^Care to elaborate? I’m just curious.
I’m not going to hate on your opinion.
When Tennis 2.0 comes out I will finally be able to compete with that shithead Roger Federer who, in the previous version of Tennis, got by with his good execution. Well you’ve got another thing coming, pal. I’ve had the Tennis knowledge and mind games and I can finally use them. Watch for me on ESPN.
Pertho
163
Making footsies irrelevant in a Street Fighter game is a dumb idea. All we need is good normals
Ridiculous stuff has been happening in fighting games since day one. Clearly your troll join date does not improve your trolling skills.
a game being to much defensive is as bad if not worst than a game being too much offensive, as i said a good game has a good balance between different gameplay styles
fighting games are not worst for having a more offensive aproach, unleast the defensive gameplay is just irrelevant
so far many games still have neutral game, is just that they come in a diferent form of just “footsies” (i hate that word, sounds damn gay)
It seems like Street Fighter 4 is causing some of the new players to attempt to win with a play style that is not going to work with any consistency. I think that this is a legitimate argument against the “simplifying” of the game.
Making the super move execution easier, making the reversals easier, rewarding mashing more than it should be rewarded, excessive invincibility frames, the comeback mechanics seem to me to only be producing frustration for everyone involved.
You can’t win with consistency if you are attempting to use the “simplification” techniques. People who don’t rely on those things will hate playing with you. People who are new and trying to get better will also hate playing you (and probably lose to you). In the end it’s bad for everyone involved.
What did Capcom really gain by making a shoryuken so easy to execute in SF4?
I honestly can’t think of anything about the SF4 series that represents an improvement over SF3.
It seems me and you share the same mindset. I prefer to replace the “footsie” with “rules of engagement”.
I thought footsie is just controlling space.
exactly. there were pictures up on the net a while ago which I can’t refind :-, that has the exact same situation played out in several SF games. The pictures had the hitboxes up and you can see how with each game the hitboxes for the normals got worse and worse. It ended with Alpha 3 and the normals shown had grown so much weaker by the time Alpha 3 came out that it was like a bad joke. Active boxes were tiny, and vulnerable boxes take up virtually the entire character.
With the weaker normals, it becomes impossible to truely zone away opponents with just normal moves. Like you could in the eariler SF2 games.
Yes, because the date when I joined SRK automatically determines when I started to play fighting games. Apparently, I have to sign up at SRK before I can play MvC2 at Nickel City or watch Season’s Beatings videos on youtube. Who says I was bashing SF EX? What other good fighting games did capcom release in 1996? Your the only person to purposely “misinterpret” my comment and attempt to “bash” me for “attacking” your game. Peace out, bro. 
Shoto Hitbox Case Study | ComboVid
A lot of these hitboxes don’t make any sense. Why were they so huge in the first place?
The problem with comeback mechanics is that it completely runs counter to how the 'rest of the match goes. For example, if I spend all match rushing down a Deadpool/Iron Man/Doom team to prevent from being zoned out all day, then why does it make sense for me to suddenly need to back off and wait until their X-Factor runs out? After all of that work I did getting a sizeable advantage, now I want to squander it and run because one good hit is all it will take for the opponent to completely come back. This goes ditto for Revenge Meter in SFIV–which never runs out on its own.
The only way, in my opinion, to enable “comebacks” in a game is to increase normal damage. I was talking to people on the VF forums a few years back, and they were basically talking about the concept of how many “guesses” someone should need to make in order to win. Of course, character types should always be considered (a speedy, safe character should probably need to “guess” more) but a character who is patently geared for high damage (like T-Hawk) would benefit from only requiring two meterless guesses to end a match against ANY opponent.
Ebbs
172
I’ll co-sign this. The “average” gamer doesn’t want to have to really learn anything in order to win. So instead they’re trying to make games where knowledge of the mechanics doesn’t help as much as they used to. A few minutes ago a guest in the house (friend of a roommate) caught me and someone else talking about how to do something and we got called “Try Hards”. That’s the mentality that the newer fans (a lot of them anyway) have. The comeback mechanic that Capcom adopted was largely in part to them. “Regular” people don’t want to lose to someone that they know practiced, it pisses them off. Somehow your win is less legit if you go to training mode or actively look things up. What the logic is now is “the better player will always win anyway”, so what they’re really trying to do is make the margin of victory smaller then it should be. The only reason they’re trying to balance anything is because competitive people will gravitate towards dominant characters and that margin of victory will get even bigger. The thing I find annoying is that the same “regular” people want to be able to do “cool” stuff when they play, they just don’t wanna work as much. It’s like you’re allowed to be good, as long as your not better then them.
tataki
173
because it was proven to be good.
“moves cant be good” - capcom, on moves
this I have a hard time following, I mean if you know how the match operates and yet you spend your time only on one aspect of the match then that’s only your own short coming when the strategy you employed is no longer effective. Aren’t the best player known for being adaptive? I’m sure the usual quote is "step up your game " Its finally how its commonly use on one situation and yet the other its not.
Please combeback mechanics are nothing new. Super moves are comeback mechanics. I mean in older games when you were down on life, you can toss out a super and it’ll make up the life difference. Back when supers were supers, when they had tons of invincibility, almost never scaled, and took up 60% damage easy.
The thing is, in the FG community people are willing to excuse stupid stuff as long as some execution is involved. Like as long as it takes some practice, then it should continue to be stupid. VCs in Alpha 3 took some execution to pull off, but just because it took execution, should it get a pass? Hit confirms in CVS2 took some effort, but nothing made it any less stupid. Honesty if someone came back on you in those games, it’s pretty much the same reason someone would come back on your in new games. You got to careless, to greedy, too cocky, and tried to press your advantage too much. Lo and behold, random super/ultra/cc/hitconfirm xx combo. I mean you’ll see random ultras and all sorts of stuff at high levels in pretty much any game. So it’s not something that’s based on scrubs vs. good players. It’s just that in that specific situation you got outguessed. And you lost 60% life because you weren’t respectful of your option. Jumping at a full stocked, fully ulta’d Ryu in SFIV is about as stupid as whiffing against a fully stocked V-Akuma in A3. Street Fighter IV didn’t beat you, you beat yourself. It’s time for people to be accountable for their stupid actions in matches, and stop blaming your loses on Capcom’s development team.
I completely agree. I had bad habit of doing this, glade I’m a little more conscience and hopefully others can too. thanks for sharing.
The main difference between what you’re saying and what I implied is that if an opponent forces you to adapt by something they did which worked, then that’s one thing. If, for example, I start off a match doing a Touch Of Death combo, but screw up the last hit, only to find myself now on the defensive because the opponent won’t let me regain momentum. I have to adapt to beat this because of my mistake and the opponent’s ability. But, doing high damage combos which puts my opponent into Rage/Level 2-3 X-Factor/Ultra/whatever is the game essentially handing them the tools negate my ability.
Super meters have always been around, but the way they’re earned changes from game to game. Some games reward you more for the damage you receive than others, which are obviously moreso comeback tools than other examples. It’s highly possible to beat an opponent so badly in Super Turbo that they get NO meter while you have a full bar. In SFIV, you will ALWAYS get a revenge meter and it’s very unlikely that you’ll kill them before it’s useable. To give credit where it’s due, in Tekken and Marvel, strategies have developed around the ability to kill opponents before they can use X-Factor or Rage. (For example, catching them with a mixup on the way down from a character switch in Marvel or putting them in a wall bounce just before getting Raged in Tekken.)
I dont know how you define someone playing the gamer mechanics to their advantage “handing” As you said every game operates different.
That’s a non-argument. It’s a given that every game has different mechanics and some will use them effectively and some won’t. What we’re discussing here is what sort of mechanics foster the type of gameplay conducive to competition.
In short, blaming it all on the players is no better than blaming it all on the mechanics.
