Because he is part of japanese SS community, which is SNK’s main target auditory. If you havent yet noticed, SNK cares only about opinion and tastes of japanese fans, while not giving a rat’s ass about opinion on any non-japanese fan. SNK heavily ignored even the feedback from Canada loketests as I readed. Plus, as Nagisa lives in Japan, not only he can play the game more than a year before we even see it released on consoles, he sees how japanese SS community (which opinion is valuable for SNK) reacts to the game. If japanese would say they want for example Iroha, Mina and Rera for console versions, you will get them, but if you would like to see Yoshitora, Asura ans Suija instead, you have zero chances, etc.
Is it a surprise that people tend to praise a game style they’re used to? That’s the story of the fighting game community. Praise the familiar. Heck, that’s the story of LIFE. People resist change.
That’s not necessarily proof that the change was invalid.
SF3 entailed lots of change, too. And, people complained. And, viola, SF4 acts like SF3 never happened. So, is that proof that the “new direction” of 3S is invalid? 10+ YEARS of arcade activity, tournament play, and fandom, in spite of minimal publicity, suggest otherwise.
Except the same point has been made over and over and over again. “The game sucks because it isn’t a exact duplicate of SS2"or"What the hell, something new and different…why the hell would I wanna pay money for that”. Seriously, I’m still confused over this"it isn’t SS enough"line of reasoning…exactly what do you people want?
From what I can understand complaints are that:
-Some don’t like to borrow traits from other games, even if those traits are successful and appealing to large audiences (simpler commands, easy juggle system, 3d movement, etc)…because those other games “can do it better”.
-Some want it to “play like SS”, even though most SS games don’t really play like each other.
-Some want even more blood and gore. Because slicing limbs and torsos in a blaze of crimson is apparently not enough.
-Some lament the lack of long range attacks, even though there actually are some characters with long range attacks (Galford dog, Hanzo’s shuriken).
I dunno. Other than the blood complaint, most of these could be filed under the category “we want more of the same”. But, honestly, what new sequel doesn’t run into this sentiment at some point in its development?
The interview with Nagisa, a supposed expert on the series, didn’t seem all that negative to me. The tier listing sounds pretty reasonable, with almost everyone competetive. Plus, as I posted above, the game apparently holds a place in the Arcadia audience’s hearts.
Most of this outcry seems par for the course…
I’m wondering if a lot of the issues with this game stem from the differences in the way Americans and Japanese view and play fighters as a whole and the audiences of the respective series–especially as far as tiering and balance is concerned. While a lot of people seemed to view Sen as rather meh, it does have a fanbase. It would be nice if SNK would listen to input from outside Japan since I think it would help though I don’t see it happening. Properties of a number of moves look like they could use some tweaking but that’s purely from a spectator standpoint.
Also, I’m disappointed (but not surprised) that Black Hawk seems to be bottom tier…
SF4 uses a TON of system mechanics straight out of SF3 so no it doesn’t act like SFIII never happened. Seriously I’m beginning to wonder if your even on the same page.
Black Shroud: re: SS in Japan
Which is curious, cause last I checked, Samurai Shodown was orignally more popular in the west than in Japan. I think they’ve been trying to make it more Japan-centric since SS3, and they’ve been flailing about ever since. While I’m sure it has its following, SS series has never been that big in Japan (never mind that Nakoruru has typically been SNK’s most popular female or the [supposed] ubiquitousness of Iroha), so if SNK only caters to them, then they’re even stupider than I thought. At least Konami doesn’t worry about pleasing JPN fans only when Castlevania games don’t sell there, since they know the west will eat them up (Judgement being the obvious exception to this).
But it’s also curious: Soul Calibur isn’t as popular in Japan as it is in the west either. So why go with a SC as a base for a new SS? Perhaps they care more about western players than you think. For all the shit I dump on Sen, it has a good possibility of selling decently in the west, assuming it gets sufficient advertising. It’s certainly over-the-top violent enough, though I’m not sure if the graphics are quite good enough, but they’ll still attract casuals more than 13 year old sprites will. Perhaps with decent sales we’ll get sequels that have more traditional SS flavour in them, in which case I reiterate: Somebody call me when they reach SS Sen 3.
The Lone Dragon:
> Is it a surprise that people tend to praise a game style they’re used to? That’s the story of the fighting game community. Praise the familiar. Heck, that’s the story of LIFE. People resist change. That’s not necessarily proof that the change was invalid.
MKDA actually got a large amount of praise when it was new, though not much of it was for the gameplay. Regardless, “people resist change” is not an argument. You have no point here. There have been series where change was done, and done in such a way as to not alienate what went before. I already listed MK4 and SFIV, and KoFMI to a lesser extent (KoFMI2 did it better). Final Fantasy VII was another big change in a series that met with positive response (save from the hardcore FFVI fanboys I guess); same again with FFX. Not so much with FFXII, but that’s because XII is riddled with flaws.
> SF3 entailed lots of change, too. And, people complained. And, viola, SF4 acts like SF3 never happened. So, is that proof that the “new direction” of 3S is invalid? 10+ YEARS of arcade activity, tournament play, and fandom, in spite of minimal publicity, suggest otherwise.
What revisionist history. Maybe you weren’t around for the first, oh, 5 years of said activity, but I was, and the series was largely denounced and ignored for several very good reasons, and the game tanked pretty much everywhere save for a few spots in the west and in Japan, and the series as a whole took 5+ years to make back what it cost, and was responsible for Capcom never creating another 2D fighter from scratch. The reasons why SFIV doesn’t resemble SFIII (though contrary to what you claim, it does have a fair amount of SF3 in it) are quite logical, especially from a business stand point, a viewpoint that a lot of folks tend to forget.
Also, your complaints analysis is faulty:
> -Some don’t like to borrow traits from other games, even if those traits are successful and appealing to large audiences (simpler commands, easy juggle system, 3d movement, etc)…because those other games “can do it better”.
I actually don’t mind them borrowing traits from other games per se, but when you’re borrowing other traits and doing a mediocre job of it, plus throwing out a lot of your original traits for no apparent reason, that’s when I take issue.
> -Some want it to “play like SS”, even though most SS games don’t really play like each other.
LOL no. SS1 and SS2 play alike. So do SS0 and SS0S. SS0, SS0S also have a base with SSIV and, to a lesser extent, SS3, though SS3 is the most different of the bunch, followed by SSIV. Only SS Tenka is considerably different. Oh, and I guess the SS64 games are different as well. Regardless, this is a non-argument. The Street Fighter games don’t play like each other per se, but there is a definite SF feel to each one that is preserved, so arguing that there’s no need to retain the SS feel because the games play differently is rubbish.
>-Some want even more blood and gore. Because slicing limbs and torsos in a blaze of crimson is apparently not enough.
Aside from some retards on neogeo.co, I don’t know who is arguing this. Especially since Sen is clearly the most disturbingly violent game in the series.
>-Some lament the lack of long range attacks, even though there actually are some characters with long range attacks (Galford dog, Hanzo’s shuriken).
Another rubbish point. The fact is, long range attacks are pretty much gone, and the ones that are there might as well not be. I mean really, you’re counting Hanzo’s shuriken, which he has access to for maybe 4 seconds at a time, a couple times a round? You’re comparing that to what he (and at least half the cast) could do before? Have you even played a Samurai Shodown game before?
> I dunno. Other than the blood complaint, most of these could be filed under the category “we want more of the same”. But, honestly, what new sequel doesn’t run into this sentiment at some point in its development?
Again, you have no point here. The sequels that end up being good and stand the test of time don’t have these complaints after they’re made, save by the recalcitrant minority.
A “ton”? EX moves, some “hints” in Ryu/Ken/Chun/Akuma, and a couple moves here and there. 90 percent of the roster is dropped (which basically screams “I AM A DIFFERENT GAME”). Story line makes no reference to the characters/events of SF3.
And, most importantly, you sure as heck can’t play 3 like 4. As many people have said, “SF4 is its own game” when compared to its predecessor. Sound familiar?
Honestly, I think it’s arguable that SF3 is just as distant from SF2 and SF4 as SS:Sen is from SS 1-6. And, yet SF3 is still embraced as a SF game.
Sen has 13 returning characters (maybe more by console release), SF3 had 4.
Sen has mechanics found in previous games: rage, rage enabled supers, animal helpers, fatal finishes. Sen has recreations of classic stages. Sen storyline is smack dab in the middle of the continuum (I think, SS storyline confuses me a bit), unlike SF3 which takes place years after Alpha, 2, and 4.
If you think SF3 and SF4 have “a ton” of similarities, then Sen easily has a similar sized “ton” of similarities with other SS games.
Right…it isn’t like the entire SF2 cast hasn’t returned with virtually no SF3 members. Mechanically it isn’t SF3 at all, if anything it is more or less a SF2 update.
>Which is curious, cause last I checked, Samurai Shodown was orignally more popular in the west than in Japan. I think they’ve been trying to make it more Japan-centric since SS3, and they’ve been flailing about ever since. While I’m sure it has its following, SS series has never been that big in Japan (never mind that Nakoruru has typically been SNK’s most popular female or the [supposed] ubiquitousness of Iroha), so if SNK only caters to them, then they’re even stupider than I thought. At least Konami doesn’t worry about pleasing JPN fans only when Castlevania games don’t sell there, since they know the west will eat them up (Judgement being the obvious exception to this).
>MKDA actually got a large amount of praise when it was new, though not much of it was for the gameplay. Regardless, “people resist change” is not an argument. You have no point here. There have been series where change was done, and done in such a way as to not alienate what went before. I already listed MK4 and SFIV, and KoFMI to a lesser extent (KoFMI2 did it better). Final Fantasy VII was another big change in a series that met with positive response (save from the hardcore FFVI fanboys I guess); same again with FFX. Not so much with FFXII, but that’s because XII is riddled with flaws. <
This is a 3D take on the SS franchise, not a direct sequal so all of this pretty much adds up to nothing.
>What revisionist history. Maybe you weren’t around for the first, oh, 5 years of said activity, but I was, and the series was largely denounced and ignored for several very good reasons, and the game tanked pretty much everywhere save for a few spots in the west and in Japan, and the series as a whole took 5+ years to make back what it cost, and was responsible for Capcom never creating another 2D fighter from scratch. The reasons why SFIV doesn’t resemble SFIII (though contrary to what you claim, it does have a fair amount of SF3 in it) are quite logical, especially from a business stand point, a viewpoint that a lot of folks tend to forget.<
SF3 was released at a point when the 3D genre was taking off, games like FF7/MGS and a host of other tittles like Tekken were taking the spotlight because of the impressive graphical output…that was the primary reason SF3 was overlooked. 2D games were not as big of a market anymore…they still aren’t hence why SF4 is in 3D.
>I actually don’t mind them borrowing traits from other games per se, but when you’re borrowing other traits and doing a mediocre job of it, plus throwing out a lot of your original traits for no apparent reason, that’s when I take issue.LOL no. SS1 and SS2 play alike. So do SS0 and SS0S. SS0, SS0S also have a base with SSIV and, to a lesser extent, SS3, though SS3 is the most different of the bunch, followed by SSIV. Only SS Tenka is considerably different. Oh, and I guess the SS64 games are different as well. Regardless, this is a non-argument. The Street Fighter games don’t play like each other per se, but there is a definite SF feel to each one that is preserved, so arguing that there’s no need to retain the SS feel because the games play differently is rubbish. <
What you and everyone is arguing and why the game is being shitting on is because it doesn’t feel like a duplicate of a exisisting product…and for someone who hasn’t even played the game im surprised u can say"mediocre job of it"without even touching the game. Why is so much opposition going for a game no one on this board has even tried…our fighting communitity can use all the attention it can get and I don’t see why we have to be so negative on every that is new and different.
I liked how they remade the original opening for this game.
Umm…how exactly does this disprove my point? My point was that SF3 embraced a drastic new direction. This new direction was initially denounced. 10+ years later that new direction enjoys respect and gameplay around the world. What is there to argue here? People hated the game at first, but now they don’t. Simple as that.
I’d love to get into the questions of SF3 and it’s supposed status as a “failure”. Personally, I question whether it should really be considered a failure anymore, all things considered. But, that’s for another thread.
Have to reserve judgment on what kind of “mediocre job” they’re doing for when I play it myself. Recommend you do the same, if you haven’t already.
“The SS feel”…“The SF feel”…what the heck do these vague terms mean? People keep throwing these phrases around like they’re tangible, but doesn’t a “feeling” depend on what traits you associate with the game? Gameplay, mood, presentation, character design…don’t ALL of these contribute to the “feel” of a game?
As far as I’m concerned, Sen has the SS mood, presentation, and character design down. Gameplay is the only remaining question, and while it the engine is new, there are enough points of familiarity for me to at least view this as an extension of the Samurai Shodown IP.
Someone said it in a post above.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/video/niconico/sm4232261
(7:00)
He’s clearly throwing shurikens after his teleport, and he doesn’t seem to be in rage mode. Unless, I’m missing something…?
And, am I comparing it perfectly to past games? No. Projectile use has decreased, no doubt. But, it hasn’t been eliminated.
Real question is has the importance of distance and spacial control been eliminated (which is the why projectiles are relevant)? Apparently not, as evidenced by the existance of Hanzo’s teleport, some projectiles, different weapon lengths and speeds, walls…
But, like I said, have to get my hands on it to be sure.
Me 2.
Evo:
> This is a 3D take on the SS franchise, not a direct sequal so all of this pretty much adds up to nothing.
Actually, since it takes place after SS2, it’s an actual sequel and not a spinoff. Try again.
> SF3 was released at a point when the 3D genre was taking off, games like FF7/MGS and a host of other tittles like Tekken were taking the spotlight because of the impressive graphical output…that was the primary reason SF3 was overlooked
Explain why the Marvel games and the Alpha games did well during this same period then.
> What you and everyone is arguing and why the game is being shitting on is because it doesn’t feel like a duplicate of a exisisting product…
Incorrect. We’re complaining that it IS a (poor) duplicate of an existing product, one that has no history or relation with the series at all. Remove the SS characters from the game, and it wouldn’t even be recognizable as SS.
As for me shitting on it without playing it, I have sufficient experience with fighters to know what I like and what I don’t like without playing. I’m inherently suspicious of all 3D games, period, because I don’t like any of them - I don’t need to play Tekken 6 to know that I won’t like it - plus I know that SS’ traditional mechanics don’t work well in 3D, so Sen was already at a disadvantage as far as I was concerned.
But if Capcom could was going to do SF proper in 3D, there was no reason to automatically believe SNK (or rather, K2) couldn’t do a good job. I didn’t expect SFIV quality (even before SFIV was unveiled), but what we got was much much worse - rather than even attempting traditional SS in 3D, they instead went for SC-lite with some characters who vaguely resemble SS characters. I read the beta reports and they only reinforced what I suspected about the game, and loketests had the distinction of being the first loketest vids I’ve seen that actually put me to sleep. I don’t shit on new stuff because it’s new - I shit on new stuff if/when it’s shit.
Samurai Shodown is my second favourite series (only SF is higher), and I have zero interest in playing the latest entry. That is the reason I shit on Sen, cause it has killed my interest in a new SS game.
At least when SS64 was stinking up the place I could always play SSIV (and I wasn’t terribly fond of SSIV back then, but SS64 made me appreciate it a lot more); I’m still waiting for my PS2 SS Anthology, and I really hope they don’t fuck it up like I heard they did for Orochi Saga.
The Lone Dragon: re: SF3
> People hated the game at first, but now they don’t. Simple as that.
There are millions of people who played SF2; only a small fraction of that number has played SF3 and an even smaller fraction likes it. From a business standpoint, it is perfectly logical to use SF2 as a base and ignore SF3 (I don’t agree with them leaving out all the characters from SF3 but I understand why they felt no need to use them).
> I’d love to get into the questions of SF3 and it’s supposed status as a “failure”. Personally, I question whether it should really be considered a failure anymore, all things considered.
5+ years to make back what you cost and nearly killing the series for good is a failure by any most sane standards.
> Have to reserve judgment on what kind of “mediocre job” they’re doing for when I play it myself. Recommend you do the same, if you haven’t already.
Normally yes, but in this case I don’t have to. There is absolutely nothing in Sen that makes me want to play it, and everything that I’ve seen and heard from people who have played it makes me want to avoid it like the plague. I don’t need to eat a shit sandwich to know it tastes like shit.
damn. i accidentally pos repped ultima when i meant to neg rep. i’ll get you next time
I repeat: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MY POINT?
My point: SF3 was a game that was rejected by the FG community when it was first released. Now, 10 years later the fighting game community views the game as high quality.
Summary:
1997 - FG community hates SF3
2008 - FG community plays the heck out of SF3.
Conclusion - FG community misdiagnosed SF3 in 1997.
No duh, SF3 didn’t do as well as SF2. How many fighting games ever do? Doesn’t mean it’s not a great game that the FG community hated at first…but now loves.
Who knows…maybe Sen will follow the same pattern. I say skip the middleman, and just give it a chance now…instead of 10 years from now.
Marvel games are self explanatory. Spiderman and Wolverine tend to increase sales and interest (see MKvDC). Especially with a hit cartoon on the air every Saturday morning.
Alpha games? Well, timely console releases usually help with popularity. Especially on a system that has a 100 million unit user base. Also doesn’t hurt when your first incarnation is released 2 years before SF3, still riding that original SF2 wave.
What system was SF3 released on? Dreamcast. 2 years later. Competing with revolutionary SC1 graphics that Alpha 1, 2 and, 3 NEVER had to deal with. Come on.
This experiment is highly unscientific. If you’re going to directly compare Alpha, Marvel, and SF3 then you have to REALLY compare them.
Just curious…how exactly were they supposed to collect that cost? Arcades alone?
SF3 was too powerful for current gen at the time, and a butchered port would have done more harm than good. So, arcades were the only source of income for the game for 2 years. Alpha games never faced roadblocks like that. And, Marvel games…were MARVEL games (Nuff said).
And, then when SF3 was FINALLY brought to a console, it was the dying Dreamcast (bless it’s little white and grey heart…it tried).
5 years to recover it’s costs? That impresses me considering the hurdles SF3 faced on it’s journey home.
And, screw that “SF3 singlehandedly killed the franchise” nonsense…as if there were no other circumstances involved. It’s not as if other 2D franchises simply lived on unscathed by the death of arcades and the rise of polygons.
Whoa…deja vu…
I feel like it’s 1997, all over again…
SF4 uses two button throws, super cancels, high jumps, and dashes, all systems taken from SF3. Story shit has nothing to do with any of the shit I’ve been talking about. Not one iota. It FEELS and PLAYS like Street Fighter. As for returning characters SF4 has 21 returning characters.
Two button throws = lots of fighting games before 3S
Super cancels = SFEX and crappy PS1 XvsSF port
High Jumps = VS series and KOF
Dashes = lots of fighting games before SF3 including Charlie in Alpha 3 and the VS series.
It would be hard to argue that these ideas were “from SF3”.
And, I thought C. Viper was the only one with a super jump…
Yes people have done them before but they a culmination of idea brought to the SF brand through SFIII and have once again returned. No ones acting like SFIII was a travesty and should never be mentioned again just because the story and characters from 3S are being left hangin for a little bit. And even still it feels distinctly Street Fighter. Even with all the changes the series proper still always feels and looks like Street Fighter.
And I think everyone in 4 has a Super Jump but i could be wrong.
>Actually, since it takes place after SS2, it’s an actual sequel and not a spinoff. Try again.<
Hmm, seems like they would have referred to as"SS2 something"if it was intended as a direct canon sequal…ur looking to much into it I think.
>Explain why the Marvel games and the Alpha games did well during this same period then.<
SF3 has aspects that were disliked, but the industry was going through a massive shift and SF3 was it’s unfortunate victim<
>Incorrect. We’re complaining that it IS a (poor) duplicate of an existing product, one that has no history or relation with the series at all. Remove the SS characters from the game, and it wouldn’t even be recognizable as SS.<
How do you know…have you played the game yet or have some extensive experience with tourny levels to come to that conclusion?
>As for me shitting on it without playing it, I have sufficient experience with fighters to know what I like and what I don’t like without playing. I’m inherently suspicious of all 3D games, period, because I don’t like any of them - I don’t need to play Tekken 6 to know that I won’t like it - plus I know that SS’ traditional mechanics don’t work well in 3D, so Sen was already at a disadvantage as far as I was concerned.<
In other words, it looks so stupid so it probably isn’t worth playing…what kind of wonky logic is that?
>But if Capcom could was going to do SF proper in 3D, there was no reason to automatically believe SNK (or rather, K2) couldn’t do a good job. I didn’t expect SFIV quality (even before SFIV was unveiled), but what we got was much much worse - rather than even attempting traditional SS in 3D, they instead went for SC-lite with some characters who vaguely resemble SS characters. I read the beta reports and they only reinforced what I suspected about the game, and loketests had the distinction of being the first loketest vids I’ve seen that actually put me to sleep. I don’t shit on new stuff because it’s new - I shit on new stuff if/when it’s shit. <
Actually, it’s Tekken-lite if anything and once again…if ur not going to be objective what’s the point in debating. The game looks solid and I can appreciate the new direction…u want SS then go play SS, simple as that.<
>Samurai Shodown is my second favourite series (only SF is higher), and I have zero interest in playing the latest entry. That is the reason I shit on Sen, cause it has killed my interest in a new SS game. At least when SS64 was stinking up the place I could always play SSIV (and I wasn’t terribly fond of SSIV back then, but SS64 made me appreciate it a lot more); I’m still waiting for my PS2 SS Anthology, and I really hope they don’t fuck it up like I heard they did for Orochi Saga.<
I luv SS and SNK games in general, but seriosuly dude can we at least be objective before trying something new…what is so wrong with a SS 3D game with Tekken machanics, sounds like complaining for the sake of complaining.