Official Street Fighter Thread

Is anyone here a competitive street fighter player in either Street fighter alpha 3, Third Strike or SSF4?
To be honest I actually enjoy Street Fighter more than MK but not by alot, it's probably because while I liked MK2 my older brothers were playing Super Street Fighter 2 New Challengers after awhile i came to like both. The spark that led me to like street fighter slighty more was Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, the Parry System was amazing and innovative, plus it's original hiphop/jazz music just made me LOVE the game...seriously i spent 4 years playing almost everyday nonstop at arcades mastering my parry..well that and Garou Mark of the Wolves, wonder if anyone knows that beauty.
 
I play all those games you mentioned, except SSFIV on a regular basis. Garou is a SNK diamond, while SFA3 is great (where is SFA4?) and SF3:3s is imo the best fighting game ever made.

as a series, SF blows MK out of the water, however, my love for the arcade MK's is something more special and i cannot describe or understand why.
 
Veyga said:
Is anyone here a competitive street fighter player in either Street fighter alpha 3, Third Strike or SSF4?
To be honest I actually enjoy Street Fighter more than MK but not by alot, it's probably because while I liked MK2 my older brothers were playing Super Street Fighter 2 New Challengers after awhile i came to like both. The spark that led me to like street fighter slighty more was Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, the Parry System was amazing and innovative, plus it's original hiphop/jazz music just made me LOVE the game...seriously i spent 4 years playing almost everyday nonstop at arcades mastering my parry..well that and Garou Mark of the Wolves, wonder if anyone knows that beauty.
Click to expand...

Hard to believe it's been 11 years. I remember cringing when I heard that there is another SFIII (the first two versions weren't that good) and the word parry immediately brought up images of 3D parrying. They hit the bulls eye with 3S and the parrying was surprisingly the best thing that happened in 2D fighters. That was the last game the original SFII team lead handled (they left Capcom in 2003.. MVC2's director is still there but he hasn't done fighters since that game). Still, I preferred Alpha 3 personally and still play it occasionally since there isn't a scene for it now.

SSFIV despite the typical complaints of dumbed down input requirements, is still an excellent game. At the end of the day, it's skill that wins the day. Unsurprisingly, the top players are still the usual suspects and Daigo did take top spot again.

I'm a casual player nowadays. I just don't have the time or patience to dedicate anymore and haven't for about 7 years now. That said, I don't like half assing fighters to I take the time to learn the systems.
 
I've never been able to get into SF as much as I have MK, probably because MK 1 is what introduced me to arcades. I've tried, but it always seems to me that SF games try to be complex for the sake of being complex. To put it in movie terms, SF reminds me of an art film that wins a lot of Oscars while MK is more a summer blockbuster with lots of explosions and grosses $200 million at the box office. Both are fine for what they are, but comparing the two is pointless since they are geared at completely different audiences.
 
[sek] said:
I've never been able to get into SF as much as I have MK, probably because MK 1 is what introduced me to arcades. I've tried, but it always seems to me that SF games try to be complex for the sake of being complex. To put it in movie terms, SF reminds me of an art film that wins a lot of Oscars while MK is more a summer blockbuster with lots of explosions and grosses $200 million at the box office. Both are fine for what they are, but comparing the two is pointless since they are geared at completely different audiences.
Click to expand...

I've never agreed with something more.
 
A complex game is a deep game.

I've always loved MK, but I felt that MK2 and MK3/UMK3 were the only MK games that could ever be played on a competitive level, without seeing the same things over and over again. Street fighter is complex, yes, but that's why people are still playing and discovering new tricks 10 years after a game has been released. A good SF2T tournament will produce things you've never seen before. The most MK had for discovery was its air juggles, which are fun, but limited, due to the simpler system.

For me, complexity adds to a game's longevity. Rest assured though, nostalgia is rushing back in anticipation for the next MK.

EDIT: I play a lot of SSFIV. I'm on all the time and I enjoy losing as much as winning. Shoot me a message on Live if you want to play.
 
A game doesn't have to be very complex to be deep though. SF's system for example is very simple compared to Tekken for example. The fundamentals are the same, and incidentally, a lot of noted SF players like Alex Valle, John Choi and Justin Wong for example, play Tekken. VF is basically the king of the hill in terms of complexity but high learning curve isn't for everyone, nor is the game accessible. I think the fact that its only audience is in Japanese arcades speaks volumes.

[sek] said:
I've never been able to get into SF as much as I have MK, probably because MK 1 is what introduced me to arcades. I've tried, but it always seems to me that SF games try to be complex for the sake of being complex. To put it in movie terms, SF reminds me of an art film that wins a lot of Oscars while MK is more a summer blockbuster with lots of explosions and grosses $200 million at the box office. Both are fine for what they are, but comparing the two is pointless since they are geared at completely different audiences.
Click to expand...

Agreed wholeheartedly on the bolded part, being true of basically all MK's even the only competitive game in the series (UMK3) compared to the SF games at the time. I will note that MK overall hasn't been as successful as SF; certainly not in recent times. The 2D games grossed comparably I believe in US arcades, and that's about it. VF is basically the perfect simile to an art film; complex, deep and a very high learning curve.

Also as I noted, SF isn't very complex, nor has the system been revised over the years for the sake of it. Everything from the parries to counters etc were added as an evolution of the engine itself and made the games more exciting and playable. Incidentally, SSFII Turbo has had the longest competitive span of any fighter in history and it's a simple, very direct game (though it has stricter input requirements than SFIV/Super).

That rings true of every long lasting fighter series. Many of those revisions and intricacies are missed by the masses and certainly reviewers, who in turn proclaim that the games haven't changed. Pro reviewers in general have got worse over the years, and they're absolutely worthless for fighters.

All a game needs is to have a good online mode and pretty graphics to be praised. Unless it's VF, which gets praised because they're enamored by the high learning curve so it must be awesome. A pet peeve of mine has been the praise of DOA.. but that's a whole different story.
 
Last edited:
Umon Daisuke said:
A game doesn't have to be very complex to be deep though.
Click to expand...

I agree, but a simpler fighting system often keeps player discovery/creativity limited.


Umon Daisuke said:
Pro reviewers in general have got worse over the years, and they're absolutely worthless for fighters.

All a game needs is to have a good online mode and pretty graphics to be praised. Unless it's VF, which gets praised because they're enamored by the high learning curve so it must be awesome. A pet peeve of mine has been the praise of DOA.. but that's a whole different story.
Click to expand...

I also agree with this. Shooters, like the recent Deathsmiles 360 release, seem to fall victim to reviews by FPS fanatics (which I'm starting to think is 90% of all American gamers), much like fighters do.

As far as DOA goes, that is one example where I really felt that the complexity and abundance of moves was an attempt to make a shallow game seem more rich than it was. That is of course, only my opinion though.
 
mdsfx said:
As far as DOA goes, that is one example where I really felt that the complexity and abundance of moves was an attempt to make a shallow game seem more rich than it was. That is of course, only my opinion though.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. There isn't much to the system and the bulk of the moves are useless rapid fire types, so high level matches are basically poking games.. it has its fans but it's a bottom tier fighter in the grand scheme of things. The mere fact that the games got attention only on console when Itagaki started his trash talking act speaks volumes (yeah, it's an act since he's friends with the Tekken leads and AM2)
 
I played DOA 4 once, and think its the absolute worst fighting game in modern times.

I actively play SSF4 and Tekken 6 online. Feel free to shoot me a request.
 
Any opinions on Marvel vs Capcom 3? my favourite game of all time is MVC2 so you'd think i'd be thrilled for the next installment but it doesn't look promising to me so far, i don't like the art style and it seems as if it's just MVC2 except 3D and movements look a little more speedy, also have you seen the hit effects don't they seem a tad bit...excessive? maybe im just nitpicking here since i have high expectations.
8b831940300ede4f0f7fb389ebfa40d5.jpg
 
Veyga said:
Any opinions on Marvel vs Capcom 3? my favourite game of all time is MVC2 so you'd think i'd be thrilled for the next installment but it doesn't look promising to me so far, i don't like the art style and it seems as if it's just MVC2 except 3D and movements look a little more speedy, also have you seen the hit effects don't they seem a tad bit...excessive? maybe im just nitpicking here since i have high expectations.
8b831940300ede4f0f7fb389ebfa40d5.jpg
Click to expand...
It pretty much IS an updated, 3D version of MvC2, but what else would you expect? It's not as if MvC2 (or the vs series in general) wasn't flashy. I think that's what drew so many people in.

I don't really care for the TvC look and I'm apprehensive about the controls, but other than that, it seems like everything that should be expected from the sequel to MvC2.
 
It seems to have bothered a lot of hardcore fighting game players that TvC became so popular. Heaven forbid a fighting game comes out that doesn't require an advanced degree in game theory to play.

Not every fighter should strive to be a competition played in tournaments. Sometimes it's OK to just have some friends over and beat people up for a few hours without having to have a flowchart of attacks/combos/finishing techniques.
 
I wouldn't call something that barely sold ~300K worldwide popular; bearing in mind that being in a EVO roster doesn't equal popularity since games like Melty Blood are there too. By contrast, all 3D's MK's (from DA and on) have been fairly popular in the US and have direct, simple engines for casual players.

Anyway, simplicity isn't TVC's problem. It's woefully unbalanced and had wall to wall combos... not exactly stuff that competitive players crave considering the calculated nature of advanced play. And fairly advanced fighters can also please casuals or beginners such is the case with SF (few moves and basics to start) and Tekken (some masher friendly characters).

MVC3 by all accounts seems to be a cross between MVC2 and has a bit of a TVC feel intentionally. The EVO version pleased most people. One notable area is the lower level of damage compared to the previous games but it could change since the game is far from complete.
 
It's not that fighting games have to have basic controls or be "masher friendly", they just have to be accessible to people who haven't spent the last 7 years perfecting their advanced level hadoken techniques.

For example, I don't even bother playing most fighting games online (not just SF) since I just can't compete with a professional fighting game player who wins tournaments and whatnot.
 
Both of my examples are very accessible games, and SFIV in particular has very lax input requirements. You don't need to spend years to have fun with them, but if you want to win at any game, including TVC, you need to put the effort into it. VF happens to be the only series that hasn't been very accessible and the sales speak volumes.

Online is also not a competitive scene. Think of it as practice and even then, it's not something you can rely on because of lag that can change a game immensely.
 
[sek] said:
It seems to have bothered a lot of hardcore fighting game players that TvC became so popular. Heaven forbid a fighting game comes out that doesn't require an advanced degree in game theory to play.

Not every fighter should strive to be a competition played in tournaments. Sometimes it's OK to just have some friends over and beat people up for a few hours without having to have a flowchart of attacks/combos/finishing techniques.
Click to expand...

[sek] said:
It's not that fighting games have to have basic controls or be "masher friendly", they just have to be accessible to people who haven't spent the last 7 years perfecting their advanced level hadoken techniques.

For example, I don't even bother playing most fighting games online (not just SF) since I just can't compete with a professional fighting game player who wins tournaments and whatnot.
Click to expand...

I really dont understand why you even bother with these games. Here is a hint: These companies dont make fighting games for you. They make them for people who play online. Believe it or not, but these games are geared more for the competitive people, not people like you barely play and arent any good, and get pissed at people who whip you ass all the damn time. I just dont get why you talk down games and gamers who are just better than you. You act so damn butt hurt all the damn time.

Maybe its time to find a new hobby....
 
Believe me, my butt is not hurt in the least. I just think that sometimes gamers (and the companies who make games) forget that not everyone has the goal of being a world champion tournament player. I don't discount the skill of those people at all, but it's like someone who shoots hoops at the Y playing a game of one on one against someone in the NBA. You're going to get schooled most of the time and there won't be much you can do about it.

I enjoy fighting games, and will continue to do so until such day that I no longer have the ability to clutch a controller. I just hope that everything doesn't get cast aside in the rush to cater to every whim of the online gamer.

Also I feel like today I have earned my stripes as a TRMK poster since I've earned the wrath of Tim Static. Aren't you the guy who hates everything post-UMK3?
 
Yes, he is.

But I'm with Tim on this one; there is no real need for you to dislike some fighting games. Try getting some practice in. Hell, handle some beatings a lot better. You can actually pick up a thing or two by getting beaten. The more you play, the better you will get.

Besides, not everyone online is a world champion competitive player, which nullifies any of your complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top