Soul Caliber -vs- VF3tb

I recently was at the Namco Soul Caliber forum and many avid fans of Soul Caliber where putting VF3tb down. I have been playing VF3tb ever since it came out for the DC...and played the Soul Blade series since it first came out on the PS and now SC on the DC. In my belief they're both good games and deep in the fighting engine, but I think VF3tb has more depth. This was my main beef with these people, and most of them stated that SC had more depth. Even the Namco wiz Jason Jarney came to their defense...so my questions is can some expert here help me shut them up once and for good.

 

That depends on how you define "depth". VF3tb may have more "variables", but SC's movelist surely dwarfs VF3tb's.

All in all, VF3tb emphasizes yomi more than SC does, and that is my preference.

ice-9 | Sennin

 

What do you mean by yomi? We were talking in terms of variables and to add to the dilema, it was said that there is no use defensive tactics to VF3tb, since it is more of a offensive type of game. By the way I got your Step 1 for Lau what of Steps 2 & 3. Thankz for the reply.

 

The bulk of the argument comes down to "What do you need to be concerned about to win?"

In VF, at most levels, you need to concern yourself with stance, slope grade, regular hit/minor counter/major counter situations and advantages, ring position, recovery times, precise execution.

In SC, at all levels, stance is not a factor, there is no slope to deal with, no counter hit situations (involving extended stun or recoveries. they just have more damage), ring position is of minimal importance, learning to parry/thrust block will render all strings and high execution time moves useless against any player. Combos usually revolve around a couple moves designed to "stun" an opponent so that a lift is guaranteed. Those started from other situations are never guaranteed past 2 more hits except in RARE situations.

Bottom line, while the actual number of individual moves is greater in SC, the potential for all moves in VF to cause different situations depending on counterhit strength illustrates that more reflex and character knowledge is required.

Example:

SC
-----
B,A,A from Mitsu -
The opponent will NEVER be hit in such a manner to knock them down or cause extended delay from any of this string under any situation, save completion of the can correctly or the opponent was already in the air. The only variance is in the damage of the hits.

d/f+K from Pai on standing opponent -
Regular hit = Pai has advantage but no guaranteed follows,
Minor Counter = Pai can force a guessing game now because she has enough advantage to throw or P will connect. Small damage bonus.
Major Counter = Pai has floated the opponent. Larger damage bonus. Depending on the move interrupted to cause the MC, because different move interuptions cause higher floats, Pai can follow with a guaranteed float, but she also has to consider the weight of the opponent, possible ring positioning during the combo and slope of the terrain.

This shows that a simple side kick in VF is very nearly 3 different moves depending on the situation you find yourself in.

The "weight" of the characters for floats in SC is dealt with no more realistically than VF. Where VF offers the slower fall rate to allow time for combos, SC prefers to rocket opponents high into the air. Yes, they use something much closer to actual gravitational acceleration, but would ANYONE ever be able to hit a 200 pound man about 15 feet into the air? (Hint: answer is no and yes, on scale that is about how high people "float" in SC) The "float" in SC bears much more kinship with the "launcher" in the Capcom Marvel games. VF has its own system, which some find more aesthetically pleasing.

I guess this could be a nice basis for argument. Have fun.

 

This is because they haven't learned what that evade button does yet. Get them to actually play first. The best defense to ANY situation (especially if you're going for realism) is to not be there when the attack arrives.

The reason SC has the thrust blocking and stuff is that dodging in that game will not save you unless the opponent's A button doesn't work. Horizontal attacks will always snag you so they came up with a different option. Since there isn't a "circular" attack button in VF, dodging will relieve a lot of stress on you by simple letting the aggressor go right by without pausing. The number of "circular" attacks in VF is quite small. The defense in VF is simply in learning your opponent and exploiting situations by letting them rush right past you.

If you really want to look at it from an SC point of view, the stagger animations on some blocked moves would almost be a built in thrust-block. Notice that there are very close to zero moves in SC that have special block animations. Why? because it would make that move COMPLETELY useless, as opposed to mostly useless, since the opponent wouldn't ever have to worry about parrying it.

 

Yomi is the ability to take advantage of guessing games. Thinking is more important in VF3tb than SC.

"it was said that there is no use defensive tactics to VF3tb"

This is clearly a misguided statement. In VF3, advanced technique is mostly concentrated within defense, not offense (as opposed to VF2). Of course, you have to play at a high level to be able to know that, and I guess not everyone at soulcalibur.com can play VF3 to a high level.

Finally, it takes time to write those Step guides...it's not as though I can just whip them up off the top of my head. Well, I do, but what I meant to say is that I don't have the time...and I still haven't gotten that Sarah guide finished...gyah...

ice-9 | Sennin

 

actually, I disagree with your ring placement...IN Soul Calibur ring placement is very important in that while they are all flat..the design is different...some characters get knocked harder than others and knowing the float potential or even the knock back if blocked potential makes ring positing and movement very important.
Just my 2 cents
-josh

 

Let's put it this way... VF TB is a much HARDER game to learn. It takes a long time to learn about stance, slope, counter/regular
hit, advantage frames... blah blah... and all that other stuff Nutlog mentioned.

Soul Cal... aside from the long movelists... has much less stuff to learn. Throw escapes, use of parries/repels, knowledge of
some useful attacks and some juggles are all you need to get going in that game. But it's clear that those with more experience
have a distinct advantage over newbies. It's not like anyone can just pick up the game knowing what I listed above and win.

Yes, Soul Cal is much easier to play, but that doesn't mean it can't be played on a very high mental level. Both games can
be just as deep.

Example:

"d/f+K from Pai on standing opponent -
Regular hit = Pai has advantage but no guaranteed follows,
Minor Counter = Pai can force a guessing game now because she has enough advantage to throw or P will connect. Small damage
bonus.
Major Counter = Pai has floated the opponent. Larger damage bonus. Depending on the move interrupted to cause the MC, because
different move interuptions cause higher floats, Pai can follow with a guaranteed float, but she also has to consider the weight of the
opponent, possible ring positioning during the combo and slope of the terrain."

And now soul cal:

Yoshi does d+K:
-connects 1) throw
2) FC,df+K sweep
3) mid attack
-blocked 1) defend (guard/throw escape... yes, it's possible in Soul Cal.)
2) parry/repel
3) continue attack with a fast move... another d+K for example

Looks like a basic flowchart, I know... but the point is that Yomi plays a huge part in Soul Cal. In fact I'd say the whole game
is Yomi since there is very little technical guaranteed stuff. You have to get into the head of your opponent even more so than in
VF TB.

In the end... I'd say both are great games. It looks bad for some of the people here to be so biased as to not even acknowledge
the fact that Soul Cal has the potential to be just as deep as VF. You're welcome to have a preferance for one or the other, but
don't claim that one of them is superior.

Mr. Black

 

Re: Soul Caliber -vs- VF3tb - long!

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

That depends on how you define "depth". VF3tb may have more "variables", but SC's movelist surely dwarfs VF3tb's.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure how to approach this issue. I play both games and as much as I prefer VF, I'm not so sure as to which has more depth. Really, I'm serious, the depth to SC is astounding. Take a quick browse through the 'system' section at http://www.soulcalibur.com and you'll see what I'm talking about. From parrying to weapon stripping to guard impacting at three different levels, SC has much to offer in terms of yomi and depth. Now, it's not VF, and I'm still partial to the beauty of the gameplay of VF but SC has brought Namco one step closer to VF and many steps farther away from Tekken.

I've been following a similar discussion for quite some time on RGV.Sega and some people have provided excellent posts in between the troll-like rants and raves about supreme graphics. Those on the objective side tend to prefer stating that we're comparing apples and oranges - that both games are excellent and subject to personal preference. Below is someone's (Joe Ottoson) post which I thought was well put. It's long but I thought it was a good read. Enjoy.


Since we seem to be retreating into the "what's the point" flame wars area once again, here's someting that pretty much sums up the whole mess... (Best note this applies to any fighter, and not just VF3, but it applies to VF3 nonetheless.)

The Art of Fighters
From time to time, someone will ask, what is a rather odd question to most. "What's the attraction to fighting games anyway?" They never seemed satisfied with any answers they get, (as if they expected someone to hand them a key that would let them see what's beyond their fist).

Historically, fighting games, as they are today, evolved from the kung fu movies of old for the most part. Classics like Yie Ar Kung Fu and Karate Champ helped set the model for Street Fighter while games like Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, and Final Fight pushed beat-em-up games to the forefront of arcade earners which paved the way for Street Fighter 2 to set the world aflame.
At the heart of every good fighter, be it one on one or side scrolling fighting action, is a technically oriented attack and defense system that allows a fair amount of freedom for players to experiment with the worlds they are competing in. Most people who are completely mystified about why the fighting games are popular can't see past that at the core of a fighting game is just a bunch of punches and kicks. What that viewpoint misses is the highly strategic side that fighters tend to possess.

Street Fighter 2 players for example developed countless combos that Capcom likely never even dreamed possible when they created the game. Strategy guides appeared, and each character eventually developed a particular winning strategy over time. Effectiveness charts appeared, and a whole semi science emerged around top level Street Fighter competition. The game's success spawned countless updates, clones, and we're still seeing fallout from that megahit even today.

Virtua Fighter was the next major revision/innovation to the fighting genre. Some of you may be saying "VF wasn't that amazing, it was just a fighting game with polygons!" but it sparked a whole different approach to fighters. 2d fighters tended to focus on distance and projectile combat. Virtua Fighter and most 3d games after it tended to rely on close range combat entirely. Even the outlandish jumping attacks pretty much dried up in 3d fighters for quite a while after VF and VF2 appeared on the market. Even minor things like instant replay features, the camera angle on the continue screen, and the intros tended to emulate the VF experience although fans of games to come afterwards claimed that VF had little if any influence on 3d fighting game development aside from using polygons.

Despite these major shifts brought about by VF and the games VF directly and indirectly spawned, VF retained the same magical ability of the older 2d fighters. You had freedom to act independently of any direct or specific intentions of the game's programmer despite that the focus on direct hand to hand combat meant that rapid fire combos needed to develop in an area where past (2d) fighters had never needed such a system before. High level gameplay in VF2 for example meant seeing players using the same characters that had adopted completely different fighting styles thanks to the wide variety of moves provided by the less memory intensive motion capture data.

In the meantime, fighting games in general suffered a blow from the 2d arena. As super combos became prevalent, the fighters began to get more and more flashy, more combo friendly, and more accessible. Capcom began toying with a concept called "chain combos" Killer Instinct emerged with a grossly exaggerated combo system, and the MK series quicklyfollowed suit.

Seeing that these games were drawing a respectable amount of cash, while the more technically oriented 2d fighters like Weaponlord were being overlooked, 3d fighters started getting watered down as well. Soul Edge, the perennial favorite 3d fighter due to flashy graphics, and a braindead combo system that anyone can pick up in a few seconds is pretty much the ultimate example of this, and it's reflected in failed attempts to cash in on the fighting genre like Mace: The Dark Age. Combos are simple button mashfests, projectiles and 3d movement are poorly implemented, and the combo system lost all rhyme or reason due to the idea that "combos are cool". It was never supposed to be about netting a 33 or 76-hit combo at the press of a button. Major combos in SF2 were a reflection of practice and skill. That's why people keep playing fighters. The more you play, the better you get. You can take a good fighter, sit down with it for a week, a month, or even a year and still find stuff you hadn't thought of or implemented before. The moves end up fitting together in a symphony of destructive potential just waiting to be unleashed with the proper care. Oh, the technicality is still present in games like the Tobals, Bushido Blade, Virtua Fighter 3, Tekken 3, Dead or Alive 2, and most of the 2d SNK fighters that appear, but we're also routinely treated to spazzfests like Capcom's Vs series where the combos are over exaggerated, and they're routinely overly simplistic to pull off. Good CPU AI seems to be getting harder and harder to come by too. Quite a few fighters need a second player for any challenge. Otherwise, they just roll over and die.

In short, the reasons people play fighting games aren't that much different than why other people play racing games, or puzzlers etc.Effort and practice is rewarded with increased skill, and that skill is (or at least used to be) respected by the other players in the arcades, at home etc. There's the fast paced thrill of the fight, the charge you get out of winning a close round though methodical strategy and reflexes, or the simple determination not to lose again. Fighters are still here because of one simple idea. They're fun!

Cheers,




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

 

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

but the point is that Yomi plays a huge part in Soul Cal. In fact I'd say the whole game is Yomi since there is very little technical guaranteed stuff. You have to get into the head of your opponent even more so than in VF TB.

<hr></blockquote>

I couldn't agree with you more. The yomi in SC is extremely apparent. Our best VF player here in Toronto, Jo Shun, plays SC as well at a ridiculous level of play. Jo wouldn't play a game that didn't have a large amount of yomi - it's the way he plays all games

On an aside, Nutlog mentioned that evading in SC fails if you're opponent uses horizontal attacks. I don't agree - so many moves in SC can be modified (like VF) with crouch dashing (like VF) that it's very possible to escape and attack while your opponent is in mid horizontal attack.

Cheers,

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

 

I strongly disagree with the idea that VF3tb is a harder game to learn and play, at least at the Step 2 level. The thing about VF3tb's depth is that it's layered--beginners won't see it and won't need to know it to be able to play. Why would terrain matter to a beginner? Why would they need to guard-cancel escape? As far as two beginners playing each other are concerned, VF3 is a shallow game with less moves than SC.

SC on the other hand is different. Most of its "depth" is well documented and presented as a part of the game. You can see players attempting to parry/repel--beginners know it's supposed to do something. You can see characters "charge up". Astute observers will notice how characters seem to be able to "recover" in the air. Some moves are extremely flashy and players know that these moves have some sort of special property (i.e. unblockables).

This sort of depth is not at all obvious in VF3.

Further, I strongly believe that at the intermediate level, SC is a helluva harder game to play with a brain, simply because there are so many more moves and strings to memorize. How am I going to defend all these strings if I don't know what level they hit? How can I even begin to implement parrying and repelling if I don't know the timing or hit level of these string attacks? The answer is I don't, so I have to spend a significant amount of time memorizing all these moves before I can even use yomi to my advantage.

My point is that the emphasis on yomi is more apparent earlier in VF3 than SC. A really smart Step 1 player has an excellent chance of beating a dumb Step 2 player in VF3. There's no such thing in SC, because beginners wouldn't know how to defend against the many multi-hitting strings most SC Step 2 playeres have memorized. Attacks in VF3, on the other hand, are much more obvious and require less memorization to categorize.

The biggest problem most "casual" gamers have with "depth" is that they usually equate depth with an amount, as some sort of a number. This game has "more" depth than that game. I don't agree it should be seen that way. "Depth" should be more about the possibilites open to the player--depth is non-linear. This is precisely the reason why so many people have trouble understanding VF3. VF3 IS an easy game to play for the beginner, but not in the way most people expect. It's not the number of moves, or the number of techniques, it's the yomi.

Is there yomi in Soul Calibur? Of course there is--that's why I and many others play it. But like I said before, there is a greater learning curve involved in playing SC before yomi even becomes a factor.

Llanfair brought up how repels and parries basically doesn't give the player any sort of an advantage, and henceforth it encourages yomi. I agree with the basic premise, but I don't think this is exactly a good thing.

I am of the opinion that many moves in SC are not quite balanced and much too powerful. The vast majority of the attacks in SC are not counterable. Evading is not that powerful and not fast enough in close combat. So for most players the only answer is to use parries and repels (or run away at a distance). However, because parries and repels do not technically give the player an advantage (except psychological advantage, which is a moot point at high levels of play), this means that certain moves can be abused without much worry for retaliation.

In VF3, when I know the opponent is going to do something, I can easily punish the opponent. In SC this is not always the case. As Mr. Black pointed out, virtually nothing in SC is technically guaranteed, and usually, the best I can get is reseting the guessing game back to 50/50. So anticipating a high damage, relatively fast attack can only give me back a 50/50 reward--I don't see this as a gameplay strength, I see it as a flaw!

And this, in a round about way, actually discourages yomi. Is there much incentive to think, for example, when the best you can get from anticipating Akira's SPOD is 50/50? Parrying and repelling isn't a very simple thing either, especially against better players. Bottom line, the pay off is simply not balanced.

In the end... I'd say both are great games. It looks bad for some of the people here to be so biased as to not even acknowledge
the fact that Soul Cal has the potential to be just as deep as VF. You're welcome to have a preferance for one or the other, but
don't claim that one of them is superior.

With all due respect Mr. Black, where have you been? I believe the opinion that VF3tb is a "crappy" game compared to SC belongs to a vast majority. I think you should think about leveling this accusation to SC players first.

ice-9 | Sennin

 

Re: Soul Caliber -vs- VF3tb - long!

From parrying to weapon stripping to guard impacting at three different levels

Isn't it two? High/middle and low. b+G or f+G and b/d+G or f/d+G respectively.

ice-9 | Sennin

 

who wants to place bets on how long this thread will last?

 

Well I play both games quite a bit so I thought I'll add my two cents. Some previous comments are plain inaccurate like counter and ring positioning not being important in SC. Counters ( In SC only MC makes any differnce I think - no mC ) result in different types of stuns in SC for certain moves, like double over / fall back / crumple - this IS important for combos. Eg. Mitsu d/f+A MC, A+K - RO if facing ring edge, guranteed death. Also ring positioning, just like in VF, a good player would know to which side a horizontal attack sweeps through. Eg. Astaroth b+A, A+B hits to his right, while d/b+A , u/f+A hit to his left. With proper knowledge an astarock / siegmare player can easily RO when both players are roughly parallel to the ring edge - that's a big part of their game. Parries do give a big timing advantage to the parry-er - just that no followups are totally guranteed due to throw break and also another parry by defender. Basically, SC has plenty of depth, knowledge, and Yomi involved too.

My main grouse with SC is like ice-9 said, too many strings ( that have FAST variations like one MML or MMM ) that attack multiple levels are are hard to defend. Also one big diffence is that VF strongly favours the defender while SC strongly favours the attacker. In SC hardly anything is really mCounterable, all the big moves push you back and cause too much block stun. In a fighting game, attacker already has advantage of initiative and choosing the attack and level, to give him the advantage of not being punishable is a little too much. VF has a better balance of offense and defense I think. As to being harder to learn, I think VF definitely wins out due to technical difficulty in executing some moves and combos. Also, SC is pretty forgiving in terms of command input, throw escape ( the window is HUGE compared to VF, also no command throw escape ), "reversals" ( since parries affect two levels at once ),and lack of knowledge of your character. ( movelist is huge but using mebbe a third will usually suffice, while in VF you pretty much have to use at least 70%? )

They're both good games, and more similar than they seem. Maybe supporters of each ought to try the other and enjoy it instead of bashing it. Not talking about you guys here, but some SC'ers are pretty vehement about VF.

PS - Nutlog, what on earth is B,A,A for Mitsu?? No offense, just never knew of this one before. Are you sure it exists?

Wen

 

Thankz for the clear up....

Mr. Ice and company you have been very helpful. I may not be a expert at VF3tb, but you've confirmed my speculations. I had played more SC before I got VF3 and thought that VF3 had more depth in variables, strategy than SC. I too think their both good games...I just know that some people over at the SC forum don't know their VF3 stuff and talk bad about it. I just wish I had some of you VF3 masters backing me up at SC forum...but hey it's all good, now I know the truth. Thankz for all your inputs everyone. --M. Wong--

 

Re: Thankz for the clear up....

"Parries do give a big timing advantage to the parry-er - just that no followups are totally guranteed due to throw break and also another parry by defender."

Heh heh, I was probably a bit too ahead of myself when saying that. In theory, it is pretty much 50-50 (either level parry/repel) but in practice the advantage is much greater. Unless playing against Astaroth though, there's not much point in throw breaking, although throw breaking does have a nice option select of executing the equivalent of a VF P(G).

M. Wong, make no mistake, Soul Calibur is a great game, and I know a lot of the VFers here play the game. However, any time you see the word "crushed" in any VF-SC comparison, you know someone is exaggerating quite a bit. Both the VF and SC system are cohesive (unlike Tekken, though that too certainly has depth), but like I said before, there are different emphasis on different things.

ice-9 | Sennin

 

"I strongly disagree with the idea that VF3tb is a harder game to learn and play, at least at the Step 2 level."


Well... I guess I should have been more clear and specified it at the "expert" level.

I mean... stuff like escape-guard-throw escape... spod... dlc... double escape... gamest five star combos... etc. You just don't
see these things in Soul Cal and that's not what it focuses on anyway. Like I said... Soul Cal is completely about Yomi.


"The biggest problem most "casual" gamers have with "depth" is that they usually equate depth with an amount, as some sort of a
number. This game has "more" depth than that game. I don't agree it should be seen that way. "Depth" should be more about the
possibilites open to the player--depth is non-linear. This is precisely the reason why so many people have trouble understanding
VF3. VF3 IS an easy game to play for the beginner, but not in the way most people expect. It's not the number of moves, or the
number of techniques, it's the yomi. "


I agree.


"Is there yomi in Soul Calibur? Of course there is--that's why I and many others play it. But like I said before, there is a greater
learning curve involved in playing SC before yomi even becomes a factor."


This I don't agree with. Once you understand the basic system... yomi plays a factor from the get go. Anyway, this could be
debated forever. The discussion was originally supposed to be about both games at expert levels of play. I guess that's my
fault for not being clear though.


" With all due respect Mr. Black, where have you been? I believe the opinion that VF3tb is a "crappy" game compared to SC belongs to a vast majority. I think you should think about leveling this accusation to SC players first."


Im my experience... expert VF players tend to be more sophisticated than the average gamer. Almost because you have to be
in order to play that game with all it's advanced techniques. Whereas most of the people on the Soul Calibur forum are
probably gradeschool children with little to no underdstanding of depth or Yomi. They're just insecure little boys that need to
defend their game from all opposition and there's no point in arguing with them.

Anyway, it's because I have such respect for expert VF players that it pains me to see them blow off Soul Calibur as an
inferior game. Maybe it's just preferance talking, but I hope everyone here at least sees that Soul Cal has enough potential
to be just as good as VF.

As for those guys on the Soul Cal forum... fuck 'em. You're all better/smarter/older/more sophisticated than them. Heh heh heh.

Mr. Black

 

I'll accept the smarter/older part for most em probably

 

Re: whoa...a rare incidence

I agree with almost completely with Mr. Black's previous post. It does not happen to me as often.

By the way, in my opinion, the materials at the SC.com are mediocre at the best. It's especially true for those "advanced" techniques. That's also why I pull out most of the SC info from the Japanese sites.

You're all better/smarter/older/more sophisticated than them


I'm afraid that I'm getting too old. sophisticaled/smarter stuff, I don't know that about myself.

 

Also one big diffence is that VF strongly favours the defender while SC strongly favours the attacker.

This I somewhat disagree with. VF3 still requires a lot of offense, although the importance of good defense has been raised from VF2. A really proficient PETE-style player (P/elbow/throw/escape and a good chunk of CD-P) can be very devastating. I still remember that one Akira I played in Japan that didn't even bother with shoulder ram, or SPOD, but played mainly with DE, SDE, FBG, CD-P, and a few throws (mainly f,b+P+G)...that guy was virtually unstoppable. He was one of the few players that was able to get double digits in Kani-spo on a Saturday night.

Defense in SC is also very important...in the sense that you need to know what levels to defend against, and the timing of the attacks so you can parry/repel efficiently. However, I do very much agree with the premise that the attacker in SC is rewarded...at least, in close combat.

ice-9 | Sennin