Anyways I think ST places more focus of positional advanatages than mindgames in a lot of areas. The example Shari posted had less to do with mindgames than it had to do with Tokido forcing Wong into a situation where Wongs options were extremely limited. Its a different type of strategy and it depends on the player whether they like that type of gameplay.
Exactly, its all player preference.
I personally feel that the lack op options and unforgiving throw system promotes creativity in trying to stay out of bad situations.
When it comes down to it, I really believe parry vs. no parry (although really it’s more like 3S vs. every other non-SF3 SF) is an apples vs. oranges thing – purely personal preference between two perfectly legitimate, respectable, and very different fruits, both of which I enjoy the taste of. I may enjoy one on a more frequent basis than the other (in this case, SF4), but really that’s due to accessibility of face-to-face competition more than anything else, and I don’t hold that against 3S.
It seems unfair to me to say that parry makes the close-range game in 3S too much of a guessing game; I am no great shakes at 3S but I really don’t think that option-select parry/red parry/guess parry create a signficantly more unfair reward for a defending player than something like DP -> FADC in SF4. I just think the logic there is way too flimsy to build an argument on.
I think it IS fair, however, to criticize 3S parry for reducing the game to a mid-to-close-range game. This is certainly not to say that 3S’s more up-close style does not have technical depth – I just think it’s rather unfair to all that screen space from a design standpoint, particularly for characters that were (questionably) balanced more around a mid-to-long-range game such as Remy. The real solution to the woes of these characters would be to balance their movesets more in keeping with 3S’s melee-oriented dynamics, but for better or worse, what’s done is done.
It is quite fairly pointed out, of course, that the strength of parries is not the whole story of the weakness of projectiles in 3S; the startup and frame disadvantage of regular fireballs (particularly Shoto non-EX fireballs) are another big factor.
By that same token, I think it is unfair to criticize SF4, ST and the like for being too heavy on fireball zoning. I believe both preferences for spacing dynamics are equally valid. It is just as much of an oversimplification (and a very similar oversimplification, at that) to say that fireball-heavy games degenerate purely into bludgeoning people with abusive projectiles to make up for lack of strategy as it is to say that 3S’s parry-intensive nature renders it little more than an anarchic “do something random so you don’t get parried” guessing game.
Basically, all I want to say here is that while I think the logic used by both sides to articulate what they don’t like about other games is valid, I don’t really see the point in exalting one game over another. They both seem different but equally worthy in my consideration. (Unless that game is CvS2, which is better than all games here considered.)
3S is a very odd duck among SFs due to the strength of parrying and the weakness of fireball-assisted zoning, but even with 3S Chun in it, it strikes me as a fun game that rewards a different subset of SF fundamentals than games like ST or SF4, and a game that gets no less smarter or dumb at any given level of play. Many people on SRK, I think (even people with firsthand competitive experience, who ought to know better), get too caught up in how dumb certain games can get in hardcore competition that they overlook how fun the games can be in a casual capacity (not even a button-mashing scrubdom capacity, just playing the game reasonably well on the side with another player of similar or better skill).
Why can’t we just love BOTH kinds of games for what they are? (Or better yet, love CvS2 even more?)
You know why? There are two sides to this: Those who think “Street Fighter” is all about the old school style of play like ST, HF, and Alpha, and the other side who sees “Street Fighter” as a game where fundamentals can change at each attempt of a new Street Fighter game developed.
Viscant explained it best that 3S is not “Street Fighter”. The implicit detail is that the only true Street Fighter game is one with the old school fundamental gameplay.
Personally, I think 3s is Street Fighter and so what if zoning and spacing is not there anymore. Stop thinking every SF game should play like ST.
I think ALOT of people go for what they know. If a person has been playing 3S for a long time then they are more “use” to the game and they are more comfortable and confident when it comes to the way the game is played. i.e. parrying, semi-safe jump-ins etc… They play SF4 and they are reduced to bitching and complaining about how easy and noob friendly the game is because they can’t get over the fact that you have to use more mindgames and think a lil more in SF4. No parry to cover your constant jump-ins, no random guessed right parry to throw your opponent in the corner when your trapped. No option select to make you spam certain things on wake-up.
Some people just want to be “hard-core” fans of things and they take it to the extreme. I.e disliking something alot simply because it’s another thing that’s similar or in the same category as the thing they’re fanboys of.
Me personally I LOVE both 3S and SF4. I feel 3S is a better game but SF4 forces me to not make dumb decisions because you’d get killed by even the most novice of players off of 1 or 2 simple mistakes…
if instead of needing to know what move you have that beats what you’re getting “spammed” with you can just parry it with every character, you can’t try to tell me that doesn’t dumb down the game. No other conclusions, nothing saying that other things can’t compensate for it, just that. It isn’t “what’s his good move and what’s my move that beats it” it’s “what’s his good move and am I going to use my good move against it?” in a great many situations.
I don’t know how the invulnerability is in 3rd Strike, but couldn’t Daigo have say…fierce SRK’d Chun that late in the super, or hell, jumped over it (maybe not on reaction, but at a point Wong couldn’t react to it I’d think) from that range? Jab DP through it and hit her from behind maybe? Straight up counter super that shit? There are a lot of ways to avoid chip with Ken and a full meter normally, especially when it’s not even a fireball.
Lastly, why do some of you think that people who dislike parries like Shoryu FADC? It’s just not anywhere near as universal or common.
None of that would have been possible, except for a predictive jump over it (but then he wouldn’t be able to punish). SRK is not invincible in 3S, and Chun’s SA2 covers full distance in 2 frames (which also means that you have to input your first parry before the super actually starts up, making the feat far more impressive).
who are all these scrubs in here riding some other scrub’s Viscant’s nuts? that’s the biggest question.
anyone, and I mean ANYONE in here who says parry dumbs down game, takes away mind games, etc etc, is a full-blown idiot and shouldn’t be postying at all about 3S.
The ONLY people who make these ridiculous and asinine remarks are NOT 3S players. they don’t play 3S, and in fact, they downright hate it. so why listen TO ANYONE like that? you don’t.
I read over these comments and shake my head. Ridiculous made up bullshit. That’s the internet for you, though.
with that said, its OK not to like 3S. its ok to hate it. But don’t make up a bunch of nonsense to make yourselves feel better because you prefer ST or SFIV, etc.
Parry is another option, nothing more, nothing less. It can win an edge of your seat battle if executed properly, but so can ANYTHING else.
get over your foolish and blind hate for 3S and stop referring to some scrub moron that posted a bunch of crap nonsense about parries that make every REAL 3S player want to beat the shit out of him for making stuff up as if he knew what he was talking about.
I play 3S all the time like a religion and everyone I play with would be disgusting at these remarks as well. Probably why it’s best to just not even bother reading it save for a few members in here like Tweleve, etc who know what the fuck they are talking about.
Actually I agree with you on that statement to an extent. I am anti-parry and I believe that everyone has there own take on what “SF” “IS” to them. I relate more towards ST then I do 3S. That doesn’t mean that the person that is opposite of me is an idiot, just different opinion of what “SF” “IS”. You find that each “generation” can and will ALWAYS go through this. And I wasn’t kidding it brings out the worst in SRK’ers. No one is going to sway any die hards from either side of the fence of the argument, why even try?
Baby feet throwing a temper tantrum doth not a stomping make.
P.S.
If you think anyone in this thread actually refuted what Viscant so eloquently elaborated, then you have some serious reading comprehension and logic issues.
I don’t understand why veterans like yourself (assuming you are by join date) can’t like ST and 3S? Both incredible games just different. But what has Arby’s always teach us?
I don’t play ST anymore but ONLY because 3S gave me everything I needed ever for a fighting game. I’m a veteran player by all means. Been playing SFII since the day it hit the malls and arcades and participated in every tourney I could. (many tourneys everywhere back then). I just about had an orgasm when SFII FIRST came available on console. Best game ever… but no… it improved… now you can play with Bison, Vega, Balrog… and Sagat!! oh hell yes! But then no, ANOTHER version is out with four NEW characters. and then the BEST SFII version came out in ST. IMO
I played that game forever. But what is this?? EVERYONE is wanting a SFIII. Capcom waits…and waits…and waits. and FINALLY, after many vets quit playing… a SFIII hits. it’s underwhelming… very little advertisement ( I believe I ONLY ever saw it advertised in Gamer magazines), all new roster with only Ken and Ryu, and not to mention a SMALLER roster than ST, and to top it all off, released in very little arcades in the USA. This game is not better than ST and many people don’t even know it existed at the time. but wait, ANOTHER version hits, it adds three familiar faces in Akuma, Poison and Hugo/Andore and the beast Urien (Capcom’s answer to letting people play a version of “Gill” at the time). It’s better, but still…no press/advertisements…STILL not better than ST and it was released in only sparse locations in the arcades. but then, Capcom is still not done… another version comes out…adding the most popular female character ever in video games-Chun-Li, adding 4 more unique characters and tweaking the game play so radically you now have a masterpiece-A little more advertised, more arcades in USA got it, Japan’s number one fighting game…and finally a game that matches ST in being as incredible as it but to me was the perfect fit.
so I have been playing 3S since its release and continue to do so off and on since then (more on now than off). ST is still a great game, and a masterpiece no matter how much Capcom screws with it, and i still play it every now and again. But 3S is so perfect to me that I just try to get better and better because the difference in the level of players in 3S is huge. and it is fun because if you are good enough, AND ONLY THEN, can you do basically whatever you want in a match against a weaker opponent because there are so many great options. 3S has just the right balance for me. So moving back to ST as my staple game or moving way down (like the pits of hell) to SFIV just doesn’t cut it for me. so that’s why I stick to 3S, and nothing has surpassed it in any way to me yet for me to ever switch to another fighter, and even then, I would still play 3S.
so you heard my reason for why I play 3S and not so much ST, so what is your reason?
dude, please go away now. You are making yourself look more foolish every time you post. The only answer is that Viscant is not a 3S fan. Therefore, LISTEN to the players that actually play 3S or better yet… For those that actually have a brain that doesn’t need to rely on everyone else’s opinion- go play 3S yourselves, practice and train against other players for months, learn your character very well, go play some good players and other 3S fans some more, then draw up your OWN opinion about it.
I don’t need some guy Viscant’s opinion on 3S when I have my own opinion. And since I actually play 3S I know that everything is said is pure rubbish and I laugh at it only in disgust.
Some scrub once told me Venus has a sulfuric acid atmosphere. I slapped him and raped his mother, because that scrub’s never been to Venus and shouldn’t be commenting. Stupid Venus-hater.
Bingo. It’s amazing how many people think that they can call Viscant a scrub and assume that negates his well-made arguments.
Dr. B’s never seen Pearl Harbor but he’s pretty certain it’s a piece of shit.
This right here is what gets me everytime, I dont understand why it so black and white with some people, I am a big fan of both the aforementioned titles, both are great games with tons of deep rewarding gameplay. (just a different feel)
yes, exactly. both games are very different and both can be enjoyed. I just prefer 3S more personally and only because it feels the most right to me. Both great games and both can be enjoyed. and any time there is competition in ST I am there for it. whereas in SFIV I try to get away from all the scrubs.
What’s even more amusing is the presumption that, just because you, I, Viscant, and legions of others do not agree with him, then that naturally must mean that we have never played the game. :rolleyes:
