And I would again point out that at the time these things seemed necessary- over time it became of greater importance to distinguish the SF games from one another, because of the fatigue that SF2’s success had brought about.
Also, experimentation has to be allowed if new games are going to continue to be made. So even if new features don’t stick around, they are worth trying out to give the game a uniqe feel- something that can now be understood better than it could in 1996.
Capcom has a long history of listening to scrubs, and so I would disagree with some of the changes and new features that they’ve made for various games. But almost every game has a feature that wasn’t present in later SF games, and that doesn’t invalidate the process of experimentation or mean that the features were bad ideas. There are features there have been carried over which may be disagreeable. And there are features which have been dropped which weren’t particularly bad ideas.
So to propose that it’s not necessary to propose new ideas and systems or to say that they’re always bad is an exaggeration.
SF4 borrows heavily from the SF3 games, for example. Dashing, command throws, everyone has an overhead (no longer UOH but it ends up being about the same), EX moves, single super per match, super cancels, quick stand etc. So you can say that parry sucked or was a bad idea, but SF4 has like 9 other features from the SF3 games. The Marvel games have consistently added new features, to the point where the only things that have ever been dropped were the Duo supers from MvC1 (not counting SFxT) and the third-party assist system. And the OTG system which MvC3 abandoned, and that many people would argue should have been kept.
Now, if a new Marvel game drops the X-Factor system and air exchanges? I will shed no tears. But overall the Marvel games are like 7 for 10 on the implementation of new features, and the cost of doing business is trying out new things, as far as fighting games are concerned. New things are in now way above criticism, and s-kill certainly had valid points as quoted in the OP, but wanting things to stay the same for too long is not a valid response.
With that said I think the most radical thing Capcom could do would be to have a new game that was HF style with no super moves and very few generalized system mechanics, because that is the opposite of the trend (it is so old an idea that it is a new idea). But Capcom probably doesn’t have the balls for it, and as much as I might be interested in it, I couldn’t really argue that it’d be a wise idea.
There is a lot of variation that was possible without harming the framework of the games we can objectively call “good”. It’s not that people hate different subsystems, rather that they hate that they seem to be answers to problems that don’t exist. Surface layer variation that only hampers the core of the game. Now changing that very core is something people can definitely get behind and welcome. I’m talking about games like Vampire Saviour, which is considered a very orthodox fighter, emphasizing fundamentals (some of which are unique to the game compared to SF) yet is of a completely different mold.
Your point of view only seems to make sense when we appreciate these games in terms of pure design and ignore that there is an objective quality to gameplay. So my disagreement persists. New ideas are good when they are actually new ideas, and not just twists of something established and objectively good.
JoJo’s is another excellent example. A Street Fighter game that was exactly like JoJo’s without Stands would be very well received by the purist crowd despite its differences and systems.
S-Kill did not have anything against trying new things. He objected accepting those failed experiments as a new lowered standard.
We tried SFA and saw it was crap. Now let’s get back to playing a better game until Capcom calls us once again to test the next experiment.
I really had nothing against SF4 when it first came out. For me the problems started when I saw that the sequels are not going to present any change to the engine and the general system.
Fixing just some character stuff means that as a developer you think the system itself is fine and dandy, and it isn’t- It’s extremely flawed.
We are about to get the 4th version of the game, that still doesn’t address anything other than character balance.
It’s like how in the Marvel series they always added new features, but it took them like 7 games to finally introduce some kind of infinite prevention system- In a series that is notoriously known for its infinites. If they don’t take their own games seriously, why should we as players?
Why should I stick around to support their experiments when in the end I don’t get the final polished product I was waiting for?
The Capcom catalog is filled with “can be amazing but still not there yet” titles that were practically abandoned before reaching their possible apex.
If that’s the case, let me address part of s-kill’s old post directly:
This is largely incorrect. The most controversial new system feature at the time was probably the parry from SF3, and that had a clear intention- to nullify fireball traps etc, to give players the ability to easily stop attacks that were predictable, and to avoid block damage. As I mentioned before, Capcom has a long history of listening to scrubs, and while there are some engine features/games that I’m not fond of, most of their features are in response to player complaints.
I don’t know if you remember an old thread from FGD, one named Parrying: Good or Bad? It is notable for a couple reasons, but mostly because of Viscant’s posts on the subject, the the inability of the posters in the thread to prove him wrong when he said that the parry in the SF3 games lower the level of mindgames etc. In one post in particular, he goes on about how parrying weakens characters like Vega, and certain character archetypes overall.
This was not by accident. Back when people were getting poked to death by characters like Vega, and trapped/chipped to death by characters like O.Sagat and shotos, people didn’t always like it. And in the process of coming up with new games, they added features to help players who wanted to combat these sorts of things. You are free to argue with the addition of the parry as a feature and talk about how you don’t like it, but it was in no way a random addition. It was the flagship feature of the SF3 games.
Alpha Counters have a similar purpose, though more to stop poking than to combat fireballs. Guard meter is intended to combat turtling, ground recovery (A1/A2 type) is meant to avoid traps, etc. There are features I think were added on a whim, (A1 chains, custom combos, red parry, Marvel assists, A3 universal air throw etc) but not all of them rate complaining about. But the idea that things are just kind of added randomly is largely false. And the idea that the things that are added because they seem to fit the style of the game are harmful, is false (as opposed to attempting to add an esoteric layer of depth) .
I disagree, and I was actually thinking of the GGXX games as an example after my last post, instead of Vampire/JJBA. If there were a game that people could agree was good like JJBA or whatever the best GGXX game is (AC? R? I don’t know one from the others, really) and you took that game and changed the characters to SF characters, but kept everything else the same, people would certainly complain. In a way that’s what we’re talking about- Alpha 3 was a very popular game in arcades and on the home consoles, but the #1 complaint I’ve heard, even topping V-ISM, is that it doesn’t feel like a traditional SF game because of the physics etc. See also: the SF3 games with parry, and back in the AGSF2 days add the Marvel games and earlier Alphas. Seth is complaining in the OP about SF games that don’t feel enough like SF2.
Not exactly, but I do view experimentation as necessary. Also, the objective quality of gameplay differs in different types and subtypes of fighting games, and even different SF games. If I think Alpha 2 and Vampire Savior are equally “good,” that doesn’t mean I have to think that they’re anything alike.
It stands to reason that if you think a JJBA or Vampire-inspired SF game could still be objectively “good,” then so could something like 3rd Strike or Alpha 3, which has a different set of fundamentals. Likewise, I would imagine one would have to consider the flaws in VS or JJBA imperfections which need to be addressed, rather than the inevitable result of the game not being enough like SF2 (which was itself very flawed in several of its incarnations).
I agree with most of your post, but I think you just have to accept that there’s going to be some games that you don’t like. I didn’t like 3rd Strike, and for the most part I still don’t (though after playing SF4 for a while I developed a new appreciation for 3S). I didn’t really like CvS2. But I did like MvC2 and Alpha 3 a lot, so I just called it a push. Because none of those games had any kind of monopoly.
If you’re not complaining about features of the engine per se and are talking about overall game design, then I get where your coming from, because I think SF4 is actually a pretty stupid game in some ways, and intentionally so. But the only thing to be done is rally for a type of game with a core that you actually want. It’s not really new features that are the problem.
Edit:
This is particularly true, but MvC3 of all things gives me hope. Instead of just nerfing everything that was too good (or even regular good) as was the custom in the older Marvel games, with Ultimate MvC3 they’ve actually buffed lower and mid-tier characters, which is largely unprecedented in Capcom’s history- this is probably their first time taking a Marvel game seriously. So in the age of game patches etc, I think actually perfecting a system and making system modifications is much more likely- assuming the game underneath it is good.
And as much as I hate much of the micromanaging of SF4 (deliberately making characters and moves too good, weakening characters who weren’t overpowered because they weren’t supposed to be good, etc) they do seem to have a handle on which characters are good and which aren’t, and small tweaks like making a move easier to cancel, or making a move more reliable anti-air etc. mean that people are paying attention.
I have never read anything that said that he hated it, but he did say that it was just a flavor of the month and that no one would even remember the characters in it while turbo would live on. Sure Turbo’s scene has outlasted the MvC2 scene, but he was way wrong about MvC2.
Was that an unreasonable assumption to make given past history at that point? None of the previous Vs. games had been taken particularly seriously. MvC1 had started to gain some traction, but nothing like what MvC2 would become.
I dont think its necessarily true that new gimmicks and features are introduced “because of casuals”. If anything, they are there to try and attract veterans.
One enjoyable part of gaming is learning new mechanics and figuring out how to use them / abuse them. Learning new characters and figuring out what is good / bad.
If someone has been happily playing ST for 10 years, what can a new game possibly offer to them? Graphics? Obviously they dont care about graphics. New balance? You mean, worse balance? Or even worse, if someone has played ST for 5 years and got bored, what would bring them back? The same game they got bored of? Of course not. At the very least, a brand new system means a new landscape of gameplay to explore and learn.
So we see this escalation of features, mechanics and characters. Every sequel or new game had to offer something “more” than the previous, because otherwise it couldn’t justify its existence to encourage players to switch. Over time, games became more and more complicated, and more and more daunting to newcomers. Companies realised their error and tried to appeal to new players by making things easier, whilst trying to avoid annoying veterans by keeping all the features in. But obviously that didnt completely please everyone.
But look at KOF12. Due to time/budget constraints, they had to simplify the game a lot. Less features, less characters, less systems, less moves. Better graphics. Did fans applaud this return to purity? No - it did terribly, and the most vocal fans complained about the lack of stuff. Despite the fact that apparently the gameplay wasnt too bad when judged on its own merits (or so Ive heard.)
Sure, playing ST for 10 years might have meant something in the arcade era - that’s 10 years of loyally pouring coins into arcade owner’s pockets. But in the modern era of paid disc games, and the future era of downloadable free to play games? You’re not spending anything.
Taking FPS games as a model, they want you to spend 30 or so hours on a game, and then buy a sequel every year or so. If we said the sequel wasnt allowed to have more systems, more characters, more moves… what could it possibly offer you to make it feel justified?
Parry changes the dynamic of the game so much that it is an outlier example. In any case, if their intention was to solely nullify fireball traps or deal with “predictable” attacks then I would consider parry an abject failure of design. A random addition in the sense that it is not well thought out. If the intent was to change the fabric of the game entirely, then it does that very well. I do indeed remember that thread and Viscant’s posts, and over time even vociferous opponents should come to the realization that the dynamic unique to the game makes up for the lessening of some parts. Certain SF2 archetypes can indeed not exist with parry, certain mindgames are absent or de-emphasized. Are you trying to say that this behaviour of Capcom is good or understandable? It is indeed understandable, but for the most part it leads to “almost there” games.
As to the GG example. People may indeed complain for a while, over time this would disappear if the game’s design was completely legitimate and apparent. Some objectivity is possible here, not everyone is an idiot. Especially not the people at the forefront of the community.
Guard meter is the shoehorn answer to reducing throw ranges and strength and not specifically something to “combat turtling”. Turtling being strong would be the natural consequence of reduced throw strength if everything else was kept the same. While it is in itself a mechanic that I like, the reasoning for its addition is once again, a solution to a problem that does not exist. Is it worse than just having good throws? I would say so. It is this persistent failure of the thought process that grates. We can’t count on happy accidents.
In any case, it isn’t really useful to discuss the conclusions that someone may have reached in the past, but the essential truth used to draw those conclusions is still apparent.
Well, yes. Pretty much, or close; 3rd Strike I agree with, but Alpha 3? What different fundamentals does it emphasize? It seems to be, in essence, Alpha 2 with a twist. A good game, but certainly not a well-thought out one.
lol, those aren’t modern at all. Cvs2 is over 10 years old now. That’s not new by any terms, especially in video games.
Also bringing up things someone had said 10 years or so ago is some really petty shit that should be reserved for abusive, passive aggressive mothers and wives.
If you as a person and your world views didn’t change in 5 to 10 years, then you’ve got some real problems.
So then I can quote anything you said 10 years ago and set it against your stances now?
You’ve never held an opinion in your life that you later changed or revised?
I’ll address the rest of the post later, but you’ll have to forgive me for singling this part out, as Street Fighter Alpha 3 is one of my favorite games of any genre.
I could write a whole, whole lot about the things that are questionable about A3 or are outright stupid, but the fact that it has too much in common with A2 would not be worth mentioning. I think you may be the first person in the history of SRK to criticize Alpha 3 for being too similar to Alpha 2.
Every subsystem in Alpha 2 has been modified in A3- ground recovery, Alpha Counters, supers, blocking, how damage works…basically everything other than walking and jumping. And both of those end up working differently in the context of the game.
Other A3 features include but are not limited to:
list
[details=Spoiler]
-Being the first SF game (Capcom game?) with Counter Hits, and it has a unique Counter Hit system compared to later games (CvS games, SF4 etc).
-Being the first SF game with a command for normal throws.
-Having ISMs which were the precursor to to the Groove system in the CvS games (though this is an evolution of the Old characters in ST, etc). Characters in various ISMs sometimes have different normal and special moves, as well as different super systems.
-Universal air throw for all characters.
-Guard meter system which is unique to Alpha 3 (as compared to CvS games etc).
-New juggle sytem: essentially all attacks juggle, and there is no juggle limit outside of the corner.
-Air recovery system. There is the ability to recover in the air to avoid juggles, and also attack/be attacked afterwards. You can also choose your trajectory as you fall.
-Damage reduction allows you to reduce the damage of many moves the way you can mash down the damage from some throws.
-Other minor features which I won’t get into- blue blocking, red flash, special counter hit damage etc)[/details]
The short version is, the juggle and guard system makes the game play very differently. Alpha Counters have been nerfed and now have a sign that says “in case of emergency break glass,” as opposed to the minigame of baiting people into attacking you so you can hit them with ACs which was present in the earlier Alphas (depending on meter concerns with your character). They do very little damage, and they shorten your guard meter when you use them.
details
[details=Spoiler]
So with ACs being less effective and the guard meter being present, you are not only rewarded for defense the same way, you are rewarded for aggression in a more broad way, and actually penalized for defense. And because most ground throws have a 5-frame startup, the game is centered around pokes even more than it used to be, and they become an automatic option select (hit good, blocked good), and so winning poking wars or having a good offensive/defensive options is more important, at the expense of some of the layers of A2’s defensive /range game (throw vs AC no longer a concern, most supers have lost their unblockable properties to a large degree, ST-style fireball vs super games are gone, short recovery roll which was a super fast quick-stand is gone in A3 etc). [/details]
Ground game has fewer layers than A2, but air game has more, because you don’t always do the standard invincible backflip after being hit out of the air, nor do you fall to the ground like when you’re hit by a DP.
air recovery, juggles etc
Spoiler
In A3 the air gets opened up as an avenue of attack, because in A3 you are always vulnerable- if you get knocked into the air by a special move or big counter hit, you are at risk of taking high damage if you don’t air recover. You are also at risk of taking damage if you do, and your position changes depending on your choices (you can also wait until you hit the ground and do a recovery roll, etc). If you do an air recovery you can attack on the way down from your flip, defensively. And after air-to-air counter hits you can get a free juggle using an exploitation of the game engine, which can change the course of the round. So knowing which air attacks are good is a bigger deal than in most games. Plus, everyone has an air throw (with varying ranges and speeds etc). Though a lot of this is to keep you engaged in the game at all times.
Also, V-ISM is its own mode, and is the dominant mode at high-level play. Which means that functionally the entire super meter system is different, because eight times out of ten we’re talking about V-ISM which has unique features even outside of the custom combos.
TL;DR
No. They play very differently at an intermediate level, or even slightly below. Strategies which are sound in A2 are often not sound in A3, and vice versa. See match videos below for examples.
No, not similar. Just Alpha 2 with a twist. This is exactly what you are describing in your post! Nor am I even criticizing the game, but the thought process and end result (a happy accident) should be pretty obvious no? Even if in actual play it turns out different (though it ends up being mostly needless stuff imo).
Just like parry should be about negating fireball traps but actually does far more; Alpha 3 is Alpha 2 with a twist. The opposite of deliberate design. Thank you for the enlightening post about playstyles or whatever, but it’s not what I mean.
…but the game is still essentially the same, and the “variation” is surface layer even if people manage to make something of the game. Is this really acceptable or understandable or good even if it worked out?
James Chen called XvSF a great puzzle game where you find infinite combos. Not sure if that counts as taking it seriously. Maybe other players were doing so, I don’t know.
Maybe other players were doing so, I don’t know.