SC Controversial Topics and General Shitposting Thread

FGwYE2yXwAcqO_U
 
I was like "SC lost in the same segment?". I was disappointed.
Ivy-anim.gif

Now, just wait for SC: Lost Swords 2 to finish off the volleyball titties.
 
FleshMasher said:
Why is SC6 14. 😭
Click to expand...
  • The game lost touch with its roots.
  • Series failed to maintain any semblance of consistency in core mechanics in a volatile FG market which caused shedding of player base in the last three installments.
  • Developers kept adding complexities and straining their resources beyond their means. The game should've contracted character/mechanics wise to a SC1 level and not expanded, where they were trying to butt heads with Tekken/SF/MK..etc with measly budgets.
  • Recent games ended up not knowing where they stand, they had a legacy but the games themselves were recycled, outdated, and janky compared to games like Tekken or SF. Refer to the following exhibit, SC4/6, two different generations and 10 years apart:

 
hellbottom said:
  • The game lost touch with its roots.
  • Series failed to maintain any semblance of consistency in core mechanics in a volatile FG market which caused shedding of player base in the last three installments.
  • Developers kept adding complexities and straining their resources beyond their means. The game should've contracted character/mechanics wise to a SC1 level and not expanded, where they were trying to butt heads with Tekken/SF/MK..etc with measly budgets.
  • Recent games ended up not knowing where they stand, they had a legacy but the games themselves were recycled, outdated, and janky compared to games like Tekken or SF. Refer to the following exhibit, SC4/6, two different generations and 10 years apart:

Click to expand...
So are you implying that the numbers would be down just as much if we would have had a third season? Because every point you made wouldn't be affected by that. Yet, it doesn't ring true for me that the deepening of gameplay mechanics is what's keeping people from playing.

Quite the opposite, personally, some of the new mechanics have greatly contributed to keeping me playing the game. While I wish RE gone every single day I play, Lethal Hits add so much replay value, demand in-depth knowledge of your character's moveset and are very rewarding dopamine-wise.

I cannot imagine that the casual player (especially newcomers) cares about SC history as much as you do but want to enjoy the game in the now (and I still see new players online [PSN]). And in that regard, I perceive SC to be very FGC-current (meter, SC, Supers, minus the graphics). And I guess that the graphics gap has the biggest potential of scaring off new players when they can have games that look better (first impressions count).

Having played every single installment since SE in-depth, I don't agree that SC6 feels out of place with earlier titles. Personally, I hated SC5 and felt/still feel that that was the most "SC-unlike" game they made, especially mechanics- and movelist-wise. To me, SC6 does not seem to have that problem.
 
Soul Calibur has always been the underdog compared to the vastly more well-known and long running Tekken series. I think perhaps something of a conflict of interests emerged between the two in fact but that would just be speculation. When the original Soul Calibur first came along it had so much going for it. It was the first game to really show parity between arcade and home consoles even outright outdoing the arcade.

Ironically this may have worked against it in the long run as it was also the beginning of the end for arcades as they were in the past. I think the trouble with the series is it's always seemed to have trouble finding it's place. It's own identity within the mishmash of fighting games out there. In the past these games especially in Japan had always been arcade games first and foremost but Soul Calibur never knew which it wanted to be.

I think sometime after IV it really started to show how afraid it was to do it's own thing. All that nonsense over it having Star Wars characters and what not causing arguments over what that really meant. I say why over complicate things? Just enjoy it for it is. Why does anyone bother to argue about this stuff? Star Wars in a Soul Calibur game for instance. It's not as if they're re-writing WW2 with dodgy made-up bollocks or anything. I mean who would do that?

Don't people have enough made-up shit to argue about on the internet as if the world will end if they don't? That's before you even put the words 'corona' and 'virus' together in a single sentence.Kappa
 
weshookhands said:
So are you implying that the numbers would be down just as much if we would have had a third season? Because every point you made wouldn't be affected by that. Yet, it doesn't ring true for me that the deepening of gameplay mechanics is what's keeping people from playing.

Quite the opposite, personally, some of the new mechanics have greatly contributed to keeping me playing the game. While I wish RE gone every single day I play, Lethal Hits add so much replay value, demand in-depth knowledge of your character's moveset and are very rewarding dopamine-wise.

I cannot imagine that the casual player (especially newcomers) cares about SC history as much as you do but want to enjoy the game in the now (and I still see new players online [PSN]). And in that regard, I perceive SC to be very FGC-current (meter, SC, Supers, minus the graphics). And I guess that the graphics gap has the biggest potential of scaring off new players when they can have games that look better (first impressions count).

Having played every single installment since SE in-depth, I don't agree that SC6 feels out of place with earlier titles. Personally, I hated SC5 and felt/still feel that that was the most "SC-unlike" game they made, especially mechanics- and movelist-wise. To me, SC6 does not seem to have that problem.
Click to expand...
Facts are facts. SC is becoming less mainstream with every game and has less media coverage. That has nothing to do with you liking the game personally. SC1 was the pinnacle of FGs during its time, SCII release was a big deal, SCIII was less popular but it was big in the Arcade scene. SCIV was the last great SC, it outsold every other SC game, and still maintained SC mechanics like the parry system, it introduced a new mechanic but only to make the game less turtle-y. many well known players who establish themselves in previous titles quit after that.
Arbitrary changes are never good. introducing multiple different convoluted parry/reversal systems in every game then scrapping them the next game is not good and is not a sign of following an "established formula" of a modern FG like you alluded to. Major mechanics overhaul in an "update" like the backdash or SS updates in SC5 is too big of a change to happen in the same game. Changing the throw breaking buttons in SC6 is another example of an arbitrary change. This only shows how little thoughts are put before release in the later games. All of these things don't need money, it just need a little bit of common sense.

Also don't forget, SC is not just behind big titles with big budgets, it's also behind older fighting games and games with lower budgets than itself.
 
hellbottom said:
Facts are facts. SC is becoming less mainstream with every game and has less media coverage. That has nothing to do with you liking the game personally. SC1 was the pinnacle of FGs during its time, SCII release was a big deal, SCIII was less popular but it was big in the Arcade scene. SCIV was the last great SC, it outsold every other SC game, and still maintained SC mechanics like the parry system, it introduced a new mechanic but only to make the game less turtle-y. many well known players who establish themselves in previous titles quit after that.
Arbitrary changes are never good. introducing multiple different convoluted parry/reversal systems in every game then scrapping them the next game is not good and is not a sign of following an "established formula" of a modern FG like you alluded to. Major mechanics overhaul in an "update" like the backdash or SS updates in SC5 is too big of a change to happen in the same game. Changing the throw breaking buttons in SC6 is another example of an arbitrary change. This only shows how little thoughts are put before release in the later games. All of these things don't need money, it just need a little bit of common sense.

Also don't forget, SC is not just behind big titles with big budgets, it's also behind older fighting games and games with lower budgets than itself.
Click to expand...
Keeping this short, I don't think your personal opinions on the franchise are more factual than mine, unless you're able to back them up with hard data (with sources maybe?).

Taking marketing and FGC concurring games into account, I consider it much more likely that SCIV outsold the others simply because of over the top popular guest franchise characters.

Happy New Year everyone!
 
Don't you guys get frustrated because you don't know who owns the stages in SC6? I mean, some we can assume, but others, especially the generic stages, it's difficult. They indirectly revealed the themes of some characters like Talim, Inferno, Sophitia and Siegmare, but what about the others??
 
LisaK said:
Don't you guys get frustrated because you don't know who owns the stages in SC6? I mean, some we can assume, but others, especially the generic stages, it's difficult. They indirectly revealed the themes of some characters like Talim, Inferno, Sophitia and Siegmare, but what about the others??
Click to expand...
I mean, yes and no, I suppose? I think it would be pretty entitled and neurotic to need to have an express explanation of who belongs where in some submenu or document. But at the same time, your question points to a deeper and more telling problem with the stages: that many of them are so generic that they don't suggest any particular character as even a good candidate. So many of the SCVI stages are so lifeless and void of any real character or artistry (to say nothing of contextual connection to the actual characters). It's the type of thing that (now that we can fairly conclusively say the product is complete and we can look back with the benefit of perspective) emphasizes just how impoverished the content for this entry really was on so many critical levels--especially at launch. The even further generic Libra and Chronicles really should have been scaled down drastically in length and the resources redirected to fundamental assets like the stage design.

To be fair, they did make efforts to correct the situation with DLC: the post-release stages tended to be among the bes,t and the variants on existing maps were nice--if barely different. But even with a little more attention clearly payed to designing the very small handful of post-release stages, the optimization for the hardware was terrible, and almost everyone plays a version of this game where the backdrops in the background are extremely (and needlessly) blurry, degrading the overall impact of even the better designed stages considerably. Of course, not even crisp images would have saved the many uninspired, vacuous, phoned-in stages, which even at this point represent at least half of the stage selection. The funny thing is, it wouldn't stand out nearly so much, if not for the fact that this is one of the things this franchise has historically done so well.

But yeah, at the end of the day, I'm less concerned that they didn't tell me everyone who belongs at Windswept Plains so much as by the fact that no one particularly looks like they belong there--or would, even if you told me they did. I honestly don't mind stages with a more neutral and/or completely natural aspect: I think they do tend to be more boring compared to most traditional Soulcalibur high-concept stage designs, but there have been some in past games that work well enough. But you have to still sell some atmosphere: look at the difference between SCV's Unknown Forest and SCVI's Cursed Moonlit Woods and Silver Wolves' Haven, where the advantage of more than six years and a hardware generation's worth of technological development isn't enough to save the latter from somehow looking like cheap knock-offs of the former.
 
Last edited:
Rusted Blade said:
your question points to a deeper and more telling problem with the stages: that many of them are so generic that they don't suggest any particular character as even a good candidate.
Click to expand...

I can't remember who said this but it perfectly describes the issue with SC6's stages.

"Most SC6 stages are landscapes rather than locations".

I honestly blame the story mode for this as it needed generic landscapes when you're traveling around the map. Hopefully we get a chunky collection of locations that can rival SC3's collection of stages.
 
The game has always had generic scenarios with no relation to the characters. The difference is that some games had their background in addition to confirming which character 'owned' this location.
Distant Marsh is an example, it has nothing to do with the main story, nor is it a place of importance to the game or any character, but at some point the developers decided that it fits with Talim and Rock (SC:BD).
Scbd_pcwp_talim_1024x768.jpg
Scbd_pcwp_rock_1024x768.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stage called "Windswept Plains" with a theme called "Following the Wind Trail". Plss :sc2tal1:
 

Attachments

  • 14ffc5106077b6ecb76ea498bbd76e7ba54ccde6_hq.gif
    14ffc5106077b6ecb76ea498bbd76e7ba54ccde6_hq.gif
    1.7 MB · Views: 79
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back