Topic: SF4 & The FGC - The Effect and Onwards

[Proto Cloud]

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.

Well now your true colors shine.

First off, I don't play SFIV, you dolt, I hate it. I've said this multiple times, but apparently reading comprehension is too much for a person like you. I only defend it because it's not as bad as some people here make it out to be. It's a solid game, all things considered. I don't like it, but I sure as hell respect it.

Second, I called you Lucifer because your name basically says it. LouisCipher. I'm joking on behest of your name and I thought it was based on Shin Megami Tensei and not some shitty anime.

Third, your comparing it to Alpha 3 which IS A SEQUEL AND NOT A REVISION. Thus it's a DIFFERENT GAME.

And Satsu answered the last one for me. Now I'm done talking to you. I don't need to debase myself with someone that finds FHD to be a good game and trash SFIV only because he thinks that it's the great Satan because everyone plays it and not XIII. Newsflash, there's Call of Duty, look it up. It's a far worse problem. You can keep your hipster ideals to yourself.

[Saitsuofleaves]

Now you're just misspelling my name to annoy me.

[Xxenace]

Now you're just misspelling my name to annoy me.

you're just now noticing this?

[desmond_kof]

Now I'm done talking to you.

And now please leave it at that.

[fujifujifujifuji]

With that sort of view we'll never get to the heights of RTS and shooters because that's an archaic way of thinking

I think it is unlikely that fighting games would ever be as big as those two. But sure, it could be bigger that what it is now. Fighting games are very confrontational, only highly competitive people can derive enjoyment from them. Most average people are turned off from such direct competition. Even in FPS you often cooperate with your teams and even if you spent your time underachieving, your team can still win, in RTS you ordered little people or machines around, and your opponent's little people and building, it's very indirect. Fighting games are very direct, very competitive, it's in their very nature that fighting games are repulsive to most.

but you don't have to be hardheaded about its necessity

oh, but I can't change my deeply-held opinion man. Please respect my point of view, even if it's wrong and archaic and old-fashioned, I think it is true. But if you insist, then I'm sorry, and I really think that in-depth tutorials are necessary. There....I believe you are satisfied, hmm? now can we move on?

I have an interesting question that I will ask to everybody: It is an interesting topic, I think.

[spoiler]"Do you believe that fighting games will be as big as RTS and/or FPS some day in the future?"[/spoiler]

[baccano1932]

In regards to SF4's effect on the community I feel like the reason people were originally drawn to it isn't only a result of the simplified gameplay elements, rather it has just as much to do with the recoginizability of the franchise and characters to the casual audience and people who had been playing games for a long time were more inclined to play. In addition to this the online component of the game where it managed to maintain a strong online community for an extended period of time which is something most fighting games have struggled greatly at. In other words people may have gone on to be competitive players or played for a long period of time because of the simplified mechanics, I don't feel like it was the reason why they picked up the game to begin with ( Whether or not this distinction is important or not is up to you I just feel like it is. )

When it comes to all this "in depth tutorial vs. learn it yo damn self" debate I think it's worth pointing out that just about every other genre of games takes the time to clearly explain and detail the different elements of gameplay and introduces the pieces in a clear manner, sometimes even to a fault ie: FFXIII. and that ignoring the trend in games to break things down for the player would be a mistake.

In addition to this when it comes to things like combos and other elements of fighting games how many people can say they came up with their own combos, setups etc. and didn't pick them up from an outside source? Who can say they came up with their own HD combos? The point being as things currently stand I don't think most people learn many things on their own anymore regardless if they're a casual or tournament player. They go to Youtube or sites like this to learn things they don't come up with them on their own anymore so why shouldn't the game incorporate tools to help people instead of them scouring Youtube or wherever else .

"Do you believe that fighting games will be as big as RTS and/or FPS some day in the future?"

Yes I believe they can be as big as thoose genres but I think that there are many external factors that are very hard to measure/change. As some of the biggest reasons why these genres are bigger have to with a) the number of people who currntly play said genres and b) the concentration of players in each game, in other words there are more people playing fewer games and c) peoples tastes and preferences in games skews more towards thoose genres opposed to fighting games.
Now you can correct me if i'm wrong on any of these points since in all honesty i'm not all too familiar with either of thoose scenes and this is just my view as someone looking from the outside in so take it with a grain of salt either way.

[LouisCipher]

Well, last time I try to be intentionally cheeky, some dude will freak out.

As an aside; I always thought of the Alpha series as being revisions of the same game. Like SF2 to CE, Turbo, etc or SF3 NG, 2I, and finally 3S. The story in each revision never acknowledges the events of the previous revision so it's fair to assume.

[Saitsuofleaves]

A1 to A2 was a pure revision sure.  But the story did undergo advancements from 2-3 (other than the Charlie thing for understandable reasons) and the gameplay received quite an overhaul due to the ISM system.  Or at least a much bigger one than any other in-series of SF.

However the Alpha series is very wonky in a sense out of its placement.  You could probably acknowledge it as both and not be wrong.  Capcom as a whole has a bad time with this sort of thing, especially when you look at other series like the Vs. Series from XvSF up until MvC1.

[LouisCipher]

I think the Alpha series was supposed to be a prequel to SF2 and therefore replace SF1 in terms of continuity. Which makes sense when you think about it. I wish Genki made the cut in the Alpha series.

[Saitsuofleaves]

I think the Alpha series was supposed to be a prequel to SF2 and therefore replace SF1 in terms of continuity. Which makes sense when you think about it. I wish Genki made the cut in the Alpha series.

It WAS a prequel to SF2, hence why Charlie's endings kept getting retconned until A3.  But it didn't replace SF1 in continuity as it was a sequel to SF1.  You know, hence why Sagat has his scar at all and the avenue for which Sakura became a near-stalker (she wasn't in SF1, but I'm guessing it's assumed that the SF1 tourney is what drew Sakura to Ryu).

I was just saying, it tends to be weird about either just being revisions or being straight sequels (this is mostly talking about A2 to A3.  A1 does not exist).

[Mr Bakaboy]

I have an interesting question that I will ask to everybody: It is an interesting topic, I think.

[spoiler]"Do you believe that fighting games will be as big as RTS and/or FPS some day in the future?"[/spoiler]

Personally I think that's what Street Fighter IV was trying to accomplish, but IMO they succeeded in part and failed in another.

To me it seemed Capcom tried to make fighting games more cut and dry in that the more you play, the better you will be at the game. In SFIV the moves and combos that really work are quite limited compared to other fighting games. Meaning the strategies are as well. In doing so it puts people on a more even playing field. If player a and player b know all the strategies for each of the characters they are facing, then it comes down to a test of who is more seasoned, in that game rather then who can come up with the best strategy, where knowledge of past fighters would help. This difference shows when the new players hit KOF XIII. They go through all the tutorials, know the deadly combos, yet still get hammered by someone who looks like they know less, but has a better strategy cause they are an old school kofer. In SFIV if you do the missions and spend a little time looking at a couple strategies of the pros, you are going to win over someone who doesn't 95-99% of the time no matter how many fighters they have played. No matter if this is your 1st SF or not.

In doing this you are going to get more players off of other genres cause there is a direct way to get better. If I do what Capcom told me to practice on and play a few matches I can level up my game fast.

From a pros standpoint if each pro know all the situations of the other pro and vice versa then it plain comes down to a battle of who is more skilled rather then someone who does something no one expects surprising everyone then everyone complaining about luck or bad matchups (though at pro level you would think this doesn't happen too much). The more cut and dry you make it the better it is for classifying who is the best.

In doing all of this though you alienate all the older fans. Ones who play the more complex versions and you also alienate the fans who play fighting game to devise new strategies rather being the best at the few that everyone uses. It makes the game look pretty boring after a while.

When it comes down to it it's all in what you like, but when you find a new group of people to play your fighting game, but piss off your old group of people, to me, it doesn't seem like you will grow to be as big as the other genres. Maybe it's just me?

[solidshark]

^It's not just you. Just by looking at some of the latest AE tournament footage, that's sort of what it feels like. Answer said something similar in a Orochinagi podcast a while ago that he thinks SF4 has a skill-cap, where you can only go so far with the game with leveling up.

It explains why more people are saying AE2012 might be forgotten soon in a few years; I wonder if they expect Ultimate to pick up the slack, or if a new Cap fighter will be the new main game. If it's supposed to be Darkstalkers though, I barely half of the SF4 fans moving to that one.

[Proto Cloud]

You guys know that RTS games aren't that big though? There is literally Blizzard and NOTHING ELSE.

[Tyrant292]

Seriously guys!

No one watched the video, I posted if so no one commented.

No I dont think fighting games will ever be as big as FPS's or RTS's but they can become big. If they become big I think they will turn to the worse, they will become SFIV's or worse maybe because most big games are cash cows.

[solidshark]

Seriously guys!

No one watched the video, I posted if so no one commented.

No I dont think fighting games will ever be as big as FPS's or RTS's but they can become big. If they become big I think they will turn to the worse, they will become SFIV's or worse maybe because most big games are cash cows.

Sorry Tyrant, just watched the 3rd Strike video. The patience of that Q fighter was impecable, especially against Yun. Thanks for sharing that. Good reminder of why I still play that from time to time.