Was 3rd Strike a mistake? Did Capcom go too far ahead of themselves?

[Lionx]

14 old sprites? Augh… this is gonna bug me all day if I don’t figure out all of them…

The 12 world warriors, minus Ryu, Ken and Bison (Dictator), right? That’s 9… Then, Dan, Sakura, Rolento, Morrigan, and Cammy?

Sorry for off-topic.

Wasnt Dan a new sprite? I dont remember seeing that type of sprite in SFA3

[mIRC]

This is actually irrelevant. THe SNES could barely handle SF2. The PSX couldn’t handle CPSII games properly. Even the Saturn need a hardware addon to do CPSII games justice. That didn’t stop them from releasing games on those systems (and in the case of SFA3 at least, selling well on them).

Albeit cutting corners for the game, you could play SF2 and SFA on their respective consoles. I don’t think it’d be feasible to port SF3 to either the Saturn or PSX, especially considering what you just admitted.

And if 3S was in such high demand, it sure didn’t move any DC systems like, say, SF2 moved SNES systems.

The point went over your head. The point was that SF3 didn’t have a chance to garner popularity or revenue from the majority of it’s consumer base - console owners. I don’t think any subsequent Street Fighter was as popular as SF2, but I doubt SF2 was moving more SNES boxes than any other game.

And finally, if it was matter of people waiting to play SF3 on a proper system that people actually owned, why didn’t Capcom bother to have a version of SF3 ready to go for PS2 launch? Why wait until 2004, four years after the DC port, to release such a supposedly high demand game?

Poor decision making? Other fighting games taking up time? Making new characters for resale was too expensive? Waiting for it be released within a bundle for the previous reason?

[Azrael]

Its not really fair to compare CvS and and SF3. Yes, they are both 2D fighters…but CvS is a crossover team game. SF3 is 1 vs 1 fighting.

In some ways, you can look at Capcom putting effort into CvS as acknowledgement that 1 vs 1 fighting was on its way out. In Japan, usually before something dies out they’ll introduce something gimmicky towards the end to try and squeeze some last life out of it.

Lone Dragon, (most of us) are just saying that Capcom considered 3S to be a failure. If you like the game, fine, and yes, it did experience a revival and that’s all well and good. Regardless, Capcom considered it a failure. They’ve more or less come out and said that. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.

[The_Lone_Dragon]

Lone Retard:

Lol, don’t be skerred, Ultima. Just because a) I’m not a troll, b) I’m not stupid, c) I actually create thoughtful responses to things you find SO obvious and d) I’m not intimidated by your gasp “inside knowldge”…don’t be skerred.

I never called you any names. I never will.

Eighteen sprites actually (counting Ken/Ryu/Akuma/Evil Ryu as one). CvS1 was a very impressive first time effort in terms of artwork, yes (though I remember hearing on snk-capcom that they had help from SNK artists on that one; never did get a confirmation on that). Regardless, it was a crossover that still had nearly 50% recycled sprites.

They also did a lot of work on CvS2, yes. It was still not a NEW game. Capcom was still willing to put effort into 2D fighters up until CvS2 (despite being a massive C&P job, MvC2 was also a big effort as it had 10 brand new sprites and backgrounds) - they just were not going to put that effort to a completely new project.

You can play around with semantics, pondering whether these games count as fully “new” games from “scratch”, or “partially new” yada, yada.

Bottom line: Capcom put a lot of time, money, and effort into the CvS series, in spite of your claim that SF3 destroyed all of Capcom’s faith in 2D fighting.

Obviously, it didn’t destroy their faith, because they created this series a year AFTER 3S.

Compared to how much they spent on the first iteration, the money spent on 2I and 3S was chump change (2I especially, since that was really just the finished version of NG). NG was the real bomb. The rest were just failures on top of NG’s colossal blackhole of suck. Not necessarily their fault per se, but it’s still a fact that the entire series took years to make back what it cost. Had it been anything BUT Street Fighter 3, which I imagine they would have been loathe to give up on, they probably would have pulled the plug after the second game.

So…that’s the answer to my million dollar question. You’re saying Capcom, a financial video game giant that likes money more than life kept making “failure” after “failure” after “failure”…losing loads of money…because of pride…?

M’kay.

This is actually irrelevant.

No YOU’RE irrelavant.

Just kidding. I don’t insult people simply 'cause I disagree with them.

Of course it’s relevant. An overwhelmingly large aspect of the SF3 experience was the graphics. Otherwise they wouldn’t have made the game on hardware that current systems couldn’t handle, filling it with detailed artwork and animations that rival cartoons.

Reducing SF3 just to cram it on PSX would have murdered the game moreso than with Alpha or VS. Characters would be missing SO much animation. Or they would have to be SNES Samurai Shodown sized. Or both.

Elena would look like crap, move like crap, play like crap. Everyone would look like crap, move like crap, play like crap.

Why wait until 2004, four years after the DC port, to release such a supposedly high demand game?

Yup, mIRC was quite right. You missed the boat there…

Lone Dragon, (most of us) are just saying that Capcom considered 3S to be a failure. If you like the game, fine, and yes, it did experience a revival and that’s all well and good. Regardless, Capcom considered it a failure. They’ve more or less come out and said that. So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.

My only point in this thread is to get people to think, rather than just repeat stuff we’ve heard millions of times.

SF3 was a failure. SF3 was a failure. SF3 was a failure.

We’ve all heard people say it…but in some regards, SF3 doesn’t really behave like a failure. And, in other regards, it isn’t really TREATED like a failure. Especially, now, 10 years later. Is it so wrong to question “conventional knowledge” everyone once in a while? Is it wrong to wonder what Capcom’s expectations and intentions were at the time (rather than our expectations and intentions)?

[Azrael]

Is it wrong to wonder what Capcom’s expectations and intentions were at the time (rather than our expectations and intentions)?

Well…when Capcom has flat-out said so…yes. I mean, “SF3 failed” isn’t just gamer opinion, Capcom has more or less said “SF3 failed.” And then factor in Ono having to beg Capcom just to make SFIV…

Think about this in any other context…

Girl: I’m going to break up with you. You haven’t met my expectations now and I’m not happy with you.
Guy: Perhaps I’m not meeting them now…but you just wait and see…10 years later I’ll have a small but loyal following of women around me, and you’ll be changing your tune I imagine…

[b1gazn]

3rd Strike is like accidental babies, you’ll make the mistake of having one, but more than likely you’re too dumb to use contraceptive before the next child is born.

[The_Lone_Dragon]

Well…when Capcom has flat-out said so…yes. I mean, “SF3 failed” isn’t just gamer opinion, Capcom has more or less said “SF3 failed.”

Well, shucks, this whole argument could have been solved days ago!

Just point me to the link where they say “SF3 failed”, and I’ll be on my way.

And, anyways, part of the question is also whether SF3 should still be considered a failure NOW, in 2009.

[bbq_sauce]

The whole SF3 series was a mistake, it was actually meant to be the original DMC, somehow the programmers fucked up and SF3: NG was born. Capcom just decided to run with it.

[System_1]

The whole SF3 series was a mistake, it was actually meant to be the original DMC, somehow the programmers fucked up and SF3: NG was born. Capcom just decided to run with it.

Great news for Dante, pure loss for SF.

[Azrael]

Well, shucks, this whole argument could have been solved days ago!

Just point me to the link where they say “SF3 failed”, and I’ll be on my way.

Inside Street Fighter IV's Nostalgic Allure

Street Fighter III was kind of an exclusive club where if you didn’t know what you were doing, there was no reason to even try and play it. This time, we’re trying to re-open the fighting genre to people who haven’t played it in a while.

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=157740

When production on SFIV was decided, I didn’t think to myself that I wanted to continue the SFIII series. If that means that SFIII is not a continuation of SFII, well, I was on the development team for SFIII, and at that time that was certainly accurate. It was just a time when everyone was more stoic and serious. Now, we want to go back to our roots of SFII and produce a title that those who played SFII will really enjoy. I think, if we were to try and continue SFIII, it would be like trying to take on the most difficult shogi player in a fierce battle. Should we try to do something so difficult? Rather than that, if we could make a game that was simple like challenging your grandfather on the porch, where you think “hey, this is interesting”, then we could really make a lot of users happy.

---

When development first started, there was an opportunity within the company to make a 3D fighting game. Other staff members on our team said “now’s not really the 2D age anymore, isn’t it?” But if you’re talking about 2D fighting, well, then that’s Street Fighter. So then we decided if we were going to make a 3D fighting game, it’d be better to just come up with something new rather than try to make SF 3D.

---

There were talks about drawing the characters in 2D cell animation. But if you’re talking about cell or 2D dot, we really went all out for SFIII. We hit our limits there, LOL.

---

I felt that the parry system of SFIII was too severe with the input and use, so not everyone could really use it.

Japanese people are wonderfully ambiguous - they will beat around the bush at something without actually coming out and saying it, and the listener is just supposed to know what that unspoken thing is.

So Ono never comes out directly and says it, but plenty here says that SF3 did not go as well as they hoped. Especially when he says that they went all out for the 2D art in SF3, the unspoken line there says “and that didn’t work.”

And, anyways, part of the question is also whether SF3 should still be considered a failure NOW, in 2009.

From a business sense, yeah. It didn’t meet expectations during its initial release. The after-profits are nice but just an after thought.

Lots of movies that bomb during their theater run gain cult followings on video - but they’re still considered to be bombs by the studios that released them.

Non-EDIT
Reading though old SFIV threads is fun, in a purely masochistic way.

[Ultima]

mIRC: re: translations

Doesn’t matter. if they really wanted, they could have at least attempted to squeeze things down to try and fit it better. Shirnk the sprites, reduce the animation, whatever.

> The point went over your head. The point was that SF3 didn’t have a chance to garner popularity or revenue from the majority of it’s consumer base - console owners. I don’t think any subsequent Street Fighter was as popular as SF2, but I doubt SF2 was moving more SNES boxes than any other game.

Ha ha what? Then how do you explain why SF2 did so well then? Remember, SNES SF2 came out circa June 1992, some 15 months or so after arcade WW in March 1991. CE was even out by then, but SNES WW still sold about millions. Let’s take 3S, which came out around late 1999, and the DC (the first system that could do 3S justice) version dropped in June of 2000. It was a highly timely window, but it still didn’t do so well. Even if you discount the DC since Japan hates anything made by Sega that isn’t an arcade game, the PS2 came out late 2000, and Capcom could have had something going for it not long after launch, which still would have been pretty timely, but they waited 4 years to do so.

re: No SF3 on PS2 until 2004

> Poor decision making? Other fighting games taking up time? Making new characters for resale was too expensive? Waiting for it be released within a bundle for the previous reason?

The first reason, probably. They definitely should have had it ready for PS2 launch, or perhaps Xmas 2000. But for the other reasonzs you mentioned, no. Before 3S on PS2/Xbox, the only fighters they released were CvS2 (dropped about a month after arcade version) and a limited run of MvC2 (rushed port from DC; hardly time consuming). There were no other fighters taking up their time. I don’t know what you’re talking about with “making new characters for resale was too expensive”, and it was only bundled in the US; the JPN got it stand alone first.

Lone Retard:

> Capcom put a lot of time, money, and effort into the CvS series, in spite of your claim that SF3 destroyed all of Capcom’s faith in 2D fighting.

Holy shit you fail at reading. Go back and tell me were I said it destroyed Capcom’s faith in 2D fighting. Go on. When you do, get back to me.

[Shin_Akuma_1]

Jesus, why the neg rep man? I jsut stated my opinion. TO ME TS is unbalanced because 9/19 isn’t good enough for me.

LOL You’ll learn soon enough about speaking your opinion and when to keep it to yourself. Or you can be just like me and not give a rats ass about rep.

P.S. FUCK Marvel, CvS2, 3S, STHD, GG, Tekken, VF, SC, and DOA!
Brawl is where it’s at!!!

[The_Lone_Dragon]

Holy shit you fail at reading. Go back and tell me were I said it destroyed Capcom’s faith in 2D fighting. Go on. When you do, get back to me.

Here ya go:

but the series was definitely a failure, and again, it was the reason why Capcom stopped making sprite fighters from scratch (save for Jojo) for good.

Don’t know why they’d stop making “sprite based fighters from scratch”, unless they didn’t have faith in their ability to succeed anymore. Now, I await your attempt to explain this one away, emphasizing your meaningless use of the words “from scratch” and reminding me that games like CvS weren’t technically “from scratch”(even though they were filled with more than enough new art and sprite work to constitue a brand new game 'from scratch"). I can’t wait.

Ha ha what? Then how do you explain why SF2 did so well then? Remember, SNES SF2 came out circa June 1992, some 15 months or so after arcade WW in March 1991. CE was even out by then, but SNES WW still sold about millions.

Why do you insist on measuring success or failure according to a game who’s 2D success has NEVER BEEN REPEATED SINCE? Yes, compared to SF2, SF3 was a failure. So were…lots of other games that were successful enough for their purposes.

You’re acting like the arcade and gaming environment in 1991 = 1997.

Even if you discount the DC since Japan hates anything made by Sega that isn’t an arcade game, the PS2 came out late 2000, and Capcom could have had something going for it not long after launch, which still would have been pretty timely, but they waited 4 years to do so.

Capcom already had a launch PS2 Street Fighter title. SFEX3 (developed by Arika, doesn’t matter) designed to show off the system’s graphical abilities in light of successful 3D launches like SC1. Why would they compete with their own IP by simultaneously releasing SF3?

And, if SF3 was such a failure, why would they release it AT ALL on PS2? On it’s own disc, no less?

So Ono never comes out directly and says it, but plenty here says that SF3 did not go as well as they hoped. Especially when he says that they went all out for the 2D art in SF3, the unspoken line there says “and that didn’t work.”

That’s not how I interpret that line at all…especially since it’s basically a restatement of his comments in EGM:

“I don’t want to brag, but if you look at SF3, we’ve pretty much done all that’s possible with animated sprites. There’s simply not much for us to learn from doing another 2D game.”

A much more positive interpretation.

When production on SFIV was decided, I didn’t think to myself that I wanted to continue the SFIII series. ** If that means that SFIII is not a continuation of SFII, well, I was on the development team for SFIII, and at that time that was certainly accurate. ** It was just a time when everyone was more stoic and serious. Now, we want to go back to our roots of SFII and produce a title that those who played SFII will really enjoy."

Interesting, because it sounds as if SF3 had completely different goals than SF4 or even Alpha. SF4, as the first new Capcom fighter in years, is meant to be a sure thing, and so, predictably, it mimics the heck out of SF2, the most popular game in the series.

But, judging by the above quote, SF3 almost sounds like an experiment. An attempt to do something completely different, completely unrelated to previous games.

Different goals for different games. And, quite possibly, different expectations for different goals…

Street Fighter III was kind of an exclusive club where if you didn’t know what you were doing, there was no reason to even try and play it. This time, we’re trying to re-open the fighting genre to people who haven’t played it in a while.

But, after reading the previous quote, wasn’t this kinda the point of SF3…to go a new direction and break from the older stylings? How is this proof of failure, when basically this is what Ono says they wanted to do in the first place?

Lots of movies that bomb during their theater run gain cult followings on video - but they’re still considered to be bombs by the studios that released them.

Yeah, but I don’t know many flops that are constantly reused, referenced, and respected in new movie after new movie. I don’t know why characters and techniques from SF3 keep showing up in new games, if Capcom considers the original source such a bomb.

I think, if we were to try and continue SFIII, it would be like trying to take on the most difficult shogi player in a fierce battle. Should we try to do something so difficult? Rather than that, if we could make a game that was simple like challenging your grandfather on the porch, where you think “hey, this is interesting”, then we could really make a lot of users happy.

Well, duh, mimicking SF2 (the most popular game in the series) would be smarter than mimicking SF3 or any other SF game…if you’re aiming for a sure fire hit.

All this quote proves is that SF2 is more popular than SF3. Which no one here is arguing.

Non-EDIT
Reading though old SFIV threads is fun, in a purely masochistic way.

Thanks for the effort.

The whole “forum” system has its faults…

[MUSOLINI]

i just wanna add that you cant compare sf2 when it came with the snes to ANY OTHER fighter. its fucking unfair. this was when fighting games where in the hight of their pupularity, even scrubs that didnt know how to play where playing it. not to mention it was the ONLY good fighter back in 91. htf can that be compared to any other fighter on any other system? THERE WAS NO OTHER SYSTEM WITH SF2 BACK IN 91!!! meaning there was only 1 good fighter on 1 system bback then, how the fuck wouldnt it have sold units.

[hold_dat]

I always believed that Capcom did not promote the entire sf3 series correctly

They were so successful with the sf2 series they dropped the ball on the marketing for sf3 imo. maybe they thought the brand would sell itself. so they allocated less money for promotion. but i dont remember any tv commercials or any type of media blitz for sf3, so only the hardcore gamers like us would really anticipate or get hype for the game

Couple that with the new system, new artwork, steeper learning curve and the new characters i can see why it didnt appeal to a mass audience. SF4 will be successful from all of the people who are nostalgic from the old days, Capcom knows they had to go back to those old characters to make money. i have VP’s in my office who watch videos with me cause they remember those characters. (and of course they all brag how “nice” they were in the game lol) show em 3rd strike and they go :rolleyes:

When it concerns 3rd strike actually being a good game you either love it or hate it. when the nostalgia from the original 8 charactes in sf4 die down we’ll see if capcom can avoid the mistakes they made with sf3 with the possible release of sf5…in the long, long, distant future, if ever lol

btw…3rd strike is godlike. only fighting game you can scram aaaaayyyyyyyyy too.

[Azrael]

A much more positive interpretation.

I honestly don’t know what to tell you anymore.

I live in Japan, I speak Japanese, I work and interact with Japanese people everyday. I wasn’t reading the translations of what Ono said…I was reading what Ono said in Japanese. As I said, in Japanese a lot is left out. Its up to individual translators to try and figure out what that left out thing is and how they are going to translate it.

I’ve read just about every SFIV interview Ono has given, and any time SF3 is mentioned, at NO point does he ever make it sound like he feels SF3 was even remotely successful. No, he does not say those exact words, but its the whole “this is the idea I have, and by the direction I’m speaking in you should understand too” thing. There is just no other way to explain it.

And that’s just the ONE guy who had to literally beg Capcom to make a new numbered SF game.

Its like you only see what you want to see, and I can’t argue with that.

[The_Lone_Dragon]

Are you implying that the EGM translation is wrong or something? Don’t know why they’d add the bragging part if he didn’t say something to that effect…but, we don’t have those transcripts, so…

And that’s just the ONE guy who had to literally beg Capcom to make a new numbered SF game.

This whole “needing to beg for SF4” thing…was it really because of SF3’s ‘failure’?

OR

Was it more because Capcom hadn’t released a substantial SF related game in like 5-6 years? More like 8 years, when measured from release dates.

Its like you only see what you want to see, and I can’t argue with that.

What, you think I’m going “see what John Cena wants me to see”, instead? Screw that, I hate John Cena…I’m more of an A.J. Styles kinda guy.

Sometime you gotta “Cross the Line” of so-called conventional wisdom, and interpret the “facts” for yourself.

Because, a lot of these “facts” can be interpreted differently…but, only if people are willing to make the effort. As a lawyer, a scientist, and an artist, I don’t mind questioning things that other people have long since accepted as truth.

[specs]

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Mixah]

Wow… The Lone Dragon: You REALLY need to figure some shit out… Just sit there and think for a little while… wait, that COULD be dangerous.

[The_Lone_Dragon]

Wow… The Lone Dragon: You REALLY need to figure some shit out… Just sit there and think for a little while… wait, that COULD be dangerous.

Naw…thinking isn’t dangerous. Some people just THINK it is.