Street Fighter X Tekken

[Ufgt]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Woo, lots to respond to. I remember there were some FG fans that frequent the forums.

@Icemage:

You're right, I am extremely critical because fighting games are really the only genre I LOVE. And seeing them go from fairly technical and execution heavy to what we have now is very... disheartening. These games are certainly "fun", I suppose. But when you become more and more competitive, you start to see the flaws underneath in the core game design. And then is becomes who can exploit the derpiest things in order to win, which will drive all the fun out of the game. As for UMvC3... I'm glad they nerfed Dark Phoenix, it was completely warranted as she was probably the most degenerate strategy I have ever seen in a fighter. But that didn't really solve the core problems with the MvC3 engine. X-Factor is the problem, and they did not tweak it enough so in UMvC3, it is STILL the reason why games are so random. I actually can't believe they made it so you can XFC in the air. My favorite example is how Viscant plays Wesker as anchor. Random maximum wesker to XFC in the air to random crossup. After the match, even Viscant admits he has no idea where he will land, he just presses air S and hopes for the best. And he's the EVO 2011 WINNER! How in the world is that a good game?

I'm super glad that fighting games are popular again, but it seems for all the wrong reasons. Instead of making good games, they give almost all of it up just to make it accessible. I know there are bros out there that just want to press buttons and cool shit happens, and this is where all the money comes from. I get that. Doesn't mean I have to like it. I really wish instead of making the games "easier" (not really the right term), they should provide better learning tools like in game tutorials and core concepts to fighters so people can understand the genre better. Instead of LMHS -> MMHS -> SUPER XFC SUPER. I have beaten players that have a much higher skill level solely because Spencer on anchor is retarded and can reverse OCV a team in seconds. That, a good game does not make.

Ultras are bad, but not nearly as bad as XFC. But I agree that any sort of advantage given to you because you are losing... is dumb.

Armando gets it lol.

[Icemage]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Ultras are bad, but not nearly as bad as XFC. But I agree that any sort of advantage given to you because you are losing... is dumb.

Armando gets it lol.

We're talking about two different concepts here, though.

Remember, the whole fighting game genre went ass-end into oblivion when it went all technical (see: Street Fighter 3rd Strike, Virtua Fighter 5, endless progression of King of Fighters). These are "tournament-worthy" games... and everyone who doesn't have a huge interest in that sort of technical play hates them. The entire genre went into a tailspin for the better part of a DECADE because the game design was exactly like you're asking for. The only non-super-technical holdouts in that period were Tekken (mash-o-rama for half the cast, but still with its own technical flair characters), and Soul Edge/Calibur (Yayweapons!). I'm not quite sure where to pin Dead or Alive in that spectrum since it always tried to be a technical fighter, but was hamstrung by loltwobuttons and more marketing focus on T&A than actual gameplay.

I guess my point is: Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it, and if you do, you'll go back to getting one decent game every few years instead of something new to play every few months.

Sure, Super Ultras and X Factor upset the balance, but ... so what? It's just another element to take into consideration. Both players can use it, both players can choose all characters, so what's the problem? I don't understand the fighting game enthusiast community's insistence that every match-up between two nearly matched opponents should always end up with the better player winning. That doesn't happen in chess, it doesn't happen in tennis, it doesn't happen in any other video game, and realistically it doesn't happen in fighting games even if you take away all the silly things like supers and X Factor. Above and beyond that, it makes matches incredibly boring to watch, which does even more to erode popularity because watching a match with an inevitable outcome takes away the excitement and suspense.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

People can talk about balance until they're blue in the face, but nothing will ever be as grossly unbalanced as Killer Instinct.

An there are people that want a revival of that piece of shit.

Yes, I just called a game once published by Nintendo a piece of shit. The crazies that think Rare really still exists under MS want it back, though. Killer Instinct makes Urrban Champion look polished. I did buy the 3D Classic version of that just for giggles, but Urban Champion is one of those so-bad-its-good things. KI was just bad. Tekken almost picked up where it left off, but it never got quite as ridiculous on the combos.

As far as Soulcalibur goes, I'd say SC2 was pretty technical, moreso than Soul Edge and SC. The problem was SC was so romanticized by casuals that played it on Dreamcast that when SC2 came along it didn't really feel all that different to them. Of course, they were still just playing it casually, not learning to use wall attacks or buffer movies. Buffering, Guard Impact and Armor Break are now all big parts of SC.

DOA is just a casual fighter. Itagaki was always kind of heroworshipped Yu Suzuki, he's just to much of a prick to admit DOA was based on VF, they had DOA Code Chronus on the books for a while before cancelling it, but it was really DOA + Shenmue in concept.

[Armando]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Sure, Super Ultras and X Factor upset the balance, but ... so what? It's just another element to take into consideration. Both players can use it, both players can choose all characters, so what's the problem? I don't understand the fighting game enthusiast community's insistence that every match-up between two nearly matched opponents should always end up with the better player winning. That doesn't happen in chess, it doesn't happen in tennis, it doesn't happen in any other video game, and realistically it doesn't happen in fighting games even if you take away all the silly things like supers and X Factor. Above and beyond that, it makes matches incredibly boring to watch, which does even more to erode popularity because watching a match with an inevitable outcome takes away the excitement and suspense.

That's like saying that no game is ever perfect so you shouldn't even try to make it good. It's also like saying that a game mechanic is fine if both sides can use it. Suppose, for example, that Left 4 Dead's versus was broken and zombies were guaranteed victory. Would you defend it just because both sides get to play as a zombie so they'll take turns winning? A balanced game is not just more fun for the tournament players - it's also more fun for the casuals. Nobody enjoys losing because of external factors. And you cite Chess, but I think it's very telling that people still play chess. Surely it's because it's 1) deep, and 2) balanced.

Remember, the whole fighting game genre went ass-end into oblivion when it went all technical (see: Street Fighter 3rd Strike, Virtua Fighter 5, endless progression of King of Fighters). These are "tournament-worthy" games... and everyone who doesn't have a huge interest in that sort of technical play hates them. The entire genre went into a tailspin for the better part of a DECADE because the game design was exactly like you're asking for.

People hate losing. They also like pinning some negative stigma on fighters, but the same sort of alienating behavior can occur in, say, Mario Kart. Get your ass handed in Mario Kart enough and you'll come to hate it just as much as any fighter. I also disagree that everyone hated them: I know plenty of people who claimed to like MvC2, Tekken, Guilty Gear, and Melee, though none of them played competitively. They could play casually among their peers and enjoy it. These companies aren't just selling game engines, they're selling characters and franchises - that's why it actually matters if Mega Man or Gambit or Cyclops makes the cut into these cross-overs. If you ask me what's got fighters back on the rise is the maturity of the Internet as a means for hype, and next-gen graphics. The number of people who buy these games far outweigh the ones that actually compete, so whether the games are better or worse now doesn't factor into their commercial success. From an economical point of view, it makes sense to try to appeal to the masses and make them think this is a game they can play and stand a chance.

[Icemage]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

That's like saying that no game is ever perfect so you shouldn't even try to make it good. It's also like saying that a game mechanic is fine if both sides can use it. Suppose, for example, that Left 4 Dead's versus was broken and zombies were guaranteed victory. Would you defend it just because both sides get to play as a zombie so they'll take turns winning? A balanced game is not just more fun for the tournament players - it's also more fun for the casuals. Nobody enjoys losing because of external factors. And you cite Chess, but I think it's very telling that people still play chess. Surely it's because it's 1) deep, and 2) balanced.

Again, Supers and X-Factor are not balance changers with respect to the players. They are arguably overpowered, but they are equally available to both players. Granted, the relative power and utility of various Supers and the effect of X-Factor for various characters differs from one character to the next, but that simply changes the balance of power between individual characters, NOT between players. If one player was locked out of using specific characters, then there would be a player imbalance. That's not the case. You could argue that X-Factor causes an imbalance by making only a small subset of characters (or just one character) more dominant and thereby favoring players who are better with those characters, but there aren't any obvious ultra-dominant characters in UMvC3.

Chess is deep, and "mostly" balanced (all other things being equal, the White player has a very slight advantage because of getting the first move), but its success is due to the fact that it is easy to learn, approachable for most people, and does not have any obvious perceptible balance problems. For the previous 10 years, the "techical" fighting games have had none of these qualities in appreciable quantities except perhaps game balance. They have move sets that are difficult to execute, game mechanics that are incredibly opaque without extended research, and often require extremely good reflexes to be even vaguely competent.

Sure, "some" people like those games still, or none of them would have been made at all, but that hardcore group is pretty small. I take issue with the reactionary backlash from the fighting game technical purists who insist that perfectly balanced game mechanics and rosters are the way to improve the genre moving forward. There's nothing wrong with wanting a more balanced game; I love a good, balanced game. But balance is not essential to having a good fighting game, even at a tournament level, as long as there are enough options at the top tiers and enough flexibility to work with to keep things interesting. That's why Tekken maintains a tournament presence despite well over half of the roster being perpetually useless in tournaments - the roster is so large that this still leaves enough variety to keep things interesting, and still gives every player a viable competitive option no matter their individual skill sets.

People hate losing. They also like pinning some negative stigma on fighters, but the same sort of alienating behavior can occur in, say, Mario Kart. Get your ass handed in Mario Kart enough and you'll come to hate it just as much as any fighter. I also disagree that everyone hated them: I know plenty of people who claimed to like MvC2, Tekken, Guilty Gear, and Melee, though none of them played competitively. They could play casually among their peers and enjoy it. These companies aren't just selling game engines, they're selling characters and franchises - that's why it actually matters if Mega Man or Gambit or Cyclops makes the cut into these cross-overs. If you ask me what's got fighters back on the rise is the maturity of the Internet as a means for hype, and next-gen graphics. The number of people who buy these games far outweigh the ones that actually compete, so whether the games are better or worse now doesn't factor into their commercial success. From an economical point of view, it makes sense to try to appeal to the masses and make them think this is a game they can play and stand a chance.

Fanservice only gets you so far. I would argue that the reason that fighters are getting more mainstream once again is that the designs now give you at least the illusion of having a chance in an uneven match, more so than just hype. If hype were the main reason, MK9 wouldn't be the commercial success that it is. If fanservice were the main reason, MK9 would have failed horribly, because I can't think of a fighting game franchise with a more tarnished reputation after DC vs. MK.

Approachability and the perception (realistic or not) that you have a fighting chance against most everyone who isn't light-years ahead of you in skill is what has brought the fighting game genre back from being a has-been niche genre. You could, however, make the argument that Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (and UMvC3) didn't really need that sort of handicapping because its fanservice quotient is much higher than normal, but the fact still remains that the more technical and opaque the techniques of a game are to play at a competent level, the less likely it's going to see commercial success... not to mention that MvC3 also simplified many of the command sets.

Without commercial success, other developers don't jump in, and the net result is that there are fewer games, and that's not something that anyone should be championing, directly or otherwise.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Playing a fighter for characters is like eating a candy bar for the wrapper. I'd base my interest on movelists before warm fuzzies I feel toward a character.

For example, the main reason I have any interest in Poison is she seems to be fairly similar to Guile or, at least in some cases, inverts the way I'd play him. Guild doesn't whore Sonic Boom because he's a projectile spammer, its because its one of his defensive strategies and offensively, it can lure the opponent into attack or defense. If they go to offense I've already preloaded downback for a Flash Kick and if they guard its grab time.

Poison seems to want to get in close at first, but I've noticed she has a move that casts a projectiles behind the opponent and it moves more slowly than the others. This is going to make the opponent think twice about backing up or jumping backward to assume a defensive position. This sort of thing reminds me again of Ivy in SCII. She had a stance where she could drive the blade into the ground to strike you from behind, which resulted in a knockdown. in fact, with her and Astaroth, there was never really a spot you could stand where you felt you were beyond their reach. Stupid people would try to find the safest distance, smart people kept on moving - in Ivy's case a smart person would get right in her face because she has a lot less she can do at close range - she's mostly about keeping you at mid-to-long range.

Poison and Hugo are characters I have a bit more faith in being thought out for this game than I would for Mega Man or Pac Man. I don't know if I'll be picking up SFXT, I'm leaning know, but it all boils down to the pace of the game. if its more on par with the speed of Tekken and minus its excessive combo strings of both sides of the spectrum to something more abbreviated, that would be a start. And then you have to give the Tekken characters some projectiles and rushdowns for balance, which I believe is all the case here.

At the very least, its not the Marvel setup. MVC's basis was and still is x-Men Vs. Street Fighter, which was really SF Alpha vs. X-Men Children of the Atom.

See, that's the other thing about these games, they have to find a middle ground in the styles. MVC has always played more like a compromise between Alpha/Atom. If it had been Third Strike it never would have really found a middle ground to work from.

Try to make everyone happy and you have the SNK/Capcom games. Capcom Vs. SNK let you pick how you wanted to play, which usually meant the Capcom Groove won because SNK fighters are too technical for their own good. When it was SNK vs. Capcom, it was just everyone playing by SNK rules, which was boring as shit. This is why there aren't any more SNK/Capcom games.

If Tekken X Street Fighter still happens, I fear you're going to have a fighter where projectiles are completely off the table and everyone has insane combo strings.

[Armando]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Again, Supers and X-Factor are not balance changers with respect to the players. They are arguably overpowered, but they are equally available to both players. Granted, the relative power and utility of various Supers and the effect of X-Factor for various characters differs from one character to the next, but that simply changes the balance of power between individual characters, NOT between players. If one player was locked out of using specific characters, then there would be a player imbalance. That's not the case. You could argue that X-Factor causes an imbalance by making only a small subset of characters (or just one character) more dominant and thereby favoring players who are better with those characters, but there aren't any obvious ultra-dominant characters in UMvC3.

All true. There's two issues at work here though - balance and depth. Coin flipping is perfectly balanced, but has no depth, just like my hypothetical Left 4 Dead versus mode where zombies always win so players just take turns winning. An overpowered feature or dominant strategy doesn't reduce balance if it's available to both players, but it reduces depth by taking away options or simplifying strategies.

For the previous 10 years, the "techical" fighting games have had none of these qualities in appreciable quantities except perhaps game balance. They have move sets that are difficult to execute, game mechanics that are incredibly opaque without extended research, and often require extremely good reflexes to be even vaguely competent.

That's just part of what fighting games are, and it's not going to go away without reducing their depth or doing a genre shift altogether (e.g. Smash Bros.) Obscure game mechanics are a documentation problem, not a game problem, and it affects other genres as well (e.g. JRPGs) Mario Kart is guilty of it too a certain extent - the game makes no effort to let you know each driver has unique attributes, or what those attributes are, despite showing you kart stats.

But balance is not essential to having a good fighting game, even at a tournament level, as long as there are enough options at the top tiers and enough flexibility to work with to keep things interesting.

We see eye to eye then. The notion of a game with a good number of top tier characters is what I consider a balanced game, even if there are 50 other characters rotting away in disuse.

Playing a fighter for characters is like eating a candy bar for the wrapper. I'd base my interest on movelists before warm fuzzies I feel toward a character.

Sorry, but this is something I'll never be able to accept. Different gamers have different motivations for picking up games. If something is true though, it's that the candy wrapper matters, because we're not emotionless machines. Every gamer has at least one character or franchise dearly close to their heart, and that makes all the difference in how you experience a game; fighters don't get to ignore that rule. The idea of selling a game purely based on its gameplay merits is lovely, but idealistic. Some people look past the wrapper more than others, but no one ever truly ignores the wrapper altogether. That's why you'll never sell Super Rectangle Bros or Super Smash Fighting Polygon Team. And forgive me if I sound jaded, but I think the pretty HD 3D wrapper is a huge part of modern fighting games' commercial success, just like Dissidia's Final Fantasy branding and Super Smash Bros' Nintendo branding were a huge part of their success.

If you look at games in the context of art I think this makes a lot of sense. Clearly the skill and effort required to produce a painting matters in how well-regarded an artist is. How a painting holds up against the art theory we've made up like lighting and composition matters too. But when a piece of art moves you, all those things become secondary. I don't find Skyrim all that interesting from a game mechanics point of view, but people who fell in love with Morrowind way back when won't give a damn and I think that's fine.

Try to make everyone happy and you have the SNK/Capcom games. Capcom Vs. SNK let you pick how you wanted to play, which usually meant the Capcom Groove won because SNK fighters are too technical for their own good.

At a competitive level the groove you picked depended a lot on what characters you used. Granted, the grooves weren't balanced, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been, or that the game didn't have enough depth even with just one groove to choose from.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

[Etra]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

What the balls was that? Why does Megaman look like a fat otaku straight out of a con in costume?

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

What the balls was that?

For most people, a well-played inside joke.
For those that take Megaman too seriously for their own good, its an insult they quite honestly deserve.

[Etra]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

For most people, a well-played inside joke.
For those that take Megaman too seriously for their own good, its an insult they quite honestly deserve.

I see... I am still a little saddened at his fat assyness. :c

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Well, betweeen the options of Soul Calibur V, Tekken 3D Prime Edition and SFXT, I decided to preorder SFXT.

It honestly sounds like the most interesting of the three options. Well, there's Skullgirls, too, but I don't know about that one. Plus I'm still playing RE:R and MGS3DS is out next week and Devil Survivor 2 out the week after. Tekken would just be me throwing money at something I could wait for a price drop on.

Now I can make Team Bob Saget (Bob/Segat) and Team Beartrap (Kuma/Poison).

[Ufgt]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Good idea not picking up SCV lol. I have it and it's hilariously bad solely because they added in supers and EX moves. I still have fun pressing buttons with Patroklos though.

Real honest fighting game is KOFXIII.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about SFxT. I like Tekken character design, but after watching vids, I'm not convinced I will like it. Something seems off about it. Aesthetically, it looks like poop.

Also, shoutouts to underappreciated N-groove in CvS2.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

Good idea not picking up SCV lol. I have it and it's hilariously bad solely because they added in supers and EX moves. I still have fun pressing buttons with Patroklos though.

My objections really lie in making Guard Impact pointless, phasing out most of the female cast for younger replacements while not doing the same for the male cast - Ivy and Cervantes get a pass only because they're cursed - and that armor breaks that started in IV are now just leaving players in unbalanced positions.

I'll give it a chance after a price drop, as it is the first real improvement to the series since SCII - though that's really just saying its not as good as SCII, but sucks a lot less than III and IV did.

Real honest fighting game is KOFXIII.

No, it has the same exact problems SFIV. They don't teach anyone how to play - the tutorial was vague and horrible - and it favors rushdown/projectile whores. Living in the 90s is cool, but the series needs to accept the arcades are dead and do something to bring in new players. It fails on every level in that regard.

I was never a big SNK fan and KoFXIII did nothing to change my mind about that.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about SFxT. I like Tekken character design, but after watching vids, I'm not convinced I will like it. Something seems off about it. Aesthetically, it looks like poop.

I think you're confused. The art style is heavy pencils and watercolors. I actually like the style as it brings the Tekken characters into balance with how SF characters look.

So far its looking like combo strings for this game are muted (because Tekken takes that too far sometimes) and the projectile element has been heavily factored in so Tekken's cast doesn't get creamed for mostly not having them. In fact some of of the properties to projectiles seem to have changed entirely or can be negated. It seems that unlike Capcom Vs. SNK or SNK vs. Capcom that SFXT is striving for an actual middle ground between the franchises, which is what Street Fighter Vs. X-Men did before it evolved into MVC.

I do have concerns about how the Gem System will pan out, but then, you can also likely count on Capcom to allow for custom matches where those probably can't even be used.

[Zavier]

Re: Street Fighter X Tekken

The game looks good. Some Tekken Characters have over 100 plus moves. I am just wondering how are they going to incorporate all of the Tekken characters moves.