Street Fighter IV

Originally posted by FWahMaN
By the way, I don't think AC's point was that the game doesn't require skill and only requires speed. His point was there's no natural skill, meaning everyone can build this skill up required to play SF as someone like Daigo can play it, given that they don't have physical or mental disabilities.

So how is Tekken not in that same category, or any fighting game for that matter? You don't see any flaws in his logic at all...wow.

I also don't think everyone's point was that it takes natural, meaningful, gifted talent to learn to play SF. Just that it takes skill that you have to learn and acquire and not just speed. The game will only allow you to do whatever you want so fast. It will come to a point where you'll have to out think and outplay your opponent like a Chess Match. Playin' SF like Daigo and Wong isn't somethin' everyone can do, that's why people turn it into careers. I.E. Daigo and Wong. If everyone can get to a point where they are all equal and they all acquired the same skill in the same way, playing for money would not be as rampant as it is now.

Yes, but not because they have any natural talent that anyone can't get.

So...yes. If everyone trained like Daigo, their skill/reaction time would be such that they would be on par.

It's fun, it's Street Fighter, and thus not as many people care to.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but not because they have any natural talent that anyone can't get.

So...yes. If everyone trained like Daigo, their skill/reaction time would be such that they would be on par.

It's fun, it's Street Fighter, and thus not as many people care to.

-AC

That's not true. Some people suck and some people don't, everyone doesn't learn in the same ways and apply what they have learned in the same ways. I want to refrain from usin' the word talent when dealin' wit video games but most people can play the games even longer than Daigo OR Wong and they still wont be as good. You don't gain skill just by playin' the game for a long time. Daigo aint the only person in the world who plays SF to death, if all you had to do was play the game alot, there would never be winners and losers. Every match would be a draw and every human being would pick the same character. Learning must always be present when trying to get good at anything. You keep sayin' SF but your logic pretty much applies to any video game and most things in life.

Yo anyone check this out yet? its pretty nicely done.. a lil compendium of ultras.. so for anyone not wanting to see em.. dont click. lol
YouTube video

mostly shit you probably already seen.. but Maximum Gen got me rollin my eyes harder than Maximum Guy (Bushin)

and lol @ the ongoing crap.. if any old scrub could train to be l33t, it would be so common to be pro that noone would get sponsored or paid.. saying "noone wants to" is the biggest copout going

I think it's strange that Gen's 3rd Ultra only counts as 2 hits. A lot of the Ultras are good but ALOT of them are ridiculous...or dare I say...stupid.

cammy 😂

I like hers, it's Akumas...

YouTube video

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When did the playing preference of one become the playing preference of many?

When I played, I played as Paul and Lei. I used all of their moves, I was one of the only people I know who bothered to apply all of Lei's stances.

Just because someone didn't use all the moves doesn't mean nobody did. Take it back to the drawing board.

You answered what game has the more in-depth and varied moves sets; it's not S.F., and that doesn't change just cos people may not use them a lot.

Umm, you must be crazy, I'm sure you weren't using Paul as good as Ogre was, and Ogre was arguably the Best Paul player in the US. Even he would tell you that most of Paul's moves on that list were garbage. Lei...please? He hasn't been super great since T3 and most of his moves were garbage, even RedBlood stated this, and guess what, he was like one of the Top-3 best Lei's in the US at the time, I call garbage on this, because Paul does not need a heavy reliance upon all of his moves.

Lei does, but most of them are pretty trashy anyhow since Post-T3, in Tage it was "okay" only, and the guy has like 4 pages worth of moves, nobody uses even half of them consistently through out a match.

Please, knock it off with this spewing garbage, I set the example for you already, having more "moves" does not equate to being more strategical. Case and point, the best players don't even use half the moves on that list, what makes you think your doing something better then they are?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How was I too young? I was 14 when it came out in arcades, and used to play it in arcades in the West End. Each week they'd release some newer characters on the machine and I'd go down to play it with whoever was in there that day. Never assume, you'll look dumb.

Also, who the HELL said I was just getting into these games now? I had Tekken when it first came out.

Playing at a local arcade doesn't bold much, I'm pretty sure I even know more of the game you claim is more strategical then you do, which is the problem. Yet you don't know enough about SF to make a probable comparison.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So, why does it matter? What relevance does this have to the debate?

I guy who doesn't know SF well enough claims it's less strategical to a game he doesn't even know as well pretty much tells the tail which is what I'm pointing too.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All you need is the common basics, THAT is what YOU don't get.

You need more then common basics, that what you DON'T KNOW. How is Footsies common basics? How is zoning correctly common basics? How is effectively landing cross ups common basics? How is positioning to be outside of your opponents best attacks common basics? Seriously, are those all common basics? Explain in great detail.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As for the new features, they are not so mind-boggling that you can't pick them up within minutes unless you have A.D.D. or something.

Funny thing is...the same can be said for Tekken. Or are you just blind that you simply can't realize this. The fact of the matter remains that SF:IV is harder to master at the Deep End then Tekken 6.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop over-complicating the game, dude.

The game is more complicated then you think, which is your problem.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point is that once you learn the basics, there's still a lot more to master on Tekken than there is on S.F. isn't there? Don't give me that b.s. about how certain players don't bother mastering the moves set, because that's not the argument.

This is why debating with people who don't know Street Fighter makes my head hurt.

In Tekken, there are fundamentals that must be learned at higher levels...

Spacing, High/Lows, SS, + Frame and - Frame Advantages, Tech Throws (newer ones) those come to mind crucially right off the bat.

In Street Fighter, because of the way it's played you have to learn these to reach higher levels...

Footsies, Zoning, Spacing, High/Lows, Cross Ups, False cross ups, Tick Throws, whiff poking.

All of those come to mind and you have the adaucity to claim SF has "less" then Tekken? By the looks of it, they look pretty close to me, and even though SF has "less" to "do" as in your point. In Tekken, everything still revolves up close, so when you are far away, the match up is not heated, in a game such as Street Fighter, due to projectiles, the entire distance of the stage can be used to a strategical advantage, something Tekken doesn't have at all.

Again, Long, and Mid range strategies...something Tekken doesn't have at all. All Tekken can claim is that it has close range strategies that can equate to SF, so no, I disagree, you are not correct. Both FG's bring different elements to the game, and if I "had" to make a choice, SF would bring more due to the fact that you can be anywhere on the map and still have to play against your opponent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The point is, Tekken has more to it than Street Fighter, it takes more getting used to. You move across the arenas faster in Street Fighter, you jump higher, you jump further. It's an entirely condensed dynamic in Tekken.

Tekken you do not need to jump, because everything is close quarters. Street Fighter, if you couldn't jump further, Ryu, Ken, Sagat, Dhalsim, and Guile would destroy the entire cast. You make it sound like "getting" in on a good zoning Ryu, Guile or Sagat is easy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
S.F.'s one works for what it is and we all like that, but it IS what it is. It's not better OR worse, because that's preference. It just...is, and what it IS, is less varied.

You see, this is why we get nowhere, because that quote up above says it all. You say absolutely NOTHING involving any strategical aspects of Street Fighter for your example, all you say is "it is what it is" without giving any refutable evidence...this is why there is no debate, because you don't even know the game of Street Fighter well enough to qualify a valid opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop using that as an excuse. If the only way these games makers are hoping for their games to avoid repetition is by saying that you need to be a tournament player to get it, then they're not doing their job properly. You and I both know their intention is to get as many people playing as possible.

The problem is not the gamers, the problem is you Alpha. The problem is that, you haven't gone beyond the Lower Levels of playing Street Fighter, I'm pretty sure of this judging by your post. The problem is, you don't know the game of Street Fighter enough. If you did, your opinion would change. If you talk to the best Tekken players who've had a good play of Street Fighter as well, they will tell you that it rivals Tekken's Strategical Aspects in all categories when you get to the deep end of the game.

Fact of the matter is, you won't know until you raise your game up. It all only looks like repetition to you is because you don't know how they truly play which is why it looks that way to you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Street Fighter is NOT an elitist game no matter how much your kind wish to pretend it is.

No Fighting Game is an Elitist game, what are you trying to say here? What I'm trying to point out, is that when you play it at the deep end, it's alot more strategical then you claim, and much, much deeper then you claim.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"You see it as repetitive because you don't play it at as high a level.". No, I see it as repetitive because from March '91 to the Super S.F. 4, there are so few differences when you actually get down to it. THAT is what earned it praise AND derision.

Some praised it for adding TINY things (Like the graphical updates) that keep it fresh enough, while remaining essentially the same game. Others derided it for...essentially only having tweaked things. If the fact that it's such a simple, repetitive game is there so prominently that it's being used as both a negative AND a positive in swathes of media reviews, how can you deny it?[QUOTE]

Street Fighter II Series doesn't play like the Street Fighter Alpha Series, and both those don't play like the Street Fighter III Series at all. Do I need to spell that out for you here? In SF Alpha there are completely NEW HIT BOXES, which changes the entire game, the combo system is completely different, which changes the entire game, the Super Arts using 1-3 meters makes everything different, the entry of an Alpha Counter changes the game up. Street Fighter II in contrast was a completely different game and had none of those sort, however to you it was all "repetition".

What about SFIII, completely new sprites which ='s New HitBoxes, a combo system that is unique from SFII and the Alpha Series all in itself, a choice of Super Art which changes the concept of playing the game and even the character in some aspects, the Parry System, the two button throw animation and Whiff animation to sport.

All of those again made SFIII unique from SFII and SFAlpha in itself, and made it a completely different SF game. Sure the "same" concepts apply, however the fact remains that with all of those, completely New Strategy is being used which was never present from the previous one.

However, hey, I'm probably "over-complicating" things again right? I mean, Tekken has "never ever" done this before with making repetition ever.

[QUOTE=12557540]Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do yourself a favour, ok? If you don't get a point, admit you don't get it and ask for it to be put in severe layman's terms. Don't make it out to be my fault when the point is clear.

If you could actually talk about why the game your accusing of being as "newbie friendly" with some valid reasons, then I would actually agree with you, however you say it's just "easy to pick up and learn" without giving any actual gameplay details of the fighting game itself, that's the problem.

Don't blame me if you haven't posted any valid reason as to why Tekken is supposedly superior to SF.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Think about that claim.

"If it was easy no way would it garner that much gameplay". Please just think about how untrue that is.

Street Fighter is the most famous, easiest fighting game to play for the worldwide audience. It has two people who are pop culture figures; Ryu and Ken. Their move names are more or less known throughout generations.

That doesn't make Street Fighter an easy fighting to play world wide. If you've noticed, games like Tekken, SC, DoA, all are easier to pick up for a New Player because of the simple input concepts. A New Player whom has never had experience playing of either fighting game would find it harder to try and execute a Hadouken, Shoryuken, or Hurricane Kick as opposed to Steve's Flicker, or Bob's D/f+2.

You make it sound like a newbie can come over and play SF and get good in this game, which is absolutely untrue, again boasted more so because you don't know the game enough and just simply claim it to be so.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're talking about these guys like they're Shaolin monks. That's what I mean about the pretentiousness of the hardcore, minority fanbase.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Like I said, footsies are not something that comes with the game. They are not an official move or whatever. They're something players do to psyche each other out. It's what I said above but you were too dense to grasp; PLAYERS bring that to the table, it's not the game being versatile. It's players using existing soft hits or low hits just outside the hit area to goad or bait their opponent, right? Effectively that's what it is.

So basically, the only difference between being good at it and bad at it is your own personal...? Yes, speed and reaction time. The two things I said it comes down to in the first place.

I hate to use this term, but you really don't know absolutely what you are talking about. HALF THE THINGS IN TEKKEN WERE NOT EVEN MEANT TO BE IN THERE STRATEGY BASE WISE. Did you honestly think in Tekken they wanted Steve to have an Infinity? Did you honestly think that they purposely put Wave Dashing into the game of Tekken? Did they honestly think Crushes were going to Blow Through all Low Pokes allowing players to spam this from Tekken 5 onward to the newest Tekken game?

So...Street Fighter has these concepts...but Tekken doesn't...right, that "almost" makes sense here. So I'm guessing that Bryan's 121 d/f+3 up against the Wall was "intentionally" put in there by the creators...yes...I'm sure.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why doesn't it?

If you're playing someone who utilises way more moves, you have to employ way more thought into how you're going to deal with them.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In Tekken you can do things (Last I played) like counter actual punches or kicks and turn them into throws. Some use that, some don't, but it's a valuable technique and that's what you'd call strategy. Is your opponent a counter-user? Are they someone who knows extensive chunks of the move list or are they not? If so, what moves do they favour and why? When will they likely use them?

Wrong...countering punches is a stupid idea in Tekken...who does that? The only reason why it's gotten stupid in Tekken now a days is because the Crush System allows dumb opponents who "try" to counter + frame pokes and allow them to crush their opponent for throwing out and advantage poke.

In Tekken, spacing is the norm, knowing your + frame advantages and -'s after a whiff or block is key, nobody sits there and tries do those things. If you try to throw while I'm poking, you are as good as dead, and throwing has been trashy in Tekken since 5 onward due to how ridiculously easy it to avoid throws now.

Also, your logic of "strategy" for Tekken is absolutely Terrible. Firstly, if I'm playing Tekken Tag Jin, there are Key Distinct advantages that my opponents will be looking for...

- WaveDash Setups
- (E)wgf
- HS
- WS+2
- 112 off of - Frame pokes

They don't sit here and go "Is he going to use the Tooth Fairy Attack" (ss+2). They look to what has MADE Jin dominant and try to avoid that. If an opponent throws an attack that is -14 on frames, I can land an (E)wgf to counter that. If I have them knock down, I go into WDing mode to make them guess either High, mid or low for my next attack.

That's how you play Tekken, not even remotely close to the way you describe it above.

However, guess, what? Street Fighter has exactly similar aspects as well, oh my gosh! A game that is supposedly less strategical in your terms.

There's just way more to those kind of games, going into a match, than Street Fighter. I'm sorry, but there just is

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You get quarter turns, pause breaks and 360s in Tekken also. The rising uppercuts, chain grabs and combos aren't easy to instantly pull off unless you actually know how to time pad inputs. That's not an S.F. OR Tekken thing, it's a fighting game thing.

Seriously...ask yourself how much your going to use things like Cradle of Death in contrast to Gief's SPD

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
See, that's what I mean. You are so self-absorbed that you think the only kind of game is "deep end". You do realise you're the minority, right? People all over the world play and not all of them are high-end players who don't take time to learn and integrate a wider moves set.

I did, my friends did.

The fact that it IS there and DOES make the game and fights more varied IF you use them is what gives my argument the points, and yours none. "People don't apply them at deep end!", so? Deep end is one, hardcore, miniscule nugget of the gaming market. It's like blaming fundamentalist, creationist Christians for everything. They don't represent most of their religion, they're a tiny part. They just make the biggest stink and tend to think it's all about them.

The parallels are there.

You can't argue that Tekken having a way more varied moves set which, if implemented, makes the fights more varied, does not matter because a small nugget of users do not do so. THAT is a dumb argument.

Wow...just wow...

What in the world are we debating about then? You claim that Street Fighter is NOT as strategical and then you make take it that we shouldn't "go deep end"? Man, you are a walking contradiction here.

Firstly, if we are just talking "casual" play then none of this even matters, there should be absolutely no debate or say of you claiming Tekken is more strategically sound. Because if we aren't taking everything to the table then we aren't truly playing the game for what it is.

Casual play is irrelevant when talking about the strategical aspects of each Fighting Game and here you are saying that "deep end" shouldn't matter. However, it DOES IF YOU WANT TO JUDGE THEM FOR THEIR DEPTH as you have boldly claimed with your first post.

If we aren't talking about the strategy vs strategy of both fighting games then, why did you bring up the fact that SF is less then Tekken? Only from a "beginners" point of view? If so then we are done, because at that level, anything can happen, which doesn't matter anyhow.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Tekken "improved" for reasons I just stated over the past three or four quotes.

How did the Crush System Improve Tekken Play?

How did everyone being FORCED to juggle improve Character Diversity?

How Did Bound Improve the way we played Tekken?

How did making everyone have 10-Frame Jabs make for more variety in attacks?

You tell me?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If it has the wider moves set and ability to counter strikes into grapples, chain moves togethe etc and people, somewhere on this planet are willing to learn/implement them, it will never be a more strategic game.

It doesn't matter if people don't do it, because people CAN if they chose. If people wanted to do on Street Fighter what you CAN do on Tekken IF YOU CHOOSE, could they? No.

That is the absolute worse sentence I've read from you yet, even an english major would struggle to try and comprehend what you are trying to say above, however I'll state this out to you very carefully.

Street Fighter IV to Tekken 6...

In Street Fighter IV, the character variety of how they play unique to their own is still very high even with the introduction of Ultra, Ryu dominates with footsies and spacing, Sagat with Power and Zoning, Gouki with Zoning, Balrog with strong rush down, Blanka with mixups, etc etc.

In Tekken 6, the character variety has dropped because due to Bound, and the emphasis on Juggles, everyone is FORCED to having to use juggles as their best form of Damage. This delutes character variety, because everyone has to use this to dominate in order to win. You play Ling...guess what your doing...you ain't utilizing "all of the list" you are using what allows her to crush opponents and send them into the air or ground, so you can juggle or bound them to oblivion.

That alone shows a tremendous differential between the two already. That is where strategy starts to build too. If your just "casually" playing then none of this absolutely matters, however what you stated above. Crushes are so stupid that you can no longer poke right anymore. How does throwing out a low poke with you getting hit by a hop kick should equate to you losing 60% of your life?

Even SF:IV isn't that stupid unless your playing Ryu with a full meter Ultra.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If the average person has a party and wants to bring out a fighting game, which game would be best? Street Fighter, is the clear answer.

What game is going to cause both the experienced and the uninitiated the most fun in the least amount of time? Street Fighter. What game takes the least amount of explaining? Street Fighter.

Umm...your actually wrong here...casual people can have more success in Tekken due to the fact that with button mashing, you can have better success. You must be joking right? Christie/Eddy can give more noob wins against other noobs then you could trying to pick any other character in Street Fighter. I'll tell you that much, please stop talking on the "casual" level, because this can pertain to any fighting game, not just Street Fighter, again, your logic is as flawed as your so called strategies you've tried to interpret about Tekken.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Everything you need is in this post, my posts to Satsujin etc.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you, you're not a baby. I've gone over it with you AND him. So you do all the reading and you'll see why.

-AC

Basically put, from everything I've read, my 11 yr old cousin could smoke you in the game of Tekken, because from your "strategies" about Tekken stated above wouldn't work. I'm pretty sure you'd be worse off in SF as well.

My problem is don't know anything whatsoever about what makes Tekken really tick, and you don't know anything about what makes Street Fighter tick. You come up here and boast claims that when someone here actually look at holds absolutely no crediblity.

You tell everyone of us here that Street Fighter is NOT as strategical however when I tell you the intricate details of why it's good, you say "stop thinking deep end". However, other people on here like Satsujin, No End in Site, even ME included are not Super Top Elite Players, and we know about things such as the depths of what we stated in Street Fighter.

I've HAD to tell you that your strategy bases for Tekken are wrong and show you accurate examples of what would go down in a match. So no, if anything, you've just shown are little you know about Street Fighter and Tekken. You then go on to pose that it's all preference, well then when you go onto a thread and claim "This game isn't as strategical as this game" then you'd better be ready to back up your claim.

Because people will be asking you to tell them from a well knowledge point as to why you think that. However by now, I know that you were never a solid player to begin with in either game, because your statements involving Tekken strategy are completely wrong and terrible, and what you claim about Street Fighter is so vague that it can be stated for every single Fighting Game that has shown up to date.

Case and point, at the "Casual Levels" BOTH Street Fighter and Tekken are easy for a player to pick up...

Lol at the comment of everyone being as good as Daigo if they just trained all the time...LMAO.

First off, you need to have dedication, meaning learning the game strategically and fundamentally all the way through. You need to have Top competitive players which in Daigo's case, he plays against some of the BEST SF players around.

However Daigo trains all the time, and he still couldn't even punish Guile's c.mk on reaction like the legendary Tomo Ohira, in fact, post the Golden Era...NOBODY has been capable of doing so anymore.

Look to Jang Iksu in Tekken Tag, that dude was doing WD's and EWGF to near psychic reaction, who after him has brought it to his level since???? NONE.

That's like saying that Michael Jordan would have been as good as he was if he didn't have his raw physical talent. Some players have quicker reactions and learning abilities then others, and that goes a long way, especially in a video game, and a fighting game that.

Originally posted by No End N Site
So how is Tekken not in that same category, or any fighting game for that matter? You don't see any flaws in his logic at all...wow.

And I lol @ the notion that Street Fighter plays from a distance but Tekken doesn't. I believe that's why you can hit someone 5 or so meters away with Kazuya's Hell Lancer. Same goes with the identical input variants with Heihachi and Devil Jin. There are so many other moves refuting this notion it honestly is not funny. If someone meant you're eventually just approaching the person in some way to place a hit, by extending your limbs or otherwise, SF is the same. It isn't as if SFers can magically extend their arms with Dhalsim(sp?) being the exception, and if there's 1, 2 or 3 other people who can extend their limbs like Piccolo, great. Take out projectiles from SF, you have as much "close-range" battle as in Tekken. I doubt Street Fighters can stomp the ground and deal damage that way, but I could be wrong. I know that's something the boss of T5 and T6 can do, not saying anything about the rest of the cast. As of SF4, a decent amount of fighters cannot use projectiles for that matter.

Originally posted by JustFrame
Umm, you must be crazy, I'm sure you weren't using Paul as good as Ogre was, and Ogre was arguably the Best Paul player in the US. Even he would tell you that most of Paul's moves on that list were garbage. Lei...please? He hasn't been super great since T3 and most of his moves were garbage, even RedBlood stated this, and guess what, he was like one of the Top-3 best Lei's in the US at the time, I call garbage on this, because Paul does not need a heavy reliance upon all of his moves.

Lei does, but most of them are pretty trashy anyhow since Post-T3, in Tage it was "okay" only, and the guy has like 4 pages worth of moves, nobody uses even half of them consistently through out a match.

Please, knock it off with this spewing garbage, I set the example for you already, having more "moves" does not equate to being more strategical. Case and point, the best players don't even use half the moves on that list, what makes you think your doing something better then they are?

Originally posted by JustFrame
Playing at a local arcade doesn't bold much, I'm pretty sure I even know more of the game you claim is more strategical then you do, which is the problem. Yet you don't know enough about SF to make a probable comparison.

Originally posted by JustFrame
I guy who doesn't know SF well enough claims it's less strategical to a game he doesn't even know as well pretty much tells the tail which is what I'm pointing too.

Originally posted by JustFrame
In Tekken, everything still revolves up close, so when you are far away, the match up is not heated, in a game such as Street Fighter, due to projectiles, the entire distance of the stage can be used to a strategical advantage, something Tekken doesn't have at all.

Originally posted by JustFrame
Again, Long, and Mid range strategies...something Tekken doesn't have at all. All Tekken can claim is that it has close range strategies that can equate to SF, so no, I disagree, you are not correct. Both FG's bring different elements to the game, and if I "had" to make a choice, SF would bring more due to the fact that you can be anywhere on the map and still have to play against your opponent. Tekken you do not need to jump, because everything is close quarters. Street Fighter, if you couldn't jump further, Ryu, Ken, Sagat, Dhalsim, and Guile would destroy the entire cast. You make it sound like "getting" in on a good zoning Ryu, Guile or Sagat is easy.

I should've just quoted everything then replied. This 15 minute thing is annoying...

Originally posted by JustFrame
Umm...your actually wrong here...casual people can have more success in Tekken due to the fact that with button mashing, you can have better success. You must be joking right? Christie/Eddy can give more noob wins against other noobs then you could trying to pick any other character in Street Fighter. I'll tell you that much, please stop talking on the "casual" level, because this can pertain to any fighting game, not just Street Fighter, again, your logic is as flawed as your so called strategies you've tried to interpret about Tekken.

Originally posted by JustFrame
Lol at the comment of everyone being as good as Daigo if they just trained all the time...[B]LMAO.

First off, you need to have dedication, meaning learning the game strategically and fundamentally all the way through. You need to have Top competitive players which in Daigo's case, he plays against some of the BEST SF players around.

However Daigo trains all the time, and he still couldn't even punish Guile's c.mk on reaction like the legendary Tomo Ohira, in fact, post the Golden Era...NOBODY has been capable of doing so anymore.

Look to Jang Iksu in Tekken Tag, that dude was doing WD's and EWGF to near psychic reaction, who after him has brought it to his level since???? NONE.

That's like saying that Michael Jordan would have been as good as he was if he didn't have his raw physical talent. Some players have quicker reactions and learning abilities then others, and that goes a long way, especially in a video game, and a fighting game that. [/B]

Past the time once again (puts 15 minute time feature on a pedestal) 😠

Quoting myself:

Right, because you are very safe from a distance when fighting a Tekken character who has moves that can be executed from that same distance, and still reach you where you're standing.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Virtually all games are in that category. They can all be learned. There's hardly anyone naturally born with a gift to play a game. That's the point.

Isn't that what I just said?

And I think you completely missed the point of Just Frame's posts. I'm not sayin' that SF or Tekken has more strategy than the other but one is 2D and one is 3D, Tekken has more moves per character but moves don't make up strategy, completely. There are other things you have to take into consideration when playin' a 2D game, far more than a 3D game. Hit Boxes, frame data, cancels, so on and so forth. What a 2D game lacks in moves per character compared to a 3D game it makes up in the sheer complexity of it's design and the time it takes to understand it. So to say that one game has more strategies over another simply because of the move lists is wrong.

The fact that Wahman so easily understands what I'm saying, and JustFrame/Satsujin/No End don't is what bothers me.

It makes me realise that what I am saying is very, very easily comprehendable and you're just sitting there ignoring it because you don't want to admit it.

All this time I thought JustFrame genuinely didn't get my points, but now I know he does and that he is just ignoring what I'm saying. He's sitting there telling me how I played the arcade game and what I got out of it. Such presumption is disgraceful.

-AC

so wait....people think being a competitive player of a stupid 2D fighting game of all games is something to be proud of? 😕

wow 😐

And I think you completely missed the point of Just Frame's posts. I'm not sayin' that SF or Tekken has more strategy than the other but one is 2D and one is 3D, Tekken has more moves per character but moves don't make up strategy, completely. There are other things you have to take into consideration when playin' a 2D game, far more than a 3D game. Hit Boxes, frame data, cancels, so on and so forth. What a 2D game lacks in moves per character compared to a 3D game it makes up in the sheer complexity of it's design and the time it takes to understand it. So to say that one game has more strategies over another simply because of the move lists is wrong.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
And I lol @ the notion that Street Fighter plays from a distance but Tekken doesn't. I believe that's why you can hit someone 5 or so meters away with Kazuya's Hell Lancer. Same goes with the identical input variants with Heihachi and Devil Jin. There are so many other moves refuting this notion it honestly is not funny. If someone meant you're eventually just approaching the person in some way to place a hit, by extending your limbs or otherwise, SF is the same. It isn't as if SFers can magically extend their arms with Dhalsim(sp?) being the exception, and if there's 1, 2 or 3 other people who can extend their limbs like Piccolo, great. Take out projectiles from SF, you have as much "close-range" battle as in Tekken. I doubt Street Fighters can stomp the ground and deal damage that way, but I could be wrong. I know that's something the boss of T5 and T6 can do, not saying anything about the rest of the cast. As of SF4, a decent amount of fighters cannot use projectiles for that matter

Tekken does not play at a distance to the same degree that can be played within Street Fighter. When an opponent is at one end of a stage, to the other, you can't simply do anything in Tekken as in contrast up against certain characters you can in Street Fighter. Kazuya's main advantage was never "long range" at all, in fact, no character's advantage in Tekken is like that. Can you really say that anyone in Tekken can take advantage of a full screen to the same degree that someone like Sagat or Ryu could in Street Fighter?

The same logic simply does not apply to the same factor, and let's not try to use things like Kazuya's Hell Lancer, or Devil Jin's "Lasers" as a form, because most of them are completely useless in those matters as well.

Oki's you mean for Tekken as in ground work? Yes, that is strategy for Tekken, however Tekken doesn't have cross ups either, or tick throws, etc, etc. The fact remains that the long range, mid range games of Street Fighter are more dominant and essential where as the foundation of Tekken is close quarters.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
I've read every one of his posts since the one by him that begun this. You're thinking he's talking in the competitive sense; I don't think he is. His point is you can do more, since there's more options available (more moves to choose from, i.e. things you can do). His point was not that they're equally useful to win tournaments.

I understand that, basically put, absolutely nothing that has to do with real strategy, gotcha.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Being strategical does not mean hard to beat. Your strategy can be horrendous; it's still a strategy. More overall strategies is his point, not more equally useful ones in a tournament.

Strategy is the way you play. I doubt there's a greater number of ways to play Street Fighter than there is to Soul Calibur, or Tekken. Soul Calibur is actually the most deep out of the mentioned 3 games.

Strategy is not the way you play. Strategy is figure out your character, your opponents match up to play and win. Otherwise we would consider a Scrub who doesn't know what he's doing and is just rambling through moves "strategy". That is not strategy, that is just "casual play", when you term "strategical" you are talking about breaking down the game to find the best forms to "Win".

Don't confuse "casual" play to "strategical" play. Also, Soul Calibur is "not" the most deep out of the 3 mentioned, however I do not want to bring another fighting game into this comment whatsoever.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Devil Jin's Hellfire Blast, Devil's beam..thing, Ogre's flames, add all of the customizable items (although they're gimmicks) in Tekken 6...yes. I highly advise you modify "at all" to "as much as SF"; it's actually safer to say probably.

Devil Jin's Hellfire Blast only lands if your playing someone who doesn't know what to do, Devil's Beam only lands on people with little Tekken experience, Ogre's Flames leave him completely wide open to attack, and how many times does one "use" this? Customs are there made to appeal to the general public, much like in SF:IV's custom clothes, and customs are completely irrelevant to what he was talking when he stated SF less strategical then Tekken.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Right, because you are very safe from a distance when fighting a Tekken character who has moves that can be executed from that same distance, and still reach you where you're standing. Put some more thought in your responses.

You still don't understand do you? Do you see Tekken players consistently trying to use "long range" as a forms of strategical positioning? No. In Street Fighter you do. Some characters dominate because of utilizing the distance of the stage, in Tekken, nobody does this, there is absolutely no comparison. To try and lay claim that Tekken does it to the same degree as SF is absolutely false.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
His point (most likely) was not that there's an equal chance to win by spamming with Eddie as spamming with someone else. He's saying there's less of a chance someone's going to pull off all of a Tekken character's moves showing the diversity of that character than doing so with a Street Fighter, for again the limited amount of moves in a moveset. Again, you're talking about in the competitive sense (how much strategies there are to use competitively). He is not.

If this is called "diversity" then clearly all other fighting games with characters who don't have a 1-3 page move list shouldn't be included as "diversity".

The Real Form of Diversity is how each character can play unique to their own aspect...in Example for SF...Balrog uses rushdown to win over his opponent, Sagat uses Zoning and raw power to win over his opponents, Ryu utilizes footsies and spacing to dominate. So even with a small character move list, they can played unique only to that character, the problem here is that you and Alpha are only looking at it from the "Basics" which in this point, strategy or diversity matters little and more importantly this rule can apply to Any Fighting Game if we are just running along this general line.

Move List has absolutely nothing to do with what truly signifies diversity in a fighting game and if we just "stated" on this, then almost no other fighting game besides ones who's characters have monster list counts as "diversity".

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Also, the generalization that everyone in Tekken has to only juggle or can only juggle to win is also a lie. King doesn't have to juggle, nor does Lei. Bob and Steve due to their speed alone does not make them have to juggle. Juggling is arguable usually the best bet with any player. You took it to the extreme.

That's why Lei hasn't been super effective since the juggle domination, King not only got hurt from it being juggle dominant, he also got hurt because teching out of throws is made way easier. Bob and Steve not relying upon juggles? You haven't been playing Tekken then...Tekken 5 Steve dominated because he had the Best Juggles in that game 1 dash 1 dash 1 remember that? 121~Alb1 on CH into Flkr pokes to juggles mean anything? Steve has stayed either Top or been one of the strongest is because he's been one of the best characters to abuse the Juggle System.

The only Steve to ever be good who never truly could abuse the juggle system was Tekken 4, but that was the last Tekken game that was truly strategical.

Bob dominates Tekken 6 is because he has one of the best launchers+juggles+bound gameplan in the entire Tekken 6 Roster. To stake that they don't win with juggles is ridiculous.

Pre-Tekken 5, this was not the case, as an example...in Tekken 4, Paul won by Oki's, Ling won with pure AOP domination, Kazuya won by CH Ewgf hunting, Steve won by turtling, Nina won by Runaway game.

In Tekken 6, if your character isn't a great juggler, they are mediocre or at the bottom of the character list, that's as simple as that. That's because Namco forces you to rely upon Juggles, and to utilize the bound system the majority of the time, which causes absolute problems for characters who can't utilize the juggle system or bound effectively and more importantly it detracts from their character who wasn't inherently made to play that way.

Watch any Tekken 6 match up with people who actually know what they are doing and see if Juggles don't dominate the majority of the match up.

Originally posted by FWahMaN
Of course, no one said dedication wasn't needed. If you played many hours a day to get better, you would have dedication. Michael Jordan is as good as he is since he's not only trained, but also had passion for the sport. He was also physically capable; I guess you can say he was gifted with what he can do physically. If you were referring to my comment, note I said given that they don't have mental or physical disabilities. By that I also meant if they can see equally...hear equally...execute commands and can at least comprehend the video game.

I wasn't talking to you, I was pertaining to Alpha's notion of him stating that "Everyone can be as good as Daigo if they just put the same amount of time", which is completely false, some people are just more gifted then others and will be better naturally which gives them the edge if both are of equally know the fighting game and it's concepts well enough.

Lastly, the whole argument if it was simply about "bigger move list" then simply put the logic of more "moves" equating to more diversity is flawed. Because having more moves does not create better or "more" strategy, nor do they make for better diversity.

Talking about Casual play and using that as an excuse is ridiculous as well, I'm going to say this right now. Lei has a huge Move-List, however it's not because of his "huge" move list that gives him diversity. It's because with the correct moves utilized, Lei can confuse his opponents with his Play Dead Tactics, that's what gives him diversity as a character.

Look to Kazuya, a small miniscule move-list, however he utilizes Pokes, spacing and Ewgf to launch his opponents to oblivion. That's True Character diversity, not "Well he has a huge move-list therefore that's diverse"...are you kidding me. The excuse of big move-list is the worst comparison to make Tekken look better then Street Fighter that I've seen in a long time.

Originally posted by Hell Lancer totally. because pressing up and kick to beat Zangief in SF2 took 200,000 years of human evolution to achieve. give it up, man. [/B]

Is the Zangief player really trying if he's getting killed by someone pressing up and kick to beat him?