Street Fighter IV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionx

Cammy is actually rated one of the lower ranked characters in Super Turbo, and just 'alright' in Alpha 3. I can agree that if Cammy starts her pressure its really crazy, but she has to start it first getting around a ton of 'walls'... Shes a beast in CvS2 though, parry then punch into free super. Mad good pokes all around.

Playing a good Guile might not seem that hard but against anyone good it actually can be very hard to mantain that trap. Its hard to say, but its really fun to choose Championship Edition Guile for me in SF Anniversary and zone all day with him. Thats what the oldschool SF was all about so he was very top tier in the older games. If you ever get SFIV for PC(or get GGPO..) i would be glad to play you with Guile. :) He still only has those two special moves for a reason...he is too good otherwise.

---

I will have to play you sometime then. Its been years since I played a good Guile player but I blame it on the advancements in the series like Air Blocks and Air Recovery that makes his trap (and a few other characters) not as effective as they once were.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As for "turtling" in SFIII, I find the characters move sets have been altered for a more aggressive style of play. I know parry can be cheap but unlike SC's parry system, I feel SFIII's can be used against an opponent as well. Its not just infinite defense. Granted, I don't feel its perfect either...

---

I dont consider anything 'cheap' unless it breaks the game, Parry doesnt break the game but it does dumb it down imo. Even if your style is more aggressive, if i see it coming i can just parry it. Fireballs? They're useless just parry it not to mention the huge delay they have in that game. It dumbs down the game to who has the best pokes, what they can do after it, and who can mix up the best. Movesets dont matter if you got such a strong universal defense system.

---

Just to clarify, I never said the parry system made the game more aggressive, I just said many of the characters have a more aggressive move set. I also feel this comes down to just a change in how you play. Its not "classic" Street Fighter and instead more like Guilty Gear with a bit more refinement and less pyrotechnics. Its the reason I adapted well to it cause I'm use defense systems that remove old school zoning traps as major threats. I guess I'm use to "poking" as you call it, and utilizing projectiles solely for set-ups and mind games. Of anything, the parry system allows you to lull your opponent into a false sense of security by making them think they are invincible to your tricks.

Quote:

---

This means i have to go into you and start fighting instead of being offensive with fireballs forcing people to just poke with long ranged moves(mostly crouching medium kicks because they link into supers). You think Parry will make people more 'offensive' but its not, if anything it means you can turtle MORE. It also dumbs down strategies like zoning. In old games position was so important, not so in SFIII. Like...

---

To be honest, I was never fond of just overwhelming opponents with projectiles as a strategy and I do actually feel "going in" and pounding away is more aggressive fighting since projectile spamming is more about rhythm and timing than being aggressive. I feel this is a moment where I feel we are coming from different schools of approach.

Quote:

---

Fireballs being useless. It means i cant do mind games with them because they arent a threat. In older games if the opponent conditions you to jump over fireballs they get rewarded by thinking ahead of the opponent because they expected you to jump over and uppercut you. Now that doesnt work in this game because you can just cover your mistake by pressing a tap of your joystick. Its why Remy is trash in the game, Guile-like characters need their sonic booms to zone, parry removes fireballs/zoning and the only thing you do then is play footsies(in simple terms, exchanging pokes).

---

They are not completely useless, their offensive abilites have been diminished but they still hold quite a bit of strategy as they allow you to upset an opponents flow and allow you to keep them somewhat pinned down in certain positions. If you use the Jab or Strong versions which lack real speed, you can counter the moves slow recovery time. You basically just use them to keep an opponent on the defensive until you get close enough to start your own close range offense.

Quote:

---

In older games you have to uppercut or do something to break out of the corner at the right time, if you screw up you get punched landing the uppercut. In SFIII you just tap down + an attack(prob medium kick then cancel super lolz...) and get a low risk defense. Or tap forward and buffer in an uppercut motion, and pressing punch only when you get the parry. Its not no risk but its VERY low risk imo and nothing you can react to unlike an uppercut. Accidental parries are also :( P Groove is better because the window to parry is tighter and you usually have to parry because you wanna.

---

This does get really annoying. I've only recently took SFIII back up cause I finally got a console version of it so I'm re-learning everything since I haven't played it since it first came out in the arcades. On the one hand, I'm glad parry allows you to get out of the annoying and generally cheap "cornering strategies" but I agree that the controls for Parry are not nearly as solid as I would like them to be. I still can't parry on command and tend to do it on accident more than often. It makes versus matches more annoying than they should be. :mad2:

Quote:

---

Also if you fire a fireball and they parry it, you get no meter! But you get insane ammounts of meter when i whiff a medium attack(which i offen do). Thank god they fixed that in CvS2...it means people would turtle all the time just to get meter or spend 20 seconds building meter. My mind just screams 'why are you punishing someone who is doing an offensive action and rewarding someone for spamming?"

YouTube - [SF3 2I match] ��り� (Sean) VS �� (Sean) < wtf

Homogenization imo, with Universal Overheads and everyone getting Parries along with Throws being ticked(taking no damage for you trying to counter a throw). I am also aware you cant possibly parry everything in the game, but playing this game for a year or so and watching some people play, my opinion became what it is now. Besides EVO tournament's top 8 were all Chun-Li's except for one Akuma...it gets old seeing her do insane damage off a late cancel-ed medium kick. Best part is when a good well known player tells me the best thing to do when in trouble is to tap down because probability of someone doing a low attack is higher, and it can also parry many things you dont think it can like uppercuts..>_>

---

That is :skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:, so I'm not really going to argue. Though I heard Ken was considered a top tier god due to a few cheap tactics in his arsenal.

Its annoying but I also play Guilty Gear where your Tension gauge increases by just walking towards your opponent so it doesn't bother me as much as I think it bothers you (course GG has stuff that counters this as well). I'm not arguing that SFIII is perfect, the game has its faults but its just trying to move forward. Yes it stumbles and sometimes falls flat on its face but I feel the game does bring the series somewhat forward cause the old "Zoning" methods made gameplay more static and rigid. Its why interest in the series died out.

Quote:

---

Thats not to say SFIII is horrible though, it is very popular worldwide especially after the Daigo Video. It does allow for more major comebacks, and introduced Dashing, Target Combos, and EX moves which i think are great additions. Alex, Makoto, Ibuki, Yun/Yang, and Dudley were great characters. It was just too different for me because of these things they introduced. But it just might be right for some other people who are more poke oriented and like games like Tekken. For me it was very different than how SF was played and it didnt feel the same.

---

I can understand how the drastic change threw you off and I agree that SFIII does not really feel like SFII (more like an extension of SFA). Granted I hate Tekken so I don't get the comparison but I do enjoy SFIII cause its a nice combo of my two favorite fighting series SF Alpha and the Guilty Gear series. I feel SFIII still has the "chess playing" thinking man gameplay but it also brings in more of a chaos factor and sometimes quick reflexes are more important than well thought out strategies. I guess I enjoy SFIII cause it does turn the classic SFII forumal on its head. For once, I have to actually re-learn how to play Ryu cause his old bags of tricks don't hold the same value.

Quote:

---

I apologize for the wall of text...i have a strong opinion of the game ^^; and if i sounded rude i am sorry :( I think Capcom was bold to release SFIII with what they did if anything, i just dont think it worked out well or think SFIV is a step back from it. If anything SFIV is taking everything they learned with all previous SF, then making it into a more balanced and fun package.

---

I don't mind, its been quite insightful and I'm always happy to help someone vent. Just take a deep breath and relax. I understand where you are coming from and to be honest, I look forward to SFIV's fighting system. My gripe before was more about the game relying on SFII's nostalgia with its characters.

I do look forward immensely for the game cause fighting games use to be my passion and lately its been having a bit more of a revival for me as I am going back to classice 2-D fighters and regaining my old skills. Granted, I'm still a long ways from doing that...:eep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

If anyone else completely understood what LionX just said, we need to be friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

I know parry can be cheap but unlike SC's parry system, I feel SFIII's can be used against an opponent as well. Its not just infinite defense.

---

Just to defend SC a bit, Guard Impacting is not cheap/infinite defense either. You do have an advantage after performing it, though the person on the receiving end is not defenseless and can retaliate with their own parry (and makes its own little rock-paper-scissors gameplay). Which may be what you're referring to, since SF3's parrying will essentially give you a free attack where SC still gives you a chance to defend yourself.

---

You misunderstand what I meant, I was implying that parrying projectiles and certain moves keeps an opponent at a certain distance or rhythm. You can use Parry against an opponent to control the flow of the fight. You can't really do this with Guard Impact due to the lack of projectiles in the game.

Granted, I do not care for GI cause it gets annoying watching two good player exchange them for awhile in their battles. Not to mention the CPU spams them in the higher difficulty setting. They are just annoying imo.

Quote:

---

DOA's was cheap though. You could have a reversal attempt after every individual hit in a combo string as long as your feet were on the ground. You are punished by taking increased damage if you guess wrong, but if you get good enough to exploit it fully it is really cheap :p

---

Don't remind me... DOA is annoying cause the only way to beat most of their bosses is just to stay defensive and spam reversals. It gets so annoying.

Quote:

---

If anyone else completely understood what LionX just said, we need to be friends.

---

I love you too baby! :love:

Quote:

---

I will have to play you sometime then. Its been years since I played a good Guile player but I blame it on the advancements in the series like Air Blocks and Air Recovery that makes his trap (and a few other characters) not as effective as they once were.

---

I would love to have some good games with you, hopefully i can get my ass beat so i feel like i need to up my game more :)

I dont think Air Recovery/Air Block hurt his game as much as parry though(Swap Guile with Remy). With Parry nothing works as well, but with Airblock, you can still do ground attacks like crouching hard punch which is an uppercut like move and hit them clean since air block doesnt block grounded attacks. It screwed with his Flash Kick though both Charlie and Guile's.

One of the key things in CvS2 i learned that is when using Guile, against a P Groover (that can Parry) or a K Groover(who can Just Defend, which is a backward parry of sorts, block just before it hits you), is to never use a Flash Kick as a straight Anti-Air because its just so easy to Parry or JD. And if you have a Parry guy in that game, the traps work alot less limiting Guile's entire game.

I am wrong though, theres is a couple traps in 3S that you can do. One is Urien's Aegis Reflector which is VERY damn strong and even more hax than Guile's Sonic Boom. And the other is Yun's Genei En(sp) which is his Custom Combo super...its stronger than it looks more so than Yang's.

Quote:

---

Just to clarify, I never said the parry system made the game more aggressive, I just said many of the characters have a more aggressive move set. I also feel this comes down to just a change in how you play.

---

I apologize if i wasnt clear, i never meant that Parry made the game more aggressive. My point was that aggressive movesets do not matter in a game where you have a system like Parry that can defeat all of those movesets. Unlike Guilty Gear where it costs you meter to protect yourself(and that game has MUCH more crap to be aware of than Third Strike so i can totally understand), it costs you nothing to parry if you do it right. My example would be the part where i said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionx

In older games you have to uppercut or do something to break out of the corner at the right time, if you screw up you get punched landing the uppercut. In SFIII you just tap down + an attack(prob medium kick then cancel super lolz...) and get a low risk defense. Or tap forward and buffer in an uppercut motion, and pressing punch only when you get the parry. Its not no risk but its VERY low risk imo and nothing you can react to unlike an uppercut.

---

These are no accidental parries. Again, NOT Accidents. This is using Parry to its Maximum advantage and reducing the ammount of risk you take. So you can parry down AND tag the guy, at best you get the parry and you hit the guy, and at worst the move comes out anyway missing him and you lose nothing as it is hard to react to this mistake. Same for the forward parry by doing the Dragon Punch motion but not finishing it. At worst you do nothing, at best you will parry, and once you see the spark, on reaction finish the Dragon Punch motion and tag the guy for little risk.

I am saying Parry makes turtling 10x easier, at no cost on your end(which is why Focus Attacks have a cost) and that movesets dont matter as much in a game like this. Not that movesets never matter, but it becomes only the pokes(long ranged moves that establish space for your character) that can take advantage of parries from far away and then cancel into huge damage(like Chun Li's Super or a knockdown into mixups). It reduces everyone to this style of play.

Parry is a good concept but it was executed very poorly imo. Just Defend was 10x Better. Garou ftw.



On Fireballs: I find them to be an integral part of Street Fighter as it distinguishes characters from one another. Also Fireballs even used in combos arent safe, i remember when i started out and do the standard combo of Jumping Hard Kick, Crouching Medium into a normal Fireball. I hit Alex clean and then he did an EX Shoulder Run and hit me...and i hit him clean. wtf is that?!

The only Fireball i find useful in oldschool use is Ryu's EX Red Fireball at certain distances because of its speed which people have a hard time reacting quick enough to. The rest i havent really found a solid use outside of combos, not even Akuma's ability to do a Red Fireball and still fire an Air one. Parry kills all of it and my huge delay after firing one hampers it even more. Once the person picks it up i am back to playing like Ryu until i can land a hurricane kick. Which leads to uppercuts, jab, and demon flip mixups and etc..

I rarely use fireballs in that game outside of habit from older games after a knockdown. =/

Quote:

---

To be honest, I was never fond of just overwhelming opponents with projectiles as a strategy and I do actually feel "going in" and pounding away is more aggressive fighting since projectile spamming is more about rhythm and timing than being aggressive. I feel this is a moment where I feel we are coming from different schools of approach.

---

Maybe it is different schools but its never rhythm. If it IS Rhythm then you (in general not you as in you) are being stupid and it makes me easily fall into place to screw with you. If for example its ME doing Rhythm then you can easily take me out because i am being predictable. There is no overwhelming of JUST fireballs, its using your sonic booms which is unique with its recovery(hence why its a charge motion), along with your dominent normal moves. Sometimes the best thing to do is NOT fire another projectile because thats what the opponent might expect and punish you for it. This is where waiting one second and doing things accordingly can change the match alot.

One second is everything sometimes, not just mindlessly overwhelming people with fireballs because that never happens against anyone good. Its not unbeatable, it just may seem that way if you are playing it wrong. Parry just covers up all your mistakes that you could have made in that game and makes this strategy useless. Hence why SFIII is a totally different game and just makes characters who have a unique playstyle like this with strong pokes that establish space and a good fireball, worthless.

Guile can be very aggressive, you just gotta see it in a different light than just a flurry of attacks. Its almost like Poker sometimes to me.

Quote:

---

This does get really annoying. I've only recently took SFIII back up cause I finally got a console version of it so I'm re-learning everything since I haven't played it since it first came out in the arcades. On the one hand, I'm glad parry allows you to get out of the annoying and generally cheap "cornering strategies" but I agree that the controls for Parry are not nearly as solid as I would like them to be. I still can't parry on command and tend to do it on accident more than often. It makes versus matches more annoying than they should be.:mad2:

---

I actually meant its too easy to parry in SFIII ^^;;; in Capcom vs SNK 2(CvS2) it is much tougher. At first i thought that sucked for those who played it, but after seeing how easy it can be in 3S i am glad they made it less accidental and more deliberal and taking more skill to time it.



SFIII usually has the most lopsided tiers too with Ibuki, Sean and Akuma dominating the first two installments, and then the third is Chun and Yun. Granted others can win too but those are the two most dominating. The reason i didnt state Ken is because he isnt retardedly strong like Chun or Yun, he is just very balanced everywhere.

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing that SFIII is perfect, the game has its faults but its just trying to move forward. Yes it stumbles and sometimes falls flat on its face but I feel the game does bring the series somewhat forward cause the old "Zoning" methods made gameplay more static and rigid. Its why interest in the series died out.

---

I dont think it ever died out, it was just because Tekken was the next best thing during that time. That and CvS2 was the new Alpha even if its not a SF titled game. If it really did die out then EVO world Tournaments wouldnt be coming and bringing attention to Capcom to make a SFIV because there is a huge following.

My opinion though is that it did not bring the game forward as much as it did, and actually made the gameplay more static and rigid in how it is played because many tactics are destroyed and you are forced to play footsies all the time. That and the Tiers are very lopsided.

Quote:

---

I can understand how the drastic change threw you off and I agree that SFIII does not really feel like SFII (more like an extension of SFA). Granted I hate Tekken so I don't get the comparison but I do enjoy SFIII cause its a nice combo of my two favorite fighting series SF Alpha and the Guilty Gear series. I feel SFIII still has the "chess playing" thinking man gameplay but it also brings in more of a chaos factor and sometimes quick reflexes are more important than well thought out strategies. I guess I enjoy SFIII cause it does turn the classic SFII forumal on its head. For once, I have to actually re-learn how to play Ryu cause his old bags of tricks don't hold the same value.

---

I dont agree with Alpha being an extension off the SFIII series...they are still too different imo. I do agree though SFIII has alot of chess into it or Rock/Paper/Scissor effect. I just dont feel its very SF rofl, but again there are tons of people who play this game worldwide and like it. So it has to be doing something right.

Personally if it was not named Street Fighter and took out Ryu and Ken, it might help some of the people who are used to the oldschool play understand that this game plays totally different than SFII and look at it as an individual game and not something after Alpha. I think thats why many people were surprised after a bit of playing that its so different.

SFIII is its own unique game thats totally different from all SFs :)


------

You should play Capcom vs SNK 2 lol. Love that game alot. You can choose P Groove and parry in that game if you like, and face off against Alpha's A-ism, V-ism, along with some KoF stuff you dont see in SF games. Ryu is like much different there too.

I look forward to seeing everyone on SFIV sometime ^^ Lets have some good games. Wolf Kanno if you want PM me, and i can show you a place to play SFIII Third Strike online with good netcode called GGPO. Might be able to find some players to play against to sharpen up those 3S skills. :)

Looks awesome, but I really have to wonder why Capcom bothered with touching up SF2 for SF2HD, when they were just going release an updated remake under the guise of SF4. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Looks awesome, but I really have to wonder why Capcom bothered with touching up SF2 for SF2HD, when they were just going release an updated remake under the guise of SF4. :rolleyes2

---

Because the fans wanted it. The game is 14 years old and is STILL among the most world-widely played SF game in tournaments. It is truly the game that withstood the test of time. People go nuts over it is the simple meaning...the complex one can be..>_>; Long.

SF2HD is the updated remake with rebalance, SFIV is an entirely different game with different systems and engine. Cant really compare the two on the exact same level.

EDIT: Guides: Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix Strategy Guide -- Moves, Hints and Tips -- EventHubs.com

Here read this for awesome SF2HD stuff, it can help bring light or polish your oldschool game :)

Every video I've seen for it just looks like the newest addition to the already bloated Street Fighter 2 series with new features and extra characters, rather than a whole new game in the Street Fighter franchise. How many different versions of SF2 did they have back in the day? Six or seven?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Every video I've seen for it just looks like the newest addition to the already bloated Street Fighter 2 series with new features and extra characters, rather than a whole new game in the Street Fighter franchise. How many different versions of SF2 did they have back in the day? Six or seven?

---

It is an upgraded game, hence HD REMIX. They never advertised anything about it being a totally new game in the franchise.

If you meant SFIV being like that then you are totally wrong, and need to play all of them a little more against other decent people to understand the differences...

Actually all installments of SF are really different. But casual players would never notice. This is especially true for SF2HD. Bison in CE is SO much more powerful than his HF incarnation, and plays differently than his ST incarnation. Same for Blanka in HF and ST, or Guile in WW compared to ST.

Bison - GOD char in CE, WORST char in HF, and a really good high ranked one in ST.

For the original game theres:

SFII: World Warrior or WW (broken by today's standards lol)
SFII: Championship Edition or CE(very broken still)
SFII Turbo: Hyper Fighting or HF (One of the more balanced ones and people love this game).
Super SFII: New Challengers or SSFII (Not sure about this one, but its not that good).
Super SFII: Turbo or ST (the one that has been out for 14 years and is the most balanced and played around the world)

Now

Super SFII Turbo HD Remix or SF2HD. There are alot of changes...what that means to you is another thing but they were significant imo. I cant say whether or not this game is broken or good, but so far i like it. But in another couple years the opinion might change as things are still being discovered about the game. You can check out that link i had in the above post for some more differences...

and..

YouTube - super street fighter 2 HD CapCombos hawt..some of these arent able to be done in the earlier games too...but these are still hard to pull off..


SFIV Stuff - Alternate Costumes here!

YouTube - Street Fighter 4 - Alternate Costumes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionx

If you meant SFIV being like that then you are totally wrong, and need to play all of them a little more against other decent people to understand the differences...

Actually all installments of SF are really different. But casual players would never notice. This is especially true for SF2HD. Bison in CE is SO much more powerful than his HF incarnation, and plays differently than his ST incarnation. Same for Blanka in HF and ST, or Guile in WW compared to ST.

Bison - GOD char in CE, WORST char in HF, and a really good high ranked one in ST.

For the original game theres:

SFII: World Warrior or WW (broken by today's standards lol)
SFII: Championship Edition or CE(very broken still)
SFII Turbo: Hyper Fighting or HF (One of the more balanced ones and people love this game).
Super SFII: New Challengers or SSFII (Not sure about this one, but its not that good).
Super SFII: Turbo or ST (the one that has been out for 14 years and is the most balanced and played around the world)

Now

Super SFII Turbo HD Remix or SF2HD. There are alot of changes...what that means to you is another thing but they were significant imo. I cant say whether or not this game is broken or good, but so far i like it. But in another couple years the opinion might change as things are still being discovered about the game.

---

My post was in reference to Street Fighter IV. And everything you just said there, is a shining example of my point. SF4 doesn't look like a brand new game in the Street Fighter franchise. It just looks like the newest update of Street Fighter II, with new features and characters.

Street Fighter III was a completely new game. Street Fighter IV looks like the same :skull::skull::skull::skull:, made new again.

LOL my post was mostly for SFHD. Totally off SFIV.

I have no idea what in your mind constitutes as a new game then. Is Alpha a new series for you? Or just the same thing with extra characters? I am confused by your definition.

Alpha was a prequel series with a completely different style to it, so yeah, it's a different series. VI is supposed to take place right after II, features updated versions off alot of the backgrounds from II, features most of the same characters from II, and seems to be just adding a little bit more to the story of II, from what little they've revealed.

Granted, anything either of us say is just hearsay, until the game is released. It could be just as I've said just now or could veer off in a completely different direction. All we have to go on is some in-game fighting clips and interviews that don't get too in-depth on what's new story-wise. It looks alot like II to me, but who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Alpha was a prequel series with a completely different style to it, so yeah, it's a different series. VI is supposed to take place right after II, features updated versions off alot of the backgrounds from II, features most of the same characters from II, and seems to be just adding a little bit more to the story of II, from what little they've revealed.

Granted, anything either of us say is just hearsay, until the game is released. It could be just as I've said just now or could veer off in a completely different direction. All we have to go on is some in-game fighting clips and interviews that don't get too in-depth on what's new story-wise. It looks alot like II to me, but who knows?

---

Theres actually a SFIV cab around my area, i havent played it yet being 75 cents and i have alot studies...but i do eventually plan to play it too. The game is actually out in the states in limited quantities and locations for a while already.

I seen matches being played before and its definitely different from the original SFII but it still retains its essence from it as well as the Alpha games. The backgrounds are totally new, 3-D cel shaded and rendered, and if anything the only thing that looks like an updated old stage is Guile's and Chun's 3S stage. The rest like under the bridge, Seth's stage, and the boat with the sunset in the back are totally new along with the Vegas looking one.

Besides no one really cares about story. Its just an interesting side tibet for most people(and if in shoryuken.com would be a flamefest lol). The main meat of the game and the reason why the original ST game lasted so long was because of the gameplay and how the things were structured. Have you seen the story of the original? It sucked ALOT. But no one gives a damn thats not why they play it.

In the end, thats the reason why theres alot of different versions of SFII because the gameplay has changed and things have been tweaked to turn it into an entirely different game(if you want to think about it differently you can think of the different versions of SFII to be patches or new expansion packs to an MMO or online game). Theres no need for backgrounds to be different totally or story to make it a good game, its just an added bonus unlike RPGs where everything is about the story and without it, it would have suckass gameplay.

So i think you are looking at Street Fighter the wrong way when you want a new game. Try playing more people that are better than you, then learn more about the game...then find even harder opponents. You will learn so much that it becomes second nature to play it if you put in the effort, and that the mechanics even upon looking at gameplay is very different from all previous games yet still remotely familiar. Its a competitive game and should be treated as such once they added a 2P function, not an RPG.

There are details online on what makes this game more than one of the incremental upgrades to SF2. The Focus system is the main thing that sets it apart.

YouTube - [SFIV] Focus Attack Tutorial

will try to give a very very rough translation

actually scratch that. I've attached a PDF from someone who takes 26 pages to talk all about Focus attacks. Watch the video, check the PDF.

JKTrix: Good stuff man. I forgot about that PDF because i dont play Third Strike...its a great write up on how to transition. <3

I'm amused that you keep telling me to learn more about the series, considering I've played every SF game to be released, aside from SF2HD and now SF4. Been playing the series, since I was 6 years-old.

And yes, the original SF had a :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty story, but I always liked the different stories in SF2 and on up. But, that has nothing to do with my point.

My point was that SF4, from all the promotional material looks like another (using your wording here) expansion of SF2. This may not be the case, as there nearest arcade is about an hour from where I live. The nearest one that's not completely :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty and might have SF4? About four hours. So I'm gonna have to wait for the console release to find out.

EDIT: Rethinking it, my response was a little catty. So, I'll just leave it at "I stand corrected."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

I'm amused that you keep telling me to learn more about the series, considering I've played every SF game to be released, aside from SF2HD and now SF4. Been playing the series, since I was 6 years-old.

And yes, the original SF had a :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty story, but I always liked the different stories in SF2 and on up. But, that has nothing to do with my point.

My point was that SF4, from all the promotional material looks like another (using your wording here) expansion of SF2. This may not be the case, as there nearest arcade is about an hour from where I live. The nearest one that's not completely :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty and might have SF4? About four hours. So I'm gonna have to wait for the console release to find out. You apparently have seen it in action, as you just just listed major differences. If you had just posted that several posts ago, instead of snobbishly assuming that, because I hadn't seen it, I wasn't a true Street Fighter fan or whatever, I wouldn't have wasted the last 35 minutes going back and forth with you on the matter.

---

Just because you played it doesnt mean you actually know how to play well at the game. I didnt take it too seriously and played mostly the CPU until College due to the lack of a driver's license. I was a newb back then despite having played all of those games before. I SUCKED. Got my ass handed to me so much for more quarters. The fact that you think all the SFII original games to be the same or too similar to SFIV made me think that way, because to me its very evident on how different it is just by looking at how people play it online on youtube.

I also meant learn more about the series as in how its played at a higher level by playing others, not about the statistics or the story or etc. But actual gameplay elements at a deeper view and stuff. I used to think all SF's were just a new coat of paint or with some flashy gfx. But eventually after putting enough effort of actually playing stronger competition, i found that every little thing was deeply planned and makes each installment very different from the other.

If everything that made it a new game was just new characters, background, and story...then it wouldnt be a worthwhile Fighting game at all.

If i did appear to sound snobbish that was not my intent. I just dont feel you knew what you were talking about but i meant no ill intent. You were the one that put heavy emphasis on story on one of your posts when i asked about what makes a new game...and so i tell you that, its not that which makes it a new game. What i meant was, play more people, and maybe you understand why i have the viewpoint i have with gameplay vs story. With SFIV's online mode you can play more people right at home without the distance of an arcade as i know it can be hard to get to for some.

The only game mentioned that can reasonably be called an expansion is SF2HDR to the original SFII. SFIV has very different systems that dramatically alter play so its a new game.

Again theres no hate, theres only love :love:

First off, I only mentioned story and time-frame amongst things that might make SF4 seem like a new iteration of SF2. While, I like the little stories for each character, I never said that it was focal part of the series. You said that, putting words in my mouth. Secondly, I never stated, nor implied that all SF2 games were "the same". Anyone who's played more than one of them, even casually, could tell you that they are all fundamentally different. Again, putting words in my mouth.

For someone who has no intention of sounding snobbish about this subject, you're doing a grand job. :rolleyes2

That said, I'm bored with arguing about a game I have yet to play, so the thread is yours. *bows*