Why there won't be an SFA3, IMHO (and SF's future)
Kao Megura
To quote Ultima:
--
Lots of rambling.
Not of much of use if you're looking for combos :)
--
Dang, people keep talking about this so I just wanted to throw this all out
to everyone because people are getting their hopes up WAY too high about
SFA3.
I think we can all agree that SSF2T was a really great game, and for
non-purists was probably the best SF2 game. However, I also think that for
Capcom to make a sequel to it would be far too hard, as they'd have to do
some pretty amazing stuff to make another SF2 game that was better than
SSF2T and not overly stale as well.
So Capcom's answer was to start anew with the SFA series. They close the
book on SF2 and that's the last anyone ever hears of it. Again, SFA2 turns
out to be a great game (sans CCs and all that petty bickering that comes
with it). So good, in fact, that there's not much left to do with it or to
add to it that would make it a worthy sequel.
Now at this point, a lot of people say "but it _has_ to have a sequel,
there's only been two games so far". Which is true, but just because SF2
had 4 updates to it doesn't mean the Alpha series will either.
And what is Capcom doing right now? SF3! I think they've closed the book
on the Alpha series as well, for the reasons already listed before and for
profit reasons. After all, Capcom currently has SF3, the Versus games
(SFA2 on steroids and w/ too much Kool-Aid), NightWarriors, and then all
their fringe projects like Justice High School, the Gem Fighter games, etc.
For them to release a new SFA game right now would just serve to cut into
their own profits, as most people are playing the other games already (in
fact, I'm fairly sure this is happening already...after all, Vampire Savior
is more popular in Japan than SF3, so that's lost SF3 money for Capcom).
And of course, Capcom can't simply wait and release SFA3 later, as the game
becomes more dated with time and they will be making sequels for current
games by then, anyway. After all, it's been...hmm...well...it's been a
while since SFA2, anyway. Too long for them to make a SFA3.
Anyone still with me here?
Anyway, writing all this has been making me wonder about Capcom's future.
One of the reasons I think SF3 didn't do so well is (gameplay aside), it
still has the same familiar elements we've been seeing since SF2 came out
(not to mention characters). Although it's stupid to try and compare the
two, nonetheless, Capcom's has more or less the same basic 'heart' of the
game (maybe some of you would prefer engine) since SF2. Even stuff that
wasn't there in the beginning is incredibly old now (super meters and chain
combos, for example).
All that being said, can you really see Capcom making an SF4? I mean,
profit-wise I'm sure they'll look into it, but I guarantee you that no
matter what they come up with, it'll do _worse_ than SF3. Primarily
because it's the same song and dance most of us have been doing since way
back when. I can say in full honesty that playing SF3 doesn't give me the
same satisfaction that I did when I played SFA, primarily because there was
still so much that was new at the time. But now, everything is starting to
get stale and repetitive, no matter how much it's 'hidden' by extra stuff
like selectable super arts, parries, etc. Capcom does do a lot of
innovative stuff, but then again, the only games of theirs that have ever
done well rely on the same tried and true gameplay from the SF2 days
(compare Star Gladiators to Marvel series, for example--one is completely
brand new and doesn't do well at all, the other is still the same old game
we've been playing (albeit heaped with extras), and players like it/it
brings in lots of moolah).
Sort of makes you wonder where SF is headed. And Capcom as well, since
fighting games are their bread-and-butter, but I doubt a soul would have
even looked at games like Justice High School or Nightwarriors if they
hadn't already said to themselves 'Capcom made SF2, a great game, so this
game may be pretty good as well'. I don't really think Capcom can survive
off their more 'creative' products for long without something strong to
back it up (the SF series). Although SNK has never had the same success as
Capcom, one of the reasons why they're still around is because they have so
many different 'main' series to work off of (FF, SS, KoF, AoF), so that it
doesn't really matter if some sideline game (like Kabuki Klash) doesn't do
so well.
But then again, what can Capcom do to SF to revitalize interest in it aside
from reinventing it from the ground up? And then, would it still be
considered a 'Street Fighter' game?
-K. M.
_____________________________________________________________________
KM's site: http://kao.home.ml.org. Visit the Dan Hibiki Shrine!
- Disciple of Dan Hibiki.
- Posts infrequently.
- Says 'Yahooey!' far too often.
_____________________________________________________________________
Vong (Shinji) Sundara
Kao Megura wrote:
Before I start, I should say that I totally disagree with most of this but
still appreciate your comments and no, I do not flame people so keep
reading to see my views.
> Dang, people keep talking about this so I just wanted to throw this all out
> to everyone because people are getting their hopes up WAY too high about
> SFA3.
This might be true, especially for me. I am so hyped about this game that
it'snot even funny, nearly as much as I was before SF3 came out. Let's hope
Capcom delivers this time.
> I think we can all agree that SSF2T was a really great game, and for
> non-purists was probably the best SF2 game. However, I also think that for
> Capcom to make a sequel to it would be far too hard, as they'd have to do
> some pretty amazing stuff to make another SF2 game that was better than
> SSF2T and not overly stale as well.
This might be beside the point but I'm one of the few who don't think STwas the
best, although I will agree that it was great. I'd have to put HF
at the top... Any comments people? I'm not sure why but the sacrifice
hurricane for Ryu (I'm not sure if everybody knows what this is but only
a couple people used it effectively in my city), and overall balance felt
more tight in this game, even tighter than ST.
> So Capcom's answer was to start anew with the SFA series. They close the
> book on SF2 and that's the last anyone ever hears of it. Again, SFA2 turns
> out to be a great game (sans CCs and all that petty bickering that comes
> with it). So good, in fact, that there's not much left to do with it or to
> add to it that would make it a worthy sequel.
I disagree, there's always room for improvement on every game, even STand HF.
New characters will always freshen up a game if their attack patterns
are original and not copied from old characters. Ibuki was actually pretty
fresh but too bad parrying basically made every character the same (everyone
just waited for that one parry into a super that would give them a huge lead in
the round).
> Now at this point, a lot of people say "but it _has_ to have a sequel,
> there's only been two games so far". Which is true, but just because SF2
> had 4 updates to it doesn't mean the Alpha series will either.
>
> And what is Capcom doing right now? SF3! I think they've closed the book
> on the Alpha series as well, for the reasons already listed before and for
> profit reasons. After all, Capcom currently has SF3, the Versus games
> (SFA2 on steroids and w/ too much Kool-Aid), NightWarriors, and then all
> their fringe projects like Justice High School, the Gem Fighter games, etc.
> For them to release a new SFA game right now would just serve to cut into
> their own profits, as most people are playing the other games already (in
> fact, I'm fairly sure this is happening already...after all, Vampire Savior
> is more popular in Japan than SF3, so that's lost SF3 money for Capcom).
But there's nothing bad in having more than one marquee title, even if
theycompete with each other. The Alpha series and Vs. series are usually
released
around the same time and so was the original EX game.
> And of course, Capcom can't simply wait and release SFA3 later, as the game
> becomes more dated with time and they will be making sequels for current
> games by then, anyway. After all, it's been...hmm...well...it's been a
> while since SFA2, anyway. Too long for them to make a SFA3.
No, look at how long they took to make SF3. I'm sure they're just takingtheir
time so they won't disappoint people like they did with SF3, I think
they're smart than that.
> Anyone still with me here?
>
> Anyway, writing all this has been making me wonder about Capcom's future.
> One of the reasons I think SF3 didn't do so well is (gameplay aside), it
> still has the same familiar elements we've been seeing since SF2 came out
> (not to mention characters). Although it's stupid to try and compare the
> two, nonetheless, Capcom's has more or less the same basic 'heart' of the
> game (maybe some of you would prefer engine) since SF2. Even stuff that
> wasn't there in the beginning is incredibly old now (super meters and chain
> combos, for example).
Actually I thought SF3 had a lot of new things. Given, parrying sucked butmost
of the new characters added something to the game and it would've
been better if they have tuned up parrying to be less powerful.
> All that being said, can you really see Capcom making an SF4? I mean,
> profit-wise I'm sure they'll look into it, but I guarantee you that no
> matter what they come up with, it'll do _worse_ than SF3. Primarily
> because it's the same song and dance most of us have been doing since way
> back when. I can say in full honesty that playing SF3 doesn't give me the
> same satisfaction that I did when I played SFA, primarily because there was
> still so much that was new at the time. But now, everything is starting to
> get stale and repetitive, no matter how much it's 'hidden' by extra stuff
> like selectable super arts, parries, etc. Capcom does do a lot of
> innovative stuff, but then again, the only games of theirs that have ever
> done well rely on the same tried and true gameplay from the SF2 days
> (compare Star Gladiators to Marvel series, for example--one is completely
> brand new and doesn't do well at all, the other is still the same old game
> we've been playing (albeit heaped with extras), and players like it/it
> brings in lots of moolah).
Yes I can because the Street Fighter franchise is still going strong and they
knowall they need is that one special game to rejuvenate it again (I'm sure
they know
it'll never reach the heights that SF2 did but I'm sure it can once again be a
strong
force in arcades, not saying that it isn't right now).
> Sort of makes you wonder where SF is headed. And Capcom as well, since
> fighting games are their bread-and-butter, but I doubt a soul would have
> even looked at games like Justice High School or Nightwarriors if they
> hadn't already said to themselves 'Capcom made SF2, a great game, so this
> game may be pretty good as well'. I don't really think Capcom can survive
> off their more 'creative' products for long without something strong to
> back it up (the SF series). Although SNK has never had the same success as
> Capcom, one of the reasons why they're still around is because they have so
> many different 'main' series to work off of (FF, SS, KoF, AoF), so that it
> doesn't really matter if some sideline game (like Kabuki Klash) doesn't do
> so well.
This contradicts what you said about Capcom's putting out Vampire Savior andSF3
taking away each other's profits and then now you're saying that SNK is
around because they have many products that are usually out at the same time.
I do agree that they have a lot more titles but Capcom has stronger ones that
do better in arcades.
> But then again, what can Capcom do to SF to revitalize interest in it aside
> from reinventing it from the ground up? And then, would it still be
> considered a 'Street Fighter' game?
For SFA3, I don't think people want too much new. They basically wantsomething
along the lines of ST, a perfecting of everything currently available
with only a few new things. Also, people do want some of the same things
over again because I think some of the most anticipated characters in SFA3
will be the returning favorites that were taken out of SF3.
- Shinji
Ultima
Useless factor: High... I guess...
Rambling factor: MOderate
Warning: Read at your own discretion
************************************
Vong (Shinji) Sundara wrote:
> Kao Megura wrote:
[snip]
> > Dang, people keep talking about this so I just wanted to throw this all out to everyone because people are getting their hopes up WAY too high about SFA3.
>
> This might be true, especially for me. I am so hyped about this game that it'snot even funny, nearly as much as I was before SF3 came out. Let's hope Capcom delivers this time.
Huh. I wasn't even aware there was any hype for SFA3 - how can you have
hype for a game that no one even knows for sure exists? But anyway, I
know I'm not hyped at all (about anything at all in general, actually).
When/if it comes out, I'll play it and see what's what before I pass
fnal judgement - Since Super, I no longer trust Capcom to properly
deliver on any fighter...
> > I think we can all agree that SSF2T was a really great game, and for
> > non-purists was probably the best SF2 game. However, I also think that for Capcom to make a sequel to it would be far too hard, as they'd have to do some pretty amazing stuff to make another SF2 game that was better than SSF2T and not overly stale as well.
>
> This might be beside the point but I'm one of the few who don't think ST was the best, although I will agree that it was great. I'd have to put HF at the top... Any comments people?
Well, I certainly played it more, but that was only because it was
easier to find. Plus, I had the SNES version. It definitely had better
balance (though my poor boys, Vega and Bison, were more or less in the
gutter.. boo hoo), but c'mon - after umpteen hundreds and hundreds of
battles, I got sick of it. At that time, we had been seeing the exact
same cast of characters for 3 years, longer than any other particular
set of SF characters. It was high time for a change.
> I'm not sure why but the sacrifice hurricane for Ryu (I'm not sure if everybody knows what this is but only a couple people used it effectively in my city), and overall balance felt more tight in this game, even tighter than ST.
Balance was better. "Sacrifice Hurricane"? Not sure if that was what we
used to call it - "invincible hurricane" I think was what we used.
Flying through FBs with HKs rocked with skill.. ^_^
> > So Capcom's answer was to start anew with the SFA series. They close the book on SF2 and that's the last anyone ever hears of it. Again, SFA2 turns out to be a great game (sans CCs and all that petty bickering that comes with it). So good, in fact, that there's not much left to do with it or to add to it that would make it a worthy sequel.
> I disagree, there's always room for improvement on every game, even STand HF.
True.
> New characters will always freshen up a game if their attack patterns
> are original and not copied from old characters.
[snip] Yeah, but simply adding new characters to the same engine will
only carry you so far. Then people will naturally tire of it (not to
mention having to put up with home version "sequels" that aren't really
sequels). That was why they had all those "Super Hyper Maximum Street
Fighter 2 Turbo Alpha: Cheese Edition" jokes in 1993 and 1994 (at least
I think it was around that time). You can't rest on your laurels and
just reuse the same thing all the time.. Everything can be improved.
Capcom's problem was that they sought to add to the engine too late
(ST), after the disastrous Super all but killed SF support. ST was how
Super should have been...
> > And what is Capcom doing right now? SF3! I think they've closed the book on the Alpha series as well, for the reasons already listed before and for profit reasons. After all, Capcom currently has SF3, the Versus games (SFA2 on steroids and w/ too much Kool-Aid), NightWarriors, and then all their fringe projects like Justice High School, the Gem Fighter games, etc. For them to release a new SFA game right now would just serve to cut into their own profits, as most people are playing the other games already (in fact, I'm fairly sure this is happening already...after all, Vampire Savior is more popular in Japan than SF3, so that's lost SF3 money for Capcom).
> But there's nothing bad in having more than one marquee title, even if
> theycompete with each other. The Alpha series and Vs. series are usually released around the same time and so was the original EX game.
Uhm, unless I'm mistaken, the Alphas were released long before XSF and
EX. Plus, since EX was done by Arika, did Capcom have any say in it's
release date? Even if they did, I'm sure Capcom was unaware of what XSF
would bring - that game was a fluke, IMO, something Capcom put (read:
slapped) together to tide people over until their next Big Thing, which
was supposed to be SF3. I don't think they were calculating XSF's
popularity (or SF3's lack of it) into their plans.
> > And of course, Capcom can't simply wait and release SFA3 later, as the game becomes more dated with time and they will be making sequels for current games by then, anyway. After all, it's been...hmm...well...it's been a while since SFA2, anyway. Too long for them to make a SFA3.
>
> No, look at how long they took to make SF3.
He has a point. However, look athow long they took to make Sf3, and look
what they did with it.. Doesn't speak too well for SFA3, now does it?
> I'm sure they're just taking their time so they won't disappoint people like they did with SF3, I think they're smart than that.
Then again, they didn't take their time with ST - fastest interval
between SFs ever to my knowledge (it was 5 - 6 months back home), and
lok how well that turned out, Come to think of it, I don't think they
took their time with HF either - everything in it was recycled
animation, and the only reason they made it was because of all the
dinged CEs about the place. Huh.. Looks like Capcom makes their best
stuff when they =don't= take their time (which kinda contridicts what I
think about how they made XSF, but then again, look how popular it is..
just not with us.. :\ )
> > Anyway, writing all this has been making me wonder about Capcom's future. One of the reasons I think SF3 didn't do so well is (gameplay aside), it still has the same familiar elements we've been seeing since SF2 came out (not to mention characters). Although it's stupid to try and compare the two, nonetheless, Capcom's has more or less the same basic 'heart' of the game (maybe some of you would prefer engine) since SF2. Even stuff that wasn't there in the beginning is incredibly old now (super meters and chain combos, for example).
>
> Actually I thought SF3 had a lot of new things.
I didn't. Super cancels and parries were the only things in it I'd
actually call "new."
> Given, parrying sucked out most of the new characters added something to the game and it would've been better if they have tuned up parrying to be less powerful.
Plus, I found several of the characters (Necro, Y/Y) to be unbelievably
=boring=. Much more boring than any other SF I've encountered. This was
independent of how they played (which for Y/Y turns out to be even MORE
boring).
> > All that being said, can you really see Capcom making an SF4?
Supposedly they are.
> I mean, profit-wise I'm sure they'll look into it, but I guarantee you that no > matter what they come up with, it'll do _worse_ than SF3. Primarily because it's the same song and dance most of us have been doing since way back when. I can say in full honesty that playing SF3 doesn't give me the same satisfaction that I did when I played SFA, primarily because there was still so much that was new at the time. But now, everything is starting to get stale and repetitive, no matter how much it's 'hidden' by extra stuff like selectable super arts, parries, etc. Capcom does do a lot of innovative stuff, but then again, the only games of theirs that have ever done well rely on the same tried and true gameplay from the SF2 days (compare Star Gladiators to Marvel series, for example--one is completely brand new and doesn't do well at all, the other is still the same old game we've been playing (albeit heaped with extras), and players like it/it brings in lots of moolah).
>
> Yes I can because the Street Fighter franchise is still going strong and they know all they need is that one special game to rejuvenate it again (I'm sure they know it'll never reach the heights that SF2 did but I'm sure it can once again be a strong force in arcades, not saying that it isn't right now).
I disagree with your optimistic view, as much as I hate to say it. There
are just too many damn fighters out there for one fighter (or, perhaps
more accurately, one 2D fighter) to come and dominate even close to how
SF2 did. This is my opinion of course, and I would love if Capcom would
prove me wrong.
> > Sort of makes you wonder where SF is headed. And Capcom as well, since fighting games are their bread-and-butter, but I doubt a soul would have even looked at games like Justice High School or Nightwarriors if they hadn't already said to themselves 'Capcom made SF2, a great game, so this game may be pretty good as well'.
Even that isn't enough. DS never caught on at all back home, and I
suspect here as well. Star Gladiator I;ve never seen, and I'll bet money
that Justice School, if it ever reached home, isn't doing too well.
> I don't really think Capcom can survive off their more 'creative' products for long without something strong to back it up (the SF series). Although SNK has never had the same success as Capcom, one of the reasons why they're still around is because they have so many different 'main' series to work off of (FF, SS, KoF, AoF), so that it doesn't really matter if some sideline game (like Kabuki Klash) doesn't do
> > so well.
> This contradicts what you said about Capcom's putting out Vampire Savior andSF3 taking away each other's profits and then now you're saying that SNK is around because they have many products that are usually out at the same time. I do agree that they have a lot more titles but Capcom has stronger ones that do better in arcades.
Personally, I wolnd't mind if Capcom scrapped all but two of their
fighters (Sf and DS; actually it would be one, but the characters in DS
rule :) and just concentrated on making those two the best they can be
instead of bothering with fringe projects altogther. I don't think
Capcom is as adept as SNK at handing multiple fighter series. Something
has to suffer...
> > But then again, what can Capcom do to SF to revitalize interest in it aside from reinventing it from the ground up? And then, would it still be considered a 'Street Fighter' game?
For some, probably not. There are some who don't even consider the Alphs
to be "Street Fighter" games, far less Three and Co. You can't please
everybody.
> For SFA3, I don't think people want too much new.
At the moment, I'm willing to settle for an ST-SFA2 hybrid with no CCs,
no ACs, and a big cast of characters. 24 minimum.
> They basically want something along the lines of ST, a perfecting of everything currently available with only a few new things. Also, people do want some of the same things over again because I think some of the most anticipated characters in SFA3 will be the returning favorites that were taken out of SF3.
And maybe some goodies like Geki ^_^
--
Ultima
http://www.concentric.net/~Ultima1 - Street Fighter RPG, Final
Fantasy VII, Fan art, and miscellaneous rambling...
SFCode Ver 5.0:
{V+ MB+ Rl+ Cr+[SFA2] I[III]+ Ax[I,III]+}
[ac- +cc+(!ccRl&MB) ch- cn- c m+ 2+ n++ os+ p+ r@++ sp- st ta--
t(t+SCR) tm-- tr-:- th--@- v+(v++SFA2)]
"If you were stuck on a deserted island, and you could only
choose between MK and SF to be stuck with, and you choose MK,
then you deserve to be on that island" - Slasher Quan
"If an arcade doesn't contain some version of SF or SS in it,
then's it's not an arcade"
PermaJ
>Plus, I found several of the characters (Necro, Y/Y) to be unbelievably
>=boring=. Much more boring than any other SF I've encountered. This was
>independent of how they played (which for Y/Y turns out to be even MORE
>boring).
What really turned me off the SF3 was that almost all of the characters were
either really boring to use, or just plain ugly. I know that seems a bit
superficial, but I think that the reason fighting games are so popular is that
they are in a way a gamer's vicariousness personified. Most people either use
first the best looking character, or the one with the coolest looking moves.
Not that gamers are ugly mind you, but they want to be in control of the cool
looking character doing the cool looking moves. I think this is why ppl like
KOF so much; *most* of the characters are 5 times flashier than in SF, and many
ppl would say that Iori would kick Ryu's ass just becuz he's cool. And this is
also why the vs. are more popular; you're in control of awesome characters and
all of their attacks are beefed up. Most MvC matches are funner to watch than
an SF3 match. I mean, we all say that Strider is a pixie stick, but damn he
looks cool right? And Necro looks like a piece of shit wearing a loincloth, so
who the hell would want to watch him much less play him (besides the hardcore
SF player)? So I think that if Capcom wants to put out a successful game, they
should put in more ppl and less freaks.
perma
EViLwebs
Kao Megura wrote:
> Dang, people keep talking about this so I just wanted to throw this all out
> to everyone because people are getting their hopes up WAY too high about
> SFA3.
>
> I think we can all agree that SSF2T was a really great game, and for
> non-purists was probably the best SF2 game. However, I also think that for
> Capcom to make a sequel to it would be far too hard, as they'd have to do
> some pretty amazing stuff to make another SF2 game that was better than
> SSF2T and not overly stale as well.
>
Well, let me just cut you off there, since it's obvious
you've lost yourself already. You are trying to explain
why there won't be a SFA3, but then you go off on a tangent
about how great ST was blah blah and how they could never
top that. The fact is, they have already done SFA and SFA2
in the meantime, so what's to stop them doing another
Alpha game? Not being a good game certainly doesn't stop
Crapcom from continuing with their VS crap.
--
Web-Slinger
"I think, our image is really not having one. That is our
image: No image. Which is an image as well, of course."
- Dave Rotheray
N64 Gazetta -- http://www.n64gazetta.com
ICQ -- 2429540
John E Larkspur
PermaJ (per...@aol.com) wrote:
: What really turned me off the SF3 was that almost all of the characters were
: either really boring to use, or just plain ugly. I know that seems a bit
: superficial, but I think that the reason fighting games are so popular is that
: they are in a way a gamer's vicariousness personified. Most people either use
: first the best looking character, or the one with the coolest looking moves.
If you're talking about SF, most people use Ryuken, so that doesn't
apply here. I'd agree with you concerning any other game, although there
are those of us (like me) who insist on using the character that nobody
else is using.
[This is...]
: also why the vs. are more popular; you're in control of awesome characters and
: all of their attacks are beefed up. Most MvC matches are funner to watch than
: an SF3 match. I mean, we all say that Strider is a pixie stick, but damn he
: looks cool right? And Necro looks like a piece of shit wearing a loincloth, so
: who the hell would want to watch him much less play him (besides the hardcore
: SF player)? So I think that if Capcom wants to put out a successful game, they
: should put in more ppl and less freaks.
Two things: 1. Freakish characters tend to lend themselves to more
unusual fighting styles. You just wouldn't give someone like Dee Jay
moves like Anakaris's. Putting in a whole cast of Barbie Doll heads is
going to limit the variety. The trick is to make cool freaks, such as
the Samurai Shodown series was very adept at doing (DS to a lesser
extent, it's still too goofy for most people). Unfortunately, SS had
some pretty major character designers from the Japanese anime scene, so
that might be more costly than Capcom wants.
2. If I were an Alpha fan (and I'm not, but anything is better than
Marvel), I'd be very concerned about what the Versus games have done to
Alpha's marketability. Capcom's going to have a hard time selling
"powered-down" versions of the same old fighters to arcade-goers and
operators. The mainstream players are going to give you the same "it's
just boring" comments that SF3 received, IMO. Alpha2 already had
substantially less arcade presence than Alpha1 despite being a vastly
superior game (Alpha1 should never have been released, it would have been
laughed out of arcades if it didn't have the Street Fighter name on it).
If you ask me, now is the time for Capcom to try an all new fighter,
before Marvelization swallows it whole. Redraw everything, using the
original SF2 artistic style with much more extensive animation. To get
the proverbial "foot in the door," make it weapon-based, and throw in
old, partly forgotten favorites like Vega and Donovan so that the
mainstreamers can easily identify it. Try not to give Ryu a sword, throw
in Strider if you're desperate. Then you can tone down the specials due
to the added flash and versatility of weapons, and maybe even re-generate
a half-assed positional game. You can also keep all the characters
"cool" while designing freakish weapons instead, giving you the best
of both worlds. Take a step back from the abyss of Marvel, and breathe
a sigh of relief. That's the best hope, as I see it.
Lark
Luis Ramirez
What I think Capcom will doŠ
(I) Not another Super SF Turbo game.
Only veteran gamers will play this. There are to few of you guys, sorry. Never
gonna happen again. THere ain't a market for this game. Look at how badly SF3
did (I like 2I, but NO ONE, plays it over here, craaaap).
(II) Maybe, possibly, SFA3.
Why. BecauseŠ
(a). I think Capcom still has a lot of loyalty to its SF series. Evidence of this is the
endless SF2 upgrades, SFAlpha series, SF3, SF3 2I, and the possible SF3 3I and
SF4. I don't think they've given up on SF yet. If it weren't for SF2, there wouldn't
be XvSF or any of the Marvel games.
(b). Maybe, possibly, amateur gamers will want to play it. Why? C'mon, the
'scrub's who have been playing XvSF are gonna eventually going to get tired of
playing the same old song. Even if SFA3 is not as flashy as any versus game, it'll
have a different feel and be a different game for the average scrub. They'll want
to play it just cause its something new. I think the Alpha series was very
accessible to the newbie gamer, as long as he had at least a little prior experience
playing an SF type game. I think Capcom would gamble on this, they'll take the
risk and put this game out.
(c) Capcom has probably been working on this game for a long time, they're not
going to suddenly scrap it after so much work on it.
Super SF was really supposed to be Super SF Turbo
SF Alpha was really supposed to be SF Alpha 2 which was really supposed to be
SF Alpha 2 Gold
SF Three was really supposed to be SF Three 2nd Impact.
XvSF was supposed to be MSHvSF which was really supposed to be MvsSF
SFA3 is going to be SFA3, no mistakes the first time, perfect the first time, no
upgrades, perfection.
They've been taking a long time cause they're probably watching the arcade
scene. They want to stick things in the game that appeals to the majority of the
gaming population, thus they're watching what people like and dislike and thus
making appropriate changes or additions to the gaming engine.
Why they won't make it.
(a) It won't appeal to enough people, so they'll just make another versus type
game.
(b) They scrapped the project because it took to long to develop it and it was
getting no where. Yes this contradicts my previous argument, but you can argue
either way.
(c) Screw Fighting Games, we can do RPG's (Breath of Fire), sidescrollers (Mega
Man), Scary games (RE2), Puzzle Games (Puzzle Fighter). We don't need this dying
crappola to survive, screw fighting games, no one likes them anymore.
Just my opinions.
Luis.
Resident Evil 3: Hibiki Mansion Tactics (HELL YEAH)
VGO Ken
>If you're talking about SF, most people use Ryuken, so that doesn't
>apply here. I'd agree with you concerning any other game, although there
>are those of us (like me) who insist on using the character that nobody
>else is using.
The rest of your post was insightful and good, but this is sorta off-key. Not
taking away from your skill level, but it seems to me that you are more into
SNK than SF, so allow me to state this: the majority of Ryukens are scrubs who
don't know how to play. Experts (or, at least, most of them) stray away from
Ryuken. The reason scrubs don't play any of the oldbies that they've had so
much time to use in SNK games, is because....most scrubs don't PLAY SNK games.
And if they do, they get whupped and never come back. So the same problem
would be in SNK games (most likely with Kyo, or Andy) if SNK was more
mainstream. For example, I've not been to many East Coast 'cades that have SNK
games.....Just to let you know.
_________________________________________
(Eu)Gene Kern
Vortex Gaming Online
Senior Editor/Game Counselor
www.vortexonline.com
"Personal mistakes are one's greatest teacher."
Chocobo
VGO Ken wrote:
> The reason scrubs don't play any of the oldbies that they've had so
> much time to use in SNK games, is because....most scrubs don't PLAY SNK games.
> And if they do, they get whupped and never come back. So the same problem
> would be in SNK games (most likely with Kyo, or Andy) if SNK was more
> mainstream. For example, I've not been to many East Coast 'cades that have SNK
> games.....Just to let you know.
You're using east coast arcades as an example of typical SF players? heh
John E Larkspur
VGO Ken (vgo...@aol.com) wrote:
: >If you're talking about SF, most people use Ryuken, so that doesn't
: >are those of us (like me) who insist on using the character that nobody
: >else is using.
: The rest of your post was insightful and good, but this is sorta off-key. Not
: taking away from your skill level, but it seems to me that you are more into
: SNK than SF, so allow me to state this: the majority of Ryukens are scrubs who
: don't know how to play. Experts (or, at least, most of them) stray away from
: Ryuken.
The original poster was talking about pure volume, not experts or
real gamers. I'd agree that the hardcore players prefer to set
themselves apart from the crowd by learning someone else.
: The reason scrubs don't play any of the oldbies that they've had so
: much time to use in SNK games, is because....most scrubs don't PLAY
: SNK games.
: And if they do, they get whupped and never come back. So the same problem
: would be in SNK games (most likely with Kyo, or Andy) if SNK was more
: mainstream.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Every game has scrubs,
and most games have a character or two that's more popular than the rest.
VF has Jacky, Tekken has Law, Marvel has wolverine, DS has Morrigan. KoF
varies due to the format, but Terry and Iori are usually up there. The
Ryukens are a different story. I can't buy into the idea that these are
just people who don't know how to play, because they've had 7 years to
figure it out with only the tiniest tweak here and there to slow them
down. More importantly, they never use anyone else, unless it's to make
a move to someone like Akuma or Evil Ryu. The really adventurous ones
will try *gasp* Sagat. The Hadouken Horde is unique in this regard, the
other mainstreamers will usually give someone else a shot, especially in
the polygon fighter crowd.
I really can't figure them out. 7 straight years of hadouken-hadouken-
shoryuken?? How can they stand it? Such mindless repetition is outlawed
in most countries as a form of torture. It's... not human.
: For example, I've not been to many East Coast 'cades that have SNK
: games.....Just to let you know.
I'm all too painfully aware of that. Another grudge I hold against
the Hadouken Whores.
Lark
Kenshiroh
>Now at this point, a lot of people say "but it _has_ to have a sequel,
>there's only been two games so far". Which is true, but just because SF2
>had 4 updates to it doesn't mean the Alpha series will either.
There was a third that was released in Japan called "Street Fighter Zero 2
Alpha". (The first two were called "Street Fighter Zero" and "Street Fighter
Zero 2" in Japan.)
Kens...@aol.com
VGO Ken
>You're using east coast arcades as an example of typical SF players? heh
No, I'm using East Coast arcades as an example of not enough SNK games.......
Black Dragon
In article <199804082114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kens...@aol.com (Kenshiroh) wrote:
> >Now at this point, a lot of people say "but it _has_ to have a sequel,
> >there's only been two games so far". Which is true, but just because SF2
> >had 4 updates to it doesn't mean the Alpha series will either.
>
> There was a third that was released in Japan called "Street Fighter Zero 2
> Alpha". (The first two were called "Street Fighter Zero" and "Street Fighter
> Zero 2" in Japan.)
> Kens...@aol.com
That's now known as Alpha 2 Gold in the United States, and it's a lot the
same as the Japanese version, but missing some of the new moves (
Charlie's Handspring ) It was really just Alpha 2 with some things added
and some taken away ( too often, things that the character needed to play
well!!! :P )
Kao Megura
In article <352AE9E7...@wsd1.org>, "Vong (Shinji) Sundara"
<1004...@wsd1.org> wrote:
> Kao Megura wrote:
>
> Before I start, I should say that I totally disagree with most of this but
> still appreciate your comments and no, I do not flame people so keep
> reading to see my views.
Fair enough.
> This might be beside the point but I'm one of the few who don't think
STwas the
> best, although I will agree that it was great. I'd have to put HF
> at the top... Any comments people? I'm not sure why but the sacrifice
> hurricane for Ryu (I'm not sure if everybody knows what this is but only
> a couple people used it effectively in my city), and overall balance felt
> more tight in this game, even tighter than ST.
Yeah, I should have said 'or HF' since people love to bicker over that.
> I disagree, there's always room for improvement on every game, even STand HF.
> New characters will always freshen up a game if their attack patterns
> are original and not copied from old characters. Ibuki was actually pretty
> fresh but too bad parrying basically made every character the same (everyone
> just waited for that one parry into a super that would give them a huge
lead in
>
> the round).
Yes, but whatever improvements Capcom intented, they put in SF3. The same
reasons why the improvemens in ST went into SFA (super combos, for
example).
> But there's nothing bad in having more than one marquee title, even if
> theycompete with each other. The Alpha series and Vs. series are usually
> released
> around the same time and so was the original EX game.
EX was by Arika, so I don't think Capcom could do anything about it.
Versus...now there's a good point, but they both came out AFTER the Alpha
games by some period, correct?
>
> > And of course, Capcom can't simply wait and release SFA3 later, as the game
> > becomes more dated with time and they will be making sequels for current
> > games by then, anyway. After all, it's been...hmm...well...it's been a
> > while since SFA2, anyway. Too long for them to make a SFA3.
>
> No, look at how long they took to make SF3.
But there was no 'previous' SF3 game. That's like if SF3:2i was released,
say, sometime in late 1998--that's what I mean when I was talking about the
delay between SFA2 and the whenever the hell SFA3 is supposed to be coming
out now. If there was going to be something like a two-year delay between
SF3 and it's next UPGRADE, do you think it would happen? Or would Capcom
go onto a new series or next SF number by then?
I'm sure they're just takingtheir
> time so they won't disappoint people like they did with SF3, I think
> they're smart than that.
I think that they don't disappoint people by starting fresh every so often
:) Which still makes everything boring in the long run as the stuff they
keep adds up.
> Actually I thought SF3 had a lot of new things. Given, parrying sucked
butmost
> of the new characters added something to the game and it would've
> been better if they have tuned up parrying to be less powerful.
Yes, but like what? That SNK-ripped high jumps, scrolling, and dashing
bit? Most people I know who don't like SF3 say that it's boring. I think
that means that there's something wrong with the very core of the game that
should be changed. Parries and the selectable Super Arts are just gimmicks
to abuse gameplay. The best thing Capcom did was add the 'power up'
special ability to SF3:2i, but that's already been around since
Darkstalkers.
>
> Yes I can because the Street Fighter franchise is still going strong and they
> knowall they need is that one special game to rejuvenate it again (I'm sure
> they know
> it'll never reach the heights that SF2 did but I'm sure it can once again be a
> strong
> force in arcades, not saying that it isn't right now).
I see your point, but something like 14 fighting games later, it's only
gotten worse (Tom Cannon did a great bit on this a while back, when he was
talking about the 'decaying' of agsf2 and saying it was due to nothing
great being out at the time).
>
> > Sort of makes you wonder where SF is headed. And Capcom as well, since
> > fighting games are their bread-and-butter, but I doubt a soul would have
> > even looked at games like Justice High School or Nightwarriors if they
> > hadn't already said to themselves 'Capcom made SF2, a great game, so this
> > game may be pretty good as well'. I don't really think Capcom can survive
> > off their more 'creative' products for long without something strong to
> > back it up (the SF series). Although SNK has never had the same success as
> > Capcom, one of the reasons why they're still around is because they have so
> > many different 'main' series to work off of (FF, SS, KoF, AoF), so that it
> > doesn't really matter if some sideline game (like Kabuki Klash) doesn't do
> > so well.
>
> This contradicts what you said about Capcom's putting out Vampire Savior
andSF3
> taking away each other's profits and then now you're saying that SNK is
> around because they have many products that are usually out at the same time.
Yes, but SNK's releases are staggered. We had KoF '97, then RBFFS, then
Last Blade, and now RBFF2. Capcom's stuff on the other hand, all overlaps.
Afterall, Pocket Fighter, Marvel vs. Capcom, SF3:2i, and the new Vampire
games have all come out in a rather short period.
> I do agree that they have a lot more titles but Capcom has stronger ones that
> do better in arcades.
Again, I equate that to the fact that Capcom has name recognition value.
Maybe I shouldn't have been comparing SNK and Capcom anyway because they
sort of are on different levels (I slipped up here!)
> For SFA3, I don't think people want too much new. They basically
wantsomething
> along the lines of ST, a perfecting of everything currently available
> with only a few new things. Also, people do want some of the same things
> over again because I think some of the most anticipated characters in SFA3
> will be the returning favorites that were taken out of SF3.
Okay, but is that revitalizing interest or just making a good game?
Eventually, Capcom will make 'pretty good' games with 'not too much new'
for every game they have out currently. Then where will they be at? Like
I said, inspite of all the re-inventing of the SF games, they're still
becoming more boring year after year (IMHO).
Jeffrey Paul Jarlett
In article <jlarkEr...@netcom.com>, jl...@netcom.com (John E Larkspur) writes:
> PermaJ (per...@aol.com) wrote:
> : What really turned me off the SF3 was that almost all of the characters were
> : either really boring to use, or just plain ugly. I know that seems a bit
> : superficial, but I think that the reason fighting games are so popular is that
> : they are in a way a gamer's vicariousness personified. Most people either use
> : first the best looking character, or the one with the coolest looking moves.
>
I disagree. MOst people look for the easiest, or perceived to be easiest
to learn character. Theat's why people gravitated to Paul and Law when
Tekken came out (no matter what versions)
There is a minority who looks for the cool-looking characters, then you
have the cocasional freak-lover like myself...
> Two things: 1. Freakish characters tend to lend themselves to more
> unusual fighting styles. You just wouldn't give someone like Dee Jay
> moves like Anakaris's. Putting in a whole cast of Barbie Doll heads is
> going to limit the variety. The trick is to make cool freaks, such as
> the Samurai Shodown series was very adept at doing (DS to a lesser
> extent, it's still too goofy for most people). Unfortunately, SS had
> some pretty major character designers from the Japanese anime scene, so
> that might be more costly than Capcom wants.
Well, the ket to good design is having people hate different characters...
For example, I am one of the few people who hate Cham Cham's design, and I
usualy go for girls in tiger-striped swimsuits and green hair...)
As for DS series, the problem there was that no one saw a particularly
scrubby design they could abuse into VS, where everyone like that
picked Talbain...
> 2. If I were an Alpha fan (and I'm not, but anything is better than
> Marvel), I'd be very concerned about what the Versus games have done to
> Alpha's marketability. Capcom's going to have a hard time selling
> "powered-down" versions of the same old fighters to arcade-goers and
> operators. The mainstream players are going to give you the same "it's
> just boring" comments that SF3 received, IMO. Alpha2 already had
> substantially less arcade presence than Alpha1 despite being a vastly
> superior game (Alpha1 should never have been released, it would have been
> laughed out of arcades if it didn't have the Street Fighter name on it).
All they need to do is make the game balanced, and have a coolness factor by
adding in good taunts, win quotes, painful-looking moves (this is why I love
Alex, that stomp of his and his powerbomb looks painful- too bad I hate
the rest of that crap game)
For example, Honda could be redrawn to make his moves look more painful...
redraw Akuma's standing animation to make it look like KOF97 Ryo (I like
that animation), and give him a new bufferable standing fierce that looks
cool. Style, style. Also a little cheesecake doesn't hurt- so throw
in some Rose panty shots... ^_^
(I know, ZAP!!!)
Just make the gameplay less monotonous- no overreliance on CC's, Rose low
strongs.
Turn the AC's into more innovative moves, like roll AC's, AC that only work
in specific situation AC's, etc...
Expand in that high knockdown thing Omar talks about to give some more
juggle combos...
>
> If you ask me, now is the time for Capcom to try an all new fighter,
> before Marvelization swallows it whole. Redraw everything, using the
> original SF2 artistic style with much more extensive animation. To get
> the proverbial "foot in the door," make it weapon-based, and throw in
> old, partly forgotten favorites like Vega and Donovan so that the
> mainstreamers can easily identify it. Try not to give Ryu a sword, throw
> in Strider if you're desperate. Then you can tone down the specials due
> to the added flash and versatility of weapons, and maybe even re-generate
> a half-assed positional game. You can also keep all the characters
> "cool" while designing freakish weapons instead, giving you the best
> of both worlds. Take a step back from the abyss of Marvel, and breathe
> a sigh of relief. That's the best hope, as I see it.
Sounds way too much like SS. THis means that most people would get bored
of it really quick unless there's some cute Ainu girl protecting nature...
(and I'd be wishing for a powered down gayboy with the orb...)
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
is quite possibly on par with ST and HF. The balance is better, there's
more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
one useful super. The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
wakeups (ST had this problem too), more block damage, more throw range,
and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too). Oh, and command throws should
be instant, and chains should not go into specials into supers. That
really isn't as bad as you might think...
--
Tired of Student Government Insiders?
Tired of Student Government?
Tired of Students?
Tired?
Dark Schneider
> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
Same goes for several games. Take away CCs from A2, it's almost on par with ST + HF. Take away pixies and
excessive chaining, the vs. series almost becomes playable. Parries make 3 + 2I boring as sin. Zoning is
useless, range games are useless, knowing priority on moves is useless, specials are useless. It's all about
pressing towards, then counter-attacking at higher levels of play. BORING. (Granted, w/o parries, the game
would be quite enjoyable... maybe they could have an option to take them out in a console version.. hmmm).
> he balance is better
than ST? Debatable... (awful matches in both games)
> The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
> wakeups (ST had this problem too)
As in priority on wake ups are too good, or not good enough?
> more block damage
No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
> and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too).
No problems here.
> and chains should not go into specials into supers.
Amen.
> That really isn't as bad as you might think...
That was several things you wrote down, though...
--
Dark Schneider
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
Of course, I'm not sure about the former." - Einstein
"You lucky trunks"
"Get ready to giftwrap a beautiful package" - Ep.#815, Agent for H.A.R.M
SF Code 5.0:
(Z+ S(SFA2,SSF2T)>+ K+ G(SF2HF) Bd(SFA) Hg)
[ac- ch- cn c+ cc- 2- g+ m n+:+ o+ os+ !p r-(+ vs. ARK)
s sp-- st ta- tm-: th- tr-:-- v+]
Jeff Jarlett
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>
> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
Bullshit. I hate the dial-a-combo crap more than parrys. If you fook
parries out balance may actually even be worse... BTW i Have played 3,
just not 2I.
Or par with ST and HF is flat-out wrong.
The balance is better, there's
> more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
> one useful super.
Balance better-no.
more avenues of attack- I liked. SF3 had potential in some areas. SOme
of the additions were good, but parries weren't done properly (I say
they should have been like VF3 reversals, then they would have been
perfect...) and dial-a-combo is too prevalent.
1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
> wakeups (ST had this problem too), more block damage, more throw range,
> and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too). Oh, and command throws should
> be instant, and chains should not go into specials into supers. That
> really isn't as bad as you might think...
Better priority on wakeup- good.
more block damage- good.
more throw range- good.
ditch tech hits- maybe, I don't want repeat ticking (then again this was
not a problem in any post-ST game except VH where raptor could be
nasty...)
cahins into specials into supers was my biggest gripe. TO combo
effectively takes almost no skill in SF3. Comboing creatively does,
which is something I wish they would keep.
lovegun
Black Dragon wrote:
>
> In article <199804082114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> kens...@aol.com (Kenshiroh) wrote:
>
> > >there's only been two games so far". Which is true, but just because SF2
> > >had 4 updates to it doesn't mean the Alpha series will either.
> >
> > Alpha". (The first two were called "Street Fighter Zero" and "Street Fighter
> > Zero 2" in Japan.)
> > Kens...@aol.com
>
> That's now known as Alpha 2 Gold in the United States, and it's a lot the
> same as the Japanese version, but missing some of the new moves (
> Charlie's Handspring ) It was really just Alpha 2 with some things added
> and some taken away ( too often, things that the character needed to play
> well!!! :P )
lovegun
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>
> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
> more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
> wakeups (ST had this problem too), more block damage, more throw range,
> and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too). Oh, and command throws should
> be instant, and chains should not go into specials into supers. That
> really isn't as bad as you might think...
> Tired of Student Government Insiders?
> Tired of Student Government?
> Tired of Students?
> Tired?
Dark Schneider
> Uhm, fuck you.
What a brilliant and refreshing way to begin a response.
> Take CCs from Alpha and you still have huge ass
> imbalances, ACs, frame eating, and tech hits. Take away pixies and chains
> from Very Shitty series and you have a game ass-full of 100% (in MvC), no
> balance, tech hits, ACs, air blocking (ooops in alpha as well, forgot
> that), super turlting (thanks Milo), and others.
First, I said vs. shit was "playable" without pixies and chains... not quality. As for Alpha, the
imbalances are no worse than ST, plus have the same quality as ST (there is no one character that has
significant advantages on everybody, with the possible exception of Chun, instead certain characters take out
certain others). Plus, air blocking is limited (should be gone completely), frame eating doesn't hold a
candle to super cancels, and ACs are bearable in Z2'.
> Zoning is important, if not then why is Necro so good? Even in 2i
> Necro is at least upper half of middle tier. Why is Sean vs Alex
> difficult? Because Alex doesn't let Sean get near him. Sounds like
> "zoning" to me.
My point was that it doesn't play quite the role it should in 2I, zoning being one of the aspects of a
"great" fighting game. (My opinion, of course)
> Now you don't like block damage, so the Sf2 range game must have been shit too,
> now that I think about it. All those hideous fireballs ryu would throw,
> and then when you jumped over I'll bet he dragon punched you, bwahhahha,
> how unfair.
<rolls eyes> Read further down. My, such brash assumptions.
> Parries mean a lot things, mostly that you have to be at
> least slightly random with either A your timing or B your attacks. Or
> even better, C, both. I doubt anyone parries jabs and shorts on simple
> reaction, and anyone that is telling you otherwise is full of crap.
Hence, the reason why 3 becomes a poke n' parry fest. Jabs and shorts are difficult to parry on
reaction, HENCE, people rarely commit to fierces/RHs/specials, simply because they're afraid of being parried
and countered. Instead, they Jab, Short, and chain you to death, cancelling to special/super if they hit. (Y/Y
mostly) This.... is.... BORING.
> > As in priority on wake ups are too good, or not good enough?
> Well timed low short beats a wake up DP. That should go.
Hmmm... I s'pose. That's really a completely different argument altogether. (One I'm not interested in
participating in)
> > No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping
> >stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
>
> Seth was right. You ARE a brother of SF ignorance. Take away
> block damage and it becomes a matter of who gets the first hit. Then just
> run away and turtle. Block damage is a vital part of SF2, how can you
> like the game if you don't like that? What, you just run at each other
> and combo? That's not SF...
Perhaps my wording confused you. The emphasis should've been on MORE, and not needs. Block damage is
essential, and it would take a colossal idiot to desire NO block damage. I merely meant none of the SF games
(saving perhaps vs. trash) needs MORE block damage than it already has. Thanks to parries, chipping doesn't
play anywhere near the role it should. Yet another downside to parries...
> That's five. Tech hits, wake up stuff (well not really as much
> as 3), repeat unescapable ticks (second word's important), balance (could
> be a bit easier for Z(vXYZ), no?), and either everyone or no one should
> have worthwhile supers (Ryu's vs Honda's) are ST problems. I don't
> consider that bad at all.
Actually, you also mentioned block damage, super cancelling, and something else (too lazy to go
back and look). Don't get me wrong, I don't despise 'the 3s" as much as most. I think they have potential,
unlike some others. Parries need to be tweaked more (no air parrying specials or supers... my desire anyway),
balance needs to be looked at AGAIN, super cancelling must go, and it needs to improve from an artistic
standpoint in many areas. Then again, that's my opinion. Yours?
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <352E67...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
>> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
>> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
>ST + HF. Take away pixies and excessive chaining, the vs. series almost
>becomes playable. Parries make 3 + 2I boring as sin. Zoning is useless,
>range games are useless, knowing priority on moves is useless, specials
>are useless. It's all about pressing towards, then counter-attacking at
>higher levels of play. BORING. (Granted, w/o parries, the game would be
>quite enjoyable... maybe they could have an option to take them out in a
>console version.. hmmm).
Uhm, fuck you. Take CCs from Alpha and you still have huge ass
imbalances, ACs, frame eating, and tech hits. Take away pixies and chains
from Very Shitty series and you have a game ass-full of 100% (in MvC), no
balance, tech hits, ACs, air blocking (ooops in alpha as well, forgot
that), super turlting (thanks Milo), and others.
Zoning is important, if not then why is Necro so good? Even in 2i
Necro is at least upper half of middle tier. Why is Sean vs Alex
difficult? Because Alex doesn't let Sean get near him. Sounds like
"zoning" to me. I don't really choose to make a distinction betwixt that
and range game, btw - they are different forms of each other. Now you
don't like block damage, so the Sf2 range game must have been shit too,
now that I think about it. All those hideous fireballs ryu would throw,
and then when you jumped over I'll bet he dragon punched you, bwahhahha,
how unfair.
Parries mean a lot things, mostly that you have to be at
least slightly random with either A your timing or B your attacks. Or
even better, C, both. I doubt anyone parries jabs and shorts on simple
reaction, and anyone that is telling you otherwise is full of crap.
>> he balance is better
> than ST? Debatable... (awful matches in both games)
Yang vs Urien, Elena, or Hugo is just not as bad as Z vs Akuma,
Vega. Hell in ST everyone vs akuma is a total joke basically. Yang, Yun,
Ibuki and Akuma may have an advantage over certain characters, but no one
is a total washout on the level of a SF2 beatdown.
>> The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
>> wakeups (ST had this problem too)
> As in priority on wake ups are too good, or not good enough?
Well timed low short beats a wake up DP. That should go.
>> more block damage
> No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping
>stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
Seth was right. You ARE a brother of SF ignorance. Take away
block damage and it becomes a matter of who gets the first hit. Then just
run away and turtle. Block damage is a vital part of SF2, how can you
like the game if you don't like that? What, you just run at each other
and combo? That's not SF...
>> and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too).
> No problems here.
>> and chains should not go into specials into supers.
> Amen.
>> That really isn't as bad as you might think...
> That was several things you wrote down, though...
That's five. Tech hits, wake up stuff (well not really as much
as 3), repeat unescapable ticks (second word's important), balance (could
be a bit easier for Z(vXYZ), no?), and either everyone or no one should
have worthwhile supers (Ryu's vs Honda's) are ST problems. I don't
consider that bad at all.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <3530E2...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
Jeff Jarlett <jpja...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
>> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
>> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
>Bullshit. I hate the dial-a-combo crap more than parrys. If you fook
>parries out balance may actually even be worse... BTW i Have played 3,
>just not 2I.
>Or par with ST and HF is flat-out wrong.
ST had a bunch of reasonably easy combos that were more powerful
than just about everything in SF3. Bison could crossover and or dizzy you
in SF2 (and in some versions, HF/CE? I think, redizzy). Ken would redizzy
you. Fuck, Ken would just kill you in HF and Super. New Ken could
probably do it with a super charged, too. Glitchdriver Z could probably
win some 10 - 0 matches, I mean a 1/3 damage AC, wtf are you going to do?
And there are other fairly simple things that win a round off a misblocked
crossover, bad fb, whatever.
> The balance is better, there's
>> more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
>> one useful super.
>Balance better-no.
There just aren't the SF2 like washouts, even with Elena Hugo and
Urien.
>more avenues of attack- I liked. SF3 had potential in some areas. SOme
>of the additions were good, but parries weren't done properly (I say
>they should have been like VF3 reversals, then they would have been
>perfect...) and dial-a-combo is too prevalent.
>1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
Not as such! Necro has three, Yun has two, Sean has two, Oro had
two (is now one), Akuma has two, Ibuki has two, Urien has two, Hugo has
two, anyone can add to this if they so desire.
And often the best supers for a character -- Ibuki and Yang esp.
-- are not very damaging. Tenshin Senkyutai doesn't take very much off
for a super with that long a bar, and it has horrid recovery if
blocked/parried.
>Better priority on wakeup- good.
>more block damage- good.
>more throw range- good.
>ditch tech hits- maybe, I don't want repeat ticking (then again this was
>not a problem in any post-ST game except VH where raptor could be
>nasty...)
This was not a very big problem in pretty much all of SF2,
because you could almost always counterthrow. It came down to your timing
begin good, for the most part. See Finnie's post on this, if you want.
>cahins into specials into supers was my biggest gripe. TO combo
>effectively takes almost no skill in SF3. Comboing creatively does,
>which is something I wish they would keep.
Humbug. They're all wrote memorization. 2i's problem is that the
better ones can start from throws (flipgrab, yun/yang), or very fast
attacks (necro's strong, yang's forward). Even then, supercanceling is
the killer, really.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <353180...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>> Take CCs from Alpha and you still have huge ass
>> imbalances, ACs, frame eating, and tech hits. Take away pixies and chains
>> from Very Shitty series and you have a game ass-full of 100% (in MvC), no
>> balance, tech hits, ACs, air blocking (ooops in alpha as well, forgot
>> that), super turlting (thanks Milo), and others.
> First, I said vs. shit was "playable" without pixies and chains...
>not quality. As for Alpha, the imbalances are no worse than ST, plus
>have the same quality as ST (there is no one character that has
>significant advantages on everybody, with the possible exception of
>Chun, instead certain characters take out certain others). Plus, air
>blocking is limited (should be gone completely), frame eating doesn't
>hold a candle to super cancels, and ACs are bearable in Z2'.
Except that, Chun was a normal character, whereas Akuma wasn't
supposed to be a normal everyday fight. Ken, for that matter, was darned
close. Frame eating is worse than supercancels, uhm, VALLE CC anyone?
And ACs are bad in theory, they just plain suck, period. "Hrm, I'm ahead,
wait, let him come to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE."
>> Zoning is important, if not then why is Necro so good? Even in 2i
>> Necro is at least upper half of middle tier. Why is Sean vs Alex
>> difficult? Because Alex doesn't let Sean get near him. Sounds like
>> "zoning" to me.
> My point was that it doesn't play quite the role it should in 2I,
>zoning being one of the aspects of a "great" fighting game. (My opinion,
>of course)
Sure, you can't lay down an unbreakable fireball beatdown. But
it's there.
> <rolls eyes> Read further down. My, such brash assumptions.
My assumptions are borne on the wings of your ignorance. And they
have not been incorrectly made, it would seem.
>> Parries mean a lot things, mostly that you have to be at
>> least slightly random with either A your timing or B your attacks. Or
>> even better, C, both. I doubt anyone parries jabs and shorts on simple
>> reaction, and anyone that is telling you otherwise is full of crap.
> Hence, the reason why 3 becomes a poke n' parry fest. Jabs and
>shorts are difficult to parry on reaction, HENCE, people rarely commit
>to fierces/RHs/specials, simply because they're afraid of being parried
>and countered. Instead, they Jab, Short, and chain you to death,
>cancelling to special/super if they hit. (Y/Y mostly) This.... is....
>BORING.
You just need to be unpredictable.. it is not that hard. I'll
have to post a .avi of Jason Young playing Ibuki, or maybe Chris/Zvi's
Yang. Nice examples. Not *THAT* hard to do. Good returns.
>> > No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping
>> >stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
>> Seth was right. You ARE a brother of SF ignorance. Take away
>> block damage and it becomes a matter of who gets the first hit. Then just
>> run away and turtle. Block damage is a vital part of SF2, how can you
>> like the game if you don't like that? What, you just run at each other
>> and combo? That's not SF...
> Perhaps my wording confused you. The emphasis should've been on
>MORE, and not needs. Block damage is essential, and it would take a
>colossal idiot to desire NO block damage. I merely meant none of the SF
>games (saving perhaps vs. trash) needs MORE block damage than it already
>has. Thanks to parries, chipping doesn't play anywhere near the role it
>should. Yet another downside to parries...
I *WAS* focusing on the more part, thank you. Three needs to do
more block damage on generic specials, and it needs more blockstun to back
it up. Block damage is all but gone in three, it does about as much as a
taunt.
>> That's five. Tech hits, wake up stuff (well not really as much
>> as 3), repeat unescapable ticks (second word's important), balance (could
>> be a bit easier for Z(vXYZ), no?), and either everyone or no one should
>> have worthwhile supers (Ryu's vs Honda's) are ST problems. I don't
>> consider that bad at all.
>
> Actually, you also mentioned block damage, super cancelling, and something else (too lazy to go
>back and look).
There were five total.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't despise 'the 3s" as much as most. I think
>they have potential,
>unlike some others. Parries need to be tweaked more (no air parrying
>specials or supers... my desire anyway),
>balance needs to be looked at AGAIN, super cancelling must go, and it
>needs to improve from an artistic
>standpoint in many areas. Then again, that's my opinion. Yours?
Ditching air parries. Hrm, not really much of a problem.
Basically everyone uses air defense that allows for a quick recovery
anyway, so if they air parry the only thing that happens is they get
thrown. Ie, air guy parrys Necro low strong, Necro parrys jump in, Necro
throws or hits the guy. Same for a bunch of others. If I was going to
make something unparryable, just make specials unparryable. You don't
even need to make supers unparryable (takes enough work anyway, not
really scrubby)... and that'd do it.
Fireballs should do, oh, quadruple damage, or at least quad stun.
Balance is really really good overall.
Supercancels must die. Just a bad idea in theory, like ACs were.
But at least the damage is lowered on the super itself.
Art is quite good in SF3, I've never had reason to complain. BGs
are quite nice IMHO, and especially compared to other fighers:
KOF (the few I've seen): No
SS: No
Very Shitty: HELL NO.
SF2: No
3D games.. uhm any of them: No
Dllem
> I really can't figure them out. 7 straight years of hadouken-hadouken-
>shoryuken?? How can they stand it? Such mindless repetition is outlawed in most countries as a form of torture. It's... not human.
I don't know a single A/R/K player that has played over 3 years..
Most 1-2.
Dllem
_ _
+---ooo-O-ooo-----------+
To reply remove the i
from the email address
+-==--==--=-=--==--==-+
Cheap Stuff:
www.shop4.com (Lots of stuff)
www.pricewatch.com (Computer stuff)
www.dvdexpress.com (Dvd Movies)
+-==--==--=-=--==--==-+
oooO Oooo
Jeffrey Paul Jarlett
In article <ErByo...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
> In article <3530E2...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
> Jeff Jarlett <jpja...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> >Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
> >Bullshit. I hate the dial-a-combo crap more than parrys. If you fook
> >parries out balance may actually even be worse... BTW i Have played 3,
> >just not 2I.
> >Or par with ST and HF is flat-out wrong.
>
> ST had a bunch of reasonably easy combos that were more powerful
> than just about everything in SF3.
some combos in ST were easy, but landing them was not. SF3 has some 0-skill
combos that are very easy to land.
Glitchdriver Z could probably
> win some 10 - 0 matches, I mean a 1/3 damage AC, wtf are you going to do?
> And there are other fairly simple things that win a round off a misblocked
> crossover, bad fb, whatever.
This is why I prefer A2 damage levels...
>
> > The balance is better, there's
> >> more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
> >> one useful super.
> >Balance better-no.
>
> There just aren't the SF2 like washouts, even with Elena Hugo and
> Urien.
Well, if SF2 had parrying, Gief would have a chance vs Vega/Akuma, but
the game wouldn't have been as good.
> >1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
>
> Not as such! Necro has three, Yun has two, Sean has two, Oro had
> two (is now one), Akuma has two, Ibuki has two, Urien has two, Hugo has
> two, anyone can add to this if they so desire.
Well supers in GENERAL are too powerful.
> And often the best supers for a character -- Ibuki and Yang esp.
> -- are not very damaging. Tenshin Senkyutai doesn't take very much off
> for a super with that long a bar, and it has horrid recovery if
> blocked/parried.
Hashin Sho not very damaging, you land one of those it is OVER. (not 2i
I know) I hated that infinite.
Also who is not going to land a tenshin sekutai??? Scrubs only or on a
screw-up.
> This was not a very big problem in pretty much all of SF2,
> because you could almost always counterthrow. It came down to your timing
> begin good, for the most part. See Finnie's post on this, if you want.
Well, there are some uncounterable tick-throws in some situations...
Note you said almost always. I would have preferred tech hits did full
damage but let you land on your feet, or further away (in the case of holds)...
> Humbug. They're all wrote memorization. 2i's problem is that the
> better ones can start from throws (flipgrab, yun/yang), or very fast
> attacks (necro's strong, yang's forward). Even then, supercanceling is
> the killer, really.
Well, the TZW combo tapes I looked at for both games...
the SF3 combos were more interesting, but a lot easier to do...
As for the flipgrab, it is blockable, therfore it isn't a throw.
As for supercancelling being a killer, true. Easy chains are as well.
All I saw here in terms of SF gameplay was option select parry into dial-a
combo into super. (no supercancel, these guys has a little skill, not counting
Ryu scrubs)
Wanderer
Dllem wrote:
>
> > I really can't figure them out. 7 straight years of hadouken-hadouken-
> >shoryuken?? How can they stand it? Such mindless repetition is outlawed in most countries as a form of torture. It's... not human.
>
> I don't know a single A/R/K player that has played over 3 years..
> Most 1-2.
"Cool,I've been playing Ryu for years!"
This confused me briefly,as I beat him in about 60 seconds while he
tried to figure out the wonders of tag-teaming. First perfect I'd ever
scored against a player,come to think of it.
-Wanderer
Ultima
Useless factor: So-so
Rambling factor: Highish...
Warning: Read at your own discretion
************************************
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
> In article <353180...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
> Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> >> Take CCs from Alpha and you still have huge ass
> >> imbalances, ACs, frame eating, and tech hits. Take away pixies and chains from Very Shitty series and you have a game ass-full of 100% (in MvC), no balance, tech hits, ACs, air blocking (ooops in alpha as well, forgot that), super turlting (thanks Milo), and others.
> > First, I said vs. shit was "playable" without pixies and chains... not quality. As for Alpha, the imbalances are no worse than ST, plus have the same quality as ST (there is no one character that has
> >significant advantages on everybody, with the possible exception of
> >Chun, instead certain characters take out certain others). Plus, air
> >blocking is limited (should be gone completely), frame eating doesn't
> >hold a candle to super cancels, and ACs are bearable in Z2'.
>
> Except that, Chun was a normal character, whereas Akuma wasn't
> supposed to be a normal everyday fight.
Good point. He shouldn't have been playable in the arcade then...
> Ken, for that matter, was darned close. Frame eating is worse than supercancels, uhm, VALLE CC anyone?
Far easier to abuse, yes...
> And ACs are bad in theory, they just plain suck, period. "Hrm, I'm ahead, wait, let him come to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE."
That wasn't the original theory I believe. I think the original theory
behind ACs were to get relentlessly attacking opponents off your back
and turn the tables on them. In essence, yes, a "get out of jail free"
tactic. Not fun for the attacker, but I think they assumed that 10% or
so for zoning or getting comboed silly out of was worth it. It was the
better players than turned it into "Hrm, I'm ahead, wait, let him come
to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE." ACs can still be made non-abusable -
make them do no damage...
[slash]
> > <rolls eyes> Read further down. My, such brash assumptions.
>
> My assumptions are borne on the wings of your ignorance. And they have not been incorrectly made, it would seem.
Uhm, no it would not seem. You haven't proven anything. And this
bickering isn't worth it...
[slash]
> >> > No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
Take away >> block damage and it becomes a matter of who gets the first
hit. Then just run away and turtle. Block damage is a vital part of
SF2, how can you like the game if you don't like that? What, you just
run at each other and combo? That's not SF...
> > Perhaps my wording confused you. The emphasis should've been on
> >MORE, and not needs. Block damage is essential, and it would take a
> >colossal idiot to desire NO block damage. I merely meant none of the SF games (saving perhaps vs. trash) needs MORE block damage than it already has. Thanks to parries, chipping doesn't play anywhere near the role it should. Yet another downside to parries...
> I *WAS* focusing on the more part, thank you. Three needs to do more block damage on generic specials, and it needs more blockstun to back it up. Block damage is all but gone in three, it does about as much as a taunt.
If parries weren't there, the lack of block-damage wouldn't be that much
of a problem. I don't believe it needs more (not less either).
[slash]
> > Don't get me wrong, I don't despise 'the 3s" as much as most. I think
> >they have potential, unlike some others. Parries need to be tweaked more (no air parrying specials or supers... my desire anyway),
> >balance needs to be looked at AGAIN, super cancelling must go, and it
> >needs to improve from an artistic standpoint in many areas. Then again, that's my opinion. Yours?
>
> Ditching air parries. Hrm, not really much of a problem.
> Basically everyone uses air defense that allows for a quick recovery
> anyway, so if they air parry the only thing that happens is they get
> thrown. Ie, air guy parrys Necro low strong, Necro parrys jump in, Necro throws or hits the guy. Same for a bunch of others.
I would like it if all parry-only specific situations have to go (e.g.
Hugo trying to penetrate Y/Y's defense).
> If I was going to make something unparryable, just make specials unparryable. You don't even need to make supers unparryable (takes enough work anyway, not really scrubby)... and that'd do it.
Mind you, this wouldn't make much sense, but what the hey.. And parrying
supers isn't scrubby by any stretch of the imagination...
> Fireballs should do, oh, quadruple damage, or at least quad stun.
Why? If you're saying "make FBs useful", then fine. But you don't need
them to do any more damage or stun than usual (well, certainly not
=that= much more; you engaged in hyperbole, yes? :)... There are other
ways to do it (make recovery better, fast speed, bigger hit areas, etc).
> Balance is really really good overall.
Still has imbalances. Not like ST. but still quite bad...
> Supercancels must die. Just a bad idea in theory, like ACs were.
Again, I don't think they were bad in theory. I think they were meant to
add some thing new to a combo system that hadn't changed since ST (with
the introduction of juggles, and prior to that it hadn't changed for,
what, 3 years?). Not a bad idea per se, but turned out to be bad in
practise.
The only ideas I think that were bad in theory as well as in practise
(i.e. ideas I thought were bad before I played the game) were CCs and
no-damage tech-hits. The former proved to be worse than I thought. The
latter didn't (they shouldn;t be there, but they're not that bad;
definitely not CC and AC bad anyway).
> But at least the damage is lowered on the super itself.
Right. They do less damage than without super-cancelling, but but for
the ease of use, they should either be removed, or made to do far less
damage... (then again, supers on the whole need to do less).
> Art is quite good in SF3, I've never had reason to complain. BGs are quite nice IMHO, and especially compared to other fighers:
>
> KOF (the few I've seen): No
Never checked...
> SS: No
The whole series..? SS1 and SS2 had some kickin' backgrounds. Comparable
to Sf3 at least. SS3 and SS4 I've found to be very dull.
> Very Shitty: HELL NO.
Never excited me...
> SF2: No
Not really, no....
> 3D games.. uhm any of them: No
Definitely not...
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>In article <352E67...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
>Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
>>> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
>>> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
And I'd thank you to stop dragging HF/STs name through the SF3 mud
since you haven't played much of them (and when I say haven't played, I
intend to disqualify the hours logged on your SNES). Practically no one
who makes these types of comparisons has given me any kind of reason to
think they understood either HF or ST in the first place.
[A2/Vs attacks deleted]
> Zoning is important, if not then why is Necro so good? Even in 2i
>Necro is at least upper half of middle tier.
While I can't speak to exactly why Necro is so good, I'll hazard
a guess that it's because his limbs are a little longer than everyone
else's, and he can poke pretty effectively. If by "zoning" (this term
used to refer to cross-ups a long time ago, among some people (not me))
you mean the range game generally, then you've got to be joking. If
anything, that is one thing almost *wholly* missing from SF3/2I. The
only way in which these ranges matter is knowing which angles/distances
your attacks can be hit from.
The reason the range game is gone from SF3 is also obvious-
the role of FBs, which are the whole reason range games existed, has
been reduced to virtually nothing. FBs at a distance are almost
completely useless, where before they defined SF2. There is never
a situation (much less a match-up) in SF3 where range plays anything
like the role it *routinely* did in pre-Alpha (and even the Alphas,
to a lesser extent) games.
Why is Sean vs Alex
>difficult? Because Alex doesn't let Sean get near him. Sounds like
>"zoning" to me.
Yeah, it does kinda "sound like" some kind of range game.
Unfortunately, it's not really. More like a pattycake guessing game
based on move priority/quickness. It's like "the range game" of, say,
Vega vs Cammy. It's just dumb.
I don't really choose to make a distinction betwixt that
>and range game, btw - they are different forms of each other.
Vastly different forms. As I said before, however, the range
game depends crucially on FBs, which play zero role in SF3.
Now you
>don't like block damage, so the Sf2 range game must have been shit too,
>now that I think about it. All those hideous fireballs ryu would throw,
>and then when you jumped over I'll bet he dragon punched you, bwahhahha,
>how unfair.
Block damage was important, yes. Sad to see it (essentially) go
bye-bye. But in SF3, you almost always have a better option than trying
to do a pixel of block damage if you're in the appropriate range to do
so, so even apart from parries, block damage is worthless (again, unlike
SF2, where some high level fights were entirely determined by tight
spacings and block damage...)
> Parries mean a lot things, mostly that you have to be at
>least slightly random with either A your timing or B your attacks. Or
>even better, C, both. I doubt anyone parries jabs and shorts on simple
>reaction, and anyone that is telling you otherwise is full of crap.
Well, wait until you see someone really good with option select
(much harder in 2I, but still certainly possible (side note: option
selecting isn't an all-or-nothing affair- even someone less than godlike
with the technique can get vastly more parries with it than without it.
It's nasty stuff).
And more to the point, some characters simply don't really have
the option to be "tricky" with their attacks *or* the timing thereof,
while others have massive flexibility in this regard. Notice who the
better characters in the game are...
>>> he balance is better
>> than ST? Debatable... (awful matches in both games)
> Yang vs Urien, Elena, or Hugo is just not as bad as Z vs Akuma,
>Vega. Hell in ST everyone vs akuma is a total joke basically. Yang, Yun,
>Ibuki and Akuma may have an advantage over certain characters, but no one
>is a total washout on the level of a SF2 beatdown.
Yes, in SF3, you always have *some* kind of chance, but the reason
for this is a stupid one: parries.
It is fairly obvious that Capcom did not intend Akuma as a
character to be played among the others, and he is ridiculously overpowered
in almost every regard. Basing your estimations of ST overall on this
however is silly. Outside of that, ST has excellent balance. While
there are washouts, even some of the worst require an extremely high
level of skill to really bring them out. Even the worst of the worst
is always competitive. Why was Zangief, far and away the worst
character in ST, always competitive and a serious threat, turning up
as a non-joke character in tournaments routinely? Why don't we see
this with Elena?
The balance in ST is also an interesting, character specific
one, not the bland "you could have parried that" catch-all of SF3.
>>> The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
>>> wakeups (ST had this problem too)
>> As in priority on wake ups are too good, or not good enough?
> Well timed low short beats a wake up DP. That should go.
Are we talking about ST here? That depends who you ask... (no,
I'm not opening that can of worms again, although I believe there is a
non-public definitive answer :)
>>> more block damage
>> No game NEEDS more block damage. Besides, most major chipping
>>stuff is gonna get parried anyways.
> Seth was right. You ARE a brother of SF ignorance. Take away
>block damage and it becomes a matter of who gets the first hit. Then just
>run away and turtle. Block damage is a vital part of SF2, how can you
>like the game if you don't like that? What, you just run at each other
>and combo? That's not SF...
Block damage is a vital part of SF2, and essentially zero part of
SF3 (except maybe if the opponent is down to a few pixels).
>>> and ditch tech hits (ST had this one too).
>> No problems here.
>>> and chains should not go into specials into supers.
>> Amen.
>>> That really isn't as bad as you might think...
>> That was several things you wrote down, though...
Tech hits are silly, but not a major problem. Notice 2I also
has whatever that "push away dual throw" feature, which seems akin to
tech hits.
Chaining into specials or supers (or both) is just retarded,
and a major factor in SF3 (again, who are the better characters? What
are they all especially good at? Dumb)
Parrying is bad, but the jury is still out as to whether or
not it could play a role. I think no, but could imagine it being done
well, I suppose. Other games have solid equivalent ideas, but these
are all foreign to the essence of the SF2 game engine.
> That's five. Tech hits, wake up stuff (well not really as much
>as 3), repeat unescapable ticks (second word's important), balance (could
>be a bit easier for Z(vXYZ), no?), and either everyone or no one should
>have worthwhile supers (Ryu's vs Honda's) are ST problems. I don't
>consider that bad at all.
Again, tech hits were not a major problem. The wake up game in
ST was at it's absolutely most beautiful. How does this need to be
"fixed"? Balance is as good as it's ever been, in a genuine sense in
ST. I could say a lot more about this, but won't bother here. Granted,
a lot of supers were worthless (although Honda's was not one of them-
that was a good super), but supermoves weren't necessary to ST at all.
If anything, this was what was most wrong with it. Also, if you take
Supers to be such an important consideration, why do some of the best
characters have no super at all (O.Sagat, O.Ken, O.Guile to a lesser
extent)? Also, some characters with good supers were unable to crack
top tier...
More to be said later.
Seth Killian
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
> ST had a bunch of reasonably easy combos that were more powerful
>than just about everything in SF3. Bison could crossover and or dizzy you
>in SF2 (and in some versions, HF/CE? I think, redizzy). Ken would redizzy
>you. Fuck, Ken would just kill you in HF and Super. New Ken could
>probably do it with a super charged, too. Glitchdriver Z could probably
>win some 10 - 0 matches, I mean a 1/3 damage AC, wtf are you going to do?
>And there are other fairly simple things that win a round off a misblocked
>crossover, bad fb, whatever.
This is a caricature of an argument against older SFs. You not
only exaggerate the real power of these combos (needlessly, the truth
was bad enough), but you also include the piledriver *glitch* in some
versions of Super as a point of comparison? Please.
Most glaring however, is the (apparently intentional) obfuscation
of the very obvious fact that these combos were very rarely landed in
earlier SFs (and not because the players weren't good enough to do them),
whereas in SF3, it's rare that you DON'T see one of the big chains into
supers (at least once a match, and often more than once per ROUND). The
chances to land your killer combo in SF3 are routine, whereas in SF2 they
were extremely rare (against semi-decent comp).
I seriously hope you're kidding here.
>> The balance is better, there's
>>> more avenues of attack (overheads, etc), and every character has at least
>>> one useful super.
The additional avenues of attack in SF3 are straight up BAD.
SF3 has tried very hard to make itself like the successful polygon fighters
(VF/TK), by adding elements like (dumbed down) reversal-equivalents:
parries, and making you figure out how to block (again, dumbed down
from low/mid/high attacks to overhead/jump, ground attack), and
essentially removing FBs and all the pesky traps they could set up.
While I'm not convinced that SF3/2I is a bad game, it does
essentially gut what has been the force behind SF2s success, in favor
of bringing on board silly versions of other games' features.
> There just aren't the SF2 like washouts, even with Elena Hugo and
>Urien.
The balance is better in the same way the balance in MK
games is "better"- the characters play the same way, and by mastering
some basic stuff, you can be good with any of them.
>>1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
> Not as such! Necro has three, Yun has two, Sean has two, Oro had
>two (is now one), Akuma has two, Ibuki has two, Urien has two, Hugo has
>two, anyone can add to this if they so desire.
> And often the best supers for a character -- Ibuki and Yang esp.
>-- are not very damaging. Tenshin Senkyutai doesn't take very much off
>for a super with that long a bar, and it has horrid recovery if
>blocked/parried.
You mention these supers not doing a lot of damage in the same
breath as you mention that they are, in fact, the character's best super!
And this is supposed to be some kind of defense against the charge of
their being overpowered? Overpowered does not equal "does too much
damage". They can be (and are) overpowered in other ways, like getting
more than one, and having it tack on to the end of a stupid chain combo
very easily, and having that chain combo be too easy to land.
There are more factors than simple damage in deciding what counts
as overpowered.
> Humbug. They're all wrote memorization. 2i's problem is that the
>better ones can start from throws (flipgrab, yun/yang), or very fast
>attacks (necro's strong, yang's forward). Even then, supercanceling is
>the killer, really.
Agreed. This is a very, very bad feature of a game. It was
one of 3's biggest problems, and Capcom utterly failed to fix it. Tee
hee.
Seth Killian
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <3532AA...@concentric.net>,
I'll take that as a compliment?
>Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>> In article <353180...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
>> Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Except that, Chun was a normal character, whereas Akuma wasn't
>> supposed to be a normal everyday fight.
>Good point. He shouldn't have been playable in the arcade then...
He wasn't, in most tourneys.
>> Ken, for that matter, was darned close. Frame eating is worse than
>supercancels, uhm, VALLE CC anyone?
>Far easier to abuse, yes...
Not to bitch, but can you get the attribution cleaned up on your
poster? Make sure the line length is set to 80 or less..
>> And ACs are bad in theory, they just plain suck, period. "Hrm, I'm
>>ahead, wait, let him come to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE."
>That wasn't the original theory I believe. I think the original theory
>behind ACs were to get relentlessly attacking opponents off your back
>and turn the tables on them. In essence, yes, a "get out of jail free"
>tactic. Not fun for the attacker, but I think they assumed that 10% or
>so for zoning or getting comboed silly out of was worth it. It was the
>better players than turned it into "Hrm, I'm ahead, wait, let him come
>to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE." ACs can still be made non-abusable -
>make them do no damage...
Theory is SF gaming theory, not Capcom's line of thinking. Do no
damage, and make it take up meter, and they'd be non-abusable, but I
wouldn't keep them.
>> I *WAS* focusing on the more part, thank you. Three needs to do more block damage on generic specials, and it needs more blockstun to back it up. Block damage is all but gone in three, it does about as much as a taunt.
>
>If parries weren't there, the lack of block-damage wouldn't be that much
>of a problem. I don't believe it needs more (not less either).
Block six hadokens in 2i and then six in HF. BIG difference.
>> If I was going to make something unparryable, just make specials
>>unparryable. You don't even need to make supers unparryable (takes
>>enough work anyway, not really scrubby)... and that'd do it.
>
>Mind you, this wouldn't make much sense, but what the hey.. And parrying
>supers isn't scrubby by any stretch of the imagination...
Sure it would. It returns the fireball games, makes air d.
better, safe block damage comes back, etc.
>> Fireballs should do, oh, quadruple damage, or at least quad stun.
>
>Why? If you're saying "make FBs useful", then fine. But you don't need
>them to do any more damage or stun than usual (well, certainly not
>=that= much more; you engaged in hyperbole, yes? :)... There are other
>ways to do it (make recovery better, fast speed, bigger hit areas, etc).
2i Ryu hadokens do REALLY shitty damage. Less than a strong,
here. Uhm, that's rediculous.
>> Balance is really really good overall.
>Still has imbalances. Not like ST. but still quite bad...
I don't see anything worse than, oh, 7-3.
>> Supercancels must die. Just a bad idea in theory, like ACs were.
>Again, I don't think they were bad in theory. I think they were meant to
>add some thing new to a combo system that hadn't changed since ST (with
>the introduction of juggles, and prior to that it hadn't changed for,
>what, 3 years?). Not a bad idea per se, but turned out to be bad in
>practise.
They were made to make doing a super in a combo easier. Bleah.
>> But at least the damage is lowered on the super itself.
>Right. They do less damage than without super-cancelling, but but for
>the ease of use, they should either be removed, or made to do far less
>damage... (then again, supers on the whole need to do less).
Some of them are OK - Kasumi Suzaku, Hashin Sho, Tenshin
Senkyutai, Electric Snake, etc. But they all could stand to do 1/3 less.
>> SS: No
>The whole series..? SS1 and SS2 had some kickin' backgrounds. Comparable
>to Sf3 at least. SS3 and SS4 I've found to be very dull.
I'm thinking 2, the only one I've seen for a considerable amount
of time. Most, hell ALL of the backgrounds were way below 2i or 1i. The
detail is just very noticably higher.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <6gu2sn$j9r$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
seth james killian <skil...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>>In article <352E67...@osf1.gmu.edu>,
>>Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Stop bashing 3 if you haven't played that much of it, thank you. If you
>>>> take away parrys (and event those are not that bad an addition), the game
>>>> is quite possibly on par with ST and HF.
> And I'd thank you to stop dragging HF/STs name through the SF3 mud
>since you haven't played much of them (and when I say haven't played, I
>intend to disqualify the hours logged on your SNES). Practically no one
>who makes these types of comparisons has given me any kind of reason to
>think they understood either HF or ST in the first place.
I *did* play a lot HF, and not against SNES's CPU, and have
started playing ST again. Why was 2 so good? I don't think I want to get
into an argument that long.
>Unfortunately, it's not really. More like a pattycake guessi
[zonk]
It's a range game, just not the same range game that one thinks of
in 2. Same words, slighty different implications.
>> I don't really choose to make a distinction betwixt that
>>and range game, btw - they are different forms of each other.
> Vastly different forms. As I said before, however, the range
>game depends crucially on FBs, which play zero role in SF3.
>> Parries mean a lot things, mostly that you have to be at
>>least slightly random with either A your timing or B your attacks. Or
>>even better, C, both. I doubt anyone parries jabs and shorts on simple
>>reaction, and anyone that is telling you otherwise is full of crap.
> Well, wait until you see someone really good with option select
>(much harder in 2I, but still certainly possible (side note: option
>selecting isn't an all-or-nothing affair- even someone less than godlike
>with the technique can get vastly more parries with it than without it.
>It's nasty stuff).
Option select, as in parry before you do, uhm, well, anything but
dash? I don't consider the increase to be vast by any stretch. If you
mean continuously tapping forward or down with slight breaks in between,
that's the weaving parry/fuzzyblock, no?
>>>> he balance is better
>>> than ST? Debatable... (awful matches in both games)
>> Yang vs Urien, Elena, or Hugo is just not as bad as Z vs Akuma,
>>Vega. Hell in ST everyone vs akuma is a total joke basically. Yang, Yun,
>>Ibuki and Akuma may have an advantage over certain characters, but no one
>>is a total washout on the level of a SF2 beatdown.
> Yes, in SF3, you always have *some* kind of chance, but the reason
>for this is a stupid one: parries.
Take out the parrys, and I still think that there are no blowouts
10-0.
> It is fairly obvious that Capcom did not intend Akuma as a
>character to be played among the others, and he is ridiculously overpowered
>in almost every regard. Basing your estimations of ST overall on this
>however is silly. Outside of that, ST has excellent balance. While
>there are washouts, even some of the worst require an extremely high
>level of skill to really bring them out. Even the worst of the worst
>is always competitive. Why was Zangief, far and away the worst
>character in ST, always competitive and a serious threat, turning up
>as a non-joke character in tournaments routinely? Why don't we see
>this with Elena?
In our games, we *did* see Oros, Elenas, and what not come out and
play. Just like ol' Z. And while Chicago is not the SF mecca, Woodward
Court does indeed take the top prize for (citywide)SF skill, it would
seem, for 97. Whether or not Chris can make up for losing Jason and clean
up this summer remains to be seen, but we did play against a bunch of
other Chicago players and yes, those low tiered characters were indeed
used with success.
>>>> The minor things it is missing are: better priority on
>>>> wakeups (ST had this problem too)
>>> As in priority on wake ups are too good, or not good enough?
>> Well timed low short beats a wake up DP. That should go.
> Are we talking about ST here? That depends who you ask... (no,
>I'm not opening that can of worms again, although I believe there is a
>non-public definitive answer :)
No. 2i, you see "reversal", and you *still* get stuffed every
time. Only super reversals work, or parry reversals. Pretty stupid.
> Block damage is a vital part of SF2, and essentially zero part of
>SF3 (except maybe if the opponent is down to a few pixels).
Yup. And the game is hurt by it.
>>>> That really isn't as bad as you might think...
>>> That was several things you wrote down, though...
> Tech hits are silly, but not a major problem. Notice 2I also
>has whatever that "push away dual throw" feature, which seems akin to
>tech hits.
I've always assumed that's what it is.
> Chaining into specials or supers (or both) is just retarded,
>and a major factor in SF3 (again, who are the better characters? What
>are they all especially good at? Dumb)
The better characters are Akuma, Yun, Yang, and Ibuki. Akuma
doesn't really chain all that much, and Ibuki's best stuff is all 2in1s,
or links. Yun and Yang are indeed retarded, I knew this when the first
reports came in long ago, along with crap about the skateboard being used
as a weapon.
> Parrying is bad, but the jury is still out as to whether or
>not it could play a role. I think no, but could imagine it being done
>well, I suppose. Other games have solid equivalent ideas, but these
>are all foreign to the essence of the SF2 game engine.
Change the motion, or give it a wiff, or whatever, and most of the
problems fall away. Or give it an automatic, low damage (between jab and
strong) knockdown on success, setting up a wake up game.
>> That's five. Tech hits, wake up stuff (well not really as much
>>as 3), repeat unescapable ticks (second word's important), balance (could
>>be a bit easier for Z(vXYZ), no?), and either everyone or no one should
>>have worthwhile supers (Ryu's vs Honda's) are ST problems. I don't
>>consider that bad at all.
> Again, tech hits were not a major problem.
They didn't reduce damage to *0* in ST, which is 2i's problem.
Still an annoyance, IMHO. I think I've seen ONE fighter so far where
throw escapes were actually reasonably difficult to do, and ST wasn't one
of them.
>The wake up game in
>ST was at it's absolutely most beautiful. How does this need to be
>"fixed"?
I, uhm.. forget. Ah well, like I said, it wasn't really
important.
>Balance is as good as it's ever been, in a genuine sense in
>ST. I could say a lot more about this, but won't bother here. Granted,
>a lot of supers were worthless (although Honda's was not one of them-
>that was a good super), but supermoves weren't necessary to ST at all.
Honda's? I thought it wouldn't combo all its hits even if it
connected? It's still good to pass FBs, IIRC. An old Master John thread,
I must have misread it.
>If anything, this was what was most wrong with it. Also, if you take
>Supers to be such an important consideration, why do some of the best
>characters have no super at all (O.Sagat, O.Ken, O.Guile to a lesser
>extent)? Also, some characters with good supers were unable to crack
>top tier...
I still think it's a matter of "fairness" or balance(bad term
here). It seems silly to have meter that only matters for less than half
of the cast. And no, supers *aren't* a very important consideration, like
I said, ST had minor problems. And no, age is NOT one of them.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <6gt84s$fau$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Jeffrey Paul Jarlett <jpja...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <ErByo...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>> In article <3530E2...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
>> Jeff Jarlett <jpja...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> >Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>> >Bullshit. I hate the dial-a-combo crap more than parrys. If you fook
>> >parries out balance may actually even be worse... BTW i Have played 3,
>> >just not 2I.
>> >Or par with ST and HF is flat-out wrong.
>> than just about everything in SF3.
>combos that are very easy to land.
Misblocked crossup. Incorrect guess, lose. Start it from a
knockdown, against certain ppl.
>> >1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
>> Not as such! Necro has three, Yun has two, Sean has two, Oro had
>> two (is now one), Akuma has two, Ibuki has two, Urien has two, Hugo has
>> two, anyone can add to this if they so desire.
>Well supers in GENERAL are too powerful.
8 people out of 14 is majority, dude.
>> And often the best supers for a character -- Ibuki and Yang esp.
>> -- are not very damaging. Tenshin Senkyutai doesn't take very much off
>> for a super with that long a bar, and it has horrid recovery if
>> blocked/parried.
>
>Hashin Sho not very damaging, you land one of those it is OVER. (not 2i
>I know) I hated that infinite.
Yah it was pretty stupid. What were they thinking?
>Also who is not going to land a tenshin sekutai??? Scrubs only or on a
>screw-up.
Go to Tenshin a limb, 'cept that was low jab, not low strong.
not a common happening, tho.
>> This was not a very big problem in pretty much all of SF2,
>> because you could almost always counterthrow. It came down to your timing
>> begin good, for the most part. See Finnie's post on this, if you want.
>Well, there are some uncounterable tick-throws in some situations...
>Note you said almost always. I would have preferred tech hits did full
>damage but let you land on your feet, or further away (in the case of holds)...
They're still *way* to easy to do.
>As for supercancelling being a killer, true. Easy chains are as well.
They don't do much by themselves. 1-2-3 is really kinda piddly.
And since when have chains been anything *but* easy?
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <6gu4pj$l6u$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>1 useful super- make that one overpowered super per character...
>as overpowered.
I took his useful-overpowered statement to mean simple damage, and
in that sense, his argument doesn't hold. I don't care to argue about
whether or not they are truly overpowered anyways, there are multiples for
each character, and that's that.
>> Humbug. They're all wrote memorization. 2i's problem is that the
>>better ones can start from throws (flipgrab, yun/yang), or very fast
>>attacks (necro's strong, yang's forward). Even then, supercanceling is
>>the killer, really.
> Agreed. This is a very, very bad feature of a game. It was
>one of 3's biggest problems, and Capcom utterly failed to fix it. Tee
>hee.
I know. What happened to "alpha will be left for beginning
players while the main game will cater to more expert players"? I think
that was on capcom's hp for a while...
> Seth Killian
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <6gu2sn$j9r$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,>spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:<----------\
>>In article <352E67...@osf1.gmu.edu>, |
>>Dark Schneider <ggr...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote: |
|
>Practically no one |
>who makes these types of comparisons has given me any kind of reason to|
>think they understood either HF or ST in the first place. |
|
By itself, mind you, and with no reference to it didn't have this |
mindless feature or other garbage. I want to see your take. |
|
And for fucks sake, READ MY DAMNED ATTRIBUTION LINES -------------------/.
It's cap S, low h, low a, low u, low n. I get enough mail, electronic and
not, addressed to fucking Sean, to make me puke. I don't call you Killan
and you don't call me Sean.
Thank you and good day.
Shaun Patrick McIsaac
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
In article <6gu4pj$l6u$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
seth james killian <skil...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>> ST had a bunch of reasonably easy combos that were more powerful
>>than just about everything in SF3. Bison could crossover and or dizzy you
>>in SF2 (and in some versions, HF/CE? I think, redizzy). Ken would redizzy
>>you. Fuck, Ken would just kill you in HF and Super. New Ken could
>>probably do it with a super charged, too.
>>And there are other fairly simple things that win a round off a misblocked
>>crossover, bad fb, whatever.
> This is a caricature of an argument against older SFs. You not
>only exaggerate the real power of these combos (needlessly, the truth
>was bad enough),
Ok, fuck the glitch then. As to the combos not doing lethal
damage, uhm, no. Even playing with a SNES handicap or similar damage
gradient, like playing the Combo Practice Unit (CPU)[tm], there were a
number of combos that would kill you, unless you were dizzy beforehand and
had a lot of life left. Uhm, the two are fairly exclusive.
> Most glaring however, is the (apparently intentional) obfuscation
>of the very obvious fact that these combos were very rarely landed in
>earlier SFs (and not because the players weren't good enough to do them),
>whereas in SF3, it's rare that you DON'T see one of the big chains into
>supers (at least once a match, and often more than once per ROUND). The
>chances to land your killer combo in SF3 are routine, whereas in SF2 they
>were extremely rare (against semi-decent comp).
Yah yah, you're not going to see fierce, fierce, dragon punch in a
tournament. And I suppose you reject the idea of the misblocked crossover
too?
Shoeboxes. Why in hell would ANYONE have done this if every
crossover was blocked or dragon punched. (And about handwatching - it's
not an all or nothing thing, you don't have to be godlike with this to get
more use of your jumps.)
Anyways, all the NG bickering in the world doesn't help 2i's faults out,
and since Capcom fairly obviously does not have anyone onboard who either:
A) knows what makes a game good
B) cares about good over $$$.
I am going back to my work, in all its varying forms, the ST machine,
Super, and with some luck MPM.
Shaun
Dark Schneider
> Except that, Chun was a normal character, whereas Akuma wasn't
> supposed to be a normal everyday fight. Ken, for that matter, was darned
> close. Frame eating is worse than supercancels, uhm, VALLE CC anyone?
> And ACs are bad in theory, they just plain suck, period. "Hrm, I'm ahead,
> wait, let him come to me and I'll get FREE DAMAGE."
A2 Ken doesn't even come close to ST Gouki, if that's what you're saying. Great ACs, high damage CCs,
and has significant advantages over several characters, but can't even tie the shoes of ST Gouki. ACs would be
fine if they did block level damage. However, 1.5 meters for 10% is fine with me. Lord knows that meter and a
half coulda been used on a 40-50% CC.
!Personally!, I despise super cancelling even as much as Valle CCs.
> > <rolls eyes> Read further down. My, such brash assumptions.
>
> My assumptions are borne on the wings of your ignorance. And they
> have not been incorrectly made, it would seem.
I made the assumption we were talking about the same thing.... then again, ass-u-me. That's my
ignorance.
> You just need to be unpredictable.. it is not that hard. I'll
> have to post a .avi of Jason Young playing Ibuki, or maybe Chris/Zvi's
> Yang. Nice examples. Not *THAT* hard to do. Good returns.
It's STILL boring, though. Even the majority of 1i/2i tournament tapes have some of the most
excruciatingly boring matches in the history of SF. The 2I tourney at Gametime on Sat. featured some decent
matches, but the majority were poke-fests. <yawn> Nothing like the tourneys of old. And regular, non-tourney
competition revolves too often around fighting hordes of Y/Y/Goukis. (Which by itself isn't that bad, lord
knows all the other games have their overpowered, overused peons... it just gets to me more with Y/Y)
> > Perhaps my wording confused you. The emphasis should've been on
> >MORE, and not needs. Block damage is essential, and it would take a
> >colossal idiot to desire NO block damage. I merely meant none of the SF
> >games (saving perhaps vs. trash) needs MORE block damage than it already
> >has. Thanks to parries, chipping doesn't play anywhere near the role it
> >should. Yet another downside to parries...
>
> I *WAS* focusing on the more part, thank you. Three needs to do
> more block damage on generic specials, and it needs more blockstun to back
> it up. Block damage is all but gone in three, it does about as much as a
> taunt.
I agree that the majority of specials don't do enough block damage, plus the blockstun is kinda
screwy. However, I still don't think, on the whole, that block damage needs to be increased in 3. I have a few
other issues with damage settings in the 3s, including nonexistant projectile damage, poor damage scaling
(super cancels + chains should scale much more than they do), and... <scratches head> I know there was another
one...
> > Actually, you also mentioned block damage, super cancelling, and something else (too lazy to go
> >back and look).
>
> There were five total.
????
> Ditching air parries. Hrm, not really much of a problem.
> Basically everyone uses air defense that allows for a quick recovery
> anyway, so if they air parry the only thing that happens is they get
> thrown. Ie, air guy parrys Necro low strong, Necro parrys jump in, Necro
> throws or hits the guy. Same for a bunch of others. If I was going to
> make something unparryable, just make specials unparryable. You don't
> even need to make supers unparryable (takes enough work anyway, not
> really scrubby)... and that'd do it.
> Fireballs should do, oh, quadruple damage, or at least quad stun.
> Balance is really really good overall.
> Supercancels must die. Just a bad idea in theory, like ACs were.
> But at least the damage is lowered on the super itself.
Check, check, and check. Fine with me.
> Art is quite good in SF3, I've never had reason to complain. BGs
> are quite nice IMHO, and especially compared to other fighers:
>
> KOF (the few I've seen): No
Disagree... KoF '97 Art Gallery as Exhibit A.
> SS: No
Disagree... SS2 had beautiful backgrounds (3's go from "WOW!" to "BLAH!"), and the characters are, on
the whole, so well drawn for 1-4.
> Very Shitty: HELL NO.
MvC has fairly good art, actually. It's a shame the game sucks...
> 3D games.. uhm any of them: No
EX's art was OK.... other than that, a resounding no.
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
> I *did* play a lot HF, and not against SNES's CPU, and have
>started playing ST again.
Well, when you remember what HF was all about, and figure out ST,
be sure to check back in with us. Then read some of your comments below
and tell me if you find them as unbelievable as I do...
Why was 2 so good? I don't think I want to get
>into an argument that long.
I'm sure you *don't* want to get into it, yet you ask me to do
just that in a later post. Answering that question is a bit more
effort than I'm willing to make for no particular purpose, in a
random thread. Wait for my thesis...
>>Unfortunately, it's not really. More like a pattycake guessi
>[zonk]
> It's a range game, just not the same range game that one thinks of
>in 2. Same words, slighty different implications.
If you want to be serious here, then don't waste my time (or your
own) with stuff like this. The implications are "slightly" different?
Implications are often what you take them to be, so let me try and be
clear, so you can see that my choice of names is not the primary issue.
In earlier SFs, a lot of the important action took place at ranges well
outside of the reach of either character's limbs. This aspect of the
game (one of the most interesting and delicate) is basically 100%
gone from SF3. Do ranges still have some (drastically reduced) role?
Yes. Duh.
> Option select, as in parry before you do, uhm, well, anything but
>dash? I don't consider the increase to be vast by any stretch.
Well, I'm glad you don't "consider" the increase to be very
significant. However, it is. I'd request that you wait until you see
someone who can do it before you make a claim one way or the other.
>> Yes, in SF3, you always have *some* kind of chance, but the reason
>>for this is a stupid one: parries.
> Take out the parrys, and I still think that there are no blowouts
>10-0.
Very probably true. But the reason for this is still not one
for SF3 to be proud of. Most of the worst washouts in SF2 games came
from some kind of evil pattern you could lay down, that the other guy
couldn't do anything about. You don't get this in 3, because even
apart from parries, FBs play essentially zero role (and FBs were usually
essential to such traps). Without FBs, the best trap you can get is
with some kind of repeated body attack, and this can always be countered,
even if (in terms of percentages) you get slaughtered in the long run.
Still, in SF2s defense, 10-0 washouts were incredibly rare (maybe
2 over the course of hundreds of different matchups?), and even then,
sometimes they were pretty cool.
Why was Zangief, far and away the worst
>>character in ST, always competitive and a serious threat, turning up
>>as a non-joke character in tournaments routinely? Why don't we see
>>this with Elena?
> In our games, we *did* see Oros, Elenas, and what not come out and
>play. Just like ol' Z.
I have yet to see Elena (I'm not convinced Oro is that bad) be
"pulled out" to anywhere near the effectiveness of Zangief. And with
all due respect, I take the fact that there was *none* of this in the
SJG tournament to be a lot more significant than the occassional Elena
appearance in Woodward Court squabbles.
And while Chicago is not the SF mecca, Woodward
>Court does indeed take the top prize for (citywide)SF skill, it would
>seem, for 97. Whether or not Chris can make up for losing Jason and clean
>up this summer remains to be seen, but we did play against a bunch of
>other Chicago players and yes, those low tiered characters were indeed
>used with success.
> No. 2i, you see "reversal", and you *still* get stuffed every
>time. Only super reversals work, or parry reversals. Pretty stupid.
Yes, I agree these things are stupid. They're "extra stupid"
in virtue of the fact that both of the reversal options you mention
are 100% effective (nothing seems to stop a super in its early frames,
and parries also can't really be "reversed" as such (although there are
some tricky things you can do to people who are forced to parry, these
are usually very hard to set up, and themselves require a super...).
>> Tech hits are silly, but not a major problem. Notice 2I also
>>has whatever that "push away dual throw" feature, which seems akin to
>>tech hits.
> I've always assumed that's what it is.
I guess. I just don't know.
>> Chaining into specials or supers (or both) is just retarded,
>>and a major factor in SF3 (again, who are the better characters? What
>>are they all especially good at? Dumb)
> The better characters are Akuma, Yun, Yang, and Ibuki. Akuma
>doesn't really chain all that much, and Ibuki's best stuff is all 2in1s,
>or links. Yun and Yang are indeed retarded, I knew this when the first
>reports came in long ago, along with crap about the skateboard being used
>as a weapon.
Even if Ibuki and Akuma don't chain in the technical sense of the
word, their combos are essentially similar and equally easy (in fact,
tons o' links is worse than tons o' chains, as links allow full damage
from all moves involved. Ugh). They build on high priority totally
safe opening moves into very damaging combos, and are the most mobile
characters as well. Weak. There is really no similar set of defining
characteristics among the top characters in pre-Alpha SFs. While there
might be a definitive upper tier, everyone in it wasn't there for the
same reason (ie. Balrog, Bison, and O.Sagat all play very differently,
yet all are extremely strong in ST)
> Change the motion, or give it a wiff, or whatever, and most of the
>problems fall away. Or give it an automatic, low damage (between jab and
>strong) knockdown on success, setting up a wake up game.
I think there's a lot to be said here, but it doesn't interest
me right now.
> Honda's? I thought it wouldn't combo all its hits even if it
>connected? It's still good to pass FBs, IIRC. An old Master John thread,
>I must have misread it.
You could connect all the hits from certain ranges (although
not from all ranges), but to think of it in terms of comboing ability
is to completely miss it's real value as an escape tool, and extra
way to exert real pressure (due in no small part to the charging
glitch, very nice).
> I still think it's a matter of "fairness" or balance(bad term
>here). It seems silly to have meter that only matters for less than half
>of the cast.
I agree, it is silly. Supers were not a well thought-out
addition to ST, and to some extent, they hurt the game (although they
are also responsible for making some matches interesting as well).
And no, supers *aren't* a very important consideration, like
>I said, ST had minor problems. And no, age is NOT one of them.
Agreed.
Seth Killian
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>> There are more factors than simple damage in deciding what counts
>>as overpowered.
> I took his useful-overpowered statement to mean simple damage, and
>in that sense, his argument doesn't hold. I don't care to argue about
>whether or not they are truly overpowered anyways, there are multiples for
>each character, and that's that.
Your "simple damage" interpretation of over-powered is clearly
ridiculous, as this would suggest that T.Hawk and Zangief had the best
supers in ST. Overpowered clearly has other aspects, like usefulness,
number of chances to connect with, and ease of charging (and damage,
of course). Yes, the Tenshin (whatever the rolling kick thing is)
has a long charge bar relative to it's damage, but Yang charges 3x
as fast as a lot of other characters, and the super is still pretty
damn nice...
> I know. What happened to "alpha will be left for beginning
>players while the main game will cater to more expert players"? I think
>that was on capcom's hp for a while...
I'm sure they think they are catering to expert players. I've
decided it's just naive to think that Capcom would or does have any
interest in producing a seriously great game, and the comparative
success of the VS series bodes very ill indeed.
That's why you should play ST :)
Seth Killian
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>>spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:<----------\
> |
>>Practically no one |
>>who makes these types of comparisons has given me any kind of reason to|
>>think they understood either HF or ST in the first place. |
> |
> Hrm, enlighten me then, why was, in your opinion, 2 a good game.|
>By itself, mind you, and with no reference to it didn't have this |
>mindless feature or other garbage. I want to see your take. |
It will cost you. No way I'm sinking days into typing that
up on a whim. And please, if you're going to try sniping at me here
with "well maybe you don't have such great reasons why SF2 was good
in the first place then!", save it. I'm really not interested, and
you're not going to goad me into that much effort when I don't have
the time.
>And for fucks sake, READ MY DAMNED ATTRIBUTION LINES -------------------/.
>It's cap S, low h, low a, low u, low n. I get enough mail, electronic and
>not, addressed to fucking Sean, to make me puke. I don't call you Killan
>and you don't call me Sean.
Please, forgive my offhanded misspelling of your name in
another thread. Your visceral delivery has made me realize the full
gravity of a situation I otherwise might not have thought much of.
PS- people call me "Sean/Shawn/Shaun/(even)Shane" all the time.
I usually have something more important to worry about, like
the Coke/Pepsi wars, or what time "The Jeffersons" is coming
on...
>Thank you and good day.
>Shaun Patrick McIsaac
Good day to you sir,
Seth Killian
seth james killian
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
>> Most glaring however, is the (apparently intentional) obfuscation
>>of the very obvious fact that these combos were very rarely landed in
>>earlier SFs (and not because the players weren't good enough to do them),
>>whereas in SF3, it's rare that you DON'T see one of the big chains into
>>supers (at least once a match, and often more than once per ROUND). The
>>chances to land your killer combo in SF3 are routine, whereas in SF2 they
>>were extremely rare (against semi-decent comp).
> Yah yah, you're not going to see fierce, fierce, dragon punch in a
>tournament. And I suppose you reject the idea of the misblocked crossover
>too?
Right. I hope you've enjoyed reading what you've typed, because
now it's time to get back to that pesky lil' thing I call "the point":
to wit, I was talking about the relative frequency of such combos. Let
me say it again: In 3/2I, you see these things often more than once in the
*same round*. In SF2, you probably *would* have to watch the entire
tournament to see a few combos on this order (seriously. Watch some
more ST (or before) tournaments). Crossovers are a big factor, but
again, let's keep the point in mind: even crossovers are *FAR* less
common than chains/links into supers. A crossover requires that you
knock your opponent down (usually anyway), be at the appropriate distance
when doing so, and then he still has to guess wrong (and this all assumes
you are even playing a character that *can* crossover to begin with,
which was not always the case). A chain into super requires what?
That Yang dive kick at you successfully once in a round?
> Shoeboxes. Why in hell would ANYONE have done this if every
>crossover was blocked or dragon punched. (And about handwatching - it's
>not an all or nothing thing, you don't have to be godlike with this to get
>more use of your jumps.)
Eat facts: Big combos are far less common in earlier SFs, and
not for lack of player ability, or some new "craftiness" on the part of
all SF3 players. The handwatching analogy is silly. The various
methods of getting off multiple parry chances in ordinary motions
are very effective (in 3 moreso than 2I, apparently). Have you ever
seen it done?
>I am going back to my work, in all its varying forms, the ST machine,
>Super, and with some luck MPM.
The ST machine? Where? Where? MPM? What? What?
Seth Killian
teve...@pacbell.net
Just wanted to correct you on one little thing, Seth. Otherwise, I'm
just reading and nodding my head. :)
seth james killian wrote:
>
> A crossover requires that you
> knock your opponent down (usually anyway), be at the appropriate distance
> when doing so, and then he still has to guess wrong (and this all assumes
> you are even playing a character that *can* crossover to begin with,
> which was not always the case).
When I saw this, I had to rub my eyes.
Actually Seth, everybody (except Dhalsim, to my knowledge, though it
would seem possible with the roundhouse Yoga Drill) in ST can crossup.
Of course, some characters had a near impossible time of doing it
because of their ground speed and jumps and stuff like that, but....
Ryu/Ken: Jumping forward. (I think roundhouse worked for Ryu in ST.)
Chun Li: Jumping anything.
Guile: Jumping short, forward, and fierce. (Yeah...fierce.)
E. Honda: Jumping fierce and jumping d+forward.
Blanka: Jumping fierce and any jumping kick.
Zangief: Jumping d+fierce.
Cammy: Jumping short and any jumping punch.
Dee Jay: Jumping forward and roundhouse. (That one I'm sure you already
know.)
Fei Long: Jumping forward and roundhouse.
T. Hawk: Jumping forward, fierce, roundhouse, and jumping d+fierce.
Balrog: Jumping fierce/roundhouse.
Vega: Jumping fierce and any jumping kick. (These are hard to do, but
possible.)
Sagat: Jumping short.
Bison: Jumping forward and roundhouse.
Anyway, I'm sure you know about most of those, but there just may have
been some that you didn't know about. (Personally, your statement led
me to think that you may have thought that some of the above characters
couldn't crossup, which is why I typed that whole list.)
Onaje
('cause I can't help it when somebody leaves out something....I gotta
resopnd.)
seth james killian
teve...@pacbell.net writes:
>When I saw this, I had to rub my eyes.
>Actually Seth, everybody (except Dhalsim, to my knowledge, though it
>would seem possible with the roundhouse Yoga Drill) in ST can crossup.
>Of course, some characters had a near impossible time of doing it
>because of their ground speed and jumps and stuff like that, but....
Looks like I got a little ahead of myself. Yes, as you suspected,
I was aware of the potential for virtually everyone to hit with a
crossup attack, but in an effort to make my point, what I wrote
certainly does imply that I think some characters can't. All I was
trying to make clear is although everyone can do it (Dhalsim can do
it w/a flying jab. Useless, but there it is), for many characters,
this isn't a real option in a match (spacing *very* tight, some
characters don't knock down a lot, etc).
All of this was by way of making it clear that although crossups
sometimes open up devastating possibilities, they are both less common
and effective than the strategies that open up similarly giant combos
in SF3/2I.
I guess I should say that I believe (although there are a few
exceptions, like most of Dhalsim's attacks), *any* aerial attack can
technically hit as a crossup. Most aerial moves have their hit sprites
in the wrong place for this to be of any real use, but a few do (ie the
good crossup attacks).
Blah blah blah.
Seth Killian
Jeff Jarlett
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
>
> In article <6gt84s$fau$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
> Jeffrey Paul Jarlett <jpja...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> >In article <ErByo...@midway.uchicago.edu>, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) writes:
> >> In article <3530E2...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
> >> Jeff Jarlett <jpja...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> >> >Shaun Patrick Mcisaac wrote:
> >> >Bullshit. I hate the dial-a-combo crap more than parrys. If you fook
> >> >parries out balance may actually even be worse... BTW i Have played 3,
> >> >just not 2I.
> >> >Or par with ST and HF is flat-out wrong.
> Misblocked crossup. Incorrect guess, lose. Start it from a
> knockdown, against certain ppl.
Vs a decent oppoent, you are at most going to get one chance at a
crossup per round, and most good players can wake-up uppercut almost any
jump-in for at least a trade if not a clean hit. Also if you play
certain characters, you are going to have ven fewer chances.
> >Hashin Sho not very damaging, you land one of those it is OVER. (not 2i
> >I know) I hated that infinite.
>
> Yah it was pretty stupid. What were they thinking?
They weren't.
>
> >Also who is not going to land a tenshin sekutai??? Scrubs only or on a
> >screw-up.
>
> Go to Tenshin a limb, 'cept that was low jab, not low strong.
> not a common happening, tho.
Why waste a super on that, easier to parry the limb, then chain into
Tenshin. SOmeone who tries to tenshin a limb either doesn't know what
he is doing, or he is really trying to show off.
> They're still *way* to easy to do.
>
> >As for supercancelling being a killer, true. Easy chains are as well.
>
> They don't do much by themselves. 1-2-3 is really kinda piddly.
1-2-3 makes it a LOT easier to combo into a special into a super.
cancelling a jab into a super is much harder than spazzing say, Sakura's
3 or 4 low shorts into a super uppercut or strong, fierce, b+fierce into
super...
> And since when have chains been anything *but* easy?
VH maybe.