|
There's a DOA scene of some description, I remember Tom Brady crying about it for 45 minutes on some MK-related podcast.Shinku ABOOKEN posted:Waitwaitwait... the fuckers got Samus in that skanky game? gently caress team ninja, gently caress them to hell. She's not playable - there's a Norfair/Ridley-themed stage, and if you blow on the mic when playing on that stage Samus will jump out and kill everyone with a power bomb.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
The DOA scene has only ever existed to the extent that it's been backed by corporate money. There is no grassroots DOA scene at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 10:46
|
|
|
uncleKitchener posted:I played Smash Bros. some time ago and I really didn't see the appeal of it. It was pretty much a children's game that a bunch of man children found appealing. The only reason I see this game being played is for the nostalgia, which I don't have and never had. Smash Bros. is to fighting games what Mario Kart is to racing games. Don't take it seriously and you'll find it's a really good and fun game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 11:59
|
|
|
Mr Wind Up Bird posted:Of course neither have anything on true 3DS fighting game king I'd watch EVO for that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 16:24
|
|
L
|
tzz posted:Smash Bros. is to fighting games what Mario Kart is to racing games. Don't take it seriously and you'll find it's a really good and fun game. You can say this about any video game/toy. speaking of Mario cart, is there any kind "scene" for racing videogames?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:So I take it you know nothing about Skullgirls. Lemme guess... it's really good? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
I was back in DOAC around 2005-6 back in the DOAU and DOA3 days and I remember the trash talks, but I left and came back to troll people when Itagaki was convicted of assault and lost his job. According to Brady, this is meant to be the new decent DOA community website. I've listened to some of their podcasts and they're a hell of a lot more realistic than I thought. Honestly, I thought doa players always had their heads up their asses, but these guys are pretty cool, honestly. tzz posted:Smash Bros. is to fighting games what Mario Kart is to racing games. Don't take it seriously and you'll find it's a really good and fun game. Not getting mad at videogames you say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Gamest Mook posted:http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/25/5-reasons-why-you-shouldn%E2%80%99t-worry-about-balance/ Absolutely nothing in this article is true, yet all of these points get repeated like they're gospel on SRK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
I agree with pretty much every point actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
How do you figure that nothing in the article is true? There's some bits and pieces I disagree with (trying to balance being futile because tiers change over time) but it seems pretty much accurate to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Brosnan posted:I agree with pretty much every point actually. Okay, sorry, I didn't see #5, which is somewhat true. The thrust of the article is that balancing a game is a futile endeavor so we should just accept whatever capcom gives us. That hasn't been true for anything but capcom games for years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
The thrust of the article, as I understood it, is less that we should accept whatever Capcom gives us and more that freaking out because of a game's perceived imbalance (which is all the SF4 generation seems to care about doing) is not really a productive use of time or energy, since games are often fun in spite of or because of whatever imbalances they have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
To be fair, this argument didn't really start with the SF4 generation; arguing over balance is an old FG pastime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:You can say this about any video game/toy. Not really, some are just plain terrible and neither worth playing seriously nor just loving around for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Sade posted:The thrust of the article, as I understood it, is less that we should accept whatever Capcom gives us and more that freaking out because of a game's perceived imbalance (which is all the SF4 generation seems to care about doing) is not really a productive use of time or energy, since games are often fun in spite of or because of whatever imbalances they have. I do agree a lot of people who whine about balance are just whining without substance and wouldn't understand the broader implications of adding or removing certain things. The new crop of players pretty much made me give up altogether on fighting games, for what it's worth. Games still being fun/deep in spite of or because of their (im)balance is a bit of a specious argument. It's more like MvC2's metagame evolved the way it did due to its unique characteristics as a game, and that balance/no balance is just a small part of the picture. There are hundreds of other fighting games that have poorly thought out subsystems and/or have one or two characters that ruin the entire game. The issue is that they think balance issues are overblown and try to frame it as antithetical to diversity of play styles. I understand why they say it, but there are a number of games (guilty gear since XX#R, for example) that simply don't have balance/matchup problems to the same degree Capcom games do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
A completely balanced game is dull but character diversity isn't; fighting game designers should strive to make most (if not all) of the cast playable and competitively viable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:You can say this about any video game/toy. There definitely is for the realistic/semi realistic ones like iRacing or gran turismo
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:Absolutely nothing in this article is true, yet all of these points get repeated like they're gospel on SRK. You are a big boy, why don't you be more specific? The only point that is wrong is #4, (it is a futile endeavor). As we have seen, pressure from twitter and poo poo can get game balance changed. However, you seem to not understand the basic point of this ideology- that you must accept a game's balance as is, in the competitive space. The entire idea of a tournament is undermined if people refuse to believe that the game starts at the character select screen. Oh, Viscant, the guy who won EVO? He's not the champion, he's just a human being, he abused a top tier character, etc. You are basically a sour person if you bring balance into the competitive space. This does not mean you shouldn't beg Ono for your favorite ninja princess to get buffs, or that you shouldn't discuss balance, etc. It just means you should check all of that baggage at the door when you walk into a tournament or ranbat or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Superschaf posted:Not really, some are just plain terrible and neither worth playing seriously nor just loving around for a bit. No game is really worth playing seriously as that implies there is something tangible to gain from doing so, but most games are worth loving around with for a bit unless they are just a useless clone of another game that adds nothing new, or is coded so badly it is unplayable. Bathtub Cheese posted:I do agree a lot of people who whine about balance are just whining without substance and wouldn't understand the broader implications of adding or removing certain things. The new crop of players pretty much made me give up altogether on fighting games, for what it's worth. MvC2's metagame came about not so much because people truly loved it, but because NOTHING came out after it (with the exception of the unfinished Capcom Fighting Jam) for a decade so they played what they had, and did it very well. If MvC3 came out in 2003, MvC2 would be a footnote like MSHvSF as everyone would have moved on. This is also the same reasons why 3s became popular over 4 years after release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
40 OZ posted:However, you seem to not understand the basic point of this ideology- that you must accept a game's balance as is, in the competitive space. The entire idea of a tournament is undermined if people refuse to believe that the game starts at the character select screen. With the slight exception for banning characters potentially (ST Akuma), et cetera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:You can say this about any video game/toy. There's a scene for racing games somewhere in Nevada and a tournament at Universal Studios in Hollywood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AacoxHFYvZw&t=1m2s
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:I understand why they say it, but there are a number of games (guilty gear since XX#R, for example) that simply don't have balance/matchup problems to the same degree Capcom games do. You were in for a rough time if you wanted to play Potemkin vs. Eddie, or Chipp vs. Slayer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:To be fair, GGX# Reload had set tiers and characters that were virtually unplayable in a competitive tournament sense as well. I never really played GG seriously, but didn't AC fix a lot of balance issues like that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:To be fair, GGX# Reload had set tiers and characters that were virtually unplayable in a competitive tournament sense as well. All things considering, #R was still pretty drat broken and unbalanced. It was a really fun and good game despite though, but the top tier were really just insane in that game. PalmTreeFun posted:I never really played GG seriously, but didn't AC fix a lot of balance issues like that? Slash fixed most of the balance issues of the series and then AC broke everything again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:No game is really worth playing seriously as that implies there is something tangible to gain from doing so, but most games are worth loving around with for a bit unless they are just a useless clone of another game that adds nothing new, or is coded so badly it is unplayable. Well there is e-sports. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
PalmTreeFun posted:I never really played GG seriously, but didn't AC fix a lot of balance issues like that? I used to play it for keeps, and not especially, no. (Before forgetting everything I ever knew about it, that is.) Eddie was still in a tier of his own, and some matchups were just shy of unwinnable. 'Course, I was mainly a Sol player, so I had to be happy with being stuck at mid tier for the rest of eternity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
PalmTreeFun posted:I never really played GG seriously, but didn't AC fix a lot of balance issues like that? It's not as bad as in #R since the whole cast now deals a whole loving lot of damage, it's just that the top tiers deal even more  vvv: That was pretty much what everyone said about slash. Then AC broke the game again and everyone agreed it was more fun. Klaus Kinski fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
I've heard at least a half dozen fairly good GG players complain about the later XX revisions making the game more boring by continuing to emphasize universal game systems and making character play styles more similar in the name of better balance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
AC has plenty of awful matchups. Johnny has 3-7s against Eddie and Zappa and the least, and doesn't fare much better against Testament and Potemkin either. I'm sure someone with wider character knowledge could tell you some more terrible ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
I guess what I was trying to get at is, which version of the game do people still play?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
PalmTreeFun posted:I guess what I was trying to get at is, which version of the game do people still play? Offline AC. Online #R is more popular. I think #R is more fun, but AC is better balanced and almost as fun except for a few characters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
PalmTreeFun posted:I guess what I was trying to get at is, which version of the game do people still play? Edit: I guess ST vs HDR is the exception to this rule. But that's a special case because the new version came out so much later. ZerodotJander fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
40 OZ posted:However, you seem to not understand the basic point of this ideology- that you must accept a game's balance as is, in the competitive space. The entire idea of a tournament is undermined if people refuse to believe that the game starts at the character select screen. I think "pick a better character" is sound advice for some players and picking top tiers in no way undermines someone's wins -- everyone already chose to play the game and tourney rules by putting money into the pot. Everyone can choose to learn the top 5 or whatever they want. I don't have to accept a game's balance in general, though, which is why I just flat out don't give a poo poo about games with dominant top tiers. I'm not a big fan of tournies tbqh. They're at best benchmark for everyone but the top 3 to judge their progress in the game. Tournies are popular in the US because it's a way to hustle scrubs and new players, and the meltdowns over an early matchup against a strong player and shady stuff that happens often enough bears this out. If you have no shot at winning there is no reason at all to enter a fighting game tourney in the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
ZerodotJander posted:I've heard at least a half dozen fairly good GG players complain about the later XX revisions making the game more boring by continuing to emphasize universal game systems and making character play styles more similar in the name of better balance. It was harder to really appreciate beautiful play because everyone started to look similar. #R was really hard by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:I'm not a big fan of tournies tbqh. They're at best benchmark for everyone but the top 3 to judge their progress in the game. Tournies are popular in the US because it's a way to hustle scrubs and new players, and the meltdowns over an early matchup against a strong player and shady stuff that happens often enough bears this out. If you have no shot at winning there is no reason at all to enter a fighting game tourney in the US. ...what? I almost exclusively enter tournaments I have no shot at winning, just because it's a fun thing to do, I want to test my skills against good competition rather than scrubs online, and it makes you a way better player. I'm seriously  at this paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Competing is stupid if you're not confident you'll win, because otherwise you might lose and feel bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Yeah everybody who enters a competition without expecting to win is an idiot, it's not like doing something you enjoy with other people who take it as seriously as you do is fun or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Missed this one quote:I don't have to accept a game's balance in general, though, which is why I just flat out don't give a poo poo about games with dominant top tiers. Does this mean you play no fighting games except non-AE ssf4? I think we all might have just been trolled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
I'll enter the SSF4 ranbats at Arcade UFO just for the fun of it. Last time I played my first match was against Fubarduck. Needless to say, playing for fun really helps a lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
flatluigi posted:A completely balanced game is dull but character diversity isn't; fighting game designers should strive to make most (if not all) of the cast playable and competitively viable. The Virtua Fighter games do a great job of making every fighter unique, while still keeping things pretty balanced. Sure theres still a top and a bottom tier, but it isnt like a huge night and day difference or something. What Im saying is Virtua Fighter is great and more people should play it. Final Showdown for Evo 2012!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:50
|
|
