SF4 & The FGC - The Effect and Onwards

[sibarraz]

if they really wanted to kill sf 3, the game would have never been past the second version

33 had lots of problems, the CPS3 was/ is really advanced for 2d graphics, and I guess than doing 2d games for it would have been really expensive yet not worthy since those games would be incredible hard to port to the popular console psx (which I think jojo's was the only port) plus 2d were declining so an only 2d board which isn't incredible cheap as the neo geo couldn't be as attractive to lots of operators

Also the game was lackluster in NG, I guess that they suffered the same fate than SNKP, the game was costing to produce too much and needed to make some bucks quick

Also funny story, I recall hearing than the Naomi was originally and only 3D board (or more than that, a board where the tools for optime 2d games could be hard), but that Capcom convinced Sega to make it a bit more oriented it to 2d since they saw a big business coming with Capcom vs Snk 1, and I guess that they were right if the rumour is true

[LouisCipher]

I'm not saying the game isn't hard, I'm not that godlike. What I mean is that the game isn't hard for casuals to play against each other. Get what I mean? Idiots that mash buttons, do jumping HK and crouching HK combos, and pick Shoto characters can play with each other and think it's awesome. That goes with any fighter. The casuals can enjoy it so long as they're playing other casuals once they play someone who knows their shit they're going to get raped. That also applies to any fighter... except for SF4 which rewards mashing and random Ultras but that's something else.

My point is that just because Joe Schmoe can't play like Kuroda doesn't mean he can't enjoy a game, especially back in the day before online and you didn't have to worry too much about encountering godlike players.

But the question as to why 3S was made is interesting and I don't think I could answer that one.

[Proto Cloud]

I see what you're saying, but having mechanics people can't grasp and having said mechanics used on them to get bodied turns them off.

[Xxenace]

I see what you're saying, but having mechanics people can't grasp and having said mechanics used on them to get bodied turns them off.

true i never could get a grasp on parrying no matter how hard i tried and i get super annoyed when some can parry all my shit with no problem

[Mr Bakaboy]

if they really wanted to kill sf 3, the game would have never been past the second version

33 had lots of problems, the CPS3 was/ is really advanced for 2d graphics, and I guess than doing 2d games for it would have been really expensive yet not worthy since those games would be incredible hard to port to the popular console psx (which I think jojo's was the only port) plus 2d were declining so an only 2d board which isn't incredible cheap as the neo geo couldn't be as attractive to lots of operators

Also the game was lackluster in NG, I guess that they suffered the same fate than SNKP, the game was costing to produce too much and needed to make some bucks quick

Also funny story, I recall hearing than the Naomi was originally and only 3D board (or more than that, a board where the tools for optime 2d games could be hard), but that Capcom convinced Sega to make it a bit more oriented it to 2d since they saw a big business coming with Capcom vs Snk 1, and I guess that they were right if the rumour is true

Now your story confuses me. I've always been told the Naomi is basically a slightly stronger Dreamcast. Now I never heard of a dreamcast as a 3d only system. Even when it was the Kitana the most I heard 3d wise was it can do a much better job then the Saturn, but the main concern was to make it easy to program for.

I am not 100% sure about all of this and trying to remember all the old Kitana rumors from 14 - 16 years ago was next to impossible anymore.

[fujifujifujifuji]

Ey ey are we talking about SFIV here or SF3? hahaha anyway, Sf3 is good stuff...but I heard about it too late. So yeah, too little exposure to the public. Plus too drastic a change, it felt simply too shocking for the long-time SF players, had Capcom persevered, SF3 might be successful.

Listen, Proto...all I'm saying is, whether SFIV is a god-given gift to FGC now DEPENDED on what games you hold dear. I completely understand the points (I even agreed they are legitimate) you said about SFIV being the very reason we all have these wonderful fighting games being made again, it's just that I don't agree with it. And so far, everything you said didn't convince me. You'd best leave the issue for a while...it's no big deal.

The same goes for the tutorial bit, I'm not making fun of them. All I'm saying was we managed without tutorials before, why can't we manage now? it's not about "exceeding" my skills, I have very little anyway, it's about newer players needing more hand-holding, and in my view THAT IS NOT RIGHT. But time's changed as I said, and I decided to follow your view that in-depth tutorial is essential and therefore needed.....but here's MY point of view: I think the lack of tutorial is just fine.
I said "Go ahead, but I think it's unnecessary"

[LouisCipher]

I think the real crime of the SF4 series is that each iteration fixed nothing but added characters and a 2nd Ultra. Compare it to the many iterations of the other SF's and you can plainly see (for better or worse) that new mechanics and some of them being drastically new were added.

SF4 could've been fixed if the reversal window was greatly tweaked, Ultras were nerfed, you gain Ultra by being aggressive and not just taking damage, and imho Focus attacks that absorb more than one hit and perhaps air Focus Attacks.

Just things like that would've resulted in an almost entirely different game.

[Saitsuofleaves]

At that point though, if you were going to make that many changes, you'd be better served just starting a new series with new mechanics.

[Tyrant292]

I think the real crime of the SF4 series is that each iteration fixed nothing but added characters and a 2nd Ultra. Compare it to the many iterations of the other SF's and you can plainly see (for better or worse) that new mechanics and some of them being drastically new were added.

SF4 could've been fixed if the reversal window was greatly tweaked, Ultras were nerfed, you gain Ultra by being aggressive and not just taking damage, and imho Focus attacks that absorb more than one hit and perhaps air Focus Attacks.

Just things like that would've resulted in an almost entirely different game.

The main problem for me with SFIV is that its closed, it's not an open game, you cant be creative with it. Unlike its predecessors. The only games now that give you such experience are KoF XIII and BB.

As for SFIII 3rd strike this is just an example of how pro it is.
SFIII: 3rd Strike Kuroda PV

This is the best SF 3rd strike fighter some of you know him probably.

[Proto Cloud]

Alrighty, Lucifer.

1- Each revision did make the game better. I'd advise you to go back to vanilla SFIV and tell if that was ANY WAY BETTER than the new ones. Vanilla was atrocious, unbalanced and awful in many ways.
2- Reversal windows are the least of people's worries
3- Ultras have already been nerfed since inception. In fact, most characters don't even rely on ultras anymore and only use it as a deterrent.
4- BB isn't as "open" as people make it out to be and each iteration has only made it worse.

The only things that really are wrong in the game are that it has it is very slow and it relies way too heavily on matchups. That's it.

The same goes for the tutorial bit, I'm not making fun of them. All I'm saying was we managed without tutorials before, why can't we manage now? it's not about "exceeding" my skills, I have very little anyway, it's about newer players needing more hand-holding, and in my view THAT IS NOT RIGHT. But time's changed as I said, and I decided to follow your view that in-depth tutorial is essential and therefore needed.....but here's MY point of view: I think the lack of tutorial is just fine.
I said "Go ahead, but I think it's unnecessary"

With that sort of view we'll never get to the heights of RTS and shooters because that's an archaic way of thinking. By thinking, "Well, gee this has always worked before", isn't a correct way of thinking. You neglect to see how far we've gotten with such systems. We now have more players than ever because we have more learning tools available. If we didn't we'd be stuck in the 90s where 99% of players played like total crap because the 1% knew everything and kept it mostly to themselves.

Honestly, I think that you don't like the fact that now there's better pool of players that know what they're doing and wish it was like the old days where if you knew even a little about the system, you'd beat out competition like it's nobody's business.That's like saying well, "I'm going to teach myself baseball because I don't need help from nobody." Look how far that's gotten people. It's all about community and thinking about new ways of bringing more and stronger competition is never a bad idea.

It's fine you don't like having tutorials, but you don't have to be hardheaded about its necessity because I don't see you blowing up EVO anytime soon.

[LouisCipher]

Alrighty, Lucifer.

1- Each revision did make the game better. I'd advise you to go back to vanilla SFIV and tell if that was ANY WAY BETTER than the new ones. Vanilla was atrocious, unbalanced and awful in many ways.
2- Reversal windows are the least of people's worries
3- Ultras have already been nerfed since inception. In fact, most characters don't even rely on ultras anymore and only use it as a deterrent.
4- BB isn't as "open" as people make it out to be and each iteration has only made it worse.

The only things that really are wrong in the game are that it has it is very slow and it relies way too heavily on matchups. That's it.

Oh QQ and go back to playing SF4 PC with your nude Sakura mod. And it's Louiscipher you dick. Watch Angel Heart. Gahd.

But seriously, changing the mechanics would've fixed the matchup problem. For example: the only reason the low tier characters have a decent chance against Chun/Yun in 3S are specifically because of the mechanics.

1: Not really. Characters were added and have been buffed/nerfed in every iteration, and a 2nd Ultra was added. Nothing too different was put into the game like say the groove system in A3 over A2 or improving the parry system and adding red parries in 3S.

2: The reversal window is a problem and always will be. Ask anyone. And Ultras work in addition to that. Too much reward for mashing that shit out.

[Saitsuofleaves]

On the contrary.  The reversal window was only a problem due to the fact that said reversals are very invulnerable and have the FADC system to make them safe.  Take away the FADC system alone, and see how many people trying doing it as much.

[solidshark]

Off-topic from the gameplay talk, but does anyone wish that Capcom could've handled each new version as totally DLC like they did from Super to AE. That's one of the few things I was looking forward to this gen - one-disc support at a reasonable price ($15) while not splitting the fanbase according to purchases.

[LouisCipher]

They could've easily done that seeing as the original SF4 sold about 6 million copies. But they went with a disc-based release so they could make a few extra dollars. I remember Michael Pachter talking about how much developers make from retail copies and I believe the stores make $10 off the retail price. whereas for DLC Micro$oft and $ony take half. So if they release all the characters from Super for $20 or character packs for $8 or $10 they wouldn't be making as much per sale of a retail copy but they'd probably be making more in the long run given the higher number of people owning a copy of SF4 and having internet access. THEN they could release a disc with all the DLC like with MK9 Komplete.

I can only guess the Jap Executives have their heads up their ass.

[solidshark]

I can only guess the Jap Executives have their heads up their ass.

With the money they're making, probably not. Though doing things differently might be better for them in the long run. More customer loyalty, less people threatening to not buy their stuff day 1 or even boycotting.