The only good boss character I can think of in sf was ST Akuma. All the others seemed kinda mere. Gill was nice but he was not particularly memorable.
Best boss move was alpha 3’s psycho crusher.
Unplayable bosses are a waste of development time.
Mmmmmm, I dunno if I particularly agree with ya. While yes, the entire SF3 series (yes, including 3S) wasn’t as successful as the SF2 and SFA series, Gill was definitely memorable to me. He was as annoying as Bison in SF2, and I still remember the freak out at the arcade when people thought they were winning, until “Resurrection” and everyone about breaking the joystick trying to figure out how to stop it. I would argue that the reason Gill wasn’t as memorable as maybe other SF bosses is mainly by how popular and/or memorable all of SF3 and its cast was.
I can kinda agree with this. Despite my issues with Alpha 3, Bison’s psycho crusher still hurts like hell when either you get hit by it, or watch someone else get blasted by it. If I’m too careless and Bison revs up for it, I still wince and grimace at what’s about to happen to my health. 
Not sure why, but the vast majority of players (including myself actually) prefer playing male characters. Sex appeal is a must in any game, but it should never be the main selling point. So 35-40% females is the right balance I think.
Don’t jump. Don’t ever jump.
Never claim to speak for the majority. Said it before once in here. You speak for yourself and YOUR experiences, NOT the majority.
Except I’m not claiming anything, nor speaking for anyone here. I thought this was common knowledge based on statistics. I think Capcom (or some guy at some dev studio) said this. Damn, people here are sensitive lol
“Some guy at some dev studio” doesn’t say much. AFAIK the closest is this:
Which only discusses lead female characters and executive claims which often prove to be false and ultimately they chose to go with Square Enix which didn’t try and change the main character to male. Plus it’s only that one devs experiences with publishers, not enough to make a claim beyond that one guys experiences with a couple douchy execs.
I wasn’t being sensitive. Just saying, don’t ever claim to speak for the majority. In regards to gaming I highly doubt there is actual statistics backing it up. Especially not ones with an ample pool of people to make such a claim. Even then it’s only a poll of the people who were polled you can only infer the majority based on trends within said poll. If they polled a different group of people from a different location they might have totally different results.
Except… I’m NOT claiming anything, and I’m NOT speaking for the majority. I’m sorry if I offended anyone (I’m surprised I even have to say this but oh well), I’m just stating facts, and yes, there are statistics to back this up.
Statistically, people are naturally more inclined to play male characters because, since (again, I’m not claiming anything, just stating facts) male players are way more numerous than female players, they are simply more relatable to them.
It’s the same reason why the vast majority of WOW players, among all the amazing and creative races they could choose from, they end up choosing human male, which is probably the most lame and ugly character design Blizzard has ever come up with. Why? Because they feel it represents them, the players, the most. Not that I agree with that, but it’s just how it is.
I played FFXIV for some time and it’s no different. Take a look at this if you don’t believe me: http://xivsoul.com/ (For WoW: https://realmpop.com/)
Sure, that SF list is full of females but in what percentage are people actually playing them? Because all I see online is a bunch of Ryus, Kens, Akumas, Blankas, Guiles, and Balrogs. And I’m not talking strictly about hardcore, but casual audiences as well.
More women play video games than teenage boys:
Perhaps not in the hardcore market but women make up 48% of gamers on mobile and console devices
http://www.pcgamer.com/researchers-find-that-female-pc-gamers-outnumber-males/
More female PC gamers than male when including social games, but also more female gamers play RPGs than male at 54%. FPS genre is more male dominated at 66% male.
70% of female gamers stated they play male characters online in hopes to sidestep sexual harassment. That has nothing to do with who they identify with, rather just trying to avoid creeps.
Edit: After thinking about it for a while, it’s best if I drop this. We’ve gotten too far off topic.
Lol using Mobile app gaming statistics for females vs male and using that about street fighter and other console games.
Oh yea the candy crush and farmville statistic of male and female downloads totally relates to console and fgc gaming. WHO BITCH THIS IS?
I’m sorry but your post is a little desperate. That stuff (you-obviously-hastily-found-online-just-to-prove-a-point) is either completely out of context or talks about exceptions. Yes, more females than males play social games. Moving on.
More females playing RPGs is bullshit. I dunno where they took it from, they probably looked at a very particular context just to prove a point but if you ever play these games yourself you’ll notice that - yes, there are some females, a surprising number actually - but in NO WAY it surpasses males. It’s just not true, not even close.
And even if it’s true, you just proved to me that even females prefer playing male characters - for whatever reason, which is also very debatable since I’ve personally seen females using their gender to their advantage to get in-game help from horny dudes, or even males pretending to be females for that reason (I swear people actually do this) - and trust me, it works wonders.
But statistics aside, since you’ll always find stuff online that contradicts what’s common knowledge just to get attention, the point is, what I was saying was not my personal experience, nor claiming to talk for anyone else’s experience. Sure, it seems people here enjoy their female characters a lot - I get that, and that’s perfectly fine - but denying something so blatantly obvious (and verifiable, since common sense doesn’t seem to be enough here) just because it doesn’t reflect their own personal tastes is just ridiculously egoistic to me.
Farmville and that Kim kardashian game count as rpgs in those “statistics”. Lmao what a joke
I think this game looks insane, or maybe its just me
How so?
Not in the old days, but i suppose so now that development cost are much, much higher than they used to be. I don’t think i’m alone, but I think having unplayable bosses can have it’s benefits. Ever had that bad ass boss you always wanted to use but could never play in your favorite child hood games? It really got the imagination going when it came to “what if” scenarios.
I remember always wanting to play as some of my favorite enemies in RPG’s, and sometimes i would actually get to, but i’m not the one controlling them, the AI is. (typical bad guy or neutral guy unites with you, to defeat a common enemy type stuff) Or when Vergil stole our hearts with his bad ass-ness in Devil May Cry 3, only not to be playable. (I was expecting to unlock him after i beat the game Q.Q) (Of course DMC3 Special Edition came out where he was playable though, you get the idea)
The day that statistics and popularity determine the cast list for SF is the day I die. R Mika ranking 8 in a list not pertaining to “fictional characters I just want to throw up on” is highly disappointing. By the way, she’s El Fuerte. Use her A-ISMs and you’ll see it.
I hope Capcom retains whatever integrity they have left by trying to tell a new story, or continue an old story that hasn’t been finished, rather than just feed the masses and fanboys characters they feel are owed to them.
Let’s be honest: they aren’t going to try the new story thing for fear of having another SF3 or Soulcalibur 5 flop and the “old story that hasn’t been finished” is the done to death return of the World Warriors against the Shadaloo bosses.
I’d rather have a popularity driven cast than what we have now, which is the worst of both worlds: use the popularity- fan demand card to bring a parade of 5-6 shoto clones in addition of characters that play almost like them (Sagat, Sakura, Poison) and then use the rogue-not fulfilling expectations card to reject the popular characters that bring actual different gameplay and instead bring some same old characters that get little play by both demographics plus some new lackluster characters that enact an immediate “they left out my character for THAT?”
but even when Capcom included the majority of characters from previous SFs, it wasn’t a guarantee they played the same or familiar at all. That’s how I was when getting into SF4. I played Guile, Dhalsim, and Blanka in 2, and they didn’t play the same or comfortable at all, so I had to pick a character that was new to me, but felt better with in the SF4 engine. And I have no argument against Capcom making old characters play totally different because there are no 2 SFs that are identical. They historically switch up the tools and mechanics so even age old match-ups like Ryu vs Sagat don’t play the same in ST compared to Alpha etc.
And people need to drop the debate that “bad character design” was the cause of 3S’s financial failure. Arcades were dying and replaced by the home console well before SF3 even hit the market.
If Capcom were to have SF5’s cast determined solely on international popularity, It’d be like 60% females, seriously. Girl characters seem to be who people are pining for in 5 the worst, but it could be they just don’t have a place in the direction SF5 is taking.
I don’t think that’s the sole reason for 3S’s debatable “failure.” I wouldn’t say it was bad character design at all. The entire SF3 series struggled a bit up until 3S was released, and that reason was because most of the cast was unrecognizable. Yes, we did want a new SF, but expected to see more than just Ryu and Ken to return. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say arcades were starting to dwindle in 1998 just yet. It’s completely debatable, but arcades started to die off (albeit slowly) one-by-one maybe 3-4 yrs after 3S and MvC2 was released. The issue that 3S had was that it isolated players. I’m gonna say this, and I know it will be unpopular and ruffle feathers, but I ask that y’all think about this: 3S, by many, was labeled an elitist fighter. The learning curve in the game was higher than most other SF games which is both intimidating and off putting to some. I seem to remember Ono saying something about that a few years back, and he has a point.
People wanting female characters I think comes from 2 things: one, the trolls and “waifu” lovers who just wanna see T & A to troll harder, and two (which is a more legitimate reason), they are at least SF characters that haven’t been seen, or haven’t had a chance to shine much since their first and only game; that’s why they’re asking for them in SF5 – like R. Mika and Karin.
R. Mika, and Karin did become breakout stars in their own right in Alpha 3, but we haven’t seen them in almost 18 yrs. That’s reason enough to have them come back. Juri became a really popular character in SF4, and Chun-Li is self explanatory. Now there are plenty of other female characters that are on my “time to retire for now” list (Cammy, Rose, Ibuki, Poison, Sakura, Elena, C. Viper, Decapre, Makoto). I’m still on the fence about Poison since she only has recently become significant for the first time in USF4, and if we do get Karin, it makes sense to bring Sakura back.
Honestly, if Capcom does this right 
, and focuses on reasonable popularity with the story we are assuming to get in SF5, there should only be approximately 4, maybe 5 females in [Vanilla] SF5 – Chun-Li, Karin, R. Mika, the new female rumored, and MAYBE Juri. After that, in their SF5 updates and patches, is when we’ll get female SF alum to join in, and my guess, Poison, C. Viper, and Makoto will come later. But this is also the reason I think the starting cast for SF5 should be 20-24, and not 16.