Don’t we all?
We are clearly talking past each other.
You seem to be criticizing Alpha 3 for not being different enough from A2 (surface-level variations etc), but saying that the fact that the game has been changed and plays differently doesn’t matter. If it plays differently and the engine is different, what exactly do you feel is missing? Or what is too similar? I’m not really understanding your point of contention.
Also, it’s fine to write off things Capcom does as happy accidents in the case of glitches or exploitation of the engine, but some features are clearly deliberate. Using A2 --> A3 as an example again, a guard meter was instated and defensive options were weakened; there is literally a system which punishes you for being defensive and rewards you for being offensive, and on top of that defensive options are weaker. There is a pretty clear intention to promote offense. Because these sorts of things are actual features of the game engine and affect the game at intermediate and high levels of play, I fail to see how they are “surface variations.” Are you opposed to sequels in general? The fact that the aesthetics and the absolute basics are still the same are the most important thing?
As for gameplay features causing unintended consequences, this is will very often be true- the game developers have a limited amount of time with the game and can’t predict what the players will do with it over the course of months or years. However, unintended consequences can be dealt with (especially these days) by tweaking of features to optimize them, and my point was that they don’t necessarily invalidate additions to the engine. This is assuming the unintended consequences were unintended, which can not always be done.
Im definitely no authority or expert on the SF line of games, but I do know gaming and I know what its like to be a part of a particular gaming community from inception dating over a decade, to seeing current works that blaspheme the titles history for the sake of catering to new audiences. Socom is one of them, and so is Counter-Strike, just to name a couple. The problem is that game developers really dont give a flying shit about anything that wont sell. If a game like SF has to cater to both audiences, they will do their best to implement the game in a way to attract both, but at the end of the day they want publicity and bustle in the community, and to try and reignite the flame the game once had with todays newer audience. They know that people who were kids/teenagers back in the 80’s/90’s when SF was in its grassroots stage are for the most part, moving on to other things in their life at this juncture. There are plenty of supporters, but I would think looking at SF demographically, more of the people playing now werent really as interested (some not even alive…) during the time of SFs inception. Its all business to them.
Look at the COD franchise. They systematically dump $50 mil into the game knowing that whether it sucks or not (more often than not) they will reap billions in profits. They dont have to do anything serious with the game. Just put the “COD” name on the box and make a high def FPS… adding new features like nukes and RC car bombs take away from the experience of “purist” players out there, but they dont care… all they care about is the buzz in the community and the fact that these new additions might just inspire some people who never picked up the franchise before to gain an active interest in it. I would assume SF is in the same boat. Things like Ultra moves give players who suck the ability to come back in a battle with one swift blow (assuming they can land it…). As a purist, i personally dislike the addition of Ultras and other forms of “comeback mechanics” in games. its one of the reasons i stopped playing MK9… i mean look at that game. The combos are so easy to pull off all you really have to do is mash every button and they just flow out. Ontop of that, your “ultra” or “x-ray” attack is as simple as pressing both shoulder buttons simultaneously… and this is consistent for every character… the game no longer favors execution and accuracy or skill, but just raw beat downs any way you can get them. They did this to make the game “more accessible to new players” or whatever nonsense.
i dont think we will see an upward trend in truly awesome games any time in the near future, until somehow the gaming community makes a decision on the majority to stop supporting developers who produce crappy titles. One way I can think of to fix this situation is to either make a side-by-side title that is more designed with the hardcore purist in mind, or at LEAST implement a game mode that allows for those rule sets and balancing options. Let the community decide for itself how it wants to play the game. Noobs that want ultra hulk smash attacks that blast 75% of an opponents healthbar after getting their ass handed to them can go to the casual rooms, and people more acclimated to pure fighting, or even super meter fighting, with more strict rules and higher execution requirements with all the fighting physics from previous titles can go into that segment of play. Doesnt seem like it would be too much to ask for, and i think it would solve a lot of their problems with angry devoted veterans. It would divide the community a bit… but if you factor in how many people have probably lost interest in SF4 because of the mechanics it implements, the renewed purity of the fight would make up for that division by bringing back some of the more hardcore enthusiasts.
or such is my 2 pennies anyways… ive always believed in trying to cater to both sides equally when it comes to gaming. mostly because the profit side will always be there lol its the competitive interest side that seems to get left out in the cold more often than not.
Yep. John Choi also said something to the effect of “more of the same, don’t see it lasting” when the game first came out.
Bump because i guess this is relevant again this day…