THIS is a fighting game with depth..

This illustrates rather nicely what I've been talking about in other threads in the past. True depth of gameplay. No modern fighting games, save for Virtua Fighter, have this kind of depth.

WTF... why were all those people cheering so much? Is it like in a tournament or something?

I guess so...

Anyway, I don't personally see what sets it apart from other arcade fighters. Other than the sprites looking very nice indeed, & having a lot more freedom with jumping than other fighters. Of course it's a lot faster than most fighters too, but I don't see that much extra depth.

This is a DC game though isn't it? I wonder if Street Fighter IV will be out before 100th gen.

SuperLink said:
I dont personally see what sets it apart from other arcade fighters. Other than the sprites looking very nice indeed, & having a lot more freedom with jumping than other fighters. Of course its a lot faster than most fighters too, but I dont see that much extra depth.

Did you not notice the fighters parrying each other's moves? To parry in SFIII, you have to tap towards your opponents at the precise moment of the attack (we're talking a window of miliseconds) to parry the attack. Miss-time it, and you get hit. That is depth.

SuperLink said:
This is a DC game though isnt it? I wonder if Street Fighter IV will be out before 100th gen.

Yes. You can get it on Xbox too, though.

( Edited on 08.06.2007 13:04 by Oni )

They were cheering because he parried everyone of Chun-Li's super.

Everyone at that tournament was starting to hate the Chun-Li player as they're known for sitting back and playing negatively so when Ken parried and won (with such little health left) it was immense.

Did you not notice the fighters parrying each other's moves? To parry in SFIII, you have to tap towards your opponents at the precise moment of the attack (we're talking a window of miliseconds) to parry the attack. Miss-time it, and you get hit. That is depth.

That was in Soul Calibur too.... I never liked Virtual Fighter actually.

Z said:

Did you not notice the fighters parrying each others moves? To parry in SFIII, you have to tap towards your opponents at the precise moment of the attack (were talking a window of miliseconds) to parry the attack. Miss-time it, and you get hit. That is depth.

That was in Soul Calibur too.... I never liked Virtual Fighter actually.

True enough. Not nearly as difficult to do in SC, though. And nobody mention the really easy parrying in DOA, that's not even comparable.

Love StreetFighter for this kind of depth shown here. LS

Oni-Ninja said:
Did you not notice the fighters parrying each others moves? To parry in SFIII, you have to tap towards your opponents at the precise moment of the attack (were talking a window of miliseconds) to parry the attack. Miss-time it, and you get hit. That is depth.

So it doesn't really set it apart in that sense.

EDIT: Well if you think about it, Fighting games are a dying breed these days anyway, especially Arcade Fighters.

( Edited on 08.06.2007 13:17 by SuperLink )

Nah I'm sorry mate, the DBZ games don't compare at all. It's a well-known fact among the fighting game fraternity that SFIII is the deepest fighter there is. It has so many nuances, and is very highly refined. In answer to your question about SFIV, I don't know. There probably will never be one. No-one cares about fighting games anymore. Especially 2D fighters.

SuperLink said:

Oni-Ninja said:Did you not notice the fighters parrying each others moves? To parry in SFIII, you have to tap towards your opponents at the precise moment of the attack (were talking a window of miliseconds) to parry the attack. Miss-time it, and you get hit. That is depth.

Oh, well you do that in Dragon Ball Z fighting games all the time. Parrying or Dodging/teleporting requires pressing X at the exact moment before youre hit, or it wont work & youll probably take it full damage.So it doesnt really set it apart in that sense.EDIT: Well if you think about it, Fighting games are a dying breed these days anyway, especially Arcade Fighters.( Edited on 08.06.2007 13:17 by SuperLink )

You have clearly not seen Battle Fantasia. My good friend in japan tells me it is packing out the arcades and is VERY good. It along with the new House of Dead are the top arcade games in japan at the moment. The qs just to play Battle Fantasia are enough to make you laugh in astonishment. Streetfighter games will never die off, never. LS

( Edited on 08.06.2007 13:25 by Linkyshinks )

They're timeless though, aren't they? I can't imagine a time when SFIII will seem out-dated./ It's already ten years old, and still has not been bested.

Oni-Ninja said:
Nah Im sorry mate, the DBZ games dont compare at all. Its a well-known fact among the fighting game fraternity that SFIII is the deepest fighter there is. It has so many nuances, and is very highly refined.

Maybe the reason there are so many versions of Stree Fighter games is because they just wanted to keep polishing little bits until it was made perfect... You can't really make a full sequel if it's only just a little bit better.

No-one cares about fighting games anymore. Especially 2D fighters.

SuperLink said:

No-one cares about fighting games anymore. Especially 2D fighters.

Well, lots of people care about Super Smash Bros, & thats a 2D fighter (2D environments anyway) though its a completely different breed to Arcade Fighters.

Well, it's not though really, is it? Besides, Smash Bros is a perfect example of the modern fighters. It's more about flashy visuals and stuff. Cheap thrills to attract people who wouldn't necessarily be big fans of fighters (whilst alienating many people who are).

Oni-Ninja said:
Well, its not though really, is it? Besides, Smash Bros is a perfect example of the modern fighters. Its more about flashy visuals and stuff. Cheap thrills to attract people who wouldnt necessarily be big fans of fighters (whilst alienating many people who are).

SuperLink said:
I definitely wouldnt say so, sure they always make the character models look nice, but the backgrounds & other models have always been a little tacky, especially the Pok

Oni-Ninja said:
Theyre timeless though, arent they? I cant imagine a time when SFIII will seem out-dated./ Its already ten years old, and still has not been bested.

It does have a timeless quality about it. The formula is one that has been well tried and tested and the graphics of the Manga style help hold them up furthur still.

2D fighting games have moved into the HD era now in arcades in japan using Taito's NEW cabinet, Battle Fantasia is a beautiful example, the characters animate in a "magical" way of a like un before seen in a 2D fighter. I hope Capcom follow suit using the same board with their next SF arcade game.

Check out the vids, there is life in 2D fighting games yet!

BATTLE FANTASIA:
http://insomnia.ac/japan/battle_fantasia/

Vids are hard to find LS

( Edited on 08.06.2007 13:57 by Linkyshinks )

Oni-Ninja said:
Well, either way I was talking about 2D, hand-drawn sprite-based fighters, of which Smash Bros most definitely is not.

But again, you're talking about 'thrills' there. Smash Bros is not an in-depth fighting game. I'm a huge fighting game fan, and have played pretty much any moajor fighting game you could name. Smash Bros is slim-pickings when it comes to depth. I'm not trying to down-play the fun of it at all. It's one of the only fighters anyone can just pick up and be reasonably good at straight away, which makes it ideal for party situations.

Those aren't actually in game terms, I'm just using them as ways of saying how good the player is

Still, just like any game really, there's a line where Smash Bros stops being a party game, & starts being the kind of game where a newbie can't survive for a minute, & there is never a standstill.

It might interest you to know that Capcom are remaking Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo for the 360 and PS3, in HD. Everything is being completely redrawn.

SuperLink said:
Those arent actually in game terms, Im just using them as ways of saying how good the player is Still, just like any game really, theres a line where Smash Bros stops being a party game, & starts being the kind of game where a newbie cant survive for a minute, & there is never a standstill.

But at the end of the day, it's still just a party game. That is it's base. It is thus extremely simple. It has not the depth of SFIII. I can say this for a fact, having played both a lot. SFIII is extremely difficult to pick up and play. Therein lies the difference.

It's like saying a children's book is a deep as one of Tolkien's masterpieces. It is not. It may even appear so on the surface, and the latter being much harder to get into makes it seem unwieldy somehow, and makes the former seem better. The reality is quite the opposite, though.

( Edited on 08.06.2007 14:00 by Oni )

Well, it's not though really, is it? Besides, Smash Bros is a perfect example of the modern fighters. It's more about flashy visuals and stuff. Cheap thrills to attract people who wouldn't necessarily be big fans of fighters (whilst alienating many people who are).

??? What? Smash Bros visuals while nice, are nothing to impress. It doesn't have awesome looking moves that last 10 seconds but end up doing 2% damage. The reason it doesn't attract fans of fighters is because it is so different.

Oni-Ninja said:
It might interest you to know that Capcom are remaking Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo for the 360 and PS3, in HD. Everything is being completely redrawn.

Yeah ive seen the video of the event where the showed the character models, it was posted on capcom's jp site last year. LS

Oni-Ninja said:
It might interest you to know that Capcom are remaking Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo for the 360 and PS3, in HD. Everything is being completely redrawn.

Yeah ive seen the video of the event where the showed the character models, it was posted on capcom's jp site last year. LS

I don't see the depth. Looks like 2 people just waiting for one person to get the first move then randomly attacking up or down to avoid blocks.

And parries.. and alternate-highted jump attacks, and attacks which have a higher priority and cancel out other attacks...

The list, she goes on, captain!

Oni-Ninja said:
But at the end of the day, its still just a party game. That is its base. It is thus extremely simple. It has not the depth of SFIII. I can say this for a fact, having played both a lot. SFIII is extremely difficult to pick up and play. Therein lies the difference.Its like saying a childrens book is a deep as one of Tolkiens masterpieces. It is not. It may even appear so on the surface, and the latter being much harder to get into makes it seem unwieldy somehow, and makes the former seem better. The reality is quite the opposite, though.

Smash Bros has great significance as a fighting game, it really stands out from the crowd, the thing that makes it deep is that it's such a special event.

I don't really know what to add to that, but I feel it's deep. Definitely deep enough for me to enjoy it 5 years later anyway.

Yeah Smash Bros has definitely lasted well. Don't mistake longevity for depth, though. Smash is a great game. It is what it is, though. It's stood out from the crowd because it's a party fighting game, featuring many loved Nintendo characters. This is what makes it good. Not depth. I'm not saying it has no depth, just nowhere near as much as games like SFIII, Virtua Fighter 5, etc.