161

Just try the dreamcast version…it sucks.

162

3S HD would be interesting. I thought the goal of STHD was to leave top tier be, and make lower tiered characters up. If they just kept it in the urban style art direction they were going for, it wouldn’t be that bad imo.

163

I wish Thongboy would finish his tutorial already.

164

Man that shit is done for like Duke Nukem Forever.

165

I agree. I use Aegis for fun, but if I’m playing seriously with Urien, it’s Tyrant Slaughter all the way.

That said, I would like to see them rebalance the game a bit, but not go overboard. The tiers are much more evident in 3s than in a lot of fighting games, which sucks sometimes, but if they balanced it out as much as ST, I don’t think that would be a good thing.

166

I totally agree because wait what

167

I mained Necro and mainly used Electric Snake, but used Magnetic Storm sometimes, people keep saying that it has tons of links and stuff, true but if you link it off some of his moves it hardly does any damage.

Regardless it is a really good super that I would most often use too punish by itself or use it kinda as a psychic uppercut. You really do get the most out of it when you use it alone though.

I know one of the best times was too meet them air to air with his cork screw which would throw them into a reset directly above you, throw out the super and it’s pretty hard for them too tell which way too parry and if they do guess right they will cross over too the other side really fast, and if they start parrying the other way at the right time… props too them lol.
Got me wanting too play again so bad!

168

jesus christ

169

Now you’re just arguing between the two supers, and which is better. Not the point. The point is whether the super defines the character (read: this character wins games solely because he has a good super), or moreso, whether it defines the game. And outside of Yun and Chun, whom I think really undermine the overall balance due specifically to their supers (well, more Yun on that one … Chun is bullshit in priority, kara range, normal damage, and so on … her super is just one issue), I still say they don’t. Ken is rock solid even with S1. As is Dudley, Makoto, Akuma, and so on.

Their supers are a part, but to say they make the game is an oversimplification. As is “3S is just low forward > super and win” or “parries make the game a bunch of guesses lol”. You can do this with anything. Here …

– “to win in ST just pick o.sagat and throw fireballs lol”

– “sf4 is just random ulta > win rofl”

– “if you wanna win marvel just lern infinites and profit lmao”

– “to be good in GG u just have 2 cosplay as ur favorite anime character”

– “tekken is just picking eddie and mashing”

– “u don’t need to know anything about vf5 bcuz no 1 plays it ;)”

It’s just slogans thrown out by people who aren’t into it. It isn’t much of an argument.

170

Before anything else, I want to say that I don’t particularly dislike 3S. Not my cup of tea, but I recognize it as a good fighting game that a lot of people love. Not a bad thing, the community needs good games for people to play and enjoy.

The 3S vs OG SF argument comes up a lot. I didn’t want to say anything in this thread, but I figure its better to give a thought-out opinion rather that just say “your game sucks!” and leave it at that.

So, with that disclaimer…

I feel like this statement is greatly underestimating old-school fighting games.

Yes, guessing and anticipation are a part of what goes into a fighter, but its not the whole story. In the OG games, part of the strategy included me wanting to put you into a position that gave me a tactical advantage, which would then increase my chances of victory. This tactical advantage is based on a number of things - specific character attributes, position on the screen (and relative to the corner), meter, etc.

Imagine we’re playing a war strategy game. We could just line up our forces at opposite ends of the screen and lob artillery at each other. And that would be fun in its own right. But more than that, I want to put you in a position where you are at a big disadvantage. Maybe surround your units with mine, lead you into an open field where I have snipers positioned in high places, or lead you into a narrow ravine and I take the high ground. This will give me the greatest chance for victory. Of course, you can still win too - but the fight will be much harder for you.

OG fighting games had things like this. So part of the strategy was me trying to put you in a bad position where your options for defense suck and I have a high chance of doing good damage before you find a way out, if you ever do. You, of course, know this and not only are you trying to avoid getting put there, you also want to put me in whatever poor defensive position your character can create.

What happened in SF3 is that the parry is basically like a big “cancel” button. Its not just a defensive option, many times its the best defensive option. And no matter how many of your other defensive options I may be able to limit or take away, you always have parry available to you. Since its always available, I can’t really put you in a poor defensive position. In order to hit you, I’ve got to attack you in a way that you weren’t expecting me to. I don’t need to put you in any sort of disadvantageous position to do that, and even if I did it doesn’t really matter when that’s the bottom line. So, that part of the strategy is lost.

So now, the focus of the game becomes mix-up - trying to read your opponent while remaining unpredictable. And the characters who excel at the game are the ones who have good ways of getting around the “cancel” button.

So if your cup of tea is in-close fighting and mix-up games, 3S is probably the best game there is for that. It may be more fast paced, and maybe more exciting to watch, even play. But to achieve that, the whole element of tactical advantage/disadvantage was more or less lost, and while I can’t speak for everyone, I believe that this is where the root of most of the anti-3S sentiment comes from.

Again, this is just my opinion, I’m not typing it up to say “your game sucks!” nor do I think it will cause anyone to change their minds or anything like that.

171

many players do not understand how a meaningful choice adds to depth and, for whatever reason, have the idea that a large number of choices is somehow inherently “deep”

172

Hey I don’t want to be a part of this argument but didn’t you originally imply that supers in 3S were more situational than other games? You seem to be talking about something else entirely now.

173

I think you have the right of it. Well, for the most part. Only part I disagree with is where parries are spoken of like guarantees. I think that’s where a lot of the debate over that mechanic goes sour. They’re a risk, they’re not always easy to land and effectively use for turning the tide, and by no means are they always the best option. But yes, they are always there, can come out at any time and give even a person in the hole a major option. And it drastically changes space and the control of it.

As opposed to war (to borrow your analogy for ST), 3s feels more like tennis to me. You never know when your shot will be turned back on you, and putting the ball in a place where your opponent can predict it is the best way to have it shoved right back at you. The upper hand shifts regularly, and quickly. While position may not be as in the forefront, trickiness is now a more vital part of strategy. But really, both of these systems have strategy, and both of them have elements of unpredictability. To say there’s no mix-up in ST is an overstatement, just as saying controlling space has no relevance in 3s. The emphasis is just different.

Personally, I like both styles. I’m cool with ST, 3s, and even 4 (though 4 is my least favorite of the set). And to be honest, I wouldn’t call any of these games perfect. They each have their pros and cons. I just like 3s the most out of the lot.

174

Initially, I was saying how I enjoy that mix-up and normals are at the forefront of the game, moreso than with other games in the series, and that specials and supers more being situational. Then some poster said “3s is defined entirely by supers” and I said “I disagree, and think that’s an oversimplification.” I then stated why (which I rarely bother to do, but I’ve been stuck in my fucking office chair for a week, recovering from surgery). Then there were some semantics thrown in, and conversations being what they are, some stuff shifted. Then I think Azrael hit a lot of this stuff pretty dead on. And here we are.

175

I agree with a lot of what you said but I think today a lot of it is just people wanting to be cool by hating on the game when a lot can’t even think of a reason to hate it other than the “OG’s” hate it too.

176

I think Azrael’s post was pretty good. I however feel like up close fighting is more appealing to me, but I understand why fireball zoning is fun and a good tactic. I feel that not every game needs to have this to be good, though.

177

The “zoning” games already have this up-close mixup element. 3S removes or reduces the value of a lot of strategy that Azrael mentioned and replaces it with nothing. That doesn’t mean its not enjoyable or a bad game w/e but its certainly not the holy grail of fighting games. Its annoying seeing people attribute positive stuff to it that doesn’t exist because parrying stuff looks or feels good and the sprites are very pretty.

178

I got neg repped for saying I love 3s in a thread celebrating 10 years of 3rd strike.
Does the hate really run that deep?

179

I’ve been negged for saying I like 3s many times.

180

I dont’ think anyone here said it was. EDIT: Looks like I spoke too soon. :lol:

I like zoning, but I hate how often matches in games that place a lot of emphasis on zoning devolve into fireball fights. You can turtle in 3s but it’s harder to do than it is in ST because it’s easier for your opponent to get up in your grill. I dunno, I love the SF2 games, but after more than 15 years of playing them, 3s was pretty refreshing for me when I picked it up.