sf vs tekken

Well, only for 3 years in US arcades but that wasn't a small feat considering how viable the arcade business was. By the mid 90's, VF and Tekken were really big, again globally. Regardless, it's ancient history and MK's appeal has consistently narrowed down to the US market since MK4.
3D fighters have never been as big as 2D fighters here, and the US has always been the market's focal point, so the global success isn't the biggest factor. MK's dwindled popularity is due to how non-competitive it's been since the 3D switch and the new game looks a lot more competitive, so this "ancient history" has relevance.

Had this been a MK Vs. SF, you better believe a good group of both sides would be up in arms too.
They'd still need 2 versions, too.
 
Had this been SF vs. MK, everyone on this forum would have jizzed their pants. But, because Tekken (and not Team MK) was able to reach a deal with Capcom, its an abortion of an idea. Anyone who says they won't be checking these games out are completely full of it; Street Fighter and Tekken are the biggest fighting franchises of all-time, and they're coming together for a showdown. This is huge.

Part of me thinks some people might be against this, because it's going to completely steal the new MK's thunder.
 
]Part of me thinks some people might be against this, because it's going to completely steal the new MK's thunder.

I'd say that's a stretch. This announcement doesn't make the new MK any less commercially viable.

Of all the fighting games that are announced for 2011 and beyond, I'm still the most stoked for MK. It looks to have the most potential as a new set of ideas. MvC3 is only intriguing in so far as the character roster is concerned. From what I've seen of Street Fighter X Tekken, the same could be said. It looks essentially like SFIV with some Tekken characters thrown in. That's not to say that I won't be purchasing both at launch; however, MK is the most compelling to me, by far.
 
Absolutely. This doesn't and won't steal MK's thunder. The audiences by large are different and have been since day one for all respective franchises.


Popularity and success have absolutely nothing to do with the competitive scene, and a lot of people overestimate value of pleasing the hardcore fans in relation to the bottom line (hint: all recent releases have been simplified to cater to a wider audience). Look where catering to the hardcore got VF... oh, back to where it started: JPN arcades. Hardcore fans are the most vocal though.

Few people realize that MVC2 wasn't a big success and sold nowhere near 1 million on consoles. Yet, it's one of the few games with long competitive spans. But why would Capcom, whose franchises have had a broader appeal, would want a collaboration with a franchise that's big in one out of the 3 markets? One that doesn't have a viable arcade market either nowadays.

It would've made sense in the 90's actually, so I should've elaborated on the ancient history part further. In fact, there were actual talks of SF Vs. MK according to Ed Boon. That was 13-14 years ago.

Going back to the issue of popularity, the 3D MK's were VERY successful in the US; the dwindling popularity I referred to was for PAL regions. In fact, they sold more than any of the Tekkens, SC etc. last gen in the region. Hardcore fans complained but it didn't matter because the games continued to sell, and were the only successful titles Midway put out. If anyone brings up how their local store had a lot of used copies, it's irrelevant. Used copies of Halo 3 were plentiful mere months after release yet the game was a massive success.

As far as the arcade popularity of 3D, Tekken 3 was absolutely huge, and unless you avoided arcades completely from 97-99, it's not disputable (and the PS version sold very well). Hell, the game had a fan service game with 99's TTT.. It's not a myth at all, and I am speaking strictly of the US market here. Prior to T3, 3D games were still a competition obviously though 2D games were preferred.

Lastly, the US wasn't the focal point for the market overall in the 90's. The Japanese market was actually huge and they had a market leading industry. Emphasis on the past tense since it's handheld country though arcades are still alive. Their global output is mostly me-too type titles hoping to achieve the success western franchise have. Look at Sony, a Japanese company whose first party elites are western games (GT being the exception).

All that aside, if the new MK takes the west by storm, Capcom will be knocking at WB's door. They haven't been shy about collaboration recently, especially with western developers. Technically, SF X Tekken isn't a collaboration but a mere use of the Tekken license in their own game.
 
What do you mean by "Tekken right in your eyes"? o_O

Anyway, you can't expect everyone to like all games. Both sides (Tekken fans) aren't any less guilty so I wouldn't single one group out. Hell, there is always an unhappy group with the same community when it comes to games of their "own" franchise (case in point, not a lot of people liked SFIII back in the day or SSFIV now.. and there is the issue of 3D MK games..).
Well, I agree with you that you can't expect everyone to like them all, and I can't force my opinion on Tim neither. But i've been seeing responses like that in a lot of places. Saying that the game is a terrible idea and the like. The thing is, they're not emphathizing with the devs. Okay, so they (the close-minded fans of each side, not calling Tim close-minded either) don't like the gameplay of the other fighter. The devs. are making individual games so players don't lose the familiar gameplay that they love from the respective fighting franchise, but the fan response is like some spoiled kids not getting what they want. The fans are gonna get similar mechanics from both games and a roster comprising of the fan favorites.

The reason I stated SF fans though is that I haven't seen much complaint from Tekken fans, but that's probably because we haven't gotten Tekken X Street Fighter gameplay yet.
 
I'm just sad to hear that this isn't a full-on Namco x Capcom because I wanted to see Soul Calibur kick SF's collective ass. I've said for years that this is the way to do a crossover fighter between 2 distinctly different franchises. We could have had MK vs. SF just like this and it would have been flippin' awesome. I suggested this very idea (2 games, one by each company) ages and ages ago.
 
I'm just sad to hear that this isn't a full-on Namco x Capcom because I wanted to see Soul Calibur kick SF's collective ass. I've said for years that this is the way to do a crossover fighter between 2 distinctly different franchises. We could have had MK vs. SF just like this and it would have been flippin' awesome. I suggested this very idea (2 games, one by each company) ages and ages ago.
That's entirely possible, assuming these do well, and I see absolutely no reason to think they won't a phenomenal success. The 2 most-popular series in a genre teaming up certainly can't be a bad formula.
 
Top