Originally posted by Sado22I see what the problem is now, do you need a friend to play with you Sado? 🙁
all games are judged on the single player basis because you don't always have friends
Every game is meant to be judged through single-player? Ummm...No.
That would be like judging Diablo games by single-player, when they were OBVIOUSLY geared towards the multiplayer.
Judging SFIV or any fighting game primarily based on the single player experience is like judging Counter Strike or Left 4 Dead based on their single player experience with bots.
Fighting games are one of those genres where the longevity and real quality and fun come from multiplayer, not single player. Single player for a fighting game should really be nothing more than practice.
~Sado
Originally posted by Sado22
i disagree, mate. counter strike adn left 4 dead have an appeal to them and are specifically made or at least partially made for multiplayer...in fact, multiplayer is the preferred form of it. fighting game on the other hand are not.true in ways. but unlike counterstrike etc, for fighting games ultimately the replay element comes from single play and thats how it's judged. not to mention that SF4 sucks even WITH multiplayer and i barely played it for halfanhour with my friends (a hardcore SF fanbase mind you, minus me) and we all were like "**** it"
~Sado
No, to most people multiplayer IS the preferred form for fighting games. You are the first person I have ever met who judges a fighting game based on the single player experience. These days, what with online availability it's easier than ever to play against another person, and so it's now even easier and more sensible to make judgments about a fighting game based on how much fun it is playing against another person, since again, that's how most people spend the majority of their time with the game.
The second statement is just flatout untrue, as well. You simply don't like the game and that's all fine, but lets not confuse your opinion with fact. By all objective measures the game has been a roaring success on all fronts. Both critically and commercially.
I think what sado is trying to say (probably am wrong but eh).. is that fighters these days are reviewed based on the modes and single player content they offer (such as the costume edits of soul calibur III and IV for example, and the DLC outfits / colors / "Personal Actions" of SFIV).. reviewers rarely know when a game is really all that hardcore.. hell.. they didnt even tell people how deep guilty gear is on a high play level.. they're just like "ahur!.. we think this games good cuz its guilty gear, so you should prolly buy it! :B ".. reviewers even go so far as to trash the CPU A.I.. which is "always" going to be horrible in a fighting game.. (either extreme of cheap, or just too easy)
I've seen games like halo have their multiplayer component examined thoroughly.. but I havent seen that same detail offered to fighters...
I personally never give a shit about single player experience for fighters.. I'm all about the options and tools you're given in multiplayer
The second statement is just flatout untrue, as well. You simply don't like the game and that's all fine, but lets not confuse your opinion with fact. By all objective measures the game has been a roaring success on all fronts. Both critically and commercially.
I think what sado is trying to say (probably am wrong but eh).. is that fighters these days are reviewed based on the modes and single player content they offer (such as the costume edits of soul calibur III and IV for example, and the DLC outfits / colors / "Personal Actions" of SFIV).. reviewers rarely know when a game is really all that hardcore.. hell.. they didnt even tell people how deep guilty gear is on a high play level.. they're just like "ahur!.. we think this games good cuz its guilty gear, so you should prolly buy it! :B ".. reviewers even go so far as to trash the CPU A.I.. which is "always" going to be horrible in a fighting game.. (either extreme of cheap, or just too easy)
~Sado
There's plenty of reasons why it's good. It's one of the few fighting games that's extremely simple to pick up and play, you can go in never having played before and throw a fireball and feel like you've accomplished something, you feel like you can play the game and not be overwhelmed by an endless list of impractical moves, but the game still maintains a sense of complexity that makes it difficult to truly master.
I love the graphics and the exuberant art style, and the controls are tight and responsive and I just have fun moving the characters around.
It's a great 'watercooler' game. Getting that ultra in at just the right second to win the match, reversing something or dodging something just barely to get that last combo in to turn the tide of the fight, these things all happen regularly and they're all extremely rewarding.
Plus the focus system is, much like the game as a whole, a seemingly simple concept but difficult to really master.
SF1 came out and it was new.
SF2 came out and it gave us something new
SF3 came out and it gave us something new
SF4 comes out and it gives us SF2 again but in shitty 3d
that's not a new game. not in my eyes its not. compare to what SF3 offered comared to SF2 and you know why the numbers next to the game's name are meant to be and why they are there.
There's plenty of reasons why it's good. It's one of the few fighting games that's extremely simple to pick up and play
you can go in never having played before and throw a fireball and feel like you've accomplished something
you feel like you can play the game and not be overwhelmed by an endless list of impractical moves, but the game still maintains a sense of complexity that makes it difficult to truly master.
I love the graphics and the exuberant art style, and the controls are tight and responsive and I just have fun moving the characters around.
It's a great 'watercooler' game. Getting that ultra in at just the right second to win the match, reversing something or dodging something just barely to get that last combo in to turn the tide of the fight, these things all happen regularly and they're all extremely rewarding.
Plus the focus system is, much like the game as a whole, a seemingly simple concept but difficult to really master.
ultimately, tho, i think you're entitled to an opinion and i want to establish that i don't mean any disrespect to you. i'm just giving an opinion and as a devoted fan of the franchise i feel like capcom just farted in my face. might as well call it this:
SuperDuper Street fighter 2: the same old shit
cuz it aint 4 by a long shot.
~Sado
Well from their perspective they thought it was in their best interest to make a game that was LIKE SF2, it only makes sense, really. SF2 is one of the most popular games ever made, and SFIII may have been a success among the hardcore and the diehard, but it failed to achieve the global and commercial success that they probably thought it should have.
Thus, SFIV was made as a sequel for the people who WANTED a game more like SF2, with the iconic list of characters and familiar moves, though personally I don't think it's identical to SF2, the EX moves, ultras, focus attacks and so on aren't in the SF2 games, they may have taken these aspects from other games like SFEX or what have you and quantified them and improved them, but really, so what? A game can be familiar and still be good, they could have gone off and done something different but they already tried that with SFIII and it wasn't a success, so they went with the familiar approach and I'm sure they're satisfied with the results, I know I am.
Of course keep in mind that I'm by no means a devotee to the fighting game genre, I've dabbled here and there, messed around with DOA4 and VF5 and a few others, but SFIV was the first fighting game since Killer Instinct that I really got into. But that just goes to show why the game works, it got people back into the genre after being distanced for several years.
Originally posted by BackFire
There's plenty of reasons why it's good. It's one of the few fighting games that's extremely simple to pick up and play, you can go in never having played before and throw a fireball and feel like you've accomplished something, you feel like you can play the game and not be overwhelmed by an endless list of impractical moves, but the game still maintains a sense of complexity that makes it difficult to truly master.I love the graphics and the exuberant art style, and the controls are tight and responsive and I just have fun moving the characters around.
It's a great 'watercooler' game. Getting that ultra in at just the right second to win the match, reversing something or dodging something just barely to get that last combo in to turn the tide of the fight, these things all happen regularly and they're all extremely rewarding.
Plus the focus system is, much like the game as a whole, a seemingly simple concept but difficult to really master.
Why do you guys love the graphics, they're nothing special compared to allot of other games, and the build of the characters is just horrible.
I mean compare:
http://ps2media.gamespy.com/ps2/image/article/531/531615/tekken-5-20040719020314693.jpg
http://www.gossipgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tekken_6_500.jpg
http://ui02.gamespot.com/1313/tk601219_2.jpg
http://www.christian-gaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tekken6_x.jpg
to:
http://www.beefjack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/street_fighter_4_video_game_image_blanka__1_.jpg
http://wa1.images.onesite.com/capcom-unity.com/user/s-kill/sfiv_alt_costumes/large/zangief_006.jpg
http://ui12.gamespot.com/2347/2sto11_2.jpg
http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/99223_street_fighter_4_12.JPG
Okay, so the SFIV thread as become the "Hate on SFIV" thread. It's cool if you don't like somthin' but when you gotta start arguin wit peeps, that's when it becomes hatin'...lame. Like, what ever happened to sayin your piece and then leavin'.
I personally had some problems wit this game, but that's just cuz I sucked at it and still kinda do. I still like SFIII and SFA3 more but this game is one of the best. It's cool in my book and pretty much er body elses too.
Seriously, do you have a personal stake in Tekken? It seems like it. The build of the characters is fine. Except Chun-Li and her manly hands and feet.
you guys are blind...how can any intelligent person by into this who graphic overhaul and see it for the sorry excuse it s?🙄
WAKE UP!
Okay, so the SFIV thread as become the "Hate on SFIV" thread. It's cool if you don't like somthin' but when you gotta start arguin wit peeps, that's when it becomes hatin'...lame. Like, what ever happened to sayin your piece and then leavin'.
~Sado
Originally posted by Sado22
this is a SF4 thread. nothing wrong with pointing out what sucks about it (which is 95% of it really). the graphics he's shown>>SF4 graphics and that's his point that the graphics suck. and he's right.you guys are blind...how can any intelligent person by into this who graphic overhaul and see it for the sorry excuse it s?🙄
WAKE UP!
ill explain it to you very simply.
This:
http://ps2media.gamespy.com/ps2/ima...19020314693.jpghttp://www.gossipgamers.com/wp-cont...ekken_6_500.jpg
is a failed attempt at making the game look real. It's an attempt to make the game look photo-realistic. did they succeed? no the characters look like shit. It's great for a video game, but if you compare it to real life people they look like sweaty plastic and are polygonal. they tried to make it look real. they failed.
this:
http://www.beefjack.com/wp-content/..._blanka__1_.jpghttp://wa1.images.onesite.com/capco...zangief_006.jpg
is an attempt to make their game look like a cartoon. did they succeed? yeah they did; beautifully. disproportional body parts, goofy expressions, vibrant colors. it looks EXACTLY like a cartoon. that was capcoms INTENTION, to make it look like a cartoon. so yeah they succeeded and tekken failed. congrats.
so what is the most probable counter-argument? probably something that sounds similar to "well tekken graphics look more realistic so in the end their graphics ARE better!"
thats incorrect. heres the definition for "graphics":
The pictorial representation and manipulation of data, as used in computer-aided design and manufacture, in typesetting and the graphic arts, and in educational and recreational programs.
theres nothing in there that says anything about the pictorial representation being realistic. in fact reality or a sub-word for it isnt mentioned once. thats because contrary to what you or anyone thinks the quality of graphics are not determined by how realistic they look. the quality of a graphic is determined by how well the end result matches the artist's intent.
so actually you could say that tekkens graphics suck because the artists tried to make the characters and setting look real; the end result does not match the artists ultimate intentions. street fighters graphics are in contrast rather good because the artist intended for it to look like a colorful and goofy cartoon and and lo and behold it looks like a colorful and goofy cartoon.
