play EX3 in tournaments. Small scene, but it exists. These people are legit, I've played one of their best before...

The game doesn't suck, tag combos with any team require you to spend HELLA meter to get 100% or anything close to it. There's solid mixups just like in other modern fighters, and no hideously good or bad characters.

Really, the only major beef I have with this game is the fact that the Ryus (normal and Evil), Kairi, and Guile can all make their DPs/flashkicks completely safe. Garuda's 100% combo with the MvC1 duo thing is kinda dumb too, but only because it's so easy...it costs about as much meter as your typical 100% tag combo, it's just much harder to fuck up.

Anyway, to stay on-topic, I do feel that things like roll and parry are crutches, as are custom combos in all of their forms.

IMO Hyper Fighting and GGXX#R come the closest of any game to the characters winning just on their own merits. Even in GGXX, the game was kinda stupid because most of the characters were good only due to one gimmick or something equally lacking in depth. To wit:

Eddie - Unfortunately even better, ranking-wise, in #R (clear #1 character), but takes more skill. In XX he dealt more damage and took less, but he had 100%-damage unblockables which were all removed from #R. Obvious case of a gimmick being removed.

Slayer - Even more obvious case, as in #R his command grab combo into instant kill was removed. He was made stronger overall otherwise, and is a deeper character as a result.

Dizzy - Was good in XX mostly because of big easy combo damage. In #r that was replaced with all-around better offense and defense. She is pretty much as good now, but more skillful; she also doesn't have any nigh-unwinnable matchups like in XX due to her added depth.

Bridget - His B&B aircombo and flaming bear super were both heavily toned down in #R. In exchange, we got the FRC roger moves (awesome for specific strings/mixups) and the improved Roger Hug, which is a great zoning move. Like Dizzy, just about as good but deeper.

These are just some examples, but many other characters saw similar changes.

Anyway, dunno where I'm going with this, so I'll just stop now.

-Josh

Serpent

04-20-2004, 12:17 PM

I thought Slayers stuff was still there, just more difficult to time. Regardless, they upped his damage and defense I think, and actually I'm pretty sure he is the clear #1 in #R, not Eddie. Eddie is considered #1 in GGXX I think...although I thought Slayer had his case as well. I guess its just that Eddie has no bad matchups. He doesn't really win as easily as Slayer does. Sol still has his dust loop in #R, but they made it a little harder to do (I know you didn't mention that, just throwing that in as another change).

What do you mean 'win on a character's merits?' That sounds like winning on the character being strong..as opposed to..what, winning based on the engine? I think I know what you're trying to say...but I don't think it really makes sense or is true. If you're trying to say based on skill...I really think thats an asinine statement to say that other games aren't skill based. But I want to let you clear this up first.

Agreed on the EX3. How many of the people knocking the game actually know how to play it? How many people can really give reasons why it 'sucks'? I don't play the game at all...so I don't have enough of an opinion to say anything either way. If you don't play a fucking game...just shut the fuck up. It's not like anyone was talking about EX3 being better than other games or anything...goddamn.

Dasrik

04-20-2004, 01:31 PM

Richard, you are fucking stupid.

WW - If Guile lands a jumping hit, you just died.
CE/HF - If Ken lands a jumping fierce, you just died.

Not only that, but literally everyone and their sister could do the Guile/Ken TOD combo. You obviously were not in the scene, and are just talking out of your ass.

jcasetnl

04-20-2004, 09:48 PM

For people still in the scene and who have kept up with the changes over the years, the complexity might not be such an obstacle. But as a player who was very hardcore until ST, I can speak from a relative "outsider's" point of view.

IMO, and in a lot of old skool player's opinions, what Apoc said is dead on. All these lame ass modes don't add to the game. I put in a quarter and suddenly I have to fill out a survey just to start playing. It's ridiculous.

Nowadays, 99% of the time, the king of the local arcade is the guy who studied the online FAQ the closest, not the guy with the most gaming skill or refined technique.

They need to get rid of the nonsense so that anyone can step up and *understand* it, but at the same time, make it extremely difficult to master.

As for the old skool games being "up to chance", look at the match vids. Look at Daigo. It's not luck. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just plain ignorant if you think the skilled players' matches consisted of trading TOD combos. Moreover, that problem is not one that would be remedied by adding fifteen different fighting modes.

I could teach anyone on this forum how to play chess in ten minutes. Read all the online FAQs you want, but you will never, ever, beat Gary Kasparov.

Thongboy Bebop

04-20-2004, 10:12 PM

Problem is, you dropped out. Everyone else didn't.

If games stayed stagnant, then sure, oldtimers could just jump right back in. But that leaves everyone else who never really stopped in the lurch. You expect the bus driver to slow down just because you're ten minutes late to the stop?

It's not overly complicated to learn how to play the newer games at a fundamental level, provided you (the collective you) were any good in the first place. How many people were complete no-names until 3s and Marvel got big? Because the ST players don't want any more features, these people are somehow lessened?

If Justin Wong can go from being a Marvel phenom to a 3S placer (let alone the East Coast's newfound interest in ST), if Ricky Ortiz can hold it down across the board in pretty much EVERY tourney game, and if Watson and Valle and (insert oldschool player here) can still shake it up in 3s and CvS2, then what the hell are you on about? You can't expect the world to stop moving just because you weren't around. The scene is a shark, if it doesn't keep moving it'll die.

N

jcasetnl

04-20-2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
Problem is, you dropped out. Everyone else didn't.

If games stayed stagnant, then sure, oldtimers could just jump right back in. But that leaves everyone else who never really stopped in the lurch. You expect the bus driver to slow down just because you're ten minutes late to the stop?

It's not overly complicated to learn how to play the newer games at a fundamental level, provided you (the collective you) were any good in the first place. How many people were complete no-names until 3s and Marvel got big? Because the ST players don't want any more features, these people are somehow lessened?

If Justin Wong can go from being a Marvel phenom to a 3S placer (let alone the East Coast's newfound interest in ST), if Ricky Ortiz can hold it down across the board in pretty much EVERY tourney game, and if Watson and Valle and (insert oldschool player here) can still shake it up in 3s and CvS2, then what the hell are you on about? You can't expect the world to stop moving just because you weren't around. The scene is a shark, if it doesn't keep moving it'll die.

N

As Doctor Evil would say, "Riiiiiiight."

Re-read my post. You read a bit too much into it.

Like I said, I consider my opinion that of an outsider to the scene at this point. So you may disagree or think I suck or that I have no reason to complain. I'm not exactly sure which it is, nor do I care to know. I'm just telling you how I view the game at this point and what I think of its various evolutions.

Could I learn all the endless modes, rolls, cancels and all that? Sure. But here's the strange, odd, seemingly incomprehensible reality that you and so many other people just don't quite grasp:

I don't WANT to.

There was a time when the learning curve was fun. It was fun figuring out new stuff and the payoff was worth it. Now, it's so overly complex that it's just tedious and most importantly, it doesn't add to the gaming experience. It's not worth it. It's not fun.

Why don't they add another base to baseball? Why don't they move the pitcher's mound to a random spot in the in-field each game? Why don't they put ten men in the outfield? Simple, because the game would no longer be about practice and skill.

With the amount of complexity introduced in the games nowadays, that is basically what you have. For all but a very small few, it's battle of the FAQs.

I "dropped out and everyone else didn't?" You obviously weren't there, then, because if you were you would know that the scene was 100 times bigger in the early 90s. If "everyone else didn't", where are they hiding?

Thongboy Bebop

04-20-2004, 11:54 PM

Let's go piecemeal.

Originally posted by jcasetnl
Could I learn all the endless modes, rolls, cancels and all that? Sure. But here's the strange, odd, seemingly incomprehensible reality that you and so many other people just don't quite grasp:

I don't WANT to.

Then what's the point? If you want to keep playing Hyper Fighting forever, then DO SO. If you never want supers, or parries, or rolls, or ANYTHING else but your old game, keep playing it. There are a billion HF tourneys around, right? I mean, it was huge in the 90s, all of those people can't have just up and quit if they were really into it. D'accord?

There was a time when the learning curve was fun. It was fun figuring out new stuff and the payoff was worth it. Now, it's so overly complex that it's just tedious and most importantly, it doesn't add to the gaming experience. It's not worth it. It's not fun.

It's not THAT hard to play 3s or CvS2 at a medium level. Hell, you can just pick characters you still recognize (Ryu, Ken, Zangief, Guile, Honda, etcetera), play intelligently, and do pretty well. Hell, I've won a match here and there with just R4K-Geese, and I never practice at all. You don't have to study frame data to be "good" at a game. It's still all about picking characters you enjoy and learning to work it out with them.

Why don't they add another base to baseball? Why don't they move the pitcher's mound to a random spot in the in-field each game? Why don't they put ten men in the outfield? Simple, because the game would no longer be about practice and skill.

Seriously, and as non-rhetorically as I can state it: What did you expect Capcom to do? Make an umpteenth version of World Warrior? Am I the only one who remembers how much people ragged on them for riding sequels? They expanded to SF3 and the versus series(es), and people picked up on it and enjoy it. One simply cannot blame them for giving the people what they want. Hell, 3s almost died from lack of exposure until people who thought the same way you do realized "Yo, this really isn't that hard. And... by god... It's FUN!"

I "dropped out and everyone else didn't?" You obviously weren't there, then, because if you were you would know that the scene was 100 times bigger in the early 90s. If "everyone else didn't", where are they hiding?

Of course I wasn't, I barely got pubes when WW came out.

Howsomever, we must of course remember that at base, this isn't about us. It's about market shares. Capcom's demographic "grows out" of their product every few years, and if they want to keep the doors open they have to keep it fresh and new. You're right, most of these teeming masses you speak of prolly did drop out. I'd venture to say they may not have been quite as "into it" as those who currently inhabit SRK, though. Although every 7-11 had a line of quarters on the Champion Edition, 'quantity doesn't equal devotion'. Hm. I should add that to my "No Console Evo" argument.

N

Buktooth

04-21-2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by jcasetnl
Nowadays, 99% of the time, the king of the local arcade is the guy who studied the online FAQ the closest, not the guy with the most gaming skill or refined technique.
Not true. Knowledge gives you a headstart on the competition with a few gimmicky wins for a while, but guess what? A few games later, your knowledge/gimmick/technology is known by everybody else and the playing field is even again. Justin doesn't win Marvel every year because he has some secret knowledge nobody else has, he simply outplays the competition.

Besides, I think you take the knowledge necessary to play SF2 at a high level for granted. SF2 games are VERY match up-specific: if you don't already know how the Ryu vs Dhalsim match goes and what Ryu's objective is, you're probably not going to win. So is "the guy who studied the online FAQ the closest" the king of the local arcade in SF2 also?
They need to get rid of the nonsense so that anyone can step up and *understand* it, but at the same time, make it extremely difficult to master.
I think what you mean is, "don't add anything new so that retired SF2 players don't feel lost". SF2 wasn't necessarily a very accessible game also. Sure, anybody can hop on and mash away, but you can do that in the newer games also. You either had to learn by experimentation or more likely, have someone else tell you how combos/anti-airs/blocking/special moves/throwing etc worked. Guess what? It's the same thing now but with a few additional features.
As for the old skool games being "up to chance", look at the match vids. Look at Daigo. It's not luck.
Nobody's arguing that the older games had no skill. The argument somebody else posted was that it's too easy to kill somebody in fighting games nowadays, and I pointed that it was just as easy back then... or maybe even more so. Every prominent ST player today (except maybe one or two) admits that the SF2 series has a huge randomness factor. I don't think it's even possible to debate that.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just plain ignorant if you think the skilled players' matches consisted of trading TOD combos. Moreover, that problem is not one that would be remedied by adding fifteen different fighting modes.
It's equally as obtuse as thinking that today's fighting games consist of trading infinites and err... 720 grabs.
I could teach anyone on this forum how to play chess in ten minutes. Read all the online FAQs you want, but you will never, ever, beat Gary Kasparov.
And your point? Read all the online FAQs you want in any current game. You will never, ever beat Justin in Marvel or KO in 3s, or Kaqn in GGXX, or whatever.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by jcasetnl
Could I learn all the endless modes, rolls, cancels and all that? Sure.
Originally posted by BukTruth
You will never, ever beat Justin in Marvel or KO in 3s, or Kaqn in GGXX, or whatever.
Originally posted by jcasetnl
But here's the strange, odd, seemingly incomprehensible reality that you and so many other people just don't quite grasp:

I don't WANT to.

Well, I think that's settled.

N - In a surprise upset, J-Case beats SlimX to take the Theory Fighter championship in Evo2k8!

Richard

04-21-2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by El Carpeto
Even if people couldn't do that stuff at the time, and I think a fair number of people would probably know how, it still remains that the stuff is possible
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it'll magically go away. :P Anyhoo. We're talking about the here and now, and damn right everyone knows how to connect J.Fierce, S.Fierce, Fierce Sonic Boom, F+Fierce. And deny it all you want, but that shit hurts

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But at the time, it was not common, and it did not happen very frequently. Sure, somebody with 10 years of experience can go back and dominate everybody, but that's missing the point. As somebody said, the games evolve with the players. It's really not a fair or valid comparison.

All that I've been saying is that I contest that it's now harder to kill somebody than before- it's just as easy, if only for the reason that there are so many ways to do it nowadays.

Originally posted by Dasrik
CE/HF - If Ken lands a jumping fierce, you just died.

Not only that, but literally everyone and their sister could do the Guile/Ken TOD combo. You obviously were not in the scene, and are just talking out of your ass.
I don't know what gives you such amazingly powerful insight, but yeah, I've been playing games since about 1982, and playing arcade beat'emups since about 1985. I had reasonable SF1 skills, and I was doing Blanka rolls before the Nintendo version of WW came out. So what? This isn't about who's an expert, or who's a member of some elitist "scene". Save your macho insults for the WWE and get back to discussing the games.

In 1991, everybody most definately did NOT die due to a TOD.

Originally posted by jcasetnl
There was a time when the learning curve was fun. It was fun figuring out new stuff and the payoff was worth it. Now, it's so overly complex that it's just tedious and most importantly, it doesn't add to the gaming experience. It's not worth it. It's not fun.
Good point. Haviong to press 10 buttons before you even start just gets a bit ridiculous. It's overcomplex and overdeveloped. Sure, the game has to evolve, but that doesn't mean making it as detailed as a flight sim.

Likewise, I admit that I now have a hard time remembering the commands for every special and every super for every one of over 50 characters. I guess they don't expect people to be able to master everyone these days...

I suppose it's a good point about the demographic "growing out". But, er, then again, Capcom have just pulled out of the business, so they didn't exactly do the best job of keeping arcades alive...

Everybody plays racers nowadays, and to use an example of the market-leader: Gran Turismo 3 is just about the most complex and detailed racing game ever created. And yet the controls consist of just two analog sticks (and handbrake and optional gearshift). That's it! Simplicity doesn't always make a game shallow or prevent it from evolving.

Originally posted by Buktooth88
SF2 wasn't necessarily a very accessible game also
We'll have to agree to disagree than. As with chess, it was accessible to all. A masterpiece of multi-leveled gameplay. I've seen 95 year olds play SF2 and realy enjoy it. But yet, even without the increased speed, I don't think I'd see that sort of thing with MVC. They'd just throw down their controller in a flash of colorful explosions and not want to continue.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 04:21 AM

In the "Good old days", the only reason they used 8 characters was because that was the most they could fit, given the technology. It was a new genre, so people didn't think to check for re-dizzies, TODs, that sort of thing. By now we know what we're working with, so it comes through a lot more quickly. That doesn't mean the games are flawed, again it's a matter of the demographic moving on. People that have been in a while already know what to look for, what to abuse. The games aren't going to progress the same way every time. Of course someone with ten years' hindsight can go back and mow everyone down. Wouldn't that push developers to come up with MORE complex engines, so that that same person won't immediately be bored?

Adding characters helps more people to pick someone they like. There's no reason in the world for you to memorize EVERY character, unless of course you're one of those people that does that sort of thing. And then you've made your own bed.

Originally posted by Richard

Everybody plays racers nowadays, and to use an example of the market-leader: Gran Turismo 3 is just about the most complex and detailed racing game ever created. And yet the controls consist of just two analog sticks (and handbrake and optional gearshift). That's it! Simplicity doesn't always make a game shallow or prevent it from evolving.

Ah, this is good stuff. Yes, GT is relatively easy to play. But people who use an automatic transmission and generic pre-fab cars are tantamount to button mashers. I doubt they even bother to drift. However, when you learn the proper way to tune up a car, when you learn the lines on the tracks and the gear shift patterns, doesn't that equate a higher level of play?

If I said "I don't want to have to mod my car, I don't want to shift manually, and I definitely don't want to ever have to use the handbrake. I should be able to win with just a stock car and an auto trannie, provided my turning is good!" wouldn't that seem... well, lazy at the very least. Just because it was in RC Pro-Am doesn't mean racing games have to be that way forever.

N - No disrespect to RC Pro-Am, between that , F-Zero Snes, and Rock n' Roll Racing I should never want for another racing game. Ever.

bushin187

04-21-2004, 04:37 AM

First of all ALL GAMES have dumb stuff in them.

ST alpha 3s cvs2. U guys can discuss that forever and still don't agree

I don't like the rolls in cvs2 . Rolls are stupid period :mad:

dash and run are ok but I don't like the fact that everyone needs to have acces to them.
It's like they took everything which made characters special and gave it too everyone.

Cody's dodge ------>S-groove
A3 Charlie dash ------> cvs2 dash
Guy run -------> cvs2 run

Why does everyone need a superjump?

how do you use your fireball in cvs2 when

-everyone has a superjump
- people can parry or just defend
- roll
- super through

etc

sometimes extra stuff make risk/reward stupid

If you give everyone the same extra features the game will be more balanced but IMO that makes the game boring

So extra features are ok with me as long they are not the same for everyone and they aren't stupid like rolls :o

Imo game should all be about risk reward

Buktooth

04-21-2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Richard
Yeah, I get what you're saying. But at the time, it was not common, and it did not happen very frequently. Sure, somebody with 10 years of experience can go back and dominate everybody, but that's missing the point. As somebody said, the games evolve with the players. It's really not a fair or valid comparison.
I think you're missing the point. Regardless of whether or not people used these strats/combos 10 years ago, they still exist within the game. I could just as easily use your logic and say nobody in Montana or whatever does V-Akuma infinites or 720 abuse, so therefore the new games must be a-ok with the old SF crowd.
In 1991, everybody most definately did NOT die due to a TOD.
In 2004, everybody most definitely isn't dying due to infinites and 720 grabs.
Likewise, I admit that I now have a hard time remembering the commands for every special and every super for every one of over 50 characters. I guess they don't expect people to be able to master everyone these days...
Please don't tell me you're complaining about newer games having too many characters. Besides, knowing a character's special moves != mastering the character.
I've seen 95 year olds play SF2 and realy enjoy it. But yet, even without the increased speed, I don't think I'd see that sort of thing with MVC. They'd just throw down their controller in a flash of colorful explosions and not want to continue.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. Getting one 95 year old to play SF2 and have fun is amazing enough. Finding more than one 95 year old playing SF2 is something you'll only find in a comedy skit. Regardless, I'll go along with you on this one.

So a pair of 95 year olds (or more!) are playing SF2 and having fun. At the risk of being stereotypical, I'm going to assume they were having a button mashing blast of a time. Who's to say they can't do this in a newer game? Why can't they button mash and have fun in 3S, GGXX or CvS2? Because of all these confounded new features? If anything, I think they would have the most fun with MvC2. Not only are there a few characters they might have a chance of actually recognizing (spidey, captain america, doom), but they get the most results from their button mashing. Why do you think the Soul Calibur series is so popular with casual fighting game fans? Because they can mash away and make visually impressive things happen.

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
Let's go piecemeal.

Then what's the point? If you want to keep playing Hyper Fighting forever, then DO SO. If you never want supers, or parries, or rolls, or ANYTHING else but your old game, keep playing it. There are a billion HF tourneys around, right? I mean, it was huge in the 90s, all of those people can't have just up and quit if they were really into it. D'accord?

It's not THAT hard to play 3s or CvS2 at a medium level. Hell, you can just pick characters you still recognize (Ryu, Ken, Zangief, Guile, Honda, etcetera), play intelligently, and do pretty well. Hell, I've won a match here and there with just R4K-Geese, and I never practice at all. You don't have to study frame data to be "good" at a game. It's still all about picking characters you enjoy and learning to work it out with them.

Seriously, and as non-rhetorically as I can state it: What did you expect Capcom to do? Make an umpteenth version of World Warrior? Am I the only one who remembers how much people ragged on them for riding sequels? They expanded to SF3 and the versus series(es), and people picked up on it and enjoy it. One simply cannot blame them for giving the people what they want. Hell, 3s almost died from lack of exposure until people who thought the same way you do realized "Yo, this really isn't that hard. And... by god... It's FUN!"

Of course I wasn't, I barely got pubes when WW came out.

Howsomever, we must of course remember that at base, this isn't about us. It's about market shares. Capcom's demographic "grows out" of their product every few years, and if they want to keep the doors open they have to keep it fresh and new. You're right, most of these teeming masses you speak of prolly did drop out. I'd venture to say they may not have been quite as "into it" as those who currently inhabit SRK, though. Although every 7-11 had a line of quarters on the Champion Edition, 'quantity doesn't equal devotion'. Hm. I should add that to my "No Console Evo" argument.

N

You're being deliberately thick-headed because you want to win an argument, not get to the truth of the matter. After again reading a bunch of stuff into my post that doesn't exist, you then got up on your high horse in response. I'm not gonna argue with someone who refuses to grasp the concept. That last paragraph of speculations about the old skool was pretty funny to read, though.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by jcasetnl

You're being deliberately thick-headed because you want to win an argument, not get to the truth of the matter. After again reading a bunch of stuff into my post that doesn't exist, you then got up on your high horse in response. I'm not gonna argue with someone who refuses to grasp the concept. That last paragraph of speculations about the old skool was pretty funny to read, though.

That's just not true. I simply haven't seen anything from you that really amounts to more than "I don't want to learn new games. I want everything to stay the same." Isn't that the crux of your argument, really? SF hasn't changed as much as you want to think it has, the players just have. When the general populace adapts to the way the engine works, the game itself must evolve or die. Like you said, YOU don't want to. But one simply cannot in good faith blame Capcom for changing with the times. That's like saying a band sucks just because they sold a billion albums. They HAVE to play stadiums now, otherwise they won't get to play at all. The music is the same, it's just become mainstream now. Can't blame anybody for taking free money in order to keep on doing their thing.

N

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Buktooth88

Not true. Knowledge gives you a headstart on the competition with a few gimmicky wins for a while, but guess what? A few games later, your knowledge/gimmick/technology is known by everybody else and the playing field is even again. Justin doesn't win Marvel every year because he has some secret knowledge nobody else has, he simply outplays the competition.

Besides, I think you take the knowledge necessary to play SF2 at a high level for granted. SF2 games are VERY match up-specific: if you don't already know how the Ryu vs Dhalsim match goes and what Ryu's objective is, you're probably not going to win. So is "the guy who studied the online FAQ the closest" the king of the local arcade in SF2 also?

I think what you mean is, "don't add anything new so that retired SF2 players don't feel lost". SF2 wasn't necessarily a very accessible game also. Sure, anybody can hop on and mash away, but you can do that in the newer games also. You either had to learn by experimentation or more likely, have someone else tell you how combos/anti-airs/blocking/special moves/throwing etc worked. Guess what? It's the same thing now but with a few additional features.

snip

You're also reading too much into my post.

It's true that once a gimmick is used up, it's used up. But the point that people are trying to make is that there is so much unecessary crap thrown in that there's A LOT to use up. So much so that I dare say by the time it is finally used up, Capcom has made the next version. So much so that most gamers will come to the conclusion, "This isn't worth my time." Oh wait, they have come to that conclusion - the numbers bear that out.

You can argue that all the modes and features are justified and that if we didn't "keep up" then it's our fault, just want it easy, blah blah blah. Whatever. I want a game that's fun to play and fun to master, not one that demands I plod through a lot of useless, boring, tedious doo doo.

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

That's just not true. I simply haven't seen anything from you that really amounts to more than "I don't want to learn new games. I want everything to stay the same." Isn't that the crux of your argument, really? SF hasn't changed as much as you want to think it has, the players just have. When the general populace adapts to the way the engine works, the game itself must evolve or die. Like you said, YOU don't want to. But one simply cannot in good faith blame Capcom for changing with the times. That's like saying a band sucks just because they sold a billion albums. They HAVE to play stadiums now, otherwise they won't get to play at all. The music is the same, it's just become mainstream now. Can't blame anybody for taking free money in order to keep on doing their thing.

N

I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed. Again, you missed the point by a mile and just read into it what you wanted to. Then you set up a straw man and knocked him down.

E for effort on the purple prose, though.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by jcasetnl

I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed. Again, you missed the point by a mile and just read into it what you wanted to. Then you set up a straw man and knocked him down.

E for effort on the purple prose, though.

But it's only needless by your standard, not by the bajillion people who are currently playing. By your own admission, you dropped out of the scene. You can't expect to just pick up where you left off. It's like an old girlfriend, you've gotta put at least a modicum of legwork in first. Then you're riding like you never left the saddle.

Again, what exactly do you expect the game companies to add? If you don't like parrying, rolling (which has been around forever, KoF games did exist before CvS2 everybody), or any of the umpteen features that they're trying to enhance the game with, what would you propose they do? It's not exactly simple to satisfy the absurdly critical audience of fighting games. Stuff is either IN or OUT, and people seem generally rather pleased with the current crop of games. I can't really think of many global changes that need to be made in new games, just small tweaks to make the good systems they've already built better.

N

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

But it's only needless by your standard, not by the bajillion people who are currently playing. By your own admission, you dropped out of the scene. You can't expect to just pick up where you left off. It's like an old girlfriend, you've gotta put at least a modicum of legwork in first. Then you're riding like you never left the saddle.

Again, what exactly do you expect the game companies to add? If you don't like parrying, rolling (which has been around forever, KoF games did exist before CvS2 everybody), or any of the umpteen features that they're trying to enhance the game with, what would you propose they do? It's not exactly simple to satisfy the absurdly critical audience of fighting games. Stuff is either IN or OUT, and people seem generally rather pleased with the current crop of games. I can't really think of many global changes that need to be made in new games, just small tweaks to make the good systems they've already built better.

N

Here's the water. Drink if you like.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by jcasetnl

Here's the water. Drink if you like.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Alright. If you're SO dead-set that I'm completely misunderstanding you, state your case against these "devil games of the future" inside of three concise, neatly arranged sentences. Even a titanic cretin like myself should be able to understand such an elementary turn of phrase.

N

Ed: What I get is this -

1) You used to play. You genuinely liked at least up to HF.

2) You believe the additions since then are excess garbage.

3) You don't seem to want to pony up better solutions.

Apoc

04-21-2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop
Problem is, you dropped out. Everyone else didn't.

If games stayed stagnant, then sure, oldtimers could just jump right back in. But that leaves everyone else who never really stopped in the lurch. You expect the bus driver to slow down just because you're ten minutes late to the stop?

It's not overly complicated to learn how to play the newer games at a fundamental level, provided you (the collective you) were any good in the first place. How many people were complete no-names until 3s and Marvel got big? Because the ST players don't want any more features, these people are somehow lessened?

If Justin Wong can go from being a Marvel phenom to a 3S placer (let alone the East Coast's newfound interest in ST), if Ricky Ortiz can hold it down across the board in pretty much EVERY tourney game, and if Watson and Valle and (insert oldschool player here) can still shake it up in 3s and CvS2, then what the hell are you on about? You can't expect the world to stop moving just because you weren't around. The scene is a shark, if it doesn't keep moving it'll die.

N

Not a solid argument. Watson has clearly called 3s and CvS2 frickin' LAME. But what are you gonna do? You're gonna play the games that have competition until they get so dumb it's just not worth it.

I'll weigh in on this a bit as I have a bit to say and don't have time at the moment.

Also, check who the newer top-players are using. Almost SOLELY top tier. If any good player focuses on Chun li in 3s, they're going to do well. She's that simple to play. Fast reflexes and DECENT execution is all that's necessary. But if winning is the sole purpose and you don't care how you win, you're going to use the simplest and best characters. Viewing things from my perspective, that doesn't show player domination. It shows that ppl are willing to do anything to tip the scales in their favor. If there was a win button, no matter how stupid that would be, these guys would use it. When I see mid-tier characters in mid-tier modes, then I'll buy it. As is, you can clearly attribute wins to advantages before the games are even played. Even upper middle tier would be better. But when you're using characters that statistically win regardless of the player...pretty wack. Take O.Sagat on ST for example. Put a less simple character in the players hands and watch what happens. Since the character isn't doing the winning, the player won't win. You don't see Daigo using O.Sagat on ST. He uses Ryu almost exclusively for the majority of wins.

Don't get me wrong. There's a clear difference among the top tier. With some top tier, you actually have to be good to gain wins. I'm seeing much more "easy mode" top tier characters lately in these games. Is Blanka on CvS2 hard or simple to win with? Sagat? Cammy? All of these characters are among the most simple to win with in CvS2 regardless of the groove. It would be different if these characters took some real effort...but they don't. You'd think, with so many ppl using these characters, that they'd lose more now since so many have experience facing them. Nope. Their simplicity is even effective against those good at facing them. You have to be much more careful against these characters since they don't have to do much at all to win. I think ppl are foolish to respect these characters.

I'll break it down in a bit for those interested.

Apoc.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Apoc

Not a solid argument, etcetera.
Apoc.

Err. I'd hate to stab someone with a knife I pulled out of my own gut, but isn't this totally not the argument we were just having? I thought your beef was with systems, not the blatant character imbalances we've all come to know and love. Strawmen all around.

If this is the beef you want to have, then GGXX/#R would still be a perfect example of character balance AND new "useless excess" system additions. It's irrefutable, a near-perfect game by that marker. Every character CAN win, and does. Often.

Now, I won't be the one to say "3s is balanced, go sell crazy someplace else", because that would just be me talking out of my ass. Howsomever, Easy-Mode Robo-Chuns are still routinely trounced by the normal tourney placers with more knowledge/experience. Isn't that the way the game is supposed to work? Now Ricky, Daigo, and Justin may be unfair examples on both our parts, they're just aliens and they screw up the curve. But outside of that, Chun NEVER wins tourneys. On a team, maybe. But stand-alone? Seriously, it never happens. Ken maybe, Pyro (not Yun, Pyro) definitely, but never Robo-Chun.

3s is seriously a lot more balanced than people realize. It's BROKEN, but parrying really, really helps out the more, ah... "crippled" characters. Like I said, it's not a system-wide problem, just a few VERY specific tweaks needed to certain characters. Capcom just isn't quite as balance-adept as Sammy seems to be lately. It takes them more sequels to finally get it right.

N - Now I'm just rambling. There's a point in there somewhere.

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

Alright. If you're SO dead-set that I'm completely misunderstanding you, state your case against these "devil games of the future" inside of three concise, neatly arranged sentences. Even a titanic cretin like myself should be able to understand such an elementary turn of phrase.

N

Ed: What I get is this -

1) You used to play. You genuinely liked at least up to HF.

2) You believe the additions since then are excess garbage.

3) You don't seem to want to pony up better solutions.

1. Factually wrong, but at least you aren't making ridiculous implications.

2. Distortion and Generalization.

3. Complete Fabrication. You pulled this idea completely out of thin air.

Look, dude, no offense. Really. But you just don't get it and you don't WANT to get it. I'm not saying you're stupid, as you conclude in your post. "Devil games of the future"? That's quite an exaggeration.

I'm not implying, therefore, that you are necessarily wrong and that I am therefore right on the issue at hand. What I'm saying is that debate with you is impossible.

I'm going back to lurking. This is my last response to this thread.

:o

Apoc

04-21-2004, 01:11 PM

First off, I apologize. I was only commenting to you about the names you chose to drop. It was humorous to me since I had some insight there.

Err. I'd hate to stab someone with a knife I pulled out of my own gut, but isn't this totally not the argument we were just having? I thought your beef was with systems, not the blatant character imbalances we've all come to know and love. Strawmen all around.

True. BUT, also, we're talking about how much easier it is to win across the board on newer games. That is why there are so many more top players now than every before. It's not because more ppl are playing than every before. It's because the games even out things in a superficial way. Note that I did bring up less simplistic modes as well.

I wasn't intending to weigh in on the original subject as I stated at the very beginning of the post. You brought up new top players and I brought up that they aren't diverse like they were in the past. They all use the best to win. No offense to John at all, but I think Choi had a lot to do with current trends. Ppl see that ppl didn't care who he used to win back in the day. Top tier since A1. Although, the belief was that he was always a shoto player. Then A3 comes out and he picks Gen and Karin and is unsuccessful and then he picks a simple mode character(v-sak) and dominates being known as the best A3 player in the US. With a critical eye, you see that the only top player winning with their best character or other mid-tier was Valle. Still, Valle didn't seem to get the credit of being the best because he lost to Choi. No one ever cared which character folks were using. On SF3, in the end, Valle is using Ryu mostly while Choi or others are using yun and yang(the clear best at the time). Ppl wanted Choi-like props and went that route without noticing what was really going on. Ppl see win or lose without a critical eye.

I hope I didn't come off like a dick there. Just check history and see what you make of it. I think that's had a profound effect on the scene and why games became boring top tier fests like V-Saks and V-Akumas across the board along with c/b/s on every cvs2 team. There's less honor today. Back in the day, ppl used to get dissed for dropping their original character for the ones already winning tourneys. It was a cop out. Now it's just good strategy but it also makes things less diverse and boring.

As you can see, I wasn't debating the original topic in that post or now. I was just commenting. Sorry about that. I gotta stop this, lol.

Sometimes I have so much hot air I'd rather type it out than fart up a storm(burp)

Apoc.

beto

04-21-2004, 01:20 PM

I also agree that some of these new fighting games have too many extra features. You can't start a match these days without having to pick a "groove/ism/ratio" on top of having to pick your character or characters if you are playing Marvel or CvS2. All of this is just too much and boring really. For some of the newer players that just want to play the game and have fun, have to go through all that nonsense that they don't understand. When SF2 came out, you picked the character you liked, and learned the moves. Anyone could play SF2. It was easy to play yet difficult to master because it wasn't like any other videogame where you could just beat the computer and declare yourself the best. You had to practice, and if you thought you were the best you weren't because a few minutes away were other arcades with different players you had not beaten. That's how big SF2 was and why the scene was bigger and better than it is today. Personally I think that all the hundreds of fighting games that came out in the early '90s, trying to cash in on SF2's success, basically bored U.S. gamers. An old-school player from the old days that might have gotten bored from all the fighting games, and might want to check out some of the newer games, will have to go through all that "groove/ism/modes" on top of having to learn all these other extra features like "rolls, custom combos, alpha counters, parry, etc"

N-Ken

04-21-2004, 01:26 PM

jcasetnl quit being stupid, you call strawman on thongboy when you won't even explain your point (which btw, Thong argued EXACTLY what you posted, it may not have been what you meant, but it's sure as hell what you posted, if you think you posted something else you need to take a class on not being an Aardvark)

As far as Dick's posts, you've got to be kidding me, with old games 50%+ combos WERE common, any random player could jump Fierce, c. Fierce xx Fireball no problem, it's not a very hard combo. With new games at least you have to have some timing to get 50% combos generally. I doubt it's a coincidence either that matches for any new game last longer than ST matches, for which rounds sometimes last 15 seconds, even with good players.

Apoc: You lament the options that new games give yet you love A3? A3 has more BS than almost any other game, ever.

EDIT: I now believe, BukTruth and (not)Wrongboy Bebop (sorry TB, I had to do another play on names with the first one, I know yours sucks but oh well...)

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by jcasetnl
1. Factually wrong, but at least you aren't making ridiculous implications.

Originally posted by jcasetnl
But as a player who was very hardcore until ST, I can speak from a relative "outsider's" point of view.

Check?

Originally posted by jcasetnl
2. Distortion and Generalization.

Originally posted by jcasetnl
All these lame ass modes don't add to the game. I put in a quarter and suddenly I have to fill out a survey just to start playing. It's ridiculous.
-----
They need to get rid of the nonsense so that anyone can step up and *understand* it, but at the same time, make it extremely difficult to master.
-----
Moreover, that problem is not one that would be remedied by adding fifteen different fighting modes.
-----
I'm just telling you how I view the game at this point and what I think of its various evolutions.
-----
You can argue that all the modes and features are justified and that if we didn't "keep up" then it's our fault, just want it easy, blah blah blah. Whatever. I want a game that's fun to play and fun to master, not one that demands I plod through a lot of useless, boring, tedious doo doo.
-----
I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed.

Check...

Originally posted by jcasetnl

3. Complete Fabrication. You pulled this idea completely out of thin air.
Originally posted by jcasetnl
*crickets*

I'm gonna have to go with "check" on this one.

So what exactly is the problem here? You complain about the way new games are made. Obviously, I don't truly understand your complaint, so I asked you to restate it. And now you've left me blueballed. What am I to make of this but:

"You have no desire to help ME understand your crazy, oldskooler ways."

I have persistently (and always in proper spelling and grammar, take note) asked you to simply explain what they (Capcom) could've done, even in retrospect, to make the games less overly complex and anti-fun. But you'll give me nothing to chew on. No wonder I have to make scarecrows, I've no windmills to chase.

N

mirage

04-21-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Apoc

random ish about top players using top tier only
+ random ish about k-cbs being "scrubby"

Apoc.

at high level play cvs2 degenerates into whiff-punishing. at high-level play all characters are "easy-mode" - you memorize which aa to use at which distance against which characters, which moves to bait at whif distance, and buffer the hell out of your c. mks.

please tell me which characters in cvs2 are not "scrubby", because they all are. the less-used characters are less used not because they're harder to learn (please, is any character in this game hard to learn?) but because they get countered more. their c.jabs have less frame advantage, their mediums have less range and speed, their hitboxes dont cover as well, and their supers arent as bufferable.

regardless, they play the same as the top tier. they have the same 1-2 normal AAs, the same bnb's and the same 2-3 moves in the poking game. its just their moves arent as good.

the game is scrubby and boring at top level, that's the end of the story. and K-groove/tier is not any scrubbier than everything else.

besides, plenty of top players win with unorthodox teams.

just from what i've seen in our little corner of the NW from the past month:
- LTB owning everyone with p.
- trinh's n-morrigan rush.
- jon scanlon dominating 6-0 against team seattle (minus ltb) with c-gief/ryu
- s-groove getting 4th at nw regional

sounds like the game has been leaving you behind.

Decoy

04-21-2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Apoc

I'll break it down in a bit for those interested.

Apoc.

Please do.:)

I've been using Blanka since day one and I'm certainly not gonna stop now even though he is considered top tier. You get no disagreements from me in terms of ease of use but damn yo, if he truly were THAT easy why am I not a ranked player? I take it it may be my poor strats and execution I guess. Bottom line is that even though characters like Blanka are easier to attain victories with - you still have to move and press SOME buttons. ;)

Putting me in Jeff Gordon's Nascar doesn't mean I'll ever place in a race.

BTW, nice avatar. Where can I get one with the PR flag like yours? That shit is tight!

Peace

~Decoy

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by beto
I also agree that some of these new fighting games have too many extra features. You can't start a match these days without having to pick a "groove/ism/ratio" on top of having to pick your character or characters if you are playing Marvel or CvS2. All of this is just too much and boring really. For some of the newer players that just want to play the game and have fun, have to go through all that nonsense that they don't understand. When SF2 came out, you picked the character you liked, and learned the moves. Anyone could play SF2. It was easy to play yet difficult to master because it wasn't like any other videogame where you could just beat the computer and declare yourself the best. You had to practice, and if you thought you were the best you weren't because a few minutes away were other arcades with different players you had not beaten. That's how big SF2 was and why the scene was bigger and better than it is today. Personally I think that all the hundreds of fighting games that came out in the early '90s, trying to cash in on SF2's success, basically bored U.S. gamers. An old-school player from the old days that might have gotten bored from all the fighting games, and might want to check out some of the newer games, will have to go through all that "groove/ism/modes" on top of having to learn all these other extra features like "rolls, custom combos, alpha counters, parry, etc"

You make it sound like ALL of these features are in the same game. Really, let's break it down:

Marvel: Pick 3 characters, whoever you want. Yes, it's a big ass roster. Just pick Hulk/Wolverine/Spiderman, you KNOW you want to. Ok, after you choose each one you pick what you want him to do when he jumps out onscreen. Really, should it take more than two plays at most to figure out what an assist does? All of the rest you can learn through trial and error inside of a week. It takes most people more time than that to figure out long division.

CvS2: This is only complicated if you've never seen a KoF game in your entire life. Which, admittedly, a lot of hardcore Capcom scrubs have never done. So, likesay, it might take 4-5 plays to figure out the ratio system exactly, and what the "Isms" do, just in a basic way. However, CvS is a special type of game, made specifically for people that ALREADY know fighting games. It's like a love letter from Cap/SNK. Anyone who's reasonably familiar with SF or KoF (god forbid both) should immediately recognize at least 3 modes. The rest is a matter of trial and error again.

Dude, really, sit in training mode and figure it out like everyone else. If you're one of God's lucky chosen who have an arcade in your town, you have your own built-in mallscrub mini-SRK to compare notes with. Isn't that the essence of SF, right there? Figuring out hot shit in the game and then showing it off to your friends, then being amazed with what they came up with, lather rinse repeat?

N

Note: I hate Marvel, I will never play it as a serious tourney game. I use R4K-Geese if I'm forced to play CvS2. I chose these two games as examples because I specifically dislike them. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they work. See how easy it is to snag the logic through the hate?

beto

04-21-2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

You make it sound like ALL of these features are in the same game. Really, let's break it down:

Marvel: Pick 3 characters, whoever you want. Yes, it's a big ass roster. Just pick Hulk/Wolverine/Spiderman, you KNOW you want to. Ok, after you choose each one you pick what you want him to do when he jumps out onscreen. Really, should it take more than two plays at most to figure out what an assist does? All of the rest you can learn through trial and error inside of a week. It takes most people more time than that to figure out long division.

CvS2: This is only complicated if you've never seen a KoF game in your entire life. Which, admittedly, a lot of hardcore Capcom scrubs have never done. So, likesay, it might take 4-5 plays to figure out the ratio system exactly, and what the "Isms" do, just in a basic way. However, CvS is a special type of game, made specifically for people that ALREADY know fighting games. It's like a love letter from Cap/SNK. Anyone who's reasonably familiar with SF or KoF (god forbid both) should immediately recognize at least 3 modes. The rest is a matter of trial and error again.

Dude, really, sit in training mode and figure it out like everyone else. If you're one of God's lucky chosen who have an arcade in your town, you have your own built-in mallscrub mini-SRK to compare notes with. Isn't that the essence of SF, right there? Figuring out hot shit in the game and then showing it off to your friends, then being amazed with what they came up with, lather rinse repeat?

N

Note: I hate Marvel, I will never play it as a serious tourney game. I use R4K-Geese if I'm forced to play CvS2. I chose these two games as examples because I specifically dislike them. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they work. See how easy it is to snag the logic through the hate?

I didn't say all those features were in a single game, but those are in most of the newer games. The game gets boring having to go through all those different modes, and having to learn all these other new features. If you want to play A3, you have to choose an ism and know what you can and cannot do with it. If you don't know what an alpha counter or a custom combo is, you're gonna have to go online and read a FAQ. Basically all of this takes time and it shouldn't take this much to play. People will get turned off by all of these selection screens, features, etc.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by beto

I didn't say all those features were in a single game, but those are in most of the newer games. The game gets boring having to go through all those different modes, and having to learn all these other new features. If you want to play A3, you have to choose an ism and know what you can and cannot do with it. If you don't know what an alpha counter or a custom combo is, you're gonna have to go online and read a FAQ. Basically all of this takes time and it shouldn't take this much to play. People will get turned off by all of these selection screens, features, etc.

Let's cut it into black and white. Pretend for a moment there are mallscrubs and there are tourney folk. I know, big stretch.

Mallscrubs (which is just an umbrella term for people who only play against local comp and don't know anything about "tiers" and "SRK" and whatnot) don't know about alphas or guard-break customs, so why would they care? People in countries without television or the internet don't give a damn if Starbucks adds a new coffee to the menu. They will never know about the excess features unless someone from an outside pool comes along.

Tourney folk like comp, and want it wherever they can get it. Some will pick Top Tier characters because they just want to win at any cost, and they don't care about style. Some will pick characters they just "like", and work their asses off to make those broken, semi-underrated characters worth a damn. Either way, both groups use every single tool at their disposal to polish the rough spots on the characters they've chosen. Multiple options like Isms, Ratios, Grooves, and multiple supers/assists all help to round out character weaknesses that would otherwise make some characters literally unplayable.

If one is really all about finessing their game, I feel that all of these options help greatly. You can now really use anyone you want moreso than before, without worrying heavily about "counter-characters" and such (not that they don't exist, but things like parrying and the bajillion Groove differences DO even it out quite a bit).

N - Yakkity yak yak

Serpent

04-21-2004, 02:35 PM

Wow...just wow at this thread. Where the fuck were you in that Domination 101 forum a few months back when this came up, Apoc? I initially mentioned something about skill and ease of characters, and some characters being stronger than others, and immediately had most of SRK telling me I am a scrub. Prozac came in and continued arguing long after I decided it was pointless. You want to thank anyone for the current trend? Thank S-Kill and the horde of scrubs on SRK that think playing the cheapest, most boring stupid playstyle to win at all costs is the only way to play a fucking fighting game. Seth is no scrub, but the mindless way a lot of people have followed his articles is what killed the scene, probably even more so than the latest games not being great. I still have the same view now as I had then: come tourney time I want you to bring your best, be as annoying and boring in your playstyle as you want, and I'll love every damn second of it, but you bring that shit at me in a casual match and I'll just think you're pathetic.

And people wonder why most fighting game fans can't stand SRK?

I don't agree with most of the stuff Apoc is saying, and chalk it up to a cranky old man who doesn't want to let the old days go. But this stuff about people only using top tiers now is irritating and true. I don't know how it was back in the day, but I can only go by what jcastle and apoc are saying, and assume that there was more diversity in the past.

EDIT-I remember now what I had said. I claimed certian things are "scrubby" and they still are.

Apoc

04-21-2004, 03:49 PM

Wow! See, if I were to break it down right now and answer or debate everything in this thread it would take hours and no one is going to read it if it is that long.
If I pick out a few things, those alone will require more posting.

I've got to head out but I really would like to be involved in this discussion but it seems as though there is too much to discuss and ppl don't wanna read a long ass post.

So, tonight, I'll discuss whatever I can. If yall could, help me out here. Which topic or topics should I discuss first? There's so much in this thread I don't know where to start so I guess I'll take all of your lead.

Where should I begin? I'll try to discuss 3 issues at once and if I can do more I will. So I figure I should get to the most important ones to the discussion first. So, which is the most important sub-topic to those reading today?

If yall can't decide, I can understand because I can't either, lol. In that case, I'll start off wherever and we'll go from there. I just don't want to discuss anything yall feel should be finished by now.

Sorry Serpent, it's been awhile since I've gone to Dom101. Most discussions on playing are years old and I commented years ago on them. It looks like I would've probably agreed with you though:)

Apoc.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Apoc
Wow! See, if I were to break it down right now and answer or debate everything in this thread it would take hours and no one is going to read it if it is that long.

Negro please. If they'll be bothered to muck through my page-long ramble rants, the least folks could do is sift through a half-decent rebuttal.

N - I'll read it.

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by N-Ken
jcasetnl quit being stupid, you call strawman on thongboy when you won't even explain your point (which btw, Thong argued EXACTLY what you posted, it may not have been what you meant, but it's sure as hell what you posted, if you think you posted something else you need to take a class on not being an Aardvark)

Okay, I'm an idiot. I'll bite. But this really is the last time. I feel like I walked into a grammar school debate.

"I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed."

His only response was something equivalent to, "Well that's your opinion."

REALLY??!! YOU THINK??? OH MY GAWD!!! Here I am, one single user, expressing his one single opinion and he.... HE POINTED THAT OUT!!! GOD, WHAT CRUSHING LOGIC!!! MY WORLD COMES TUMBLING DOWN.

And then he goes right back to fabricated BS. So in this whole moutainous crap heap, the only direct response to what I actually said is to point out that my opinion is solely my own, which isn't even an argument, just pointing out the obvious.

The rest was this:

"you think old skool players should be able to jump back in"

"you don't want to learn anything new"

"if you like HF so much, go play that instead"

"change happens, deal with it."

"you just want to complain and can't suggest anything better"

In other words, all the arguments are attacking either ME or old skool players in general and not even discussing the ISSUE ITSELF. Why don't we just cut to the chase and start saying Yo Momma jokes?

And the reason the responses I'm getting are in the form of attacks is because people get their panties in a wad when their game gets dissed.

So, the question is, do I waste yet another post refuting these straw man arguments that were basically made up and are irrelevant in the first place or do I just call it for BS and move on?

:confused:

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by jcasetnl

Okay, I'm an idiot. I'll bite. But this really is the last time. I feel like I walked into a grammar school debate.

"I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed."

His only response was something equivalent to, "Well that's your opinion."

REALLY??!! YOU THINK??? OH MY GAWD!!! Here I am, one single user, expressing his one single opinion and he.... HE POINTED THAT OUT!!! GOD, WHAT CRUSHING LOGIC!!! MY WORLD COMES TUMBLING DOWN.

And then he goes right back to fabricated BS. So in this whole moutainous crap heap, the only direct response to what I actually said is to point out that my opinion is solely my own, which isn't even an argument, just pointing out the obvious.

The rest was this:

"you think old skool players should be able to jump back in"

"you don't want to learn anything new"

"if you like HF so much, go play that instead"

"change happens, deal with it."

"you just want to complain and can't suggest anything better"

In other words, all the arguments are attacking either ME or old skool players in general and not even discussing the ISSUE ITSELF. Why don't we just cut to the chase and start saying Yo Momma jokes?

And the reason the responses I'm getting are in the form of attacks is because people get their panties in a wad when their game gets dissed.

So, the question is, do I waste yet another post refuting these straw man arguments that were basically made up and are irrelevant in the first place or do I just call it for BS and move on?

:confused:

Three. Concise. Sentences.

A) What exactly is wrong with the new systems, aside from that you don't feel they're worth learning?

B) What would you propose in their stead?

C) If old-school games are so air-tight, why has the world moved on?

N - :) :) :) Does this help? :) :) :)

jcasetnl

04-21-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

Three. Concise. Sentences.

A) What exactly is wrong with the new systems, aside from that you don't feel they're worth learning?

B) What would you propose in their stead?

C) If old-school games are so air-tight, why has the world moved on?

N - :) :) :) Does this help? :) :) :)

A) The problem is they add needless complexity to the game and therefore are not worth learning. ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE???

B) Getting rid of them because they don't add to the... forget it, you're just too stupid. I'm convinced of that now.

C) Two words: Super Turbo. That game is 10 years old and still enjoys a devoted following. It has had the longest run of any 2D fighter ever made. And besides, I advocated less complexity, not making a copy of ST. But you still can't shake the idea that this is nothing more than an old skooler's complaint. Jeez, you are a friggin' moron.

Thongboy Bebop

04-21-2004, 04:54 PM

You forgot the smiley faces. My feeling is hurt.

So. In the end the crux of your argument is really that the games should've stayed the same from Super Turbo on. Really. THAT is your final answer?

You don't provide any substitutions for these needlessly complex systems, so that is all we have to work with. What we've got, or what you would prefer. You don't like what we've got. Without that, we've still got ST. So. How are you NOT saying "keep it like Super Turbo", if we don't have anything superior to add?

N - I just need to be clear on this, forgive me, I'm a moron.

Edit: :) :) :)

EVERDRED

04-21-2004, 05:42 PM

since when has complexity been needless?

street fighter has always been about complexity in the first place and in second place innovation. how would u get ST if capcom didnt evolve WW to ST?

Clear Sky

04-21-2004, 05:44 PM

Who said they were fancy?

EVERDRED

04-21-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Clear Sky
Who said they were fancy?

"Not I", said the Shin-Shoryuken.

N-Ken

04-21-2004, 06:17 PM

Let me quote an earlier post from you:

Originally posted by jcasetnl

I never said the games shouldn't change. I said that changes that add nothing to the game except needless complexity should be removed. Again, you missed the point by a mile and just read into it what you wanted to. Then you set up a straw man and knocked him down.

E for effort on the purple prose, though.

Wow Aristotle, could it possibly be that those are the exact same things? Is it unreasonable to assume that if change should be removed by your POV that you don't think things should change? How else would you have that interpreted, because if you want to remove change, well then genius, that means things DON'T change, Now as far as my University Logic class knowledge interprets this, it's like:

~change &(damn don't remember the right subscript for computers) ~(~change)

Thats a logical fallacy in case you are devoid of such knowlege Mr. Callicles.

Buktooth

04-21-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jcasetnl
It's true that once a gimmick is used up, it's used up. But the point that people are trying to make is that there is so much unecessary crap thrown in that there's A LOT to use up. So much so that I dare say by the time it is finally used up, Capcom has made the next version.
Ok. Last year, 2 teams of 3 American ST players went to Japan to compete in a big tournament. While they were there, ALL of them learned tons of new things/gimmicks/technology they didn't know was possible before the trip. This is what, 9 years after ST's release? Sure, the rate of discovery for new tactics is much slower now than it used to be, but new tactics indeed get found. Most people would consider this a good thing. ST is a deep (or whatever positive adjective you prefer that applies to fighting games) enough game so that 9 years into its life, new tactics are being found. According to you however, this is NOT a good thing. Apparently there was SO MUCH unnecessary crap in ST that we can't stop all the gimmicks from coming out. Battle of the FAQs indeed.
So much so that most gamers will come to the conclusion, "This isn't worth my time." Oh wait, they have come to that conclusion - the numbers bear that out.
Actually, the numbers bore that out long before ST's release. Most of the SF2 players around during SF2's golden age quit after Hyper Fighting. The most popular reason for the fall of fighting games? Because they didn't put enough changes into them between sequels.
You can argue that all the modes and features are justified and that if we didn't "keep up" then it's our fault, just want it easy, blah blah blah. Whatever. I want a game that's fun to play and fun to master, not one that demands I plod through a lot of useless, boring, tedious doo doo.
This is what people have been asking you for this entire argument: What exactly constitutes "useless, boring, tedious doo doo"? More importantly, what DOESN'T constitute UBTDD?

beto

04-21-2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Thongboy Bebop

You make it sound like ALL of these features are in the same game. Really, let's break it down:

Marvel: Pick 3 characters, whoever you want. Yes, it's a big ass roster. Just pick Hulk/Wolverine/Spiderman, you KNOW you want to. Ok, after you choose each one you pick what you want him to do when he jumps out onscreen. Really, should it take more than two plays at most to figure out what an assist does? All of the rest you can learn through trial and error inside of a week. It takes most people more time than that to figure out long division.

CvS2: This is only complicated if you've never seen a KoF game in your entire life. Which, admittedly, a lot of hardcore Capcom scrubs have never done. So, likesay, it might take 4-5 plays to figure out the ratio system exactly, and what the "Isms" do, just in a basic way. However, CvS is a special type of game, made specifically for people that ALREADY know fighting games. It's like a love letter from Cap/SNK. Anyone who's reasonably familiar with SF or KoF (god forbid both) should immediately recognize at least 3 modes. The rest is a matter of trial and error again.

Dude, really, sit in training mode and figure it out like everyone else. If you're one of God's lucky chosen who have an arcade in your town, you have your own built-in mallscrub mini-SRK to compare notes with. Isn't that the essence of SF, right there? Figuring out hot shit in the game and then showing it off to your friends, then being amazed with what they came up with, lather rinse repeat?

N

Note: I hate Marvel, I will never play it as a serious tourney game. I use R4K-Geese if I'm forced to play CvS2. I chose these two games as examples because I specifically dislike them. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they work. See how easy it is to snag the logic through the hate?

That's the thing though. People don't want to sit down and learn every little