I thought it was a terrible article, personally.
Remakes own, nuff said.
Then I’m afraid it seems you’re too young to have played ‘Super’. 
He never really speaks about the actual advantage of denying that aspect of the gaming industry. I mean, the guy clearly has a weak spot for games like Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, and the others he mentioned (who doesn’t)? What does he expect to replace them if Nintendo didn’t continue on with their Zelda/Metroid sequels?
Essentially, he seems to be treating games as a kind of abstract art, which simply doesn’t make sense. I’ll be the first to argue that games are art, they’re simply a much different kind that whatever he seems to have in mind. A game needs function. Games can’t be art in the same way as abstract art is. There can’t be that much room to interpret. The game needs function. So, essentially, developers need to try to craft something, they are crafters, but there’s no problem with that. I’d call a potter who produces excellent, unique, but most importantly functional bowls an artist. Yet there is no room for interpretation there. It’s an iterated product, but why the hell should we care when it works?
I understand where he is coming from and to some extent I can admit I can agree (particularly with Mario games) however there is a bit of a difference when you look at it from the Street Fighter angle. The game is a fighting game. The point to keeping everything familiar and similar while experimenting by adding new features is yes present the same game but essentially to players experienced with the game. Example most of us here who has played with Ryu from SF2 know how Ryu works and have noted the few changes or additions over the years and series. This allows for us to enter a combat zone with some familiarity reducing the fustrations of learning an entirely new character. Further example would be that most people who have played fighting games in general, especially capcom fighting games know back to block high and down back to block low. Now imagine the transition if SSF2 (Next game after SF) had buttons devoted to the blocks. Imagine how many people would have to relearn just because of what might be a small change especially since now back would probably be used for walking.
(Not meaning to write an article here as a response so I will wrap up)
In conclusion, yeah I agree some series should die. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Gannon keeps coming back or why Bowser never learns that Mario will come after his ass for kidnapping the princess. My point is that the world of adventure games is different than the world of fighting games. In fighting tournaments you expect the competitors to return to the next tournament. In fighting games the same principal should apply and because of that is why we should always have familar faces. As for the similar battle system, we should always have familiarity so that the general gameplay isnt disturbed but do give us a new feature to toy with which for the most part makes the game that much more advanced over its predesscors…
The only thing that bothers me from a recurring standpoint, is the recurring theme that fighting games don’t deserve the same time, effort and money put into adventure games. Capcom can fuel the Devil May Cry series with all its music, cutscenes and gameplay but the same cannot be done for a fighting game. The endings and prologues have to be lackluster, they can’t be bothered to make full ingame cutscenes or a coherent story. Fighting games play second fiddle to every other genre out there. It’s pretty fucking annoying.
DMC was made with the word “cool” in mind. Awesome cutscenes and music are essential to capturing that.
SF is all about gameplay. I doubt anyone here regrets getting a SF game because the story is lackluster. The story is just (mediocre) icing on the cake.
Yeah, but it’s like that because you’ve been conditioned to not expect anything more. It’s not like the gameplay suffers because work is done on its presentation. It’s not like the CvS2 ratio system.
“Gee guys, we only have four slots and gameplay is like, worth three points.” But this is pretty much how it’s treated, and it isn’t necessary for a flagship franchise that has represented your company for more than two decades.
Not disagreeing with you that gameplay is better than everything else, but I think everyone here can close their eyes and imagine a Street Fighter with the amount of love it truly deserves. But Capcom doesn’t think we’re worth it, and from your words, you don’t think you’re worth it either.
I have a copy sitting in my SNES at this exact moment, so try again.
I don’t remember Super being released for SNES in the US. You have a euro version?
He was referring to Super Mario Kart I do believe.
" I was twenty when my parents sold the house I grew up in…" …wtf?
Good God, I haven’t read that much crap on IGN since the GTA4 review.
I’m retarded, sorry.
Another comparison of apples and oranges. Moving on.
He has some valid points, but I think he’s overgeneralizing on certain things and going off on random, metaphorical tangents on others.
The first point of contention is that I firmly believe that there is an actuality, a finite amount of “creativity” or “originality” one can achieve within mediums. While it’s possible to look at the same things from a different direction, ultimately, the vast majority of…well, ANYTHING is inevitably influenced or derived from something prior. While it is not an excuse to be lazy in terms of game design, I believe that the quality of the product should always be the #1 goal to be met. You can create a totally new user experience, but if it’s unintuitive, or to say it more bluntly, garbage, it is virtually meaningless.
Within economic thought, there’s the notion that if you’ve thought of something, chances are, others have already thought of it. What determines the winner is who is able to implement that idea successfully first. It’s feasible for two totally unrelated individuals/groups to come up with similar or even the same ideas, but ultimately, that idea is still the same.
What I think he’s REALLY getting at is the creation of franchises and “sequels” at the expense of the integrity of the title. This is something I 100% agree with. Regardless of what Sony, Bungie, Infinity Ward, or whomever tells you, I’m pretty sure that Halo 1, God of War 1, and Modern Warfare 1 (I’m aware that it is CoD 4, but I feel that it departed enough from the core series that it could be seen as its own unique IP, and IW thinks this too) were meant to be one shot deals. By forcibly expanding these titles to be something that they’re not, you’re dilluting the overall experience in order to achieve maximum sales with minimal risk. From a business perspective, it is sound (in the short-term), but consumers will only take so much (the decline in music game sales due to Activision’s incessant milking is the most recent example of this).
On the flip side of that however, a lot of these “iconic” series that established the foundation of our favorite genres, IMO, didn’t even peak until later on in their lifetime. If Super Mario Brothers 1 was in fact, the final Super Mario Brothers, the world would have never experienced Super Mario Brothers 3, which I, and many gaming critics, agree is one of the best platforming games ever conceived. You can argue this for other long-standing series as well (Zelda, Street Fighter, Castlevania, Megaman, etc.). Would it have really been ok to stop at SF II World Warrior? I mean really now, World Warrior is pretty terrible.
It is possible to abuse this (coughMegamancough) though.
I give this review a 2.5 out of ten. Picking on Mario and Street Fighter in the same review? These two franchises kept their respective genres alive and have been doing so for well over 20 years. Besides Sonic, what other platformer has the staying power Mario has? Besides KOF, what other fighting game has the fans and staying power of Street Fighter?
If anything, I blame Capcom for not expanding the series further as there are hundereds of martial arts styles they’ve yet to even touch that would put Street Fighter firmly in the stratosphere when it comes to games.
I can’t even be bothered to see who the damn author is… to say that s/he is an idiot. lol
no points for this guy other than causing up some ruckus… EPIC FAIL = LAME (Loser And Mega EEEEEDIOT like ren and stimpy) lol
That’s about the silliest thing I’ve ever read. I think this guy is a little too depressed.
Why is this a question of what I think I deserve? I’ve given Capcom a couple hundred dollars for their games (which I’ve gotten more than a couple hundred dollars of entertainment out of) yet they still “owe” me for being a big fan?
Capcom wants to make money off of Street Fighter. They do that in two ways. First by making it have the best gameplay they can, which takes a lot of effort and money. Second is by not wasting money on things no one cares about. They do have a limited budget. Every dollar they spend is a dollar they aren’t getting in profits.
So seriously, no one cares about having a great story. It’s nearly impossible to have a good story for a fighter anyway (since arcade endings almost by definition require them all to conflict). The only exception I can think of is Blazblue, but the nature of the story itself allowed that.
You win! 