irrelevant. in it’s day, a Model T Ford could go as fast as 30mph and cost $850 (say around 18k in today’s dollars). should i be grateful if i bought a new car from a company in today’s dollars and found out it could go only 30mph only after i bought it? the point is new technology should reach a point where it’s less expensive to manufacture, more efficient and advanced than obsolete technology.
he’s reaching for straws? well, Capcom disagrees with you. if the online was as good as some claim. there would be no reason for Capcom to go into damage control mode.
its almost uncanny to see someone who actually gets what games can be.
i think they did a very good job telling the story or at least the characters ambitions during fights. little things like skrulls battly cry before his inferno hyper or dooms “I do as i choose and answer to noone” just ads more depth to the characters than square enixes whole latest lineup
REALLY? you do realize that you are in fact being hypocritical in this statement, right? you complain over bellyaching about small shit, yet you are in fact doing exactly that. not only are you doing that but you are TRYING to understate his complaints and instead focusing on his complaints about lack of story, as if that was all he was talking about.
TRY AGAIN. smart people arent going to let you pick and choose what to argue over, just so you can TRY to make something its not. in this case you are trying to disprove joes review by only concentrating on his story argument, and glossing over everything else. in fact all you have to say is that story is stupid and fighting is good, which no one is arguing.
i can only assume that you mean that i meant that his review delivered on all points… that is not what i stated.
if, however, you meant that i’m wrong to assume that video game companies that have 20+ YEARS of experience making video games, deliver on all points, then YOU are the idiot. its PERFECTLY reasonable to expect that things move along and ADVANCE. at least to the level of competitors. and yes wesern developers have been using better netcode than capcom has, for 10 years. ponder has come up with an algorythm that almost completely solves input delay as a problem… that solution has been around for 4-5 years IIRC. and capcom has acknowledged it.
besides the game NOT being an arcade perfect port (it isnt an arcade title, asshat) i was playing WW in the arcades in '91 as well as final fight and golden axe and double dragon. i waited in a video store to rent snes WW for 5 hours before an employee promised to hold it and call me when they got it in. SPOILED? lol, ive taken many beatings and traveled many a mile to enter tournaments. i was in the A3 tourny where valle played against daigo for the first time. some of my best friends regularly played against tomo. i’m as oldschool as seeing people take beatdowns for tick throws, and arcades having “rules” that were best followed if you didnt want some gangbanger to fuck your shit up. just because people want shit to get with the times doesnt mean that they are spoiled.
in '93 when i got my first summer job, the minimum wage was $4.35. guess everyone should be happy making that in 2011.
you are an idiot.
25 mb DL, 2 mb UL fiber optic. ive got the best money can buy without a commercial connection. ive done all i can do on my end.
sf4 netcode good? FUCK OFF. laggy ass waste of time. input delay is lag, dumbass.
why people like you continue to speak is beyond me. get out of here with your old man sentiments of times gone past and how the wippersnappers have it to easy nowadays. i dont want to go back to when 35" crt’s were the top end and basically no one had a crt biger than that… we had to play on fucking projection to get a bigger screen, and few people could afford projections. nowadays flatscreens 45" and lower are affordable by most people.
yes, an example of technology getting better. its all around us. and saying that capcom shouldnt have to get with the times cause of “how hard” we had it back in the day, is probably some of the stupidest, most idiotic, hardheaded for no reason other than to be hardheaded thinking ive heard in a long time.
perhaps YOU should go back to 56k, or better yet no internet at all, and say the same thing… cause the point that you are trying to make is exactly that.
The features included in this game were minimal compared to all good games in all genres. Saying it doesn’t need a story mode because it’s a fighting game misses the point. Features gamers, even fighting gamers, have come to rely on and expect were left out of this game. I don’t have to list the features left out; everyone knows them. The core game is fun, but overall, the experience is not as good as 90% of consumers would expect. The game feels incomplete. Story mode and better matchmaking would have been much desired by most people, but we can live without them. But come on, no replay or spectator mode in lobbies? Anyone who tries to insinuate that’s A-OK is a fucking fanboy tool. Sorry.
This analogy fails because things like training mode, online play, spectator mode, etc. are a little more important to modern fighting games than font size to a story.
Actually, people do whine about single player games not having some sort of online versus or multiplayer nowadays, which is kind of irritating to me. Like Bayonetta and Vanquish were probably overlooked by the larger population for the lack of online (not saying this was the only reason, but probably a reason).
Again, he does have a point about the garnish of the game being lacking (online parts might be consider the main course but I digress). The parts they did right; training mode, character interactions (intro, outro, win quotes), the fighting, the characters are all better than I could have imagined, they just slipped up in other places like the online mode and mission mode. Hopefully these will be patched soon.
Why don’t you try to counter the actual argument instead of asserting irrelevant arguments to support a false analogy? Why should the lack of all of the content that’s been mentioned be ignored just because the engine is okay?
Well, that’s what happens when people know they can’t answer a point. They just tend to take the argument on a little tangent and hope you forget about the point they couldn’t answer.
In my opinion, people should just ignore the OP. He’s mad simply because someone out there doesn’t think MvC3 is as great as he does. I mean why are people engaging this guy in argument?
LOL you guys can’t register a joke at all. Allow me to go a bit more indepth:
Game reviews suck. I really hate the vast majority of the gaming press. I don’t like how they opperate, I don’t like the people in the position, the gaming press is just generally subpar when compared to the press of any other entertainment medium out there.
Game reviews themselves are fundamentally flawed in that the review the game as a product like an automobile rather than an independent piece of art. There are a number of ways I can illustrate this, allow me to present a few:
The case of Area 51 the First Person Shooter for Xbox and PS2. The game got a higher score on PS2 than it did on Xbox on Gamespot, their reasoning? Because Xbox has better FPSes aviable to it, so it makes the purchase of it seem less of a neccissity. Games are fundamentally about the opposite of neccissity, and it is inappropriate to judge anything with relation to another in artistic mediums. The game did not drop in quality, so why the lower score? Should we lower the rating of a movie on BlueRay than to HD DVD because Blue Ray has a large selction? Should we give a better review of an album on vinyl because better music exist on iTunes?
The case of Conkers Bad Fur Day for the Xbox. This game was incredibly horrible, yet Xbox gave it a 4 out of 5. Adam was so upset about this that before the episode came out, he went onto Attack of the Show to say “This game isn’t good, it is horrible, it would have received a horrible score if it wasn’t for the fact that nothing else on the market right now is good right now.” Again, games are measured a viewed with the level of necessity and practicality, which is completely inappropriate as games are neither necessary nor appropriate. When was the last time you heard a review say that “There are better films currently in theater to go see”? The job of critics is to give a statement on the product as a standalone object, not to tell people how to spend their money, that’s of the leisure of the person to decide.
Homogenization through scores. I largely believe the much of the “sameness” of games these days comes from less the budget, but more the expectation for games with unrelated goals expected to give the same or as many experiences as another game, which is clearly not applicable. We complain about New Super Mario Brothers lack of online multiplayer simply because we EXPECT it. In what other medium to we expect something to be present in everthing? Do we see movie critics complain that Michael Cera is not in every film, or that The Incredibles does not start out with an opening credits? No we do not. Game critics should be promoting diversity, but instead the system and parameters they have set up are promoting the opposite.
There are many other things that I dislike about this review and reviews in general, but these 3 all are an elaberation on the point I was trying to make with the font joke. Sadly game critic system is done on the same system as a DVD review, where only about half of the focus is on the movie itself, and the vast majority of the focus is put on features.
I personally love MVC3, as long as Megaman X is DLC’d into SSS Tier and completely breaks the game I will continue to sink hours upon hours into this thing. However, everything Angry Joe said regarding stripped down features and story is correct. There is no logical defense to this nor is there any reward for doing so.
Edit: and to the review guy, you’re not making a logical argument. You’re stating your opinion about the opinions of people who have opinions of games doesn’t agree with the opinions of people who have opinions on giving them attention. Think about that for a moment.
Game reviews make sense, but there are multiple biases like any form of media to take into account, just like your own biases. The only thing I don’t agree on for video game reviews is the need to attach a number.
Point 3 is utter nonsense. The movie analogy doesn’t work at all, because those are stylistic choices, not gameplay features. A more apt comparison would be, for instance, if the movie ended halfway through the third act and completely lacked an ending. Or if random bits of dialogue were inexplicably missing from the film.
So then it is fine to judge a video game in a system that is generally used for products that are need based when no other medium is subjected to this kind of treatment? Why? It is an inappropriate way to go about it. The job of a critic has never been “let me tell you how much I enjoyed this product” but to find a way to reach a way under which you can reach a somewhat objective (while still obviously subjective) ground. A good example would be Ebert, who uses the very common practice of viewing what the movie was trying to do. This is very commonly used throughout ALL medium forms, so why isn’t it frequently applied to viewing games as well, but instead we judge not the game itself, but the purchase and the necessity for it? It isn’t their opinions I am taking quarell with, you have a lack of reading comprehension if you believe that. No I am asserting that reviews like this one are holding games back and are improper ways to be judging games, which then invalidates ANY conclusion they may reach, wheather or not it agrees with me.
Number systems aren’t bad, they can provide your reader with a way to still get your opinion on the product across while allowing you to hone in and break down the flaws or the things the game does well. The trouble with video game numbered systems goes back into what I said before, as well as how inaccurate these numbers really are, thus only leading to further confusion for your viewer.
Incorrect. The opening credits of a film are just as important as opening and ending movies to a games arcade mode, and if you do not believe so then you must not watch movies. I can provide a number of examples if need be, from Star Wars to ENTER THE VOID. Opening Credits aren’t even a feature to a movie, they are a main part of it, just as much as the first scene with the main charecter. Movies are a visual art form, and every scene every frame matters.
Also, as for the last line, one of the things that Lost In Translation is critically acclaimed for is cutting out a line. Within their review system, film makers are allowed much more freedom and range of expression than game makers currently are.
Also since you may have not seen ENTER THE VOID yet, here’s the opening credits, hopefully they can help establish the importance of well placed opening credits to a film.
[media=youtube]dL0lNGXoP8E[/media]
If a film choses not to go with opening credits, do critics claim that if this past movie used them well then this new one must as well? No they do not. We expect, or rather the gaming press expects games to harbor similar features, to the point that this review wants this game to have a 6 button layout like other Capcom fighting games. It also wants it to have modes found in Soul Calibur and SSFIV, when this is not an integrable part of what this game is trying to do.
No that still doesn’t invalidate what I said, because the fact remains is that no game ***needs ***that something you are refering too. No game NEEDS online play, no game NEEDS story mode , and certainly no game NEEDS cut scenes, especially not cut scenes. It is simply something we have come to expect, and these expectations hold games back.
Music doesn’t need a proper ending, it doesn’t even need any notes. [media=youtube]HypmW4Yd7SY[/media]
Movies don’t need dialogue, they don’t even need a story [media=youtube]PirH8PADDgQ[/media]
Every other medium has such freedom, but because of the crap we insist MUST be on games, their freedom is incredibly limited.
Again, you’re making a false comparison. If a movie is simply poorly written, you don’t say “Well movies should be free to be poorly written, don’t criticize them for it” …
… That’s not music.
You’re helping to prove my point because that movie is pretty bad.
Can you explain that last part for me? How does expecting a game to have decent features hold the game back? If a game is multiplayer centric, why is it out of line to expect the game to have good multiplayer features? If the developers and marketers advertise and hype a game’s story, why is it improper to criticize them when that story ends up being extremely weak?
These ARE criticisms you’d make of a movie or song, or book, or whatever other medium you want to try to bring up here (even though none of those mediums are video games and therefore any comparison is inherently flawed, being passive mediums)…
What’s actually holding gaming back are the kind of people who think legitimate criticisms of objective failures should be shouted down, because of the developing company sees they can get away with a less complete product, then why would they bother ever including them?
You do realize there’s a difference between someone fucking up and someone making an artistic decision, right?
Or are you going to tell me there’s some artistic merit in MvC3 having bad netcode or no spectator mode, or no story (in light of NYCC panels), or no replay mode.