So we are just gonna ignore the fact that SNH Ryu is stated to be around SFA2 Akuma's level and that SFIII Ryu 'surpased' the SNH.
You gotta be f**kin kiddin me. Island smashin Akuma would get f**ked up by SFIII Ryu. This is fact.
I know SFIV is great N' all, but it is a prequel. There were other SF games before it. The SFIV gen makes me liderly ill. They think SF started with II and then went straight to IV. Damn ignorant kids.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Alright, this is gettting ridiculous. We had our wave of MK, Tekken, Namco, etc. fanboys before who couldn't handle the fact that Sf is more powerful.
Thank God I aint the only person who sees this insanity. I have gotten to the point where, If I gotta brief you on the damn story, you don't know enogh to hold up your end of the debate. Thus, you will be ignored.
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterNo, what the opposition is doing is known as feat skewing. No different than saying that if Superman pummels Brainiac and Flash does it, then Flash has a feat of pummeling islands, it's flawed logic and irrelevant due to the powerset. Everything can be overrated sometimes, and MK and Tekken are no exception. I get tired of people coming in here using the "he's a God excuse", and frankly asking the SF side to provide the same evidence over and over and over again for 6 or 7 years is equally annoying as well. Some things are just known knowledge.
But two can play it at that game, I want all of these other feats "proven" for me.
I see... never knew there's something called feat skewing like this.
Still, I haven't convinced yet about this entire argument about Akuma's normal punch destroyed an island because :
1. His special moves like gou hadouken, tenma gou zankuu doesn't possess a same destructive power. Tenma Gou Zanku created big explosion, Shakunetsu Gou Hadouken created lesser explosion but caused a forest fire, and his newest move only wrecks a forest.
2. Ryu looks surprised when he saw Gouki covered in purple aura and when Gouki smashed the island. The question is, if the island really sink, how could debris fall from the top of island? My guess is Gouki only destroyed the entire cave or destroyed the entire island's foundation. It's still awesome if you ask me.
3. When I say Ryu looks surprised, it means that he never expected Gouki to showed such power like that. That means when he strikes Ryu before, he never showed that kind of power.
[QUOTE=13400435]Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
*Shrugs*
Your oppinion kid, but it does make you a hater, and an uninformed one at that.
If you do not like Street Fighter, then why do you debate in threads involving them?
And you still have not explained what you mean by overrated, if this above is your reason, then it is oppinionated and biased. [/QUOT]
I SAID IM NOT A HATER,i only find it funny
i love sf,
ovarrated - akuma sinked island with 1 punch right RIGHT !
then how come he didnt killed the whole cast? incloding ryu,ken.sagat,bison,gill
random question-how akuma can make a portel to hell and make the demons attack the one he wants to,its little wierd
Originally posted by Bro SMASHThat is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. It's called logic and putting the pieces together. If a round from a gun can destroy a tank, and a person takes them just fine, then you put two and two together.
Nobody is arguing about whether it's canon or not but saying that Ryu can somehow withstand a mountain-destroying punch is definitely not canon or even implied by any official source.
It is not stated that Darkseid can tank planet level punches, or that Raiden can take hits from Shao Kahn, but if you see them do it, then it is common sense. FFS.
Originally posted by No End N SitePeople here don't know anything about the story. I don't mine people disagreeing, but at least watch the story. If they did they wouldn't disagree as much.
So we are just gonna ignore the [b]fact that SNH Ryu is stated to be around SFA2 Akuma's level and that SFIII Ryu 'surpased' the SNH.
You gotta be f**kin kiddin me. Island smashin Akuma would get f**ked up by SFIII Ryu. This is fact.I know SFIV is great N' all, but it is a prequel. There were other SF games before it. The SFIV gen makes me liderly ill. They think SF started with II and then went straight to IV. Damn ignorant kids.
Thank God I aint the only person who sees this insanity. I have gotten to the point where, If I gotta brief you on the damn story, you don't know enogh to hold up your end of the debate. Thus, you will be ignored. [/B]
Originally posted by Kirikaze Fuuma
I see... never knew there's something called feat skewing like this.Still, I haven't convinced yet about this entire argument about Akuma's normal punch destroyed an island because :
1. His special moves like gou hadouken, tenma gou zankuu doesn't possess a same destructive power. Tenma Gou Zanku created big explosion, Shakunetsu Gou Hadouken created lesser explosion but caused a forest fire, and his newest move only wrecks a forest.
2. Ryu looks surprised when he saw Gouki covered in purple aura and when Gouki smashed the island. The question is, if the island really sink, how could debris fall from the top of island? My guess is Gouki only destroyed the entire cave or destroyed the entire island's foundation. It's still awesome if you ask me.
3. When I say Ryu looks surprised, it means that he never expected Gouki to showed such power like that. That means when he strikes Ryu before, he never showed that kind of power.
He didn't expect Gouki to destory the island. 😉
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. It's called logic and putting the pieces together. If a round from a gun can destroy a tank, and a person takes them just fine, then you put two and two together.It is not stated that Darkseid can tank planet level punches, or that Raiden can take hits from Shao Kahn, but if you see them do it, then it is common sense. FFS.
No, it's called overrating a character. Just like you have to prove that someone can actually take a round like that, you have to prove that Ryu took a punch like that from Akuma, in which you haven't. And until you can, it's nothing more than just an assumption.
Originally posted by Bro SMASHNo it's called you being dense. If a character has been hit by a round, then they can take it. If that has been shown then that is that. That is your proof. Until you learn something about the story then your point is moot. No different then you couldn't prove Wolverine or anybody else taking "mountain destroying hits" by narration alone. Get that crap out of here.
No, it's called overrating a character. Just like you have to prove that someone can actually take a round like that, you have to prove that Ryu took a punch like that from Akuma, in which you haven't. And until you can, it's nothing more than just an assumption.
That's the point. You didn't show me squat. All you say is "Akuma holds back". We already know that but as for him hitting Ryu with an "island-destroying punch", there's no way you can prove that and you know it. For every post-Tekken 2 fight, you might as well say that Kazuya used his Devil Gene power on everyone he fought. For every Shang Tsung and Shao Kahn fight, you might as well say they tried to steal their opponents' soul and they resisted it.
It's the same thing here and as you can see, there's no proof of any of it. So you might as well drop this unsubstatiated claim because it's not obviously not doing any good.
Originally posted by Bro SMASH
That's the point. You didn't show me squat. All you say is "Akuma holds back". We already know that but as for him hitting Ryu with an "island-destroying punch", there's no way you can prove that and you know it. For every post-Tekken 2 fight, you might as well say that Kazuya used his Devil Gene power on everyone he fought. For every Shang Tsung and Shao Kahn fight, you might as well say they tried to steal their opponents' soul and they resisted it.It's the same thing here and as you can see, there's no proof of any of it. So you might as well drop this unsubstatiated claim because it's not obviously not doing any good.
The point is you know nothing of the story and the fact that you don't understand anything about logic. This is a theoretical debate, which means we are debating a match that hasn't happened yet. That means we use logic. If Akuma casually destroyed an island without being powered up in his Alpha days, it is logical that he fought Ryu at least causally.
Not to mention the *fact* that current Ryu is far more powerful than Alpha Akuma and past his "evil" form.
So current Ryu is more powerful than Akuma who can generate that force casually and resisted that force.
Learn about the game and learn about logic. And every fight saying Shao Kahn tried to steal a soul is retarded unless it is shown because it is a separate ability. It would be like a person using a gun but never being shown to, vs shooting through a mountain with a gun and then shooting a person with the same gun and it having no effect.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The point is you know nothing of the story and the fact that you don't understand anything about logic. This is a theoretical debate, which means we are debating a match that hasn't happened yet. That means we use logic. If Akuma casually destroyed an island without being powered up in his Alpha days, it is logical that he fought Ryu at least causally.Not to mention the *fact* that current Ryu is far more powerful than Alpha Akuma and past his "evil" form.
So current Ryu is more powerful than Akuma who can generate that force casually and resisted that force.
Learn about the game and learn about logic. And every fight saying Shao Kahn tried to steal a soul is retarded unless it is shown because it is a separate ability. It would be like a person using a gun but never being shown to, vs shooting through a mountain with a gun and then shooting a person with the same gun and it having no effect.
No it's not. If you don't have anything stating that Akuma hit Ryu with that kind of "casual punch", then it shouldn't be used as an argument. It's that simple so don't try to attack my knowledge all because you can't backup what you said.
All we know is that Ryu is more powerful than a holding back Akuma from YEARS ago. That doesn't mean he can withstand that force nor he can dish it out. It just means that he can defeat Akuma on that level (which is not island-destroying level). Don't even try to exaggerate that.
I suggest you take your own advice. My examples were no different from what you're saying about Akuma. Just listen to what you just said; "And every fight saying Shao Kahn tried to steal a soul is retarded unless it is shown because it is a separate ability." That's the exact same point here. If that's "retarded" to you then it's also "retarded" here to say that Akuma hit Ryu with that kind of punch when it's not shown or stated. So quit being so biased and learn how to actually back up what you're saying.
OMG C-Master! Pleez stop! You are wastin your time. I just went back and read this whole thread.
1. They do not know the story
2. They don't make sense.
3. Dude just grabed a small piece of your post, the "unless it is shown" part. Blantantly and intentionally took it out of context and ran with it. They are arguin just for the hell of it, or they don't like Akuma, or they just don't like SF. I think you're being trolled.
I think it is all three. And yes he did run with my post. Some of the posters here are trolls. I don't mind a person disagreeing, I just don't like when people can't comprehend simple points.
Originally posted by Bro SMASHWrong, Ryu is more powerful than Akuma from years ago.
No it's not. If you don't have anything stating that Akuma hit Ryu with that kind of "casual punch", then it shouldn't be used as an argument. It's that simple so don't try to attack my knowledge all because you can't backup what you said.All we know is that Ryu is more powerful than a holding back Akuma from YEARS ago. That doesn't mean he can withstand that force nor he can dish it out. It just means that he can defeat Akuma on that level (which is not island-destroying level). Don't even try to exaggerate that.
I suggest you take your own advice. My examples were no different from what you're saying about Akuma. Just listen to what you just said; "And every fight saying Shao Kahn tried to steal a soul is retarded [b]unless it is shown
because it is a separate ability." That's the exact same point here. If that's "retarded" to you then it's also "retarded" here to say that Akuma hit Ryu with that kind of punch when it's not shown or stated. So quit being so biased and learn how to actually back up what you're saying. [/B]
Akuma's punch was a casual punch, not a separate ability like the soul steal. Do you not comprehend simple things?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think it is all three. And yes he did run with my post. Some of the posters here are trolls. I don't mind a person disagreeing, I just don't like when people can't comprehend simple points. Wrong, Ryu is more powerful than Akuma from years ago.
Yeah dude, that lil bit he did with your words pretty much gave away his agenda. That tactic was sloppily executed. I think even he knows he f**ked up.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I think it is all three. And yes he did run with my post. Some of the posters here are trolls. I don't mind a person disagreeing, I just don't like when people can't comprehend simple points. Wrong, Ryu is more powerful than Akuma from years ago.Akuma's punch was a casual punch, not a separate ability like the soul steal. Do you not comprehend simple things?
No, I didn't "run" with your post. I merely pointed out what you said or are you gonna admit you were BSing?
Being a "separate ability" has got nothing to do with it. It's still within his ability that he can use whenever he chooses...just like Akuma. But what we really want to know is did he actually do it in a fight? That's something we can't say because it's not shown or stated and until it is, we can't say he did.
I've noticed the typical fanboy tactic of "you don't agree with me? then you don't know the story" crap. If you know so much more, then why don't you show me any kind of evidence to support your claim? You're so darn sure of what you said and yet can't back it up and is resorting to "u dunt no logic or da story". Just a poor excuse for your lack of an argument.
Also No End N Site, instead of just glancing at the argument (because you obviously didn't read the whole thing), why don't you put some effort into your replies? Tell me what was "so wrong" with me pointing about what HE said? Or were you simply trying to divert attention from where he messed up at?