Why isn't VF big in America?

Re: NYC arcade

You must realize that it was a conscious game design decision...it certainly is not from a lack of effort/skill. Look how long it has taken other games to catch up to VF3.

 

Re: NYC arcade

I like the flat arenas and what not... there's a lot to be said for the traditional look. What I am very dissapointed in is the lack of the evade button. Rather than getting used to the new system, I find myself missing that button more and more all the time. Why oh why did they take it away?

 

Re: NYC arcade

More is not always better, a step "forward" is not always heading towards the right direction.

Art and Science is not about just adding. You have to add and subtract in any design or mold.

As Jeff said and I think quite a few others would support, the decisions made for VF4 were design decisions to push certain elements and appeals ahead.

More undulation does not mean it's a step ahead. Mind you, I love undulation in VF3, but looking at the direction they took VF4 and what seems to be implied in the design--I would say that they made the right decision when you consider their goals. Less obstacles tend to lead to more interaction between two things.

In VF3, I'm interacting with the stage, the time, and my opponent. In VF4, I'm still interacting with all of those, but I'm interacting more with my opponent than in any previous VF as far as I can tell. Dodge system has been changed to revolve around the opponent, as opposed to the area. Undulation was removed to probably allow players to focus more on their opponents and less on external factors.

Sometimes more is less and less is more. Depends on the context, the direction, etc... VF4 screams intensity and a virtual focus purely on the opponent and I love it for that. VF3 screams "factor this, factor that, harmony & balance" and I love it for that.

Anyways... this has been said a lot before... What is design? Why is design important? If we kept adding more and more brush strokes to a painting, does that always make it better? Should we cram every note from every system of music into a song and think it'll become a masterpiece that way? There's always a balance somewhere.

My proposal is: Saying that this or that is a "step backwards" doesn't mean anything to me (aside from bringing out an argument). So...
1) Tell me why taking certain elements out of the game ends up failing the point of the design of the game. You also have to acknowledge the things that were added to the game as well to convince me. Why doesn't everything "add up" for you?
-Or-
2) Tell me why you think the game's purpose is flawed and why this decision will make the game unattractive to the audience it is targetted to.

-Chanchai

 

Design issue

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


As Jeff said and I think quite a few others would support, the decisions made for VF4 were design decisions to push certain elements and appeals ahead.

<hr></blockquote>
Examples please.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

[...]Undulation was removed to probably allow players to focus more on their opponents and less on external factors.

<hr></blockquote>
Looks like players complains than developers decision. Probably some players don't like that kind of challenge(stage, time, opponent synergy) or are too afraid to deal with external factors.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


[sic] You also have to acknowledge the things that were added to the game as well to convince me. Why doesn't everything "add up" for you?

<hr></blockquote>
Why all rings are square? They could have been varied.

ice-9:
unless Eirgheiz doesn't count as fighting game in VF/Tekken league. ;P


*Sneezing due to flu* :sick

 

Re: Design issue

Hope you get well soon/versus/images/icons/smile.gif

Examples:
The change to the dodge system is "to the point" in the context that standard dodges are only effective when used to avoid an attack. Otherwise, it's very subtle positioning. I interpretted this to imply that the game if focusing more on the in-combat.

Square rings are very straightforward. Round rings would probably be moreso, but that would potentially muckup the wall elements. Square rings confine the area and push the focus on the fight and less on "odd corners." I believe the developers kept positioning concepts to a near minimum to, again, push the focus of the fight towards just the two opponents and potential ringout or wall hell. Any other factors would create a game of positional fighting, which I personally love, but I don't think that's what the designers wanted for VF4. Given that, I won't complain because VF3 and VF3tb provide me the positioning game and it's probably why I still play those games. The zones of concern outside the characters are now ringout, wall, and corner. Alignment is only concerned if you want to fight along a non square angle, but that is more or less your decision and at most would reduce ring out or wall while encouraging corner play.

As for the debate on external factors. I like external factors. I love fighting for undulation or no undulation; fighting for wall combos or to avoid them, etc... But there is a purity to the "fun" that occurs in "to-the-point" fighting that creates a certain type of "intensity." I think the designer decisions reflect a modern reality and concern. Fighting games have become too complex by distracting the fights and it has alienated a percentage of the fanbase while also further alienating the potential new players.

VF4 has become more complex with newer options while keeping the premise for combat simple. The focus of fighting is still there. Strategy might be reduced, but tactics seem to be greatly enhanced.

Less complex are the indirect methods of combat (such as ring positioning), but more complex are the direct methods of combat (spacing seems to be much more complex than even VF2 now, defense options are still increasing, offense options have greatly been increased).

In the end, I think VF4 has ended up becoming a game that is more linear than before, but provides more intensity than I ever imagined in a VF game because of how direct it has become. My impressions is that this was the goal of VF4. Intense battles, extended tactics, more options along the lines of defend and attack, less "delaying" tactics (position wise), and making a move to make VF a flashy game while still being quite systematically balanced.

But we'll see what VF4 play ends up becoming in the future...

-Chanchai

 

Re: Design issue

Thanks. I feel little better. have cold now. Grrr...

Back to the topic. Concerning corner play, I hope they won't be triangle ring. Seen Sarah stage, I think wall rounded ring could be used. Of course wall is breakable. In long term, fighting on square will become tiresome even with move gameplay involved than undulated terrain. I gave VF4 a chance after extensively play it. Still, it left some taste. As you said, VF4 looks like to be designed for mainstream in mind.

 

Re: Design issue

As you said, VF4 looks like to be designed for mainstream in mind.

Sega has hit the jackpot on that front--I`ve been observing beginners/scrubs play VF4 and they really seem to be enjoying the game. You can really see some cool stuff from a button mashing Sarah and Lei Fei, and Vanessa, Lau and Jacky to a lesser extent.

VF4 has all the ingredients: it has mainstream appeal, it has a (albeit small) "hardcore" fanbase, it has momentum (thanks to sub-par T4 and probably DOA3), it will have a strong home conversion on the leading console, and it will most likely carry media hype (at least from the gameplay front if not graphics).

 

The reason VF isn't so big in America is because it alot of places it isn't so readily available. The last time I saw a VF 3 arcade machine in my area was like in 98 and that thing got moved out a long time ago. I think that is the reason why VF isn't so popular in America.

oh yeah and about that Street Fighter thing, majority of Street Fighter fans detest the MvC2 style of play with all those seizure inducing supers and super jumps. MvC2 fans also dislike the so called "slow" gameplay of Street Fighter Alpha and Street Fighter 3. Street Fighter 3 is one of the most technical and tactical games ever. Don't group MvC fans with Street Fighter fans becaause "Vs" games and Street Fighter games are 2 very different things.

 

Spin's right. Main difference between VS games and SF/CVS games is input time. In SF systems there is a frame time in which you can input your combo depending on stun of previous hit, but also this frame time is exclusive in having a prior and post frame block off. Which means that it is possible to press button too soon in your combo aswell as too late. VS. games do not have a prior frame point, only a post one. Therefore you can enter your combo at any rythm you feel like as long as you dont pass the maximum link frame . I will boldly claim that SF/CVS games are like chess and VS games are like checkers (If that analogy makes any sense).

As for VF series and why its not popular.. Its complex, its not flashy, different physics for each character and Kage's gay ass wall jump kick ... 'nough said.

 

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

As for VF series and why its not popular.. Its complex, its not flashy, different physics for each character

<hr></blockquote>

And that's a bad thing?

 

Your average SF/CVS fan tends to look down on MvC2 because of all those insane easy combos. It's a completely new game, with the emphasis on controlling space rather than individual moves. All the top characters have powerful assists, trapping ability, and huge combos; the main objective in most teams is to force the other guy's assist character into battle instead of beating his best tactic. The complete lack of balance makes it FEEL less strategic, but it's not that bad if you're both using cheesy characters.

 

Its bad for them Adio. Plus the characters have very rare similar moves. its like a different engine for each character. People dont wanna waste money learning all these things. Everyone knows how to do a hadouken and dragon punch, how about an SPoD? no. But what if..? no. They dont. And these maneuvers can be translated to other selectable players. Its instant understanding, instant familiarity. You cant beat that.

As far as I'm concerned if CVS series is like chess, VF is like a full game of mahjong. I dont know if you guys ever played a real game with east/west walls etc. Lasts hours and the subtility is astute. Its hard work the whole way, until you finally get the most powerful hand. Thats how I feel about VF.

 

Aye mahjong's a killer game~

 

Incredible how a simple button layout P,K,G scares mainstream while they don't with Street Fighter own.

 

Maybe it's the name?

Don't get me wrong, I *love* VF... but to someone who's never heard of it the name isn't a drawcard. [warning: generalization] mainstream Americans seem to like "tough and cool" (WWF) things a lot more than subtle things [/generalization].

Just a thought.

grib.

 

O.K. I have devolped a new theory on this. In my opinion the reason VF is not popular in the US and Street Fighter is. Is that the arcade scene for Street Fighter is strong and stays strong long after the games are released on a home system. Where as with VF and Tekken to a lesser degree all the players stay at home and play with a small group of friends or by themselves as soon as they get their hands on a home version.


VF is such a complex game that the only market which I think VF could be popular in is the arcade. You need hardcore people to appreiciate the games depth and learn it.Then you need those same people to show the mainstream how a game is played that is what happened with Street Fighter and every other popular versus game that has ever been popular in the US. Take Street Fighter 2 for instance. First you had a small amount of good players that showed every one how to play Street Fighter 2. Do you remember when the dradon punch seemed like a magical move but then somebody showed you how to perform it. Then after they got good and had devolped a good pool of compeitition they started organizing local tourneys then the word started to spread about this player or that player. The urge for the good players to meet grew until they had to have a National tourney. Thus producing high level play that showed what high level Street Fighter is truly about. Thus drawing in new players and keeping the old players coming back for more ensuring that the arcade scene stayed strong. Now if the Street Fighter players would of packed it in the first time the home version came out on the SNES do you think that Street Fighter would have the scene that it currnetly enjoys? Hell no it wouldnt it would have promptly died right there.

That's what VF needs and thats why VF is never going to be popular in the US the general apathy from the hardcore fanbase of VF towards anyone who is new or not good or has never played the game is killing VF it is in arcades at most places and at a fairly reasonable price the only reason it will not at least have moderate success is that when the home version comes out everyone who begged the local arcade to get a VF4 machine will dissaper when the home version comes out. Leaving a a blank spot in the arcade game heirarchy. Also leaving the newbies without the vets to show them the ropes and to teach them how to play. Also leaving an arcade manager with a very expensive game that goes unplayed and a very bad taste in his mouth with redards to VF.

P.S. I am not tyring to judge or blame anyone I am just trying to asnswer this question with what I believe is the most plausible answer. If you ask anyone who has played me they will tell you that I am a below average Shun player. So I am definately not tyring to make it sound as if I am superior to anyone here or be condescending it just kinda of reads that way.

 

That's what VF needs and thats why VF is never going to be popular in the US the general apathy from the hardcore fanbase of VF towards anyone who is new or not good or has never played the game is killing VF

I know you're speaking generally, but I disagree with this part of your post. I've played against different types of players and most of them are new to VF4. I offer advice to those who ask questions (scary thought, I know). But they don't stick around to try it out for whatever reason. There's not much apathy towards the "newbie" on my part, and I haven't seen that much apathy on this site towards people who haven't played VF. Now I may sound like I don't care about the casual gamer, but if the question is asked, and an answer is given, then what more can a person do?

VF4 has become more "newbie"-friendly, more combo-oriented, and even a little easier (in some aspects) than past installments. It has a new character that can create problems even when a button-masher uses him. It has arguably the best graphics of any fighting game. It's even cheaper on the average (about 50c per play). What more could the casual gamer want? But, I'm biased.

This has probably been pointed out before in this thread, but the casual gamer needs patience with VF. You even touched on that when you stated that it's a complex game. I hope the home version will make the casual gamer play it a little bit, and then come to the arcade and play some more. That's probably unlikely, but I can dream.

And there's also the common misconception that Tekken=good, MvC=great, and VF=bad. I don't know how it got started, but I think it has a lot to do with why people in the US won't play the game seriously, even if Sega takes steps to make it more accessible to the general US public.

 

Those are good points. I'm probably repeating myself, but I think the popularity of fighting games like Tekken comes down to the home versions. These days, it gets pretty expensive to pump in quarters into these games just to learn the moves and techniques. However, with Namco's superb console versions of Tekken and Soul Calibur (for example), I get the moves, I get the timing, and I don't have to spend a fortune to become skilled. Now when I go to the arcades, I can actually compete against the more experienced gamers without getting frustrated. And, as "Waking Life" says, "everyone knows fun rules."

If the VF games were on a console as successful as PSX, then it would be far more popular. As it stands, the upcoming PS2 version of VF4 will go a long way toward greater success. Other than that, I'd just suggest that you physically drag friends in front of the coin-op and show 'em the basics.

And don't worry about "popularity." American popular culture is littered with the mediocre. Bubblegum pop, "reality" shows, "professional" wrestling, and bad summer movies. The best things in life are always a touch harder to find.

 

That theory is nice on paper, but unfortunately it doesn't empirically hold up...not for DOA2 at least. Best selling game on the Dreamcast, and sold hundreds of thousands on the PS2. The arcade game never took off though.

 

You have my sympathies. VF is not exactly commonplace in the UK either. As common as Rocking Horse Shit would be an accurate comparison. Tekken, Tekken everywhere....but no VF to play.