Afraid of VFX....

Well, when I play VF3tb at home.........i keep thinking if there is much space left for improvements(more) and inovation(less)............if you look at vf3 you see the introduction of different heights in stages(effect on juggles ,this only for begginers) and walls(wallthrows)............and in terms of gameplay (dodge-button, extended recovery;for example you block jackys P+K,....and many things more)...............still i think the hole thing has been pushed quite to the limit(at least near of the limit).............so I wonder if VFX doesn't risk to be a bit(just a little bit) of a disapointment, in the light of the improvements and inovations that were made from VF1 to VF2 and VF2 to VF3.................

P.S maybe the VFX logo hints to a major change in the series, which would allow to create a hole new game with a lot of new freespace for new things..........as my prof sais structure can also be like a prison and sometimes doesn't allow to create something totally new, you have to move in the 4 walls that you have defined..........Well as we all have seen the most people in this forum wouldn't be happy with a big changment in the series........i agree .........if AM2 wants to create a second fighter they should start all over and they should use also a total new name..............

brumm,brumm,brummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

I'm assuming it's going to be completely different. There is always room for innovation. But I get the feeling that VFX is going to be something unexpected. Anyways, I'll just wait, see, and play before passing judgement. Guess I'm preparing for disappointment so I can at least appreciate the game for whatever it is when it arrives.

I don't know if people are afraid of the game being changed as much as the game just being something degraded (majorly toned down, doesn't feel "right," becomes Powerstone, whatever they define as being "degraded"). There are definitely going to be the loyal followers of the VF3 series as there are quite a few (or many actually) that loyally follow VF2. I'll probably end up being loyal to VF3, but at this point, there is nothing to allow me to make a decent judgement call whatsoever... Again, gonna wait, see, play and then find out for myself. Hopefully I'll try to understand the model the game follows before making any harsh criticisms.

 

A friend of mine who started with tekken, also was very fond of VF2(allthough only for a short amount of time) and he says that VF3(allthough not knowing the game) is worse then VF2 ...........common .....................certanly VF3 is much more evolved then VF2 how can someone say that VF2 is better then VF3.....okay for people who like it the easier way VF2 is the answer and it's still a fantasic game...........but nobody should tell that VF3 was a step backward to a worse game........

brumm,brumm,brumm,............

 

Ummm, just giving you a warning that you are pretty much coming close if not already opening a can of worms (US expression, similar to "opening Pandora's Box").

There are good reasons that those that are loyal to VF2 are loyal to it over VF3. I prefer VF3, I like how it has "polished." However, it's all preference and sure, VF3 is more "evolved" than VF2. But in general, that doesn't make it better. To many, Street Fighter Alpha 3 is more "evolved" than Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, indeed it is, but many would argue that Super Turbo is better. Etc...

Actually, I don't even know if I can comment on VF2 being easier than VF3. I was never an expert VF2 player (nor am I an expert VF3 player), but as I see it, VF2 at higher levels seemed to give a strong advantage to the highly dexterous. Some might translate that as skill, who knows... Not only that, but it also seemed to require quicker reflexes. Overall, to me, it's like the Quake 1 vs. Quake 2 thing... Quake 2 feels more "evolved" but on some levels, Quake 2 requires less "skill" than Quake 1. In Quake 1, reflexes and skill were heavily rewarded. In Quake 2, you could make up for lack of skill by having a dominant overall strategy (owning the map), good sense of tactics, and it went uphill from there. Overall though, skill played less of a role in Quake 2 than it did Quake 1. As I see it, this is almost exactly the case between VF2 and VF3. Again, I'm no authority, but from the arguments and comments I've heard, it sounds like VF2 required a lot of skill, whereas, VF3 allows a player to make up for it with good enough skill, but stronger strategy. Not to mention that the respective games (Quake1/VF2 vs. Quake2/VF3) toned down the speeds as they progressed which added to the skill factor being slowly taken over by strategy as well as opening up more valid options. More options is not always better, and in some games strategy is not always better than tactics. Depends on the game.

Anyways, that's how I've been seeing things. Certainly all games have a good amount of skill that is required to at least come to a terms of appreciation. VF3 and Quake 2 are no exceptions. But VF2 and Quake 1 really created a rift between the good players and the best players.

Anyways, this post could go on forever and in more detail, I know I've said this almost exact same thing before, but hope it makes sense to you.

I love my Quake 2. I love my VF3. I really enjoy Quake 1 and VF2. I can defend why I love the games I do, but I don't think I could say why VF3 is better than VF2. It seems there is a different sort of appeal. I certainly do not believe that VF2 is easier than VF3, but I can't really comment (not an expert at either). Your competition in the game is also a big factor, it makes it hard to judge any game if you have no experience of fully observing and understanding a masterful game/match.

-Chanchai

P.S. that closing sentence also applies to Tekken where I am unsure if there are many Tekken masters out there at all... Definitely some, but don't know how many people have actually seen the extremes of high level play for Tekken.

 

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

but as I see it, VF2 at higher levels seemed to give a strong advantage to the highly dexterous. Some might translate that as skill, who knows...

<hr></blockquote>

Never forget that one's dexterity can (and IS) improved greatly with increased play time. This leads to skill which leads to more practice and more play time (due to newly acquired skill and confidence) which leads to improved dexterity and so on...
It's not that only those born with great dexterity could be expert players - this is something very much within the reach of all who play VF2.

cheers,

<font color=white> Llanfair the prized <font color=green>cabbage</font color=green></font color=white>

 

Which also leads to being broke :-(

 

Oh, all good. Was hoping to hear more about your views on VF2 (out of interest). And yeah, I don't think of dexterity as a genetic inheritants... not in terms of games and VF2 and all. It's an attainable reflex/skill most people can develop as far as I see it. But I think it's highly rewarded (much due to speed), or at least compared to VF3.

 

I still think between the retorical question what is subjectic(opinion) and what is objectiv(scientific facts)...................you still can recognize some flaws in a game..... for example if a complexe game has got many fighters which are introduced at the same time the probability of having a perfect balanced game should be decrease in comparison with a game that only introduces only a few caracters(still you should prof that scientificly..difficult for games)..............easier to prof.....when you copare two games:if weak(light and heavy buttonmashers)fightingpeople can win more often against good fightingpeople in a fighter ...........the so called prognostic validity of a game....( a good game should be able to make a big difference between various gamers; variance...........still this is only a factor out of many.....

P.S my definition(subjectiv)of this factor is......more variables(terrain,all throws reversals,time lag between combos possible p,p,p,k).....makes the game better.........but still i think there are other points of view(factors) were opinion doesn't count much.......objective flaws.......animation,big difference between characters,missing innovation........

brumm,brumm,brumm........

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by nascarbryant on 11/3/00 07:25 PM.</FONT></P>

 

For me, the more I enjoy the game the better.

A game can be as close to its goal as it wants, more perfect towards its completeness in it as well, etc... What is "better" to me is determined by the context you use it.

Everything will have flaws, but you know, sometimes it's the flaws that some of us love about a game. Bugs for instance. Quake 2 has a ton of jump glitches which in general has added to the scope of tactics in the game since the usefulness to them don't dominate anything, but rather add to the abilities of a great player. VF2 had the crouch dash.

If you want to argue about cleaning things up, VF3's fuzzy guard is far easier than VF2 and I find the fuzzy guard, if abused, to be something that could ruin the game.

The final product of a game can be determined by many things. Does better graphics equal a better game? In one sense it does, but not completely. Does better design equal a better game? Sometimes, but I think more often than not, the more appreciable things come out of flukes. After awhile, it becomes a lot of preference. Sometimes, I feel that some games get so refined that they are no longer fun. Refined to the point where instead of having this unpolished rock with so many different perspectives all around it, you get this perfectly polished and round stone where at all angles it looks so similar... so smooth...

Gameplay is very subjective. IMO, Soul Calibur has far tighter controls (that feel loose, but surely you are in control) than VF. Does that mean I like Soul Calibur controls more than VF? Not at all, VF's require a bit of a stricter input, but it might be "harder" (VF is not that hard, but for those that pick the game up, the timing of the controls feel weird for how specific they are), and yet I like that better. But to the majority, they would feel that that is worse, while I feel that those specific timings, now that I'm used to them is better.

Quake 3 was "designed" better in one sense. In another, it was designed worse to me. Why? Well, we always feel that weapon balance is a wonderful thing... However, weapons are tools, they are not the characters or the complete restraint.. in battle we can change them... So what happened? Quake 1 had almost no weapon balance, but that's what the Q1 players loved about it. Your goal was so clear and yet you had to fight so much for it. In Quake 2, weapon was more balanced, but it wasn't perfectly balanced... You still had to fight for the weapons that worked best on the map as well as armor to protect yourself against the other weapons. In Quake 3, weaponse are nearly perfectly balanced... And to me, that killed a lot of the goals in the game... Maybe at the highest of highest of levels of play you have a goal... but generally, it's just an open battlefield without a real goal for me. Not much to struggle over... just struggling... but that's to me. Some players love it more... some players don't... There's a balance to how much you balance things. But imbalances will always at least create some known advantage to look for or some disadvantage to have to exploit.

As for bugs, Quake 2 was loaded with them and they actually enhanced the game to an extreme amount. In Quake 3 Arena, there are far less bugs so it was better implemented... and yet a lot of the intensity or advantages are reduced greatly... My friend cannot turn what was thought of as a long route into a route he can race through and surprise me with a tactical cutoff, he can't chokepoint me in a "skillful" way like he did in Quake 2 when we play Quake 3... etc...

Games are a form of entertainment. Competitive games are a competitive form of entertainment. Within entertainment, it ends up becoming about the subjective preference of those that play them. I don't think you can make "entertainment" into a science... it's more of an art than anything. What's better for one will certainly be worse for the other. VF is not the most popular game in our areas and yet we still think of it as far better than many of the most popular games in our areas. Is it because we have a mind for what's better? Or is it because we look for certain things out of the games that the others don't? Because we spent time to learn the engine? We feel comfortable with VF. Many times, they don't. Is it because we're better and so is VF?

As for variables... The more variables a game has doesn't always mean the better either. Soul Calibur has more moves than VF. In a sense, they are in fact balanced because like VF, they are restricted to attack zones. Every character has a vast amount of high, mid, and low attacks. Everyone has throws. Everyone has guard crushes. Etc... true, not everyone plays alike. And yet, there have been strong arguments, and from what I hear, especially in Japan, that the most balanced 3d figher is Soul Calibur. Does that make it better than VF?! Certainly not to me. In fact, when you think about DoA2, I like VF better because DoA2 feels way too polished for me.

Better and perfect... Nothing is best nor perfect. Not when you consider EVERY PERSPECTIVE. No software I know of is perfect or flawless. No hardware either. Not even close on any of those counts. In entertainment, I don't think you can say something is hands down objectively better. But I think you can say how much you love one thing over the other and why.

Is it really a fact that VF3 is a better game than VF2? Is it because you do have more options in VF3 than in VF2 that it is better? Is it because you limit your options in a practical sense to the same level of what you do in VF2 that makes it a game that is on the same scope? If VF2 perfected all of its variables and VF3 was completely unrefined in all of its, would VF3 be a better game? In the end, it really does not matter whatsoever.... All that really matters to you is how much you like the game, not even why as much as the actual truth of whether you like the game or not. What matters to me is that I like the game and how much I like it. The why is only something I use when I compare it with another game, but I think it wouldn't be that good if I used the why as a constraint towards other games.

Anyways, just my thoughts.

 

WWWWWWWOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW what a letter I will have to prepare myself to anwser this one...........interesting points of view...........i will post my anwser soon..

brumm,brumm,brumm,......jacky says maybe you had to study philosophy.....

 

hehe, I enjoy it/images/icons/smile.gif

Nicky says, I enjoy(ed) Philosophy and just about anything/images/icons/smile.gif I did enjoy your post, but felt like writing what I thought. However, I probably only looked at one dimension of your post (meaning I probably stuck an improper bias to it) when I wrote my response.

 

BTW, this is slightly straying, but thought it would be neat to mention anyways...

Looking at VF3, DoA2, and SC....

It seems that VF3 has a strong focus on the defense. Against aggressive newbies, a skilled player can simply defend... Majority of attacks are counterable, etc... Many defense options.

My understanding of DoA2 is that there is this strong balance of offense and defense... this in itself probably causes the matches to feel random to me... I'm no expert, but i've heard the system described as a perfect triangle, but I'm probably taking that line out of context here.

I've been messing with Soul Calibur lately, after having it for a year... What I'm experiencing and why it is so hard to just kill random mashers in that game seems to be nailed down to "extremely long strings of attacks with multiple trees between mid and low attacks within." Combine that with the game's limited defensive options under the pressure of an aggressive masher (block high, block low, evade isn't as effective--though I enjoy doing d, G, d, G, d, G, etc; and also two concerns (four choices) for guard impact which by far seem to be your best defensive option to me). Not that you are limited to your defense options as much as you are limited to effective defense. What only makes this so much harder and to the benefit of the random aggressive masher is that SOOOOO MANY MOVES are uncounterable. I'm experimenting with spirit charge, but it's tough to do on a masher when they can recover so fast, get back to their feet, and start rushing you like mad simply on mashing... Maybe it's a lost cause, but I'm trying to figure out where this game draws the line between mashers and players who usually win... It seems so far that the best bet is that you get good at recognizing the patterns and basically guard impact pretty well. Movement is good, but so many attacks just track instantly to you that it kills the evading a lot. Anyways, this is my experience with the game, was gonna message Bent-lee about this and see what he had to say regarding SC...

Just my thoughts... I think VF is a game which requires good offense, and especially organized because defense options are strong and offense weapons can be countered. Don't know enough on DoA2 to say, but I wrote stuff above... My experimentations with SC is just saying that the agressor tends to win, and random mashing is well suited due to a huge attack tree with endless branches versus defense options that are so specific and hard to implement under such pressure, especially against a random masher...

 

I can't go into details because my English isn't good........well i still believe there is a form of objectivness.......for example if you see what huge leap forward Mario 64(Zelda 64) was and you try to compare it with other copys like Spyro the dragon1-3(endless identical sequels) and croc 1-2, Gex and many others............. and you are a "true" gamer(which see's the differences)then people would have to be "stupid" to say that the other game is better............that objectivness reflects itself in the reviews of many magzines which often(not always) have the same opinion (that can't be a coincidence....) games like Jet set radio, shenmue, mario 64,wave race, f-zero,..... have something that other games don't have(one strong dimension is inovation(new structres,new perspectivesoints of view what a game can be)......or we would always continue to play the same games(gameplay) with better graphics............one point that makes me often very mad and dicreases radically the possability that i like a lot(or respect) that game ,is when they copy a lot and don't innovate almost nothing(so for me games like: ye-ar-KungFu,Street Fighter,VF will have a big plus against similar contenders).......................Soul Calibur: i don't think that Soul Calibur is perfect balanced (taki still has got less animation..that makes her very,very fast and if you compare her with Maxi who can't even interupt his combos and has so many butyfull framesanimation.........that makes him a lot weaker
and for Dead or Alive 2 thats ridicoulus to have such large counter windows(easy to counter) and the counteratacks are so strong (they take away a lot of energy), you have to start thinking if using other moves make still sense (even when the character stager during a combo you can counter).......

P.S Has Soul Calibur really got a lot off moves.......when i see Shuns 5 pages full of moves..i can't imagine that a Soul calibur character has so many moves..................... still i'm not a dead or alive2 expert or soul calibur expert but i think there are tis objective flaws who don't allow a good player to take a big advantage against a weak player, still as you said that can be quite interesting........

brumm,brumm,brumm,...........sorry i'm in a hurry!!!!!!!!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by nascarbryant on 11/4/00 02:27 PM.</FONT></P>

 

Interesting post. I'm not gonna argue further, but you don't really have me "convinced" but I see where you are coming from so I just lump you into that subjectivity cluster/images/icons/smile.gif

Don't worry too much about your english, as long as I can understand it, it is fine. Last thing I would ever want to do in an argument is rely on language to challenge the content of the argument (notice my reference to "content"). However, one rule to keep in mind is avoiding double negatives... One of your sentences has two words that negate each other and sort of makes it technically imprecise to what you're saying, but I took it with implication. "when they copy a lot, and don't innovate almost nothing" I took it as "when they copy a lot, and don't innovate almost anything." Just a pointer, nothing more. It's a very, very common mistake that most people make, myself included. At least it's not as bad as a girl I knew in High School saying, "Don't think I'm not retarded!!!!"

Keep in mind that part of the general view of an absolutely, objectively better" title seems to also have this "nostalgia factor." I'll admit, Wave Race 64 is probably my favorite N64 game. Anyways... to every person their own view of a game. Every game has its naysayers. Quite a few naysayers have very good reason to say what they do. Opinions are subjective. Games and other entertainment forms are an art, and art is subjective. An English major may argue to me that no free-verse poem in the english language is better than a poem that is perfect for its form. However, what might make the free-verse poem "better" to me is that it could have a great deal more meaning and a great deal more ambiguity to have me say it's a better poem, it touches my soul, and that I could ponder on it for years. I don't care what the magazines say, they enjoy a game, I enjoy a game. I guess my argument leads to the possibility of liking a "bad game," but I don't really disagree with that either... Though unlikely...

I guess you are talking about a game that is designed more carefully, control scheme is easily adapted to, filled with less bugs (or at least bad, gameplay reducing ones), and overall has the general approval of the "gaming authority." However, I'll admit I would much rather hear a supporter of a game and their arguments in defense of the game, than just some guy getting paid to judge a game after two days to a week of play. At least the supporter knows why he likes the game. I guess you can say that objectively, there are ways to make a game better in the eyes of certain groups. Particularly the casual gamers and "mass market" as is being discussed in another thread right now. Many games are geared towards it, and I will admit that quite a few fail while others succeed. However, it's often to do with the marketing. Game reviews are a form of marketing as well.

I guess I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here... In argument of Jet Grind Radio, I think it's a great game and all, but to all their own. I'm pretty sure there are gonna be quite a few people who don't like it for what I consider good reasons. If you take the game into it's own context, they're really like it. Hence it has an appeal to a group. It's not universal that the game is good, but the majority digs it as well as some self-proclaiming "hardcore gamers." Some will say the trick system is nothing like, nor in depth as Tony Hawke. Some will say that the graffiti system is cheezy. Some will say the cel-shading implementation is not perfect. So on and so on... I really enjoy the game, it defines a classic Sega formula (I don't think Sega invented this concept, it's just a real common theme in their arcade games as well as some console games such as Nights)... "Maximize efficiency of gathering points under a time constraint while meeting many obstacles."

When I was able to play Bushido Blade, long long ago... It was a genius of a game to me... Very few games gave me the thrill that game did... not how I said was able to play it... I play it these days, and boy, I can't even go back to that game... the "speed" of the game requires me to really, really prepare in advance and at the time when I played this game a lot, that was the thrill of it... fast forward a year or two later and I just can't play the damn game anymore... it doesn't feel all that brilliant anymore, and yet all memories of it are... memories suggest the game is a marvel. Anyways... more rambling... and I contradicted myself, I said I wouldn't argue anymore. my bad/images/icons/smile.gif

Anyways, Dirk, your point is well taken. I do acknowledge it, I just have my own spin on the perspective. Very few things are objective. Much of the deeper sciences are an art of trying to understand what is nearly incomprehensible until we find proper tools. Much of it will always be lost in art and theory. At least the way I see it. Probably that in my current state of thought, the world doesn't revolve around universal truths, but I think a faith in the concept of a "universal truth or ideal" is a positive if not just motivating force (moves us forward, gives us a reason to actually do something, etc...).

 

'Game reviews are a form of marketing as well'............that's why i like reviews of some websites more than those of some magazines, they still have got the guts to stand on the feet of the great enterprises(who often send gratuite games for tests...and pay a lot for ads in the magazines.......for example here in german tv sony controls almost everything......even chanels who are suposed to make 'objective ' reporting about E3...they only talked about PS2 games and didn't mention nothing about the great appereance of sega........jet set radio: what I find very interesting in jet set radio is the graphic appearence (surprise ...namco is already copying cell shading technology for their linear klona2 game..........nights...ohhh man what an incredible game it has so much potential for further development(ground level gameplay,.....i finally found christmas nights!!)..........bushido blade: first time i played that game i was very impressed it almost made me buy a PS1........very innovative fighting system!!!
objectivnes: i think the more variables/dimensions enter in a structure the more space there is for interpretation(different) and the possibility to have different conclusion......still i wonder what professional philosphists would say about that...........

brumm,brumm,brumm, still very interesting thoughts .........

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by nascarbryant on 11/4/00 07:05 PM.</FONT></P>