Why are people willing to pay for SSF4 AE?

[Eazail]

People really complaining about Yun when we got Cyber Sub-Zero?

I mean, I rented SF4 and SSF4 once or twice at most, and they definitely weren't my kind of games. But I liked Yun since 3S so I will actually be watching some AE streams now just to see him kick ass.

I've never even heard of yun or yang until AE but I actually like them. I line their fighting style and character designs.

 

[Action Kungfu]

Look, I want games to be balanced, but it seems to always be player's these days top priority, which it shouldn't be. People these days care more about balance than anything else, that's why I say it's overrated. Because there's been successful fighters that haven't been very balanced.



Doesn't matter. Some people are just better regardless of how much time they put into the game. You do get better by practicing, but your skill isn't directly correlated to how much you practice. What I'm saying is, you don't measure your skill level or how well you "should" do by how much time you dedicate to practicing.

This is turning into an argument for argument's sake.

 

[Rabid Justice]

If you stay with ssf4 you will be left behind. New big games come out 3-4 time a year. Capcom know this. The only way they can keep people playing is to change things. As good as people think ssf4 is it gets old playing/watching the something.

Just look at guitar hero they were extremely popular game 3-4 years ago. But they never changed and the genre is now almost dead.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

3rd Strike is arguably the most competitive fighting game, and it's not balanced at all.

It is overrated. You don't need the whole cast to able to compete in order for the game to be competitive. Again, look at 3S. A lot of the tournaments consisted of less than 5 characters. Look at UMK3. Most of the tournaments are Kabal and Human Smokes. I don't want to get into this too much, but balance isn't needed.

Ok I get your point and where you're going with this. Balance isn't needed to have a solid competitive game. It's true. But so what? That doesn't mean balance is a bad thing or that being unbalanced is good. If anything, it just means that some top players will still play a game for money no matter how bad or unbalanced it is.

You prefer playing a game were only the top 3-4 characters of S tier are viable? You like watching 100 streams of nothing but Yun/Kung Lao/Kabal mirrors? Well I sure as hell don't and I know millions of viewers don't either. It makes the game look repetitive and boring and it can turn millions of people off.

So at this point you gotta ask yourself what is better for the fighting game community. Not what you think makes a "better" competitive game. And what's best for the community is a game that looks good on the competitive scene. And what makes a game look good is diversity in character usage and exiting matches. Tom and PL understood this and that's why they wanted to give a good show at PowerUp by showing off the potential of various characters.

So no, I don't think balance is overrated. On the contrary. And yes, people are right to make it a priority. Because it is one of the most important things when you really take time to think about it. Not saying the entire cast should be equal. Of course you gotta have godtiers, mid tiers and a few underdogs to make things more interesting I guess. But it's still important to have balance.

You gotta understand not everyone thinks like you. And a big chunk of the fighting game community will simply not play/buy the game and travel for the game if it's too unbalanced.

edit:

Look, I want games to be balanced

 

[thwak]

To answer the question posed by the topic:

Fighting game fans are like the abused housewives of video game fandom. We will stick with any franchise no matter how bad the games may get. See: Tekken 4.

And as far as balance goes, developers should strive to make their games balanced. But balance doesn't make a fighting game good on it's own, it's the systems in place that do. If the game is fun to play and if the mechanics are good enough to where people want to study them, then the game is good.

Ultimately I think the problem with AE is that the fundamental game design decisions of SF4 weren't solid, and when capcom decided to take the game in a more offensive direction things fell apart really quick. When they were first hyping up street fighter 4, they were talking about how they wanted the game to be very offense heavy and reward rushdown because they felt that SF3 was very defense heavy. In retrospect, they completely failed but you can see the thought process behind it:

The focus attack was supposed to be a suped up version of the parry from SF3 but also allow for roman cancels from guilty gear. The ultra combo was supposed to make the game more exciting to look at and lead to surprise comebacks. Being able to link moves in combos was supposed to make the game more offense heavy.

Ofcourse capcom accomplished none of those goals. The focus attack ended up being used as a purely defensive move and people only FADC'd to link a shoryuken into an ultracombo. Speaking of ultra, all the ultra combo ended up doing is making the end of the match a waiting game for people to see who would make a mistake and be insta-killed. Links don't make any sense when you decide to add all the characters from super turbo, a game that wasn't really combo heavy to begin with, which just lead to characters who didn't fit the intended goal of the game. So you ended up with nonsense like zangief being able to rush down. Not to mention all the charge characters who were originally designed to be defensive, but now you have to put them in the new game because they were in super turbo and the fans want all the super tubo characters no matter how much it goes against your original design philosophy!

I can obviously go on, but I think this is becoming more of a memoir of my love/hate relationship with SSF4... which I still play because t.hawk counter picks the twins (see the abused housewife analogy still works!) The point I'm trying to make is that the game was flawed at it's core and all AE is doing is highlighting the flaws.

 

[chessmaster]

I'm not defending AE, but balance is overrated. To not get a game because it's not balanced doesn't make sense, but whatever.

what the fuck! so all the people on here saying balance doesn't matter, do you enjoy everyone picking the same 5 or 6 characters out of a 20 or 30 character roster. that is exactly how street fighter has always been. that is how mortal kombat is looking right now. that is not what i want for my favorite fighting franchise. sure online everybody picks scorpion, but you still see most of the roster being picked. in sf half the roster almost NEVER gets picked. no balance equals boring. this is why i never dedicate myself to a main character. i learn how to play everybody except the popular/high tier characters. that way it keeps the game fresh for me. but imagine in tournaments if everybody picked the same 5 characters in mk (i.e. street fighter). the game would get extra boring to watch really fast. what people don't get is there is a way to balance the game without everyone playing the exact same. tekken does it. i don't see why sf can't do it. and in tekken everybody has a few generic combos. most of the advanced combos are unique. not everyone plays the exact same.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

but imagine in tournaments if everybody picked the same 5 characters in mk

Well that's kind of what we've seen so far: Kung Lao, Raiden, Ermac, Cyrax, Reptile, Kabal.

Haven't seen much other characters unfortunately. But this will change with the patch and as people learn their characters and the matchups. I'm pretty confident people will start picking up Sindel, Baraka, Quan Chi and Jax among other vastly underrated characters. People will also learn how to deal with Kung, Raiden, Ermac, Kabal and Reptile so those characters won't be so dominant in the future.

btw people don't only pick 5 characters in AE. C and D tier are underrused for sure. But there's at least 20 characters that are used frequently in tournaments even if it's mostly Yuns and Fei Longs on top of leader boards.

 

[THTB]

History has it the most played FGs are the ones far from being so balanced. Taking that into account, in truth, Juggs is actually pretty much right. But at the same time, yes, balancing never hurt anyone...and it definitely is expected in this day and age (Mostly from being spoiled by PC games and shooters that do quite a number of patches to rebalance things). Not to mention, with streaming becoming a lot more mainstream, people wanna see a bunch of characters used.

So, from an actual historical standpoint, it's not a big deal. From an exposure standpoint, it is.

 

[Action Kungfu]

History has it the most played FGs are the ones far from being so balanced.

In the U.S.

 

[THTB]

In the U.S.

Eh, T6BR is the most popular fighter worldwide right now and that's not because of its balance.

 

[Action Kungfu]

Eh, T6BR is the most popular fighter worldwide right now and that's not because of its balance.

T6BR is more balanced than all of these games mentioned except for VF. As a matter of fact, besides Tekken 4, Tekken and VF are much more balanced than most of 2d fighters by far.

The philosophy is different with 2d and 3d. 3d fighting games, specifically Tekken and VF, are far less matchup based. It's more in tune to player vs player, where the character selected is just the conduit. Some matchups that seem bad, can usually be circumvented by way of moves specifically designed to deal with situations those characters can present.

Whereas in a lot of 2d fighters, a character is without certain tools for a situation and is better suited for another character for matchup purposes and counter picks. Like lacking a projectile, or lacking a wakeup option/reversal, etc. ends up having characters becoming a slave to characters that capitalize on another lacking these options.

Balancing fighting games that are more matchup based, it's probably very difficult to the developer, and in turn have to sacrifice variety and other things, making the game boring. That's probably where Juggernaut's argument is coming from.

 

[Zerosoulreaver]

Balance doesn't always make the game good. I'm not saying characters should be broken but in most games characters do have advantages over others. No game will ever be 100% balanced no matter what they do to it. People just need to learn new strategies with certain characters.

 

[Action Kungfu]

Balance doesn't always make the game good. I'm not saying characters should be broken but in most games characters do have advantages over others. No game will ever be 100% balanced no matter what they do to it.

Of course not, one character is always going to take advantage of the game engine better than another. It's the developer's choice to implement game mechanics in the foundation, that level off these in some form. For example if a characters A's movelist is bait to character B's that uses counters/holds/reversals, there needs to be a move or two in character A's movelist that can beat these moves, and have character B, become more conscious. Or an engine mechanic.

It's never ever going to be split down the middle. Even in mirror matches for some 2d games it's not, because some characters have advantages being selected as 1p or 2p respectively(not kidding).

 

[M2Dave]

T6BR is more balanced than all of these games mentioned except for VF. As a matter of fact, besides Tekken 4, Tekken and VF are much more balanced than most of 2d fighters by far.

The philosophy is different with 2d and 3d. 3d fighting games, specifically Tekken and VF, are far less matchup based. It's more in tune to player vs player, where the character selected is just the conduit. Some matchups that seem bad, can usually be circumvented by way of moves specifically designed to deal with situations those characters can present.

Whereas in a lot of 2d fighters, a character is without certain tools for a situation and is better suited for another character for matchup purposes and counter picks. Like lacking a projectile, or lacking a wakeup option/reversal, etc. ends up having characters becoming a slave to characters that capitalize on another lacking these options.

Balancing fighting games that are more matchup based, it's probably very difficult to the developer, and in turn have to sacrifice variety and other things, making the game boring. That's probably where Juggernaut's argument is coming from.

Very good post, but that is why the games (well, Tekken is at least since I'm familiar with it) are very generic. In Tekken 5: DR, for example, Devil Jin (top tier) can be played exactly like Dragunov (low tier) defensively. Both characters have the same backdash. Both characters have the ability to look for whiffs, launch, and combo. The only difference is that Devil Jin has an EWGF and superior combos while Dragunov in comparison has a mediocre launcher and even more mediocre combos. Tekken 6: BR does a slightly better job of offering variety to players by implementing different backdashes and side steps to a few characters. Nonetheless, watch how the best players play the game and tell me what you see. Furthermore, due to the lack of a distance game, most American players find the game very boring.

 

[chessmaster]

Well that's kind of what we've seen so far: Kung Lao, Raiden, Ermac, Cyrax, Reptile, Kabal.

Haven't seen much other characters unfortunately. But this will change with the patch and as people learn their characters and the matchups. I'm pretty confident people will start picking up Sindel, Baraka, Quan Chi and Jax among other vastly underrated characters. People will also learn how to deal with Kung, Raiden, Ermac, Kabal and Reptile so those characters won't be so dominant in the future.

btw people don't only pick 5 characters in AE. C and D tier are underrused for sure. But there's at least 20 characters that are used frequently in tournaments even if it's mostly Yuns and Fei Longs on top of leader boards.

i wouldn't say that 20 characters are used frequently. the only sf characters i see used "frequently" in tournament play are ryu and akuma. everybody else is a surprise to see. and from all the sf ae play i've seen(mostly youtube) it always includes yun destroying everybody.

 

[chessmaster]

History has it the most played FGs are the ones far from being so balanced. Taking that into account, in truth, Juggs is actually pretty much right. But at the same time, yes, balancing never hurt anyone...and it definitely is expected in this day and age (Mostly from being spoiled by PC games and shooters that do quite a number of patches to rebalance things). Not to mention, with streaming becoming a lot more mainstream, people wanna see a bunch of characters used.

So, from an actual historical standpoint, it's not a big deal. From an exposure standpoint, it is.

excellent point. i grow bored of watching marvel 3 competitive play because EVERY team includes wesker and/or sentinel.

 

[Action Kungfu]

Very good post, but that is why the games (well, Tekken is at least since I'm familiar with it) are very generic. In Tekken 5: DR, for example, Devil Jin (top tier) can be played exactly like Dragunov (low tier) defensively. Both characters have the same backdash. Both characters have the ability to look for whiffs, launch, and combo. The only difference is that Devil Jin has an EWGF and superior combos while Dragunov in comparison has a mediocre launcher and even more mediocre combos. Tekken 6: BR does a slightly better job of offering variety to players by implementing different backdashes and side steps to a few characters. Nonetheless, watch how the best players play the game and tell me what you see. Furthermore, due to the lack of a distance game, most American players find the game very boring.

EDIT: I'm asking about the definition of generic, cause I think this might be what some people say about some of the 3d fighters games, moves, and characters looking the same.

Our definition of generic is different. Those same things you said, could be applied to any game. The PLAYER(not the character), has the ability to look for whiffs, launch, and combo. Devil Jin and Dragonuv's moves don't carry the same risk and rewards, or even the same properties, do they? They're different and they're different characters. The great news is that they both have the options to even be able to look for whiffs, launch, and combo... and everyone else in the roster can as well(by way of completely different moves, motions, etc.) and aren't gimped with lacking the ability to do so.

As far as I know, there's no way to play Devil Jin and Dragonuv exactly the same defensively because they're both different characters with different risks and rewards, and are different from each other. To get into specifics of that, is out of my realm, cause I don't consider myself knowledgeable on Tekken's nuances, one bit. I'd consider myself a low level player in the game. VF could've been something I could've worked with better, if that would've been used for your example instead, though.

btw, Tekken does have a distance game, and it's super important too, yeah? I don't know.

Can still find out what you define as generic though:

Is it visual?

As in, if a bunch of characters have the same looking standing jab, is that generic to you?

To me, it isn't if those jabs have different start up speeds, recoveries, hitboxes, frames, and followups. They'd be worlds apart to me. But I can totally understand if it appears to be generic to someone else, but I assure you it's not. Further, it still most definitely isn't, even if the jabs do share the same properties in numbers, because the rest of a character's movelist is different(with different risks/rewards aswell) so in essence the usage of that jab have different implications by far. Which makes it completely different anything but generic.

Character A has a world of different options to use at a +2 frame advantage, than character B.

Just look at how great UMK3 is. There's a huge difference between Kano's jump kick is in comparison to say, Kitana's. On a universal move like that, it's worlds apart. The biggest problem was that the move just looked the same cosmetically, so people would call it generic. It's the developer's job to have the appearance of these moves visually different. Unfortunately though with MK9, NRS didn't make these moves vary that much visually.

MK9 is a very special game, because it shares some properties from both 2d and 3d. It has the potential to bring the best from both worlds together.

 

[Juggs]

Action, do you still play UMK3 on XBL?

 

[Action Kungfu]

Action, do you still play UMK3 on XBL?

Nah, not anymore. I ended up deploying to the middle east again, a few years ago(mid 2007), and when I came back VF5 had came out on 360 and it was pretty much a wrap for every other fighting game I ever played after that(fortunately or unfortunately). I ended up just being a part of the VF community from then on, on and offline.

When I tried to get back on UMK3 online occasionally, it was bugged out and slowed up and needed to be fixed with its interface issues. Also, I didn't want to use the 360 pad anymore(wanted to use stick), and you can't even change the buttons. So I was bummed out, and then when MK9 was announced my eyes lit up for MK again, so I got excited and signed up here.

So yeah, I haven't even played UMK3 in a few years now. I missed the days playing with Konqrr, Shock, Crazy Domincan, Annihilator, and Dj Eric Darkside. I thank all of these guys for showing me what MK was all about, and saving me from the dread of SF.

Did it get better? Did they even fix the bugged interface and all that?

 

[Juggs]

Nah, not anymore. I ended up deploying to the middle east again, a few years ago(mid 2007), and when I came back VF5 had came out on 360 and it was pretty much a wrap for every other fighting game I ever played after that(fortunately or unfortunately). I ended up just being a part of the VF community from then on, on and offline.

When I tried to get back on UMK3 online occasionally, it was bugged out and slowed up and needed to be fixed with its interface. Also, I didn't want to use the 360 pad anymore(wanted to use stick), and you can't even change the buttons. So I was bummed out, and then when MK9 was announced my eyes lit up for MK again, so I got excited and signed up here.

So yeah, I haven't even played UMK3 in a few years now. I missed the days playing with Konqrr, Shock, Crazy Domincan, Annihilator, and Dj Eric Darkside. I thank all of these guys for showing me what MK was all about, and saving me from the dread of SF.

Did it get better? Did they even fix the bugged interface and all that?

It's not as bugged, but there's still lag/delay. You can't download it anymore because all Midway games on XBLA were taken off the marketplace after they went under. But the MK Arcade Kollection is coming out with MK1/MK1/UMK3. Hopefully the netcode is good on that and there's button configuration.

 

[chessmaster]

It's not as bugged, but there's still lag/delay. You can't download it anymore because all Midway games on XBLA were taken off the marketplace after they went under. But the MK Arcade Kollection is coming out with MK1/MK1/UMK3. Hopefully the netcode is good on that and there's button configuration.

hopefully xbox gets it on the same day as psn.

 

[Action Kungfu]

It's not as bugged, but there's still lag/delay. You can't download it anymore because all Midway games on XBLA were taken off the marketplace after they went under. But the MK Arcade Kollection is coming out with MK1/MK1/UMK3. Hopefully the netcode is good on that and there's button configuration.

When the collection comes out, I might cop, and play it some more again and relearn. I especially want to see what MK2 is all about at tournament level too. But, I mean, hopefully NRS gets at MK9 fixes so we all could just stick with that for the MK fix.

MK9 and the future TTT2, are like, my last fighting game hopes. Cause Sega already screwed all of us VF players over with the non release. I'm close to leaving fighting games for good that's why I'm extra critical toward MK9 and it's gameplay.

 

[M2Dave]

Action KungFu, I don't mean visuals. I'm aware that two moves can look the same animation wise yet have different properties frame wise. My point is that the gameplay style is similar among the characters. In Street Fighter IV, for example, there are characters who are rush oriented. There are characters who zone well. There are characters who have the ability to play good foosties. There are characters who have excellent mix ups. All these differences can be observed at the highest level of play. In Tekken 5: DR, every character spaces, pokes, looks to force whiffs, combos, etc. Of course, the actual pokes, launchers, combos, etc. are different, but the gameplay style is the same. This too can be observed at the highest level of play. If you need evidence, I can provide some, but for the sake of keeping this thread on subject, I won't be linking Tekken videos.

 

[Action Kungfu]

Action KungFu, I don't mean visuals. I'm aware that two moves can look the same animation wise yet have different properties frame wise. My point is that the gameplay style is similar among the characters. In Street Fighter IV, for example, there are characters who are rush oriented. There are characters who zone well. There are characters who have the ability to play good foosties. There are characters who have excellent mix ups. All these differences can be observed at the highest level of play. In Tekken 5: DR, every character spaces, pokes, looks to force whiffs, combos, etc. Of course, the actual pokes, launchers, combos, etc. are different, but the gameplay style is the same. This too can be observed at the highest level of play. If you need evidence, I can provide some, but for the sake of keeping this thread on subject, I won't be linking Tekken videos.

Nah, I don't need evidence. I agree with you.

Again, it's just different philosophies, to me. They're so close, but very different.

One has more of an emphasis on opponent vs opponent by way of that specific game, while the other has more of the emphasis on character vs character within the game.

Agree?

I prefer the former. If this was a sports analogy, Tennis, I'd much rather it have the heavier emphasis on Federer vs Nadal, instead of Federer's specific brand racquet vs Nadal's. Someone would probably talk about how good Federer or Nadal is, at tennis, moreso than how good they are with their(specific) racquet.

Maybe that's a bad analogy, I don't know. One just has more emphasis on a certain fundamental difference, while the other has the emphasis on another. At the same time all of these things are still to be considered for both, anyway. And to tie that into the analogy, one specific brand could have the racquet with more stable strings or something.

MK9 is special to me cause it has the ability to possibly keep it even down the line on this viewpoint, but the verdict is still out.

I don't get that feeling with AE. I feel this whole discussion is still relevant to the thread, but it just went into a different direction than expected.

 

[chessmaster]

Nah, I don't need evidence. I agree with you.

Again, it's just different philosophies, to me. They're so close, but very different.

One has more of an emphasis on opponent vs opponent by way of that specific game, while the other has more of the emphasis on character vs character within the game.

Agree?

I prefer the former. If this was a sports analogy, Tennis, I'd much rather it have the heavier emphasis on Federer vs Nadal, instead of Federer's specific brand racquet vs Nadal's.

Maybe that's a bad analogy, I don't know. One just has more emphasis on a certain fundamental difference, while the other has the emphasis on another. At the same time all of these things are still to be considered for both, anyway. And to tie that into the analogy, one specific brand could have the racquet with more stable strings or something.

MK9 is special to me cause it has the ability to possibly keep it even down the line, but the verdict is still out.

I don't get that feeling with AE. I feel this whole discussion is still relevant to the thread, but it just went into a different direction than expected.

thats a good analogy. street fighter is based on who picks the better character with some skill mixed in. in tekken it relies more on your skill than what character you pick.