Ive read a few articles suggesting that SFIII offers a wider array of strategic options to players when compared to SFIV, and is a deeper game as a result. Ive played both SFIII and SFIV, and as a casual player of intermediate skill level, Im not sure I understand this claim.
SFIII does offer selectable super arts for each character, but from what Ive seen of expert play, there is clearly a preferred super art choice for each character, rendering the remaining arts superfluous.
SFIIIs parry system is requires a high degree of technical skill to master, but is functionally similar to IVs focus system. From a strategic perspective, choosing to parry in III is quite similar to choosing to focus in IV (granted, it’s much easier to “parry-bait” in III than it is to “focus-bait” in IV).
Aside from these differences, what else separates the two gameplay systems, and what (if anything) makes III deeper?
SF4 is like chess, and SF3 is like chess but if you know what move your opponent was going to make before they do it, you get to have sex with their girlfriend.
I definitely think 3rd Strike is a deeper game because the characters have more options and there’s all this execution bullshit you have to get through. I like SFIV better, though.
so therefore sf3 is more like chess then sf4… great…u actually do mind games in chess of course too, if u know ur opponent and know his patterns u can fuck his queen too.
for me after playing both… i agree with the simplicity of 4 with slight technical edge over 3s because simplicity is where its at…3s is complex as fuck, and in some ways thats why its the greatest to me. but a expert of all is a master of none…there is the problem in comparison with games like ST and SF4… Simplicity allows for a more solid game, but the potential in 3s would swallow up both of those games for breakfast if it more well more fleshed out.
Neither parry nor focus are hard to perform. But one has a lot more risk attached, so much so that it isn’t just the all purpose catch-all defense to non-throw attacks.
In one of the interviews with Yoshinori Ono (I think this is the vid) he stated that, while SF3 was a great game and the parrying system was unique and intuitive in its own environment, he wanted SFIV to be a more offensively-oriented game. He said something about the fact that if you weren’t an expert at parrying you didn’t stand much chance against other pro players, and he wanted to take the defensive and memorization-based edge away from the gameplay for IV.
parry is not the end all be all. they can be predicted and punished god damn hard
the problem is that alot of people dont take the time to know which moves can be parried high, low, or both, and learn to be able to see how your opponent is trying to parry you if at all.
True. ^ Street Fighter III:third strike has a ton of options and parry is just one of them. IMO, it will be a long while like with most fighting game before people can truly realize how in-depth street fighter IV is or is not.
Option Select Parry has to be one of the most retarded things in a fighter ever. You get to attack and defend at the same time and the system decides what the best course of action is. Gay.