Conflict: Changing Too Much vs. Changing Too Little

Which do you think is worse for a series?

  • Changing too much to the point where it alienates fans.

    Votes: 13 72.2%

  • Keeping a series stagnant, doing little (if anything) to innovate and try new things.

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • Total voters
    18
HydroJames

HydroJames

Shining Sea Dragon
I bet the fan-base is divided on what they want Soul Calibur to be.

Some people welcome the changes brought by Soul Calibur V, with the Meter Mechanics, Just Guard, and New GI. It is praised for being the most Competitively Balanced and having the best Meta-game in the series.

However, some people are unhappy with the changes Soul Calibur V and wish the series would return to its old setting, characters, and game mechanics...

I imagined a scenario where this was the case for the next game and I asked myself...

"And then what? Where would the series go from there?"

I have had bad dreams about the series not doing well due to it stagnant.
 
Too much of anything can make you sick. Period. The changes from SCIV to SCV were too much.
I think 70% or more of the fanbase welcomes the gameplay changes. I know i do. It is way more balanced than SCIV. The difference in Net code is pretty amazing as well. SCV has almost no lag. As opposed to SCIV which has rly bad lag. But SCIV doesn't DC as often as SCV on PSN. Hopefully that gets fixed in SC6. The improvements on the CaS system are pretty remarkable as well.

However....
The major change in the Roster was way too freaking much for the casuals (90% of the fandom) to take. Which leads to the 17 years jump being a terrible idea.
You simply can't remove 10 fan favorites all at once who were present in the previous game.
More than half of them didn't even get proper replacements.
Look at the movement from Soul Blade/Edge to Soul Calibur 1. They only replaced 1 character, Li Long.
Look at the movement from Soul Calibur 1 to Soul Calibur 2. Only two characters were replaced, Hwang & Rock. Regardless of the "Hwang = Assassin, Rock = Berzerker" theories, they weren't 100% confirmed anyways. Siegfried wasn't replaced, he became Nightmare's P2.
Look at the movement from SC2 to SC3. Only Necrid & Charade were replaced. Charade was a mimic too, so no one really cared. They also returned Hwang & Li Long as bonus characters.
Look at the movement from SC3 to SC4. Only the Bonus characters, Abyss, and Olcadan The Mimic! were removed. Only one who would've mattered was Abyss.
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE MOVEMENT FROM SC4 to SC5!
giphy.gif

4 characters were replaced. 2 were turned into mimics, And 7 were just completely removed. Hilarious.


If they were smart, they would've at least added them as DLC. Instead of fucking Dampierre. Look at Lost Swords, they were selling characters for 90$, AND PPL BOUGHT THEM! So why wouldn't they buy them for the main game? Smh..

Other than that, the single player modes were rubbish as well. The story mode focused only on Pyrrha & Shitroklos. With 5-second cameos from a few others. Now that would've been fine if they AT LEAST added outros & intros of characters in the Arcade mode. But ofc they didn't. Arcade mode in SCV is a fucking shame! 6 random stages, and that's it. Not even pictures that tell what happened to the character afterwards. Smh. Legendary souls is the same shit but on hard mode. Pretty laughable.



Now, here's what i want from the next game:

Gameplay mechanics:
Not too far from SCV's gameplay mechanics. However, i'd appreciate it if they could just remove the BE system. I really didn't like it. Change all the BE's in SCV to "Just" moves, "Fastest Input" moves, "Hold" moves, etc.
Make the CE's harder to execute.
Return Guard Impacts that do not cost meter.
And minor changes to certain characters that i don't feel like going through again.

Roster:
1-Return all the fan favorites (Top 25 characters in the popularity poll). Face it, they're wanted way more than the newcomers.
2-Add a few new characters with original weapon styles.
3-Add the newcomers from SCV as re-skin Bonus characters. For the few who actually liked them more.

Character Creation:
Just keep on improving it. More hairstyles, more customs, less limits, etc.. They're doing a fine job on their own with that one.

Online:
-The netcode in SCV is perfect. Just fix the DC's on PSN and make it as good as SCV on XBL.
-Online Training mode.

I talked more about it on this thread anyways.
 
Last edited:
The answer should be obvious that people prefer little change. Look at Call of Duty and SF4 having a million versions. Look at Halo 4, Assassin's creed 3, and some other game I can't think of being terrible.

Innovation can be successful though, but it can't change the core elements like getting rid of weapon spawns in Halo 4 and replacing it with loadouts. At that point youre playing a poser game. SCV isn't that bad about copying meter since other 3D fighters that are relevant don't do that and it was pulled off pretty well excluding the GI system since people hate that they can't use a worse version of Guard Impact freely for whatever reason.
 
Party Wolf said:
Improvement is a positive change which is subjective in the first place when it comes to entertainment.
Click to expand...
Negative changes, like the changes in Halo 4 aren't subjective, though? If things can objectively get worse, then they can also objectively improve. Of course, you need to define what the objective even is.

For example, the Just Guard mechanic greatly improved the game. Every skill that Soul Calibur tests is, amazingly, all tested even more in using this one mechanic: reading rhythm/timing, reading opponent move choice, execution, judging spacing to narrow down choices, recognizing animations and game state to quickly determine what to do, outright reaction, game knowledge of frames and counters, covering of options, and managing attention and area of focus. It takes all the decision-making of SC and deepens it, and while those skills are all tested in previous iterations, JG rewards you for really refining and mastering these things. The aspects that make SC great, JG makes it even better.
 
They're subjective too since there are people out there who like Halo 4's changes, but I don't believe the consensus of long time fans agrees with the game's direction. Did you know there are people out there who have spent lots of money on lost swords (90 dollars per character on top of other stuff like tokens and armor) which is crap? There's even a petition for the game to not get closed. I think most people see the game as awful, but there are going to be the odd group who likes it.

Objectivity has to be something that is measurable like how well the game functions graphically, lag, et cetera. Opinions on the game mechanics are going to vary from person to person. I can think of and have seen reasons to argue why JG is bad and good.

I was just trying to point out that it is silly to say that change is bad and improvements are good when by definition an improvement is a type of change. If you just want to play the same game then you should really just be petitioning for DLC. It will end up being about the same game, but if you don't like the DLC then it is pretty simple to remove it.
 
Just guard is an unfair mechanic. It provides way too many benefits to certain characters and does jack for other chars. I can't remember but someone provided a giant wall of text about it using Astaroth as an example. He got like few beneficial advantages to no advantages for JG compared to Viola or something.
What's the point of Quick step? Think it makes 8way run movements 10 frames longer. Didn't need it from the past games and the wind effect looks dumb.

Also, screw the invincibility frames for CE.

I only really liked BE as a new gameplay mechanic.

I agree mostly with what Partywolf says. Change isn't necessarily bad, and adapting to things is a normal part of life. Whether it's an improvement or not, time will tell.
 
darkwings13 said:
Just guard is an unfair mechanic. It provides way too many benefits to certain characters and does jack for other chars. I can't remember but someone provided a giant wall of text about it using Astaroth as an example. He got like few beneficial advantages to no advantages for JG compared to Viola or something.
What's the point of Quick step? Think it makes 8way run movements 10 frames longer. Didn't need it from the past games and the wind effect looks dumb.
Click to expand...

And I posted a wall of text back saying why Asta does great with JG. Basically, JG nullifies pushback, so Asta gets a free mid/throw mixup, even if your opponent is trying their best to either be at a spacing where they can backstep the grab or at frames where they can interrupt it. Also, a lot of things are -17 on JG, especially movement catchers, so that's a free throw attempt anyway, and once an Asta player threatens to JG immediate attacks he's free to move into dominant spacing and can steal the initiative with surprise grabs. Asta is a bad example, a better one is Siegfried. But everyone has had their strengths and weaknesses in regards to some mechanics. Is GI unfair, too?

The quick step mechanic was probably a way to tell new players "hey... you should sidestep." Going from SCIV to SCV, I think it worked pretty well. A lot people didn't notice the difference between 8WR and a step using a brief tap so many couldn't sidestep at all without this mechanic and bad movement was a common complaint for SCIV.

The 10 frame delay on side 8WR moves is an entirely different matter. It had some interesting effects, though. It made some moves neutral-game-only, and they were made stronger than normal moves, for the the most part. A big example of how this impacted gameplay is the amount of good lows from 8WR, mostly 11Ks. Cervy, Raph, Pat, Algol, Ivy, Leixia, Aeon, Voldo, all have great lows from 8WR. Do you know what would happen if you could do them from standing? They'd be spammed. In SCIV people spammed the crap out of Cervy's 1K. The devs seemed to want to avoid prolonged basic 50-50 guessing games. With +on hit lows, you run the risk of having players trapped in a loop. Notice how Pat's 1K pushes them out so you get at most two without having to move closer for another one, whereas his 11K keeps them closer. The 10 frame delay forces there to be a big opening if you want to do 11K 11K 11K. The solution can't be "just make those moves weaker" though, because those moves become great ways to start pressure from 8WR or punish extreme defensiveness.


@Party Wolf
There's nothing subjective about game mechanics. They have objective effects on the game and how it plays, and those effects suit various goals. Look at what I just wrote about the 10 frame 8WR delay. For the seemingly contradictory goals of "not wanting dumb prolonged 50-50 guessing games that repeat" and "having a strong offensive mixup tool in the neutral once you have control over the initiative" the design works well. The only thing that's subjective is choosing what *goal* is the best one, but that's because we haven't defined the objective of the choice of goal yet. What do people want out of these games anyway? What is the best thing to want? We can follow this "what does 'good' mean and why" line of questioning as long as we want, but eventually you end up at the unsolved philosophical questions or unknown aspects of human nature. But if you're stopping so early at "it's subjective" you're not understanding anything, and what a chaotic relativistic world it would be for you if you really took that idea to heart for everything.

As for the people that liked Halo 4 and paid $90 for LS characters, don't you think they're dumb? As in, they're wrong? Or that they made their decisions for reasons other than that the game is good or better than the last?
 
How much you enjoy those mechanics is definitely subjective since it is an opinion. How much you think something improves a game (which requires an opinion) is also what makes a game good to you. Good and bad mechanics (as in how much you like them, not how effective they are in strategy) is relative to the eye of the beholder.

You can't even measure mechanic effectiveness with absolute objectivity, since it can be influenced by variables like player skill, player pools, and the growth rate of player knowledge. That's why people have different tier lists since the year 2012 to present day.

I'm sure you also know that SC2 had a step guard glitch, which is objectively bad since it is an unintended mistake from Namco, but it is the thing that gives most people a boner for SoulCalibur 2 competitive play. Their love for it is subjective since it is their opinion that they love it. Subjectivity is what we want to look at here. I agree that mechanics are objectively in the game and affect it, which is factual, if that is what you are trying to tell me.

Your "philosophical questions of unknown aspects of human nature" is just your interpretation of what makes a good game from a developer's stand point, hence the term "philosophical" and "unknown". As a game developer you can only make educated guesses at this with the loud requests of only a fraction of your fanbase and the in-game statistics of previous titles. If Namco had objective data to look at, then there would never be a bad SoulCalibur game and this thread would never have been made.

Namco only has subjective data, which is composed of the various and vocal opinions of the people who play their games. The reality is people want different things out of their SoulCalibur game and you can't cater to everyone. Some of these wants aren't even clearly known to the people making the game since consumers usually only get loud about what they like when something is changed negatively (2008: Talim is not very good and doesn't get played often; 2012: BRING BACK TALIM OMG NAMCO U SUK), developers can't listen to every single person, and reviewers aren't always credible sources for what is the absolute best way to go about things. That's why LITTLE CHANGE is a good route to go since it causes the new product to be close to the original product. Less people will be irritated with the transition from SC2 to SC2.5 than the transition from SC2 to SC74.

As for the people who spent money on those games: I think that it is dumb that they like trash and more trash generally stems from it. However, it isn't dumb of these same people to drop money on the products if they truly like them. It is only wrong if you support stuff that you don't like with your money.

EDIT: Fun fact. Just guard is objectively bad since it doesn't function as intended with ukemi jg, gi into just guard, and just guarding GIs with Zwei/Viola.
 
Last edited:
I both like and dislike the mechanics of SCV.

For one thing, the game is deeper now with meter mechanics and JG is nice because it rewards good reads and timing, despite the bugs mentioned above.

On the other hand, with simpler mechanics I have less distractions and a more straight forward playstyle.

As a whole, the game should return to simpler mechanics if they want to get more newcomers. I'm not just talking about people who play other fighters, I'm talking about people who've never got into fighters at all and SC suddenly looks attractive because the game follows the motto: easy to pick up and hard to master.

Let's face it, SCV's mechanics are complex and daunting for people who don't play fighters.

SCV's direction may have made it a better game competitively, but it hurt the overall sales because the vast majority of players are not competitive and don't hold the same gaming philosophies as elite players do. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
 
I've said this before on here but I think the problem with the series is that up until SCV the devs didn't make any major changes to the roster or gameplay and because of that people were gonna complain about V no matter what they did to it. If it had been another "safe" sequel like 4 I'm sure the fans would've complained about SC getting stale. They can probably get away with a safe sequel for SCVI just because people disliked the last game so much but if they have a long term vision for the series they're gonna need to try and find a middle ground with the fans and I honestly don't know what that would be. How do they keep things fresh without changing too much?
 
Signia said:
And I posted a wall of text back saying why Asta does great with JG. Basically, JG nullifies pushback, so Asta gets a free mid/throw mixup, even if your opponent is trying their best to either be at a spacing where they can backstep the grab or at frames where they can interrupt it. Also, a lot of things are -17 on JG, especially movement catchers, so that's a free throw attempt anyway, and once an Asta player threatens to JG immediate attacks he's free to move into dominant spacing and can steal the initiative with surprise grabs. Asta is a bad example, a better one is Siegfried. But everyone has had their strengths and weaknesses in regards to some mechanics. Is GI unfair, too?

The quick step mechanic was probably a way to tell new players "hey... you should sidestep." Going from SCIV to SCV, I think it worked pretty well. A lot people didn't notice the difference between 8WR and a step using a brief tap so many couldn't sidestep at all without this mechanic and bad movement was a common complaint for SCIV.

The 10 frame delay on side 8WR moves is an entirely different matter. It had some interesting effects, though. It made some moves neutral-game-only, and they were made stronger than normal moves, for the the most part. A big example of how this impacted gameplay is the amount of good lows from 8WR, mostly 11Ks. Cervy, Raph, Pat, Algol, Ivy, Leixia, Aeon, Voldo, all have great lows from 8WR. Do you know what would happen if you could do them from standing? They'd be spammed. In SCIV people spammed the crap out of Cervy's 1K. The devs seemed to want to avoid prolonged basic 50-50 guessing games. With +on hit lows, you run the risk of having players trapped in a loop. Notice how Pat's 1K pushes them out so you get at most two without having to move closer for another one, whereas his 11K keeps them closer. The 10 frame delay forces there to be a big opening if you want to do 11K 11K 11K. The solution can't be "just make those moves weaker" though, because those moves become great ways to start pressure from 8WR or punish extreme defensiveness.
Click to expand...
You're right, Siggy was definitely a better example regarding JG.

Thanks for the informative post explaining the 10 frame quickstep thing. I actually didn't know about that.
 
The score of the vote is why I cannot stand games with many sequels. The fanbase of those games tend to be borderline retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom