learis1
61
Uhhhhh, hmmm. I think I’ll pass on the debate of how nonsensical this is.
To its credits, SF4 is not as bad as SF: The Movie
fischbs
63
You have made the right decision.
blufang
64
It does have that going for it, true. Though SF Movie is universally considered (by those who know it) as a horrible fighting game that is best forgotten. However SF4 is considered the pinnacle of fighting games for many…quite mind boggling.
I personally don’t like Cr.JabJabJabF4 err, sorry I mean SF4, but to suggest it’s not “Street Fighter” is ridiculous.
Here’s hoping in 5 that jabs and shorts don’t play as big of a role as they did in 4.
Yeah they were aptly called 09ers. Sucky games aside how do you feel about the EX games?
blufang
68
Well I don’t have much experience with the Street fighter EX games, rented EX+ (I think) when some of us were looking to rent something, played it that night and that is about all my experience with it. I thought Skullomania was a cool design, however everything else seemed lackluster. What is the general consensus on those games? I never hear anyone talk about them.
I played EX3 recently and was pleasantly surprised. It felt quick and snappy compared to SF4. Pretty surprising
Yeah I don’t like the series and I had the most hands on experience with the first game. I don’t know what it is specifically or maybe even a combination that makes those games seem faster than SFIV but it still isn’t enough to make me play them.
I don’t get why anyone would call that “nonsensical.” like do people really think SF4 is more footsies-oriented than SF3?
there’s a reason the stereotypes about each game are “everything in 3s starts with low forward” and “everything in SF4 starts with crouch jab.”
those are both exaggerations but it’s definitely true that SF4 midrange footsie tools are weaker than they were in games like Alpha series, CVS2, or 3s.
I remember when one of the devs of SF the movie came on here on SRK to talk about why the game failed hard with the SRK members.
Answered lots of questions and seemed pretty honest about everything. My favorite parts of his stories was when someone asked him how was it working with Van Damme and the dude insinuated that the Dammester acted like a pre-Madonna during the digitizing.
I don’t think the thread made the transition to these Vanilla forums. :’-(
Hold dat!
it survived!
I highly recommend this as a great read. its a blast.
There’s lots of stupid, non-SF stuff in SF4. You need to be in denial not to see that, or simply not know how it used to be played. Stupid anti-airs, the jab nonsense, weird hitboxes, the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT start-up, active and recovery times, the floaty jumps. The opinions one sees in this thread is why almost every thread 09ers touch gets pointless and would better be deleted.
I remember years ago in the FGD boards on some SF2 thread when you pointed out that in Vanilla SF4 there was this instance while youwere hanging out around the SF4 cabinet that you saw someone fierce dragon punch someone else’s tatsu and the person who received the dp recovered first and punished the recovery of the dp with an Ultra which made me lol cuz that’s…inexcusable.
like the devs of SF4 didn’t understand something as basic as how punishes work in a fighting game.
it goes to show, it proves how the developers, the people behind SF4 didn’t understand how fighting games even worked.
Aaaaand of course the 09ers in their “infinite wisdom accumulated through years of gaming experience” tried to defend SF4’s bad design by calling it a “glitch”…where then someone else came into the thread and said “yeah, a glitch that happens 100% of the time.”
its very frustrating trying to explain to the younger people the sad reality that Street Fighter fighters in general have gotten progressively worse instead of better throughout the years.
And said younger people try their hardest to defend said shitty not well thought game designs because they have affection for the only fighting games they know, which, unfortunately for them, are the more recent games.
I understand its not their fault if they missed the scene when it mattered. The scene being the golden era of fighters…but still.
ignorance shouldn’t necessarily lead to utter foolishness.
They think the older, more experienced generation, telling them that the more modern recent games are trash is out of spite or to make them feel bad for liking a game only because they don’t know any better…when all we are doing is trying to educate them on the differences between good fighters and bad fighters. They don’t seem to realize is that what they really like is the competitive strategic nature of fighters…more so than the actual game they are playing. All we try to do is point them in the right direction which is good solid logical game design.
My main complaint with the SFIV that bothered me more than the actual gameplay speed is the graphic style. When the game first came out in 09, it looked OK to me yet was always a bit disappointing. Looking in hindsight, it looks pretty bad. The style is way too bulky and cartoony, not to mention goofy. When playing SFIV, I always feel like the main aim of the game was for it to be goofy, which i’m not a fan of at all. SFII with it’s blood and puke mechanic looked more serious, SFIII is very fluid and characters look sharp, and SFV has made Ryu look more badass than ever.
Random thought; i’m thinking that if they are going with a more serious style this time, seeing how Ryu’s gi looks worn out and dirty, hopefully all the other characters will also have details in their clothing that help accentuate them. For example, Ken’s gi being slightly charred around the ends of the sleeves and legs because he’s got all that flamey stuff going on.
i agree that footsies in SF4 are super shitty, low damaging, and usually u can’t hit confirm from them so they are very boring (lack of useful supers also hurts this and so does shitty anti-airs and the amazing amounts of trades). actually, gaining good space only leads to low damage potential. the real damage comes from hard knockdowns and a good jump in or a focus crumple or jabxjab confirm etc… into RFDC.
that said it still has the basics that were in SF2. yes they’re boring in 4 but they’re there. a super bar in ST was “not street fighter” if you think about it. every SF game has it’s fair share of bullshit and for me personally, the worst has been the 4 series but there are good things in it as well. if it had everything the previous games had and felt the same, what would be the point?
Well SF5 seems to be (once again I say this) to pay somewhat more homage to the eariler SF titles with SFxT thrown in the mix. Some may take that as a good thing others not so much. I side with the good.
I agree with this, but it doesn’t help when a lot of the people trying to explain that are also SF4 players who continue to play a game they claim to hate. I pick AE up every now and again when I’m hanging with my bro cuz he plays it a lot, but I don’t mess with it much other than that.
And when a lot of newer games have some of the same problems it makes it that much more difficult.
Duaie
79
It would be useful if the discussion brought something new to the table and was somewhat contructive, but as people here are doing, they are just stuck in nostalgia-land and claiming their bragging rights.
I came from Tekken (the old ones), and after a long hiatus from FGs I got into SF with SF4. Still, the same can be said about 3d games, getting worse and worse with the new releases but I still came to accept that, I don’t go around bragging that I played the good games and telling people what they should and should not like. That’s just immature.
How about accepting that FGs have taken a new direction as the new generations come along, casual crowds are much more important than before and general tastes and needs have changed, and start discussing from there?
I swear some of you guys have only played 2 fighting games in your life. That includes the “my game that was made 20 years ago is superior in every way to the trash you guys play” crowd.
