|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 5, 2010 23:00:11 GMT -5
It's pretty absurd to think every game you make is gonna be a hit. Especially, when SF IV was not a hit in anyway and If you're gonna bring up SFIII sales bring actually figures my man. SF IV sold around 2 million that's not much higher than fighters that came out a decade ago. What new stuff does SF IV add? Ultra's aren't new, and saving is a combination of a bunch of old shit. What exactly is new dawg? None of those games even resemble each other in anyway down to the character animations. SFIV is the least ground breaking and this is a game that came out after SF has been absent from 10 years. That's alot of time to come up with something new. So, what are you getting at? No, it wasn't it more like SFIV is as different as Super Turbo is from Hyper Fighting. the difference is definitely not as big. Hell, SF IV even recycled the old animations from SFII. Not even SF III did that. How about a new cast how about some new mechanics? I mean obviously some things have to stay the same or the game would not be street fighter game. My beef is SFIV experiments very very little and claiming that adding things would turn the game into smash bros is really absurd. Because that's really not what i was getting at. We are talking about a game that builds a brand new engine with every installment. Why could they have not done the same thing? Don't bring up SFIII because I'm not asking for another SFIII, I'm asking for a new game. Because new players don't care about a game as old as SFII enough for them to miss the older mechanics. Tekken 4 was broken, though. Tekken 5 fixed it, but I agree. Yeah, but MVC2 didn't wait a decade before it made a new installment. Didn't take 10 years to come out with Garou and on a next gen console no less. 1. No, it's absurd to think that one of your titles is NOT goin' to be a hit. There is no point in makin' a game if it's gonna tank. Are you sayin' that sellin' over 2.5 million copies after a decade of hiatus is not a success? It doesn't matter what past games have sold, 2.5 million is good and now SFIV is a "Platinum Title". I refuse to believe that any FG that wasn't 3D was slangin' over 2.5 million units 10 yrs ago. 2. I don't remember any SF lookin' like IV. I don't remember Ultra's in SF. I don't remember Focus attacks or Focus Cancels in any SF. I don't remember 90% of the stages in IV bein' in any other SFs. Don't remember Trial Modes. I damn sure don't remember C.Viper, Abel, El Feurte, and Seth. And I can go on about the things I've seen in SFIV that's not in the other SF games. That's why SFIV is enough FOR ME. Not FOR YOU, FOR ME. 3. Lol, but all those games DO resemble each other...HEAVILY. That's why they're still SF games. Besides throw away the cast that made them famous, it's done everything every other new SF has done. Capcom has decided to do what normal developers who have large character fan bases do. Don't rid the game of everyone's favorite characters, just add new ones to the existin' roster. There is more to makin' a new game than cast drops. 4. I disagree wit that statement, entirely, and found nothin you said to be true. 5. A new cast? EVERYONE DOESN'T WANT THAT. A LOT of people like Bison, Blanka and Guile. Capcom aint makin' a new SF just for you, your demands are outrageous. Makin' Gouken playable and the 5 new characters is more than enuff. New mechanics? I thought that's what Focus and Focus Cancels were, beats the livin' shit outta parryin'. I will admit that SFIV plays similar to SFII unlike the others but it adds enough characters, mechanics from others SFs, and new moves to be good. What the hell is so wrong wit buildin' off of a old engine rather than ALWAYS makin' a new one? Constantly chaingin' how SF plays eventually failed them in the end, goin' back to basix lead them to success, don't blame SFIV for the fact that SF fans didn't buy SFIII. Change is good, but not when it is ALWAYS certain and constant. 6. I guess it wouldn't take a decade to add new 2D sprites to the same game over and over. 7. Yup Garou MOTW didn't take 10yrs, 'came out a year after Real Bout Garou Densetsu Special. AND despite it's seemingly greatness to the few that bought it, it was one of many failures that led to the companies eventual bankruptcy, lmao. So let me get this straight, you want Capcom to create a game that no one likes or will buy just so that you and the few can be happy? |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 6, 2010 3:07:16 GMT -5
No, it's not. Especially when SF II sold 27 million worldwide and Capcoms reason for making everything old again was to tap into that success. 2.5 is the minimum measure of success. Any game that makes a million will make a "Greatest Hits" category. This just indicates that the game is the best that the console has to offer. You reading too much into it. So, why did you bring up SFII success dawg? How else is success measured if not through sales? Alpha 3 for the PSX only sold 1 million copies. That's half roughly half of SFIV total sales. This is at a time when the market was saturated with fighters. Hell, it even competed with games from it's own camp: Versus games and the SF3 series. Not to mention competing against 3-D fighters. Furthermore, said games were coming out at less than 5 yrs intervals. SF IV had a decades worth of breathing room with far less games to compete with. Not to mention that it is a 2-D game. www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=5778®ion=All-EX was a 3d Street Fighter came out in 1996. -Ultra's are just a cinematic super combo which EX had. -Focus cancels are just regular cancels which EX had -Focus attack is just a guard break which EX had. -Most of the stages a reinterpretations of old stages. -Seth is a fake Dural or, C.Viper is a fake Volcano Russo, and Abel is a fake Alex I never said the game was not for you. I said why I hate the game son. My reason not yours. Me not YOU. Obviously, there are gonna be resemblance dawg. There are still alot of difference's more so than SF4 and these games did not wait a decade to come out as well. Which is my biggest point. Which is funny since cast drops made them famous and NEW PLAYERS DO NOT CARE IF OLD CHARACTERS ARE BACK. How could they when we are talking about characters that came out in 1991 ?! Also, you mention normal developers despite the fact that Capcoms practices with SF is what put them ahead of the competition. SF is the most famous fighter period. So, why should capcom copy normal developers? Never mind that, I answered this post in detail before. Are you reading what I'm saying, obviously not. With not explanations as to why? Come on son, you're sound like a fanboy. Compared to alot of people who could give a damn weather they are there or not. Seriously, are new players relieved to see Ryu and Ken back? or is that something that the pre-existing fan base wants? Nevermind that the most popular character that fans wanted to return was Dudley and after he won they removed him from the poll.Replacing him with cammy. also, if my demands are outrageous yours is fan boyish and short sighted. I agree with this statement, but I disagree that focus are really new. It's just a combination of old mechanics combined into one: Cancels, Guard break, EX moves, and parry. Not as new as Super Combo, Custom Combo and a whole slew of mechanics were at the time when SF was making fighters less than every 5 years. It's not a problem. . .Unless you wait Ten years to make said game and consider it a sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 7, 2010 2:22:14 GMT -5
Why am I arguin' wit you? You can't even admit that SFIV is a success despite how much you hate it, that pushin' over 2.5 mil is "money N da bank." It's clear your tryin' to "beat me" rather than listen to me. I feel like I'm arguin' wit Wandering Flame or Sado and I really wanna stay away from that. But there are a few things you said that I wanna address, not even for the sake of SFIV but simply cuz you don't seem to understand what I'm tellin you, pal. "So, why did you bring up SFII success dawg? How else is success measured if not through sales?" Sales of old games doesn't matter when past sells are garbage. I used SFII as an example as to how the series went from Hot, to can't even get their shit shelves, back to hot again by usin' the SFII formula. 'Course you'll say that's not true. "Alpha 3 for the PSX only sold 1 million copies. That's half roughly half of SFIV total sales. This is at a time when the market was saturated with fighters. Hell, it even competed with games from it's own camp: Versus games and the SF3 series. Not to mention competing against 3-D fighters. Furthermore, said games were coming out at less than 5 yrs intervals. SF IV had a decades worth of breathing room with far less games to compete with. Not to mention that it is a 2-D game.
www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=5778®ion=All" Can you show me evidence that proves that Alpha 3 didn't take YEARS to hit the milli mark? SFIV is nearly at THREE mill, not even a year after it's release. I would rather compete wit other games (Alpha 3) than try to make a game in dead genre (SFIV). Also VGChartz is a load buashit. They can't track shit and you can ask anyone about that. Ask for evidence and I'll show you myself, I got an account over there. "Also, you mention normal developers despite the fact that Capcoms practices with SF is what put them ahead of the competition. SF is the most famous fighter period. So, why should capcom copy normal developers? Never mind that, I answered this post in detail before. Are you reading what I'm saying, obviously not." LMAO, "SF is the most famous fighter period" CUZ OF SFII, not cuz of "Capcom's Magical practices with SF that puts them ahead of the competition." Sales went DOWN after the SFII series, not up. No SF game that came after the SFII series came anywhere near the success of the SFIIs. SFIV's suspected 1st year sales crushes anything after SFII in terms of success, that's an admitted fact Capcom has already made, pal. I can admit that even though I like 3rd Strike, Alpha 3, and Alpha 2 Gold FAR better than IV. "With not explanations as to why? Come on son, you're sound like a fanboy." So now I sound like a fanboi cuz I don't believe in a bullshit statement you made? You say that SFIV recycles SFII animations and I say, I don't agree wit that cuz I think it's a barrel of bullshit. You can easily prove me wrong by showin' me where it says that. "This is a lie, I explained why SF III failed many many times dawg. It's the same reason why 2-D fighter failed. You really not reading what I'm saying, instead you're just posting for the sake of posting." Oh, it's not that I aint readin' the shit and "instead just posting for the sake of posting" which is the shit yur doin'. It's just that you have made excuses for why the game you like is a dismal financial failure instead of "reasons". Capcom said why SFIII failed and they come along wit a game that destroys SFIII in terms of success and revives the 2d half of the genre. I'll believe them over anyone else when it comes to why their product failed them, despite it's greatness. Especially now. I love how you keep tryin' to call me, indirectly, a fanboi even though you come at me on some ill shit over every SF that's not IV while I only defend SFIV. You do realize this, right? I thought you were better than that, am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 7, 2010 3:41:56 GMT -5
Why am I arguin' wit you? You can't even admit that SFIV is a success despite how much you hate it, Hold up hold up hold up. . .I admitted the game was a success. Where did I imply anywhere that the game was a failure? What I said was the game was not as much of a success as people thought it would be if it went back too it's "roots". You on the other hand compared the game to SFII, implying that SFIV is as hot as SFII is crazy . .real talk. Sales of old games doesn't matter when past sells are garbage. I used SFII as an example as to how the series went from Hot, to can't even get their shit shelves, back to hot again by usin' the SFII formula. 'Course you'll say that's not true. Are you seriously comparing SFIV sales too SFII sales?! Seriously, SFII sold 6 million copies on the SNES alone. That's roughly three times the amount SFIV made on every port combine. Can you show me evidence that proves that Alpha 3 didn't take YEARS to hit the milli mark? You are aware that games sales don't grow indefinitely right? Especially, when the console it's on is discontinued and the factory doesn't make more copies of said game. Alpha III is a dead game and it made roughly as much as SFIV makes on the PS3 10 years ago. Now if you really think it reaches the million mark because it's been out for 10 years. Then you really have no idea what you're talking about. A game opening week usually has it's biggest sales before the number of sales go down gradually. I does not speed up into infinite. Using your logic I could argue that super mario only sold 40 million copies due to time which would be ridiculous. SFIV is nearly at THREE mill, not even a year after it's release. I would rather compete wit other games (Alpha 3) than try to make a game in dead genre (SFIV). Also VGChartz is a load buashit. They can't track shit and you can ask anyone about that. Ask for evidence and I'll show you myself, I got an account over there. VGchartz isn't perfect because it doesn't show all the sales all the time. Saying it's BS without giving why and asking me to ask everyone else is jive man. LMAO, "SF is the most famous fighter period" CUZ OF SFII, not cuz of "Capcom's Magical practices with SF that puts them ahead of the competition. And, those practices are not responsible for SFII how exactly? Also, SF lost popularity because it gained competition from other fighters and despite that it's still the most famous 2-D fighter even after SFII. Alpha, versus games, and SFIII are popular in the scene and are more popular than any other 2-D fighter. " Sales went DOWN after the SFII series, not up. No SF game that came after the SFII series came anywhere near the success of the SFIIs.That apply's for SFIV as well, that's pretty pointless statement. Also, please reads this: www.capcom-unity.com/jgonzo/blog/2009/09/02/in_case_you_missed_it_sfivs_yoshinori_onos_panel_from_fan_expo?num=5&pg=2 Post proof and sales figures like I did. So now I sound like a fanboi cuz I don't believe in a bullshit statement you made? You say that SFIV recycles SFII animations and I say, I don't agree wit that cuz I think it's a barrel of bullshit. You can easily prove me wrong by showin' me where it says that. Why would I show you where it says that, WTF does that even mean? We are talking about animations. . .You know, movements. the normals for SFIV are exactly the same as SFII right down to how they animate. Oh, it's not that I aint readin' the shit and "instead just posting for the sake of posting" which is the shit yur doin'. It's just that you have made excuses for why the game you like is a dismal financial failure instead of "reasons". Capcom said why SFIII failed and they come along wit a game that destroys SFIII in terms of success and revives the 2d half of the genre. I'll believe them over anyone else when it comes to why their product failed them, despite it's greatness. Especially now. Experience demonstrates SFIII failed because at barely had any exposure. I didn't even know the game came out when it did and this is from a guy that followed arcades hard back then. The game had barely any advertisement. Also, at by that point arcades were saturated by fighting games from the Fighting game boom started by SFII. SFIII had to compete with alot of fighters, even ones from it's own camp: versus games and Alpha series. Common sense dictates that video games compete with each other. That isn't the case now because the market isn't saturated with fighters since the boom has long ended. Furthermore, SFIII was an expensive game to make. The sprites had some of the highest production for a 2-D fighter. Furthermore, Street Fighter III is the ultimate Street Fighter this is from Capcom themselves.www.capcom-unity.com/jgonzo/blog/2009/09/02/in_case_you_missed_it_sfivs_yoshinori_onos_panel_from_fan_expo?num=5&pg=2Calling SF3 a flop is wrong, because Capcom never outright stated the game was failure. That's a fan rumor, the game sold less than SFII just like every SF. SFIV didn't revive squat, the game sales are comparable to games that came out 10 years ago. Hell, SCIV sales are comparable to it FFS. I love how you keep tryin' to call me, indirectly, a fanboi even though you come at me on some ill shit over every SF that's not IV while I only defend SFIV. You do realize this, right? I thought you were better than that, am I wrong? Maybe I went too far to call you a fanboy, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 7, 2010 21:11:55 GMT -5
"Hold up hold up hold up. . .I admitted the game was a success. Where did I imply anywhere that the game was a failure? What I said was the game was not as much of a success as people thought it would be if it went back too it's "roots". You on the other hand compared the game to SFII, implying that SFIV is as hot as SFII is crazy . .real talk.
Are you seriously comparing SFIV sales too SFII sales?! Seriously, SFII sold 6 million copies on the SNES alone. That's roughly three times the amount SFIV made on every port combine." What I'm sayin' is, SFIV is more of a success then people thought it would be, PERIOD. All the whiners and naysayers said this game would flop and for a while, it looked like it would, but it didn't. Capcom even said that the sales for the game were underestimated and they didn't make enuff discs to meet demand. You tryin' to make this game's success appear in the same realm as the other SFs beyond II. Your like, "2.5 mill in less than a few months wit 2mill of that bein' in the 1st month? Big deal". And it's like, might not be Halo 3 or MW2, but it beatz the shit outta any SF that's not II. I'm not comparin' sales figure of SFII and IV, everyone knows there is no comparison. The point is, SFII was popular, everything after that fell under the radar and now SFIV has made the series mainstream again. I'm just givin credit where it's due, rather than shrink it's shine. I never thought I would go on popular site and there would be more peeps arguin' that SF games are deeper than SB games. Sounds dumb, but before SFIV, the masses would tell you Samsh Bros was a deeper game than SF. "You are aware that games sales don't grow indefinitely right? Especially, when the console it's on is discontinued and the factory doesn't make more copies of said game. Alpha III is a dead game and it made roughly as much as SFIV makes on the PS3 10 years ago. Now if you really think it reaches the million mark because it's been out for 10 years. Then you really have no idea what you're talking about. A game opening week usually has it's biggest sales before the number of sales go down gradually. I does not speed up into infinite. Using your logic I could argue that super mario only sold 40 million copies due to time which would be ridiculous." You must think I'm stupid if you think I'm gonna believe that the LARGEST factor in Alpaha 3's 1 million sales is NOT the fact it's been around for over a decade. Hell, 100 units worldwide a day for 5 years gives'em damn near a mill. And that whole bit about Super Mario is Super Irrelevant. We all know that SF is VERY FAR from Mario. Super Mario came at a very opportune time in VG history. Also, Alpha 3 came out in 98, they didn't stop makin PS1s 'til 06. Alpha 3 just died pretty recently. "VGchartz isn't perfect because it doesn't show all the sales all the time. Saying it's BS without giving why and asking me to ask everyone else is jive man." Common sense would tell you why I think VGChartz is BS. Any normal person would assume, "He thinx VGChartz is inaccurate, thatz why he says it's BS". Do I have to give reasons for all my opinions, even when it should be obvious? As I proceed to give what you need... "NPD refuted VGCHARTS in the past. BUT the authorities there haven't mend their ways. They are being financed by MS to make 360 look good to gullible people. take a look at this www.vgchartz.com/japweekly.phpthe AUTHORITIES there have degraded the ps3 sales by 2.5 k (hardwares) RB6 which is at no 19 on FAMITSU and MEDIA CRATE has sold over 6000 copies last week in Japan. It is nowhere in the top 50 chart on VGCHARTS. on the other hand none of the x360 game could even sell 500 copies last week in Japan. In medicrate chart/famitsu chart no x360 game appears in the top 100. VGCHARTS shows x360 software sales around 13k which in reality was just 2k by FAMITSU. on the other hand ps3 software sales were around 26k whcih were degraded to 20k by VGCHARTS ALSO in UK....x360 sold just 3k hardwares last week . Vgcharts have defalted that to 10k. Ps3 has sold 8k last week in UK. Vgcharts has downgraded that to 6k for real UK sales fug please go to www.mcvuk.com/ " Link to what you just read.... www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83359Here is some more reasons why that site is grossly inaccurate. www.joystiq.com/2009/01/04/wii-sports-is-best-selling-game-of-all-time-according-to-vgchar/4www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/06/why-we-dont-ref/www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919Where do you think they get their numbers from, lol? They aint the NPD group. "And, those practices are not responsible for SFII how exactly? Also, SF lost popularity because it gained competition from other fighters and despite that it's still the most famous 2-D fighter even after SFII. Alpha, versus games, and SFIII are popular in the scene and are more popular than any other 2-D fighter." SFII was basically the first of it's kind and it came at the right time in history. Capcom didn't even have any "practices" yet, they just made SFI again but due to technological advances , it was 100X better. I never said that the non-SFIIs were not popular in the genre, just that they aint as popular as SFIV. You can't make me believe that KOF, AOF, FF, and GG took away so much of SFs audience that it made the series fail. "Post proof and sales figures like I did. " SFIV, 8th place. Try to find the other SFs that aint II on this list, lol. And this chart was made BY CAPCOM in the same month SFIV came out AND this doesn't include the PC version. SFIV's sales aint gonna rise at an insane rate forever, but it's gonna do WAAAAAYYYYYY better than any version of Alpha, and any version of III 1. Street Fighter II (SNES / June 1992) - 6.3 million 2. Resident Evil 2 (PS / January 1998) - 4.96 million 3. Resident Evil 5 (PS3, Xbox 360 / March 2009) - 4.4 million 4. Street Fighter II Turbo (SNES / July 1993) - 4.1 million 5. Resident Evil 3 Nemesis (PS / September 1999) - 3.5 million 6. Resident Evil (PS / March 1996) - 2.75 million 7. Monster Hunter Freedom 2 G (PSP, March 2008) - 2.55 million 8. Street Fighter IV (PS3, Xbox 360 / February 2009) - 2.5 million 9. Devil May Cry 4 (PS3, Xbox 360 / January 2008) - 2.4 million 10. Dino Crisis (PS / July 1999) - 2.4 million 11. Monster Hunter Freedom 2 (PSP / February 2007) - 2.25 million 12. Devil May Cry (PS2 / August 2001) - 2.16 million 13. Resident Evil 4 (PS2 / December 2005) - 2.1 million 14. Onimusha: Warlords (PS2 / January 2001) - 2.02 million 15. Super Street Fighter II (SNES / June 1994) - 2 million 16. Onimusha 2: Samurai's Destiny (PS2 / March 2002) - 1.99 million 17. Devil May Cry 2 (PS2 / January 2003) - 1.7 million 18. Street Fighter II' Plus (GN / September 1993) - 1.65 million 19. Ghosts'n Goblins (NES / June 1986) - 1.64 million 20. Resident Evil 4 (GC / January 2005) - 1.6 million 21. Onimusha 3: Demon Siege (PS2 / Feburary 2004) - 1.52 million 22. Mega Man 2 (NES / December 1988) - 1.51 million 23. Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition (Wii / May 2007) - 1.5 million 24. Dead Rising (Xbox 360 / August 2006) - 1.5 million 25. Lost Planet Extreme Condition(Xbox 360 / December 2006) - 1.5 million 26. Final Fight (SNES / December 1990) - 1.48 million 27. Resident Evil Outbreak (PS2 / December 2003) - 1.45 million 28. Resident Evil Code Veronica X (PS2 / March 2001) - 1.4 million 29. Resident Evil (GC / March 2002) - 1.35 million 30. Mega Man Battle Network 4 (GBA / December 2003) - 1.35 million 31. Devil May Cry 3 (PS2 / February 2005) - 1.3 million 32. Resident Evil 0 (GC / November 2002) - 1.25 million 33. Monster Hunter Freedom (PSP / December 2005) - 1.2 million 34. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (Wii / November 2007) - 1.2 million 35. Resident Evil Director's Cut Dual Shock (PS/ August 1998) - 1.2 million 36. Dino Crisis 2 (PS / September 2000) - 1.19 million 37. Mega Man X (SNES / December 1993) - 1.16 million 38. Resident Evil Code Veronica (DC / February 2000) - 1.14 million 39. Commando (NES / September 1986) - 1.14 million 40. Resident Evil Director's Cut (PS / September 1997) - 1.13 million 41. Super Ghouls'n Ghosts (SNES / October 1991) - 1.09 million 42. Mega Man 3 (NES / September 1990) - 1.08 million 43. Final Fight 2 (SNES / May 1993) - 1.03 million 44. Street Fighter Alpha 3 (PS / December 1998) - 1 million www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58546"Why would I show you where it says that, WTF does that even mean? We are talking about animations. . .You know, movements. the normals for SFIV are exactly the same as SFII right down to how they animate." Wait, let me get this straight, your sayin' this as FACT based off of what YOU see? I think your wrong and that you've never seen this game before. "Experience demonstrates SFIII failed because at barely had any exposure. I didn't even know the game came out when it did and this is from a guy that followed arcades hard back then. The game had barely any advertisement. Also, at by that point arcades were saturated by fighting games from the Fighting game boom started by SFII. SFIII had to compete with alot of fighters, even ones from it's own camp: versus games and Alpha series. Common sense dictates that video games compete with each other. That isn't the case now because the market isn't saturated with fighters since the boom has long ended. Furthermore, SFIII was an expensive game to make. The sprites had some of the highest production for a 2-D fighter. Furthermore, Street Fighter III is the ultimate Street Fighter this is from Capcom themselves.
www.capcom-unity.com/jgonzo/blog/....xpo?nu m=5&pg=2
Calling SF3 a flop is wrong, because Capcom never outright stated the game was failure. That's a fan rumor, the game sold less than SFII just like every SF." You miss my point entirely. 3rd Strike IS THE ULTIMATE SF GAME. No one is disputin' that. But it was a financial flop, Street Fighter III isn't even on Capcom's Lifetime Software Sales Figures list. At least when SFIII came out, 2D fighters were still around despite a it's comp. SFIV came at a time when the whole 2D scene was dead. "SFIV didn't revive squat, the game sales are comparable to games that came out 10 years ago. Hell, SCIV sales are comparable to it FFS." I Don't think Blazblue would have got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. I Don't think KOF XII would've got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. Don't think TVC would be commin' to the U.S. if it wasn't for SFIV. I Don't think they would be commin out wit a Super SFIV if it were not SFIV. I Don't think Darkstalkers would be gettin another comic if it were not for SFIV. I Don't think think Tekken 6 sales woulda been less than T5 if it was for SFIV. A 2D fighter wouldn't have took home the VGA award of Best Fighter of 2009 over a Tekken and Soul Calibur game if it wasn't for SFIV. MVC2 and Garou wouldn't be on XB Live it wasn't for SFIV. Also, SCIV's sales ARE GOOD. I wouldn't have expected a 2D fighter to even get close to an SC game. But o'course SCIV sellin 2 mill in 1 month is just oh so terrible, to you. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 7, 2010 22:55:56 GMT -5
What I'm sayin' is, SFIV is more of a success then people thought it would be, PERIOD. All the whiners and naysayers said this game would flop and for a while, it looked like it would, but it didn't. Why are you even bringing this up? Did I say the game would FLOP son? I said the game didn't do as well as you are hyping it up especially in comparison to other fighting games. I said the game is a moderate success. You on the other hand compared it too SFII in terms of impact, which was absurd. Capcom even said that the sales for the game were underestimated and they didn't make enuff discs to meet demand. This was in regards to the first weeks sales in japan FFS! Where it sold higher than expected: 45,000 copies in a week. . .Big whoop. You tryin' to make this game's success appear in the same realm as the other SFs beyond II. Your like, "2.5 mill in less than a few months wit 2mill of that bein' in the 1st month? Big deal". And it's like, might not be Halo 3 or MW2, but it beatz the shit outta any SF that's not II. You keep parroting this claim with no proof dogmatically I might add. Show me where it states that SFIV is as high above other SF besides SFII? I'm not comparin' sales figure of SFII and IV, everyone knows there is no comparison. The point is, SFII was popular, everything after that fell under the radar and now SFIV has made the series mainstream again. That's because it's been a decade and the fighting game boom is over. There aren't as many fighters as there were in the market. You keep ignoring that. I'm just givin credit where it's due, rather than shrink it's shine. I never thought I would go on popular site and there would be more peeps arguin' that SF games are deeper than SB games. Sounds dumb, but before SFIV, the masses would tell you Samsh Bros was a deeper game than SF. Those guys were stupid considering that Smash doesn't even play like SF. As for givin' credit, sorry I only respect well made games. SFIV is a soulless grab for cash. If being mainstream means selling out on standards than I will pass. You must think I'm stupid if you think I'm gonna believe that the LARGEST factor in Alpaha 3's 1 million sales is NOT the fact it's been around for over a decade. I think you're stupid if you do think that. It just shows you know nothing of games, you think Alpha 3 is still being made in a factory on a regular basis? Both consoles it was ported too died. Both Dreamcast and PSX. Furthermore, once a game has reached peak sales it starts to die down. Hell, 100 units worldwide a day for 5 years gives'em damn near a mill. You think Alpha 3 was selling 100 units a day. . .lol. And that whole bit about Super Mario is Super Irrelevant. We all know that SF is VERY FAR from Mario. Super Mario came at a very opportune time in VG history. the bolded apply's to every game when it comes to success and failure. It's funny how you address this now when I've been going on about it and SFIII commercial failure for a while now. Looks to me like you're the one posting just to "win". Also, I brought up the Mario analogy to prove you're point about time being a factor in Alpha sales as silly. Games don't sell 100 units a day for five years. That's even assuming the game is on the shelves for that long and the factory is making copies. Also, Alpha 3 came out in 98, they didn't stop makin PS1s 'til 06. Alpha 3 just died pretty recently. You really think Alpha 3 was discontinued at the same time as PSX. . .just wow. Common sense would tell you why I think VGChartz is BS. Any normal person would assume, "He thinx VGChartz is inaccurate, thatz why he says it's BS". Do I have to give reasons for all my opinions, even when it should be obvious? How could it be obvious when you didn't even post why? How does that even make any sense? The only problem with VG chartz that I've seen are missing sales. . .That's it. "NPD refuted VGCHARTS in the past. BUT the authorities there haven't mend their ways. Post the refutation. They are being financed by MS to make 360 look good to gullible people. Go in detail with this please. Link doesn't work. the AUTHORITIES there have degraded the ps3 sales by 2.5 k (hardwares) RB6 which is at no 19 on FAMITSU and MEDIA CRATE has sold over 6000 copies last week in Japan. It is nowhere in the top 50 chart on VGCHARTS. Wait, hold up hold up hold up. Assuming I take you're claim with no proof. Why would this be surprising when we know VGchartz has missing sales figures? How is this suddenly a Microsoft conspiracy [among many]? on the other hand none of the x360 game could even sell 500 copies last week in Japan. In medicrate chart/famitsu chart no x360 game appears in the top 100. VGCHARTS shows x360 software sales around 13k which in reality was just 2k by FAMITSU. on the other hand ps3 software sales were around 26k whcih were degraded to 20k by VGCHARTS ALSO in UK....x360 sold just 3k hardwares last week . Vgcharts have defalted that to 10k. Ps3 has sold 8k last week in UK. Vgcharts has downgraded that to 6k for real UK sales fug please go to Where are the chartz? I deleted all the links that don't work or lead nowhere. Alright you have a point not that even matters because the bane of the argument was sales from SF games which VGchartz roughly got correct. According to the figures you posted Alpha 3 sold 1 million copies. So, I wasn't wrong. You however blame the sales on 10 year duration even though Alpha 3 was not selling for 10 years. SFII was basically the first of it's kind and it came at the right time in history. Capcom didn't even have any "practices" yet, they just made SFI again but due to technological advances , it was 100X better. This is flat out wrong, why are you even posting if you're information is so wrong? SF1 is when the practices start. When they made SFII they remade the damn game from scratch, redesigned pre existing characters, new engine, and dropped the cast. That's exactly what they did with SFIII. I can't take you seriously anymore. I never said that the non-SFIIs were not popular in the genre, just that they aint as popular as SFIV. You can't make me believe that KOF, AOF, FF, and GG took away so much of SFs audience that it made the series fail. I never said you did claim non-SFII weren't popular. However, you are downplaying them and are flat out wrong on why they did not sell. you even made some ridiculous theory on about Alpha 3 sales. Also, you clearly don't know what the fighting game boom was. KOF, AOF [ lol], FF and GG are not the faces of the fighting game boom. they were just a drop in the sea that was fighters. Back then pretty much every game was a SF II clone or fighter. We even had TMNT and Power Ranger Fighters. Then we had MK esque fighters, 3-D fighters: Tekken, VF, DOA and more. there were fighters for everything. Just like we have tons of shooters now. Not to mention Capcom kept remaking SFII by 1995 SF popularity was down from how it was. They were everywhere, you cannot compare it to now a days period. SFIV, 8th place. Try to find the other SFs that aint II on this list, lol. And this chart was made BY CAPCOM in the same month SFIV came out AND this doesn't include the PC version. SFIV's sales aint gonna rise at an insane rate forever, but it's gonna do WAAAAAYYYYYY better than any version of Alpha, and any version of III Man kyder, you really aren't paying attention. This chart helps my argument, it doesn't hurt it. You show sales figures for Alpha 3 on the PSX at 1 million. While showing the combine sales of SFIV for two consoles at 2.5 million. Which puts the SFIV sales for one console at roughly the same as Alpha 3 PSX sales. . .Good job. Wait, let me get this straight, your sayin' this as FACT based off of what YOU see? I think your wrong and that you've never seen this game before. What else would it be based off. . .and I've never seen the game before lol. If you wanna ignore it be my guess. I know Ryu's recovery animation after a knock down is the same as it was since SFII in SFIV, His sweep animation, pretty much everything is the same when it comes to animations. It's no big deal because Alpha has roughly the same animations, though Alpha isn't a sequel like SFIV. *You miss my point entirely. 3rd Strike IS THE ULTIMATE SF GAME. No one is disputin' that. But it was a financial flop, Street Fighter III isn't even on Capcom's Lifetime Software Sales Figures list. *At least when SFIII came out, 2D fighters were still around despite a it's comp. SFIV came at a time when the whole 2D scene was dead. *SFIII was only ported on DC which died in 2 yrs time. I haven't seen a sales list for a DC ever. The only other time SF III was ported was on Anniversary collection. *Which is why it revived the scene. SFIII came out at a time when fighters that had accumulated from the decade saturated the arcade market and were coming out at a less than 5 yr interval to be ported on every console. Hell, it even had to compete wti games from it's own camp: Alpha 3 and MVC2. Not even gonna count all the console specific fighters. Never mind, that SF III only port was on the DC which was a flop console. It was only re-ported years later on anniversary collection on PS2. I Don't think Blazblue would have got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. I Don't think KOF XII would've got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. Don't think TVC would be commin' to the U.S. if it wasn't for SFIV. I Don't think they would be commin out wit a Super SFIV if it were not SFIV. I Don't think Darkstalkers would be gettin another comic if it were not for SFIV. I Don't think think Tekken 6 sales woulda been less than T5 if it was for SFIV. A 2D fighter wouldn't have took home the VGA award of Best Fighter of 2009 over a Tekken and Soul Calibur game if it wasn't for SFIV. MVC2 and Garou wouldn't be on XB Live it wasn't for SFIV. Also, SCIV's sales ARE GOOD. I wouldn't have expected a 2D fighter to even get close to an SC game. But o'course SCIV sellin 2 mill in 1 month is just oh so terrible, to you. I went through the trouble and bolded the points you actually got right. This post is just a pile of non-sense. You're attributing everything positive that's going on with fighters with SFIV. First of all, SFIV is not a 2-D fighter it's a 3-D fighter w/ 2-D gameplay. Also, what does Tekkens sales , Darkstalker comics, and MVC2 have to do with SFIV? MVC2 was ported because SFII Turbo HD was ported to XBL and was successful. Infact, SFII Turbo HD effected SFIV development as well. It was the inspiration behind the retrograde. Of course, they would make a Super SF IV. Since all they are doing is jocking SFII why not follow through with another retrograde? KOFXII flopped by the way. SFIV isn't a 2-D fighter, so that's a silly point. My point is it came close to SCIV because SFIV is no better than the average fighter period. I never claimed it was terrible, I just disagree that it was extraordinary like you are claiming. |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 9, 2010 18:28:37 GMT -5
Just a few qualms.
First:
Alpha 3 had 5 ports: PSX, DC, SS, GBA, and the PSP (And I might add the psp one was probably the best of them all). It's been around for a good long while, and if it ever actually died, it did so VERY recently, not '06 but but something like '08 or '09.
Secondly:
SFIV had about a thousand times more frames to animate than SFII did. To justify calling that recycled would involve radically redefining the word "animate."
Thirdliest:
Though other members of the series come up a bit short, SSBM is a VERY deep game. If you hold the position that melee's depth isn't comparable to SFII's or any other SF's, then I would urge you to just get a glimpse of the melee community. Watch some of the amateur games, and watch some of the pro games. It's hard to appreciate exactly what's going on without knowing what they're doing, but you should at least look.
Anyway, SB might be compared with other fighters under the giant umbrella of "fighting games". But it is not an arcade style fighter. And that is a significant difference.The only real similarity is that they're both 2D. In fact, I could take almost the exact same mechanics they used in smash, and make a half decent beat-em-up with it. Not so for arcade style fighters.
There's enough games out now that attempt to emulate smash that they could probably have their own distinct genre. Though notably, smash is the only among them to make "ring out" the sole method of KOing an opponent. Jump Ultimate Stars, some Naruto games, and Tales of VS all belong to this genre, but they all have "stamina falls to 0" conditions for the KO, and I think that contributes to them being shit.
Just my 2 cents on smash. If you're interested in looking into what I'm talking about, I'll say more, but this isn't the SSB thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 10, 2010 0:50:25 GMT -5
Just a few qualms. First: Alpha 3 had 5 ports: PSX, DC, SS, GBA, and the PSP (And I might add the psp one was probably the best of them all). It's been around for a good long while, and if it ever actually died, it did so VERY recently, not '06 but but something like '08 or '09. I was referring to the consoles mainly, but you are right. On the long run SS and DC were major flops as consoles. Furthermore, I've never seen sales list for DC or SS. Which is what I was talking about. . . sales. But, thanks for the heads up.  Secondly: SFIV had about a thousand times more frames to animate than SFII did. Wait what?! Thousands, seriously thousands of frames?! I need proof for this claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 10, 2010 4:30:06 GMT -5
What I'm sayin' is, SFIV is more of a success then people thought it would be, PERIOD. All the whiners and naysayers said this game would flop and for a while, it looked like it would, but it didn't. Why are you even bringing this up? Did I say the game would FLOP son? I said the game didn't do as well as you are hyping it up especially in comparison to other fighting games. I said the game is a moderate success. You on the other hand compared it too SFII in terms of impact, which was absurd. This was in regards to the first weeks sales in japan FFS! Where it sold higher than expected: 45,000 copies in a week. . .Big whoop. You keep parroting this claim with no proof dogmatically I might add. Show me where it states that SFIV is as high above other SF besides SFII? That's because it's been a decade and the fighting game boom is over. There aren't as many fighters as there were in the market. You keep ignoring that. Those guys were stupid considering that Smash doesn't even play like SF. As for givin' credit, sorry I only respect well made games. SFIV is a soulless grab for cash. If being mainstream means selling out on standards than I will pass. I think you're stupid if you do think that. It just shows you know nothing of games, you think Alpha 3 is still being made in a factory on a regular basis? Both consoles it was ported too died. Both Dreamcast and PSX. Furthermore, once a game has reached peak sales it starts to die down. You think Alpha 3 was selling 100 units a day. . .lol. the bolded apply's to every game when it comes to success and failure. It's funny how you address this now when I've been going on about it and SFIII commercial failure for a while now. Looks to me like you're the one posting just to "win". Also, I brought up the Mario analogy to prove you're point about time being a factor in Alpha sales as silly. Games don't sell 100 units a day for five years. That's even assuming the game is on the shelves for that long and the factory is making copies. You really think Alpha 3 was discontinued at the same time as PSX. . .just wow. How could it be obvious when you didn't even post why? How does that even make any sense? The only problem with VG chartz that I've seen are missing sales. . .That's it. Post the refutation. Go in detail with this please. Link doesn't work. Wait, hold up hold up hold up. Assuming I take you're claim with no proof. Why would this be surprising when we know VGchartz has missing sales figures? How is this suddenly a Microsoft conspiracy [among many]? Where are the chartz? I deleted all the links that don't work or lead nowhere. Alright you have a point not that even matters because the bane of the argument was sales from SF games which VGchartz roughly got correct. According to the figures you posted Alpha 3 sold 1 million copies. So, I wasn't wrong. You however blame the sales on 10 year duration even though Alpha 3 was not selling for 10 years. This is flat out wrong, why are you even posting if you're information is so wrong? SF1 is when the practices start. When they made SFII they remade the damn game from scratch, redesigned pre existing characters, new engine, and dropped the cast. That's exactly what they did with SFIII. I can't take you seriously anymore. I never said you did claim non-SFII weren't popular. However, you are downplaying them and are flat out wrong on why they did not sell. you even made some ridiculous theory on about Alpha 3 sales. Also, you clearly don't know what the fighting game boom was. KOF, AOF [ lol], FF and GG are not the faces of the fighting game boom. they were just a drop in the sea that was fighters. Back then pretty much every game was a SF II clone or fighter. We even had TMNT and Power Ranger Fighters. Then we had MK esque fighters, 3-D fighters: Tekken, VF, DOA and more. there were fighters for everything. Just like we have tons of shooters now. Not to mention Capcom kept remaking SFII by 1995 SF popularity was down from how it was. They were everywhere, you cannot compare it to now a days period. Man kyder, you really aren't paying attention. This chart helps my argument, it doesn't hurt it. You show sales figures for Alpha 3 on the PSX at 1 million. While showing the combine sales of SFIV for two consoles at 2.5 million. Which puts the SFIV sales for one console at roughly the same as Alpha 3 PSX sales. . .Good job. What else would it be based off. . .and I've never seen the game before lol. If you wanna ignore it be my guess. I know Ryu's recovery animation after a knock down is the same as it was since SFII in SFIV, His sweep animation, pretty much everything is the same when it comes to animations. It's no big deal because Alpha has roughly the same animations, though Alpha isn't a sequel like SFIV. *SFIII was only ported on DC which died in 2 yrs time. I haven't seen a sales list for a DC ever. The only other time SF III was ported was on Anniversary collection. *Which is why it revived the scene. SFIII came out at a time when fighters that had accumulated from the decade saturated the arcade market and were coming out at a less than 5 yr interval to be ported on every console. Hell, it even had to compete wti games from it's own camp: Alpha 3 and MVC2. Not even gonna count all the console specific fighters. Never mind, that SF III only port was on the DC which was a flop console. It was only re-ported years later on anniversary collection on PS2. I Don't think Blazblue would have got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. I Don't think KOF XII would've got the attention it did if it weren't SFIV. Don't think TVC would be commin' to the U.S. if it wasn't for SFIV. I Don't think they would be commin out wit a Super SFIV if it were not SFIV. I Don't think Darkstalkers would be gettin another comic if it were not for SFIV. I Don't think think Tekken 6 sales woulda been less than T5 if it was for SFIV. A 2D fighter wouldn't have took home the VGA award of Best Fighter of 2009 over a Tekken and Soul Calibur game if it wasn't for SFIV. MVC2 and Garou wouldn't be on XB Live it wasn't for SFIV. Also, SCIV's sales ARE GOOD. I wouldn't have expected a 2D fighter to even get close to an SC game. But o'course SCIV sellin 2 mill in 1 month is just oh so terrible, to you. I went through the trouble and bolded the points you actually got right. This post is just a pile of non-sense. You're attributing everything positive that's going on with fighters with SFIV. First of all, SFIV is not a 2-D fighter it's a 3-D fighter w/ 2-D gameplay. Also, what does Tekkens sales , Darkstalker comics, and MVC2 have to do with SFIV? MVC2 was ported because SFII Turbo HD was ported to XBL and was successful. Infact, SFII Turbo HD effected SFIV development as well. It was the inspiration behind the retrograde. Of course, they would make a Super SF IV. Since all they are doing is jocking SFII why not follow through with another retrograde? KOFXII flopped by the way. SFIV isn't a 2-D fighter, so that's a silly point. My point is it came close to SCIV because SFIV is no better than the average fighter period. I never claimed it was terrible, I just disagree that it was extraordinary like you are claiming. Ya'know, I've grown tired of this...This reminds me of the days when Sado and the gang weren't banned. I'm not gonna argue wit you about YOUR opinion. Yur twistin' my words, over exaggeratin' my statements, wont admit to anything signifigant and swingin' around your opinion like fact. Like if you can defeat my words, it makes your views seem like "truth". You even, somehow, tried to make the chart I posted work in your favor despite the fact it proves nearly every single point I've made quite clearly. I said to myself "I'm going to quit postin' in this thread if you still try to argue wit me after I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, that's some KMC shit. SFA3 is at the bottom of Capcoms' list (will be knocked off of Capcoms' list when Super Street Fighter IV hits) despite the fact that 1998 was one of Gamings' "ALL TIME GOLDEN YEARS" AND that the console SFA3 was made on has more units sold than almost ALL the current gen consoles COMBINED. I'm ROTFL so hard and at the same time disappointed and irritated. The 360+PS3= a little bit more than half the PS1s on the street in 98. SFA3 had a 100 MILLION potentail buyers while SFIV had a lil less than 60 million, and it almost triples Alpha 3 in sales. This was supposed to be a discussion. SFIV sux, we all know now and nothin' I said was true. You win. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 10, 2010 4:47:34 GMT -5
Though other members of the series come up a bit short, SSBM is a VERY deep game. If you hold the position that melee's depth isn't comparable to SFII's or any other SF's, then I would urge you to just get a glimpse of the melee community. Watch some of the amateur games, and watch some of the pro games. It's hard to appreciate exactly what's going on without knowing what they're doing, but you should at least look. Anyway, SB might be compared with other fighters under the giant umbrella of "fighting games". But it is not an arcade style fighter. And that is a significant difference.The only real similarity is that they're both 2D. In fact, I could take almost the exact same mechanics they used in smash, and make a half decent beat-em-up with it. Not so for arcade style fighters. There's enough games out now that attempt to emulate smash that they could probably have their own distinct genre. Though notably, smash is the only among them to make "ring out" the sole method of KOing an opponent. Jump Ultimate Stars, some Naruto games, and Tales of VS all belong to this genre, but they all have "stamina falls to 0" conditions for the KO, and I think that contributes to them being shit. Just my 2 cents on smash. If you're interested in looking into what I'm talking about, I'll say more, but this isn't the SSB thread. It was never my intenet to bash SB or say SF was deeper. I was just makin' a point about the resurgence of SFs' popularity. We all know that SB has a HUGE DEVOTED fanbase who will defend SB to the end, no matter the subject. A few years ago, SSBM was the best fighter on the planet at least to the masses. Now I go on Gamespot and IGN (phuck IGN and all of it's affiliates) and there are more people sayin' that SF and Blazblue are the better FIGHTING GAMES. It doesn't matter if the pro SF/BB guys were right or not, it was just a noticeable change in the mood of the net towards fighter ever since SFIV came out. I was simply makin' the point that people are feelin the SF series and 2D fighters in general ALOT more now. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 10, 2010 5:51:59 GMT -5
Thirdliest: Though other members of the series come up a bit short, SSBM is a VERY deep game. If you hold the position that melee's depth isn't comparable to SFII's or any other SF's, then I would urge you to just get a glimpse of the melee community. Watch some of the amateur games, and watch some of the pro games. It's hard to appreciate exactly what's going on without knowing what they're doing, but you should at least look. Anyway, SB might be compared with other fighters under the giant umbrella of "fighting games". But it is not an arcade style fighter. And that is a significant difference.The only real similarity is that they're both 2D. In fact, I could take almost the exact same mechanics they used in smash, and make a half decent beat-em-up with it. Not so for arcade style fighters. There's enough games out now that attempt to emulate smash that they could probably have their own distinct genre. Though notably, smash is the only among them to make "ring out" the sole method of KOing an opponent. Jump Ultimate Stars, some Naruto games, and Tales of VS all belong to this genre, but they all have "stamina falls to 0" conditions for the KO, and I think that contributes to them being shit. Just my 2 cents on smash. If you're interested in looking into what I'm talking about, I'll say more, but this isn't the SSB thread. This discussion has been done irl and on the forum and the thing I noticed is that the main people who argue that Smash is more deep than SF are generally hardcore fanboys who like the characters, while the people who argue SF are people from all tastes and backgrounds who acknowledge what it is. It's kinda like Mac or Wolverine fanboys, their character isn't quite number one in popularity, making them more vocal until they get pushed there. Sure Spiderman and PC have a larger fanbase, the fans for Mac and Wolverine are more vocal and want theirs to win. Now, I like all sorts of games and have played all and all games have their depth. If you have enough people break the mechanics down you will find all sorts of things, people will tell you that "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is a deep game, because you can look at their hand ahead of time, is that partially true? Yes. Is it the deepest game ever? No. Now, even games like KI and MK have their depth, they have their unblockables, glitches, and everything else, but they still aren't as deep. I remember having the discussion on here about Brawl being broken, which I noticed pretty soon, and someone (it might have been you) were disagreeing about Meta Knight and Snake. Smash games don't have the balance they need yet. The developers have stated themselves that they didn't want Smash to be a real "fighter" but a party game, hence them watering down brawl, so it'll never really push itself up into the upper levels of competition with SF in the end, although it has a hardcore niche fanbase. Now what set Melee apart for the Smash players wasn't the balance, actual innovation of any sort, it was really two unintentional glitches. Wavedashing and L-cancelling. Pretty much the wrong reasons IMO, I'm not a fan of glitched based gameplay making a games depth. I'm not being biased either really, I don't like roll cancelling for that reason. It's a fun thing to do sure, but if that were the only thing that made Capcom vs SNK 2 "deep" I wouldn't have played it. Regardless though the other thing about the game is to make it "competitive" they have to remove items and play on more basic stages, which really makes it more like... SF in many ways once you remove the things that make Smash unique in the first place, random items and innovate levels. Then counterpicks. There is nothing wrong with a character being "good" against another, but it shouldn't be just a solid choice every time along with the levels. Some like that, many do not as much, to each their own.  Seriously to ban much of the home released content (aside from secret boss characters obviously) to make it a legit tourney game kinda says something. Much of the community are hardcore fans and younger kids, or hardcore Nintendo fans. But that by itself isn't bad, it's the tournament attitude I hate on any type of gaming, including card games. People are sore losers and have bad attitudes with few exceptions. Even games like Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh had their depth, and were fun, but I wouldn't say they have more depth than Magic The Gathering, although the hardcore fans of the genre will claim it to be so with "combos" which are utterly broken anyways to begin with. Again the game has it's depth, but SF has more cancels, rebuffs, strategic positioning, and the fact that every character has a unique moveset that take more skill to simply *do*, along with the groove system (which I hate they got rid of in SF4), which had all of their own systems and custom gauges along with revenge, rolling, dodging, running, and tactical recovery, there is a big difference in the higher levels of play, and most wouldn't understand that either, but that can be said with any game really. Have the top tier Smash players have a hand at SF and they'll likely never make it midtier, whereas if you gave the top level SF players time with Smash, they'd take it much farther.  Smash Tournament.  Oh and here is that Smash Thread. thacmaster.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=compdiscussion&thread=962 |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 10, 2010 5:59:40 GMT -5
Though other members of the series come up a bit short, SSBM is a VERY deep game. If you hold the position that melee's depth isn't comparable to SFII's or any other SF's, then I would urge you to just get a glimpse of the melee community. Watch some of the amateur games, and watch some of the pro games. It's hard to appreciate exactly what's going on without knowing what they're doing, but you should at least look. Anyway, SB might be compared with other fighters under the giant umbrella of "fighting games". But it is not an arcade style fighter. And that is a significant difference.The only real similarity is that they're both 2D. In fact, I could take almost the exact same mechanics they used in smash, and make a half decent beat-em-up with it. Not so for arcade style fighters. There's enough games out now that attempt to emulate smash that they could probably have their own distinct genre. Though notably, smash is the only among them to make "ring out" the sole method of KOing an opponent. Jump Ultimate Stars, some Naruto games, and Tales of VS all belong to this genre, but they all have "stamina falls to 0" conditions for the KO, and I think that contributes to them being shit. Just my 2 cents on smash. If you're interested in looking into what I'm talking about, I'll say more, but this isn't the SSB thread. It was never my intenet to bash SB or say SF was deeper. I was just makin' a point about the resurgence of SFs' popularity. We all know that SB has a HUGE DEVOTED fanbase who will defend SB to the end, no matter the subject. A few years ago, SSBM was the best fighter on the planet at least to the masses. Now I go on Gamespot and IGN (phuck IGN and all of it's affiliates) and there are more people sayin' that SF and Blazblue are the better FIGHTING GAMES. It doesn't matter if the pro SF/BB guys were right or not, it was just a noticeable change in the mood of the net towards fighter ever since SFIV came out. I was simply makin' the point that people are feelin the SF series and 2D fighters in general ALOT more now. I don't know what masses you mean though. Now unless you are talking about a Smash site, then I could see what you meant. I really can't stand fanboys, fans are ok but fanboys will ruin anything. Some troll other threads on sf sites just to defend their game, if it is the top, why are they constantly defending it and forcing the notion that it is #1 down out throats? Now Melee was probably one of the better fighters to come out, considering SF hadn't had one in a decade and Smash was the new toy out. Also the "masses" are generally stupid, who cares what they think. To make money you have to feed the common denominator in everything and anything, look at music, much of the masses say Souja Boy and Lil Wayne are the best rappers ever. I go by knowledgeable experts or people who have played several games on a higher level or understand mechanics intimately. People will argue Pokemon being deeper than BG1 and 2, doesn't make it so. No bash on Smash, just stating facts. Here are some fans being butthurt here: Never ends. I was just doing a search on the SF vs Smash topic and I remember running across this. boards.ign.com/street_fighter/b6376/186274390/p1 |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 10, 2010 6:22:40 GMT -5
Ya'know, I've grown tired of this...This reminds me of the days when Sado and the gang weren't banned. I'm not gonna argue wit you about YOUR opinion. I tried to tell you this debate isn't going to go anywhere fast. You like the game I don't. Should have left it at that. Because I really wasn't trying to change you're opinion so much as I was trying to get my point across. Yur twistin' my words, over exaggeratin' my statements, wont admit to anything signifigant and swingin' around your opinion like fact. You're not really reading what anyone is saying dawg. I never said my opinion was a fact ever. I just stated that I disliked SFIV no more no less. Also, I never twisted your words or anything like that. However, you obviously aren't reading my post. Like if you can defeat my words, it makes your views seem like "truth". Whatever man. This is an obnoxious lie. You even, somehow, tried to make the chart I posted work in your favor despite the fact it proves nearly every single point I've made quite clearly. I said to myself "I'm going to quit postin' in this thread if you still try to argue wit me after I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, that's some KMC shit. MAYBE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I STATED YOU WOULD GET WHY FFS! People just don't post stuff they read it stuff as well. You never read what I stated about the chartz. It never had anything to do with who sold more. I knew SFIV sold more, I even stated it. For the umpteenth time it had to do with comparable sales which Alpha 3 had with SFIV. You were exaggerating the sales, the rankings don't change that. SFA3 is at the bottom of Capcoms' list (will be knocked off of Capcoms' list when Super Street Fighter IV hits) despite the fact that 1998 was one of Gamings' "ALL TIME GOLDEN YEARS" AND that the console SFA3 was made on has more units sold than almost ALL the current gen consoles COMBINED. You keep glorifying some list and never actually look at the exact sales number. Good job.  I'm ROTFL so hard and at the same time disappointed and irritated. The 360+PS3= a little bit more than half the PS1s on the street in 98. SFA3 had a 100 MILLION potentail buyers while SFIV had a lil less than 60 million, and it almost triples Alpha 3 in sales. Yeah, and it was also ported on two flopped consoles: DC & SS. Nevermind that we never get the total sales of Alpha 3. PSX is the only port that we have sales for and this was a time when the market had mad fighters. Alpha 3 at that point was just another one out of many that were coming out on a consistent basis. This era has far less fighters so they make much more of an impact than the classic era where there were fighters out the arse. Not to mention advertisement, with SFIV being marketed as the return of Street Fighter franchise versus Alpha 3 which was just another street fighter out of tons coming out at that time. SFIV would natural have the edge and yet the difference in sales isn't as wide as you're making it out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 10, 2010 14:57:07 GMT -5
@jack-2 That's why I said "about." geez.  @c First off, yes SSBM is what many would call accidentally deep. But for the record, L-canceling is indeed a big part of being good at the game, but it is not a glitch. I'm fairly sure that was intended by the developers. Wave dashing, yes that's a glitch. It's not that important though. Dash dancing is very important and not a glitch. Wall and ground teching are indispensable, yet neither are glitches. And perhaps what truly contributes to smash's depth the most is directional influence AKA DI (not a glitch). Unlike most arcade-style fighters, your character isn't completely helpless when being comboed, which forces the comboist to actually improvise, and read the other player well. You, the comboist, are constantly responding to the other player's DI, and adjusting. How does comboing work in SF, GG, BB, and just about every other 2D arcade-style fighter? Usually the only variable the comboist needs to take into account is spacing. Otherwise once you land the first hit, it's all muscle memory after that, with the exception of some combo breakers, barrier bursts or that sort of thing. Melee is a wildly different breed of fighter and it takes a lot exposure to truly appreciate it. I'm not saying that SSBM is deeper than SF's. I'm not even gonna try and argue that with any of you guys. I said it had comparable depth at the very least. Although comparable depth has nothing to do with comparable mechanics, and to me SF an SB don't even belong in the same genre. Which is why I think trying to say one is better than the other is just stupid. They're completely different kinds of games. That said, when I am so obviously comparing them in the paragraph above (I'm actually just contrasting), different views can be taken. Yes, SB involves improvized combos. That also implies that their combos are far more difficult and thus much shorter. If that's not you're thing, then SB ain't your thing. If you want long beautiful combos, play BB. That simple. The differences between the games aren't a matter of what's better or worse; they're just a difference in innovation. SB is a completely different approach to the fighting genre, and it has very rich and very deep mechanics. This all goes without saying that there is a big acrobatics element in SB that you also won't find in other fighters... |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 10, 2010 17:16:47 GMT -5
@jack-2 That's why I said "about." geez. @c First off, yes SSBM is what many would call accidentally deep. But for the record, L-canceling is indeed a big part of being good at the game, but it is not a glitch. I'm fairly sure that was intended by the developers. Wave dashing, yes that's a glitch. It's not that important though. Dash dancing is very important and not a glitch. Wall and ground teching are indispensable, yet neither are glitches. And perhaps what truly contributes to smash's depth the most is directional influence AKA DI (not a glitch). Unlike most arcade-style fighters, your character isn't completely helpless when being comboed, which forces the comboist to actually improvise, and read the other player well. You, the comboist, are constantly responding to the other player's DI, and adjusting. How does comboing work in SF, GG, BB, and just about every other 2D arcade-style fighter? Usually the only variable the comboist needs to take into account is spacing. Otherwise once you land the first hit, it's all muscle memory after that, with the exception of some combo breakers, barrier bursts or that sort of thing. Melee is a wildly different breed of fighter and it takes a lot exposure to truly appreciate it. I'm not saying that SSBM is deeper than SF's. I'm not even gonna try and argue that with any of you guys. I said it had comparable depth at the very least. Although comparable depth has nothing to do with comparable mechanics, and to me SF an SB don't even belong in the same genre. Which is why I think trying to say one is better than the other is just stupid. They're completely different kinds of games. That said, when I am so obviously comparing them in the paragraph above (I'm actually just contrasting), different views can be taken. Yes, SB involves improvized combos. That also implies that their combos are far more difficult and thus much shorter. If that's not you're thing, then SB ain't your thing. If you want long beautiful combos, play BB. That simple. The differences between the games aren't a matter of what's better or worse; they're just a difference in innovation. SB is a completely different approach to the fighting genre, and it has very rich and very deep mechanics. This all goes without saying that there is a big acrobatics element in SB that you also won't find in other fighters... They are different. They both have depth (though I remember you saying Smash had much more depth). SF has a complex numerical system that adjusts for falls with a higher numerical value only surpassed by a hit on that level. So if Ken was getting hit by Akuma and he went into the air... if he had a value of 2 and Akuma hit him with a Gou Shoryuken, a value of 4 (hypotheticlaly) he could only be hit by level 4 and higher at that point, it prevents these... Broken juggles, and that's what happens when characters fall indefinitely and can't do anything about it. You can also safe fall. Now there are combo breakers (which is much more intricate than simply jumping out) SF doesn't have that but it has the damage scaling and calculation. The comboes require much, much more skill so that makes it more rewarding to pull them off on an opponent, but none of them are anything so broken to be a constant instakill in a real match, except maybe on Marvel vs Capcom 2, which is a broken game. SF is harder to get into for that reason. SSB was aimed more towards the casual audience. But it brought something different into the mix, they both have depth in their own ways though. I don't deny that. I'm just saying when you have one game that has all of the characters have the same commands for different moves with a general block and less system commands and groove commands and compare it with one that has different characters with the size, projectile ability, different commands (you have the offensive, defensive charge, *and* the 360, and SF is the only one to do that right), along with several specials, supers, and commands for each character and more balance I'd say that there is more depth in most SF games by a bit. Especially Capcom vs SNK 2, that game didn't play as long as say SF3, and partially was because there was so much out there, they should make a sequel to that. So many things and combinations to try where you can make a totally different setup (6 to be exact, plus custom ones) for that same character. Now if Melee allowed that customization, plus true high, low, mid, and counter low attacks with the appropriate ways to block them, I would probably say the other way. But the fact that it has to play 1 on 1 with no items on flat levels really makes it more like the flat 2d fighters (not completely but it lowers the possibilities to make it balanced). Without those glitches the game wouldn't be quite the same. Again, Melee isn't bad, and people definitely appreciate it, it is more of an in depth comparison between the two, not saying either "sucks" or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 11, 2010 3:59:31 GMT -5
It was never my intenet to bash SB or say SF was deeper. I was just makin' a point about the resurgence of SFs' popularity. We all know that SB has a HUGE DEVOTED fanbase who will defend SB to the end, no matter the subject. A few years ago, SSBM was the best fighter on the planet at least to the masses. Now I go on Gamespot and IGN (phuck IGN and all of it's affiliates) and there are more people sayin' that SF and Blazblue are the better FIGHTING GAMES. It doesn't matter if the pro SF/BB guys were right or not, it was just a noticeable change in the mood of the net towards fighter ever since SFIV came out. I was simply makin' the point that people are feelin the SF series and 2D fighters in general ALOT more now. I don't know what masses you mean though. Now unless you are talking about a Smash site, then I could see what you meant. I really can't stand fanboys, fans are ok but fanboys will ruin anything. Some troll other threads on sf sites just to defend their game, if it is the top, why are they constantly defending it and forcing the notion that it is #1 down out throats? Now Melee was probably one of the better fighters to come out, considering SF hadn't had one in a decade and Smash was the new toy out. Also the "masses" are generally stupid, who cares what they think. To make money you have to feed the common denominator in everything and anything, look at music, much of the masses say Souja Boy and Lil Wayne are the best rappers ever. I go by knowledgeable experts or people who have played several games on a higher level or understand mechanics intimately. People will argue Pokemon being deeper than BG1 and 2, doesn't make it so. No bash on Smash, just stating facts. Here are some fans being butthurt here: Never ends. I was just doing a search on the SF vs Smash topic and I remember running across this. boards.ign.com/street_fighter/b6376/186274390/p1By "Masses". I mean, "mainstream", your average game site/blog or forum poster. Now SF seemingly has as many fanbois as Smash Bros on some of the popular sites. It's a bad thing but it just goes to show that "SF is Back". The thing is, for me anyway, the masses aren't totally stupid. I know I've said some negative things about the general public in the past, but mass popularity counts a whole lot. Some times, the masses get things right or have understandable reasons for their actions. For instance, SF and Tekken are always more popular than KOF and Guilty Gear. Especially now, what's the reason for that, most of the time? KOF and Guilty Gear are just "too anime-like"/Japanese, everyone doesn't like anime, most average Americans could care less. So when they see a game like that, they are turned off instantly. That's a logical reason not to purchase that game, even though I don't agree with it. The masses help elect Barack Obama, help SF win at the VGAs this last year, AGAINST TEKKEN and they help my mans Kanye West win a hell of alot of Grammys. There not stupid all the time. 'Pends on what side of the fence your on. ALTHOUGH, the GP can be pretty damn ignorant most of the time, but ignorance does not equal stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 11, 2010 4:21:40 GMT -5
Just looked at that IGN link and I must say that it was HILARIOUS. The SB guys are morons and the SF dudes are pompous assholes. Gotta say tho, what Justin Wong said was pretty funny, simply cuz it was so short and blatant.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 11, 2010 6:20:29 GMT -5
It doesn't really make sense to compare Street Fighter to smash when the former has so much history. Besides, you can't use the depth regarding the implements of SF and use them as the basis to judge smash. The games are absolutely nothing a like.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 12, 2010 0:48:52 GMT -5
I don't know what masses you mean though. Now unless you are talking about a Smash site, then I could see what you meant. I really can't stand fanboys, fans are ok but fanboys will ruin anything. Some troll other threads on sf sites just to defend their game, if it is the top, why are they constantly defending it and forcing the notion that it is #1 down out throats? Now Melee was probably one of the better fighters to come out, considering SF hadn't had one in a decade and Smash was the new toy out. Also the "masses" are generally stupid, who cares what they think. To make money you have to feed the common denominator in everything and anything, look at music, much of the masses say Souja Boy and Lil Wayne are the best rappers ever. I go by knowledgeable experts or people who have played several games on a higher level or understand mechanics intimately. People will argue Pokemon being deeper than BG1 and 2, doesn't make it so. No bash on Smash, just stating facts. Here are some fans being butthurt here: Never ends. I was just doing a search on the SF vs Smash topic and I remember running across this. boards.ign.com/street_fighter/b6376/186274390/p1By "Masses". I mean, "mainstream", your average game site/blog or forum poster. Now SF seemingly has as many fanbois as Smash Bros on some of the popular sites. It's a bad thing but it just goes to show that "SF is Back". The thing is, for me anyway, the masses aren't totally stupid. I know I've said some negative things about the general public in the past, but mass popularity counts a whole lot. Some times, the masses get things right or have understandable reasons for their actions. For instance, SF and Tekken are always more popular than KOF and Guilty Gear. Especially now, what's the reason for that, most of the time? KOF and Guilty Gear are just "too anime-like"/Japanese, everyone doesn't like anime, most average Americans could care less. So when they see a game like that, they are turned off instantly. That's a logical reason not to purchase that game, even though I don't agree with it. The masses help elect Barack Obama, help SF win at the VGAs this last year, AGAINST TEKKEN and they help my mans Kanye West win a hell of alot of Grammys. There not stupid all the time. 'Pends on what side of the fence your on. ALTHOUGH, the GP can be pretty damn ignorant most of the time, but ignorance does not equal stupidity. Well Japanese games vs Americans is taste. The masses can be good *sometimes* but overall nah. They also elected Bush into office, twice! Or helped to anyways. They get it right every once in a while though. |
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 12, 2010 22:06:43 GMT -5
By "Masses". I mean, "mainstream", your average game site/blog or forum poster. Now SF seemingly has as many fanbois as Smash Bros on some of the popular sites. It's a bad thing but it just goes to show that "SF is Back". The thing is, for me anyway, the masses aren't totally stupid. I know I've said some negative things about the general public in the past, but mass popularity counts a whole lot. Some times, the masses get things right or have understandable reasons for their actions. For instance, SF and Tekken are always more popular than KOF and Guilty Gear. Especially now, what's the reason for that, most of the time? KOF and Guilty Gear are just "too anime-like"/Japanese, everyone doesn't like anime, most average Americans could care less. So when they see a game like that, they are turned off instantly. That's a logical reason not to purchase that game, even though I don't agree with it. The masses help elect Barack Obama, help SF win at the VGAs this last year, AGAINST TEKKEN and they help my mans Kanye West win a hell of alot of Grammys. There not stupid all the time. 'Pends on what side of the fence your on. ALTHOUGH, the GP can be pretty damn ignorant most of the time, but ignorance does not equal stupidity. Well Japanese games vs Americans is taste. The masses can be good *sometimes* but overall nah. They also elected Bush into office, twice! Or helped to anyways. They get it right every once in a while though. Bush Cheated...Rat Bastard! |
|
Yoshi
B-Tier
I love to eat fruit and I like to exercise. Obviously, I'm a yoshi...
Posts: 897
|
Post by Yoshi on Jan 19, 2010 22:59:33 GMT -5
Nah, I think John Kerry dropped out at the last minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 20, 2010 0:42:42 GMT -5
Nah, I think John Kerry dropped out at the last minute. I was talkin' about the election against Gore. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 20, 2010 5:16:30 GMT -5
Nah, I think John Kerry dropped out at the last minute. Bush was too awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by toobz on Jan 28, 2010 2:10:45 GMT -5
Classic gaming died with the ps2, gamecube, and xbox. It was classic all the way up through ps1 and n64. After that video games stepped into "next gen." All the ps2 and gamecube did was improve on the technology already existing in the ps1 and n64, and didn't really add any new aspects to gaming.
That said, the SNES was the greatest system ever, probably followed by the ps1. way too many amazing games on those systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saikyo Kid on Jan 29, 2010 16:12:49 GMT -5
The PS1, N64 and DC are may favs.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 30, 2010 4:30:09 GMT -5
Classic gaming died with the ps2, gamecube, and xbox. It was classic all the way up through ps1 and n64. After that video games stepped into "next gen." All the ps2 and gamecube did was improve on the technology already existing in the ps1 and n64, and didn't really add any new aspects to gaming. That said, the SNES was the greatest system ever, probably followed by the ps1. way too many amazing games on those systems. Many generally PS1 made gaming what it is today, something for everyone so it had a huge impact. SNES was phenomenal as well, both great systems. |
|
