Soul Calibur 6 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll try and explain my self without getting winded. Basically, you're goal in any battle or war or whatever is to limit your opponent's options. Now why do you want to do this? To limit the choices you have to make. But why would I intentionally want to limit myself? To eliminate randomness from the equation as much as humanly possible. The less choices I have to make the easier it is to create a plan to shut you down. Now, you mentioned that you can throw out a less commonly used move with bad properties to confuse an opponent, but like P Wolf mentioned a good player as already accounted for your gimmicks, so all your doing is giving away the win to other player as Seth Killian likes to put it. Even if using a good move makes me predictable, at least I'm not giving anything away. Instead, I'm forcing you to take it away. Hope that makes sense.
Also DiveKick is a deeper game than seem to think. It's pure fundamentals.
 
weshookhands said:
That's an easy thing to say as long as you don't explain yourself and prefer insulting people to making a point.
Maybe you'd like to explain why it's "plain wrong"?
Click to expand...
I'LL ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE.

BUT FIRST, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INCONSISTENT. IN THE FIRST POST, YOU ARE DISCUSSING MOVES IN CHARACTER MOVESETS.

weshookhands said:
This approach of cutting down movesets is anything but enhancing the strategical aspect of SC.
Click to expand...

IN YOUR RESPONSE, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BASIC GAME- MIXUP MECHANICS, AS IN MIDS, LOWS, GRABS, ETC.

OR ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING IT, THIS ISN'T SPECIFIC TO CHARACTER MOVESETS, BUT TO THE GAME'S ATTACK OPTIONS.
weshookhands said:
Because, well, I don't even know how to explain...see, if you had just A, B, K and G (no A+B, B+K, no throws, no directional inputs, let's say bordering DK) you'd have three options of attacking. The opponent would know that that's all he'll have to deal with, pick up your possibilities rather quickly and adjust to them.
Click to expand...

WHICH ONE IS IT?
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention, having seemingly limitless options does have a strategic purpose but not the one most people seem to think it has. Giving your opponent the freedom to do whatever they want gives you the advantage of gaining knowledge of their patterns, what they like to do in certain situations, etc. It can also be used to instill indecisiveness into them. Faced with the decision to do whatever they want, most people tend to shut down. Like how when you graduate high school without knowing what you wanna do with your life, but a have the potential to do anything. Instead of making a decision, you instead shutdown and spend the next year of your life trying to "find yourself".
 
well i just beat the game and I am lvl 70 now i feel thats there is nothing else for me to do i would have liked the story mode to be like soul calibur iv where you could play as your created character and make teams. It would be nice if they could make that mode two players where you pick you team leader and pick who fights under them. Also make it on Xbox live and make teams based on their rank on the game, So if you are a high rank you get a high position and perks with it. Then if you are a lower rank you get no perks and stuff.... Also bring back the hood where it hides you face i thought that was cool.
 
crow_winters said:
Edit: I'm removing this because I realize that someone that actually thinks using the entire movelists in SC2 equals good game strategy simply can't be reasoned with.
Click to expand...
You mean you don't use Raph 4B+K Xiba 3K Damp 6B BE or ZWEI? This is something only a spammer would say imo. Learn the game, every move has a use and Link was top in SCII because he had unblockable bombs.
 
Personally I'd prefer if SC went back to SC3 style with no meter and such. But if meter and guard crushes are here to stay I'd like them to be improved and refined.
 
EminentRising said:
Personally I'd prefer if SC went back to SC3 style with no meter and such. But if meter and guard crushes are here to stay I'd like them to be improved and refined.
Click to expand...
Critical Edges in this game are a refinement of the CEs from Soul Blade, which were more like Tekken's 10 hit combos than anything. The most common complaint about them is the startup invulnerability that occurs a few frames before each CE begins its flash and active frames, which can lead to "frame exceptions" where an i13 CE would beat out an i13 2A when initiated at -2. I'm in favor of the kinds of mindgames this introduces, however, especially toward the end of matches where every bit of damage counts and a reversal CE at -2 can be game-deciding.

Guard bursts in V were a huge improvement over Soul Crushes in SC4 for a number of reasons, first and foremost the additional meta behind them. In IV, a soul crush meant a free round just by pressing A+K. In V, there are optimal combos that can be performed after a guard burst, most notably ones that lead into ringouts and wallsplats. This allows for the "conditioning" of the opponent's guard gauge through non-breaking moves to keep them in the red until you force them into a position that is most favorable for you to break them in. However I will concede that there are legacy mechanics that could be implemented to add additional depth to guard bursts, such as more control over the state of both you and your opponent's guard gauges, which was done in 4 through guard impact/repels damaging the opponent's and repairing your own gauges, respectively. While JG does prevent you from taking guard damage, it only allows the regeneration process to carry on normally while defending against moves and doesn't help recover it.

As for the meter in V, it was very well implemented, but suffers from a few probably unintended problems with certain characters, most notably Viola and Hilde who, due to the large number of hits their combos deal and the way that meter gain does not scale in longer combos, leads to absurd amounts of meter gain. Hilde's most reliable combo off 22B gives a tiny fraction above half a bar of meter; her longer loops such as 22B → C2B×6 → C3A can build over a full bar of meter. Viola's enters plain retarded territory and builds back 50-75% of the meter spent for her dumbest combos. These are first and foremost balancing issues rather than a direct flaw of the meter system itself, and without a doubt could be fixed in another installment.
 
Marginal said:
Yep. VF is a game of no options or thought. No strategy.
Click to expand...
Have you even played VF5: FS? It's training mode actually tells you what strategies you can use involving matchups and even explaining the gameplay system itself. VF4: Evo also elaborated on that. They also show what other options you could use if the move is either blocked or the opponent ducks under it.

As much as I like SCV, the most it did show were top moves/combos you could use against your opponents, and some properties, such as its safety. Everything else, including defense against your opponent's top moves, you had to do on your own.
 
Last edited:
jtdam09 said:
Have you even played VF5: FS? It's training mode actually tells you what strategies you can use involving matchups and even explaining the gameplay system itself. VF4: Evo also elaborated on that. They also show what other options you could use if the move is either blocked or the opponent ducks under it.

As much as I like SCV, the most it did show were top moves/combos you could use against your opponents, and some properties, such as its safety. Everything else, including defense against your opponent's top moves, you had to do on your own.
Click to expand...
No man. One extra button means deeper game.
 
Harry said:
Now, you mentioned that you can throw out a less commonly used move with bad properties to confuse an opponent, but like P Wolf mentioned a good player as already accounted for your gimmicks,
Click to expand...

Folly of the foolish is underestimating the raw power of parlor tricks in a tourney setting.............
 
Slade said:
the way that meter gain does not scale in longer combos, leads to absurd amounts of meter gain.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Each iteration of the soul series is generally much more "experimental" and aims not necessarily for nostalgia but a genuine attempt to improve gameplay by introducing new elements. The smallest change is likely SC2 to SC3 because they probably focused on CAS and that strange 1p mode.

I look forward to project soul's overnerfing of viola in the next series, but I accepted her design as the offensive juggernaut with overly length combos and highly favourable 50/50 mixups but did not appreciate that project soul forgot to give her corresponding weaknesses to balance the overall character (a yoda-esque handicap). However, project soul may take a "low risk" method and just put a huge nerf into her exploitable strengths.
 
IAdoreBunnies said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
I'll again be focusing on Xianghua because that's one of the movesets I know best. Gameplay mechanics and movesets are not the same, I agree. To me though, they go hand in hand.

Many of you mentioned that it's far easier to make an educated guess about the opponent's next step when removing less quality moves, thus making the game a higher quality experience overall. I do understand your point of view, but it's not mine. I don't like it when the game devs make those choices for me (of course they always do, but now i'm taking the iteration-to-iteration perspective), although I understand their approach at giving more new players the chance to play at a high level.

I feel that in SC4 for example, there were quite many ways you could legitly play as Xianghua because her moveset gave you lots of possibilities. In SCV I have seen little variety in the ways people play Leixia. If that's the kind of game you can enjoy, that's okay with me. I, on the other hand, cannot enjoy this over a long period of time for I get bored pretty easily. It's not my kind of game.

crow_winters said:
Edit: I'm removing this because I realize that someone that actually thinks using the entire movelists in SC2 equals good game strategy simply can't be reasoned with.
Click to expand...

Some of you also seem under the impression that I equal a huge moveset to strategy. I do not. This is evident at the end of my post. I do equal a huge moveset to bigger strategic POTENTIAL, though. Spot the difference:

weshookhands said:
Reduction of options equals reduction of mindgame potential equals reduction of strategies. On the other hand, you can have shitty strategy despite large amounts of options, true.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe this will clarify the point I was trying to make. "The phrase "unlimited options" sounds infinitely promising, but unlimited options would actually paralyze us and cloud our ability to choose. Our limited range of choices comforts us. This supplies the clever and cunning with enormous opportunities for deception. For people who are choosing between alternatives find it hard to believe they are being manipulated or deceived; they cannot see that you are allowing them a small amount of free will in exchange for a much more powerful imposition of your own will." Robert Greene The 48 Laws of Power Law 31 Control the options This is just to clarify my point since I feel like you kind of missed it. I have no problem with your opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom