All games have issues, just cause one game takes longer to fix than another one doesnt mean that the online is better. SFV online is working fine for weeks now and its way better than SF4. Yea, use your brain alright.
The netcode itself is definitely better than IV’s. Teleports are rough, but good connections in this game are definitely better than IV’s and I can actually play people in Cali without yellow bar slush. Daz facts bruh.
The matchmaking and servers aren’t as good as IV’s, but that’s been known for a while.
I think the good thing about 5 net code is, in my experience, you can have an average connection and it is totally playable, which to me is a sign of a decent code (not that I know much about net codes though). Obviously the bad connections are really bad, unplayable even. I’m not saying the net code is perfect, but I don’t think it should necessarily fall into the bad category, that is reserved for the likes of MKX and Marvel 3
Uh…SF4 didn’t have any of the issues I listed. And the only issue amongst those I did list that SFV has fixed, somewhat, is the servers. There are more issues with SFV’s online play that I didn’t list.
Your preference on which game you like more is perfectly fine, we all have our own preferences. However, when someone gives you indisputable facts in direct comparison, they cease being a preference. What I listed were facts, not opinions.
If you insist on responding again, you’d better have some hard facts to back up your statements, otherwise zip it.
Street Fighter 4 may have done well because it was the first street fighter in a long time, no hand drawn sprites, etc. That being said I despised the game. I didn’t enjoy playing it, it felt awkward and clunky to me. Didn’t feel like any of the previous Street Fighters I loved IE Alphas, SF2 series, and SF3 series. SF5 gameplay, graphics, mechanics, etc. are great to me…just it’s so bare bones and the online is trash. I see more potential in SF5 then 4, but honestly both are fails for me right now until this game gets fleshed out. Should Capcom fix the issues with SF5 then SF5 by a long shot for me.
SF4 never had to deal with cross play. Every system SF4 played on had a closed network which is much better to deal with. Not only does the PS4 have to deal with different ISPs and connections speeds, it has to deal with different OS and computer hardware configurations. You cant make a apples to apples comparison.
In SF4, anything less than a green bar was unplayable. The same cant be said about SFV. Even with a decent connection its highly playable. So yea, zip it.
…seriously, all you’ve got is the netcode? Really? There is a heck of a lot more then just netcode. Both games, at the same one month mark were playable online. However, SFV’s online has flaws that should not exist in a 2016 online game, that those very same flaws did not appear in SF4 from 2009. These are FACTS. Ones you have ignored. Unless of course you’ve got a valid reason why the servers were so bad they had to be shut down entirely to just function after 5 betas, betas that SF4 didn’t have nor required a server shut down. Do you have a valid reason why there is no countermeasure in a 2016 release, that the 2009 release addressed? How about the wait times between matches? Got a reason for why a Triple-A 2016 title has a significantly longer wait time then the 2009 game?
Got ANYthing else besides the netcode? You have to look at the whole package, not just the netcode.
Yea, netcode is your foundation of your online infrastructure and thats you response? Sounds like you just moving goal post for your own goals. I already gave you a reason why SFV faced the server issues that SF4 didnt. Not my fault you are too ignorant to understand it.
The whole package is better right now. The only flaw where Capcom dropped the ball was 8 player lounges are currently not present and we have to wait till the March update. Besides that the online environment in matches is tons better than SF4 and that carries way more than anything else.
Smooth as butter input delay makes fighting games unplayable so whatever other “facts” you can post about how wonderful SFIV online was are irrelevant.
@w00denTEETH Oh, do shut up. I list undeniable facts, and am called a troll? Get real, kid, and get gone.
@Projectjustice Yes, the netcode is the foundation for online play. At no point have I stated SF4’s netcode was better or worse then SFV’s, just that both are playable. This is truth. Neither are optimal, but they are playable.
Secondly, your reasoning for the server shutdown was because of the cross play between PC and PS4, yes? Hey man? The fuck do you think those betas were for? They weren’t just for gameplay balance tweaks, they were to test the servers. Like every other online enabled beta ever has been. After 5 betas, there shouldn’t have been any reason why the servers didn’t function day one like they do now.
Third…you said the only flaw was the lack of 8 player battle lounges, a flaw I didn’t even mention but one that is accurate. So then, tell me true…when you look at the rage quitting thread and see 10+ people respond per day, with multiple video evidence per post to not be a flaw? SF4 didn’t have that flaw.
You don’t think that after a couple hundred matches played, that my stats all show 0’s to not be a flaw? SF4 didn’t have that flaw.
You don’t think that player names not even showing up on screen during a match on occasion a flaw? SF4 didn’t have that flaw.
Moving the goal posts to suit my argument? Hardly. I am giving you flaws one game has that other does not to outline why SF4 has a better overall online experience one month after release then SFV. I am giving you FACTS. Saying “all games have flaws when released” or thereabouts is not only a generic cop-out response, it’s flatly not true when you look at the 2 games.
Finally, I truly hope, and expect, all the flaws I have stated, as well as those that have not been mentioned, will be fixed. At which point, SFV becomes the clear winner as to which has the better online experience.
We are not at that point, however, which is why, at this point in time, SF4’s overall online experience trumps SFV’s. I will gladly and loudly say SFV has the better experience when that day comes, but not one moment before.
I didn’t say there weren’t quitters on SF4, at launch or today. There are quitters on any online game, ever. What I did say, was that SF4 had a countermeasure built right in to, at least attempt to dissuade people from quitting. Something SFV lacks. The rage quitting on SF4 isn’t even in the same ballpark as it is with SFV this past month.
EDIT: Forgot to ask…but did you make that statement based on my join date? When are people going to realize join dates don’t matter. My join date on this account says 3 years, yet I’ve been playing Street Fighter longer then you’ve(if your not 25 or older) even been alive.
…but wait… there isn’t enough digital proof guys. In before thread closes
I’m on the same boat. I can’t adapt to rollback, mainly because I DON’T KNOW how to change my way of playing. Every counter-measure I can think of gets trashed on because there is no telling if their side is “late” so I have to delay things, or vice versa. I can setup a meaty and all of a sudden a St. Jab of theirs beat my Low Strong that landed on my side of the screen. Do I have to press the button earlier? Did my button had to be delayed even more because it didn’t show up in time on their end? Did they ended up waking earlier than what was shown on screen?
On top of that… I get lost in the frame-data world since most of the moves don’t properly “display” what would be shown in an actual offline match. Birdie’s EX Dive and Laura’s EX Command Dash move afaik is around 8 frames of start-up because of the teleport lunge effect. So far, that’s what I “visually” learned from playing SFV online.
I think the biggest offender to me is the “one-sided” rollback problem. Doesn’t matter how sweet those matches could be, how does one player really verify that their matches were not a problem for the opponent? The only time I came across this troubling similarity was with USFIV’s early PC port, which had tons of problems that deserved complaints. SFV is the same deal of facepalm, but instead it lasts the entire set instead of one “rare” particular moment of the match.
…really man? I give you detailed reasons why one experience trumps the other, reasons you haven’t even attempted to counter, yet I’m just trolling? You give me valid, factual counterpoints to what I’ve stated, and I’ll gladly change my stance. All of my statements, about each and every flaw.
It’s called having a conversation.
I’m a troll for actually taking the time to give facts to support my statements?
Holy shit, get real dude. Just because you can’t counter my argument does not make me a troll.
…both are playable, neither is optimal. Which I’ve stated.
You’re also ignoring every single other flaw SFV has that SF4 did not, which is part of the overall experience, not just one aspect.
And, I’m done. I am not going to waste my time trying to have a conversation with people who not only refuse to acknowledge the glaring flaws I and others have outlined in regards to SFV’s online play, nor even attempt at countering those points.
When you enter into a debate with someone, you bring facts to back up your claims. Which I have. The other party(you two, in this case) follow up with counterpoints of their own. Neither of you have even attempted to do such, instead opting to call me a troll.
sigh And I’ve just realized I’ve been feeding two trolls tonight. I’m not only slow on picking that little detail up, but also too damn tired to care anymore.