Original SFIV = GG or BG?

Doctor DooM

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

Scavenger XIII wrote: »

Oh and they made Guile suck. :pac:

Ah you can get by with him with a little work

Ken B

As someone who has literally purchased every Capcom fighter to date(some several times over, in different formats, on JAP/USA import etc....inc. SF1 and SF the movie game) and played almost every fighter(to a decent level) in the arcade....I consider myself to have a fairly valid, unbiased opinion...

My opinion is: SFIV is the best fighting game ever made and easily one of the top ten games of all time.

SFIII and Alpha will perhaps always be my favourites, but IV is the best.

Why? Because it has so many people playing it and striving to achieve a level of excellence that is almost unmatched in other games. Even in the arcade it was difficult to get a match in SFIII, yet if I switch on my XBox, I can play literally hundreds and hundreds of opponents at any given hour, in every corner of the globe.

It's the best...

Ps: Azza: you forgot to mention that Alpha Bison always wore a cape, floated everywhere and shot fireballs. Not to mention posessing the God of all Psycho Crushers in Alpha3! In Zero 3, I had such a dilemma, chosing between himself, Vega and Sodom!!

Scavenger XIII

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

Ken B wrote: »

Because it has so many people playing it and striving to achieve a level of excellence that is almost unmatched in other games. Even in the arcade it was difficult to get a match in SFIII, yet if I switch on my XBox, I can play literally hundreds and hundreds of opponents at any given hour, in every corner of the globe.

Surely that just makes it the most popular fighting game of all.

We all know that correlations between popularity and quality are purely coincidental.

Kirby

Fantastic addition to the SF series, even if I don't like everything about it. Can't wait for super

Scavenger XIII wrote: »

supers (which are next to worthless)

Tell that to any Dhalsim player. His super is brilliant, and it's his best move. Coupled with the fact that he doesn't use much meter and he gets to use it every round.

You see alot of Ryu's use his super aswell to tag neutral jumpers because of its quick startup and recovery.

Point being, some chars had great supers. And they have been buffed in SSF4.

chopperbyrne

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

Ramza wrote: »

But as you know, SF is a series, and series are meant to be evolutionary, well let's just say SFIV is a devolution for me, and well, sorry to say, a LOT of other people feel the same, SFIV is a letdown

SF III was a devolution for me. Going from Alpha 2, to SF III was a joke. Can only select one super to use limits you in certain matches and parry was just stupid. Basically removed the defensive game completely, because you could risk stupid jumpins and just parry their anti air.

SF IV is not a letdown to me at all. It is moving the series back in the right direction.

Doctor DooM

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

chopperbyrne wrote: »

SF III was a devolution for me. Going from Alpha 2, to SF III was a joke. Can only select one super to use limits you in certain matches and parry was just stupid. Basically removed the defensive game completely, because you could risk stupid jumpins and just parry their anti air.

SF IV is not a letdown to me at all. It is moving the series back in the right direction.

This'd kinda be my view on it too, articulated better than I could

Ramza

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

chopperbyrne wrote: »

SF III was a devolution for me. Going from Alpha 2, to SF III was a joke. Can only select one super to use limits you in certain matches and parry was just stupid. Basically removed the defensive game completely, because you could risk stupid jumpins and just parry their anti air.

SF IV is not a letdown to me at all. It is moving the series back in the right direction.

I guess Alpha 2 to Alpha 3 can be looked upon as a devolution too, selecting fighting style/grooves, having a guard crush meter also removes aspects of defensive game

Well at least parrying takes a lot of skill where as in alpha you can air block anti airs :pac:

Don't get me wrong I love alpha, A3 being my favourite.

SFIV is way too turtley, you can literally sit on a lead for 90 second of the clock, and just hold downback. It doesn't reward offensive play enough

Creature

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

GG definitely. I think ST will always be my favourite. I played it again yesterday and despite the laggy play it's still as good as it ever was. No matter how old the graphics get the gameplay still feels so crisp and tight. That, and Balrog ****ing owns, his headbutt is godlike. Like others, I don't really rate SF3 but SF4 is definitely a worthy successor to the series IMO.

It's not perfect of course. It loses points because of the small range of charge characters in the game. I'm not too bothered by the defensive nature of the game. With patience I find you can get around most overly defensive players, except for seasoned turtley Guiles, ugh :mad:
Also the soundtrack is shite. Some of the English voice overs are good but the music is totally forgettable and dull. The SF2 and Alpha series had such great music, it's a pity it didn't carry over.

Anyway overall a big thumbs up for SF4 from me. It has great graphics and solid gameplay that provides enough accessibility for newcomers and also enough depth for veterans. Finally revitalised the genre and got everybody interested in fighting games again. It deserves the praise for that alone.

Ramza

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

Creature wrote: »

Anyway overall a big thumbs up for SF4 from me. It has great graphics and solid gameplay that provides enough accessibility for newcomers and also enough depth for veterans. Finally revitalised the genre and got everybody interested in fighting games again. It deserves the praise for that alone.

I agree with you on that point partially, SFIV is fine for new players as there's enough there to get to grips with FGs and the general swing of things, but for returning players or experienced FGers it's lacking a lot. SFIV hasn't a lot of depth to be honest.

What do you mean by getting people back into the genre? AFAIK people who followed SF knew of it/were gonna play it regardless, or do you mean people who played with SF2/previous titles in the day and are now trying to get back into things?

chopperbyrne

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

I fail to see how SF IV has less "depth" than 3S.

You'll have to explain that one.

Ramza

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

How does 3s get brought into it without bringing all the other ones in?

chopperbyrne

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

Well you're primarily a 3S player and have already stated that you felt it was an evolution of the series and that SF IV is a devolution.

You then went on to say that SF IV lacks depth, implying that 3S has more depth.

That's why.

Ramza

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Well you're primarily a 3S player and have already stated that you felt it was an evolution of the series and that SF IV is a devolution.

You then went on to say that SF IV lacks depth, implying that 3S has more depth.

That's why.

3s is not my only game but yeah I primarily play 3s

Nah I said SF is supposed to be an evolutionary series, and that I felt SFIV was a devolution (which does imply 3s is more in depth, yes). I think people are relating my love for 3s and dislike for SFIV the wrong way

People need to understand I'm judging SFIV primarily on what it is and what I feel it should/could of been, based on my life exp with FG, not just 3s :pac:

If I only played SF2 (as much as I do) and then played SFIV I'd still think the same, and same can be said for any other game.

Lemme requote

Ramza wrote: »

My main qualm with SFIV was that it was boring, very boring. And well there's just not a lot of meat to it, let's be honest. You can survive on ok execution just fine, and mindgames aren't as intense or at all as mentally demanding as other SF titles. It's way too defensive IMO too, with some chars being either ridiculous or pure arse. There's like 3 or 4 things in SFIV you need good execution for and even at that you barely need/see them

I feel SFIV doesn't have a lot of meat to it. It's all there, don't get me wrong, mixups, mindgames, strats, and the game is fun, to an extent. It's very boring, it's lacking. I get bored after playing for an hour. SFIV is way too defensive. It's unbalanced too, very. There's not much that I can add that I haven't said in the last 3/4 pages in this thread and the other.

Why is 3s more in depth(and probably every other FG bar SFIV)? Well you have more interesting characters and a game that rewards offensive play ; you can actually rushdown in 3s and it has a tri mixup element. Also there is more defensive tools in 3s but it isn't so defensive that you can literally sit in the corner all day for 99 seconds. People think parrying is stupid but parrying isn't as simple as tapping f/d, it's a whole mindgame and tactic in itself. In 3s you learn more in a few hours about footsies than you do in a whole month of playing SFIV.

3s has real option selects

I'll type more later, bored of typing the same thing out 100 times

Yreval

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

It's not perfect, and I'm not sure I'd call it great either, but it gets a GG from me. Like a few others on here I'm not particularly enthused by the game's defensive nature but Super looks like it will be a step in the right direction in that regard, albeit in a less direct way (changes to existing characters and the new characters introduced) than I would have done (game system changes such as better throws).

It deserves credit, in particular, for introducing legions of new players to the fighter scene. By that I mean, in my experience, fighting games in general - or at least other SF games as well as SF4. Towards the end of the second season of our ranking battles up here in Belfast, after SF4 came out, we got some great turnouts in 3S.

Vyze

Yreval wrote: »

Towards the end of the second season of our ranking battles up here in Belfast, after SF4 came out, we got some great turnouts in 3S.

How many of those were people who were introduced to fighters via SF4, compared to people who played 3S and are playing SF4 due to numbers?

Creature

Only alright, I do get some enjoyment, but I MUCH prefer other SF games

Ramza wrote: »

I agree with you on that point partially, SFIV is fine for new players as there's enough there to get to grips with FGs and the general swing of things, but for returning players or experienced FGers it's lacking a lot. SFIV hasn't a lot of depth to be honest.

Ah I think it does to be fair. The complex link combos are quite hard to pull of regularly and take a lot of practice. They're definitely something that require you to put a lot of time into the game to see the benefits. I also think that there's depth to the focus system. Aside from the odd FADC ultra it's rarely something I see get used online but it's clearly an integral part of the really good player's games.

What do you mean by getting people back into the genre? AFAIK people who followed SF knew of it/were gonna play it regardless, or do you mean people who played with SF2/previous titles in the day and are now trying to get back into things?[/QUOTE]

Well obviously those who follow fighting games generally and the types who populate GGPO and 2DF were counting down the days till SF4. I meant the ones who would have liked SF2 or some other fighting games in the past but never have progressed much further. But also the proles who have never even looked at a fighting game beyond their beloved FIFA or Halo.

Ramza

Terribly made game , everything about it is awful so I don't play it all.

SFIV is so focused on links it's retarded. You can no longer do combos off of rapid fire normals now, you have to link them (or at least the last one). Most of big damage in the game comes from pretty tight links. You have to link to specials too (like I said before), for some reason. Links are cool and all but when it boils down to 90% of the game/damage it's a bit much.

You really need to train to do the tight links which the majority are to an extent) and I don't think there should of been so much emphasis on it. It means in order to really get into the game you need to have good execution