Why is everybody playing 2D fighting games?

I'm waiting for someone to bring up counterpicking. Nothing is more fun to watch then a match won at the character select screen.

 

we got that in vf. It's just a little weaker.

 

It's no way as bad as SF4 or injustice.

 

Matchup or no match up its up to the player to win... Or more accurately, its up to you to win.

 

Not nearly that bad as all.

 

Try to beat a competent Hawkeye or Morrigan with Doctor Doom in UMvC3...it is literally the must frustrating thing on Earth. I'll take Sarah vs. Taka any day of the week compared to the 11-0 that is some Marvel matchups

 

You mean "anime fighters" (BB, P4A, AH, Melty, etc.), the scene for which is yet another subdivision of the FGC altogether.

I don't know why people bring these up when none of the matchups are as bad as in SSFII Turbo. Now that was a game with true 9:1 matchups (Ryu vs Honda), and yet it's still considered a classic simply because the matchups are diverse and interesting enough despite the lopsidedness.

Many old-school players will tell you that the game is interesting because you have to play each matchup differently. A Chun player may have to play keepaway against one character and then go balls out rushdown against another. Character diversity fosters imbalance.

On the other hand SSFIV actually goes against the grain of ST thanks to how the game was "normalized". This ofcourse was the tradeoff that produced a game with a top tier of 10 characters and an overall viable cast that includes almost everyone except the bottom most tier (Gen is a lower mid tier character, yet Xian has been winning majors left and right with him). Alot of the lopsidedness was removed thanks to certain decisions (some that don't sit well with the old school players) such as nerfing everyone's hitboxes, weak projectiles, lower damage, etc.

 

Hey I just say I'm not a fan of those games cause counterpicking is really important. Rules at a character select screen should tell you something is up. Telling me what I already know isn't going to change my mind. News for you I don't like SF2ST TBH for this reason alone. Don't get me wrong it was a different time and was a great game for its time. Hell the game from what I see it still evolving and that's more than what you can say about MVC3 and SF4(I will get to you in a second) and it's 20 years old. You can enjoy SFST all you want it's just not for me.

Honestly I could care less about SF4. Here's a idea lets make SF with slow walk speed, no damage, small stages, and have 41 fucking matchups to learn. I guess that what happens when you let the sound guy direct the game. BTW why is the sound track so shitty. Didn't ono do the 3rd strike music what happened. The only way for SF4 can evolve is by patching and now the money sink is running dry. lol.

The real reason everyone plays capcom games over 3d is nostalgia, and their intuitive. God look at all these hot topic, jinx wearing posers that walk around at these tourneys yelling internet memes like "hype" and "godlk". That's right I'm talking about the core SF community that I named "the 09'ers". Most of them don't even know about fundamentals you have been writing about, but you will still see them at EVO with their little pom's pom's. Now when I say that the games are intuitive I'm not saying that there is no skill involved for high lvl players. If your willing to learn 41 matchups good for you(looking at you infiltration. I guess you should have spend more time figuring out how to counterpick Gen), but let's be honest in SF4/MVC3 it is a lot easier to get to the think I'm good enough to compete lvl. What is EVO anyway like 150 good players and a bunch of potmonsters.

O and don't get me started on MVC3.

 

The thing is, GG, P4, etc. all have layers upon layers of systems and tools built upon them. SF in general has less universal tools and in general is more about creating unique and disparate archetypes. Also, none of these games have anything as extreme as ST where characters are forced to play differently based on the matchup.

Also, while yes, you can create games where there is diversity and balance, it doesn't mean that just because you always need to have both. Diversity is more important than overall balance. Just look at the curious case of Marvel Super Heroes vs Street Fighter, the limits to the combo system actual made the game pretty balanced (arguably the most balanced VS game ever), but at the same time, it sacrificed alot of the diversity and freedom that people wanted resulting in it being rejected by the community.

And it's not just that one case, history itself will show that balance doesn't really factor much in making a game a "classic" and giving it longevity in the competitive circuit. I mean, we already know that Capcom games like MvC2, ST and 3rd Strike are pretty much "unbalanced" (at least in the eyes of those who don't play them - within the 16 viable characters in MvC2, you can create enough teams that it has the most number of viable playstyles of any fighting game ever), but even games like Tekken, DOA and even KOFs like '98 and 2002 have pretty dominant top tiers as well.

 

Tekken and soul calibur say hi. Don't think those moves are terribly good in either game. (soul calibur even went and incorporated supers and ex-moves, lol)

Nobody's saying distancing and space control are inherently bad mechanics. They are easy to understand and you deal with them usually with ways that are irrelevant of the character you are playing (jumping). I guess this is one reason that makes 2D games popular. The core mechanic is simple to understand and doesn't require much learning. However, I know I don't like 2D games precisely because of those mechanics. I don't like having to deal with restricted options most of the time. I guess 3D players and 2D players like their respective games because the games are based on different things.

In general, a starting 3D player is required to learn more than a starting 2D player. Multiple hit-levels instead of nearly everything being a 2D mid, etc. I'm talking about scrub-level here. 2D game is more easily accessible for a scrub which I suspect to be behind the popularity. At high level both game types require a lot from the player.

 

Short simple answer well a couple one 2d games are for kids 2nd they can't handle the technicality or all the moves so they take the easy way out and play cartoony 2d fighters

 

To be fair, when I played good Ryu players (SFIV vanilla), they didn't use fireballs to keep me away, it was the opposite! They wanted me to go to them! Fireballs only do so much damage so if you're losing to someone just using fireballs, you're either not very good or they're just that much better than you. Plus with the introduction of focus dash cancelling, you no longer need to jump over projectiles - unless its an ex/super version. So you do have more options than just to jump or block.

If you think 2D fighters are so shallow, why don't you prove it by winning all the tournaments? Show how amazing you are because you play the bestest, deepest, technical fighting game ever!!!1!1

 

You trollin,right?

I honestly think that 3rd strike and mk9 have a legitamate fighting engine. Mk9 actually has multiple hit levels and target combos like a 3d fighter. You can also tech when you fall (like in vf)in mk9.Mk9 also has moves that give frame advantage(like vf). Third strike has the parry,a stun meter, and the ability to choose from multiple super arts and not just one.

I also heard that gorou :mark of the wolves is a good and balanced 2d fighter.


I play 2d and 3d fighters and I don't bash one or the other. Both require skill.

 

Garou is good, but balanced, that can be questionable (Kevin, Gato, ugh)

Restricted options? 2D games being easier to learn than 3D games due to blaa blaa? Have you ever played any other 2D game except SF4 or SFxT (I know I haven't seen you playing anything else) I would suggest you try to broaden your view a bit before making such statements. The King of Fighters series is a pretty good example of 2D games with a ton of mechanics and depth to the system and game itself that can easily rival the so-called more harder 3D games in what you need to learn. Here's a pretty good video explaining the KoF systems.

As for multiple hit levels, 2D games has those as well even if not on a system-like level like 3D games has. Due to hitboxes, both of the move and of the character, a move can sometimes go over lows/under highs or can be high enough to be ducked, these evasion properties are sometimes deliberatly build into the move to give it that specific usage, so it's not so much different from 3D games.

 

There is still only one matchup in VF5FS that would make me change my character if I was playing the weaker one (sarah vs Taka). Props to Blossy for not changing up in SCE. I have that match vs Choufu on video and might upload it later. (Blossy lost, of course)

 

Alot of people are going to take issue with calling alot of the older classics examples of bad design, especially considering that games like 3S, MvC2, A3 and CvS2 still see alot of play to this day on both sides of the Pacific.

The important thing about these games though, is the freedom that their systems provide. Why do you think that Mike Z, who's both an MvC2 and GG player, decided to copy MvC2 when he made Skullgirls. Because the game provided alot of freedom. And this freedom is something that the players desire. The way these games is played is very much emergent - it's defined by how the players want to play them more than what the designers want. It's pretty much tradition at this point, considering that combos, one of the things that defines the genre , was an unintended glitch in SFII. Heck, even GGXX isn't played how Ishiwatari would like it to be played (hence the removal of FRCs and other 25% tension options in GGXrd).

This is why for us, it's fine if stuff becomes unbalanced for the most part. Because usually that comes as a consequence of freedom and us discovering something, a tool or setup, that was never intended by the designers, yet actually adds to the meta and helps us win more. Look at Morrigan in UMvC3. Her fly cancel bullet hell shenanigans were likely never intended but it not only adds to her, but it adds to the game in that a) it allows for lockdown, a playstyle we thought died with MvC2 and b) it forces players to actually play fundamentally instead of just fishing for damage (why do you think Justin was able to beat ChrisG - because Justin has better fundamentals than Chris). Heck, you can probably thank me for that since I was one of the first to ask Capcom to give Morrigan fly-mode in MvC3.

It's all about that freedom that imbalance usually represents. V-ISM CCs are fine since they represent the freedom that is in the A3 combo engine. The 4 gods in MvC2 are fine since they represent the sheer amount of freedom that all their options and exploitations provide. SA2 Chun is fine in 3rd Strike since she represents stuff DED options selects and SGGK which greatly add to her dangerous footsie game. Bison A-Groove "painting the fence" is fine in CvS2 since it represents D44BAS not reporting it to Capcom when he was a tester and then using it to become the top CvS2 player in the world.

Yes, we are a bunch of glitchers and exploiters, but that's all part of the meta. We want to win after all and if it means finding a way to break the game to our advantage, then so be it.

I mentioned MvSF not, MSH. The latter is actually well liked.